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: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:53 am
It is currently Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:53 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 23 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 30  Next
Author Message

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:21 am   Post subject: Angloclown   

I don't think I can stick with this online debate through the final appeal and, perhaps, a lengthy extradition battle - it seems the idiocy on the JLOL thread will never stop.

No matter how many times the angloclown with no law degree shows himself to be utterly ignorant of even the most elementary aspects of the law (everything from the right to silence and double jeopardy to mistrials and Miranda rights), the screech swillers and stunted school teachers just keep following along.

Did any of them notice that the ECtHR did not, as anglo led them to believe, "stay" the proceedings in Florence?! bricks-)

Now anglo's back on the JLOL thread getting them whipped up into thinking that the police never bothered to search PL's home and place of work for evidence linking him to the crime! (Some of them are even accusing poor PL of everything from tax evasion to money laundering without so much as a shred of proof - I suppose their alleged commitment to evidence-based analysis and the presumption of innocence does not extend to black males.)

I'm now convinced that this angloclown has NEVER run a criminal trial in his/her life - there's no other way to explain how s/he could become baffled by the fact that there is no information to be found about the details of the investigation into PL.

Why would a "lawyer" think s/he could look at transcripts and court decisions flowing from the trials of persons X, Y & Z and expect to find submissions, argument and findings in respect of person A, who was never tried?!

Why would a "lawyer" think information in the police investigatory file on person A is not confidential, particularly when the investigation confirms A's alibi and A is never tried?!

I'll tell you why: Because they didn't study law for 3 years, they're not a criminal lawyer and they've never even seen, let alone been entrusted with, a police investigatory file.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a common law jurisdiction where, pursuant to the right to be presumed innocent and the provisions of privacy acts, young offenders acts, etc., they haven't enacted statutes prohibiting the release of certain information contained in police investigatory files to 3rd parties. Everyone in the game knows this.

I'd be stunned if it were any different in Italy.


P.S. Is the person behind the "anglo" screen name still allowed to post here on Tuesdays? I think s/he is still allowed to post on .ORG under the name 'boweavil' or whatever. I've been wondering why angloclown has the time to make THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of posts about nonsense but can't bother to show up on either PMF board to answer my reply to his challenge re IMBRIOSCIA. I'm starting to think it's cowardice.



P.P.S. When the JLOL droolers start accusing PL of crimes without any proof, why doesn't the Redundant Reverend Screechy McHalfwit return to his favorite subject, the prospect of defamation suits, and warn them like he used to warn threaten PMF? Is the reputation of a black man less worthy of his (evidently abundant) free time than the reputation of a white woman? (I wonder what the Anglican Church would make of that policy.)


P.P.P.S. A 6 pack of the Reverend's favorite ale (HINT: it's his profile pic on Facebook) to the first person who can find a color photo of the man where his face isn't beet red.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
I'll tell you why: Because they didn't study law for 3 years, they're not a criminal lawyer and they've never even seen, let alone been entrusted with, a police investigatory file.



From what I have observed of him and considering his "qualifications", I don't believe he is what most people would call a lawyer. I would class him as a paralegal at most. I think his Mickey Mouse qualifications would struggle to be on a level equal to even a City & Guilds in equivalence. I think at best, they may be entry level as a step to allowing those who aspire to then go on and take higher level courses which could then eventually lead to access to a proper law course.

I think one thig is certain, I don't believe he got involved in law because he loves the law or finds it that interesting, rather he just sees engaging in aspects of it as a means to a buck. Nobody who makes the basic errors of understanding about the law like he does can really care about it. In life, I have found that the things I'm good at or I know a lot about are things I care about. Those things I'm useless at are things I don't care about. What I'm saying is, I don't think he really gives a shit.

_________________
"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 Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jackie wrote:
I'll tell you why: Because they didn't study law for 3 years, they're not a criminal lawyer and they've never even seen, let alone been entrusted with, a police investigatory file.



From what I have observed of him and considering his "qualifications", I don't believe he is what most people would call a lawyer. I would class him as a paralegal at most. I think his Mickey Mouse qualifications would struggle to be on a level equal to even a City & Guilds in equivalence. I think at best, they may be entry level as a step to allowing those who aspire to then go on and take higher level courses which could then eventually lead to access to a proper law course.

I think one thig is certain, I don't believe he got involved in law because he loves the law or finds it that interesting, rather he just sees engaging in aspects of it as a means to a buck. Nobody who makes the basic errors of understanding about the law like he does can really care about it. In life, I have found that the things I'm good at or I know a lot about are things I care about. Those things I'm useless at are things I don't care about. What I'm saying is, I don't think he really gives a shit.


IIRC, I saw "anglo" admit, on the JLOL thread, that s/he was "not current" and I seem to recall that s/he also made some references to having been away from the profession for an extended period (a decade or so).

So it may be a case where, in addition to never having studied law for 3 full years under the aegis of learned professors, s/he left the profession for an extended period and what little they knew of the law faded away.

In the result, I'm looking at someone who is just making things up (e.g. the ECtHR can "stay" the proceedings in Florence) and referring to reruns of "Columbo". This person never does what lawyers are trained to do: cite cases and statutory provisions in support of their arguments and, worse still, s/he doesn't know how to find them, preferring instead to ask lay people (like Grinder) for information about double jeopardy, mistrials, the BARD standard, etc..

It's utterly bizarre to watch. Even today this clown is referring to common law doctrine requiring that the BARD standard be applied to the TOTALITY of the evidence as a PMF "meme". (No, anglo, it's law. And you'd know that if you'd gone to an accredited law school for 1 day.)

What I find particularly interesting is that none of the Groupies seem to be able to spot the incompetence. A few of them are smart enough (erasmus44, for example, might even be a non-practicing lawyer), but none of them call anglo out. It hurts their credibility - I could never be persuaded by a group that bases its arguments on abject ignorance of the law (e.g. failing to recognize that the prosecution simply cannot put questions to an accused who has elected to exercise his right to silence under Article 6 of the ECHR).
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
It's utterly bizarre to watch. Even today this clown is referring to common law doctrine requiring that the BARD standard be applied to the TOTALITY of the evidence as a PMF "meme". (No, anglo, it's law. And you'd know that if you'd gone to an accredited law school for 1 day.)


Ha, forget Anglo, what I found even more shocking x1000 is that Judge Hellmann, a High Court judge no less, had an understanding of the BARD standard at LEAST as bad as Anglo's! This to me seems impossible and therefore leaves me with the only possibility left (barring senality/partial brain death/someone remote controlling him via a chip in his head) and that is that Hellmann's gross misapplication of the BARD standard was not as a result of incompetence, but corruption. And one can forget in this case any argument that his specialisation was litigation and he had only experience of one criminal trial previously (and he totally screwed that one up as well) in his career, since his assignation to this case meant he was certified as competent to preside over a criminal trial. I am at a loss as to why no criminal investigation has been opened into him. It seems that man can do virtually anything and get away with it and I am at a loss as to how he is immune to the law, when it seems there is a regular drumbeat of various judges being put on criminal trial or having to appear before investigation tribunals. It leaves me feeling sick that the likes of competent and honest judges, such as Commodi and Nencini for example, are arraigned before various bullshit hearings whilst Hellmann gets not even a slap on the wrist. And I don't see the High Court judgment, no matter how scathing of Hellmann, being even close to cutting it as a proper application of justice against him. At most, it is merely a first step that SHOULD have led to an investigation into him being opened. It did not! If I have one serious criticism of the Italian justice system, then this is it.

_________________
"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 Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jackie wrote:
It's utterly bizarre to watch. Even today this clown is referring to common law doctrine requiring that the BARD standard be applied to the TOTALITY of the evidence as a PMF "meme". (No, anglo, it's law. And you'd know that if you'd gone to an accredited law school for 1 day.)


Ha, forget Anglo, what I found even more shocking x1000 is that Judge Hellmann, a High Court judge no less, had an understanding of the BARD standard at LEAST as bad as Anglo's! This to me seems impossible and therefore leaves me with the only possibility left (barring senality/partial brain death/someone remote controlling him via a chip in his head) and that is that Hellmann's gross misapplication of the BARD standard was not as a result of incompetence, but corruption. And one can forget in this case any argument that his specialisation was litigation and he had only experience of one criminal trial previously (and he totally screwed that on up as well) in his career, since his assignation to this case meant he was certified as competent to preside over a criminal trial. I am at a loss as to why no criminal investigation has been opened into him. It seems that man can do virtually anything and get away with it and I am at a loss as to how he is immune to the law, when it seems there is a regular drumbeat of various judges being put on criminal trial or having to appear before investigation tribunals. It leaves me feeling sick that the likes of competent and honest judges, such as Commodi and Nencini for example, are arraigned before various bullshit hearings whilst Hellmann gets not even a slap on the risk. And I don't see the High Court judgment, no matter how scathing of Hellmann, being even close to cutting it as a proper application of justice against him. At most, it is merely a first step that SHOULD have led to an investigation into him being opened. It did not! If I have one serious criticism of the Italian justice system, then this is it.


I agree, Hellmann was a shock and I think there is a real possibility that something terrible went on behind the scenes. (We've all seen the video of a sitting judge, as he then was, from the state of Washington bragging to Rotarians about how he was part of an effort that succeeded in pushing the Italian system to put their "A Team" on Knox's appeal.)

Nevertheless, as this case (re the application of BARD to the TOTALITY of the evidence) shows, even common law judges (from Canada in this example) make the same error that Hellmann made:


Stewart v. The Queen, [1977] 2 SCR 748


“…the trial judge fell into a double error, not only did he apply repeatedly a much stricter standard than that which is required, but he applied it to particular elements of the evidence taken in isolation. In other words, instead of taking together all the evidence and properly relating every fact to all the others, he dealt separately with each discarding them successively as insufficient to meet his exaggerated standard of proof.


In a charge to a jury, the failure of the trial judge…to instruct the jurors that the whole must be considered together in deciding whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, would certainly constitute misdirection requiring a new trial.


It may be, and such is often the case, that the facts proven by the Crown, examined separately have not a very strong probative value; but all the facts put in evidence have to be considered each one in relation to the whole, and it is all of them taken together, that may constitute a proper basis for a conviction.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I've got a new nominee for the unintentional humor category for 2014.

He's been out-posting everyone on the JLOL thread for a year, he's been putting up posts across at least 2 boards at a rate of about 15 posts per day, everyday, for 2 years now without once making a point, and now he comes up with this gem on "Denialism":

Hidden Content: show
Image


That's pretty rich coming from a guy that has made about 5,000 posts claiming that Massei made a finding of fact re "psychopathology" when the word doesn't even appear ONCE in the 427 page decision.

Incredibly, he's managed to maintain his DENIAL despite having multiple posters tell him:


a) "psychopathology" is assessed not by judges but by psychiatrists and psychologists using the MMPI and other diagnostic tests;

b) there is no mention of testimony about MMPI scores, etc., in Massei because prosecutors are prohibited from making propensity arguments;

c) there is no mention of testimony about MMPI scores, etc., in Massei because the defense team did not attempt an insanity defense; &

d) because of (b) and (c) Judge Massei had no basis upon which to make a finding of fact re "psychopathology", hence the COMPLETE AND UTTER absence of the word "psychopathology" (and of the acronym "MMPI") in the Massei report.

We're talkin' WORLD CLASS Denialism here, friends.

And it's exactly what you'd expect from a buffoon that, despite his appeal to "scientific consensus" and "comprehensively considered evidence", thinks that the DNA trace on the knife "was probably rye grain", and the 15 loci match on the bra clasp is an incomprehensible "DNA thingy"! (FFS!)

This guy is the clown of clowns! And, to top it off, he makes a point of telling everyone who disagrees with him that they're suffering from confirmation bias!!!

At this point, I can only surmise that his numerous references to the consumption of "screech", "Korean brandy", beer and Mach's wine collection are a clue.


Last edited by Jackie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie......I feel your pain :)......Seriously..your points are spot on and as usual well founded. And LEARNED, my Friend.

It has to THE most annoying thing..to read some people purporting to be what they are not. Especially in a Murder case.

Let me tell you something. IF ( never)..but if I had been one of the innocenti..I would have changed sides. Because it would have been well nigh impossible to belong to a group of such sick, idiot and ..well..down right peculiar people. Many of whom I believe are sub-human.

They still talk about you on IIP. I think BMF said he apologized to you for being wrong about criminal defamation. But, you see...they MUST hate you..because you come from a place of Law and Logic..which dispels all their ridiculous ramblings..and basically clutching at straws like drowning imbeciles.

Now, I know something about Law. And some things are just COMMON SENSE. And..there is always Google..IF one really wanted to know the facts.

But..as we know..they DO NOT!!! They CANNOT !! Because then..then....they'd have to admit that their house is built of straw.

cu-))

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
The idea was, they were all supposed to have a face-to-face with each other. Knox's people said no straight away, Rudy's people said okay and Sollecito's people wanted to negotiate terms first (which were refused).


With regards to our prior discussion of a face-to-face meeting between Knox, Sollecito and Guede, I've found an old La Nazione article in my archives (many thanks to Kermit for creating a PDF of it!) Could someone please forward it to Sollecito to remind him that he has had many opportunities to speak but "has never talked"? Just kidding, don't forward; the poor guy has such a bad and selective memory; he probably wouldn't remember anyway. ;)

Attachment:
LaNazione-21-05-2008-No-Face-to-Face.pdf


Translation:

21 May 2008
Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele
There will be no confrontation (face-to-face)

There will be no face-to-face meeting of the three suspects. It’s decided: Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Hermann Guede - accused of violating and killing the twenty one year old British student Meredith Kercher the night between November 1 and 2 in Perugia – will never meet to "verify" with one another their own versions of the story. Because, indeed, it is lacking a prerequisite.

That is: the Code of Criminal Procedure allows investigators to compare the suspects’ statements whether these have told the same circumstance or different circumstances. This happened in regards to Guede and Knox, but not to Sollecito, the engineering graduate from Giovinazzo, who has never talked. In fact, he has always relied on the right to remain silent and has never provided, therefore, his own “official” version of what happened that night. On the other hand, he claimed that his memories were a bit confused because of cannabis, but also claimed that he had never left his apartment in Corso Garibaldi. Hypothesis that has never convinced neither the investigators nor the judges, and still less the Supreme Court.

The confrontation between the three , then , the most expected in which even a glance could make a difference, one in which the three 'unknown' who were not at the crime scene could even start to blame each other, you never know.

The long-awaited announcement of findings of investigations will instead be made within a month. The deputy prosecutor Giuliano Mignini , who coordinates investigative activities of the police, expects the papers to be deposited with the Court Registry at the beginning of summer. The results of eight months of hard work. But, of course, he cannot do so until the laboratories in via Tuscolana have processed all the forensics . Only when the results of the examinations made in Rome are on the table of the public prosecutor, the investigation will be closed.

Until that time the lawyers of the three young people who will become aware of all the cards (facts), can start preparing their depositions (‘memorie’). They will have twenty days to submit the documents useful in their attempt to overturn the conclusions which come with the power of the Prosecutor’s Office . That up to this time was always right.

Meanwhile life of Guede , Sollecito and Knox goes on, slowly, in prison. Amanda is much closer to faith and prays often. Yesterday morning, attorneys of the basketball player from the Ivory Coast and those of the engineering graduate from Giovinazzo (among others, Ms Giulia Bongiorno ) went to visit their clients in jail. "He's hurt , how can a guy, twenty-four years old, innocent and with a clean record, be held in solitary confinement in a cell for six months “- was the comment of Bongiorno , who added - “I don’t know if we will present request for release. Preparing our defense, but we'll talk only in the courtroom."

About the meeting between the three suspects is back to talk Luca Maori (Sollecito’s lawyer). "The confrontation? No one has ever officially asked anything - he said - If anything, we’ll think (reflect) on the advisability to participate." Defenders of the Apulian have always said that as long as they are not aware of the minutes of Rudy’s interrogation by the PM (in prison) - with which their client had been accused of being seen as the murderer with a knife in his hand - Raffaele will not participate in any confrontation.” Primary defensive strategy.

Annalisa Angelici
Enzo Beretta
---------------------------------

"Amanda is much closer to faith and prays often." - Mua-)


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

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Sollecito: "I've never owned a Ferrari"

After the photo appeared in a weekly newspaper, the young man responds: "I got [the car] - he said - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program."

Raffaele Sollecito denies having a Ferrari: "I have not and I've never had a Ferrari." The young man reacts so after the publication of some images in News 2000 that portray him as he climbs out of a car of the Maranello brand. Sollecito says that the car instead belongs to an acquaintance of his. "I used it - explains Sollecito - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program. I used that Ferrari to cover (traverse) a few meters." Through his lawyers, Sollecito announces that he is considering possible legal action to protect his image.


LA NAZIONE

From what I understand, no one has ever claimed that the luxurious car belongs to Sollecito. A simple observation was made that he was being driven around in a Ferrari, despite having been convicted for murder by a court. So, as usual, he's real good at twisting the truth and misunderstanding the words of others.

Here's is one of the headlines:
La Bella Vita of Raffaele Sollecito After The Sentence: Guest of Barbara D'Urso on TV, arrives in a Ferrari with Greta -->> VIDEO WEBGOSSIP


The point at issue is that Raffaele Sollecito likes a flamboyant life style despite not having the income to be able to afford it.

He has travelled to the U.S., Europe and the Dominican Republic while complaining not to have enough funds to pay his lawyers. That doesn't make sense. One is left wondering what his priorities are. He has also asked for donations to support his legal defence. The money has probably been used to fund his lifestyle rather than legal costs.

Accepting to drive your friend's car does not make sense to me if you can use your own. It only complicates matters. If he needed to borrow a car, it would have been a better idea to choose a more modest car as it was predictable he would make headlines driving around in a Ferrari. He does not know or does not want to keep a low profile.

In my opinion, Sollecito is a complete idiot. Claiming to be poor and asking other people for their hard earned money while jetting around the globe and driving a Ferrari. Then lashing out when people point out the obvious. There is a lack of humbleness and common sense.


Why spend your own money when stupid people will give you theirs?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Why spend your own money when stupid people will give you theirs?


That is the lesson to be learned from this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jackie wrote:
It's utterly bizarre to watch. Even today this clown is referring to common law doctrine requiring that the BARD standard be applied to the TOTALITY of the evidence as a PMF "meme". (No, anglo, it's law. And you'd know that if you'd gone to an accredited law school for 1 day.)


Ha, forget Anglo, what I found even more shocking x1000 is that Judge Hellmann, a High Court judge no less, had an understanding of the BARD standard at LEAST as bad as Anglo's! This to me seems impossible and therefore leaves me with the only possibility left (barring senality/partial brain death/someone remote controlling him via a chip in his head) and that is that Hellmann's gross misapplication of the BARD standard was not as a result of incompetence, but corruption. And one can forget in this case any argument that his specialisation was litigation and he had only experience of one criminal trial previously (and he totally screwed that one up as well) in his career, since his assignation to this case meant he was certified as competent to preside over a criminal trial. I am at a loss as to why no criminal investigation has been opened into him. It seems that man can do virtually anything and get away with it and I am at a loss as to how he is immune to the law, when it seems there is a regular drumbeat of various judges being put on criminal trial or having to appear before investigation tribunals. It leaves me feeling sick that the likes of competent and honest judges, such as Commodi and Nencini for example, are arraigned before various bullshit hearings whilst Hellmann gets not even a slap on the wrist. And I don't see the High Court judgment, no matter how scathing of Hellmann, being even close to cutting it as a proper application of justice against him. At most, it is merely a first step that SHOULD have led to an investigation into him being opened. It did not! If I have one serious criticism of the Italian justice system, then this is it.



YEAH!!!!!! AND......Hellmann was QUICKLY put out to pasture. Or...RETIRED . Rather like my Mum saying I was not invited back to school, when I was EXPELLED.

Well, the travesty has been corrected. It was, for the Foakers..a brief moment of delirium. Wiser heads prevailed.

Of course, for the Foakers...the first verdict showed Italy to be corrupt and incompetant.

The second was that Italy was great...and vindicated.

Now..they're back to the first whine and outrage.

And..as Jackie notes.....the usual suspects go on and on and on..ad nauseum..about total BS. Shrieks of * STRAWMAN..Confirmation Bias......Haters....etceteraah.

It's not even sardonically amusing anymore. It's simply shaking head time..amongst a lot of p-((( 's....most of all....

The stunned shock that people would think..never mind post...such MERDE.

The rag tag motley crew.

As for Raffles. He is so transparently a total nitwit.

And..one last thing. As Jackie posts about Angloclown's post on * Denialism *. Yeah..that's the Groupies alright. Mind you..I expect a few to drop out..now that Knox no longer looks like a Fox. Because for some of them..that was the hook.

For the others...it was to * appear * smart. FAIL..bog time. LOL.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
McCall wrote:
Why spend your own money when stupid people will give you theirs?


That is the lesson to be learned from this.


THAT was Frank Sfarzo's meme. As the saying goes * A fool and his money are soon parted *. Never a truer saying. h-))

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Steve Moore attempts to link pro-Justice movement to white supremacist group



Steve Moore has made an odd comment on Twitter, claiming that the white supremacist group "Stormfront" are now backing the "guilters".

Image

He insinuates their views are biased because of his involvement in fighting white supremacist groups ages ago and in an apparent act of vindictiveness they close ranks with the "Amanda Knox haters".


Now I do wonder why Steve Moore reads Stormfront and also why he links to a particular page of the discussion on that forum where comments from pro-Justice websites have been copied and published by a member that goes by the name of "MrMensa".

On one occasion, "MrMensa" uses part of comments written by me and published on this forum after the BBC documentary aired. Here is my original comment #1 and my original comment #2. Here are my comments meshed to one and published on Stormfront.

[Click on the picture to enlarge]

Image

Image

Image


This is a blatant attempt to discredit and smear those who fight for justice for Meredith Kercher.

I leave it to everyone to come to their own conclusions. To me it is obvious.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:21 am   Post subject: STEVE MOORE, STILL NOT RELEVANT   

I checked the Stormfront threads, Nell. No, I'm not going to ever link there but any one interested in seeing for themselves can read ex-FBI agent Steve Moore's Twitter feed https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore

The threads started in January 2014, round the same time he and Doug Bremner started attacking the Kerchers. IMO, the whole John Kercher is harryrag/The Machine story was manufactured by Steve Moore then, after his disastrous performance on CNN, he and his wife Michelle Moore have been trying to build up their media profile. What better way to do that than invoking the old white supremacist boogey man, as if half of them aren't undercover FBI agents and SPLC members, trying to entrap people. Steve should know, he worked with them for quite a while himself.

This, after Doug Bremner started equating the Kerchers with the Nazis? I call shenanigans, and a made up story he can run off to the media with. Note: Candace Demspey, more shame her, has been running off the mouth about us being 'haters', so what better than to try to equate us with a real hate group?

I see also that Mr. Mensa has been vacuuming up our content then posting them under his name, no way they can post 58 pages of original comments all by themselves, when they can just cut and paste? So, it's a blatant set up, by Steve and his wife Michelle, who ought to look at people a little closer to home.

When I was on Huffington Post I noted how many of Amanda Knox's fans were UKIP (many of whom are anti-immigrant) and UDL (many racists) and sure enough, Bruce Fischer's site had Supernaut and a whole host of other unrepentant Nazis, trying to hold their tongues for the most part, with little racist snipes once in a while. There's also this blog owner Saberpoint who seems to live back when Black People were supposed to know their place, in the old south.

Steve Moore better not slime us with the same brush. He already has become too toxic for the media, and becoming crazier by the day. And if he becomes un-hireable, only has himself to blame.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Absolutely right Ergon. I agree with every word you wrote. I believe it's an deliberate act. They copy comments from pro-Justice sites to later accuse us to hide behind these nicknames. It's quite obvious actually.


Michelle Moore has contacted Vincent Politan over Twitter. He is associated with the HLN tv network. She asked Politan to invite her husband to his show to discuss the case.

Steve Moore's disastrous appearance on CNN's Outfront with Erin Burnett and Paul Callan together with Michelle Moore's subsequent tweets to Mr. Callan questioning his integrity must have made it difficult to get new appearances on any television network. Maybe CNN is not an option anymore?

A selection of tweets from Michelle Moore to Paul Callan after Steve Moore's interview aired on CNN.


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It IS obvious, especially as they've been accusing us of 'hiding behind fake ID's'. That usually means they're about to manufacture some :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
It IS obvious, especially as they've been accusing us of 'hiding behind fake ID's'. That usually means they're about to manufacture some :)


Sounds about right. Annella has accused me of having more than one Twitter account, which is not true. To create some sort of trust she admitted she had another account "@pinny53". Still, I only have one.

Guilter Watching had at least three. Every time he was banned he resumed his activity with a new account. Annella's second account "@pinny53" is now banned, but there were times she used them both at the same time. Many suspected it was one and the same person because of the content of her messages. Not many stoop so low when attacking the grieving Kerchers.

Image
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michellesings. Uffa. Michelle dingbat. She is completely NUTS. I really feel sorry for her. Really. She lives in an alternate universe.

Mostly..she sounds like MICHELLE BEGS. I just want to plead with her. * Give it up already*. The problem is : She is just so delusional..she is just so caught up in her own World..she just doesn't see the picture. She only sees that her truth is ........truth. She doesn't see fact from fiction. She married this freaking nimwit..and if she doesn't support him..she looks like a loser.

Umm..yes, Michelle sings. And,sweetie..the song is a goodnight lullabye. It is no longer standing up for an innocent abroad.

It's about that The * GIRL NEXT DOOR CAN BE A KILLER*........read about Rachel Wade. Give it up already. You look and sound delutional. Which..btw..You ARE.

I just want to tell her..believe what you will..but STOP TWEETING. You are hurting the Foakrt group more than you can ever know.

Btw..stop shrieking to Sean Penn. He's busy with my fellow South African Charlize Theron. That said...Knox is the furthest thing on his mind..FFS

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I am not sure if Steve Moore still had a chance to reappear on CNN Outfront or any other CNN show after he was exposed as crazed conspiracy theorist by Paul Callan, but Michelle Moore made sure there wouldn't be a next time with her inane tweets to Paul Callan calling him biased and uninformed.

Let's not forget, Steve Moore is neither an expert in crime scene investigation, nor criminal law or extradition law. That makes his opinion just as useful as that of any layman you can pick from the street. Paul Callan on the other hand has a career as a prosecutor, legal expert and he is a legal analyst for TV. He has a solid background, unlike Steve Moore, whose last job involved some sort of security for students traveling abroad. He was unceremoniously fired from that job when he started to give interviews smearing Italy.

On his blog he misquotes and misinterprets statistics only to subsequently recommend Americans not to travel to Italy. I mean, seriously? Everyone who has traveled a bit knows the guy is a nut and doesn't know what he is talking about.

In short, he is not qualified to comment on this case or any other case.

Before his wife begged Vincent Politan to invite her husband to his show, Steve Moore made an attempt to lure Alan Dershowitz to discuss the case with him. He "challenged" him with a message on Twitter and was ignored.

I noticed that before Michelle Moore came forward with her message to Vincent Politan and after he had unsuccessfully challenged Alan Dershowitz, Steve Moore tried to establish contact with Darren Kavinoky from HLN TV via a belated feedback to Kavinoky's analysis of the case. Apparently Michelle Moore was just making another attempt to get their attention and hopefully a job offer.

It's painful to watch these people.


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

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jackie wrote:
[...]

This person never does what lawyers are trained to do: cite cases and statutory provisions in support of their arguments and, worse still, s/he doesn't know how to find them, preferring instead to ask lay people (like Grinder) for information about double jeopardy, mistrials, the BARD standard, etc..

[...]

This is definitely something I learned following this case as I would like to apply this not only to lawyers but to anyone involved in an argument. I wasn't aware how much influence one might get by simply delivering made-up facts and repeating them over and over, if you don't spend the time to do a research you get caught up in these stories. I have to admit I fell for it myself at first. Now I'm very suspicious of any claims and always looking for their qualifications as well as proof supporting their argument.


I have two questions as these seem to be recurring arguments made by the FOAK:

  • Is there any proof of starch being found on the knife?
    If so this got my suspicion. I think there is a video (that I can't find right now) that shows the knife to be the only one in a drawer in the kitchen. To begin with this certainly isn't a place where we or anyone I know keeps a kitchen knife. Then why is it shining so brightly (which says it was thoroughly cleaned), yet there still remains starch on it. Starch remains mean it is dirty, at least in my opinion. Maybe those remains are normal, I don't know. If it was in fact dirty, why did he put it in his drawer and why are there these deep scratches on it? Besides why aren't there any traces of his DNA on it, I assume he used the knife long before he knew Amanda. If DNA was removed by simply cleaning it, why are there still traces of AK and Meredith?

    Also probably one of his dumbest things was that spontaneous statement of accidently pricking Meredith Kercher with this knife while cooking. That is as close as you can get to having a confession on this knife being the murder weapon.


  • Another question of mine is related to the legal process of a murder case. Assuming the fact that there are no reliable traces linking AK and RS to the room of the murder, but solid traces being in the cottage showing their presence and knowing that the victim was restained by multiple people during the attack.

    Isn't the defence required to proof the involvement of someone else other than their defendants to get them acquitted of the murder?

    I mean, adding up all these facts is definitely enough to identify them as her murderers. I might even believe Rudy Guede's involvement was limited to assaulting her, going to the bath room, returning to the scene after Meredith's scream and trying to stop the bleeding with those towels. But Amanda Knox delivered the fatal blow and Raffaele Sollecito was with her at that point.


Reading all your latest posts tells that you've also been actively trying to point the public to the truth via Twitter and participation in other forums. This lets me respect all your efforts even more. I'm really glad to see people fighting for justice!

I wouldn't be able to withstand all the nonsense and the accusations by these psychos of the FOAK like you did. I would have lost my composure at some point or would have given up. It takes a lot of character and persistence to stay with this for years. Big respect. :)

Finally, I'm a little worried about judge Nencini. I don't really understand how serious those accusations against him are and what the possible consequences might be. I just hope it won't affect the latest verdict and all this finds a final conclusion with the supreme court accepting the decision.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
--- snip ---

  • Is there any proof of starch being found on the knife?
    If so this got my suspicion. I think there is a video (that I can't find right now) that shows the knife to be the only one in a drawer in the kitchen. To begin with this certainly isn't a place where we or anyone I know keeps a kitchen knife. Then why is it shining so brightly (which says it was thoroughly cleaned), yet there still remains starch on it. Starch remains mean it is dirty, at least in my opinion. Maybe those remains are normal, I don't know. If it was in fact dirty, why did he put it in his drawer and why are there these deep scratches on it? Besides why aren't there any traces of his DNA on it, I assume he used the knife long before he knew Amanda. If DNA was removed by simply cleaning it, why are there still traces of AK and Meredith?

--- snap ---


Hi Stefan,

The starch myth originated with Hellmann's appointed experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti.

Check their report pages 28 - 30. They claimed to have found starch in sample "H" of the knife.

I am in no position to judge if their opinion is accurate or not, but I have my doubts regarding their reliability. They ascertained sample "I" was too small to obtain any results. The sample was finally tested in 2013 by the RIS and it yielded Amanda Knox's profile.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Hi Stefan,

The starch myth originated with Hellmann's appointed experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti.

Check their report pages 28 - 30. They claimed to have found starch in sample "H" of the knife.

I am in no position to judge if their opinion is accurate or not, but I have my doubts regarding their reliability. They ascertained sample "I" was too small to obtain any results. The sample was finally tested in 2013 by the RIS and it yielded Amanda Knox's profile.

Thank you very much, I hope you didn't spend too much time pointing that out this precisely for me.

Samples H and I are more or less in the same location, where the handle makes contact with the blade. Now, if I take the reported starch on sample H to be accurate it is even more incriminating to me. The samples B, C, E and G taken from the blade show basically no traces of the inorganic material. We know that the area of samples H and I are very, very difficult to clean up entirely. So taking into account AK or RS indeed used this knife to cut onions, potatoes or whatever and the fact that starch remains are quite common if not cleaned thoroughly (I did some research on this).

This leads me to the conclusion that this knife was definitely cleaned thoroughly afterwards, because there should be a lot more traces of the inorganic material left. We already know about Amanda Knox and her hygiene standards and I doubt Raffaele Sollecito to be overly obsessed with cleanliness either. The cleaning is further evident by those scratches on the first half of the blade, which coincidentally fit the depth and nature of the fatal wound of the victim. I certainly don't have any knives in my houses with scratches like that, but I'm sure there would be another reasonable explanation for that if brought up in an argument. :roll:


EDIT:

I forgot to mention that sample I also showed a considerable amount of the inorganic material. That's why I said that this area is hard to keep entirely clean.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Even if there was "starch" it's not relevant. The knife, after being cleaned, was placed in the kitchen drawer and spent days in that kitchen environment. The knife could have become contaminated with starch any time during that period. Cooking involves handling various foods in prepping, often with wet hands where starch is easily transferred from the hand to other items when say, reaching into a draw to rummage around for another utensil. Or it could have been dried with a less than fully clean tea towel that had previously come into contact with starch or when it was briefly put down on the drainer or counter. Unless the supposed starch can be shown to have been deposited on the knife BEFORE the murder, can be dated, it is perfectly useless as evidence for or against anything. The actual proven facts, are that Meredith's DNA was on the blade and Knox's DNA was on the handle. Whether or not starch was also present is neither here nor there. It's just one more red herring.

