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: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:54 am
It is currently Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:54 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 - AUGUST 19, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 2 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

If the convictions are overturned there will presumably be some compensation for them: that is true. It is also just that that should happen. Not sure it will be a fortune though. How is compensation calculated in Italy?

ETA: Thinking about this a bit more I am not convinced that compensation is paid except where it can be shown that the process was flawed or corrupt. I think there has to have been some wrongdoing on the part of at least some of the officials; or a procedural error. Not sure about that: does anyone know? It hinges on proper procedure and an unfortunate outcome: against a true miscarriage of justice because of avoidable error or wilful corruption of some kind, I think
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I believe knox to be innocent. Most the people on this forum thinks shes a murderer. However, its not innocence that will free her. It will be politics that will set Knox/Sollecito free. Mignini is a heck of a prosecutor but in getting his conviction of Knox/Sollecito he left a lot of baggage that has to be accounted for. It wont just be the overturned convictions that will make them rich, it will be the counter lawsuits they will file after being set free.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

What grounds do you imagine they have for lawsuits?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Most the people on this forum thinks shes a murderer.


The case is still ongoing and has not been finally decided yet.

What makes you think that the three defendants Rudy Amanda and Raffaele are murderers?
Raffaele and Amanda's appeals have not even started yet.
You are too quick with your accusations.
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip,
Maybe we missunderstood each other. I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers. Which means more than half. I didn't say all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers.


The appeals have not finished yet. They have not even started.
Why do you call them murderers?
They are still only defendants.
You are maligning their good character.
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers.


The appeals have not finished yet. They have not even started.
Why do you call them murderers?
They are still only defendants.
You are maligning their good character.


Fine if you dont want me posting here all you had to do is ask.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.


Really?
You seem very certain. If you are correct then I wish them well and hope they sleep well at night.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers.


The appeals have not finished yet. They have not even started.
Why do you call them murderers?
They are still only defendants.
You are maligning their good character.


Fine if you dont want me posting here all you had to do is ask.


-- When, after the final appeals are completed, and the defendants turn out to be acquitted of all charges, they will have a claim against you for calling them murderers.

Look at how the journalists call them in the newspapers: "defendants". Copy their example, because they have had experience paying for making misleading claims. Journalists are wise.

Are you certain that their convictions will stand on final appeal? That way you might be able to defend against a claim from Amanda and Raffaele -- maybe. Such a gamble on your part is very brave of you. Hopefully you will have deep pockets by then.

Lawyers are never, and can never be, so certain of the outcomes as you are.

In fact, the appeals have not even started yet. Good luck with your funds! I probably won't be able to help you much with that part.



-- Are you asking me to ask you to do something? I don't follow. Please explain.

alternatively,

Fine,
Chris C. might be wanting to ask you something, or wanting you to ask him something. I'm not really sure. It is all very confusing.

I think he must have an 80-character limit on his phone screen, or something similar. His short messages are very cryptic.
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers.


The appeals have not finished yet. They have not even started.
Why do you call them murderers?
They are still only defendants.
You are maligning their good character.


Fine if you dont want me posting here all you had to do is ask.

Little touchy this morning? Remember that old school yard taunt? Don't dish it out unless you can take it.
Count me on the guilty side.
Catnip: I haven't seen any evidence of good character out of the 3 :0
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
I wonder what Ghirga must have been thinking when he got the phone call about getting this job. "Cha-ching" comes to mind. But also: "How the f*** am I going to win this one?"


I think you've got it there - when Ghirga looks at Knox laviciously it's because he sees money.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.


There is a possibility that Knox and Sollecito will have their sentences increased at their appeals. The new judges might not share Judge Massei's opinion that Knox and Sollecito showed pity and repentance by covering Meredith's body with the duvet.

Furthermore, Knox faces more years in prison, if she's found guilty of slandering the police officers who were present when she was questioned on 5 November 2007. Judge Claudia Matteini won't be a lenient as Judge Massei.

The Italian authorities have a responsibility to protect the public from these two sadistic sex killers who have never shown any flicker of remorse or regret.

Knox and Sollecito both have serious mental health issues. If they are released from prison, it will be to a secure psychiatric unit.
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Let's just take a look back shall we Chris? Amanda placed herself at the scene of the crime,in the house at the time Meredith was being murdered. Yes, her own admission. She wasn't tortured, starved, yadda, yadda, etc. etc.....There is dna evidence placing her in the house. Now, while the bulk of the evidence is circumstantial, the one thing that cannot be ruled out is that she voluntarily placed herself in the house and offered up Lumumba as a sacrifice. She never recanted the Lumumba story and even reiterated it the following day? Being at the house during the commission of said crime, not even being involved, still makes her guilty of failing to aid Meredith while she was being savagely butchered. What type of person does this? Don't know? I'll tell you: one who's involved in the actual crime itself. There were no politics involved in this conviction and from what I have seen so far, no political representative will stick their neck out any further considering the backlash from their tax paying constituents. They were told she received a fair trial by the embassy and a few of them have fallen far short of doing any actual investigation on their own, choosing instead to swallow some of the swill from the FOA PR Machine. When all is said and done and the convictions are upheld, they would do best to close their pie holes and be thankful that she was convicted in Italy. If she was male, she would have been Scott Peterson's cell mate by now..........They could have traded their "I didn't do it stories".......or compared their bs alibis.......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
"Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned."