_________________
"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 Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Even if there was "starch" it's not relevant. The knife, after being cleaned, was placed in the kitchen drawer and spent days in that kitchen environment. The knife could have become contaminated with starch any time during that period. Cooking involves handling various foods in prepping, often with wet hands where starch is easily transferred from the hand to other items when say, reaching into a draw to rummage around for another utensil. Or it could have been dried with a less than fully clean tea towel that had previously come into contact with starch or when it was briefly put down on the drainer or counter. Unless the supposed starch can be shown to have been deposited on the knife BEFORE the murder, can be dated, it is perfectly useless as evidence for or against anything. The actual proven facts, are that Meredith's DNA was on the blade and Knox's DNA was on the handle. Whether or not starch was also present is neither here nor there. It's just one more red herring.

Well, I was just trying to prove (maybe for myself) that this isn't an argument to count the knife out entirely. They keep saying this as if it meant something and people seem to pick it up, because I've read it multiple times from different persons as well. By the way I think you are right to put the starch in quotation marks as I didn't exactly find this inorganic material to be starch, I was simply picking up on their term.

I think the absence of "starch" on the blade is interesting though, I am no expert but I would expect them to find more material on the blade of a regular kitchen knife if it wasn't cleaned extensively. The point is that the "starch" wasn't in a location, where you might add it by drying with a towel. There is this narrow gap connecting the handle to the blade, you can try as hard as you want, but I don't think you could clean this entirely and reading the report it seems to me that the sample H was taken here. So we had a decent amount of this inorganic material on the knife BEFORE IT WAS CLEANED. That leaves no further argument about the cleaning of the knife and I don't think anyone can question the presence of Meredith's DNA on it. So, summing everything up with Raffaele Sollecito's statement of pricking Meredith it delivers a conclusive fact that this knife was the murder weapon and it was cleaned extensively afterwards because of that reason. The whole argument about "starch" is nonsense and just an attempt to bias the evidence.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
I am not sure if Steve Moore still had a chance to reappear on CNN Outfront or any other CNN show after he was exposed as crazed conspiracy theorist by Paul Callan, but Michelle Moore made sure there wouldn't be a next time with her inane tweets to Paul Callan calling him biased and uninformed.

Let's not forget, Steve Moore is neither an expert in crime scene investigation, nor criminal law or extradition law. That makes his opinion just as useful as that of any layman you can pick from the street. Paul Callan on the other hand has a career as a prosecutor, legal expert and he is a legal analyst for TV. He has a solid background, unlike Steve Moore, whose last job involved some sort of security for students traveling abroad. He was unceremoniously fired from that job when he started to give interviews smearing Italy.

On his blog he misquotes and misinterprets statistics only to subsequently recommend Americans not to travel to Italy. I mean, seriously? Everyone who has traveled a bit knows the guy is a nut and doesn't know what he is talking about.

In short, he is not qualified to comment on this case or any other case.

Before his wife begged Vincent Politan to invite her husband to his show, Steve Moore made an attempt to lure Alan Dershowitz to discuss the case with him. He "challenged" him with a message on Twitter and was ignored.

I noticed that before Michelle Moore came forward with her message to Vincent Politan and after he had unsuccessfully challenged Alan Dershowitz, Steve Moore tried to establish contact with Darren Kavinoky from HLN TV via a belated feedback to Kavinoky's analysis of the case. Apparently Michelle Moore was just making another attempt to get their attention and hopefully a job offer.

It's painful to watch these people.


WOW!! Talk about desperate. It's cringeworthy . They've become beggars. And of course Dershowitz is ignoring G-man.

That's what one does when a nut(s) try and get attention. Pfft.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Sollecito: "I've never owned a Ferrari"

After the photo appeared in a weekly newspaper, the young man responds: "I got [the car] - he said - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program."

Raffaele Sollecito denies having a Ferrari: "I have not and I've never had a Ferrari." The young man reacts so after the publication of some images in News 2000 that portray him as he climbs out of a car of the Maranello brand. Sollecito says that the car instead belongs to an acquaintance of his. "I used it - explains Sollecito - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program. I used that Ferrari to cover (traverse) a few meters." Through his lawyers, Sollecito announces that he is considering possible legal action to protect his image.


LA NAZIONE

From what I understand, no one has ever claimed that the luxurious car belongs to Sollecito. A simple observation was made that he was being driven around in a Ferrari, despite having been convicted for murder by a court. So, as usual, he's real good at twisting the truth and misunderstanding the words of others.

Here's is one of the headlines:
La Bella Vita of Raffaele Sollecito After The Sentence: Guest of Barbara D'Urso on TV, arrives in a Ferrari with Greta -->> VIDEO WEBGOSSIP


The point at issue is that Raffaele Sollecito likes a flamboyant life style despite not having the income to be able to afford it.

He has travelled to the U.S., Europe and the Dominican Republic while complaining not to have enough funds to pay his lawyers. That doesn't make sense. One is left wondering what his priorities are. He has also asked for donations to support his legal defence. The money has probably been used to fund his lifestyle rather than legal costs.

Accepting to drive your friend's car does not make sense to me if you can use your own. It only complicates matters. If he needed to borrow a car, it would have been a better idea to choose a more modest car as it was predictable he would make headlines driving around in a Ferrari. He does not know or does not want to keep a low profile.

In my opinion, Sollecito is a complete idiot. Claiming to be poor and asking other people for their hard earned money while jetting around the globe and driving a Ferrari. Then lashing out when people point out the obvious. There is a lack of humbleness and common sense.


I am told Claudio Pratillo Hellmann owns five or six Ferraris (possible has some of them in his villa in Cortina).
Maybe he lent him one of his.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
Michael wrote:
Even if there was "starch" it's not relevant. The knife, after being cleaned, was placed in the kitchen drawer and spent days in that kitchen environment. The knife could have become contaminated with starch any time during that period. Cooking involves handling various foods in prepping, often with wet hands where starch is easily transferred from the hand to other items when say, reaching into a draw to rummage around for another utensil. Or it could have been dried with a less than fully clean tea towel that had previously come into contact with starch or when it was briefly put down on the drainer or counter. Unless the supposed starch can be shown to have been deposited on the knife BEFORE the murder, can be dated, it is perfectly useless as evidence for or against anything. The actual proven facts, are that Meredith's DNA was on the blade and Knox's DNA was on the handle. Whether or not starch was also present is neither here nor there. It's just one more red herring.

Well, I was just trying to prove (maybe for myself) that this isn't an argument to count the knife out entirely. They keep saying this as if it meant something and people seem to pick it up, because I've read it multiple times from different persons as well. By the way I think you are right to put the starch in quotation marks as I didn't exactly find this inorganic material to be starch, I was simply picking up on their term.

I think the absence of "starch" on the blade is interesting though, I am no expert but I would expect them to find more material on the blade of a regular kitchen knife if it wasn't cleaned extensively. The point is that the "starch" wasn't in a location, where you might add it by drying with a towel. There is this narrow gap connecting the handle to the blade, you can try as hard as you want, but I don't think you could clean this entirely and reading the report it seems to me that the sample H was taken here. So we had a decent amount of this inorganic material on the knife BEFORE IT WAS CLEANED. That leaves no further argument about the cleaning of the knife and I don't think anyone can question the presence of Meredith's DNA on it. So, summing everything up with Raffaele Sollecito's statement of pricking Meredith it delivers a conclusive fact that this knife was the murder weapon and it was cleaned extensively afterwards because of that reason. The whole argument about "starch" is nonsense and just an attempt to bias the evidence.


Amanda Knox supporters have a few talking points that make no sense at all and that I am sure you've heard a few times already.

One of them includes "the knife never had blood on it". Which kitchen knife has never been in contact with blood except maybe a bread knife? Especially since students usually don't invest in a complete set or knife block, they usually use one or two for multiple tasks. It is an idiotic thing to say that because the knife wasn't dripping in blood when it was found, it has never had blood on it. That is utter nonsense.

Another talking point dismisses the knife as the murder weapon entirely because it is only compatible with one stab wound and not all of them. The different sizes of injuries indicate two knives of different size have been used. Not a far stretch considering there were three attackers.

For Knox supporters the fact that the cleaned knife has tested negative for blood is a great mystery. They don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that it does not allow you to come to any conclusions regarding the knife. Had the test been positive, this would have been important. The test coming back negative can mean two things: no blood or not enough blood. So it does not allow you to dismiss the knife per se based on the test.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
WOW!! Talk about desperate. It's cringeworthy . They've become beggars. And of course Dershowitz is ignoring G-man.

That's what one does when a nut(s) try and get attention. Pfft.


It truly is. The desperation of this couple also led to the public accusation that John Kercher Jr. is Harry Rag/The Machine and the Stormfront story. Steve Moore tries to create a story he can use to spice up his media appearances.

The guy is an idiot, that also explains why he is married to Michelle Moore.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yummi wrote:
Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Sollecito: "I've never owned a Ferrari"

After the photo appeared in a weekly newspaper, the young man responds: "I got [the car] - he said - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program."

Raffaele Sollecito denies having a Ferrari: "I have not and I've never had a Ferrari." The young man reacts so after the publication of some images in News 2000 that portray him as he climbs out of a car of the Maranello brand. Sollecito says that the car instead belongs to an acquaintance of his. "I used it - explains Sollecito - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program. I used that Ferrari to cover (traverse) a few meters." Through his lawyers, Sollecito announces that he is considering possible legal action to protect his image.


LA NAZIONE

From what I understand, no one has ever claimed that the luxurious car belongs to Sollecito. A simple observation was made that he was being driven around in a Ferrari, despite having been convicted for murder by a court. So, as usual, he's real good at twisting the truth and misunderstanding the words of others.

Here's is one of the headlines:
La Bella Vita of Raffaele Sollecito After The Sentence: Guest of Barbara D'Urso on TV, arrives in a Ferrari with Greta -->> VIDEO WEBGOSSIP


The point at issue is that Raffaele Sollecito likes a flamboyant life style despite not having the income to be able to afford it.

He has travelled to the U.S., Europe and the Dominican Republic while complaining not to have enough funds to pay his lawyers. That doesn't make sense. One is left wondering what his priorities are. He has also asked for donations to support his legal defence. The money has probably been used to fund his lifestyle rather than legal costs.

Accepting to drive your friend's car does not make sense to me if you can use your own. It only complicates matters. If he needed to borrow a car, it would have been a better idea to choose a more modest car as it was predictable he would make headlines driving around in a Ferrari. He does not know or does not want to keep a low profile.

In my opinion, Sollecito is a complete idiot. Claiming to be poor and asking other people for their hard earned money while jetting around the globe and driving a Ferrari. Then lashing out when people point out the obvious. There is a lack of humbleness and common sense.


I am told Claudio Pratillo Hellmann owns five or six Ferraris (possible has some of them in his villa in Cortina).
Maybe he lent him one of his.


Hi Yummi,

Good to see you.

That is indeed interesting. I was wondering who Sollecito could know (students?) driving a Ferrari.

Hellmann's comments after the Supreme Court ruling annulling his acquittal have made me believe he might feel he owes the Sollecitos.

I suspect the acquittal wasn't cheap and there are no refunds.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Sollecito: "I've never owned a Ferrari"

After the photo appeared in a weekly newspaper, the young man responds: "I got [the car] - he said - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program."

Raffaele Sollecito denies having a Ferrari: "I have not and I've never had a Ferrari." The young man reacts so after the publication of some images in News 2000 that portray him as he climbs out of a car of the Maranello brand. Sollecito says that the car instead belongs to an acquaintance of his. "I used it - explains Sollecito - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program. I used that Ferrari to cover (traverse) a few meters." Through his lawyers, Sollecito announces that he is considering possible legal action to protect his image.


LA NAZIONE

From what I understand, no one has ever claimed that the luxurious car belongs to Sollecito. A simple observation was made that he was being driven around in a Ferrari, despite having been convicted for murder by a court. So, as usual, he's real good at twisting the truth and misunderstanding the words of others.

Here's is one of the headlines:
La Bella Vita of Raffaele Sollecito After The Sentence: Guest of Barbara D'Urso on TV, arrives in a Ferrari with Greta -->> VIDEO WEBGOSSIP


The point at issue is that Raffaele Sollecito likes a flamboyant life style despite not having the income to be able to afford it.

He has travelled to the U.S., Europe and the Dominican Republic while complaining not to have enough funds to pay his lawyers. That doesn't make sense. One is left wondering what his priorities are. He has also asked for donations to support his legal defence. The money has probably been used to fund his lifestyle rather than legal costs.

Accepting to drive your friend's car does not make sense to me if you can use your own. It only complicates matters. If he needed to borrow a car, it would have been a better idea to choose a more modest car as it was predictable he would make headlines driving around in a Ferrari. He does not know or does not want to keep a low profile.

In my opinion, Sollecito is a complete idiot. Claiming to be poor and asking other people for their hard earned money while jetting around the globe and driving a Ferrari. Then lashing out when people point out the obvious. There is a lack of humbleness and common sense.


I am told Claudio Pratillo Hellmann owns five or six Ferraris (possible has some of them in his villa in Cortina).
Maybe he lent him one of his.


Hi Yummi,

Good to see you.

That is indeed interesting. I was wondering who Sollecito could know (students?) driving a Ferrari.

Hellmann's comments after the Supreme Court ruling annulling his acquittal have made me believe he might feel he owes the Sollecitos.

I suspect the acquittal wasn't cheap and there are no refunds.



I am totally with you. If he had no dog in this..he would have done the right thing and kept quiet. Obviously he feels a tremendous need to so vigorously to speak out the way he has done. Lip service it may be.....but to critisize another Judge..including I believe a more senior one at that...smacks of having to posture. ( and not have to give a refund ;)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yummi wrote:
Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Sollecito: "I've never owned a Ferrari"

After the photo appeared in a weekly newspaper, the young man responds: "I got [the car] - he said - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program."

Raffaele Sollecito denies having a Ferrari: "I have not and I've never had a Ferrari." The young man reacts so after the publication of some images in News 2000 that portray him as he climbs out of a car of the Maranello brand. Sollecito says that the car instead belongs to an acquaintance of his. "I used it - explains Sollecito - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program. I used that Ferrari to cover (traverse) a few meters." Through his lawyers, Sollecito announces that he is considering possible legal action to protect his image.


LA NAZIONE

From what I understand, no one has ever claimed that the luxurious car belongs to Sollecito. A simple observation was made that he was being driven around in a Ferrari, despite having been convicted for murder by a court. So, as usual, he's real good at twisting the truth and misunderstanding the words of others.

Here's is one of the headlines:
La Bella Vita of Raffaele Sollecito After The Sentence: Guest of Barbara D'Urso on TV, arrives in a Ferrari with Greta -->> VIDEO WEBGOSSIP


The point at issue is that Raffaele Sollecito likes a flamboyant life style despite not having the income to be able to afford it.

He has travelled to the U.S., Europe and the Dominican Republic while complaining not to have enough funds to pay his lawyers. That doesn't make sense. One is left wondering what his priorities are. He has also asked for donations to support his legal defence. The money has probably been used to fund his lifestyle rather than legal costs.

Accepting to drive your friend's car does not make sense to me if you can use your own. It only complicates matters. If he needed to borrow a car, it would have been a better idea to choose a more modest car as it was predictable he would make headlines driving around in a Ferrari. He does not know or does not want to keep a low profile.

In my opinion, Sollecito is a complete idiot. Claiming to be poor and asking other people for their hard earned money while jetting around the globe and driving a Ferrari. Then lashing out when people point out the obvious. There is a lack of humbleness and common sense.


I am told Claudio Pratillo Hellmann owns five or six Ferraris (possible has some of them in his villa in Cortina).
Maybe he lent him one of his.



Hi Yummi.......INTERESTING. !!! Thanks......

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Nell wrote:

The point at issue is that Raffaele Sollecito likes a flamboyant life style despite not having the income to be able to afford it.

He has travelled to the U.S., Europe and the Dominican Republic while complaining not to have enough funds to pay his lawyers. That doesn't make sense. One is left wondering what his priorities are. He has also asked for donations to support his legal defence. The money has probably been used to fund his lifestyle rather than legal costs.

Accepting to drive your friend's car does not make sense to me if you can use your own. It only complicates matters. If he needed to borrow a car, it would have been a better idea to choose a more modest car as it was predictable he would make headlines driving around in a Ferrari. He does not know or does not want to keep a low profile.

In my opinion, Sollecito is a complete idiot. Claiming to be poor and asking other people for their hard earned money while jetting around the globe and driving a Ferrari. Then lashing out when people point out the obvious. There is a lack of humbleness and common sense.


I am told Claudio Pratillo Hellmann owns five or six Ferraris (possible has some of them in his villa in Cortina).
Maybe he lent him one of his.


Hi Yummi,

Good to see you.

That is indeed interesting. I was wondering who Sollecito could know (students?) driving a Ferrari.

Hellmann's comments after the Supreme Court ruling annulling his acquittal have made me believe he might feel he owes the Sollecitos.

I suspect the acquittal wasn't cheap and there are no refunds.


If you have a photo/screenshot with the plate number, we'll may find out the owner.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Already checked, Yummi. The front license plate has been obscured by Blitz Quotidiano, and the back, too fuzzy. I can make out some numbers, but need photoshop to defuzzify. Any experts available?


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What a pity. Unfortunately, there is nothing to work with. The licence plates have been blurred.

Anyway, maybe there is someone better qualified. Here is the link to the article with photo of the Ferrari in all its glory: Blitzquotidiano.it: Raffaele Sollecito in Ferrari con fidanzata Greta Menegaldo
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The front license plate. Since this isn't the original, I guess it would not be possible to remove the layers placed over the plate? Or do you reverse the changes?


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

A mystery, that. The license plate is the new format, EU flag, I for "Italy" on the left. Should the last two figures be letters of the alphabet? See Italian License Plates

The last figure on the front license plate looks like an obscured "A".

But other plates I see end in up to 5 numbers.

Then, squinting at the rear plate, I get ZS434, FWIW.

People? Sharpen, contrast?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Re: the Ferrari owner, Jools posted this on the .org forum on Friday:

Post by Jools » 21 Feb 2014, 22:45
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=161849#p161849
----------------------------------------------------

Umm... I'm not so sure the Ferrari belongs to a friend.

Sara Achille, Sollecito’s unpleasant aunt, is furious about the negative image seen in the Italian press against her nephew. The current critique pieces have included the pictures of Knife-Boy getting into the Ferrari, these pics are accompanied by sarcastic headlines and negative remarks such as:

-Women, TV appearances and a Ferrari: The Beautiful Life of Raffaele Sollecito, convicted to 25 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

-Raffaele Sollecito scandalizes Italy in a Ferrari with a pretty woman

-After conviction the beautiful life of Raffaele Sollecito…


Aunt Sara under the comments section of one of the articles left a comment of which (IMO) she practically confirms that Sollecito also keeps a PR person. However, unlike Knox's PR, this one drives a Ferrari.

Here is what she wrote: “Raffaele simply got in the car of a person who handles relations with press and television companies. No pleasure trip, no beautiful life. Those who speculate on his image should be ashamed.”

A David Marriott Italian style?

--------------------------------------------------------
Knowing how dishonest Sollecitos are, though, I don't believe anything she [aunt Sara] says.
Top Profile 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
Thank you very much, I hope you didn't spend too much time pointing that out this precisely for me.

Samples H and I are more or less in the same location, where the handle makes contact with the blade. Now, if I take the reported starch on sample H to be accurate it is even more incriminating to me. The samples B, C, E and G taken from the blade show basically no traces of the inorganic material. We know that the area of samples H and I are very, very difficult to clean up entirely. So taking into account AK or RS indeed used this knife to cut onions, potatoes or whatever and the fact that starch remains are quite common if not cleaned thoroughly (I did some research on this).
...
considerable amount of the inorganic material. That's why I said that this area is hard to keep entirely clean.


What exactly you mean by inorganic material? Tests can be only for specific purposes for specific compounds.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
A mystery, that. The license plate is the new format, EU flag, I for "Italy" on the left. Should the last two figures be letters of the alphabet? See Italian License Plates

The last figure on the front license plate looks like an obscured "A".

But other plates I see end in up to 5 numbers.

Then, squinting at the rear plate, I get ZS434, FWIW.

People? Sharpen, contrast?


To remove the layer, you would need the "original" they worked with. Once the image is "flattened" or the layers merged, you cannot simply remove the layer.

I tried sharpening but that didn't lead to any result.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Quote:
What exactly you mean by inorganic material? Tests can be only for specific purposes for specific compounds.

Personally I didn't mean anything by that, I was just quoting the "expert" report from the Hellman appeal. Inorganic means it isn't human DNA or from a creature, but rather some kind of plant or whatever. They probably made that assumption by looking at the shape of the cells under a microscope.

The main point of the report was probably to discount the DNA of Meredith Kercher, but somehow this "starch" (which is inorganic) thing developed a life of its own.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, Stefan, C&V did write the following:
Quote:
Some samples of item 36 (knife), in particular sample “H”, present granules with a circular/hexagonal characteristic morphology with a cental radial structure. A more detailed microscopic study, together with the consultation of data in the literature, allowed us to ascertain that the structures in question are attributable to granules of starch, thus matter of a vegetable nature.
so it was of course an assumption, much seized upon by others.
Could it be from rye, potato, or lab technician's gloves? Who knows?

Of course, starch is not DNA, and its location, at H, does not contradict A, B, and I.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

24 February 2014
Distancing himself from Knox? (VIDEO)
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend causes stir with interview

TODAY

Why did Foxy take a shower? Raffaele Sollecito admits he DOES have questions about Amanda Knox's behavior after Meredith murder

In an interview that aired on Italian television, Sollecito said that Knox left his house the morning before Kercher's body was found and when she returned hours later, she seemed 'very agitated'. She said her front door had been broken into and that she had found spots of blood in the bathroom.

'Certainly I asked her questions,' Sollecito said in the interview, which aired in part on the Today show on Monday. 'Why did you take a shower? Why did she spent so much time there?'


DAILY MAIL
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

No matter how you look at it, Stefano Conti & Carla Vecchiotti did not find Amanda Knox's DNA on the knife. The RIS did, proving Conti & Vecchiotti to be either biased or incompetent.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
24 February 2014
Distancing himself from Knox? (VIDEO)
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend causes stir with interview

TODAY

Why did Foxy take a shower? Raffaele Sollecito admits he DOES have questions about Amanda Knox's behavior after Meredith murder

In an interview that aired on Italian television, Sollecito said that Knox left his house the morning before Kercher's body was found and when she returned hours later, she seemed 'very agitated'. She said her front door had been broken into and that she had found spots of blood in the bathroom.

'Certainly I asked her questions,' Sollecito said in the interview, which aired in part on the Today show on Monday. 'Why did you take a shower? Why did she spent so much time there?'


DAILY MAIL


They both seem to maintain they are not separating their defences, but even not so bright Sollecito must understand that his remarks are not flattering or helpful. So why say anything?

Interesting quote from the article: "She said he told her: 'I don’t want to be punished for, nor have to continue to justify, those things that regard you and not me."

He blames her, she blames him. I wonder how long they are going to keep up the charade.

Does it surprise anyone else why the fact that Sollecito threw Knox under the bus during the interrogation is never addressed by Knoxy's PR? This is where the trouble started for the couple, not with Knox's accusation of Patrick Lumumba.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
I am not sure if Steve Moore still had a chance to reappear on CNN Outfront or any other CNN show after he was exposed as crazed conspiracy theorist by Paul Callan, but Michelle Moore made sure there wouldn't be a next time with her inane tweets to Paul Callan calling him biased and uninformed.

Let's not forget, Steve Moore is neither an expert in crime scene investigation, nor criminal law or extradition law. That makes his opinion just as useful as that of any layman you can pick from the street. Paul Callan on the other hand has a career as a prosecutor, legal expert and he is a legal analyst for TV. He has a solid background, unlike Steve Moore, whose last job involved some sort of security for students traveling abroad. He was unceremoniously fired from that job when he started to give interviews smearing Italy.

On his blog he misquotes and misinterprets statistics only to subsequently recommend Americans not to travel to Italy. I mean, seriously? Everyone who has traveled a bit knows the guy is a nut and doesn't know what he is talking about.

In short, he is not qualified to comment on this case or any other case.

Before his wife begged Vincent Politan to invite her husband to his show, Steve Moore made an attempt to lure Alan Dershowitz to discuss the case with him. He "challenged" him with a message on Twitter and was ignored.

I noticed that before Michelle Moore came forward with her message to Vincent Politan and after he had unsuccessfully challenged Alan Dershowitz, Steve Moore tried to establish contact with Darren Kavinoky from HLN TV via a belated feedback to Kavinoky's analysis of the case. Apparently Michelle Moore was just making another attempt to get their attention and hopefully a job offer.

It's painful to watch these people.


I agree with you and Ergon. For what ever reason they are unstable and toxic. I would not care except for the lies and insults towards Meredith and her family. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

FOA's response to the BBC3 documentary p-((( :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVBRHbOBXDw

The FOA Central call to action # 2: "The updated version of the response to BBC3's documentary 'Is Amanda Knox Guilty?' is now complete. Please send this video with complaints about the documentary to BBC complaints. Also please tweet, reddit, pinterest, etc."
Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

My personal qualifications are limited, therefore I am certainly in no position to judge on reports presented by proven experts. I'm just an avid reader trying to improve his overall knowledge and having a very strong desire for justice. I thought posting here on these forums wouldn't contradict with any of those aspects as I'm not writing public articles or anything of that manner. I'm just posting my personal thoughts. Since I've started following this case in January I'm still in a mood of trying to argue reasonably about basically anything mentioned by the opposition. I would be fine with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being innocent if there were actual facts to acquit them from this horrible event.

I've heard this argument about "starch" being on the knife several times. This was meant to tell the observer that this knife couldn't be used to kill somebody as it wasn't dripping of blood but rather tainted with "starch" as any normal kitchen knife would be. Of course, this isn't true. But I wanted to deal with that argument and I think I did that. I've mentioned my opinion already and while I am aware that the presence of "starch" wouldn't be valuable evidence either way, I think it shows this knife was cleaned extensively for a special reason, because a normal kitchen knife would probably show more of that "starch" on the blade and not only in the area of samples H and I. The FOA should stop relying on this argument.

Ergon already pointed to the exact quote on the origin of the "starch" discussion.

I found the original version of the Conti-Vecchiotti report here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Conti-Vecchiotti_Report

But I don't have any knowledge of the Italian language, the only thing I have is 6 years of Latin. So, I'm limited to finding a few words here and there that might seem familiar to me. I went to a quick translation using the Google translator on parts, that I found interesting.


Then I found this translation of the C-V report:
http://knoxdnareport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/translation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

The google translation seemed to approve the legitimacy of this version.

On the pages 30 & 31 it stated several times that there is debris of inorganic nature and no cellular material present.

That was my reference point for my assumptions, maybe I meant the right thing in German and failed to properly translate it to the English language. I want to apologize for that.

I'm feeling a little misunderstood at the moment, because of that it was important for me to write it our more precisely. I think all of these facts are still "fresh" to me, while most of you have been dealing with these sort of arguments for months or even years and as a result you might be tired of hearing about them as they are no more than utter nonsense.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi


Last edited by Stefan on Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
FOA's response to the BBC3 documentary p-((( :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVBRHbOBXDw

The FOA Central call to action # 2: "The updated version of the response to BBC3's documentary 'Is Amanda Knox Guilty?' is now complete. Please send this video with complaints about the documentary to BBC complaints. Also please tweet, reddit, pinterest, etc."

That is so sad. I found the documentary to be a little light on them actually. But oh well, that's how one's perspective might be different, I guess.

Now it's gotten to the "Rudy Guede Protection Society"... huh-)

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Graham W. Phillips wrote the first part of a series of three articles.

The first part can be found here: I tried to interview Amanda Knox - Part 1

For newcomers and those who come back from a long break, see his blog article with questions for Knox he sent to David Marriot for approval. Brit In Ukraine - Amanda Knox - 16 Exclusive Interview Questions.

According to Graham Phillips, David Marriott found the questions to be unfair and he ended the communication after exchanging a few emails in which they apparently discussed what would be allowed and what not. They could not find common ground.

Graham Phillips promised an article based on his exchange with David Marriott and he just tweeted the link to the first part.


Hi Nell,

have you heard from Graham W. Phillips on Twitter lately, about part 2 of a series of three articles? I guess he has other things to do and worry about right now: BRIT IN UKRAINE (Love his reporting - pretty objective and close to truth.)

http://rt.com/news/kiev-clashes-rioters-police-571/
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I don't think people here mind so much when new members ask questions, seemingly those discussed before,Stefan. The ethos of this board is to recognize that new people bring new eyes, and maybe new perspectives? That they might actually come up with something novel and new?

We certainly don't mind honest scepticism of one aspect or the other of the case, and nothing is sacrosanct. Doubts can be expressed, as long as they're intelligently stated, and not read from a script, if you know what I mean :-)

And if any one asked a question, it will be answered by someone, though not always right away, and maybe, if someone forgot, a gentle reminder?

I did post the C & V translation here a while back last summer I think, and we did discuss the starch and debris, not to say I expect new people to know that, or even, where to look or how to find them. But going back to 2011 and even before, you will find quite a wealth of original writing about the case.

And so, if new members do have questions, no problem. Glad to help.

Plus, this is Knife Central :-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

<<<BREAKING>>> : via Twitter

Latest Amanda Knox interview @ UW (she just can't stop talking, can she?)

Amanda Knox Full Interview Pt.1 (21:39 min!!!)

Attachment:
Aanda Knox interview UW.JPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHWMS8xnIU&sns=tw


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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Daily Mail: Why did Foxy take a shower? Raffaele Sollecito admits he DOES have questions about Amanda Knox's behavior after Meredith murder.

Knox invented the story of taking a shower and shuffling with the bathmat from the shower to her room, when she heard of the bloody footprints left both on the bathmat and in the corridor to her room.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox did NOT take a shower. Or blow dry her hair. That's a given. She knew what was going on.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox responds to RS in an interview "up against a brick wall". The careful explanation of all her bizarre actions and behaviour point by point. It is hard to watch with all the grimacing , swallowing and weird smiles. At one point she says something about not expecting the "greatness" should have been gravity. Funny jokes about cleanliness and the rooms . Still confused that the police was number was112not 113 Monica N with her angry look( witch?) and long lank dark hair. Guess that was to signal when the jealousy by this older police woman commenced. Does Monica speak english because otherwise how could the fair maiden tell her about the poo? I have to listen to the whole thing again because she really does try to clean up any area of her prior stories that raise red flags. When she describes the scene when the door was open and the contents revealed she starts off " It was ..but quickly changes mid sentence because she forgot she wasn't supposed to have seen.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
<<<BREAKING>>> : via Twitter

Latest Amanda Knox interview @ UW (she just can't stop talking, can she?)

Amanda Knox Full Interview Pt.1 (21:39 min!!!)

Attachment:
Aanda Knox interview UW.JPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHWMS8xnIU&sns=tw


"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Uh oh Cape... Charlie trying to poo-poo away the 562 deposit after withdrawing her rent money on JREF.

Tangled web indeed. He now saying maybe AK got a check from Seattle. Haha.

Poor guy... he will not ever get over that posting boo-boo. ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Linea Gialla Preview Episode February 25, 2014

This evening, Tuesday 25 February, starting at 21:10 on LA7 will air a new episode of "Yellow Line" program conducted by Salvo Sottile. Main guest of the evening will be Raffaele Sollecito, the 30 year old (sic) from Giovinazzo , who is accused of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher , on the night of November 1, 2007 , and sentenced by the Assize Court of Appeal of Florence to 25 years in prison with Amanda Knox , who was sentenced in turn to 28 years and 6 months. Raffaele Sollecito , present in studio, will be interviewed by Salvo Sottile . On the case of the murder of Perugia will also speak criminologist Roberta Bruzzone and journalist Vittorio Feltri.


IL SUSSIDIARIO
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The new issue of Delitti & Misteri (Crimes and Mysteries) is on newsstands. More on the Meredith case, interviews with family members, the prosecutor Mignini , and a new book edited by Paolo Franceschetti "Devil's Advocate", as well as articles and insights by judges and lawyers.

PAOLO FRANCESCHETTI BLOG

Knox and Sollecito on the cover of Delitti & Misteri:

Attachment:
Delitti and Misteri cover.jpg


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I listened to the interview. The most telling thing to me is the part where she describes the arrival of the police in plainclothes. She says that they are there to see Filomena. She sounds puzzled, as if she was puzzled THEN at this information. They found two of Filomena's phones.

Can't be. Knox had to know this was impossible as she had just spoken to Filomena on her phone. Had to be another phone. And Knox knew that Meredith had two phones, one of which was Filomena's. This is a big red flag.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

At the end of the day, still no answer to Amanda's stash of cash :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I don't think it can be explained/ignored away.

If an avid supporter and her step-dad don't know where it came from how can we?

Let us see:
No rent money she says because Patrick had not paid her.
$361.54 withdrawal. For rent right?
Later $562 deposit.
Some on her at arrest. How much was rent?
Meredith's rent money missing.

Am I missing something E? I need Cape to get hold of this again.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
I don't think it can be explained/ignored away.

If an avid supporter and her step-dad don't know where it came from how can we?

Let us see:
No rent money she says because Patrick had not paid her.
$361.54 withdrawal. For rent right?
Later $562 deposit.
Some on her at arrest. How much was rent?
Meredith's rent money missing.

Am I missing something E? I need Cape to get hold of this again.


Hi dgfred,

If it is of any help, I have written a comment some time ago concerning the bank deposit in which I have converted the euros to dollars and the order of transactions according to Charlie Wilkes. There is also a bit of discussion about this deposit on the page.

Nell wrote:
dgfred wrote:
--- snip ---

The money angle is both interesting from the view of a 'prank' setting up RG as the thief, and as a quick drug-money view... possibly planning to be returned before being noticed. Both scenarios would have RG meeting AK at some point... as well as a meeting to set up a 'date' with Meredith.

What we need to know now if 562$ deposit = 389.69 is what 215E is in dollars (at that time) if that is the amount found on her at arrest.
We know she made a cash withdrawal of 361.54 which would most likely have been for the rent. How much was the rent in dollars and Euros?

--- snap ---



Hi dgfred,

According to Massei the rent was 1,200 euros per month. That makes 300 euros for each of the occupants. The historic currency change rate on November 5th, 2007 was 1 euro = 1.4469080924 USD, so the 300 euros rent money translate to approximately $434. These values are approximates only, as it depends on what day exactly she withdrew the money and what the bank charges for the withdrawal. You can look up the historic currency exchange rates here.


Charlie Wilkes wrote that in the time between 31st of October and 5th November 2007 the following transactions were booked in Amanda's account:

- 1 cash withdrawal of $361.54 (approx. 250 euros)

- 1 bank card purchase for the underwear (Bubble store) of $62.18 (approx. 43 euros)

- 1 deposit of $562.00 (approx. 389 euros)

After all this activity Amanda's account balance amounted to $4,465.89.

The historical currency exchange rate for November 5th, 2007 was 1USD = 0.6911289012 euros (according to Charlie Wilkes the day these transactions were booked).


I suspect the 250 euros she withdrew were to pay the rent. That's 50 euros short, so I assume that she either had 50 euros or thought Patrick would pay her - I guess it's the latter, as she told Filomena that Patrick hadn't paid her yet. Anyway, she didn't spend much of the money, if any, because she had all or most of it when she was arrested - always according Charlie Wilkes, naming Chris Mellas as his source.

She bought underwear for around 43 euros and paid with her bank card. That was after the murder and somehow it suggest she either didn't have the money to pay for it in cash or she didn't want to spend the money she had.

She made a deposit of approx. 389 euros, which is a bit more than the rent money. Considering Charlie Wilkes story assuring she had most of her earlier withdrawn money on her when arrested, and with the knowledge that Patrick Lumumba hadn't paid her yet, I can only conclude that it was possibly Meredith's stolen rent money plus extra cash Meredith might have had in her purse or at home, or maybe some of Amanda's money.


I do not buy any of Charlie Wilkes latest claims that the money deposited in her account was wired from her own family.

Image


Charlie Wilkes telling us that Amanda Knox had only 4,465.89 after the deposit shows how low on funds she was. Her monthly rent was more than $430. She would have to pay for rent alone more than $5,000 in a year. Usually parents work out a budget before sending their children overseas. They send the money monthly rather than allowing their children to access large sums of money to help prevent a financial disaster. No matter how I look at it, Amanda's parents lacked any care that normal parents would have taken before sending their children off to a foreign country. I also take Charlie Wilkes claim about the $9,000 reserve with a grain of salt, because I have seen Curt Knox and Edda Mellas in interviews praising their daughter how hard she had worked to be able to afford her trip to Italy and that they had told her they didn't have the financial means to send her for a year without her help. They presented her as a serious and responsible young woman. According to them, she had to afford the trip mostly herself, so I conclude that the $9,000 were thrown in later when people started to wonder how the heck anybody could have that crazy idea to survive from only $4,500 for a year in Italy.

Original comment



[Please click on the screenshot to enlarge]
Image

Image

What remains a mystery is how Amanda Knox could have deposited money from Italy to her bank account in the US.

Charlie Wilkes wrote she had withdrawn money before the murder and she had most of this money on her when she was arrested. Additionally to that, there was a deposit made which Charlie Wilkes attributes to Amanda Knox in his original comment. He claimed to have seen the statements, so he should know. He was later asked on IIP where this deposit came from and he responded he had asked Chris Mellas who said he did not know


Last edited by Nell on Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Changed size of screenshot & added quote
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Nell.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Uh oh Cape... Charlie trying to poo-poo away the 562 deposit after withdrawing her rent money on JREF.

Tangled web indeed. He now saying maybe AK got a check from Seattle. Haha.

Poor guy... he will not ever get over that posting boo-boo. ;)


NO...He will NOT. :mrgreen:

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

;) ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
At the end of the day, still no answer to Amanda's stash of cash :)


Exactly. Reading Chahlie's post again......OY...after ruminating at length about Knox's money in the drawer..or not...he let's the groupies know that AMANDA'S STASH OF CASH was ON HER . huh-)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hey DG....

I will never forget the day when I was still posting on JLOL and saw Chahlie's post. It was an AHA moment. And you understood right away what a big deal it was..and still IS.

I will never understand why the Prosecution did not deal with this.

Thanks Nell for posting the info again. You've made perfect sense of it all.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Regarding the cash deposit it is not unthinkable that someone other than Amanda Knox made a deposit to her account. The problem with that story is only that Charlie Wilkes himself said in his first comments that it was Amanda who made the deposit. Only after questions regarding that mysterious deposit surfaced, he suggested it could have been the family making a deposit to her account. That again raises more questions because a) Amanda still had more than $4,000 in her account so why deposit anything at that point? b) Why wouldn't Chris Mellas have known the origin of the money right away? He was the one showing Jim Lovering a.k.a. Charlie Wilkes the bank statements.

It remains muddy.

Amanda Knox supporters have insisted Amanda Knox did not have an Italian bank account. I find this very odd, especially since she wanted to stay for a year. She could have made a transfer to her U.S. account from Sollecito's bank account.

It is possible Amanda Knox stole the rent money before the murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Watched Part 1. Hmm..NO mention of the shower and bathmat boogie. It's very uncomfortable watching and listening to Knox. Because she's not comfortable. At all. Not surprising in view of the fact that she MURDERED Meredith.

Is there a part 2?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What is the word for that little cough she does?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Regarding the cash deposit it is not unthinkable that someone other than Amanda Knox made a deposit to her account. The problem with that story is only that Charlie Wilkes himself said in his first comments that it was Amanda who made the deposit. Only after questions regarding that mysterious deposit surfaced, he suggested it could have been the family making a deposit to her account. That again raises more questions because a) Amanda still had more than $4,000 in her account so why deposit anything at that point? b) Why wouldn't Chris Mellas have known the origin of the money right away? He was the one showing Jim Lovering a.k.a. Charlie Wilkes the bank statements.

It remains muddy.

Amanda Knox supporters have insisted Amanda Knox did not have an Italian bank account. I find this very odd, especially since she wanted to stay for a year. She could have made a transfer to her U.S. account from Sollecito's bank account.

It is possible Amanda Knox stole the rent money before the murder.


And Charlie said he had SEEN the bank statements.

I posted this before..and I still believe the following. I think Knox stole Meredith's money after Meredith left to see her friends.

Then She and Raffles left the cottage. Meredith returned home...discovered her money gone. Guede was now in the cottage as well. Guede went to the bathroom..Knox arrived..and Meredith questioned her about the missing money. An argument ensued...Guede came rushing out of the bathroom to see what was going on. ( I believe Meredith said she was going to call the police...and things escalated from there.) I also think at this point Raffles arrived...he has mentioned he didn't trust Knox..
and Knox did not have her phone with her..so it stands to reason why Raffles would come looking for her).

In any event..there are statements made by Guede that ring true.IMO.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Iodine wrote:
What is the word for that little cough she does?


Iodine. It's called * nervous*. :lol:

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
Nell wrote:
Regarding the cash deposit it is not unthinkable that someone other than Amanda Knox made a deposit to her account. The problem with that story is only that Charlie Wilkes himself said in his first comments that it was Amanda who made the deposit. Only after questions regarding that mysterious deposit surfaced, he suggested it could have been the family making a deposit to her account. That again raises more questions because a) Amanda still had more than $4,000 in her account so why deposit anything at that point? b) Why wouldn't Chris Mellas have known the origin of the money right away? He was the one showing Jim Lovering a.k.a. Charlie Wilkes the bank statements.

It remains muddy.

Amanda Knox supporters have insisted Amanda Knox did not have an Italian bank account. I find this very odd, especially since she wanted to stay for a year. She could have made a transfer to her U.S. account from Sollecito's bank account.

It is possible Amanda Knox stole the rent money before the murder.


And Charlie said he had SEEN the bank statements.

I posted this before..and I still believe the following. I think Knox stole Meredith's money after Meredith left to see her friends.

Then She and Raffles left the cottage. Meredith returned home...discovered her money gone. Guede was now in the cottage as well. Guede went to the bathroom..Knox arrived..and Meredith questioned her about the missing money. An argument ensued...Guede came rushing out of the bathroom to see what was going on. ( I believe Meredith said she was going to call the police...and things escalated from there.) I also think at this point Raffles arrived...he has mentioned he didn't trust Knox..
and Knox did not have her phone with her..so it stands to reason why Raffles would come looking for her).

In any event..there are statements made by Guede that ring true.IMO.


I think it is probable the money was stolen before the murder and not after, but the attack could not have happened by chance, because Amanda Knox had Raffaele's kitchen knife with her and used it in the attack. Something must have been premeditated. We don't know exactly what Knox had in mind, but she had definitely made plans. Maybe she was expecting Meredith to discover the theft or she was looking for a fight by flat out telling her if he had checked her rent money recently. We don't know.


Regarding the bank deposit and Charlie Wilkes statements I have to correct myself. He didn't say only he had seen them, he stated to be in possession of them. He also has said that Amanda Knox had the entire withdrawal on her in his original message while later shifting a bit to "most of it".

I have been reading back, looking for the original first message Charlie Wilkes made about the bank deposit. This is what I found:


Quote:
Thanks for the headsup Michael.

Charlie, I gave up reading the comments long ago hence I missed you:

Quote:
Charlie Wilkes said...

Ping Brian S.

I have Amanda's bank statement. On the weekend of the murder, she withdrew $361.54 (250 Euro). That is the money she was carrying when she was arrested.

July 10, 2009




Quote:
Anonymous said...

Charlie Wilkes said...
Ping Brian S.

I have Amanda's bank statement. On the weekend of the murder, she withdrew $361.54 (250 Euro). That is the money she was carrying when she was arrested.


Date? Time? Location? She had 215 euros on her when she was arrested is that correct?

In the email home sent in the wee hours of Sunday, November 4th, Knox was upset about having to pay rent; she said "it sucks".

Rent was 300. She must have had plenty of cash on her to cover the balance. Plus go shopping for underwear, pizza etc.

Did she ever pay her rent Charlie?


That following comment didn't come from me but it raises a couple of points.

I've always thought the rent was in fact only E250.

Now the question you've got to answer Charlie is "Did Amanda ever give that money to Filomena?" If she didn't then I guess she can explain the money with which she was arrested and I'll let my suspicions go about that.


EDIT to ask something of Thoughtful:

Amanda spoke to Filomena on the phone from the police waiting room on the 5th about the rent and accomodation. Did she give any impression about whether she had given the money to Filomena or whether Filomena may have paid the rent or not?

Source
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What Charlie CANNOT explain is the $562.00 DEPOSITED. Knox had her euro's on her when arrested..so that wasn't deposited.

Nell...I'm still not sure about Knox carrying a knife. I think it's very possible a knife was taken out of the kitchen drawer. I don't know about anyone else..but I would not be able to tell if a knofe was missing from my kitchen..Unless it was my sushi knife :)

In saying that...I may be way off base here. The story is yet to be told. I mean the TRUTH..not the make up ones told by the killers.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

There is NO question that Knox was very, very angry that day. Patrick's statements say it all.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
What Charlie CANNOT explain is the $562.00 DEPOSITED. Knox had her euro's on her when arrested..so that wasn't deposited.

Nell...I'm still not sure about Knox carrying a knife. I think it's very possible a knife was taken out of the kitchen drawer. I don't know about anyone else..but I would not be able to tell if a knofe was missing from my kitchen..Unless it was my sushi knife :)

In saying that...I may be way off base here. The story is yet to be told. I mean the TRUTH..not the make up ones told by the killers.

Regarding the kitchen knife. I sometimes wonder about that too. How sure are we that it was RS's knife? AK's reaction when asked about knives at the cottage was so extreme.....what if it was actually a knife from the cottage?
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Thanks Nell.


Lids are flipping on IIP. Tofay they are angry a poster mentions RS, instead of making Rudy look bad. Folks need to stick to the script...Some guy named Michael is the focus of their wrath for believing Knox guilt. Anella is bothering (veiled threats) people on Twitter....

We are stronger, smarter and we have truth on our side...keep it up, the walls are crumbling. Smile pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
capealadin wrote:
WOW!! Talk about desperate. It's cringeworthy . They've become beggars. And of course Dershowitz is ignoring G-man.

That's what one does when a nut(s) try and get attention. Pfft.


It truly is. The desperation of this couple also led to the public accusation that John Kercher Jr. is Harry Rag/The Machine and the Stormfront story. Steve Moore tries to create a story he can use to spice up his media appearances.

The guy is an idiot, that also explains why he is married to Michelle Moore.


Where is Sean Penn when (Michelle) needs him? Ouch.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
What Charlie CANNOT explain is the $562.00 DEPOSITED. Knox had her euro's on her when arrested..so that wasn't deposited.

Nell...I'm still not sure about Knox carrying a knife. I think it's very possible a knife was taken out of the kitchen drawer. I don't know about anyone else..but I would not be able to tell if a knofe was missing from my kitchen..Unless it was my sushi knife :)

In saying that...I may be way off base here. The story is yet to be told. I mean the TRUTH..not the make up ones told by the killers.



I don't believe Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen knife happened to be at the cottage for any other reason than for a planned and premeditated attack on Meredith. I also don't believe the phones were turned off to enjoy a quiet evening at Sollecito's.

Much has been made from this kitchen knife and how many have come forward saying they bring their own knives over to a friends dinner. Personally, I have not known one person in my life who would carry cooking knives to someone else's house for the purpose of cooking, the only exception being maybe fishermen who are usually very fond of their own filleting knives. But they take them to a fishing expedition, not to someone else's house. Also, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito weren't too much into cooking either. Except the fish he once prepared, you hear them only ordering pizza's in their books and getting take-out. They were only together for 7 days, which Amanda spent mostly at his apartment. She only went home to change clothes.

I also note that they enjoyed a costly lifestyle. When I was a student, I didn't have take out a few times a week. It wasn't in the budget. Spending around $60 for one piece of underwear is also in contradiction with Amanda's assurances that The Bubble's store was more like a Target or supermarket.

From Amanda Knox's book Waiting To Be Heard:

Quote:
“Raffaele took me to a small boutique downtown called Bubble, next door to a luxury lingerie shop. Pulsating with music, Bubble catered to students, offering trendy, cheaply made clothing, the kind that’s not meant to outlast a season. I tried on a few things but decided to wait until my mom got to town to replace my staples, which were locked in the crime scene. I settled on one necessity, grabbing a pair of cotton bikini briefs in my size from a display rack near the cash register. In the long run it probably would have been better if I’d chosen a more sedate color than red. I didn’t give it another thought, but it turned out that what was insignificant to me was a big deal to other people. ”


60 dollars for a pair of cotton briefs not meant to outlast a season? That's a bit steep.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
capealadin wrote:
What Charlie CANNOT explain is the $562.00 DEPOSITED. Knox had her euro's on her when arrested..so that wasn't deposited.

Nell...I'm still not sure about Knox carrying a knife. I think it's very possible a knife was taken out of the kitchen drawer. I don't know about anyone else..but I would not be able to tell if a knofe was missing from my kitchen..Unless it was my sushi knife :)

In saying that...I may be way off base here. The story is yet to be told. I mean the TRUTH..not the make up ones told by the killers.



I don't believe Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen knife happened to be at the cottage for any other reason than for a planned and premeditated attack on Meredith. I also don't believe the phones were turned off to enjoy a quiet evening at Sollecito's.

Much has been made from this kitchen knife and how many have come forward saying they bring their own knives over to a friends dinner. Personally, I have not known one person in my life who would carry cooking knives to someone else's house for the purpose of cooking, the only exception being maybe fishermen who are usually very fond of their own filleting knives. But they take them to a fishing expedition, not to someone else's house. Also, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito weren't too much into cooking either. Except the fish he once prepared, you hear them only ordering pizza's in their books and getting take-out. They were only together for 7 days, which Amanda spent mostly at his apartment. She only went home to change clothes.

I also note that they enjoyed a costly lifestyle. When I was a student, I didn't have take out a few times a week. It wasn't in the budget. Spending around $60 for one piece of underwear is also in contradiction with Amanda's assurances that The Bubble's store was more like a Target or supermarket.

From Amanda Knox's book Waiting To Be Heard:

Quote:
“Raffaele took me to a small boutique downtown called Bubble, next door to a luxury lingerie shop. Pulsating with music, Bubble catered to students, offering trendy, cheaply made clothing, the kind that’s not meant to outlast a season. I tried on a few things but decided to wait until my mom got to town to replace my staples, which were locked in the crime scene. I settled on one necessity, grabbing a pair of cotton bikini briefs in my size from a display rack near the cash register. In the long run it probably would have been better if I’d chosen a more sedate color than red. I didn’t give it another thought, but it turned out that what was insignificant to me was a big deal to other people. ”


60 dollars for a pair of cotton briefs not meant to outlast a season? That's a bit steep.


I've been to Bubbles it's not an expensive store , she must have bought something else I thought she bought a camisole or something. BTW I really dislike when women drag their boyfriends into the lingerie department. They usually look so uncomfortable as if they are held hostage . And really the other female shoppers would rather they not be there. I am convinced it is a power thing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
capealadin wrote:
What Charlie CANNOT explain is the $562.00 DEPOSITED. Knox had her euro's on her when arrested..so that wasn't deposited.

Nell...I'm still not sure about Knox carrying a knife. I think it's very possible a knife was taken out of the kitchen drawer. I don't know about anyone else..but I would not be able to tell if a knofe was missing from my kitchen..Unless it was my sushi knife :)

In saying that...I may be way off base here. The story is yet to be told. I mean the TRUTH..not the make up ones told by the killers.

Regarding the kitchen knife. I sometimes wonder about that too. How sure are we that it was RS's knife? AK's reaction when asked about knives at the cottage was so extreme.....what if it was actually a knife from the cottage?


Amanda Knox was also hitting her head and screaming when she pointed out to police how deeply afraid she was of Patrick Lumumba. It was specifically noted in the police report signed at 5:45 am:

"Si dá atto che la KNOX si porta ripetutamente le mani alla testa e la scuote."

English translation (from TMOMK)
"It is acknowledged that KNOX repeatedly brings her hands to her head and shakes it."


Regarding the kitchen knife, Raffaele Sollecito writes in his book that he was present when his kitchen knife was taken by police. He has never disputed the kitchen knife was his.

Excerpt from Raffaele Sollecito's book Honor Bound:

Quote:
“At some point during my interrogation, I told the officers the best way to find out what I was doing on the night of the murder was to go to my house and check the activity log on my laptop computer. Now the police wanted to take me up on this. I could have insisted on their obtaining a search warrant, but somehow I still had faith that they would switch out of their misguided line of inquiry as soon as I showed them proof of their mistake.

I was taken out to a patrol car, and we raced into central Perugia with sirens blaring. Accompanying me were Chiacchiera and a number of rank-and-file policemen. I was still shoeless, and still in handcuffs, when they made me get out and walk down Corso Garibaldi to my front door. I have no idea if anyone saw me; I was beyond caring about appearances.

As soon as we walked into my apartment, a policeman named Armando Finzi said loudly that the place stank of bleach. That wasn't correct. My cleaning lady had been through the day before and cleaned the tile floor with Lysoform, not bleach. Still, he insisted on mentioning the bleach a couple more times—the clear implication being that I'd needed something powerful to clean up a compromising mess.

Then I watched them pull the place apart. In the kitchen, where I was standing, they went through the trash and sniffed through the cleaning products.

When Finzi came across a drawer full of kitchen knives, he called Chiacchiera over immediately. He pulled out the first knife that came to hand, a large chopping knife with an eight-inch blade.

"Will this knife do?" Finzi asked Chiacchiera.

"Yes, yes, it's great," came the answer.

Much later, in court, Finzi made no secret of the fact that this was simply a random pick. He had no reason to select such a knife. He hadn't been given any specifics on the murder weapon from the coroner's report, or anywhere else, and had nothing to go on other than what he called his "investigative intuition."”



Raffaele Sollecito also validated Meredith's DNA on his kitchen knife with a ridiculous story about pricking her with his knife when he was cooking for her. Later he admitted on Twitter that he had made this story up. In his book he offers yet another version. It's hard to keep track.

Excerpt from Raffaele Sollecito's book Honor Bound:

Quote:
“Still, there was something I could not fathom. How did Meredith's DNA end up on my knife when she'd never visited my house? I was feeling so panicky I imagined for a moment that 1 had used the knife to cook lunch at Via della Pergola and accidentally jabbed Meredith in the hand. Something like that had in fact happened in the week before the murder. My hand slipped and the knife I was using made contact with her skin for the briefest of moments. Meredith was not hurt, I apologized, and that was that. But of course I wasn't using my own knife at the time. There was no possible connection.”


Here you see Raffaele Sollecito on Twitter admitting to have lied:


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
I've been to Bubbles it's not an expensive store , she must have bought something else I thought she bought a camisole or something. BTW I really dislike when women drag their boyfriends into the lingerie department. They usually look so uncomfortable as if they are held hostage . And really the other female shoppers would rather they not be there. I am convinced it is a power thing.


It is more about the lie. I couldn't care less what Amanda Knox bought or how much, it is about her shifting stories.

According to Charlie Wilkes she spent around $63 in that store on that one occasion. To downplay this, she writes in her book that she bought one pair of cotton briefs not to outlast a season. Well, if she insists, then she paid for one pair of cheaply made cotton briefs more than $60.

She is caught up in her own web of lies. People don't like to be lied to.

In her book she also complains that the media and the public judged her for buying red underwear. Who has ever heard or read she bought red underwear? No one, because she is the one who for the first time revealed what colour she bought in her own book. So there could not have been any consequences for her because of the colour she chose, no one knew before she felt like sharing this kind of information.

If you try to google this information, all that will come up is a description of her book.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

RS explaining AK brought the knife over from the cottage would be just as problematic. At that moment, you need to make a choice and you don't want the police to pay much attention to the knife so you say it is just a knife from my apartment. I can understand that choice. However, I do assume that it was RS's knife based on an inventory list from RS's apartment listing large knives IIRC, and Filomena and Laura not seeing any knives missing. I don't think we can be 100% sure though. Either way, the knife was a problem for both of them. No matter where it came from.
Top Profile 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
malvern wrote:
I've been to Bubbles it's not an expensive store , she must have bought something else I thought she bought a camisole or something. BTW I really dislike when women drag their boyfriends into the lingerie department. They usually look so uncomfortable as if they are held hostage . And really the other female shoppers would rather they not be there. I am convinced it is a power thing.


It is more about the lie. I couldn't care less what Amanda Knox bought or how much, it is about her shifting stories.

According to Charlie Wilkes she spent around $63 in that store on that one occasion. To downplay this, she writes in her book that she bought one pair of cotton briefs not to outlast a season. Well, if she insists, then she paid for one pair of cheaply made cotton briefs more than $60.

She is caught up in her own web of lies. People don't like to be lied to.

In her book she also complains that the media and the public judged her for buying red underwear. Who has ever heard or read she bought red underwear? No one, because she is the one who for the first time revealed what colour she bought in her own book. So there could not have been any consequences for her because of the colour she chose, no one knew before she felt like sharing this kind of information.

If you try to google this information, all that will come up is a description of her book.


I agree with you Knox is the one who plays the sex card when she can My goodness who can forget her x rated prison cavity exam. She is also the only one who talks about orgies and how was that possible and leave no evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
RS explaining AK brought the knife over from the cottage would be just as problematic. At that moment, you need to make a choice and you don't want the police to pay much attention to the knife so you say it is just a knife from my apartment. I can understand that choice. However, I do assume that it was RS's knife based on an inventory list from RS's apartment listing large knives IIRC, and Filomena and Laura not seeing any knives missing. I don't think we can be 100% sure though. Either way, the knife was a problem for both of them. No matter where it came from.


I assume it is in fact Sollecito's kitchen knife because Filomena and Laura didn't find any of the knives missing. The big chef knife is the most versatile one, it would have been missed. The chance of both of them being mistaken is very small in my opinion.

But let's assume they both were mistaken, I agree with you that in their situation Sollecito could not have come forward saying it is not his. That would have drawn even more attention to it, especially once it had been seized already.

At that point he could only hope they would not find anything on that knife.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
I agree with you Knox is the one who plays the sex card when she can My goodness who can forget her x rated prison cavity exam. She is also the only one who talks about orgies and how was that possible and leave no evidence.


Absolutely.

Amanda Knox has my sympathy that her sex life has been scrutinised by the media, but maybe she shouldn't cry so loud, because police told her NOT to reveal anything she had learned from her interviews with them. What did Amanda Knox do? She wrote an email to over 20 people saying nasty things about Meredith Kercher, including suggestions about her sex life. Knox is only sensitive when criticism is directed at her.

Her book only offers more lies and some details about her one-night-stands. I would have to say she either likes to live dangerously, she doesn't give a toss or she is dumb, or a combination of the aforementioned. Part of her book also complains about how much she has been punished with sexual diseases for her mistakes. She somehow always sees herself as the victim, no matter how much her own decision has influenced the outcome. She is not naive though, rather narcissistic.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

indie wrote:
guermantes wrote:
<<<BREAKING>>> : via Twitter

Latest Amanda Knox interview @ UW (she just can't stop talking, can she?)

Amanda Knox Full Interview Pt.1 (21:39 min!!!)

Attachment:
Aanda Knox interview UW.JPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHWMS8xnIU&sns=tw


"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."


I have started to watch this interview and Amanda Knox effortlessly makes things worse. It's a pleasure to watch.

"Laura was the clean one." Huh? I thought they were all clean?

"The feces really freaked me out." Ok.

She loves herself talking. She loves the attention and she loves the cameras. She cannot help herself. She just cannot keep her mouth shut.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
Nell wrote:
Regarding the cash deposit it is not unthinkable that someone other than Amanda Knox made a deposit to her account. The problem with that story is only that Charlie Wilkes himself said in his first comments that it was Amanda who made the deposit. Only after questions regarding that mysterious deposit surfaced, he suggested it could have been the family making a deposit to her account. That again raises more questions because a) Amanda still had more than $4,000 in her account so why deposit anything at that point? b) Why wouldn't Chris Mellas have known the origin of the money right away? He was the one showing Jim Lovering a.k.a. Charlie Wilkes the bank statements.

It remains muddy.

Amanda Knox supporters have insisted Amanda Knox did not have an Italian bank account. I find this very odd, especially since she wanted to stay for a year. She could have made a transfer to her U.S. account from Sollecito's bank account.

It is possible Amanda Knox stole the rent money before the murder.


And Charlie said he had SEEN the bank statements.

I posted this before..and I still believe the following. I think Knox stole Meredith's money after Meredith left to see her friends.

Then She and Raffles left the cottage. Meredith returned home...discovered her money gone. Guede was now in the cottage as well. Guede went to the bathroom..Knox arrived..and Meredith questioned her about the missing money. An argument ensued...Guede came rushing out of the bathroom to see what was going on. ( I believe Meredith said she was going to call the police...and things escalated from there.) I also think at this point Raffles arrived...he has mentioned he didn't trust Knox..
and Knox did not have her phone with her..so it stands to reason why Raffles would come looking for her).

In any event..there are statements made by Guede that ring true.IMO.

Guede had fallen asleep on the toilet .. he was apt to fall asleep on the toilet. Guede had strange habits (as outlined in the lengthy article by Barbara Nadeau (was it)? He could even have had some form of sleep disorder; was prone to "fugue states"; falling asleep everywhere, even in school days. Cases of him falling asleep on the toilet had been related by the "boys downstairs" in Villa della Pergola (Guede socialised with them). The other possibility is that Guede was a heroin addict. He was prone to injecting and then "nodding off". Of course he would inject privately. He may not have that night; he may have done it in the presence of Knox and Sollecito, sharing. Re: the Knox penned "Marie Pace" letter (which describes a party with drugs being smoked and injected). Guede may have injected, Knox may have smoked. Knox describes herself in her "Marie Pace" letter/"story", being enveloped in "acrid" smoke. Knox knew the formula of marijuana smoke. Why did she specifically describe it as "acrid"?. Heroin. Knox was using her "Marie Pace" letter (a "valentines" letter to Sollecito, containing a dark "story", binding Sollecito to her and the night), to threaten Sollecito with the facts, marginally disguised. Written to Sollecito during the first trial. The "Marie Pace" letter is a description of the night.

Guede goes to the toilet to "nod" with his ipod. Meredith Kercher arrives back, sees the stoned Knox with another creepy male friend. Finds her rent money is missing; "Meredith never locked her door" (from Knox). Goes ballistic, accuses Knox. Massive row starts, again, between Meredith Kercher and Knox. Guede startled out of doze. Events progress.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Part 2 of Amanda Knox interview @ UW (19:17 min!!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFRqiO2Qd0c

(I couldn't bare to watch the first part til the end....)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sallyoo of .org has posted his/her summary of tonight's episode of Linea Gialla so we don't have to watch it. Just more lies from the Sollecitos, father and son.

Post by Sallyoo » 25 Feb 2014, 22:25
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=162577#p162577
----------------------------------------------------------------
I just struggled through the linea gialla, struggled not only because my broadband was playing up, but it was one of those "everybody shout at once" Italian TV progs. There was a quite horrible man playing the innocentista, one Vittorio Feltri, who couldn't remember either the victim's name, nor the chemical formula for water. (He was explaining how little he should be expected to know about DNA).

Papadoc shouted a lot too, so poor Roberta Bruzzone, the colpevolista, was hard pushed to get a word in, though she did some good "you cannot be serious" faces (on occasions sharing these with RS, when Feltri was overacting some flight of nonsensical fancy.)

RS read various bits from Hellmann. He fiercely denied that there was anything in the court transcripts about The Rock weighing 4kg. (Cue rock takes over from washing machine...) He also stated that he had absolutely not turned off his cellphone on 1 Nov, but that Amanda had turned hers off. (That was news to me.) He seemed to soften a tiny bit on his use of the computer that night, saying they had better things to do than fiddle with machines.

The only bit which I found really interesting was when both RS and PapaDoc became extremely agitated when Bruzzone said that in a phone call to her mother AK had expressed concern about 'a knife at RS apartment'. That such a statement had ever been aired in court was vehemently denied, by both. When Bruzzone finally trawled the exact quote up from her tablet, (from the Cassazione report), PapaDoc rudely rubbished that court. (First time he has been so disparaging of an Italian court, IMO.)

Anyway - some of you might enjoy tormenting yourselves, but you should take your blood-pressure tablets before letting Feltri hit your ears. It will be available on the La7 site tomorrow, and probably on youtube very quickly as well. Search on linea gialla.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
capealadin wrote:
What Charlie CANNOT explain is the $562.00 DEPOSITED. Knox had her euro's on her when arrested..so that wasn't deposited.

Nell...I'm still not sure about Knox carrying a knife. I think it's very possible a knife was taken out of the kitchen drawer. I don't know about anyone else..but I would not be able to tell if a knofe was missing from my kitchen..Unless it was my sushi knife :)

In saying that...I may be way off base here. The story is yet to be told. I mean the TRUTH..not the make up ones told by the killers.

Regarding the kitchen knife. I sometimes wonder about that too. How sure are we that it was RS's knife? AK's reaction when asked about knives at the cottage was so extreme.....what if it was actually a knife from the cottage?