If their convictions get overturned.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"Judge Claudia Matteini won't be a lenient as Judge Massei."

Matteini is only the preliminary judge in that case. (Like Micheli was in the main case)
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Maybe Rudi's going to write a book when he gets out in 5 years and pre-emp the K/M clan. His writing is certainly better than Amanda's. I'm assuming double jeopardy is true in Italy as well as the U.S.A.


I think Rudy would earn far more than Knox out of a book. Yes he does seem to be more literate. Knox's book would be filed under 'fantasy'. Rudys book would more factual. I think any book Knox produced would suffer for the same reason Candace Dempsey's book has suffered compared to the Barbie Nadeau one - people want to read about what really went on - not just a sugar coated portrayal of Knox. But then again Knox could attempt a novel whereby the reader could read between the lines - as in 'if i did it' (OJ). She's already had practice with her Marie Pace "story".

I would buy the Barbie Nadeau book rightaway but as yet there is no Kindle reader for Linux. I think that is disappointing as kindle is really the only e-book format for what were paperbacks. Will the motivations report translation be in pdf format? -- when?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This is OT now, since bolint has already answered Chris C. with the Laconic "if". :)

However, the detrimental way that the FOA have impacted on Amanda (and Raffaele and Rudy)'s case needs to be highlighted so that they have an opportunity to amend their ways.

Not that there's anything new here.
Feel free to skip, especially as it's wordy. If the hand-holding doesn't work, then they're on their own.

Central thesis: Chris C.'s unethical use of language is harming Amanda's case.
(I've just had a flash of deja vu as I typed that - didn't I do something similar about a year ago?)

Anyway, it's back to work in 6 hours, so signing off now.
Bis spaeter.






tigger3498 wrote:
Catnip: I haven't seen any evidence of good character out of the 3 :0


Perhaps not, if you mean their internal character (= personality). :) Nothing I can do about that!

And perhaps not, if you mean their emotional maturity, which could be either from lack of sufficient time to develop, or from some impediment blocking that development (such as lesser or permanently lowered inhibition levels, caused by, say, learning, or enviroment, or something else). All very complicated. I don't know the answer there.

Intellectually, there has been some attempt at improving their education levels (Rudy, in particular, has dramatically improved his writing skills, from what I have seen - I'm impressed: he can use legal phrases and sentence constructions much much better than before; so the willingness is there; and from that, perhaps, there can come some hope).

The sort of character I was thinking of was the one that journalists can malign without any help from the person concerned, the outer character of a person, their reputation if you will.

Like the proberbial "good fame and character" that lawyers have to "be of" (rather than "are" or "have"). Perhaps I am making a distinction where none exists (at least, in "normal" life, anyway). While I was practising my macro skills, I found a nice quote on Saturday (two days ago for me, since it is past midnight here):

"good fame and character The qualities expected of a legal practioner. ...To be of good fame and character includes adherence to honesty, trust, integrity and frankness." — Oxford Australian Law Dictionary (2010), edited by Trischa Mann [Oxford University Press 2010] p 274

I wish Anne Bremner would apply some of that (or her Bar Association, assuming she belongs to one).

The journalist's way of writing Chris C's statement without laying the basis for a self-defeating claim against himself by Amanda and Raffaele would have been something like:

"Most (or better: More than NN percent of the) posts in the last XX days on forum ZZZ were of the opinion that the charges against Amanda and Raffaele (accused and convicted at the trial of first-instance of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia in November 2007) will be dropped/upheld in the appeals, compared to MM percent in the prior period. Meanwhile, on forum YYY and Frank Sfarzo's blog, the results were..." and so on.

but: that is
  • more than 80 characters
  • hard work to calculate all the stats
  • unlikely to be part of his agenda, so far as revealed
  • not tabloidy enough, and won't sell many newspapers
  • and probably statistically meaningless anyway, because my twenty avatar alias's posts outweigh your single one (!) (if you made a post expressing an opinion; or if you didn't, where do we count you in the stats of the base population?)

Anyway, don't worry about Chris C. He'll be back, in one form or another. Maybe with a different pillow. Maybe not.

If he wants to help defend Amanda, rather than playing at defending, I recommend he would get a much better outcome by adopting the correct tools of the trade as a start (for example, by respecting her rights and by respecting his colleagues), and rather than talk and act as if his client is quilty, either change his mind about that position, or let someone else do it.

If I leap to someone's defence and say by my actions, "She's guilty, but..." -- that doesn't help in the long run, and short run as well.

--

Perhaps this idea is too subtle for me to explain clearly.

What if I said: "Most people in the world think that person X is a green dragon with pink and purple polka dots".

Regarding the attribution I am making, people, in their knowledge of the (im)possibility of green dragons, will work out whether I am talking a load of xxx { insert culturally relevant epithet here}.

Now, what if I said: "Most people in the world think that person X is a German citizen". Well, here we have to start taking things on trust.

Now, more generally: "Most people in the world think that person X is a XYZ".
A good defending lawyer would not insert the word "murderer" in there while the case is still being decided.

A bad defender, hmmm, might. And then Amanda could sue him for incompetent representation. I didn't think of that!

Poor Chris C.!

Either way, his agenda does not match Amanda's best interests.
To say nothing of the other two.

:)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
I believe knox to be innocent. Most the people on this forum thinks shes a murderer. However, its not innocence that will free her. It will be politics that will set Knox/Sollecito free. Mignini is a heck of a prosecutor but in getting his conviction of Knox/Sollecito he left a lot of baggage that has to be accounted for. It wont just be the overturned convictions that will make them rich, it will be the counter lawsuits they will file after being set free.



The "they'll be rich" is one of the nice little cultist dreams that perpetuates. The politics-will-get-them-off is another. Let me tell you why you are wrong;

i) The politics are currently irrelevant. Clinton, the State Department and the Embassy have all observed the trial and despite the massive lobbying have quite clearly made it be known they see no issues in the conduct of the trial. It's only at this level it could (emphasis on could) possibly matter. No-one in Italy gives two shits about Cantwell or a hopped-up-on-christianity-abuse-of-office judge's point of view. The Italian judicial process is one with considerable balls and courage given what its judges and prosecutors face by way of personal safety issues when dealing with organised crime cases so it really isn't going to care about a whinge or two from the home team's local "figures". To the extent that the Campaign for Amanda has done anything to affect sentiment, we know that it very negatively affected sentiment because it went out of its way, despite the current furious back-peddling, to paint the system as corrupt, unprincipled and launch attacks on absolutely everyone involved from police officers to forensic scientists to court officials. No-one has done more harm to sentiment against Amanda than her own side. A spectacular own goal which even Amanda tried to play down post conviction. Latterly, having received the very rude shock that justice and process prevails over misplaced notions of the "superiority" and supposed extra-territorial "importance" of American citizenship as they understand it rather than what it actually means, they are trying to get their not very bright heads around how to deal with working in the real world.

ii) They have a very large uphill battle indeed to win the appeals. It's possible - it's always possible. However in my opinion it is standing at something like a maximum 5-10% chance at the moment and I wouldn't put money on it even at those odds because I really can't see it. The weight of evidence is simply too large against them on numerous counts. I cannot for the life of me think of a single case where so many serious pieces of evidence have been overturned. Cases hinging on a single piece of DNA evidence, sure. But on the multiple fronts of evidence? No. And there's so many fronts as you will finally read in the Motivations; something the family could allow you to do but won't because the document is devastating to the front of illusion they've built up in the US.

iii) If by a miracle they are acquitted or in years to come when they have served their time, there may be opportunities to make money from interviews as my reading of Son of Sam type legislation in the US is that it is in quite a lot of trouble due to constitutional challenges. By compare our laws in the UK are strong. But there is a huge debt to pay off and I don't know how many million you think she can make. There's one big deal in there for half a million dollars and a lot of interviews for 30 grand a pop. There won't be a mansion at the end of this ever. She'll be lucky if she's paid back the debts to the family - really lucky.

iv) There's this great belief that Amanda is going to profit from civil litigation against *everyone*. i) She has an incredibly low chance of actually being able to be in a position to litigate per the above. ii) If she were, she doesn't have the funds to do so. iii) Civil litigation is on a balance of probabilities basis rather than a beyond all reasonable doubt basis in a criminal case. Think OJ losing the civil case but being acquitted in the criminal. Her chances of success in Italy are less than zero. Her chances in the UK are similarly so. Does she have a right in the US? Against whom? On what basis? With what chances of achieving a win and getting money off someone? REALLY good luck with that.


I can tell you something for certain; Amanda thinks about what she did every single day of the year. She's thought about how she "fucked up so bad" (her words) several thousand times now. Prison, for all of those who wish her a longer term, is so very far from a picnic. Every day that you and I are talking to loved ones and friends, enjoying the fresh air, going to see a great film, having a meal she has been stuck in that cell. She won't be bambi to everyone, she'll be a scared young woman who has had some elbows in the ribs and some food dropped in her lap at best. She'd give up every single cent she could possibly ever make and trade a life on welfare not to have served that time already.

No, there's no happy-ever-after for Amanda - she's ruined her life and worse for a narcissist she did it to herself. The strain of self-realisation and self-responsibility has already played havoc with Raffaele's mental health. She's also ruined the lives of her family by not having the balls to face up to what she did and let them get on with theirs. Amanda's not going anywhere by every conceivable notion of justice and process I can see. If she had the courage, which she does not, she'd face up to what she's done and start trying to rebuild her character and her life and most importantly let the Kerchers and her own family start rebuilding their's.


Edited to explain sentence 5 para 2 better and some hideous typos - must be out of practice!