Why the extreme reaction upon being shown the knife drawer. At that point Knox had painted herself as present in the house. She had herself described as being in the kitchen during the murder. She displayed an extreme nervous reaction, portraying herself as a victim, when shown the knives in the kitchen drawer. She displayed extreme, melodramatic reaction when shown the number of Lumumba on her phone .. Lumumba who she was proceeding to frame. She used that association / formulated trigger of her fake reaction because in fact, that was the the source of the knife. So the knife was not transported from the apartment of Sollecito to the cottage. It was in fact carried back to that apartment when Knox and Sollecito fled the scene. It was carried back to dispose of in some way. They couldn't safely dump it. They washed it. The source of the story from Sollecito/Knox of the 'kitchen being flooded' originated with the stoned and paranoid Sollecito realising after initially washing blood off the knife in his sink, that there could still be traces of blood in the drain pipe. He broke it. He broke it to ensure that there were no traces at all. He was manically flushing it. He wanted bleach. He wanted bleach to manically scrub the knife and flush the drain. It wasn't Sollecitos knife. It was a cheap kitchen knife. Sollecito had expensive things. He had premium chefs knives (did you see the meat cleaver). He liked knives. He would not have had that basic inexpensive kitchen knife. That knife suited the student house, the cottage. Not Sollecitos expensive serviced apartment.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony

What about the "set of kitchen knives" that strangely, Knox reported having brought all the way from Germany. Why? When backpacking do people carry a set of kitchen knives around?
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony

What about the "set of kitchen knives" that strangely, Knox reported having brought all the way from Germany. Why? When backpacking do people carry a set of kitchen knives around?

Yes, that is rather strange. There was some time that morning to buy a replacement knife. RS is dumb enough to buy a whole set. It sure is an interesting speculation to think the kitchen knife was from the cottage, but it will remain speculation I am afraid since neither Laura nor Filomena recognized it. I do feel a few things fit better in place if indeed the knife was from the cottage. Interesting.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony

What about the "set of kitchen knives" that strangely, Knox reported having brought all the way from Germany. Why? When backpacking do people carry a set of kitchen knives around?

Yes, that is rather strange. There was some time that morning to buy a replacement knife. RS is dumb enough to buy a whole set. It sure is an interesting speculation to think the kitchen knife was from the cottage, but it will remain speculation I am afraid since neither Laura nor Filomena recognized it. I do feel a few things fit better in place if indeed the knife was from the cottage. Interesting.

Knox stated that the new set of kitchen knives was under her bed. Brought improbably (she said), all the way from Germany. You may be right. A set of knives bought by either, to replace the knife from the cottage that was used in the murder. I think maybe on the morning of the murder. To disassociate the event from the house. If the knife was from the kitchen then it was domestic. The knife had to have been brought in by an intruder. The insanity of Knoxs story, that she transported a full set of kitchen knives all the way from journey reinforces your theory. She didn't know where she was going to live when she arrived at Perugia, she didn't know what she would be doing or for how long. It was all ad-hoc. She wasn't "homemaking", setting up a kitchen. Looking forward to cooking. It's a formulated story for some reason. Just another. She needed an explanation to the police, as to why there was a new set of kitchen knives under her bed.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony

What about the "set of kitchen knives" that strangely, Knox reported having brought all the way from Germany. Why? When backpacking do people carry a set of kitchen knives around?

Yes, that is rather strange. There was some time that morning to buy a replacement knife. RS is dumb enough to buy a whole set. It sure is an interesting speculation to think the kitchen knife was from the cottage, but it will remain speculation I am afraid since neither Laura nor Filomena recognized it. I do feel a few things fit better in place if indeed the knife was from the cottage. Interesting.

Knox stated that the new set of kitchen knives was under her bed. Brought improbably (she said), all the way from Germany. You may be right. A set of knives bought by either, to replace the knife from the cottage that was used in the murder. I think maybe on the morning of the murder. To disassociate the event from the house. If the knife was from the kitchen then it was domestic. The knife had to have been brought in by an intruder. The insanity of Knoxs story, that she transported a full set of kitchen knives all the way from journey reinforces your theory. She didn't know where she was going to live when she arrived at Perugia, she didn't know what she would be doing or for how long. It was all ad-hoc. She wasn't "homemaking", setting up a kitchen. Looking forward to cooking. It's a formulated story for some reason. Just another. She needed an explanation to the police, as to why there was a new set of kitchen knives under her bed.


I always wondered about the "silver" dinner setting that Knox received from her grandmother in Germany shortly before she arrived in Italy. When Curt Knox retrieved Knox's possessions and Edda's mother's dinner setting was missing, he seemed really angry. There's a photo of him hauling a tote up the cottage driveway, but no mention of the sterling silver jackpot from Grandma. If it wasn't sterling, there was no reason for her to give it to Knox, but that's all I know about inheriting sterling.

When Knox was at the cottage to discuss the knives, she started knocking herself about in the head. I'm certain she looked insane each and every time that she knocked herself about in the head.

Knocking oneself around in the head might be considered an extreme version of an inability to cope with an emotion. No matter what, it's not normal, not for innocent people and not for guilty people, but Knox has been deemed free of all mental defect, so it must be deception. People don't knox themselves around in the head unless they are unable to cope with a conflict. Normal conflict is between two people, but in this case the conflict was with Knox and herself. How Bizarre. So she hit herself in the head, no less.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Nell wrote:
Graham W. Phillips wrote the first part of a series of three articles.

The first part can be found here: I tried to interview Amanda Knox - Part 1

For newcomers and those who come back from a long break, see his blog article with questions for Knox he sent to David Marriot for approval. Brit In Ukraine - Amanda Knox - 16 Exclusive Interview Questions.

According to Graham Phillips, David Marriott found the questions to be unfair and he ended the communication after exchanging a few emails in which they apparently discussed what would be allowed and what not. They could not find common ground.

Graham Phillips promised an article based on his exchange with David Marriott and he just tweeted the link to the first part.


Hi Nell,

have you heard from Graham W. Phillips on Twitter lately, about part 2 of a series of three articles? I guess he has other things to do and worry about right now: BRIT IN UKRAINE (Love his reporting - pretty objective and close to truth.)

http://rt.com/news/kiev-clashes-rioters-police-571/


Hi Guermantes,

No, there has been no update so far. Not really surprising with everything that has been going on in the Ukraine. He was busy reporting and tweeting about Euromaidan.

If I see an update, I will post 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 Feb 26, 2014 7:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony

What about the "set of kitchen knives" that strangely, Knox reported having brought all the way from Germany. Why? When backpacking do people carry a set of kitchen knives around?

Yes, that is rather strange. There was some time that morning to buy a replacement knife. RS is dumb enough to buy a whole set. It sure is an interesting speculation to think the kitchen knife was from the cottage, but it will remain speculation I am afraid since neither Laura nor Filomena recognized it. I do feel a few things fit better in place if indeed the knife was from the cottage. Interesting.

Knox stated that the new set of kitchen knives was under her bed. Brought improbably (she said), all the way from Germany. You may be right. A set of knives bought by either, to replace the knife from the cottage that was used in the murder. I think maybe on the morning of the murder. To disassociate the event from the house. If the knife was from the kitchen then it was domestic. The knife had to have been brought in by an intruder. The insanity of Knoxs story, that she transported a full set of kitchen knives all the way from journey reinforces your theory. She didn't know where she was going to live when she arrived at Perugia, she didn't know what she would be doing or for how long. It was all ad-hoc. She wasn't "homemaking", setting up a kitchen. Looking forward to cooking. It's a formulated story for some reason. Just another. She needed an explanation to the police, as to why there was a new set of kitchen knives under her bed.


I always wondered about the "silver" dinner setting that Knox received from her grandmother in Germany shortly before she arrived in Italy. When Curt Knox retrieved Knox's possessions and Edda's mother's dinner setting was missing, he seemed really angry. There's a photo of him hauling a tote up the cottage driveway, but no mention of the sterling silver jackpot from Grandma. If it wasn't sterling, there was no reason for her to give it to Knox, but that's all I know about inheriting sterling.

When Knox was at the cottage to discuss the knives, she started knocking herself about in the head. I'm certain she looked insane each and every time that she knocked herself about in the head.

Knocking oneself around in the head might be considered an extreme version of an inability to cope with an emotion. No matter what, it's not normal, not for innocent people and not for guilty people, but Knox has been deemed free of all mental defect, so it must be deception. People don't knox themselves around in the head unless they are unable to cope with a conflict. Normal conflict is between two people, but in this case the conflict was with Knox and herself. How Bizarre. So she hit herself in the head, no less.


I don't believe it is of importance that Amanda Knox showed a reaction when the drawer was opened. She also had a reaction when she depicted Patrick Lumumba as the murderer and her reaction wasn't justified at all. It wasn't real. She put on a show. Why would the incident at the cottage be any different?

They also turned off their phones. That indicates they were up to something.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony

What about the "set of kitchen knives" that strangely, Knox reported having brought all the way from Germany. Why? When backpacking do people carry a set of kitchen knives around?


Yes, that is rather strange. There was some time that morning to buy a replacement knife. RS is dumb enough to buy a whole set. It sure is an interesting speculation to think the kitchen knife was from the cottage, but it will remain speculation I am afraid since neither Laura nor Filomena recognized it. I do feel a few things fit better in place if indeed the knife was from the cottage. Interesting.


Sollecito didn't return the knife to his drawer, Amanda Knox returned Sollecito's knife to his drawer. Sollecito had his own knife. Only Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher DNA is on the knife; not Sollecito, who had lived in the apartment for months if not years. Only DNA from his girlfriend of a week and her roommate, whom he'd only met twice (but she looked cute in her boyfriend's jeans) was on his knife in his kitchen, so Meredith and Knox have DNA on a knife found in Knox's boyfriend apartment, but it's not Sollecito's problem because he was stoned out of his mind and doesn't remember if Knox went out. His girlfriend, Knox, could not risk being asked where the knife went (if she threw it away), or why Meredith and Knox's DNA would be found on a knife in the woods, so the knife was returned to the drawer after rigorous, abrasive scrubbing. It seems like a QED, but perhaps I'm missing something ...
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:

I don't believe it is of importance that Amanda Knox showed a reaction when the drawer was opened. She also had a reaction when she depicted Patrick Lumumba as the murderer and her reaction wasn't justified at all. It wasn't real. She put on a show. Why would the incident at the cottage be any different?

They also turned off their phones. That indicates they were up to something.


Exactly, she put on a show. She acted out what she thought an innocent person would do in those circumstances. She thought that an innocent person would be so horrified that she would hit herself in the head. She phoned her mom to ask how she should react. If that doesn't say it all.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Nell wrote:

I don't believe it is of importance that Amanda Knox showed a reaction when the drawer was opened. She also had a reaction when she depicted Patrick Lumumba as the murderer and her reaction wasn't justified at all. It wasn't real. She put on a show. Why would the incident at the cottage be any different?

They also turned off their phones. That indicates they were up to something.


Exactly, she put on a show. She acted out what she thought an innocent person would do in those circumstances. She thought that an innocent person would be so horrified that she would hit herself in the head. She phoned her mom to ask how she should react. If that doesn't say it all.

I am not so sure. I believe it is an expression of frustration. Frustration that she is in trouble.

The phones were turned off, but at what time exactly? I know there was no activity, but how can we be sure that they were off by 9pm and not by 10pm for example?
Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

@ Nell:

I really like your posts, you did a great job on the money deposit. Thanks for sharing that.

Nell wrote:
I have started to watch this interview and Amanda Knox effortlessly makes things worse. It's a pleasure to watch.

"Laura was the clean one." Huh? I thought they were all clean?

"The feces really freaked me out." Ok.

She loves herself talking. She loves the attention and she loves the cameras. She cannot help herself. She just cannot keep her mouth shut.

I totally agree with you, I thought the exact same but I just couldn't watch more than the half of this interview.

She didn't do herself any favor either when she mentioned it wasn't normal for Meredith to close her door.

I think anybody would just flush the toilet if he found feces in there and not make such a big deal about it or even get creeped out because of it. But of course, she knew who left the feces in there and she knew that this person was easily linkable to the crime scene and the victim. That's why she keeps mentioning the feces as if this was the thing to conclude there was something wrong in this scenario of her return to the cottage.

Her awkard laughing on several occasions shows a complete lack of emotion in my opinion. How could a person with a heart / soul laugh after saying "I didn't assume someone had been murdered." knowing that there was indeed a victim, who lost her life in such a brutal manner.

Her changing intonation sets me off as well, she is very caught up telling us every detail about herself and her "emotions" on that morning, but then there are these moments, where she shifts completely, her eyes start to roll up and she starts to talk really fast to get over some stuff. She does that when talking about the phone call to Filomena, where she learned about Laura's absence, the mop she took to Raffaele's apartment and when she mentions how she tried to look into Meredith's room.


Nell wrote:
[...]
Knox is only sensitive when criticism is directed at her.

Her book only offers more lies and some details about her one-night-stands. I would have to say she either likes to live dangerously, she doesn't give a toss or she is dumb, or a combination of the aforementioned. Part of her book also complains about how much she has been punished with sexual diseases for her mistakes. She somehow always sees herself as the victim, no matter how much her own decision has influenced the outcome. She is not naive though, rather narcissistic.

Spot on. As a result of this I'm torn apart what type of punishment might be adequate for her. She is still young, seems to be interested in finishing her studies and I like to believe her attitude changed over the process of all these years. But then I see her enjoying herself so much in the media and describing herself like this "Amanda Knox is a New York Times & USA Today Bestselling author (her memoir, Waiting to Be Heard, was published by HarperCollins on April 30th, 2013)". Every statement of her whether it is written or spoken shows her lack of remorse and there's always the depiction of herself as the victim. She doesn't understand how to admit a mistake and take responsibility for it, because of that I don't think there is even the slightest chance an individual like her could ever be succesfully re-socialized into our society. She should be locked behind bars for the rest of her life.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi


Last edited by Stefan on Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
[...]

I posted this before..and I still believe the following. I think Knox stole Meredith's money after Meredith left to see her friends.

Then She and Raffles left the cottage. Meredith returned home...discovered her money gone. Guede was now in the cottage as well. Guede went to the bathroom..Knox arrived..and Meredith questioned her about the missing money. An argument ensued...Guede came rushing out of the bathroom to see what was going on. ( I believe Meredith said she was going to call the police...and things escalated from there.) I also think at this point Raffles arrived...he has mentioned he didn't trust Knox..
and Knox did not have her phone with her..so it stands to reason why Raffles would come looking for her).

In any event..there are statements made by Guede that ring true.IMO.

Why would Meredith invite Rudy inside the cottage and how did he end up assaulting her in that scenario to leave his DNA inside her? If Raffaele joined them later how did he enter the cottage, I would assume the front door was locked at this point?

I don't want to sound offensive, but I don't like this scenario. You should consider their behaviour afterwards. Amanda Knox gave us a lot of insight on her calculating mind when she delivered an explanation for anything that could / would be brought up by the prosecution(e.g. the mop-story, her bathmat-shuffle or her ear piercings and possible blood of hers as a result).

I think everything about this murder was planned - they created that alibi supported by the computer log, turned off their cellphones and I assume they used Rudy Guede. I am curious if they were aware of Rudy Guede's supposed history as a burglar and when the clean-up took place.

If they knew about his prior break-ins they could lure him into this and later put the blame on him. The only problem I have is understanding why he would partake in this, maybe he was on drugs, maybe he is a psychopath as well, because a mentally stable man certainly wouldn't try to rape a woman or maybe Meredith did really invite him that evening. I don't know, but I don't see a motive for him to murder her and the feces in the toilet seems odd to me if he was aware of the planned murder, even if he was on drugs.

The time of the clean-up is interesting because of the barefoot prints in Meredith's blood. I've read that blood dries in a relative short period. I'm wondering when they walked around barefoot, if during the assault it was definitely planned to murder her, but I think it is more likely they returned barefoot shortly after the murder to clean up. That would also explain the need for Amanda's reading lamp in Meredith's room.


EDIT:

I agree with you on Rudy Guede though, he came up with "the most truth" so far. The other two were only occasionally truthful by accident, they dug themselves way too deep into the abyss of their lies.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi


Last edited by Stefan on Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Jester wrote:
Nell wrote:

I don't believe it is of importance that Amanda Knox showed a reaction when the drawer was opened. She also had a reaction when she depicted Patrick Lumumba as the murderer and her reaction wasn't justified at all. It wasn't real. She put on a show. Why would the incident at the cottage be any different?

They also turned off their phones. That indicates they were up to something.


Exactly, she put on a show. She acted out what she thought an innocent person would do in those circumstances. She thought that an innocent person would be so horrified that she would hit herself in the head. She phoned her mom to ask how she should react. If that doesn't say it all.

I am not so sure. I believe it is an expression of frustration. Frustration that she is in trouble.

The phones were turned off, but at what time exactly? I know there was no activity, but how can we be sure that they were off by 9pm and not by 10pm for example?


OK, I posted a lengthy response and somehow only half of it was there when I hit the send button. No idea what happened.

Long story short: Massei explained in his report that the provider cannot know if a phone is turned off or not. But Sollecito had good signal reception from three different towers at his apartment which led investigators to believe he must have switched off his phone as a message sent by his father on Nov 1st around 11 pm was not delivered until around 6 am the next morning (when Sollecito switched his phone back on).

This information can be found in Massei on pages 316-18 (English translation).

From Massei:

Quote:
Turning to the data which deals with Raffaele Sollecito's mobile subscription (SIM No. 340-3574303), the first point to highlight is the following: the defendant's mobile phone was inactive after 20:42:56 of 1.11.07 and until 06:02:59 of 2.11.07.

[...]

Thus the SMS sent to him by his father was received on Raffaele Sollecito's mobile phone at 06:02:59 of 2.11.07, whereas Dr Francesco Sollecito's mobile phone had generated the text message at 23:14 on 1.11.07.

An SMS which does not immediately reach the recipient is stored on the server of the operator, in the Vodafone server in this case it was explained, in order to be resent when the Network realises that the mobile phone is once again accessible.

The importance of the delayed reception of the SMS generated at 23:14 thus poses a specific problem [enigma]: in the period of time between 23:14 and 06:02:59, was Raffaele Sollecito's mobile phone switched off, or was it inaccessible? (That it was broken is a circumstance which can be positively excluded, given its subsequent functioning.)

According to the investigators, the mobile phone had simply been switched off, as there were no technical reasons that prevented the SMS from being delivered within seconds of being sent.



Amanda Knox admitted she had her mobile phone turned off that night.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
@ Nell:

I really like your posts, you did a great job on the money deposit. Thanks for sharing that.


Thank you Stefan. I have to point out though I wasn't the one spotting Charlie Wilkes comment. That was someone else, I believe it was Capealadin. I only put things together into one post as this topic kept coming up and it would be easier to link to it.


Stefan wrote:
Nell wrote:
I have started to watch this interview and Amanda Knox effortlessly makes things worse. It's a pleasure to watch.

"Laura was the clean one." Huh? I thought they were all clean?

"The feces really freaked me out." Ok.

She loves herself talking. She loves the attention and she loves the cameras. She cannot help herself. She just cannot keep her mouth shut.

I totally agree with you, I thought the exact same but I just couldn't watch more than the half of this interview.

She didn't do herself any favor either when she mentioned it wasn't normal for Meredith to close her door.

I think anybody would just flush the toilet if he found feces in there and not make such a big deal about it or even get creeped out because of it. But of course, she knew who left the feces in there and she knew that this person was easily linkable to the crime scene and the victim. That's why she keeps mentioning the feces as if this was the thing to conclude there was something wrong in this scenario of her return to the cottage.


Amanda Knox even goes as far as saying in her e-mail home that she immediately knew a stranger had left the feces in the toilet. Really? How? How could she be sure. Is that really the most probable explanation that a stranger came to your house? I don't think so.

The blood in the bathroom was ok, nothing to worry about, but the feces! Instantly she knew something wasn't right. Does she even listen to herself?

My husband once had an accident which resulted in a smaller injury on the head, a cut. He bled profusely and while I stepped in the garage and saw the blood, he had gone the other way around inside the house. I saw the blood spots and even they weren't very big, the blood was dark and when I saw them I just knew that this was not the average scratch on your finger. It was less blood that what we have seen on the bathroom photos. I was instantly worried when I saw it.

Amanda Knox and her supporters always play the blood spots in the bathroom down, but having so much diluted blood in different locations, plus crusted blood stains, plus bloody footprints, now that would raise everyone's alarm. Not the feces. You would immediately want to find out what the hell happened.


Stefan wrote:
Her awkard laughing on several occasions shows a complete lack of emotion in my opinion. How could a person with a heart / soul laugh after saying "I didn't assume someone had been murdered." knowing that there was indeed a victim, who lost her life in such a brutal manner.

Her changing intonation sets me off as well, she is very caught up telling us every detail about herself and her "emotions" on that morning, but then there are these moments, where she shifts completely, her eyes start to roll up and she starts to talk really fast to get over some stuff. She does that when talking about the phone call to Filomena, where she learned about Laura's absence, the mop she took to Raffaele's apartment and when she mentions how she tried to look into Meredith's room.


I agree. Meredith somehow never comes up. It's all about her, always. I haven't finished the interview yet. I downloaded it and will finish it later. What I saw was painful already.


Stefan wrote:
Nell wrote:
[...]
Knox is only sensitive when criticism is directed at her.

Her book only offers more lies and some details about her one-night-stands. I would have to say she either likes to live dangerously, she doesn't give a toss or she is dumb, or a combination of the aforementioned. Part of her book also complains about how much she has been punished with sexual diseases for her mistakes. She somehow always sees herself as the victim, no matter how much her own decision has influenced the outcome. She is not naive though, rather narcissistic.


Spot on. As a result of this I'm torn apart what type of punishment might be adequate for her. She is still young, seems to be interested in finishing her studies and I like to believe her attitude changed over the process of all these years. But then I see her enjoying herself so much in the media and describing herself like this "Amanda Knox is a New York Times & USA Today Bestselling author (her memoir, Waiting to Be Heard, was published by HarperCollins on April 30th, 2013)". Every statement of her wheter it is written or spoken shows her lack of remorse and there's always the depiction of herself as the victim. She doesn't understand how to admit a mistake and take responsibility for it, because of that I don't think there is even the slightest chance an individual like her could ever be succesfully re-socialized into our society. She should be locked behind bars for the rest of her life.


I agree with you about the lack of remorse. I sometimes felt sorry for her and her family. But then I remember her blog and the sheer nastiness she displayed towards the Kerchers on her blog and I don't feel sorry anymore.

Someone posted an autopsy photo from Meredith's neck injuries on JREF and every time I see a photo of Amanda Knox I will remember that. That's what she has done to another human being. Cruel. Callous. She deserves whatever punishment she will get.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Nell. So we know for sure that RS's phone was off between 23:14 and 06:02:59. That is what I meant. We can't know if they were turned off at 9pm or 10pm for example. I don't believe a word of what AK says so I can't really draw any premeditation conclusions from that. They could have turned it off before heading off to the cottage with an attack plan, but they also could have turned them off when the attack was already in motion at the cottage. IMO the attack started at about 22:00.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Thanks Nell. So we know for sure that RS's phone was off between 23:14 and 06:02:59. That is what I meant. We can't know if they were turned off at 9pm or 10pm for example. I don't believe a word of what AK says so I can't really draw any premeditation conclusions from that. They could have turned it off before heading off to the cottage with an attack plan, but they also could have turned them off when the attack was already in motion at the cottage. IMO the attack started at about 22:00.


Interesting also to read again pages 314/5 regarding Meredith's English phone.

Quote:
Up until 00:31:21 onwards, one can establish the presence of the phone in the garden [parco] of the other abode.

The last activity is a GPRS signal around 22:13 pm from Via della Pergola 7. Between that time and 00:31, the phones were moved to a different location.


There is more about the GPRS signal at 22:13 at page 328 (English translation).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
24 February 2014
Distancing himself from Knox? (VIDEO)
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend causes stir with interview

TODAY

Why did Foxy take a shower? Raffaele Sollecito admits he DOES have questions about Amanda Knox's behavior after Meredith murder

In an interview that aired on Italian television, Sollecito said that Knox left his house the morning before Kercher's body was found and when she returned hours later, she seemed 'very agitated'. She said her front door had been broken into and that she had found spots of blood in the bathroom.

'Certainly I asked her questions,' Sollecito said in the interview, which aired in part on the Today show on Monday. 'Why did you take a shower? Why did she spent so much time there?'


DAILY MAIL


They both seem to maintain they are not separating their defences, but even not so bright Sollecito must understand that his remarks are not flattering or helpful. So why say anything?

Interesting quote from the article: "She said he told her: 'I don’t want to be punished for, nor have to continue to justify, those things that regard you and not me."

He blames her, she blames him. I wonder how long they are going to keep up the charade.

Does it surprise anyone else why the fact that Sollecito threw Knox under the bus during the interrogation is never addressed by Knoxy's PR? This is where the trouble started for the couple, not with Knox's accusation of Patrick Lumumba.

Neither is the Matteini hearing. Here is a summary of what Sollecito said :)
Quote:
I'm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

I do not remember if Amanda went out that evening.

I do not remember if she went out.

I do not remember exactly if that Thursday night she went out

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/M ... English%29
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall posted on .org his observation that the mysterious bank deposit might be a regular payment. He pointed out that according to the published statement Amanda Knox has received in the months September - November a deposit on the 4th of each month (except November when the money was deposited on the 5th as the 4th was a Sunday).

Next to one of these three deposits someone wrote "Grandma".

The deposits are as follows:

11-05-07 $562 (unknown)
10-04-07 $2,052,30 (Grandma)
09-04-07 $563 (unknown)

That sounds plausible, but if I assume that the deposits are "regular" and made by the same person, then this person must be grandma. If it was grandma who made the deposit, why would Chris Mellas and Amanda Knox not know about this?

She attributes the deposit to "local work" and puts a question mark behind it, so she isn't sure. If you are not sure, then what was the point in publishing it? The handwriting surely isn't Amanda's but I assume the statement together with the handwritten notes have been published on her blog with her knowledge and consent.


I also noticed a lot of deposits and transfers to her account that were from family members. She could have never financed her spending with her savings alone. Knox spent quite a lot in a very short time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
24 February 2014
Distancing himself from Knox? (VIDEO)
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend causes stir with interview

TODAY

Why did Foxy take a shower? Raffaele Sollecito admits he DOES have questions about Amanda Knox's behavior after Meredith murder

In an interview that aired on Italian television, Sollecito said that Knox left his house the morning before Kercher's body was found and when she returned hours later, she seemed 'very agitated'. She said her front door had been broken into and that she had found spots of blood in the bathroom.

'Certainly I asked her questions,' Sollecito said in the interview, which aired in part on the Today show on Monday. 'Why did you take a shower? Why did she spent so much time there?'


DAILY MAIL


They both seem to maintain they are not separating their defences, but even not so bright Sollecito must understand that his remarks are not flattering or helpful. So why say anything?

Interesting quote from the article: "She said he told her: 'I don’t want to be punished for, nor have to continue to justify, those things that regard you and not me."

He blames her, she blames him. I wonder how long they are going to keep up the charade.

Does it surprise anyone else why the fact that Sollecito threw Knox under the bus during the interrogation is never addressed by Knoxy's PR? This is where the trouble started for the couple, not with Knox's accusation of Patrick Lumumba.

Neither is the Matteini hearing. Here is a summary of what Sollecito said :)
Quote:
I'm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

I do not remember if Amanda went out that evening.

I do not remember if she went out.

I do not remember exactly if that Thursday night she went out

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/M ... English%29


Slowly but surely Knox supporters are starting to understand ...

Quote:
Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
by freeski » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:36 pm

B_Real wrote:


A disaster as usual.

You would think after 7 years that Raffale would realise that the topic is Rudy Guede, and if he isn't the topic, make him the topic.

But instead, he's talking about Amanda.

In all honesty, all either of them do is cause yet more problems with their nuanced, ambiguous statements.


Correct. Their rebuttals and PR is all over the place. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I think they're still somehow trusting that innocence will make it OK in the end. It won't. After the SC finalises the verdict Raffaele will go to prison and Amanda's extradition will be sought. Raffaele will come under huge pressure to turn against her.

They've got to get organised. They have 3 battles to fight:
- Amanda's extradition
- Challenges at the ECHR
- Public opinion and the media

The first two are not yet in play but the groundwork has to be done now and public perception is really important. The message in the media has to be clear and concise. On the back of the second appeal finding them guilty there is a serious campaign out there continuing to reinforce the narrative against them. They must counter that.

The Kerchers want to know what happened? Tell them, show them. Make a reconstruction video that shows it. And plaster it all over the place. Start to attack the Italian system. They've got to go on the offensive, raise doubts about the legitimacy of the system that screwed them. Engage with some sympathetic documentary makers. Present a reconstruction of the illegal interrogation and everything that happened the night of Nov 5/6.. Show the bullying, the threats, the violence, the exhaustion. Show Lumumba's capture and interrogation. All this can be backed up with evidence such as Lumumba's DaIly Mail interview. There's a calunnia charge signed by 12 police, so they can all be in the video. Show Giobbi in a separate room hearing the screams. These people have given them all the ammunition themselves. It can be cut to be very convincing. Hammer Guede. Do a documentary on him, his history, the break-in, the murder.

I feel like I'm starting to story board the screenplay. These are just some ideas. They've somehow got to change the message. Because currently they are losing the war.

Sitting in interviews miserably complaining about how it's all a mistake and so unfair is a guaranteed way to end up in prison.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.


On Bruce Fischer's forum they are now also discussing how to respond to popular talking points and new PR strategies.

Panic has set in.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
For completeness since I was curious what Filomena actually said about that knife. This is basically what she said:
- There were many knives in the cottage. Knives for daily use, and knives that they did not use were put aside.
- Does not recognize the knife.
- Is sure it is not one of the knives that they used daily.
- Can't exclude it is one of the knives that they didn't use.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/F ... _Testimony

What about the "set of kitchen knives" that strangely, Knox reported having brought all the way from Germany. Why? When backpacking do people carry a set of kitchen knives around?

Yes, that is rather strange. There was some time that morning to buy a replacement knife. RS is dumb enough to buy a whole set. It sure is an interesting speculation to think the kitchen knife was from the cottage, but it will remain speculation I am afraid since neither Laura nor Filomena recognized it. I do feel a few things fit better in place if indeed the knife was from the cottage. Interesting.


Well, didn't she go from Germany to Italy? I guess she could have shipped them to US from Germany but might have needed at new place.

Can't really go out after a knife murder buying knives... especially if the one used to kill was on the landlord's inventory out of 2.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


Strong possibility that Knox doesn't even write her own blog. Someone brought up an interesting theory on TJMK that it's Bruce Fischer, and, I do agree, the style of writing is similar to the poster "Bruce Fischer" on IIP. All Knox has to do is identify the source of the deposit, and where it was made, since she would know. Appreciate the statement, but this ain't full transparency, and answers nothing. Therefore, the blog is not written by Knox. Her video shows she's somewhere in lala land, probably medicated, and the language of her blog is too PR speak and stilted, not the opium dreams disjointedness we've seen in her real writing :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I agree E. Didn't take long for them to get that up did it? We only been discussing it a couple of days ;)


Something smells fischy about it indeed. No way she writes that blog.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Her laughter on the video is nervous, IMO. We all have nerve reactions when we're stressed, hers is that. The emotion I get from her facial tics and general appearance is not disdain, but paralyzing fear. She's backed into a corner, knows she has no options and her friends can't help her.

She may not know this now, but prison will be a relief, better than living like this. And while I always hope for a person's redemption, she does need to reflect, and perhaps never will, due to her mental illness.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Looked and acted happy when she was in there IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The laughter is gone in part 2 when she talks about herself in prison.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

When you see her crazed followers on her blog and Twitter, certainly nice quiet talks with Father Saulo (?) would be a welcome relief, dgfred. The photos of them at Vashon Island? They were swept up in this mania, and the psychic stress of being in the center of this can be very exhausting, sorry.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

She certainly is scared of going back, max, but then, that's because she was surrounded by people who convinced her she was invincible. Nope. Karma catches up to us all in the end.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Her laughter on the video is nervous, IMO. We all have nerve reactions when we're stressed, hers is that. The emotion I get from her facial tics and general appearance is not disdain, but paralyzing fear. She's backed into a corner, knows she has no options and her friends can't help her.

She may not know this now, but prison will be a relief, better than living like this. And while I always hope for a person's redemption, she does need to reflect, and perhaps never will, due to her mental illness.

If stressed I'd be looking at someone moving his eyes quickly, blinking a lot, sudden changes in the voice or generally a hastly speech. But I don't see any of that, neither am I suggesting to see disdain. Yes, her back is against the wall and she knows it. But she still thinks she can talk people out of it and she's trying her best to achieve her freedom. But even if that was a nerve reaction I would despise it, it is so inappropriate.

I always wonder how she's able to deliver a more precise picture of those two days after more than six years compared to what she had to say back in 2007.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Well, seven minutes into Part 2 and I've had enough. The laughter was still there at a few occasions and she's still very detailed in talking about herself and what a poor girl she was and still is. I guess that must be her new strategy, cry until people will start to feel bad for her. But no chance on my part, I can't watch this any longer. I'm really getting sick of her.