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:09 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip, you must really hate people that think Knox/Sollecito are innocent. I've noticed alot of people take personal shots at people because of their belief in Knox/Sollecito's innocence. I could even understand if there was a heated conversation, but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made and still get hammered because I believe them to be innocent makes me wonder if anyone other than Knox/Sollecito haters run this site.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Catnip, you must really hate people that think Knox/Sollecito are innocent. I've noticed alot of people take personal shots at people because of their belief in Knox/Sollecito's innocence. I could even understand if there was a heated conversation, but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made and still get hammered because I believe them to be innocent makes me wonder if anyone other than Knox/Sollecito haters run this site.



Heh awwwwww, c'mon toughen up. You've got access to the appeals documents, you managed to get yourself banned in your first ten posts. You're inside the pro-camp and you don't like us and we don't much like your approach. No point in bleating about it when you get a swipe of the big cat's paw.

More neutrally, Catnip doesn't run the site, only Skep and Michael do that. And personally I don't hate Knox or Sollecito. I think they are deeply troubled individuals who in an escalating spiral of violence got themselves in a no-way-back situation where they made a truly horrible despicable choice to kill Meredith while significantly under the influence. If that was the extent of it, I wouldn't have posted a single post here because it would be like so many other tragic murders. However I do deeply resent the total misrepresentation of the case to the public and the abuse of information on the part of the Campaign for Amanda including several straight out lies which are attempting to create a miscarriage of justice. Team Amanda is the only reason I'm here and if I can add an ounce to the understanding of the facts and evidence of the case to be part of counterbalance that, then I'll be here a long time yet. I've dealt with a major miscarriage of justice and helped secure an acquittal in a multi-year case. This one is everything that case *wasn't*. I almost feel sorry for Amanda sometimes. Almost.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
.........I believe knox to be innocent. Most the people on this forum thinks shes a murderer.............



Chris; stop being paranoid. No one "hates" you.

It's just that....YAWN, YAWN, YAWN
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Catnip, you must really hate people that think Knox/Sollecito are innocent. I've noticed alot of people take personal shots at people because of their belief in Knox/Sollecito's innocence. I could even understand if there was a heated conversation, but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made and still get hammered because I believe them to be innocent makes me wonder if anyone other than Knox/Sollecito haters run this site.


Catnip's shoes are too big for you.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
..... but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made......



huh-) "neutral" ?? huh-)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Catnip, you must really hate people that think Knox/Sollecito are innocent. I've noticed alot of people take personal shots at people because of their belief in Knox/Sollecito's innocence. I could even understand if there was a heated conversation, but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made and still get hammered because I believe them to be innocent makes me wonder if anyone other than Knox/Sollecito haters run this site.


Chris C, you are entitled to believe whatever you want. But good heavens, there is no need to lash out at people you don't know just because they have come to a conclusion that is different from yours. There are loads of reasons they have done so, and none of them has to do with hate.

We aren't really into the whole hater mentality here. This is not about "you" or the people who "run" this site. As one of them, I take exception to your characterization. I don't hate Knox, Sollecito or Guede, but I think the crime(s) they committed are heinous. You know, that whole don't hate the sinner hate the sin thing.

You might be happier posting elsewhere. People who personalize the debate in a negative way don't generally do well on this board.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT))

I happened to be looking at the True Justice site and watched the LA7 videos. The male interviewing Mignini with Andrea Vogt is referred to as a "journalist". In fact, it is Luciano Garofano. He is a well-known forensic scientist and one of the authors, with Graham Johnson and Paul Russel, of "Darkness Descending - The murder of Meredith Kercher." I had the privilege of meeting him once, briefly.

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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Catnip,
Maybe we missunderstood each other. I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers. Which means more than half. I didn't say all.


It is quite interesting that you chose to respond to Catnip. I was perfectly willing to listen to your reasons as to why this pair could bring lawsuits and that might have resulted in an exchange of ideas: but instead you chose to respond to your own interpretation of Catnip's post and raise the temperature.

If your original post was an honest statement of your view then you must have some reason underpinning your conclusions. I took the trouble to do a little digging about what the situation is with respect to compensation in this country. I do not know what it is in Italy: and so I asked you because I presumed you would know, given your assertions. I am waiting for an answer. If you do not know then I presume you know what the situation is in your own country, at least?

Or could it be that you do not actually want a discussion: you want to make unsupported statements which are not explored: or you want a fight.

I am willing to be persuaded that last is not the situation. So I ask you again:

1. how is compensation calculated in Italy?
2. Does it depend on failures in process
3. What is the basis on which you imagine there will lawsuits
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Catnip,
Maybe we missunderstood each other. I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers. Which means more than half. I didn't say all.


I am willing to be persuaded that last is not the situation. So I ask you again:

1. how is compensation calculated in Italy?
2. Does it depend on failures in process
3. What is the basis on which you imagine there will lawsuits


I don't want to interfere with Chris's ability to engage in the discussion but here's an article about compensation for wrongful conviction in Canada:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/compensation+wrongfully+convicted+Unger/2136981/story.html

There are several features of wrongful conviction that are simply absent from the Perugia murder case:

- poor representation of the client.
- DNA evidence exonerating the accused.
- evidence of another suspect ignored or suppressed by the prosecution or police.

There are other features too, of course, but those are the most frequent ones. The highest profile case, that of David Milgaard, is surrounded by many obscure facts not generally understood by those implicating the police in his conviction. For one thing, Milgaard was what you'd call by all accounts a drifter. He had bragged to friends that he killed Gail Fisher and these other (unreliable) witnesses were taken seriously by the investigators.

But, as you can see, compensation is not automatic. It takes evidence that the process itself was incorrect or that the police had not investigated sufficient alternate suspects:

"Chomiak also said Unger was not entitled to compensation because he was not proven innocent of the crime; he was only found not guilty because no evidence was called."

As sceptics, we still have to understand that at any time the defence teams may produce the evidence they need to exonerate Raffaele and Amanda. The trickiest part of this is that they know that Rudy knows that they were there--whether they were holding knives or not. Rudy has a lot less to lose if the "lovebirds" go free on appeal.

I continue to believe that the key to any successful defence is turning the staunch refusal to speak (Raffaele) and the interminable "don't know/can't remembers" (Amanda) into actual statements. It's because they aren't even trying to appear open or honest about anything that they have essentially given up on establishing reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I believe knox to be innocent. Most the people on this forum thinks shes a murderer. However, its not innocence that will free her. It will be politics that will set Knox/Sollecito free. Mignini is a heck of a prosecutor but in getting his conviction of Knox/Sollecito he left a lot of baggage that has to be accounted for. It wont just be the overturned convictions that will make them rich, it will be the counter lawsuits they will file after being set free.



The "they'll be rich" is one of the nice little cultist dreams that perpetuates. The politics-will-get-them-off is another. Let me tell you why you are wrong;

i) The politics are currently irrelevant. Clinton, the State Department and the Embassy have all observed the trial and despite the massive lobbying have quite clearly made it be known they see no issues in the conduct of the trial. It's only at this level it could (emphasis on could) possibly matter. No-one in Italy gives two shits about Cantwell or a hopped-up-on-christianity-abuse-of-office judge's point of view. The Italian judicial process is one that with considerable balls and courage given what its judges and prosecutors face by way of personal safety issues when dealing with organised crime cases. To the extent that the Campaign for Amanda has done anything to affect sentiment, we know that it very negatively affected sentiment because it went out of its way, despite the current furious back-peddling, to paint the system as corrupt, unprincipled and launch attacks on absolutely everyone involved from police officers to forensic scientists to court officials. No-one has done more harm to sentiment against Amanda than her own side. A spectacular own goal which even Amanda tried to play down post conviction. Latterly, having received the very rude shock that justice and process prevails over misplaced notions of the "superiority" and supposed extra-territorial "importance" of American citizenship as they understand it rather than what it actually means, they are trying to get their not very bright heads around how to deal with working in the real world.

ii) They have a very large uphill battle indeed to win the appeals. Its possible - it's always possible. However in my opinion it is standing at something like a maximum 5-10% chance at the moment and I wouldn't put money on it even at those odds because I really can't see it. The weight of evidence is simply too large against them on numerous counts. I cannot for the life of me think of a single case where so many serious pieces of evidence have been overturned. Cases hinging on a single piece of DNA evidence, sure. But on the multiple fronts of evidence? No. And there's so many fronts as you will finally read in the Motivations; something the family could allow you to do but won't because the document is devastating to the front of illusion they've built up in the US.

iii) If by a miracle they are acquitted or in years to come when they have served their time, there may be opportunities to make money from interviews as my reading of Son of Sam type legislation in the US is that it is in quite a lot of trouble due to constitutional challenges. By compare our laws in the UK are strong. But there is a huge debt to pay off and I don't know how many million you think she can make. There's one big deal in there for half a million dollars and a lot of interviews for 30 grand a pop. There won't be a mansion at the end of this ever. She'll be lucky if she's paid back the debts to the family - really lucky.

iv) There's this great belief that Amanda is going to profit from civil litigation against *everyone*. i) She has an incredibly low chance of actually being able to be in a position to litigate per the above. ii) If she were, she doesn't have the funds to do so. iii) Civil litigation is on a balance of probabilities basis rather than a beyond all reasonable doubt basis in a criminal case. Think OJ losing the civil case but being acquitted in the criminal. Her chances of success in Italy are less than zero. Her chances in the UK are similarly so. Does she have a right in the US? Against whom? On what basis? With what chances of achieving a win and getting money off someone? REALLY good luck with that.


I can tell you something for certain; Amanda thinks about what she did every single day of the year. She's thought about how she "fucked up so bad" (her words) several thousand times now. Prison, for all of those who wish her a longer term, is so very far from a picnic. Every day that you and I are talking to loved ones and friends, enjoying the fresh air, going to see a great film, having a meal she has been stuck in that cell. She won't be bambi to everyone, she'll be a scared young woman who has had some elbows in the ribs and some food dropped in her lap at best. She'd give up every single cent she could possibly ever make and trade a life on welfare not to have served that time already.