One thing about this murder is, you could say she was trying to erase Meredith Kercher and I think it's sad to say but she achieved that. This case isn't about Meredith Kercher being murdered, it's about Amanda Knox being charged with murder, Amanda Knox fighting injustice, Amanda Knox and her suffering in prison, everything is about her. Even Raffaele Sollecito is meant to be collateral damage of hers and Rudy Guede was probably fooled by her.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What is apparent to me is the way she tries to manipulate and throw mud at others to show herself on a better light. If anyone including supporters needs to see proof of this just listen to her description of the get together with the girls. Only Amanda is upset and worried here. With her account the other's are saying don't worry about it the police will figure it out...FIlomena is only thinking about her computer. You would have to be a complete fool or infatuated with Amanda to buy that crap. A complete re write of Amanda's actual behaviour where she worried about her paid rent or wanted to shop with mom or made out with RS at the Questura. She reinvented herself as the second tidiest which is amusing guess she got her room in order for the reveal . Finally she used her mom and the distress Edda felt to brag about the fact she didn't need drugs in prison to cope. A lack of conscience was her strength.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Strong possibility that Knox doesn't even write her own blog. Someone brought up an interesting theory on TJMK that it's Bruce Fischer, and, I do agree, the style of writing is similar to the poster "Bruce Fischer" on IIP. All Knox has to do is identify the source of the deposit, and where it was made, since she would know. Appreciate the statement, but this ain't full transparency, and answers nothing. Therefore, the blog is not written by Knox. Her video shows she's somewhere in lala land, probably medicated, and the language of her blog is too PR speak and stilted, not the opium dreams disjointedness we've seen in her real writing :)


I do not think that she will be allowed to write her own blog herself- that is exposing her to too much of danger- she may even tell the truth!

Normally someone from the PR, a trusted man, who is not expected to know what others are not expected to know, will be asked to write in her name. Yes, I too agree that the disjointedness is a key feature in her writings (perhaps she is scared that she may veer too close to the truth) but I have not read her blog.

If people can write books on somebody else's behalf, what is so holy about a blog?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

CNN Amanda Knox's ex: Her decisions were odd
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_t1
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Her laughter on the video is nervous, IMO. We all have nerve reactions when we're stressed, hers is that. The emotion I get from her facial tics and general appearance is not disdain, but paralyzing fear. She's backed into a corner, knows she has no options and her friends can't help her.

She may not know this now, but prison will be a relief, better than living like this. And while I always hope for a person's redemption, she does need to reflect, and perhaps never will, due to her mental illness.

If stressed I'd be looking at someone moving his eyes quickly, blinking a lot, sudden changes in the voice or generally a hastly speech. But I don't see any of that, neither am I suggesting to see disdain. Yes, her back is against the wall and she knows it. But she still thinks she can talk people out of it and she's trying her best to achieve her freedom. But even if that was a nerve reaction I would despise it, it is so inappropriate.

I always wonder how she's able to deliver a more precise picture of those two days after more than six years compared to what she had to say back in 2007.


The lack of eye contact, looking away is key; IMO her strongest motivation is to keep her secret, v. guarded, but yes, I agree she IS delusional. She really doesn't see herself as others see her, which is why I often bring up Robbie Burns. His "Ode to a louse" isn't about some 'wee, blasted creature', it's about PEOPLE.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

RS has 'nice' defenders .... NOT.

Feltri defends Sollecito with no brakes : "He wanted to sc ... [f***] Meredith? She wasn't even that great"

Vittorio Feltri, a guest on Linea Gialla defends Raffaele Sollecito and insults the memory of Meredith Kercher.

"Why would Raffaele want to kill her?" This is the question that the former director of Libero and Il Giornale, Vittorio Feltri, asked, while he was a guest on last night's episode of "Linea Gialla", the program hosted by Salvo Sottile on LA7. In the studio was also present Raffaele Sollecito, the young man convicted along with his former girlfriend - Amanda Knox - for the murder of the young British student Meredith Kercher. And it was to him that Feltri had addressed his question, with tones offensive to the victim: "You wanted to f*** [scopare] her?" Asked the reporter in fact. " She was not even a great girl ."

Words that were perceived as a slap to the memory of Mez; not buying it, Feltri went on, taking up the defense of Sollecito : "You staying in Santo Domingo instead of returning to Italy that is crap ", he added . "I do not appreciate the fact that he came back, because in Italy if they want to fuck you, they fuck you. When in doubt, better remove the balls. "


ARTICOLO TRE
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito, wearing red, on Linea Gialla:

Attachment:
Sollecito on Linea Gialla 25 Feb 2014.jpg


Innocentisti against colpevolisti: a great classic. You put them in front of a camera et voilà, the Meredith process is redone on TV.

The LA7 programme has investigated the dynamics of the crime, comparing views of the criminologist Roberta Bruzzone and journalist Vittorio Feltri.

The latter, in particular, has come to the defense of Sollecito, arguing that there is no evidence to be able to definitively convict him. On the contrary, Roberta Bruzzone has spurred the young man, highlighting a number of elements which demonstrate his guilt. As in a court of law, the alleged murderer explains his reasons, while the memory of Meredith is pushed into the background. In the heat of the debate of (tele) judiciary, Feltri also let go of a colorful provocation. Referring to Sollecito, the reporter suddenly asked:

"I do not understand why he would have had to kill this one here (Meredith, ndr). You wanted to sc* [screw, f*] her? I want to understand. It makes no sense to prosecute this young man for a crime that no one understands ... Just because he had to do it? He was close to graduating, he was looking forward to defending his thesis, had a beautiful girlfriend and goes sc* this one that was not even that great, if we want to say ... "

In his own words of the irreverent style of Feltri, which, however, were somewhat stronger in the context of that discussion , because they refer to a girl who was raped and brutally killed . "We avoid making esthetic references to a dead girl killed ," said Roberta Bruzzone opportunely in this regard.


DAVIDE MAGGIO BLOG

Last night's episode of Linea Gialla (VIDEO) is here:

TUTTA CRONACA


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

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I wonder who runs this page, but I would assume it is linked to AK's blog.

Attachment:
AmandaKnox.png


https://www.facebook.com/AmandaKnoxDefense

Coincidence that they changed the name of the page from "Amanda Knox Defense" to "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito Defense" now?


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

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Feltri's words cause outrage in the Italian blogosphere: lots of criticism of his insensitive remarks and irreverent behavior. The champion of filth spreads his filth on TV, and Sollecito nods in agreement. Like attracts like I guess.

'Littorio' Feltri OR Indignity.
By Lucio Galluzzi

It all begins with a question of Sottile to Sollecito, if he liked Amanda.

And he answers : "She is a girl who lives immersed in a fairy tale, she also manages to be moved by the chirping of a bird."

And here Sottile and Feltri start laughing, like children in elementary school cannot resist the word "bird", they laugh, they cannot contain themselves; well Sollecito is amused.

Then Feltri becomes all purple in the face, begins to scream, we note that the upper denture becomes loose , he puts up his hand to hide and catch it: "How is it possible that this guy is sentenced to 25 years on the basis of a series of slanders? Shameful that the judiciary functions as it does. Terror of judges. We don't talk about it, but we realize, what the heck? There is not a shred of evidence and they convict him?"

Raffaele is satisfied, happy smiles.

There is agreement between the two.

Even between Sottile and Sollecito there's an understanding of friendship, he is intimate with him.

Still Feltri: " But this [Sollecito , author's note] is a nice guy, he had everything, he was happy at the time, and Meredith, let's be clear ... if he wanted he could have had [her] as wanted ... because that girl was not so hard [to get] ... then it seems to me ... no? "

No one stops him, only Bruzzone looks at him shocked.

Vittorio continues: " A nice guy ... so that was why he had to kill someone like that? Whatever we think, she was not that great ... you see it there in the picture ..."

Here he is, Vittorio Feltri, he is shocked that a "slander" can ruin a guy [like Sollecito], handsome, moreover, accused of murdering an easy and, well, ugly girl, according to him.

Feltri uses the same method of a baffoon, which he used for slandering in the press the former director of Avvenire, with fake police docs, accusing him of homosexuality and stalking a married man, who resigned out of 'shame'.

It's the same Feltri who slandered Di Pietro, again in the press, then tried to rectify things with an apology.

Suspended from the profession for methods offensive to professional conduct.

From that pulpit falls a lesson about slander against Sollecito!

Meredith, a battered victim, becomes an object of ridicule of a filthy wretch, she is guilty of being ugly, easy, different from the nice guy that could have had everyone ... and you know then that 'the beautiful [people]do not hurt [others]'.

Too bad that Mr. Feltri is truly a horror on the outside, but especially inside.

You don't even get the posthumous apology after such deep insults to the memory of a murdered girl, neither from him, nor from the host of the programme.


LUCIO GALLUZZI BLOG
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


I have to go out..but just want to mention something. WHO scribbledon the Bank Statement? AND..the person can't spell * UNDERWEAR*.... eee-)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Why do they continue to try to say Meredith surprised RG while he was on the toilet if they guy obviously took the time to wipe? Really?
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 Feb 26, 2014 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


Strong possibility that Knox doesn't even write her own blog. Someone brought up an interesting theory on TJMK that it's Bruce Fischer, and, I do agree, the style of writing is similar to the poster "Bruce Fischer" on IIP. All Knox has to do is identify the source of the deposit, and where it was made, since she would know. Appreciate the statement, but this ain't full transparency, and answers nothing. Therefore, the blog is not written by Knox. Her video shows she's somewhere in lala land, probably medicated, and the language of her blog is too PR speak and stilted, not the opium dreams disjointedness we've seen in her real writing :)



Knox writes her own blog. Haven't you gotten to know the nature of the woman yet? She's a control freak. And she comes from a family of control freaks, not a single one of them can leave their hired experts to just get on with it, they've all always had to interfere to be in control...Curt and his Marriott, the Mellas' and their FOA and online smear campaign. Knox was RAISED this way. Her blog is one of the means through which she can exert control and she believes in the "power of her voice". Do you honestly believe she's going to hand over control to someone else, especially the likes of Fischer? Not...a...chance...in...Hell. To imagine she allows someone else to write her posts for her is to not know Knox.

_________________
"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 tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


Strong possibility that Knox doesn't even write her own blog. Someone brought up an interesting theory on TJMK that it's Bruce Fischer, and, I do agree, the style of writing is similar to the poster "Bruce Fischer" on IIP. All Knox has to do is identify the source of the deposit, and where it was made, since she would know. Appreciate the statement, but this ain't full transparency, and answers nothing. Therefore, the blog is not written by Knox. Her video shows she's somewhere in lala land, probably medicated, and the language of her blog is too PR speak and stilted, not the opium dreams disjointedness we've seen in her real writing :)


Good points Ergon. I suspect the accts of some supporters are used by the core nasties. I consider Knox to be too upset (and medicated) to write in her defense. She certainly has that affect. Personal opinion, but I think many FOA are medicating..saying stupid, over emotional crap, further damaging Amanda. pp-(

Nell...some friends around my country have recently commented how the tide is turning. No putting this genie back into the bottle! I always felt confident FOA would turn inside out. I do sense growing panic over there. It is important to note THEY did this to Amanda. All we did was counter lies and forward court evidence. Have a great day
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

chami wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Strong possibility that Knox doesn't even write her own blog. Someone brought up an interesting theory on TJMK that it's Bruce Fischer, and, I do agree, the style of writing is similar to the poster "Bruce Fischer" on IIP. All Knox has to do is identify the source of the deposit, and where it was made, since she would know. Appreciate the statement, but this ain't full transparency, and answers nothing. Therefore, the blog is not written by Knox. Her video shows she's somewhere in lala land, probably medicated, and the language of her blog is too PR speak and stilted, not the opium dreams disjointedness we've seen in her real writing :)


I do not think that she will be allowed to write her own blog herself- that is exposing her to too much of danger- she may even tell the truth!

Normally someone from the PR, a trusted man, who is not expected to know what others are not expected to know, will be asked to write in her name. Yes, I too agree that the disjointedness is a key feature in her writings (perhaps she is scared that she may veer too close to the truth) but I have not read her blog.

If people can write books on somebody else's behalf, what is so holy about a blog?



What, truths like admitting to faking a burglary as a prank back in Seattle? No PR sock appointed to write on her behalf would have admitted and written that, that's pure Knox.

_________________
"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: 4885

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
I wonder who runs this page, but I would assume it is linked to AK's blog.
...
Coincidence that they changed the name of the page from "Amanda Knox Defense" to "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito Defense" now?


Thanks Stefan, good catch. Knox is desperate to keep Sollecito happy and "on board" her PR supertanker. Knox & Sollecito's long-distance alliance is showing huge cracks. Her biggest fear is that he may turn against her and tell about the role she played in the murder of Meredith, as soon as he is back behind bars (or maybe even before that.) Nobody would give credence to a person like Rudy Guede, but everybody would listen to what a 'nice', white guy like Sollecito has to say. At least, that's what she thinks. So she is doing everything she can to present a united front. Re-naming the FB page can also be seen as a reaction to John Q. Kelly's comment, cited in a CNN article:

Quote:
Sollecito's apparent distancing from Knox echoes the position of his lawyer, John Kelly.

"It's imperative that the Italian courts consider Raffaele's case separate from Amanda's case," he said. "By necessity, he has to distance himself and his case from Amanda and her case."


CNN
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


Strong possibility that Knox doesn't even write her own blog. Someone brought up an interesting theory on TJMK that it's Bruce Fischer, and, I do agree, the style of writing is similar to the poster "Bruce Fischer" on IIP. All Knox has to do is identify the source of the deposit, and where it was made, since she would know. Appreciate the statement, but this ain't full transparency, and answers nothing. Therefore, the blog is not written by Knox. Her video shows she's somewhere in lala land, probably medicated, and the language of her blog is too PR speak and stilted, not the opium dreams disjointedness we've seen in her real writing :)



Knox writes her own blog. Haven't you gotten to know the nature of the woman yet? She's a control freak. And she comes from a family of control freaks, not a single one of them can leave their hired experts to just get on with it, they've all always had to interfere to be in control...Curt and his Marriott, the Mellas' and their FOA and online smear campaign. Knox was RAISED this way. Her blog is one of the means through which she can exert control and she believes in the "power of her voice". Do you honestly believe she's going to hand over control to someone else, especially the likes of Fischer? Not...a...chance...in...Hell. To imagine she allows someone else to write her posts for her is to not know Knox.


The only person who has dared to criticise Amanda Knox in the family has been Chris Mellas and he is the one I would suspect to "help" her with the blog. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

Bruce Fischer has a different writing style that is easy to spot. He is incapable of writing a short blog post. His articles are usually well over 1,000 words and redundant.

In my opinion the blog content is 100% Amanda Knox, probably advised by her family and a selection of close supporters.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

tamale wrote:
--- snip ---

Nell...some friends around my country have recently commented how the tide is turning. No putting this genie back into the bottle! I always felt confident FOA would turn inside out. I do sense growing panic over there. It is important to note THEY did this to Amanda. All we did was counter lies and forward court evidence. Have a great day

--- snap ---


Amanda Knox's decision to give so many interviews had the exact opposite effect of what she hoped for. The family has always said we should get to know the real Amanda, but instead of convincing us how sweet and kind she is, she only made us see how cruel she can be.

What a coincidence that her supporters accuse everyone who believes the evidence to be sound to be a hater. If you want to see real hate, you listen to Amanda Knox when she talks or writes about Meredith's British friends, Filomena and Laura or Monica Napoleoni and Rita Ficarra.

Her blog and interviews are very revealing. Amanda Knox confirms trial watchers worst fears. The result of Knox's anger can be observed in the autopsy photos taken of poor Meredith Kercher who had the misfortune to live in the same house with her.

I agree with you Tamale that her supporters made matters worse for Knox. They made her believe she could get away with murder because some of these old fools felt she was to pretty to rot away in prison. Big mistake.

I wish you a great day too! :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito, getting ready for his TV appearance with a help of a make up artist:

Attachment:
RS backstage before the show.jpg

LA REPUBBLICA

I have to say he is incredibly vane. It's obvious that he, just like Knox, enjoys all the media attention and his fame and notoriety. Moreover, both are addicted to it now.

In his Nov 6 statement to the Florence court Sollecito bitterly complained about media intrusion into his private life, which he said was being scrutinized at every step [apparently, he was looking for a bit of quiet and tranquility in Santo Domingo], and what is he doing now, spending all of his free time appearing incessantly on TV? A private person would just shut up and disappear from view or into the background.

He always has a kind of self-satisfied little smile on his face when he speaks with talk show hosts and reporters. One may think he is modest and shy, but he seems to be secretly pleased with all the attention he is getting from media people. Here is just one example of many:

Attachment:
RS pleased with media attention.JPG


RAFFAELE SOLLECITO A ROMA


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 Feb 27, 2014 12:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Stefan wrote:
I wonder who runs this page, but I would assume it is linked to AK's blog.
...
Coincidence that they changed the name of the page from "Amanda Knox Defense" to "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito Defense" now?


Thanks Stefan, good catch. Knox is desperate to keep Sollecito happy and "on board" her PR supertanker. Knox & Sollecito's long-distance alliance is showing huge cracks. Her biggest fear is that he may turn against her and tell about the role she played in the murder of Meredith, as soon as he is back behind bars (or maybe even before that.) Nobody would give credence to a person like Rudy Guede, but everybody would listen to what a white, 'nice' guy like Sollecito has to say. At least, that's what she thinks. So she is doing everything she can to present a united front. Re-naming the FB page can also be seen as a reaction to John Q. Kelly's comment, cited in a CNN article:

Quote:
Sollecito's apparent distancing from Knox echoes the position of his lawyer, John Kelly.

"It's imperative that the Italian courts consider Raffaele's case separate from Amanda's case," he said. "By necessity, he has to distance himself and his case from Amanda and her case."


CNN


Too little, too late.

A few things have happened since Amanda Knox was released from prison:

Legal experts, not part of her PR team, have spoken out and said that the case against her was not weak as her family and PR firm always have claimed. The evidence wasn't inexistent and she would have been convicted on even less evidence in the U.S. Legal analysts have also pointed out that it is not a sure thing, as suggested by Edda Mellas some time ago, that a future extradition request would be refused.

I believe it is that what makes Amanda Knox feel uncomfortable. As long as only her family was allowed to speak, everything was fine. Maybe she even managed to lull herself in a false sense of security regarding her future.

Amanda Knox split from Sollecito the moment they were released from prison. He is not American. He cannot hide from his conviction. She has provoked that this situation has sparked considerable interest among legal experts how this will play out. It was predictable.

What Amanda Knox apparently did not see coming is that no one has to rely on her lies about "her growing support" anymore. Her interviews have put people off and surveys show that many if not most want to see her extradited and banned from television screens. She is not in control anymore.

I don't think she is managing well under these circumstances. Even her fiercest supporters over at IIP are publicly telling her to shut up and characterise her performances as "making matters worse".

Legal analysts have agreed that if she has substantial support from the public she might have a chance to have her extradition request refused. 2,500 signatures is not "substantial support". The "ever growing support" for Amanda Knox is just another of the many lies Edda Mellas told the public. Only a few lunatics and family trying to protect a murderer who deserves to be in prison for what she has done to Meredith Kercher.

Panic has set in and soon Knox will be hit by the reality that her escape from Italy was a very expensive and futile exercise. She has gained nothing.

I think she has done more damage to her family with her ill-advised interviews than any Italian courtroom could have done.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


I have to go out..but just want to mention something. WHO scribbledon the Bank Statement? AND..the person can't spell * UNDERWEAR*.... eee-)


My guess is that either Chris Mellas or Jim Lovering made the notes on the statement.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Just wanted to add: Knox also took the unprecedented step of linking to two of Sollecito's recent interviews on her blog (look it up under > Interviews) - the ones on L'Incontro and Domenica Live. Considering that it's HER blog, I find it a bit surprising. It just shows (again) how desperate she is in her attempts to keep Sollecito in line.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

To get an idea about how long the SC can take. Raniero Busco acquittal confirmed by the SC. The acquittal on appeal was in April 2012.
http://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/ ... -79729116/
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito Sr. is also an 'expert' in another murder case.
Quote:
Talk to the father of Raffaele Sollecito: "Happy for the acquittal of Busco, there is still some judge with a sense of justice"

http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cronaca ... -anm.shtml
Top Profile 

Offline Aranavachi


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slightly off topic - but in case this is of interest. I emailed the BBC before the documentary and I wasnt expected anything beyond the automated reply. Today I got this

Dear Ms. xxx

Thank you for your email to the BBC Trust. I am responding as a member of the Trust Unit which supports the Chairman and the Trustees.

I shall be sure to pass on your comments to BBC Audience Services so that they are aware of your views and can include them in the Audience Log which is circulated to managers and programme makers across the Corporation.

Thank you again for contacting the Trust and I hope that you continue to enjoy the services provided by the BBC.

Kind regards

Tom Osborne
Correspondence Assistant
BBC Trust
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox has published her bank statements on her blog. A user named @GuilterWatchin tweeted a link to her bank statements. He is suspected by many to be Chris Mellas.


EDIT: The statements don't add anything new. It shows said deposit of $562 but does not give any hints who deposited it. Knox's family stated "deposit from local work?" which is impossible.


I have to go out..but just want to mention something. WHO scribbledon the Bank Statement? AND..the person can't spell * UNDERWEAR*.... eee-)


pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
To get an idea about how long the SC can take. Raniero Busco acquittal confirmed by the SC. The acquittal on appeal was in April 2012.
http://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/ ... -79729116/


I expect a speedy resolution: Jan 2015.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I've been exchanging words with TV producer/ex-FBI criminal profiler @JimClemente, of CBS's "Criminal Minds" about how little he knows about Amanda Knox case on Twitter. Here's his interview @ 17:18 of the video.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

He also is a friend of John Douglas and may have met the Moores through him, so we know what influences he brings to the table.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
chami wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Strong possibility that Knox doesn't even write her own blog. Someone brought up an interesting theory on TJMK that it's Bruce Fischer, and, I do agree, the style of writing is similar to the poster "Bruce Fischer" on IIP. All Knox has to do is identify the source of the deposit, and where it was made, since she would know. Appreciate the statement, but this ain't full transparency, and answers nothing. Therefore, the blog is not written by Knox. Her video shows she's somewhere in lala land, probably medicated, and the language of her blog is too PR speak and stilted, not the opium dreams disjointedness we've seen in her real writing :)


I do not think that she will be allowed to write her own blog herself- that is exposing her to too much of danger- she may even tell the truth!

Normally someone from the PR, a trusted man, who is not expected to know what others are not expected to know, will be asked to write in her name. Yes, I too agree that the disjointedness is a key feature in her writings (perhaps she is scared that she may veer too close to the truth) but I have not read her blog.

If people can write books on somebody else's behalf, what is so holy about a blog?



What, truths like admitting to faking a burglary as a prank back in Seattle? No PR sock appointed to write on her behalf would have admitted and written that, that's pure Knox.


You are right.

Another question: I believe that the transactions mentioned in the bank statement that are preceded by a '*' are interbank transfers. She has to approach a local bank with a request to transfer some cash to her account in the US. All direct deposits to her account in cash appear in round figures. I do not think there is any direct way to deposit cash to an US account from Europe. Please comment.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Having looked at the full 6 page transaction summary, I see a number of "customer deposits" made every month, all with the * prefix. As McCall says, they seem to all have been made from the US, I don't see them as deposits made while she was abroad either. Also, if you look at the 9/4/2007 customer deposit of $563.00 remarkably close to the 11/5/2007 of $562.00, then I believe he's right, especially when you see "Grandma" making a (larger) customer deposit 10/4/2007.

Still, a fascinating look at Amanda's finances and records going back to June 2007 so I will thank her 'person', whoever he or she may be, for releasing that.

Notes: - The XFR/OLB notations relate to transfers between savings and checking accounts, probably made through the internet.
- The statement is dated 9/8/2008, while Amanda was in prison, so it's probably a family member making those notations, trying to figure out the
transactions. Mellas, why not?
- She withdrew 250 Euros to pay rent?

I still believe Knox stole Meredith's cash, then used it to pay Rudy (the 300 Euros he offered Kokomani)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Feltri's words cause outrage in the Italian blogosphere: lots of criticism of his insensitive remarks and irreverent behavior. The champion of filth spreads his filth on TV, and Sollecito nods in agreement. Like attracts like I guess.

Feltri's lecture OR Indignity.
By Lucio Galluzzi

It all begins with a question of Sottile to Sollecito, if he liked Amanda.

And he answers : "She is a girl who lives immersed in a fairy tale, she also manages to be moved by the chirping of a bird."

And here Sottile and Feltri start laughing, like children in elementary school cannot resist the word "bird", they laugh, they cannot contain themselves; well Sollecito is amused.

Then Feltri becomes all purple in the face, begins to scream, we note that the upper denture becomes loose , he brings his hand to hide and catch it: "How is it possible that this guy is sentenced to 25 years on the basis of a series of slanders? Shameful that the judiciary functions as it does. Terror of judges. We don't talk about it, but we realize what the heck? There is not a shred of evidence and they convict him? "

Raffaele is satisfied, happy smiles.

There is agreement between the two.

Even between Sottile and Sollecito there's an understanding of friendship, he is intimate with him.

Still Feltri : " But this [Sollecito , author's note] is a nice guy , he had everything , he was happy at the time, and Meredith , let's be clear ... if he wanted he could have had [her] as wanted ... because that girl was not so hard [to please] ... then it seems to me ... no? "

No one stops him, only Bruzzone looks at him shocked.

Vittorio continues : " A nice guy ... so that was why he had to kill someone like that? Whatever we think, she was not that great ... you see there in the picture ..."

Here he is, Vittorio Feltri, he is shocked that a "slander" can ruin a guy [like Sollecito], handsome , moreover , accused of murdering an easy and, well, ugly girl, according to him.

Feltri uses the same method of a baffoon, which he used for slandering in the press the former director of Avvenire, with fake showgirls, accusing him of homosexuality and stalking a married man, who resigned out of 'shame'.

It's the same Feltri who slandered Di Pietro , always in the press , then rectified with an apology.

Suspended from the profession for methods offensive to professional conduct.

From that pulpit falls a lesson about slander against Sollecito!

Meredith, a battered victim, becomes an object of ridicule of a filthy wretch, she is guilty of being ugly, easy, other than the nice guy that could have had everyone ... and you know then that 'the beautiful do not hurt'.

Too bad that Mr. Feltri is truly a horror on the outside, but especially inside.

You don't even get the posthumous apology after such deep insults to the memory of a murdered girl , neither from him , nor from the host of the programme.


LUCIO GALLUZZI BLOG


Yes, some people are donkeys. Donkeys with flying false teeth.. thanks for that image.
I heard his show was pulled because of big worldwide outrage. Donkeys should not have talk shows.. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
max wrote:
Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
24 February 2014
Distancing himself from Knox? (VIDEO)
Amanda Knox's former boyfriend causes stir with interview

TODAY

Why did Foxy take a shower? Raffaele Sollecito admits he DOES have questions about Amanda Knox's behavior after Meredith murder

In an interview that aired on Italian television, Sollecito said that Knox left his house the morning before Kercher's body was found and when she returned hours later, she seemed 'very agitated'. She said her front door had been broken into and that she had found spots of blood in the bathroom.

'Certainly I asked her questions,' Sollecito said in the interview, which aired in part on the Today show on Monday. 'Why did you take a shower? Why did she spent so much time there?'


DAILY MAIL


They both seem to maintain they are not separating their defences, but even not so bright Sollecito must understand that his remarks are not flattering or helpful. So why say anything?

Interesting quote from the article: "She said he told her: 'I don’t want to be punished for, nor have to continue to justify, those things that regard you and not me."

He blames her, she blames him. I wonder how long they are going to keep up the charade.

Does it surprise anyone else why the fact that Sollecito threw Knox under the bus during the interrogation is never addressed by Knoxy's PR? This is where the trouble started for the couple, not with Knox's accusation of Patrick Lumumba.

Neither is the Matteini hearing. Here is a summary of what Sollecito said :)
Quote:
I'm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

I do not remember if Amanda went out that evening.

I do not remember if she went out.

I do not remember exactly if that Thursday night she went out

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/M ... English%29


Slowly but surely Knox supporters are starting to understand ...

Quote:
Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
by freeski » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:36 pm

B_Real wrote:


A disaster as usual.

You would think after 7 years that Raffale would realise that the topic is Rudy Guede, and if he isn't the topic, make him the topic.

But instead, he's talking about Amanda.

In all honesty, all either of them do is cause yet more problems with their nuanced, ambiguous statements.


Correct. Their rebuttals and PR is all over the place. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I think they're still somehow trusting that innocence will make it OK in the end. It won't. After the SC finalises the verdict Raffaele will go to prison and Amanda's extradition will be sought. Raffaele will come under huge pressure to turn against her.

They've got to get organised. They have 3 battles to fight:
- Amanda's extradition
- Challenges at the ECHR
- Public opinion and the media

The first two are not yet in play but the groundwork has to be done now and public perception is really important. The message in the media has to be clear and concise. On the back of the second appeal finding them guilty there is a serious campaign out there continuing to reinforce the narrative against them. They must counter that.

The Kerchers want to know what happened? Tell them, show them. Make a reconstruction video that shows it. And plaster it all over the place. Start to attack the Italian system. They've got to go on the offensive, raise doubts about the legitimacy of the system that screwed them. Engage with some sympathetic documentary makers. Present a reconstruction of the illegal interrogation and everything that happened the night of Nov 5/6.. Show the bullying, the threats, the violence, the exhaustion. Show Lumumba's capture and interrogation. All this can be backed up with evidence such as Lumumba's DaIly Mail interview. There's a calunnia charge signed by 12 police, so they can all be in the video. Show Giobbi in a separate room hearing the screams. These people have given them all the ammunition themselves. It can be cut to be very convincing. Hammer Guede. Do a documentary on him, his history, the break-in, the murder.

I feel like I'm starting to story board the screenplay. These are just some ideas. They've somehow got to change the message. Because currently they are losing the war.

Sitting in interviews miserably complaining about how it's all a mistake and so unfair is a guaranteed way to end up in prison.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.


On Bruce Fischer's forum they are now also discussing how to respond to popular talking points and new PR strategies.

Panic has set in.


I agree totally with your last statement. 4Meredith pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yummi wrote:
Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Sollecito: "I've never owned a Ferrari"

After the photo appeared in a weekly newspaper, the young man responds: "I got [the car] - he said - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program."

Raffaele Sollecito denies having a Ferrari: "I have not and I've never had a Ferrari." The young man reacts so after the publication of some images in News 2000 that portray him as he climbs out of a car of the Maranello brand. Sollecito says that the car instead belongs to an acquaintance of his. "I used it - explains Sollecito - just to get to the television studios and participate in a program. I used that Ferrari to cover (traverse) a few meters." Through his lawyers, Sollecito announces that he is considering possible legal action to protect his image.


LA NAZIONE

From what I understand, no one has ever claimed that the luxurious car belongs to Sollecito. A simple observation was made that he was being driven around in a Ferrari, despite having been convicted for murder by a court. So, as usual, he's real good at twisting the truth and misunderstanding the words of others.

Here's is one of the headlines:
La Bella Vita of Raffaele Sollecito After The Sentence: Guest of Barbara D'Urso on TV, arrives in a Ferrari with Greta -->> VIDEO WEBGOSSIP


The point at issue is that Raffaele Sollecito likes a flamboyant life style despite not having the income to be able to afford it.

He has travelled to the U.S., Europe and the Dominican Republic while complaining not to have enough funds to pay his lawyers. That doesn't make sense. One is left wondering what his priorities are. He has also asked for donations to support his legal defence. The money has probably been used to fund his lifestyle rather than legal costs.

Accepting to drive your friend's car does not make sense to me if you can use your own. It only complicates matters. If he needed to borrow a car, it would have been a better idea to choose a more modest car as it was predictable he would make headlines driving around in a Ferrari. He does not know or does not want to keep a low profile.

In my opinion, Sollecito is a complete idiot. Claiming to be poor and asking other people for their hard earned money while jetting around the globe and driving a Ferrari. Then lashing out when people point out the obvious. There is a lack of humbleness and common sense.


I am told Claudio Pratillo Hellmann owns five or six Ferraris (possible has some of them in his villa in Cortina).
Maybe he lent him one of his.



Yes Yummi,

You will have noticed the phenomenon popular in the USA, of judges and sucklike (sic) (maybe not so wrong but appropriately wrong in the right way) suchlike acting like celebrities, I think that is a wrong thing/way for them to be. I know the same happens in other countries, those who earn truckloads of dough sometimes need to have ways to spend it, maybe they have no kids, so they get weird hobbies, I say weird but those swimming in dough (while more than three quarters of the world starves or is subject to abject poverty, kids working night and day to make the clothes sold in stores in New York, Paris and London) seem to pick up the habit of buying shed-loads of cars unaffordable to anyone else.

So what does it mean, this pimping killer with a slimy tongue who plays dead, like a fly on its back with four furry haired paws stuck straight up into the air, crying me, I am so a victim, I am even Knox's victim, look I am Mr Honor, do you recall, my book, yes, that's what I called it, "I've studied that book very well don't you know," said Mr Sollecito, "I have because I want to be able to answer any possible questions," he said timidly, admitting he'd never actually read it until recently, thank you he said to his shadow writer, feigning everything one could possibly imagine as he went about wiping a tear he'd produced from half a dozen chipola he's stuffed into his sleeve (chopped).

Now anyone knows chipola are onions, and good in food, but do please take notice of them, they're at it all the time, crocodile tears, he's so sad, he's so damaged, he's such a victim this guy that seems to hump whores and now looks like he indeed has become some kind of pimp, what will his next spontaneous statement be: Yes, before I was a famous I wasn't even going to get through my pointless study, I don't know if I had started using heroin, but prison helped get me fatted up and straight, as straight as a turnip plunging liar can get.

Yes, yes, wait, I said lie, yes, yes I did lie, but only once, I did because she lied, they all lied, I am Mr Honor Bollocks.

Sollecito has had a flashback through the genes, caused obviously by being held in solitary, he thinks he is living in Pompeii. What do you do if you are found guilty of murder, you try to turn into an American, as much as blackmail young women with prenuptials that sound like death sentences, then prance about looking like you've finally got a job... yes, with the mafia!!!

I'm going off for a good cry now I feel so sorry for this honourable prick.
If you haven't donated lately I'm sure he has made a new page asking for the other 500,000 so he can have a tunnel built under the ocean all the way to a non-extraditing Caribbean place, with fat-arsed chicks galore because that's what you need when you want to make a good impression.

The guy had only ever fucked his dad and sister and now he is a playboy by courtesy of murder?

His winnings. His job. His pathetic and totally worthless excuses.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Vittorio Feltri won't be silenced. ;) He 'speaks' again, this time in print media (in Il Giornale, not sure if he's still its editor-in-chief or not?) I guess PapaDoc admired his provocative style and decided to recruit him there and then to play for the team Sollecito. Or is Fetri totally disinterested and doing this voluntarily? Somehow ... I doubt it.

28 February 2014
Even the suspects deserve respect
One acquitted after a quarter of a century, the other returns under indictment. Against them only clues.
By Vittorio Feltri


With the usual 'speed', Justice, only 24 years after the crime of Via Poma (Rome), has issued the final judgment: the Court of Cassation acquitted Raniero Busco. Widespread comment: another murder goes unpunished. People perceived - as used to the temperatures - to live in a country where someone who kills gets away with it.

It is not just a cliché: it is a falsehood. Just consult the statistics to find out that in over 70 percent of bloody events a responsible person has been identified and convicted. At least in this field, we are well on average with the European figure. Let's avoid denouncement. It means that the police, investigators and the judiciary know quite well how to perform their job. That said, it is stunning to learn that the trial of Busco , boyfriend of Simonetta Cesaroni (the victim) , has ended after a quarter of a century. It should be credited as a world record, but there’s no honor in this. It reveals that our judicial system gives no guarantee as its proponents claim. Are they really necessary, those three degrees of judgment? Of course yes, if you use it all for the accused. But even if the prosecution has the right to appeal, something is wrong . If a dude is acquitted - say - in the Assize Court , it is not clear why the prosecutor should hound him and appeal . Almost as if it were a competition between togas (judges); their spite and resentments fueled by a misguided sense of professional pride . It is true that the accused have the right to defend themselves to the last, but if a prosecutor is disavowed by fellow judges , it is not clear why he has the authority to open a second process for pure vindictiveness . But that is another matter and deserves a deeper analysis and we hope that this will happen soon in the reform of the justice system, promised by the new government of Renzi. The fact remains that, 25 years onwards from a crime, it is almost impossible to find out who had committed it, having only old expertise (or even recent, but done on ‘archaeological' artifacts) and testimonials clouded by time. An acrobatic exercise which can easily produce a quaint little monstrosity. Take Busco, given that we are talking about him: it seems to take into a civil dance a man for decades with the threat of jail? He has now been acquitted, and that's okay. But who pays for the suffering - real torture - which has been cruelly inflicted on him? Justice, should not be lenient, out of charity, but humane, yes. Non-bureaucratic. Non-fallacious.

There is another case in point of justice that makes one shudder, that of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, who were convicted, in the first instance, for the murder of Meredith Kercher; in the second degree, both were acquitted; third degree, more doubt, had been sent back to appeal and convicted again. This judgment will be tested in the Supreme Court. Danger: There is a risk that it is confirmed. Now, if we look at the process, we feel the absurdity of certain procedures that create an atmosphere of Kafka, of which we are terrified. The reasons for reflection are many. The crime of Perugia is a mess that stems from an investigation that started badly and ended worse. It happens. Especially when many people contribute to a confusion that impedes the efforts to find a logical thread in the indictment and in the defense. Raffaele and Amanda knew each other, at the time of the murder, for five days. They were under the influence of first love, notoriously overwhelming. Unlikely, that the two youngsters, so much into each other, would have committed a crime of that type. But one never knows. Necessary at least, to construct an accusatory framework, to find a motive. Where there is none, at least for Sollecito. He had a beautiful girlfriend whom he had fallen in love with, a quiet personal situation, graduation in sight, little money in his pocket. Explain why would he help to take the life of Meredith, with whom he had neither friction nor feeling.

There were no traces of Raffaele detected at the crime site. It discredits scientific expertise. I will not go into detail . Let's just remember that the experts do not agree, they contradict each other. Already. The scientists - let's call them that - are not God the Father, their opinions are not uni-vocal. Why accept one and reject another? By what criteria do you choose or reject the opinion of a technical expert? And the evidence? Is there any or not? It has been presented. Only pale clues that are not even clues, but vague elements, good for conjectures and theories. Mind you. All circumstantial and double-faced, a grim [side] and a smiling [side]. Which to select? It is inhuman to send a young man to jail for 25 years on the basis of assumptions. I don’t talk about Amanda. I do not understand why the trial positions of the two young people were united. I would add that there is no evidence against the American girl. I realize that the work of judges takes place on procedural rules and not on historical truth, but because of this they should be prudent and inspired by the need not to make things worse. There is a victim crying for justice. But it isn’t justice to bury in a cell two young people without proof of their guilt. It would mean an increase from one to three victims. Horror.

On Tuesday evening, I was on TV (Linea Gialla) and I had tried, with hateful arguments, to show that Sollecito, in this investigation, may not have stabbed Meredith, not wanting it, not knowing who she was, having no relations with her, neither good nor bad , and since he was in love with Amanda, who was much more attractive. Agree. You can kill in a kind of frenzy or a game (ended badly) . But - I repeat – only in theory. The truth must be proven, demonstrated.

As for the bestial insults I received for saying these things on TV, I don’t crumble (fall to pieces). I accept criticism from everyone, even insolent fools: I consider them in good faith. To them I am only saying that if the dead are worthy of respect, even more so are the living. To lock up in jail two young people for a murder, without knowing if they have done it or not, does not seem very respectful.


IL GIORNALE
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Francesco Maresca has commented on Feltri's insensitive remarks:

"Mez, nothing exceptional". Feltri's onslaught.

The Kercher lawyer: "I am stunned"

"I remain shocked that a journalist, I have always admired for his experience and professionalism, could have made these comments - says the lawyer Francesco Maresca, with Serena Perna, the lawyer of Meredith's family - I can not condemn those words enough, and those ways perhaps are more suited to a sports bar rather than a television broadcast. The dignity of the memory of a deceased person obviously is independent from any judgment of aesthetic and sexual nature, however, this intervention by Feltri was really out of place."


http://www.giornaledellumbria.it/article/article154702.html
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Something to lighten up your day ;)

Lena Dunham Worried TSA Was Going to "Amanda Knox" Her

"I was so scared. I was like, They're gonna Amanda Knox me. I'm gonna go away for a long time. The criminal justice system is broken in this country. They put away the good people and let the bad people go free."


E!ONLINE
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Meeting Raffaele Sollecito
By Ruth Alexander,
BBC News

The face of a convicted killer is about to appear out of the crowd, and he'll be looking for me. Waiting in the street, I am feeling a little apprehensive.

Raffaele Sollecito has agreed to meet me to be interviewed about the murder of Meredith Kercher - the murder he's convicted of, alongside his ex-girlfriend Amanda Knox and another man, Rudy Guede.


BBC NEWS MAGAZINE
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox Full Interview @UW (Pt. 3) (20:54 min!!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTmP5_bVClk

Pt.1 + Pt.2 + Pt.3 = 1-hr monologue

When will it finally end? It's almost unbearable to listen to her voice. 'Sick, twisted, vindictive, small-minded, self-pitying, angry person' - that sums it up!
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito's claim that he didn't know the girl, therefore he had no reason to murder her, is false. There are many murders where the victim is an acquaintance but the suspect and victim don't have any "relations". Sollecito had met Meredith twice. She was an acquaintance through his new Seattle Love. Furthermore, Sollecito tries to make it sound like Meredith's murder was not a gentleman's murder and only bad people commit murder, but not rich, accomplished, soon-to-be university graduate, in Love people. Therefore, he must be innocent. Murderers don't necessarily have a relationship with their victim, and being rich, intelligent, and in Love doesn't mean that he didn't commit murder.

There is a case in Nova Scotia, Canada that has some similarities. This couple is in Love. A transient couple (with aspirations of University) murdered their university student roommate of a few weeks and left her body on the median in a divided highway in the next province. It appears that there was some animosity, jealousy, competition between the transient woman and the woman who was subletting. They hardly new her and they murdered her. She and her boyfriend of 2.5 years were three weeks pregnant.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Just wanted to add: Knox also took the unprecedented step of linking to two of Sollecito's recent interviews on her blog (look it up under > Interviews) - the ones on L'Incontro and Domenica Live. Considering that it's HER blog, I find it a bit surprising. It just shows (again) how desperate she is in her attempts to keep Sollecito in line.


Sollecito will need a lawyer and the support of public disgust to force Knox to remove her association with him from her blog.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Just wanted to add: Knox also took the unprecedented step of linking to two of Sollecito's recent interviews on her blog (look it up under > Interviews) - the ones on L'Incontro and Domenica Live. Considering that it's HER blog, I find it a bit surprising. It just shows (again) how desperate she is in her attempts to keep Sollecito in line.


Sollecito will need a lawyer and the support of public disgust to force Knox to remove her association with him from her blog.

We are always talking about how desperate she must be, imagine what Sollecito thinks about it. He organized this group of people demonstrating for his innocence in an effort to help him appeal the conviction and separate his case from Foxy Knoxy. But oh so caring Amanda tries to tie his fate to hers, this is even more sensitive considering the supposed e-mail he sent her.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Vittorio Feltri, age 71,

Rage, Rage, against the dying of the testosterone
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I note that the donate button on her website still says Knox Defense Fund", doubt the FB will get all that much :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Vittorio Feltri won't be silenced. ;) He 'speaks' again, this time in print media (in Il Giornale, not sure if he's still its editor-in-chief or not?) I guess PapaDoc admired his provocative style and decided to recruit him there and then to play for the team Sollecito. Or is Fetri totally disinterested and doing this voluntarily? Somehow ... I doubt it.

28 February 2014
Even the suspects deserve respect
One acquitted after a quarter of a century, the other returns under indictment. Against them only clues.
By Vittorio Feltri


[...]

There is another case in point of justice that makes one shudder, that of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, who were convicted, in the first instance, for the murder of Meredith Kercher; in the second degree, both were acquitted; third degree, more doubt, had been sent back to appeal and convicted again. This judgment will be tested in the Supreme Court. Danger: There is a risk that it is confirmed. Now, if we look at the process, we feel the absurdity of certain procedures that create an atmosphere of Kafka, of which we are terrified. The reasons for reflection are many. The crime of Perugia is a mess that stems from an investigation that started badly and ended worse. It happens. Especially when many people contribute to a confusion that impedes the efforts to find a logical thread in the indictment and in the defense. Raffaele and Amanda knew each other, at the time of the murder, for five days. They were under the influence of first love, notoriously overwhelming. Unlikely, that the two youngsters, so much into each other, would have committed a crime of that type. But one never knows. Necessary at least, to construct an accusatory framework, to find a motive. Where there is none, at least for Sollecito. He had a beautiful girlfriend whom he had fallen in love with, a quiet personal situation, graduation in sight, little money in his pocket. Explain why would he help to take the life of Meredith, with whom he had neither friction nor feeling.

There were no traces of Raffaele detected at the crime site. It discredits scientific expertise. I will not go into detail . Let's just remember that the experts do not agree, they contradict each other. Already. The scientists - let's call them that - are not God the Father, their opinions are not uni-vocal. Why accept one and reject another? By what criteria do you choose or reject the opinion of a technical expert? And the evidence? Is there any or not? It has been presented. Only pale clues that are not even clues, but vague elements, good for conjectures and theories. Mind you. All circumstantial and double-faced, a grim [side] and a smiling [side]. Which to select? It is inhuman to send a young man to jail for 25 years on the basis of assumptions. I don’t talk about Amanda. I do not understand why the trial positions of the two young people were united. I would add that there is no evidence against the American girl. I realize that the work of judges takes place on procedural rules and not on historical truth, but because of this they should be prudent and inspired by the need not to make things worse. There is a victim crying for justice. But it isn’t justice to bury in a cell two young people without proof of their guilt. It would mean an increase from one to three victims. Horror.

[...]


IL GIORNALE

Seriously, if not aware of the circumstances behind these statements I would have to laugh. Where do they find people like that, when you think it can't get any worse than that, they still seem to be able to pull another "ace" out of the pocket and he makes you cringe even more than the one before.

The lack of motive is ridiculous, if there is an lack of motive it is for Rudy Guede. It is hard enough to put him into the scenario of the prosecution, but the scenario about him breaking into the cottage, visiting the bathroom and then murdering Meredith instead of silently sneaking out of the front door just doesn't make any sense at all.

I think the whole scenario presented by the prosecution makes even more sense if you consider their fresh love and his financial situation. He was inexperienced and Amanda Knox is a dominating and manipulative woman. My assumption is that children raised in families of high influence with a lot of financial stability tend to lose the connection to reality, they don't know how hard it is to earn a living all by yourself and they don't learn how to deal with consequences, because there is always someone picking them up if they fall.

I like Feltri's statements about the forensic experts, you could almost quote him without changing a word to hold off stupid arguments about DNA evidence. I like how he answers his question about evidence all by himself.

"Only pale clues that are not even clues, but vague elements, good for conjectures and theories." - That is what every supporter of those two convicted murderers has to offer.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi


Last edited by Stefan on Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
I've been exchanging words with TV producer/ex-FBI criminal profiler @JimClemente, of CBS's "Criminal Minds" about how little he knows about Amanda Knox case on Twitter. Here's his interview @ 17:18 of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIbxoFUjc1Y

Judging by his impressive performance on this show that must have been a really eloquent conversation you were having.

What is this - a TV show? The host is embarassing, she doesn't even know how to pronounce the name of one of the convicted. Also, I have never heard the word "kangaroo court" before and I like how she immediately talks about what we have here... DNA contamination and prosecutorial misconduct. That is very objective, great investigative job on her part!

You have to start questioning personnel decisions made by the FBI if Jim Clemente and Steve Moore were members. I wonder how much those two are being paid to spread all of this misinformation or if they are just into this to get some publicity.

I would be very interested to learn from Mr. Clemente how it happens in the "real world" that people decide to kill someone. He's obviously in his field of expertise and he seems downright amused by the presented motive and scenario of the murder. (Minutes: 20:11 - 20:27)

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
He was inexperienced and Amanda Knox is a dominating and manipulative woman.


You are so right, Stefan. These character traits are reflected in their handwriting, according to an Italian graphologist. I came across Barbara Taglioni's blog by sheer chance. She offers an insight into Knox's and Sollecito's character and psyche based on the analysis of their handwriting.

Part 1 (my translation)

Created 01 February 2014

Raffaele Sollecito - Graphological portrait

An enigmatic personality

By Barbara Taglioni

While Amanda has always been on the front pages of newspapers dividing public opinion in colpevolisti and innocentisti, he is generally sheltered, protected by the family, staying away as much as possible in his situation from cameras and interviews. [G. - Not anymore!]

La Knox certainly has used the media to spread an angelic image of a girl caught up in a bloody story bigger than her, while Raffaele has often given the impression of being influenced and perhaps even manipulated by a stronger personality than his. Even in the rare appearances with those dark glasses on his face, or with his eyes wide open to show a good guy, one is always reminded of a character who reads a script with jokes expertly prepared at the table. A young man, self-conscious and insecure, unable to spontaneously and safely express his thoughts.

Who is the actual Raffaele Sollecito?

If you seek information about him on the web, you find very little. Born in Giovinazzo, near Bari, good and wealthy family, lives an "easy" life and a little bit on the surface like so many other teenagers, children of a society in which the values are in crisis, until that tragic night of 1 and 2 November 2007 , when an English girl was killed . Night, that marks a radical change in his life.

A student at the time of the murder in Perugia, was then a graduate in computer science in jail. As evidence of him being shy, he did not even want to testify during the [trial] hearings, merely making spontaneous statements on topics chosen and articulated certainly on the advice of the defense. It looks like a personality under a glass bell that lets you see his silhouette from a distance, a bell jar, which, on the one hand protects, and on the other, does not allow him to appear in a natural way, thick glass that distorts the expression of his thoughts and his feelings. Aside from a few snapped pictures and some well-prepared (prepackaged) interviews it seems there is nothing "true" or "real" that would make us really understand who this guy is.

His handwriting (of 2010 from THE SECRETS OF WRITING by C. Livatino) that we analyzed, helps us to explore some aspects of his character.

Attachment:
RS Letter La Piazza di Giovinazzo handwriting analysis.jpg


As we can see at first glance, it is a writing still undeveloped and scarcely personalized, which moves with uncertainty on the lines. The set looks very harmonious, stretched strokes seem to point to suffering, ellipses in several places. These features combined with the small letter size express a great deal of uncertainty and an exhausting search for his "place" in the world.

The undergrowth with which the graphic thread develops is an indication of tension and difficulty in expressing his own ideas and controlling his own emotions; it’s evident. The middle zone that tends to deconstruct and is reduced to a trickle, the "d" drawn in two sections, the "g" regressive, the swollen upper area confirm the immaturity and fragility of Raffaele which, along with his sensitivity and being a bit of a dreamer, makes him an easy prey to stronger personalities, of which he is in need, to help him, accompany him in making decisions in life.

Attachment:
amanda handwriting smaple.jpg


If we compare this with the handwriting of Amanda (visible in an article dedicated to her on this website (http://www.grafologhiamo.it ), it’s evident that between the two, the dominant personality is that of Knox, confirming what has always been suggested, that Raffaele is in a position of subjugation to the American girl, far more shrewd and confident.

The recent judgment that convicts both Amanda and Raffaele will inevitably divide the public opinion on the guilt or innocence of the two protagonists.

Will it be the end of the story or just one of many episodes?


GRAFOLOGHIAMO
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Parts 2 & 3 coming 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: 4885

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

By the way, Barbara Taglioni's analysis of AK&RS handwriting correlates with my own amateur analysis that I tried to conduct way back in 2010 (since it's sort of my hobby on this board.) ;)

Here it is for comparison:

The most striking features of RS’s handwriting are broad upper loops as they appear in the letters “l”, “f”, etc. Notice the large ('swollen') loop in the letter “l”. Watch also those wide lower loops, as they appear in the letters “g” and “j”.

Attachment:
RS's letter-La Piazza di Giovinazzo-01-2010- l's and g's.JPG


Meanings:

Upper zone or case (as in l, f, h, etc)

Tall upper strokes are reaching towards goals and ambitions or, if they are very extended, there may be unrealistic expectations of what the person feels they must achieve.

If there are reasonably proportioned upper zone loops, this indicates someone who likes to think things through and use their imagination in a sensible way. Wider upper zone loops indicate more of a tendency to dream up ideas and mull them over.

Lower zone (as in g, y, etc)

Lower loops are also varied and have different meanings.

For example a straight stroke shows impatience to get the job done.

A full loop with heavy pressure indicates energy/money-making/sensuality possibilities, subject to correlation with other features.

A full lower loop with light pressure indicates a need or wish for security. (i.e. a “dependent” personality).

If there are many and varied shapes in the lower zone, the writer may feel unsettled and unfocused emotionally. Again the handwriting analyst would look for this to be indicated by other features in the script.
---------------------------------------------------

So, basically, RS is a dreamer and a ‘fantasist’. At the same time, he is insecure and shows a need for additional guidance. It could be that he grew up with the insecurities he is still exhibiting. He had been something of a recluse during his student years.

I saved an old post by Brogan that I found insightful:

Brogan wrote:
I don’t think Raff was a collector rather he was someone who needed to carry a knife to deal with his own insecurity. I suspect that Raff had some issues about his masculinity; I wonder if at some point in the past Raff has been threatened or had actually been attacked in some way and that carrying a knife made him feel safe. It may have got to a point where he did not feel comfortable going out unless he had a knife in his pocket. I think that carrying a knife was part of a deep seated psychological problem that Raff had.

Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 3:58 am


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:06 am   Post subject: GREG HAMPIKIAN OP ED NYT   

When May I Shoot A Student?

Amanda Knox expert witness Dr. Greg Hampikian says:

Quote:
young people who are away from home for the first time, and are coincidentally the age associated with alcohol and drug experimentation, and the commission of felonies


Mercury turned direct; it's all coming out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox Full Interview @UW (Pt. 3) (20:54 min!!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTmP5_bVClk

Pt.1 + Pt.2 + Pt.3 = 1-hr monologue

When will it finally end? It's almost unbearable to listen to her voice. 'Sick, twisted, vindictive, small-minded, self-pitying, angry person' - that sums it up!


G...I will watch this......But first....

Watching the part one and two..

Number one: What an unlikeable person Knox is.

Number two. I have my fair share of empathy..BUT...not here..not for this.

The slamming of the houseguests. The putting down of the policewoman. The..how does one puts this: The classic low self esteem of someone putting down others to make oneself look good.

The EXTREME ( :) *fear* of feces.Again * :)

The only * sobbing * when ( allegedly) Knoxie is harassed by a warden. ( This mind you..when Knox has shagged a middle aged Man on a train for some din-din) Didn't cry when talking about Meredith being brutally slain. Oh, no.

Knocking Filomena because she needs her computer back. ( Oh..well..Saint Amanda only wanted her deposit back :(

Here's the deal.............Knox was concerned..interrogating Filomena et al...because she NEEDED TO KNOW how the system worked. ( Filomena woked for attorneys)..

Oh yeah. She was * concerned..asking what's going to happen..BECAUSE..she was freaking worried. Sure..she lept on about how and when and why. Prewarned is forearmed. Jeeze.

I found myself..with one eyebrow raised..and definitely with a lip curled in disdain. By the time I got to the * heatrending sobs * about the police warden * talking to Knox about sex..I was looking for something to prop my eyes open. FFS.

Oh..and the * I was just a kid then. *......Spit.

Watching and listening. What an angry, jealous..hateful..person.

Oh..Knox is SO angry with Mom. Because Edda took valium. Yeah..people take a tranquilizer when stressed. BUT..Knoxie is JUST furious.

Here's the bewildering thing. Knox is extremely upset about feces...about talking about sex..( ha)..and someone feeling the need to take a pill.

But..cool, calm..with a shrug..about the MURDER.

Mind you...never mind valium. Knox's way to deal with * trauma* was to grab a pair of panties at the checkout * $62.00) Yikes! Smooch boyfriend...hip swivel..do cartwheels.

Colour me an UNBELIEVER. And..the more this fiend talks...the more people out there have to come to one conclusion. A psycopath of the first order. ss-)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I really like Stefan's posts.

And..G..I'm also interested in handwriting. Notice HOW SMALL the writing is on the bank statements. Tiny. Someone who feels very insignificant. ( and who can't spell :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Just so that from Brogan doesn't slip by, as I totally disagree with it.

Italy, still in this present time, in most places, is neither the same as London or places in America, and if there are any no-go areas they are not in Perugia.
Many people in Italy, certainly in the country, used to carry knives, and I doubt very much that this has changed. The reason they carried a knife, was to be able to use it to do things, so they did not and do not carry them for the show. They uso them to do things such as cut the bread, the rustic type of bread most usual there, to cut cheese, to cut the many things like cured sausages. The fact that Sollecito carried a knife does not in any way mean he did so in order to protect himself or because he was afraid.

The fact Sollecito and his dad said he was a knife collector means it must be true, because it would be easy to check, and if then he was found to have no knife collection, it would have looked very bad indeed. So he had a collection, most of it stored at his father's residence, as he said.

I doubt very much that he is so fond of knives now, still you never know, because his behaviour though not psychotic must have a name that is a cousin of it.

_________________
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: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Do you ever get that feeling, that getting up in the morning and getting ready to get off to work on time means you are missing out on something?

Do you think working 9 to 5 and 5 days or maybe 6 a week to pay the bills is unfulfilling if you spend your hard-earned cash on the bills and the family, well guess what --- Now you can donate your money simply & easily at no extra charge, there are no hidden costs, except to your mind.

Here's what you do.
You check your account on pay-day and you log into Raffaele Sollecito's Donate Page, there you can help the poor guy out, if you are having hard times, feel better instantly by looking at someone who has it worse.

Yes, you guessed, this outstanding contributor to society, the noble and ''honor man'' Sollecito, who had never harmed a fly because he probably was too high on heroin, coke, ecstasy, speed and other is such a victim, now pretending he is Knox's victim, after all, he has nothing to do with her at all, he says.

Yes, don't say it, after being such a good boy he has become Knox's victim, it seems.
After all, he did not think of the inconsistencies when he told lies to the police, he was tortured so much that he made up stories that he decided to change about 3 times when not in solitary, to suit the face sitting across from him, groomed to the nines, speaking in the most gentle voice he could practice beforehand, hair set in a perm it seems, obviously having a stylist get him to stop wearing his usual awfully chosen combis of purple and mustard, almost whispering, I mean how could you not believe him when he says, when referring to an actual court case trying him for murder: This nonsense!!! That I have been forced to take part in, with which they are torturing me.

Yeah that ought to do it, "This Nonsense".
So a country with a set of laws whatever they were and are no matter, existent long before other Europeans got out of their blue Hun suits, a country that spread its know-how all over Europe, the Middle East and Africa, of which on the one hand he acts like he is proud of and then, additionally, having us believe, if he could, that he and his family are so brave, gentle, honourable and intelligent, yet there he is saying: This Nonsense.

Oh, that's that then.

Well, set him free, this must be the real version, a country's system including police and judiciary, there to uphold the concept of civilised society, is nothing but: A Nonsense.

Well, thanks for that.

Get out your typing fingers now, and hit that donate button, alternatively, get up in your attic and seek out those unspent holiday coins dating back 30 years or more in some cases, put them in a parcel and address them to Sollecito, C/O the Courtrooms of Florence.


If you were ever tried for murder, and after 6 years, didn't understand the difference between giving testimony, meaning, taking the stand (upon which you can then be cross-examined on any and everything you say) and providing spontaneous statements in relation to which you cannot be cross-examined, well have no fear, all you need to do is play dumb when your strategy seems to have had, if anything, a bad effect, just go ahead and say you had not understood, nobody had explained, and after 6 years how could you possibly have understood such a complicated concept.

Was there ever love?

No Siree, this idea of love and flowers that had not had the chance to open as put forth by the budding Shakespearean or should I say James Joyce, is the ''actual nonsense'', for there was no love, ever; to what degree can anyone really speak of love upon knowing someone for a week?

I'm certain if genital appendages had not been involved there could never have been any connection at all,
therefore, to even try to proceed upon the premise of 'there was love that turned to hate'... as it does look now at a casual glance, cannot be applied.

Nonetheless, it looks like that, looks like if they ever even liked one another they sure hate one another's guts now, and would prefer to see each other dead, maybe the killers would like to kill each other, or would they?

What would it mean if Knox were to drop dead?
Would Sollecito go free?
Could he then blame it all on her?
He could but would it work?
Doubt it.

If Sollecito were to wrap that flash car around a lantern pole and die on impact, would it mean Knox goes free?
Would she blame it all on him?
Yes I expect so.
But would it exempt her from all charges?
No, because dead or alive, in this murder they are inextricably linked together at the hip...

I am Siamese if you please!


Dad: You keep away from that American, I told you before and you didn't listen, now it's enough, you are going to listen to your lawyers instead of blaming them, you disgrace. Bonnie Wee Giorno says you are to separate and separate you will, you-are-you and Knox is-in-America, you dumb c...

Sollecito the son: Don't swear that way father for you know how I dislike it, it sounds so common, I don't mind murder but please do not swear okay? By the way, can I have my pocket money I'm just popping out of the country.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10670526/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-The-Pistorians-hoping-for-an-Oscar-acquittal.html

He murdered her.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox Full Interview @UW (Pt. 3) (20:54 min!!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTmP5_bVClk

Pt.1 + Pt.2 + Pt.3 = 1-hr monologue

When will it finally end? It's almost unbearable to listen to her voice. 'Sick, twisted, vindictive, small-minded, self-pitying, angry person' - that sums it up!


G...I will watch this......But first....

Watching the part one and two..

Number one: What an unlikeable person Knox is.

Number two. I have my fair share of empathy..BUT...not here..not for this.

The slamming of the houseguests. The putting down of the policewoman. The..how does one puts this: The classic low self esteem of someone putting down others to make oneself look good.

The EXTREME ( :) *fear* of feces.Again * :)

After years. In her bathroom, which she proceeded to take a shower in with the disgusting feces on full display. Anyone would have just flushed. She showered (as she said), because then, even with the blood she noticed around, and the fact that she'd returned to the house finding the door wide open and nobody in, then, she considered there was no problem. Knox didn't flush for one reason. Evidence of Guede. She told her flat mates that she hadn't showered. That story came late, like them all, under pressure.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Her anger over her mother's Valium usage is palpable. And telling. I am left to wonder whether she shared this opinion with Sollecito when he talked of his own mother's passing. If true that she committed suicide, I certainly wouldn't think it very empathetic of someone to suggest that she should have just "sucked it up".

Neither of them have any actual insight into their behavior.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Her anger over her mother's Valium usage is palpable. And telling. I am left to wonder whether she shared this opinion with Sollecito when he talked of his own mother's passing. If true that she committed suicide, I certainly wouldn't think it very empathetic of someone to suggest that she should have just "sucked it up".

Neither of them have any actual insight into their behavior.


No, no insight, their idea is to conduct their trial in the media, and act like a proper court has no validity, it's okay living in Tom & Jerryland but it isn't real, that's the problem.

_________________
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: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

One of the worst bits about their auto-propaganda, the self-aggrandizing attempts, was Knox, after saying so very many things totally unfriendly towards Italians & Italy, while at the same time saying she loved them and it, said she'd be returning to Italy or would stay, as the case may be, because she loved Italy. However, Italy did not want or need her to love it; you cannot be stamping a country and its people into the ground while pretending to actually like and respect both.

This totally and exactly mirrors the stuff Sollecito said at that level, in his aggression and obstinance, stating that he'd visited Meredith's grave, when anyone could know this would be totally against the explicit and clear wishes of the Kercher family.

Knox's, what were, threats, came long ago, when the process was still in diapers, and her statements of that nature represented some of the shit left, such statements being made as acts of defiance, done in exactly the same fashion in which the murder took place, the total disrespect to someone else, going so far as to actually totally destroy them, so if you are the person who has just experienced going through the motions of killing someone, any following acts, to you yourself and you, seem normal, even irrelevant, while to outsiders they are acts that are of sheer brutality, callousness, insensitivity.

The patterns shown by the pair are wholly in synch with the first acts of sheer and utter, cruel depravity that led to Meredith's murder!

Her threatening to actually live in Perugia once released, was something she said long before the first guilty verdict.

While anyone could work out if it were them, they are not going to be liked there.
Knox: Don't care!!!
It showed how she thought she had the right to do whatever she liked and to hell with what anyone else felt about it.
Her not paying Patrick what is his and her many TV spots and newspaper and magazine hits are in the same vein.
It all makes perfect sense, it is the type of disgusting behaviour I would expect from a murderer and from a murderer only.
You could cut it all up if it were a film reel and put it back together in any order and it would still make sense, when viewed in the right context.

Sollecito, with his visiting Meredith's grave, against all of the Kercher's wishes, is as frighteningly horrific as the murder itself, much like a rapist returning to the scene to rape again, it portrays the initial brutality exerted upon Meredith.