No, there's no happy-ever-after for Amanda - she's ruined her life and worse as a narcissist she did it to herself. The strain of self-realisation and self-responsibility has already played havoc with Raffaele's mental health. She's also ruined the lives of her family by not having the balls to face up to what she did and let them get on with theirs. Amanda's not going anywhere by every conceivable notion of justice and process I can see. If she had the courage, which she does not, she'd face up to what she'd done and start trying to rebuild her character and her life and most importantly let the Kerchers and her own family start rebuilding there's.

Excellent post!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.

Obvious troll is....obvious.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline cyyates


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:51 am

Posts: 64

Location: U.S. Nebraska

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.

wan-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hello everyone,

Little OT about actual physical evidence again :)

Reading about Amanda's DNA samples I found some conflicting statements.
Some reports say there were a mix of Amanda's and Meredith's blood found. It is interesting to me if they are valid, or just some journalist's misunderstanding of the DNA mixed with Meredith's blood?

Also I remember seeing once a summary of DNA samples from the cottage, but can't seem to find anything like this now. Is such a document available?

Thanks in advance for any help.





Off topic of the OT: There is an interesting finding by Jools in the gallery. See comments of this pic
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Hello everyone,

Little OT about actual physical evidence again :)

Reading about Amanda's DNA samples I found some conflicting statements.
Some reports say there were a mix of Amanda's and Meredith's blood found. It is interesting to me if they are valid, or just some journalist's misunderstanding of the DNA mixed with Meredith's blood?

Also I remember seeing once a summary of DNA samples from the cottage, but can't seem to find anything like this now. Is such a document available?

Thanks in advance for any help.





Off topic of the OT: There is an interesting finding by Jools in the gallery. See comments of this pic

Obvious troll is, again, obvious.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Hello everyone,

Little OT about actual physical evidence again :)

Reading about Amanda's DNA samples I found some conflicting statements.
Some reports say there were a mix of Amanda's and Meredith's blood found. It is interesting to me if they are valid, or just some journalist's misunderstanding of the DNA mixed with Meredith's blood?

Also I remember seeing once a summary of DNA samples from the cottage, but can't seem to find anything like this now. Is such a document available?

Thanks in advance for any help.





Off topic of the OT: There is an interesting finding by Jools in the gallery. See comments of this pic



People are not here to do your bidding. If you have found some conflicting statements or seen a document somewhere summarizing the DNA findings, why don't you take the time needed to track them down and let us know once you have found what you are looking for.

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Here is a list of evidence of footprints and DNA samples from the cottage. Unless I'm mistaken, there were no proven samples of Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. There was Amanda's blood on the faucet, and the other samples appear to be Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood as far as can be determined.


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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Here is a list of evidence of footprints and DNA samples from the cottage. Unless I'm mistaken, there were no proven samples of Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. There was Amanda's blood on the faucet, and the other samples appear to be Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood as far as can be determined.


Thanks for that thoughtful.

I see there are personal comments inserted throughout the data. Do you know 1) who wrote these and 2) who produced the document?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Here is a list of evidence of footprints and DNA samples from the cottage. Unless I'm mistaken, there were no proven samples of Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. There was Amanda's blood on the faucet, and the other samples appear to be Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood as far as can be determined.


What is the source of that document? Is that the complete set of DNA forensics results? Or are they the ones presented in court while others were omitted?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.


After which Amanda will disappear. A few years later she will reappear as Amélie Dantès d'Arc and she will use her tremendous fortune to exact revenge upon those who conspired to imprison her.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.


After which Amanda will disappear. A few years later she will reappear as Amélie Dantès d'Arc and she will use her tremendous fortune to exact revenge upon those who conspired to imprison her.



I think Chris C meant "she" and Sollecito are going to make a fortune, but never mind. That is so old-fashioned of me, I suppose. In any case, I am not so sure they will be making a fortune. Respective moms and pops have extensive legal and PR bills to pay.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"What is the source of that document?"

I downloaded a copy of the same file about a week ago. That link was by Charlie Wilkes. So it is clearly from the Amanda defence circles. (Not that I have problem with that, I'm a document freak, even an unreliable document is usually better than speculation or sloppy media reports)

'Is that the complete set of DNA forensics results?"

The file name is "selected DNA results"
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.


After which Amanda will disappear. A few years later she will reappear as Amélie Dantès d'Arc and she will use her tremendous fortune to exact revenge upon those who conspired to imprison her.



I think Chris C meant "she" and Sollecito are going to make a fortune, but never mind. That is so old-fashioned of me, I suppose. In any case, I am not so sure they will be making a fortune. Respective moms and pops have extensive legal and PR bills to pay.


Grammar is so yesterday. Speaking of which, is this what we might expect to be delivered by a modern day Moses?

Also too, I just started reading The Count of Monte Cristo as translated by Robin Buss and I must say that, because of you and other members of this board, I have a new and profound respect for the work done by translators. Thank you very much.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
The file name is "selected DNA results"


I'm tempted to say that is a perfect description.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"What is the source of that document?"