They give their game away in ways that they themselves are unable to see.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The readers' editor on… our coverage of the Meredith Kercher murder trials

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/02/coverage-meredith-kercher-murder-trial

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

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox recently replied to a few questions in the comment section of her blog. Including a comment regarding the feces:

Amanda Knox, February 28, 2014 at 15:15 wrote:
3) I thought anything could be important to the police, and it struck me as especially important because if the feces was there the first time I came home and not there the second time, it would have meant the murderer were still in the house when I took a shower.


I'm always baffled by the comments of AK groupies on her blog. I think the ones stating "Yes, her behaviour in situation XYZ was strange, but weird behaviour doesn't prove guilt." are probably the worst.

I wonder how long those people will continue to stick with these statements, if she ever goes back to prison.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
Knox recently replied to a few questions in the comment section of her blog. Including a comment regarding the feces:

Amanda Knox, February 28, 2014 at 15:15 wrote:
3) I thought anything could be important to the police, and it struck me as especially important because if the feces was there the first time I came home and not there the second time, it would have meant the murderer were still in the house when I took a shower.


I'm always baffled by the comments of AK groupies on her blog. I think the ones stating "Yes, her behaviour in situation XYZ was strange, but weird behaviour doesn't prove guilt." are probably the worst.

I wonder how long those people will continue to stick with these statements, if she ever goes back to prison.


I'd like to know just how the feces could have seemed important to Knox. How did she know WHEN it had been left there? Was there a time stamp on it?

Before she left the cottage with Raffles..in the late afternoon..did she check Filomena's bathrooom? nw)

No. Because she KNEW the feces could and would prove to be Guede. And she'd be scot free.

FAR more bothersome should have been the blood..the * Breakin*.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

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

Napia5 wrote:
Her anger over her mother's Valium usage is palpable. And telling. I am left to wonder whether she shared this opinion with Sollecito when he talked of his own mother's passing. If true that she committed suicide, I certainly wouldn't think it very empathetic of someone to suggest that she should have just "sucked it up".

Neither of them have any actual insight into their behavior.


Just another *point* Knox makes...anger of the valium..to PROVE to people that SHE'S not a druggie. Oh no. Not her. The *points* she makes.

Everyone else..the police..the flatmates..her mother. All of them disparaged. BUT Knoxie? Let's see. Just a kid...the ONLY one * concerned* about the murder. Doesn't even take a valium. So sweet and kind..just LOVED the kiddies..SO good to children. ( talks about her siblings...If I remember correctly..she hardly saw her father and his new family)

Such a LIAR.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
The readers' editor on… our coverage of the Meredith Kercher murder trials

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/02/coverage-meredith-kercher-murder-trial


Thanks for the artcle, jhansgirl. The comments are really good. Calling The Guardian out. Damn straight :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
The readers' editor on… our coverage of the Meredith Kercher murder trials

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/02/coverage-meredith-kercher-murder-trial



Another shit piece.

I hate the use of fast-track, because without info, for one thing, about what that means, it is meaningless, and as I've pointed out dozens of times over the years, even when it is explained, it is incorrect. Since there are three shortened ways/possibilities or procedures in Italy of which, the one Guede had, is not even the fastest.

Fast-track is shit just like this man's bit where he talks of 7 years but yeah, he cannot count, bad sign, 2007 was done since it was already end of October, it is now the beginning of 2014, therefore 6 years have passed, not 7.

The incorrectly much-copied use of the word or term fast-track, sounds slick doesn't it, but the proper translation is ''abbreviated process'' since it does not even qualify as a real trial since the person facing justice, though not admitting guilt, agrees to be dealt with on the basis of what the prosecutor puts forward, to the court, there is no possibility of cross-examination. The concept behind it and the reason a person gets the time off, is because this way it saves the country time and money, by saving the court time and money.

Fast-track is totally vacant as wording as it doesn't even hint at what it is that is behind it and so is, just like so many other things placed in papers/online papers, etc., entirely uninformative and is thoroughly misleading. No only is there no hint at what is behind it all, there is no sign that there even is ''anything at all'' behind it. The guy just gets to go through court fast. DUH.

So if one has no idea what that is about, how is one then to know that it means anything.

When explaining that part of it, even if it is a speeded up process, the explanation should not be speeded up because it needs explaining, that way people might get an idea of what is going on, what is what.

I have never seen it explained in these crap articles, whether in/on the Guardian or in/on the Daily Mail.

In fact the tabloids no more portrayed her as bad than the ones like the Guardian did, the Guardian that looks down on what they themselves call the tabloids but hey come on now, the Guardian is a tabloid in disguise, because the journalism in it does not represent true journalism, it is not journalism, they explain nothing and they also know nothing.

I could never trust that lousy excuse for a newspaper anyhow, what with having Sollecito's shadow writer writing in it, I mean what is that guy about announcing on his twitty twitter that he'd got the assignment, yep, like a kid who'd won the jackpot, get fucked, his credibility ids worthless because in helping Sollecito, which he did, the money meant he signed away his integrity. Let him write his own book and have it translated. Fucking nonsense.,

_________________
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: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
jhansigirl wrote:
The readers' editor on… our coverage of the Meredith Kercher murder trials

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/02/coverage-meredith-kercher-murder-trial


Thanks for the artcle, jhansgirl. The comments are really good. Calling The Guardian out. Damn straight :)



Guardian worse than Daily Mail tabby types since Guardian pretends to be something it isn't, all as it is I mean, all I smell is cheese, yes those arty farty types at their dinner parties or the wine & cheesy get togethers, much like those god-awful late night shows on the BBC with the weirdest most astoundingly boring people going on about what they think about some book, snoooooooooooooooooooooooore.

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

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Knox recently replied to a few questions in the comment section of her blog. Including a comment regarding the feces:

Amanda Knox, February 28, 2014 at 15:15 wrote:
3) I thought anything could be important to the police, and it struck me as especially important because if the feces was there the first time I came home and not there the second time, it would have meant the murderer were still in the house when I took a shower.


I'm always baffled by the comments of AK groupies on her blog. I think the ones stating "Yes, her behaviour in situation XYZ was strange, but weird behaviour doesn't prove guilt." are probably the worst.

I wonder how long those people will continue to stick with these statements, if she ever goes back to prison.


I'd like to know just how the feces could have seemed important to Knox. How did she know WHEN it had been left there? Was there a time stamp on it?

Before she left the cottage with Raffles..in the late afternoon..did she check Filomena's bathrooom? nw)

No. Because she KNEW the feces could and would prove to be Guede. And she'd be scot free.

FAR more bothersome should have been the blood..the * Breakin*.

Surely after the murder their biggest concern was to get rid of the physical evidence. They washed the knife at Sollecito's apartement. I guess they waited for the police or someone else to find Meredith's body, but became increasingly impatient when no one showed up at their door, which would be expected considering it was her home, where someone was found murdered. Then they probably decided to check the cottage and when they realized that no one took notice of the victim yet, they decided to take the opportunity and clean-up the traces of their presence and model the crime scene in their favour. That's when she decided to fake the break-in, as she's done before. I would assume that the clean-up was rushed, because they missed that smear of blood on the faucet and they were still discussing how to proceed when they were surprised by the arrival of the postal police.
She probably panicked now and tried to delay the discovery of the body, because her story wasn't finished and she didn't want to be confronted with the murder. Later she started inventing a tale that would explain their presence at the cottage and anything that might appear odd. She thought going back to the cottage to take a shower and change clothes before their trip to Gubbio was a good reason to return. So, she took that shower wondering a little about the blood in the bathroom, then shuffling on the bathmat to her room to explain why the floor of the hallway was cleaned or maybe she wanted to obviate a possible discovery of blood traces. Now she wanted to direct the attention of the police to the feces left by Rudy Guede, which in her story she discovered when drying her hair in the other bathroom. Of course she didn't discover the body of her dead flatmate and she didn't see anything that would appear to be very alarming because then she would have to immediately call the police. She returned to Raffaele's appartement to tell him about her discoveries and to mop that puddle of water in his kitchen. I guess she was trying to explain why the mop was used or still being wet. And to conclude her story she returned with RS to the cottage, which explains why both of them were found present by the postal police.

I think somebody here mentioned that Amanda Knox lied a lot to her parents as well and they never really questioned her lies, because they trusted her. As a result she was a naive, little girl, who thought she could talk herself out of this crime by simply making up a story accounting for everything that might be brought up against her. This is further displayed by her interviews with the police, her testimony in court and finally her still ongoing media appearances. She just never learned that lying doesn't save her.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What is also very poor on the Guardian, is that there is a bit that says, never before heard audio of Knox being interrogated, but it is audio from the court, how bad is that????

_________________
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: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

From a comment left on CNN:
Quote:
Nice try, but Raskolnikov has a dual personality, like Amanda, whose antisocial qualities, once covered up, have now been exposed, the "my people killed your people" to a Jewish co-worker, the rape fantasies, the assault prank with mask wearing intruders, the self medication with alcohol and drugs to cover her underlying condition, contrasted with the warmth and compassion; Amanda's friends say she had both qualities, and so, too, did Raskolnikov, except he didn't have family to describe it as 'quirky' so there.

I read Crime and Punishment several times over as a teen, and what stuck with me is the effect his crime had on him, until he experienced real suffering, and eventual redemption. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_ ... Characters
says, the book "depicts all the disastrous moral and psychical consequences that result from the murder".

It appears that Amanda Knox is suffering the consequences thereof, but can't see it, due to the support of enablers such as your self, or the 'rationalistic society' you all seem sprung from.


http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/26/world ... 1267064995
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Plain and simple, I get a headache when I try to understand her. When she discusses her mother's use of Valium, she says:
She does not want to judge, but then she does anyway.
She seems quite angry about her mother's Valium use, but attempts to give her a minor pass when she says that her mother had heart pressure. (So, I guess it's almost OK if there is a PHYSICAL reason to take Valium.)
She then goes on to say that trying to live in a coma is not right.
But, then she says that she herself COULDN'T take anything because she couldn't trust the doctors and what they were
actually giving her.
But, then she says that she sucked it up, and indicated that she was so tough that she spent a week with a broken
foot before she had it looked at.

So, is she angry with her mother because her mother was 'weak' and needed medication, or is she angry because her mother COULD take medication while Knox herself felt unable to? The resentment is obvious, but the reason for it is unclear to me.

If I had to guess, I'd say that having anyone think that Edda was in such a condition because of Amanda really didn't sit well with her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Quite something and I expected suchlike too, Knox's mother obviously is affected, doing what she chose to do, to protect her daughter, while knowing, even if she never admits it to anyone, that her daughter is guilty. She cannot deal with it, but her daughter can, because she's got it all going on, whatever was going on, when she murdered Meredith.

So it's going on and Knox herself she is void of feeling, while her mother needs to be, and so uses valium.

Basically Knox has helped ruin her mother's life, but her mother was the lemming that rushed to the edge all on her own, she did not have to but did, she'll only get better when she breaks loose from her daughter, as in facing the facts, that would be real love towards her daughter, even if it meant her daughter being handed over by her mother.

I know her mother has acted very incorrectly, has acted like an animal, too, to protect her daughter, but I cannot help feeling sorry for her, because she was weak, it was her baby, it's hard to say goodbye to your baby, but when that baby murdered Meredith, that baby died forever.

_________________
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: 4885

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Handwriting analysis, cont'd

Part 2

Created March 27, 2013

Amanda Knox - Graphological Portrait

Amanda Knox - guilty or innocent?

By Barbara Taglioni

The events of recent days about the annulment of the appeal judgment for the murder of Meredith Kercher made me remember an article I wrote some time ago, which was published in the magazine of graphology Graphomania, entitled "Amanda Knox - angel or devil?" I will quote here some excerpts that will make you think ...

(...) "It is not the task of a graphologist to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant, but as professionals of this discipline, we can certainly make some observations, always very cautious and as objective as possible about the personality, character, the ability to adapt to the environment, affectivity, self-control of emotions and impulsiveness, spontaneity, balance or lack of it, based on the handwriting of a subject"(...)

Attachment:
Part I.png


Even those unfamiliar with graphology, observing Amanda's handwriting, would be struck by the extreme order and precision with which the letters and words are traced. As if they were printed by hand. If we refer to the 'sacred' texts in the field of graphology, we find that the significance of these elements (excessive order, the absence of movement , excessive occupation of space [close spacing between letters and words], use of printing , marked rigidity) is "curiously" connected to a personality problem, or to at least an unbalanced [personality]. Who writes in this way expresses the desire to please, shows susceptibility to the judgment of others, willingness to defend themselves from their emotional life by adopting patterns of behavior generally accepted.

Often in these cases identification [with others] prevails over identity that no longer takes a real, dynamic personal development but rather creates a kind of "status quo": it assumes a shape (for example, in the handwriting) and reflects a desire to be understood, to be accepted, to be less involved, therefore assumes a pseudo-identity to show to the public. In these subjects it often creates a split between being private and being social.

The "mask", which limits the spontaneity and sincerity, indirectly also hides a full spectrum of unexpressed feelings, of unrealized projects and failures, guilt-ridden hostility that may occur abruptly, perhaps with violent actions and thoughts that are even more surprising, being in contrast with the usual formal and well-mannered attitude of the subject. (...)

These days the courts have decided that the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher has to be redone! It’s one of those cases that together with others, more and more often, leave the public, and not only them, with deep doubts. We hope it will not go down in history as one of the usual unresolved cases, we hope that justice is done.


GRAFOLOGHIAMO
-----------------------------------------

I think it's a pretty accurate description of Knox who tends to imitate and copy emotions of others and comes across as fake and artificial, not being genuine. The "mask" of a murderer. ;)

To be continued...


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: Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox PR scores another own goal


In their desperation and in face of the lack of public support, Amanda Knox PR has again resorted to Twitter bot accounts to send automated messages to suggest there is widespread support.

Some of you might still remember the messages on Twitter that said "Wohoo. Amanda Knox is home. No one can say she is guilty anymore." We have now another wave of bot accounts tweeting in support of the convicted American murderess.


These fake accounts and automated messages are easy to spot:

  • All of a sudden random people tweet the same message. What is noteworthy is that except that one message, none of them mentions or discusses either Amanda Knox or the Meredith Kercher case at all.
  • Some of them tweet with a frequency of one message every 3-4 seconds over minutes, making it obvious there is no human activity.
  • The accounts send their tweets exclusively "via Twitter button". Not one account uses a genuine Twitter application or the web-interface to send their messages.
  • You will spot nonsensical messages in their timeline. If you take a closer look at the conversations, you will find the responses do not make any sense. They send messages to each other to make believe you are dealing with a genuine person at the first glance.


Excessive tweeting:

Image

Image


All messages are sent via Twitter button only:

Image

Image

Image

Image


No genuine conversation:

Image


These are desperate measures to support the false claims Amanda Knox enjoys widespread support. Would she have to resort to such measures if in fact she enjoyed the support she claims to have?

At least one of the accounts shown in the screenshot has already been suspended by Twitter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Just so that from Brogan doesn't slip by, as I totally disagree with it.

Italy, still in this present time, in most places, is neither the same as London or places in America, and if there are any no-go areas they are not in Perugia.
Many people in Italy, certainly in the country, used to carry knives, and I doubt very much that this has changed. The reason they carried a knife, was to be able to use it to do things, so they did not and do not carry them for the show. They uso them to do things such as cut the bread, the rustic type of bread most usual there, to cut cheese, to cut the many things like cured sausages. The fact that Sollecito carried a knife does not in any way mean he did so in order to protect himself or because he was afraid.

The fact Sollecito and his dad said he was a knife collector means it must be true, because it would be easy to check, and if then he was found to have no knife collection, it would have looked very bad indeed. So he had a collection, most of it stored at his father's residence, as he said.

I doubt very much that he is so fond of knives now, still you never know, because his behaviour though not psychotic must have a name that is a cousin of it.


The post you were disagreeing with was from four years when we all knew a lot less, Raff was in fact a collector and Italy may well have a rural culture where a knife would be a commonly possessed tool for daily needs but does Raff the full time computer student with penchant for drugs and animal porn actually fit that profile also I'm sure there would be plenty of places he could buy a sturdy utilitarian pocket knife for cutting bread and cheese locally, however the knife Raff preferred is made for a specific purpose and it isn't chopping up a snack, it’s a weapon not a tool and there is a difference.
You can see youtube clips of how the knife can be opened as it's rapidly withdrawn from the pocket and regardless of how it is advertised its purpose seems implicit, it’s a bit like Colt advertising the AR 15 as suitable for all you hunting needs ( because deer always attack in company strength).
Since I made that original post I have revised my opinion and suspect that not only did he carry a knife to validate his masculinity he may have also wondered what it would be like to use it on someone.

Feel free to disagree, I actually find myself quite disagreeable most of the time and as I usually point out it’s just my opinion.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

... zzz


Last edited by Jester on Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Who is releasing so much personal information about the case?
Why is this information suddenly being released. It does not appear to be released from the Prosecutor's Office.
Don't defendants present evidence in court, rather than media? In court, the verdict is guilty. In the media, it is murdertainment.
Who is hoping to gain from the release of letters, social media discussions, and "translated" court transcripts?
The prosecution is barred from releasing this information.

Knox does not have public support - for a good reason.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Was Knox actually criticizing her mother for taking Valium in the 1980s? It was routinely prescribed to calm women from the 1950s until the 1980s. Did Edda take Valium while she was pregnant? 1988, when Knox was born, seems to be on the tail end of the Valium for Women prescription.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Brogan wrote:
zorba wrote:
Just so that from Brogan doesn't slip by, as I totally disagree with it.

Italy, still in this present time, in most places, is neither the same as London or places in America, and if there are any no-go areas they are not in Perugia.
Many people in Italy, certainly in the country, used to carry knives, and I doubt very much that this has changed. The reason they carried a knife, was to be able to use it to do things, so they did not and do not carry them for the show. They uso them to do things such as cut the bread, the rustic type of bread most usual there, to cut cheese, to cut the many things like cured sausages. The fact that Sollecito carried a knife does not in any way mean he did so in order to protect himself or because he was afraid.

The fact Sollecito and his dad said he was a knife collector means it must be true, because it would be easy to check, and if then he was found to have no knife collection, it would have looked very bad indeed. So he had a collection, most of it stored at his father's residence, as he said.

I doubt very much that he is so fond of knives now, still you never know, because his behaviour though not psychotic must have a name that is a cousin of it.


The post you were disagreeing with was from four years when we all knew a lot less, Raff was in fact a collector and Italy may well have a rural culture where a knife would be a commonly possessed tool for daily needs but does Raff the full time computer student with penchant for drugs and animal porn actually fit that profile also I'm sure there would be plenty of places he could buy a sturdy utilitarian pocket knife for cutting bread and cheese locally, however the knife Raff preferred is made for a specific purpose and it isn't chopping up a snack, it’s a weapon not a tool and there is a difference.
You can see youtube clips of how the knife can be opened as it's rapidly withdrawn from the pocket and regardless of how it is advertised its purpose seems implicit, it’s a bit like Colt advertising the AR 15 as suitable for all you hunting needs ( because deer always attack in company strength).
Since I made that original post I have revised my opinion and suspect that not only did he carry a knife to validate his masculinity he may have also wondered what it would be like to use it on someone.

Feel free to disagree, I actually find myself quite disagreeable most of the time and as I usually point out it’s just my opinion.


Hi yeah, I know it was from 4 years ago. It isn't personal, I just disagree. What I say is always my own views with facts as I know them or as they are definitely known, on this though, it isn't a matter of being just a rural habit, Italy does not have a culture similar to that of London or Los Angeles streets, of people carrying knives to kill, that's why in Italy you are just as likely to have someone in the city carrying a knife, people get out to the country whenever they can, have friends there somewhere, etc., Sollecito had money through dad, so turned everything he did into a hobby, a show of wealth. Showing off status would be part of his wanting expensive cars, knives that are not simple French peasant's knives, etc., which are popular in Italy.

_________________
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: 4885

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi everybody,

ConnieS of .org has posted a full transcript of Pts. 1-3 of the UW Daily interview. If anyone is interested, I've created a PDF file and uploaded it to the Links subforum here:

viewtopic.php?p=119421#p119421

Also, wanted to re-post this image, created by piktor:

Attachment:
fascinated!.png


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: 4885

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Handwriting analysis, cont'd

Part 3

The "too much" in writing

By Barbara Taglioni

Now we look at another kind of excess ...

These two examples are for murderers ... the first, Boris Zubine, who killed his mother, then was sentenced to life imprisonment, while the second is of one of history's most brutal serial killers, Ted Bundy, who died in an electric chair. In both handwriting samples, there are swollen exaggerated strokes in the lower zone reflecting a predominance of instinctive forces and the instinctual reason that created imbalance and suffering and that in both cases generated violent actions which vented their frustrations.

Attachment:
bundy handwriting.jpg


Let us now see examples very different but equally disturbing ...

Attachment:
amanda handwriting smaple.jpg


These two examples are the first of Amanda Knox, convicted, then acquitted now again accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and the second is the "Monster", sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of several prostitutes, serial killer, Gianfranco Stevanin.

Attachment:
stevanin handwriting.jpg


Handwriting styles that are striking for the total lack of movement, the monotony and rigidity of the forms in which the personality of the writer is held tightly under control, hidden behind a public mask. Demonstrate the difficulty in expressing feelings and empathy, and accuracy and meticulousness pushed to excess.

In graphology, there are many other examples of "too much”: pressure too slight or too exaggerated, shapes too big or too small, strokes upturned or too sloping, too soft or too messy, etc. Let us remember that "too much of a good thing" does not rhyme with "well-being"!


GRAFOLOGHIAMO

- The End - ;)


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

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Vittorio Feltri, age 71,

Rage, Rage, against the dying of the testosterone


pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I jst watched Part 3. Knox. Easy to see that this is a person with anger issues. Her anger is so detached, if you will. Angry about things she shouldn't be..laughing when it's not appropriate.
It makes one very tense and uncomfortable watching her. And..when lying..there is no difference to some statements which are true. For instance...when contradicting herself. She talks at length about HER reassuring family about the fact that everything will be OK. 800 letters or so. co-) Then..she talks about how everyone was reassuring HER. Glib...unnatural..tense..over acts...over dramatizes.
I notice..that over something quite mundane...she becomes over animated. In short..Knox acts..what she THINKS is appropriate..WAY off bat. A true psycopath. She is trying to CONVINCE...it's quite unnerving.
Knox truly believes that she's carried it off. huh-) And that's because she is totally detached from reality. She spews out..she doesn't receive. That is so obvious.

She is a stone blooded killer. Her eyes are ALWAYS cold..and the only emotion is when she's portraying herself as a victim. Which is ALL the time. wa-))

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

OT///////

A story to bring you to tears...and admiration. Gracie and Quincy. A special needs dance show. 2 little heroines.Made my heart burst.

It was on HLN.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

capealadin wrote:
I jst watched Part 3. Knox. Easy to see that this is a person with anger issues. Her anger is so detached, if you will. Angry about things she shouldn't be..laughing when it's not appropriate.
It makes one very tense and uncomfortable watching her. And..when lying..there is no difference to some statements which are true. For instance...when contradicting herself. She talks at length about HER reassuring family about the fact that everything will be OK. 800 letters or so. co-) Then..she talks about how everyone was reassuring HER. Glib...unnatural..tense..over acts...over dramatizes.
I notice..that over something quite mundane...she becomes over animated. In short..Knox acts..what she THINKS is appropriate..WAY off bat. A true psycopath. She is trying to CONVINCE...it's quite unnerving.
Knox truly believes that she's carried it off. huh-) And that's because she is totally detached from reality. She spews out..she doesn't receive. That is so obvious.

She is a stone blooded killer. Her eyes are ALWAYS cold..and the only emotion is when she's portraying herself as a victim. Which is ALL the time. wa-))

Kinda creepy yah? No way that person is going to get coerced. Not by anyone..not in a million years. She is the kind of person that would teach someone a lesson if they dare to criticize her. Poor Meredith :(


Last edited by max on Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

When people said Knox was * kooky * and peculiar..it didn't even scratch the surface. I'm left with the feeling that Knox enjoyed watching Meredith suffer and die. To this day. Knox is a Horror show. For real.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:07 am   Post subject: Re: GREG HAMPIKIAN OP ED NYT   

Ergon wrote:
When May I Shoot A Student?

Amanda Knox expert witness Dr. Greg Hampikian says:

Quote:
young people who are away from home for the first time, and are coincidentally the age associated with alcohol and drug experimentation, and the commission of felonies


Mercury turned direct; it's all coming out.


pp-( pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline Dee71


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:34 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi Guermantes,

If you are interested in graphology then you may enjoy reading this short article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/solving-a-murder-with-graphology?cid=rss


Dee
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

No matter what your family does for you, fact is, if you are carrying around with you the (known) secret, that you are a murderer, then it does not matter that it is your family you are dealing with, at a certain point cracks appear and you can hardly truly exempt them from that which you have become, Knox may be entwined in her web but anyone else trying to walk it gets stuck, for sure or will do at some stage. Mum suppressing what she in her heart knows, would mum as an individual ever have gotten so into kicks that she herself would have murdered someone, doubt it, so the reality dawning must be taking its toll, you can actually see it on her, no matter its source or what she believes, she is in a bad state.

Her daughter stands by and as much as criticises her, while she is the cause.

I've never been able to gaze too long at Knox's face, but if she wasn't potty before, she really does look like she is now, but that horrible twisted look she had in court, with her eyes that revealed the truth of her lying, is forever ongoing and present.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Dee71 wrote:
Hi Guermantes,

If you are interested in graphology then you may enjoy reading this short article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/solving-a-murder-with-graphology?cid=rss


Dee



Interesting article, Welcome to PMF, Dee!!! :)

_________________
"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: 4885

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Dee :) ; very interesting indeed, especially an analysis of Rudy Guede's handwriting as we don't know much about him:

http://www.examiner.com/article/rudy-guede-s-unspoken-words-handwriting-analysis

As regards Amanda Knox, I have to say she scares me. I wouldn't want to stay in the same room with that woman for five minutes. I can feel from afar all the negative energy emanating from her. I think in this latest interview she shows her 'real face', undisguised, and it isn't 'pretty'.

Another piktor classic:

Attachment:
story without words.png


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: 4885

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Any guesses on what Raffa will get for his 30th Birthday (on the 26th of March)?

A red Ferrari, the Nencini Motivations Report, or a postcard from Amanda, ornamented with

flowers and heart-shaped peace signs? ;)

Attachment:
Peace-Love Heart_Sunflower.jpg


Attachment:
Peace-Love Heart.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 Mar 04, 2014 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Any guesses on what Raffa will get for his 30th Birthday (on the 26th of March)?

A red Ferrari, the Nencini Motivations Report, or a postcard from Amanda, ornamented with

flowers and heart-shaped peace signs? ;)


Well, I only know what I got him, I found 200 liras, so I want to know if anyone can give me change for it as I'm not giving it all to him, I'm sure it'll help his fund and pay for insurance and fuel for his fuel guzzling automobile, wow, his assorted fans consisting of lunatics, perverts, those types of women who start worshipping some serial killer on death row aren't going to be sore at all about him asking for their dough then him pictured in cars they see on the telly, etc, no, they won't care as the types who said they supported him are as deranged as he is, same with Knox.

I admit I haven't been brave enough to sit here watching Knox, I've taken the wretch --who signed her name in blood, has blood on her hands, and produced a pathetic attempt at a book which has Meredith's blood all through in and on it-- in tiny doses. I actually don't know how others can stand watching her, I think I must have a fear of the evil eye.

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

Offline Dee71


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:34 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Dee71 wrote:
Hi Guermantes,

If you are interested in graphology then you may enjoy reading this short article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/solving-a-murder-with-graphology?cid=rss


Dee



Interesting article, Welcome to PMF, Dee!!! :)


Thank you :)

It was a bit rude of me to butt in without saying hello really .... so .... "Hello". :D

I'm from England and have been following the case of poor Meredith's murder from the beginning although it was only when AK and RS were acquitted that I really started to pay attention. I remember that day so clearly because I believed them to be innocent and was pleased for them when they were released.

However, as I started to look past the media reporting and did some researching of my own, I realised with increasing horror that I had been wrong. Very wrong!! I kept trying to find evidence to support their innocent but all the information I found just kept pointing to their guilt. I started to widen my research, looking into body language and micro expression analysis, statement analysis and graphology. Everything just led me further along the guilty path.

There are only so many trees you can examine before you stand back and realise you are looking at a wood – and a very dense one at that!

I can’t really add much to the discussions about DNA, forensic evidence, phone call timings, legal matters, extradition etc etc etc, so I’m glad to have found places where people are so knowledgeable and can fill me in.

Thanks once again.

Dee
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi Dee,

That's good to hear, you realising, it's clear that many were indeed taken in by all of the PR, which you will probably know about. The way a PR firm can get away with what is no less than the perversion of justice is to my mind a crime as bad as the murder itself, in fact, I find anyone who, unlike you, where you didn't realise, in fact knows the truth but is simply as bad as these murderers and up to no good, ought to be in prison too, I mean to say, if you happen to be a the scene of a crime and do nothing, ever, and cover up, you are then tried as a murderer too, so why should people be allowed to get away with doing pretty much the same thing, from a distance, or in many cases, from close quarters since it seems to me there are enough people close to Knox & Sollecito who are protecting them or rather, supporting them on the basis of some ill-conceived notion of belonging, this means, people like to think in terms of a group, therefore Knox as a person from Seattle and also America, has people who switch off to the horrors that overcame Meredith, they turn a light off in their hearts, and prefer to see anything against one of their own as an attack on them. The craziest part of that is that it is grounded in a false sense of patriotism, so there is name calling, running Italians down into the realm of ridiculous, while if it had taken place in the States they would not have done what they have, though some would have as they are so superficial in thought that Knox's looks are what forms their priority, upon which to base their common sense.
The biggest story apart from the murder itself is this type of awful phenomenon.

I would bet that the mother of Knox's two younger sisters want the sisters to keep well away from her.

However, maybe they are screwed up in the mind too and think Knox is fantastic.

I really hope & pray that this man Marriot is shown exactly as he is, I know PR is a business but what kind of twit makes his money through the blood of slaughtered and butchered females. He ought to be on death row himself, as he has actively sought to manipulate news so that people receive lies instead of facts. Not that I believe in the death penalty, but to convey how much I despise the twat, there you have it.

_________________
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 Mar 05, 2014 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What I wonder about is where Sollecito will be, as I do not see that his whereabouts are being monitored. As there is no court date yet I guess he will not be in a particular hurry to flee, he will be planning his escape though, because at the time the Supreme Court enters chambers, he will exit Europe if not held.

He is not going to stay to be placed in prison. He'll prefer to give it a go on the run, that's what he'll be working out right now, his options.

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

Offline Dee71


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:34 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Thanks Dee :) ; very interesting indeed, especially an analysis of Rudy Guede's handwriting as we don't know much about him:

http://www.examiner.com/article/rudy-guede-s-unspoken-words-handwriting-analysis

As regards Amanda Knox, I have to say she scares me. I wouldn't want to stay in the same room with that woman for five minutes. I can feel from afar all the negative energy emanating from her. I think in this latest interview she shows her 'real face', undisguised, and it isn't 'pretty'.

Another piktor classic:

Attachment:
story without words.png



It is interesting isn't it, to look at the trio from every angle. I am certainly no expert on graphology and have read only a few articles on AK but they all seem to share a common theme. As you noted, there's not much out there on Rudy so, it's mainly all about AK.

I also wouldn’t want to be alone in the same room as her. I wouldn’t mind watching her in person interacting with different people though. I read the following article on Sociopaths and it made me think about her interviews and why they may not be the successes she would like them to be. Is it possible that because she has no direct contact with her audience she has no direct clues and guidance as to how she should act or react? She can’t judge which mask she should be putting on.


http://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/portrait-of-a-sociopath/


This is a quote from quite a lengthy article (just to note: there are some references to the Church of Scientology in part of the article):

"A Sociopath goes through life carefully watching others, their reactions and to what, what reactions caused a favourable response and what didn’t, and so on. They will then use what they have observed to try and evoke the same responses from their targets. That’s ALL they allow themselves to think about what they have observed – whether or not it worked on someone else.
They will only allow an observation concerning what “worked” on them, if it worked to catch them out, or cause them to become a “dead-agent”. That is the sole extent of any introspection allowed in the Sociopath’s inner world."


Whether or not you believe AK to be a fully-fledged sociopath there is some thought-provoking material in the article.

Dee
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

How about a All You Need Is Love T-shirt, a copy of her book and a box of chocolates?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Dee71


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:34 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Hi Dee,

That's good to hear, you realising, it's clear that many were indeed taken in by all of the PR, which you will probably know about. The way a PR firm can get away with what is no less than the perversion of justice is to my mind a crime as bad as the murder itself, in fact, I find anyone who, unlike you, where you didn't realise, in fact knows the truth but is simply as bad as these murderers and up to no good, ought to be in prison too, I mean to say, if you happen to be a the scene of a crime and do nothing, ever, and cover up, you are then tried as a murderer too, so why should people be allowed to get away with doing pretty much the same thing, from a distance, or in many cases, from close quarters since it seems to me there are enough people close to Knox & Sollecito who are protecting them or rather, supporting them on the basis of some ill-conceived notion of belonging, this means, people like to think in terms of a group, therefore Knox as a person from Seattle and also America, has people who switch off to the horrors that overcame Meredith, they turn a light off in their hearts, and prefer to see anything against one of their own as an attack on them. The craziest part of that is that it is grounded in a false sense of patriotism, so there is name calling, running Italians down into the realm of ridiculous, while if it had taken place in the States they would not have done what they have, though some would have as they are so superficial in thought that Knox's looks are what forms their priority, upon which to base their common sense.
The biggest story apart from the murder itself is this type of awful phenomenon.