I downloaded a copy of the same file about a week ago. That link was by Charlie Wilkes. So it is clearly from the Amanda defence circles. (Not that I have problem with that, I'm a document freak, even an unreliable document is usually better than speculation or sloppy media reports)

'Is that the complete set of DNA forensics results?"

The file name is "selected DNA results"


How does none of this surprise me? My problem with this, bolint, is that some of these people, including Charlie, very likely have access to complete and unedited documentation. If they post redacted, altered, or edited documents then they're actually doing worse than the "sloppy" media is. I don't know if your profession involves documentation or audit trails but mine does and this kind of chicanery is exactly the kind of thing that sends CEOs to prison. At the very least, a failure on a Sarbanes-Oxley audit could lead to heavy fines or delisting of your stocks.

In essence, these types of documents are no better than speculation and much worse than anything the media could do on its own.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hmm: selective reporting in the midst of selective reporting. I can see no better reason for distrusting this whole document than its description of sample 59:

Quote:
Rep. 59 Bra 6 samples tested, all revealed victim's DNA,
Trace B revealed Guede's DNA


Spot the missing element? This is the only reference to the bra in this document as presented. We can safely ignore it and we would be foolish not to
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.


If there is irrefutable evidence of their innocence, la_) and Raffaele DESERVE to make money from their plight.

However....... devoting energy to proving makes more sense.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Hmm: selective reporting in the midst of selective reporting. I can see no better reason for distrusting this whole document than its description of sample 59:

Quote:
Rep. 59 Bra 6 samples tested, all revealed victim's DNA,
Trace B revealed Guede's DNA


Spot the missing element? This is the only reference to the bra in this document as presented. We can safely ignore it and we would be foolish not to



The nicest thing that comes to mind is "....living in LaLa land.."

reality check makes me more inclined to think.... " Paid to Spam...."
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This is no 'document' in legal meaning - just a MS-Word-'document'
everyone could write or edit as he likes to do.

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

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Hmm: selective reporting in the midst of selective reporting. I can see no better reason for distrusting this whole document than its description of sample 59:

Quote:
Rep. 59 Bra 6 samples tested, all revealed victim's DNA,
Trace B revealed Guede's DNA


Spot the missing element? This is the only reference to the bra in this document as presented. We can safely ignore it and we would be foolish not to


It is exactly this sort of thing that annoys me, the selective presentation of redacted documentation means that the presenter is not confident or has doubts about their position. If they though that Amanda and Raff were innocent why be afraid to present the whole document. To me it just shows the length that some people will go to subvert justice.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moving on from the doctored report - this from JREF -

"As for the blood landing in "just the right place", this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again. Amanda's DNA would have been all over her bathroom, and even if the police used proper evidence-handling procedures (and we know they did not) there is nothing extraordinary in scattered drops of blood landing on spots that held Amanda's DNA. You could scatter someone's blood droplets in your own bathroom right now and probably land on some of your own DNA."

True?

Spots will amazingly collide or there's a thin film of the householders DNA all over their bathroom? This was not 'blood splatter' - It was carried in there. There must have been small instances of Meredith Kerchers blood around the bathroom.

This talk of 'DNA' - but what does it actually consist of in these instances? Where is there blood mixed with blood - saliva mixed with blood or skin cells mixed with blood. I would think that if what the poster (Kevin Lowe) says is true then Meredith Kercher's DNA would be mixed with other flatmates (apart from AK) with the same representation. But even in that doctored report it is indicated where there is other DNA - unidentified. But none from the other flatmates.

The FOA will say that in testing only the DNA of AK was taken into account. How do they go about testing an entire area? Could bias have been introduced into the testing? I would think that any instances of DNA recorded within the original (undoctored) report would have to be substantial over a threshold level. So the ENTIRE police - forensics - postals - judges even were involved in this conspiracy against Knox and Sollecito, an Italian citizen?

"The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Here is a list of evidence of footprints and DNA samples from the cottage. Unless I'm mistaken, there were no proven samples of Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. There was Amanda's blood on the faucet, and the other samples appear to be Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood as far as can be determined.


What is the source of that document? Is that the complete set of DNA forensics results? Or are they the ones presented in court while others were omitted?



That's from Charlie Wilkes.

_________________
"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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
moving on from the doctored report - this from JREF -

"As for the blood landing in "just the right place", this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again. Amanda's DNA would have been all over her bathroom, and even if the police used proper evidence-handling procedures (and we know they did not) there is nothing extraordinary in scattered drops of blood landing on spots that held Amanda's DNA. You could scatter someone's blood droplets in your own bathroom right now and probably land on some of your own DNA."

True?

Spots will amazingly collude or there's a thin film of the householders DNA all over their bathroom? This was not 'blood splatter' - It was carried in there. There must have been small instances of Meredith Kerchers blood around the bathroom.

This talk of 'DNA' - but what does it actually consist of in these instances? Where is there blood mixed with blood - saliva mixed with blood or skin cells mixed with blood. I would think that if what the poster (Kevin Lowe) says is true then Meredith Kercher's DNA would be mixed with other flatmates (apart from AK) with the same representation. But even in that doctored report it is indicated where there is other DNA - unidentified. But none from the other flatmates.