I would bet that the mother of Knox's two younger sisters want the sisters to keep well away from her.

However, maybe they are screwed up in the mind too and think Knox is fantastic.

I really hope & pray that this man Marriot is shown exactly as he is, I know PR is a business but what kind of twit makes his money through the blood of slaughtered and butchered females. He ought to be on death row himself, as he has actively sought to manipulate news so that people receive lies instead of facts. Not that I believe in the death penalty, but to convey how much I despise the twat, there you have it.



Hi Zorba,

This has been a real eye opener for me in so many ways. I feel like a cynical old woman not knowing where to get my information from anymore or what to believe. I actually feel let down by the broadsheets; I expected better. As for Marriot – I too hope that he is shown up for what he is.

The lack of empathy for Meredith’s friends and family has really got to me. I have a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye when I see and hear Meredith’s family talk. When I read the book written by her father I had to have a box of tissues by me. Every word that comes from AK and RS’s mouths must feel like another twist of the knife. No matter what people believe there is no excuse not to empathise with Meredith’s friends and family.

I do have faith that, in the end, all the murderers will end up in prison for a long time, despite the massive amount spent on PR by AK. Hopefully then the message will be out there loud and clear that no matter how much you spend you can’t get away with murder.

I am also incredibly heartened that there are people out there who are prepared to stand up for what is right. To fight for justice.

Dee
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, Dee71, and welcome to the board. We're pretty eclectic and all comments pertaining to the case, from whatever field or perspective, are welcome. A little OT is also OK, but the graphology comments are especially apropos, someone was asking me for samples of the perps handwriting so now I can point them to this series here. Perhaps if someone can cc it to the "In Their Own Words" subforum or wherever so all the samples can be in one easily found location?

I'm more of an astrologer myself, using it to gain additional insights into their psychology, but some knowledge of graphology as well. I note Amanda Knox's tight, controlled spacing, and all her writing samples seem to have a backwards slope. That can be a sign of depression, which she's carried for a very long time.

PS: The Mastronardi/Castellini book "Meredith~Luci e ombre a Perugia" has all three's hand writing samples and a large section on their psychology. I got the book from Amazon Italia, but scanning the samples is on my very long to do list.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Thanks Dee :) ; very interesting indeed, especially an analysis of Rudy Guede's handwriting as we don't know much about him:

http://www.examiner.com/article/rudy-guede-s-unspoken-words-handwriting-analysis

As regards Amanda Knox, I have to say she scares me. I wouldn't want to stay in the same room with that woman for five minutes. I can feel from afar all the negative energy emanating from her. I think in this latest interview she shows her 'real face', undisguised, and it isn't 'pretty'.

Another piktor classic:

Attachment:
story without words.png


Thanks Piktor...and G. The photos need no comment. I am grossed out.
Top Profile 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
What I wonder about is where Sollecito will be, as I do not see that his whereabouts are being monitored. As there is no court date yet I guess he will not be in a particular hurry to flee, he will be planning his escape though, because at the time the Supreme Court enters chambers, he will exit Europe if not held.

He is not going to stay to be placed in prison. He'll prefer to give it a go on the run, that's what he'll be working out right now, his options.


(Hello, Michael and everyone else.)

I wish someone would simply put one of those cow tags or whatever they're called on him. Then no one need worry about him absconding. The same for Amanda. They could put the cow tag on her ear, and, fake the way she is, she could just tell her friends that it's a designer earring or something.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
zorba wrote:
What I wonder about is where Sollecito will be, as I do not see that his whereabouts are being monitored. As there is no court date yet I guess he will not be in a particular hurry to flee, he will be planning his escape though, because at the time the Supreme Court enters chambers, he will exit Europe if not held.

He is not going to stay to be placed in prison. He'll prefer to give it a go on the run, that's what he'll be working out right now, his options.


(Hello, Michael and everyone else.)

I wish someone would simply put one of those cow tags or whatever they're called on him. Then no one need worry about him absconding. The same for Amanda. They could put the cow tag on her ear, and, fake the way she is, she could just tell her friends that it's a designer earring or something.


Hello Earl G,

I don't see why in the name of social integration, he couldn't be apportioned a little job in one of the prisons, he could even be an intern, as in be given accommodation there, then when he finally gets promoted to the inner circle, the transfer will be far less traumatic for him, poor thing, in fact he might not notice much difference.

On Knox, yes that's a fantastic idea, she might also be branded like a cow since nobody would know except for those who need to, everyone else would suspect it is a tattoo, she could go in disguise dressed as a farmer and wear a bell about the neck, since she is at the very least a cow in British English vernacular, the adornments would cause no problem to her agenda at all, even on TV, as she did wish to be music (sic) she might do a dance and ring a ling a ling her bell. Sollecito could join the act, if he runs, and they could earn a crust together busking. He might be great at dancing, we could inform at that dance club he went to after getting out of prison, I expect dads and uncles were simply overjoyed to see him prancing around with their womenfolk, that's probably why they shut down overnight, once the word got about in the village: Murder suspect/part-time murderer, enjoys a dance.

_________________
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: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Now now, Earl Grey. We know you and your fellow peers are trying to reverse the ban on fox hunting, but tying a cow bell to her ear is hardly sporting is it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Merry


Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:25 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi everyone,
I am Maria from Germany. I see there is at least one fellow "Landsmann" here, Stefan, hallo :)
I have started (again) to follow the case when the court confirmed their guilt couple weeks ago... I was convinced they were guilty always, though. AKs and RSs behavior reminds me of the McCanns, maybe some people here remember how their child Madeleine went missing - imo the parents covered something up.
They were lying, had different stories about what happened the night their daughter disappeared, they were discrediting the investigation, media reporting was incredibly biased - sound familiar?
Ergon I just read you are into astrology, have you looked at AKs and RSs birthchart? I just noticed that she has moon conj uranus in sag, which could account for bad temper and impulsiveness. His moon is in capricorn, which is traditionally not a good sign for a "feeling" planet like the moon and can account for a cold unempathic nature.
Is there a thread about their astrology already? I would be glad to delve more into the topic... sorry I only just registered and have not checked out all the info here.
Anyways, have a good day everyone.


Last edited by Merry on Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

HI, Merry, and welcome to the board. Yes, there are many similarities to the McCann case, including the use of PR agents to affect police investigations and criminal proceedings.

Yes, I did look into their charts, but most of that was published on the True Justice site, and came from a philosophical bent. The traditional astrology can be found on this site Keen Astrology NYC

No, we don't have an astrology section, but if you enter Astrology on PMF's search engine you'll find a lot of writing spread out all over, and I'll be happy to answer any questions on the subject, or you can PM (personal message) me.

Yes, from Knox and Sollecito's chart one can see many indicators of self destruction. I also found that the person she had the strongest connection with was, oddly enough, Meredith, though from a negative reaction.

This is what I think: Meredith Kercher, born Dec. 28, 1985, and Rudy Guede, December 26, 1986, are both Capricorns. Raffaele Sollecito, March 26, 1984, is Aries, and Amanda Knox, July 09, 1987, a Cancer. Their signs form a T-Square, at 90 degrees to each other, which are widely seen as indicators of stress and incompatibility. The day of the murder saw widespread stressors on all their horoscopes which would lead to murder, detection, conviction and imprisonment. The Astrology even shows Raffaele’s drug dependency and mental confusion on the night of the murder, the conflict between Amanda and Meredith, and the violence and rage that simmered just below the surface of Amanda Knox’s psyche.

And the night of the murder, November 1, 2007, saw Saturn and Venus in the house of emotional excess, Uranus in the house of sudden death, and Jupiter/Pluto, in the sexual house, in an almost exact T-Square to each other. The close conjunction of Pluto to the Milky Way’s Galactic Center shows the potency of this murder in attracting the public imagination, and also, the trigger for the murder.

But Astrology is just one of many tools in Humanistic psychology. It shows patterns, yes, but mainly it gives a picture of motivations and stages of development. And sometimes, it tells us what might happen.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Zorba,

Speaking of dancing, perhaps Amanda and Raffles might want to visit Meredith's grave and do their dancing there. After all, they've already been dancing on her grave figuratively for years now, so, pfft, why not do it literally? And since the English-speaking media seem to find almost everything they do so adorable, maybe a film crew could be sent to record the event. At the end of her dance, all Amanda will have to do is to make like she's about to cry (we know she never quite succeeds) and to say, "Oh, my poor dear friend Meredith; why?.. why?..." and her dedicated fans will quickly say, "Look! This proves how much Amanda really cared about Meredith."

By the way, this might come as a surprise to you, but when I'm not residing at my ancestral estate in Northumberland, I like to spend time (and the occasional penny) at my ancestral ranch I own in Texas. I happen at the moment to be short two head of cattle that I lost to a recent outbreak of bovine tuberculosis. I don't know if it would be possible to procure and transport them to my ranch, but don't you think that Amanda and Raffles might fill in very nicely for the two I lost? They haven't been much good at anything else they've tried doing in life, so maybe they could become accomplished bovines.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Now now, Earl Grey. We know you and your fellow peers are trying to reverse the ban on fox hunting, but tying a cow bell to her ear is hardly sporting is it?



Ergon,

I never did understand what all the fuss was about when it comes to fox hunting. I mean, the foxes do benefit from getting quite a lot of exercise during the chase.

But seriously, things aren't always so easy for us earls. It's not all peaches and cream and Fabergé eggs. I happen to still be upset over the mysterious disappearance of my good chum and fellow earl down the lane from me. If you get the chance, please light a candle tonight for the Earl of Leete, and if you should happen to see him, please report it to the nearest earls club. He looks like this (in his last recorded message):

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

And here's part two:

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Merry wrote:
[...]
I am Maria from Germany. I see there is at least one fellow "Landsmann" here, Stefan, hallo :)
[...]

Hallo Maria und willkommen! Ich bin allerdings auch noch nicht so lange hier. :)


By the way:

Earl Grey, I sense we share the same kind of humor. I had a good laugh about your remarks on our two model citizens.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

@Earl Grey

I object! I love to drink cow's milk and I am confident other cows on your ranch will not take it kindly.

And

I worship cows. You are hurting my feelings.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Well, chami, Earl Grey was merely suggesting accessorizing the cow :0

I'm the one whose jokey comments about reinstating the 'fox' hunt had the anti-hunt people 'hunting' me, LOL.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

@Earl Grey, I think the Earl of Leete is staying with the 7th Earl of Lucan, who retired to his farm in SA after also having some sort of misunderstanding with his wife. His estate is now being rented out to some TV series, the name of which escapes, but the titular head of the family is called the "Earl of Grantham".

You, of course are a real earl, and we at PMF dot Net are honored to have you with us.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
Earl Grey, I sense we share the same kind of humor. I had a good laugh about your remarks on our two model citizens.


Hello Stefan,

As regards posts that you like, your taste is excellent.

My German is a little rusty, but I’d like to practice translating what you wrote in German:

Hallo Maria und willkommen! Ich bin allerdings auch noch nicht so lange hier.

I believe what you said was this:

By the holy halo of Mother Mary, may Wilberforce come to you with good tidings. Ichabod Crane is all things to all underlings, and the eighth night is always the longest here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Zorba,

Speaking of dancing, perhaps Amanda and Raffles might want to visit Meredith's grave and do their dancing there. After all, they've already been dancing on her grave figuratively for years now, so, pfft, why not do it literally? And since the English-speaking media seem to find almost everything they do so adorable, maybe a film crew could be sent to record the event. At the end of her dance, all Amanda will have to do is to make like she's about to cry (we know she never quite succeeds) and to say, "Oh, my poor dear friend Meredith; why?.. why?..." and her dedicated fans will quickly say, "Look! This proves how much Amanda really cared about Meredith."

By the way, this might come as a surprise to you, but when I'm not residing at my ancestral estate in Northumberland, I like to spend time (and the occasional penny) at my ancestral ranch I own in Texas. I happen at the moment to be short two head of cattle that I lost to a recent outbreak of bovine tuberculosis. I don't know if it would be possible to procure and transport them to my ranch, but don't you think that Amanda and Raffles might fill in very nicely for the two I lost? They haven't been much good at anything else they've tried doing in life, so maybe they could become accomplished bovines.



Hi Earl G,

I don't think you are too far off course, just like hounds chasing the fox never are, what what.
But now you mention it, indeed there is no difference, it is shocking to see it from that angle.

But it is realistic, is it what they've been doing.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
tamale wrote:
--- snip ---

Nell...some friends around my country have recently commented how the tide is turning. No putting this genie back into the bottle! I always felt confident FOA would turn inside out. I do sense growing panic over there. It is important to note THEY did this to Amanda. All we did was counter lies and forward court evidence. Have a great day

--- snap ---


Amanda Knox's decision to give so many interviews had the exact opposite effect of what she hoped for. The family has always said we should get to know the real Amanda, but instead of convincing us how sweet and kind she is, she only made us see how cruel she can be.

What a coincidence that her supporters accuse everyone who believes the evidence to be sound to be a hater. If you want to see real hate, you listen to Amanda Knox when she talks or writes about Meredith's British friends, Filomena and Laura or Monica Napoleoni and Rita Ficarra.

Her blog and interviews are very revealing. Amanda Knox confirms trial watchers worst fears. The result of Knox's anger can be observed in the autopsy photos taken of poor Meredith Kercher who had the misfortune to live in the same house with her.

I agree with you Tamale that her supporters made matters worse for Knox. They made her believe she could get away with murder because some of these old fools felt she was to pretty to rot away in prison. Big mistake.

I wish you a great day too! :)


Good observations as always.
pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline Dee71


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:34 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Dee71, and welcome to the board. We're pretty eclectic and all comments pertaining to the case, from whatever field or perspective, are welcome. A little OT is also OK, but the graphology comments are especially apropos, someone was asking me for samples of the perps handwriting so now I can point them to this series here. Perhaps if someone can cc it to the "In Their Own Words" subforum or wherever so all the samples can be in one easily found location?

I'm more of an astrologer myself, using it to gain additional insights into their psychology, but some knowledge of graphology as well. I note Amanda Knox's tight, controlled spacing, and all her writing samples seem to have a backwards slope. That can be a sign of depression, which she's carried for a very long time.

PS: The Mastronardi/Castellini book "Meredith~Luci e ombre a Perugia" has all three's hand writing samples and a large section on their psychology. I got the book from Amazon Italia, but scanning the samples is on my very long to do list.



Hi Ergon, Thanks :)

I found some articles written by astrologers commenting on AK, RS and RG. Again, although I know very little on the subject and it can get a bit complicated for someone like me who knows nothing, the comments always seem to tie in with everything else I've read about them.

Incidentally, I read the comment on the True Justice sight "..... I always believed that drug dealer Hekuran Kokomani’s presence that night was no coincidence....". I never thought of that! (I am making the somewhat rash assumption that you are the same Ergon. Forgive me if I've got that wrong!!)

Dee
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

A new "ex-FBI expert" has joined Knox's public media support: Meet Jim Clemente, close with the Moores and thin-skinned Twitter user.

http://youtu.be/B6wiW2iphA4

He said on Twitter he didn't need to read the available court documents, he trusted his colleague Steve Moore. Tells you all you need to know about this character.

He tweeted to Steve Moore at the end of February inviting him to the show Crime Time. A match made in heaven.


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

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
A new "ex-FBI expert" has joined Knox's public media support: Meet Jim Clemente, close with the Moores and thin-skinned Twitter user.

http://youtu.be/B6wiW2iphA4

He said on Twitter he didn't need to read the available court documents, he trusted his colleague Steve Moore. Tells you all you need to know about this character.

He tweeted to Steve Moore at the end of February inviting him to the show Crime Time. A match made in heaven.

I might have to watch this, I'm a little reluctant after reading such statements though.

If that is his general attitude you don't have to wonder why it is ex-FBI.


EDIT:

Before his retirement on October 30, 2009, Clemente had been a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico since 1998. He is a nationally recognized expert in the fields of Sex Crimes Investigations, Sex Offender Behavior, Child Sexual Victimization, and Child Pornography. Clemente has investigated and consulted on thousands of cases involving the violent and sexual crimes, sexual victimization of children, and he has interviewed hundreds of victims and offenders. He has also testified as an expert witness and lectured on these topics across the country and around the world.

If his background is "Behavioral Analysis" I am stunned.

Amanda Knox and her whole behaviour over the course of this case, in addition to her latest interview, is so awkward. Now, I am certainly no expert in behavioural analysis but watching her I would have never come to the conclusion that she might be innocent. I thought she killed the whole argument about her innocence with that last interview. It is completely beyond me why she is so obsessed with having her face in front of a camera, she is obviously incapable of keeping her facial expressions under control, if somebody wanted to help her he should ban her from giving interviews and her written statements should be predefined by others.

Also, I heard Jim Clemente talking about evidence of the crime scene when I watched a little of the video. If those so called experts on this case are so obsessed with their professionalism why don't they just stick with their field of expertise and leave the commenting on evidence to actual forensic experts?

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 246

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
Nell wrote:
A new "ex-FBI expert" has joined Knox's public media support: Meet Jim Clemente, close with the Moores and thin-skinned Twitter user.

http://youtu.be/B6wiW2iphA4

He said on Twitter he didn't need to read the available court documents, he trusted his colleague Steve Moore. Tells you all you need to know about this character.

He tweeted to Steve Moore at the end of February inviting him to the show Crime Time. A match made in heaven.

I might have to watch this, I'm a little reluctant after reading such statements though.

If that is his general attitude you don't have to wonder why it is ex-FBI.


I started watching it (will finish later), in the first 15 minutes they have managed to get every little detail of the case wrong. According to them, the Supreme court has now convicted AK and RS and Italy doesn't have double jeopardy like most civilized countries such as the US (I guess my country is very uncivilized compared to the US when we don't even have the death penalty), prosecutors were testifying, Mignini's theories were used to convict without no eye witness or other evidence, prosecutor's expert admitted in court that the double DNA knife was too big to match the wounds, Mignini believes his own lies etc. Sexy lingerie, cart wheels and kissing RS convinced Mignini that AK was guilty. There doesn't seem to be any factual evidence.

What's funny is that I really liked Jim Clemente in the earlier clip Ergon posted where he was talking about the Woody Allen vs Dylan Farrow case, he sounded really convincing and sharp and intelligent, like he knew a lot about the case and sexual abuse of children. Then when the AK section started I was expecting something totally different and was mouth open in astonishment listening him going on about prosecutorial misconduct etc. My conclusion is that he just doesn't know anything about this case. Nor does that woman. I wonder what journalism school, if any, she attended? I mean do the US journalism schools teach how to verify the reliability of information provided, how to look for reliable sources etc.

But thanks Nell and Ergon for posting these links. Interesting to see spinning of lies in motion, and that the innocentisti side is able to find these kind of useful idiots to further their cause. Not that I think many will watch this Internet tv (or is it local tv?) programme.
Top Profile 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Rumpole wrote:
I started watching it (will finish later), in the first 15 minutes they have managed to get every little detail of the case wrong. According to them, the Supreme court has now convicted AK and RS and Italy doesn't have double jeopardy like most civilized countries such as the US (I guess my country is very uncivilized compared to the US when we don't even have the death penalty), prosecutors were testifying, Mignini's theories were used to convict without no eye witness or other evidence, prosecutor's expert admitted in court that the double DNA knife was too big to match the wounds, Mignini believes his own lies etc. Sexy lingerie, cart wheels and kissing RS convinced Mignini that AK was guilty. There doesn't seem to be any factual evidence.

What's funny is that I really liked Jim Clemente in the earlier clip Ergon posted where he was talking about the Woody Allen vs Dylan Farrow case, he sounded really convincing and sharp and intelligent, like he knew a lot about the case and sexual abuse of children. Then when the AK section started I was expecting something totally different and was mouth open in astonishment listening him going on about prosecutorial misconduct etc. My conclusion is that he just doesn't know anything about this case. Nor does that woman. I wonder what journalism school, if any, she attended? I mean do the US journalism schools teach how to verify the reliability of information provided, how to look for reliable sources etc.

But thanks Nell and Ergon for posting these links. Interesting to see spinning of lies in motion, and that the innocentisti side is able to find these kind of useful idiots to further their cause. Not that I think many will watch this Internet tv (or is it local tv?) programme.

I've posted a reply to his first statements on the Meredith Kercher case a little upthread.

I was asking the same questions and as you reminded me of them I did a quick research now, hope that helps you as well.

It looks like an Internet TV programme. (http://thelip.tv/)

The name of the host is Allison Hope Weiner. (Her biography: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-hope-weiner/)

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4885

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Meredith's image has been appropriated by the FOA, once again.

Posted on the "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" FB page: FACEBOOK

Attachment:
Meredith appropriate by FOA.jpg


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

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

That is such a stupid and disturbing argument to make, but then again they have never been shy of throwing mud at the victim.

You could counter that by stating the number of annual murder convictions worldwide, only difference in this case is that 99,9% of those convicted don't go on a year long media crusade celebrating their fame and abusing their victim even after the murder.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Dee71 wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Hi, Dee71, and welcome to the board. We're pretty eclectic and all comments pertaining to the case, from whatever field or perspective, are welcome. A little OT is also OK, but the graphology comments are especially apropos, someone was asking me for samples of the perps handwriting so now I can point them to this series here. Perhaps if someone can cc it to the "In Their Own Words" subforum or wherever so all the samples can be in one easily found location?

I'm more of an astrologer myself, using it to gain additional insights into their psychology, but some knowledge of graphology as well. I note Amanda Knox's tight, controlled spacing, and all her writing samples seem to have a backwards slope. That can be a sign of depression, which she's carried for a very long time.

PS: The Mastronardi/Castellini book "Meredith~Luci e ombre a Perugia" has all three's hand writing samples and a large section on their psychology. I got the book from Amazon Italia, but scanning the samples is on my very long to do list.



Hi Ergon, Thanks :)

I found some articles written by astrologers commenting on AK, RS and RG. Again, although I know very little on the subject and it can get a bit complicated for someone like me who knows nothing, the comments always seem to tie in with everything else I've read about them.

Incidentally, I read the comment on the True Justice sight "..... I always believed that drug dealer Hekuran Kokomani’s presence that night was no coincidence....". I never thought of that! (I am making the somewhat rash assumption that you are the same Ergon. Forgive me if I've got that wrong!!)

Dee


Yep, that's me, Ergon, also on TJMK plus the articles I wrote there on the knives, and in the "Psychology" Section.

On Twitter I am @manfromatlan you'll see me talking to ex-FBI profiler @JimClemente
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Meredith's image has been appropriated by the FOA, once again.

Posted on the "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" FB page: FACEBOOK

Attachment:
Meredith appropriate by FOA.jpg


How many "female victims of homicide" families get abused by partisans of the accused (and convicted of murder) on a regular basis? How many victims have those same partisans taking the murderer for a tour of the victim's grave, not respecting the sanctity of the family's wishes to respect it? Just one, that I know of.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jody Arias acted similarly IMO. Complete disreguard for the victim's family and friends.

She tried to use Travis looking at pics of boys and physical/mental abuse by him... both totally untrue.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7193

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

You're right, dgfred, though IMO, while "blaming the victim" is actually quite common, abusing the victim's family is quite unique in this regard.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stefan wrote:
Nell wrote:
A new "ex-FBI expert" has joined Knox's public media support: Meet Jim Clemente, close with the Moores and thin-skinned Twitter user.

http://youtu.be/B6wiW2iphA4

He said on Twitter he didn't need to read the available court documents, he trusted his colleague Steve Moore. Tells you all you need to know about this character.

He tweeted to Steve Moore at the end of February inviting him to the show Crime Time. A match made in heaven.

I might have to watch this, I'm a little reluctant after reading such statements though.

If that is his general attitude you don't have to wonder why it is ex-FBI.


EDIT:

Before his retirement on October 30, 2009, Clemente had been a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico since 1998. He is a nationally recognized expert in the fields of Sex Crimes Investigations, Sex Offender Behavior, Child Sexual Victimization, and Child Pornography. Clemente has investigated and consulted on thousands of cases involving the violent and sexual crimes, sexual victimization of children, and he has interviewed hundreds of victims and offenders. He has also testified as an expert witness and lectured on these topics across the country and around the world.

If his background is "Behavioral Analysis" I am stunned.

Amanda Knox and her whole behaviour over the course of this case, in addition to her latest interview, is so awkward. Now, I am certainly no expert in behavioural analysis but watching her I would have never come to the conclusion that she might be innocent. I thought she killed the whole argument about her innocence with that last interview. It is completely beyond me why she is so obsessed with having her face in front of a camera, she is obviously incapable of keeping her facial expressions under control, if somebody wanted to help her he should ban her from giving interviews and her written statements should be predefined by others.

Also, I heard Jim Clemente talking about evidence of the crime scene when I watched a little of the video. If those so called experts on this case are so obsessed with their professionalism why don't they just stick with their field of expertise and leave the commenting on evidence to actual forensic experts?


I haven't watched it yet and after reading what Rumpole had to say, I probably won't.

Jim Clemente does not strike me as a professional. People have approached him after reading a few of his comments and he responded in a childish manner. He insults others quickly and is very thin-skinned when people point out that he hasn't read anything about the case himself.

I cannot take someone seriously who is not willing to do the work. Steve Moore's lies are well documented, Clemente's response to any criticism is insults over insults, not facts.

Summing up, his arguments for Knox's innocence are: a) Douglas Preston's Monster of Florence and b) his CV.

He admits he has not read any court documents and said Steve Moore had (ha ha!) and he trusted him.

I add the conversation on Twitter where he admits to not have read any court documentation and formed his opinion based on Douglas Preston's book.

Quote:

CM_SetReport (@CM_SetReport)
17/01/2014 9:20 am
Thomas Gibson in the director's chair, pulling double duty, on the set #criminalminds EP#916 w
@JimClemente pic.twitter.com/JBkeWR15O5

Professor Snape (@Snape_Slap)
17/01/2014 10:01 am
@CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS @JimClemente Hope to see a show based upon the #AmandaKnox murder in the near future! pic.twitter.com/fJHjIsv3wu

Kris Arnason (@KrisArnason)
17/01/2014 10:39 am
@Snape_Slap @CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS @JimClemente Thomas Gibson would get it right too - no more lies that Amanda Knox is innocent!

Jim Clemente (@JimClemente)
17/01/2014 4:05 pm
@KrisArnason @Snape_Slap @CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS hate to tell you but read The Monster of Florence - your opinion may change!

Savi Myku (@Savimyku)
18/01/2014 6:42 am
@JimClemente @KrisArnason @Snape_Slap @CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS Which 1 to read? there are a few, or do you mean the 1 by Preston &Spezi

Jim Clemente (@JimClemente)
18/01/2014 8:04 am
@Savimyku @KrisArnason @Snape_Slap @CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS It is titled: The Monster of Florence.

Kris Arnason (@KrisArnason)
18/01/2014 8:06 am
@JimClemente @Savimyku @Snape_Slap @CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS Jim, I highly urge you to read John Follain - amazon.com/dp/1250024242

Kris Arnason (@KrisArnason)
18/01/2014 8:08 am
@JimClemente @Savimyku @Snape_Slap @CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS AND the evidence/testimony/transcripts, of course, @ themurderofmeredithkercher.com


Kris Arnason (@KrisArnason)
18/01/2014 8:13 am
@JimClemente @Savimyku @Snape_Slap @CM_SetReport @CrimMinds_CBS Finally, the MOF has nothing to do with Amanda Knox killing Meredith Kercher

Jim Clemente (@JimClemente)
18/01/2014 10:57 am
@KrisArnason @CM_SetReport MOF has everything to do with a psychopathic prosecutor who suborns perjury and sees devil worship everywhere!

Kris Arnason (@KrisArnason)
18/01/2014 11:23 am
@JimClemente @CM_SetReport Jim, you may be watching too much #CriminalMinds ! Don't get me wrong, that show is great, but THIS, is real.

Jim Clemente (@JimClemente)
20/01/2014 2:31 am
@KrisArnason @CM_SetReport Kris... are you forgetting which one of us actually investigated thousands of sex crimes and homicides?

Kris Arnason (@KrisArnason)
20/01/2014 3:31 am
@JimClemente @CM_SetReport No, but since you haven't studied this case for yourself, how are you confident to comment? Hearsay? #amandaknox

Jim Clemente (@JimClemente)
20/01/2014 4:10 am
@KrisArnason @CM_SetReport My colleague did and i know and trust his expert work. injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Meredith's image has been appropriated by the FOA, once again.

Posted on the "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" FB page: FACEBOOK

Attachment:
Meredith appropriate by FOA.jpg


Bruce Fischer has also tweeted the picture. I criticised him for that as he openly supports the woman convicted for her murder.

I have been approached by FOAKers and one person who appeared neutral to drop my Meredith avatar on Twitter. It's just a new attempt to get rid of her. Everything should be plastered with Amanda Knox only.

I have noticed that many FOAKers have dropped the Raffaele Sollecito hashtag.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Nell wrote:
A new "ex-FBI expert" has joined Knox's public media support: Meet Jim Clemente, close with the Moores and thin-skinned Twitter user.

http://youtu.be/B6wiW2iphA4

He said on Twitter he didn't need to read the available court documents, he trusted his colleague Steve Moore. Tells you all you need to know about this character.

He tweeted to Steve Moore at the end of February inviting him to the show Crime Time. A match made in heaven.

I might have to watch this, I'm a little reluctant after reading such statements though.

If that is his general attitude you don't have to wonder why it is ex-FBI.


I started watching it (will finish later), in the first 15 minutes they have managed to get every little detail of the case wrong. According to them, the Supreme court has now convicted AK and RS and Italy doesn't have double jeopardy like most civilized countries such as the US (I guess my country is very uncivilized compared to the US when we don't even have the death penalty), prosecutors were testifying, Mignini's theories were used to convict without no eye witness or other evidence, prosecutor's expert admitted in court that the double DNA knife was too big to match the wounds, Mignini believes his own lies etc. Sexy lingerie, cart wheels and kissing RS convinced Mignini that AK was guilty. There doesn't seem to be any factual evidence.

What's funny is that I really liked Jim Clemente in the earlier clip Ergon posted where he was talking about the Woody Allen vs Dylan Farrow case, he sounded really convincing and sharp and intelligent, like he knew a lot about the case and sexual abuse of children. Then when the AK section started I was expecting something totally different and was mouth open in astonishment listening him going on about prosecutorial misconduct etc. My conclusion is that he just doesn't know anything about this case. Nor does that woman. I wonder what journalism school, if any, she attended? I mean do the US journalism schools teach how to verify the reliability of information provided, how to look for reliable sources etc.

But thanks Nell and Ergon for posting these links. Interesting to see spinning of lies in motion, and that the innocentisti side is able to find these kind of useful idiots to further their cause. Not that I think many will watch this Internet tv (or is it local tv?) programme.


Thanks for giving us an insight of what expects us if we hit the play button. Based on what I read on Twitter, I already suspected it would be like that. What a waste of time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Meredith's image has been appropriated by the FOA, once again.

Posted on the "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" FB page: FACEBOOK

Attachment:
Meredith appropriate by FOA.jpg


How many "female victims of homicide" families get abused by partisans of the accused (and convicted of murder) on a regular basis? How many victims have those same partisans taking the murderer for a tour of the victim's grave, not respecting the sanctity of the family's wishes to respect it? Just one, that I know of.


We should have a "like" button on this forum. So true, Ergon, so true. Sadly. The massive abuse that has been thrown at the Kerchers is also unsurpassed.

There have been a few similar cases, but nothing of this dimension, with a professional PR campaign sending out media packages with approved questions and summary sheets that leaves out the actual evidence she was convicted on.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stefan


Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:25 am

Posts: 68

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Thanks for giving us an insight of what expects us if we hit the play button. Based on what I read on Twitter, I already suspected it would be like that. What a waste of time.

I checked his Twitter account before watching this video and experienced that abusive language towards criticism myself. But to be fair some of the statements of his critics weren't appropriate either.

Watching this video I had to stop about 8 minutes in to it, they are still unable to pronounce the names of the people involved in this case. In my opinion this fact alone shows a lot of arrogance and ignorance. It is indeed a waste of time to watch, I don't think these people deserve any attention since they fail to support any of their horrific statements with a reliable source. Besides, there is no room for arguments if they wipe away all of the proven evidence, how should any reasonable person be able to debate with such small-minded persons.

_________________
Formerly known as Schdiwi
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 23 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 30  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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 


29,500,899 Views