The FOA will say that in testing only the DNA of AK was taken into account. How do they go about testing an entire area? Could bias have been introduced into the testing? I would think that any instances of DNA recorded within the original (undoctored) report would have to be substantial over a threshold level. So the ENTIRE police - forensics - postals - judges even were involved in this conspiracy against Knox and Solleceteo, an Italian citizen.

"The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy


Kevin's living in his own fantasy universe where the police investigators are right bang on about every piece of evidence implicating RG and completely incorrect (whether deliberately or not) about every piece of evidence pointing to AK and RS. Now if that isn't the dictionary definition of special pleading (or an "inverse Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy") then I don't know what is.

That's the problem facing not only the Amanda-groupies but also the defence teams. They really cannot argue too strenuously that the forensics were faulty because if they do they have to be ALL faulty.

Why this goes over the heads of the Amanda-groupies I simply cannot fathom.

By the way, ttrroonniicc, I seriously LOL'd at this peach: "[There's] a thin film of the householders DNA all over their bathroom?" This can only happen in FOA-World, a fantasy land where giant horseradish spills, elastic and semi-ethereal basketball players, and thin films of omnipresent DNA explain everything.
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Catnip, you must really hate people that think Knox/Sollecito are innocent. I've noticed alot of people take personal shots at people because of their belief in Knox/Sollecito's innocence. I could even understand if there was a heated conversation, but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made and still get hammered because I believe them to be innocent makes me wonder if anyone other than Knox/Sollecito haters run this site.


Chris C, you are entitled to believe whatever you want. But good heavens, there is no need to lash out at people you don't know just because they have come to a conclusion that is different from yours. There are loads of reasons they have done so, and none of them has to do with hate.

We aren't really into the whole hater mentality here. This is not about "you" or the people who "run" this site. As one of them, I take exception to your characterization. I don't hate Knox, Sollecito or Guede, but I think the crime(s) they committed are heinous. You know, that whole don't hate the sinner hate the sin thing.

You might be happier posting elsewhere. People who personalize the debate in a negative way don't generally do well on this board.



As the 'other' person who runs this site I would like to say that like Skep, I don't hate Amanda, Raffaele or Rudy either. Skep's "hate the sin and not the sinner" is an apt description for my position. I do however, despise injustice and we've seen a good deal of that...most namely the FOA's publicity campaign on behalf of Knox (and only nominally Raffaele) and their public smearing of almost anything Italian. I also despise ignorance combined with arrogance, a rather putrid mix and one that has led to a small but loud army of FOA cheerleaders. Finally, I despise avarice, greed and an unhealthy desire for fame which has also led certain individuals into the Amanda support ranks, although they are not really supporting Amanda but themselves and their own agendas, all at the expense if the victim and her family.

It seems though, that if one may be of the belief that Knox actually did it or at least has a case to answer, one is by default labelled a 'hater'. It's born of the playground and is really rather tiresome.

Tell me Chris C, do you believe Rudy Guede is guilty?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Catnip,
Maybe we missunderstood each other. I said most on this forum think Knox/Sollecito are murderers. Which means more than half. I didn't say all.


It is quite interesting that you chose to respond to Catnip. I was perfectly willing to listen to your reasons as to why this pair could bring lawsuits and that might have resulted in an exchange of ideas: but instead you chose to respond to your own interpretation of Catnip's post and raise the temperature.

If your original post was an honest statement of your view then you must have some reason underpinning your conclusions. I took the trouble to do a little digging about what the situation is with respect to compensation in this country. I do not know what it is in Italy: and so I asked you because I presumed you would know, given your assertions. I am waiting for an answer. If you do not know then I presume you know what the situation is in your own country, at least?

Or could it be that you do not actually want a discussion: you want to make unsupported statements which are not explored: or you want a fight.

I am willing to be persuaded that last is not the situation. So I ask you again:

1. how is compensation calculated in Italy?
2. Does it depend on failures in process
3. What is the basis on which you imagine there will lawsuits



Actually, wrongdoing on the part of the authorities doesn't have to be evidenced. Someone jailed in Italy who is later found innocent is entitled to a set amount of compensation. It's calculated by the day and I think that's set at 40 euros a day (Yummi will correct me if I've remembered the figure wrong). This was why Patrick was awarded compensation, even though no wrongdoing was shown to be done by the police or the courts. It's an automatic entitlement.

If however, they wanted to go for more then that, they'd have to bring a suit against individual parties and prove wrongoing.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I find it rather odd. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

Time and again, wherever they have breath, the world is told by the Knox cultists that she was only found guilty because the Italian justice system, their courts, their prosecutors, their experts and their police are corrupt and/or incompetent and/or prejudiced.

In the next breath, the same cultists are going about declaring with absolute certainty Knox 'will' have her conviction overturned. Whence this absolute faith in the Italian appeal court? If, as they maintain, the Italian justice system, their courts, their prosecutors, their experts and their police are all corrupt and/or incompetent and/or prejudiced, why the absolute certainty that the same system will overturn her conviction on appeal? Do they not recognise the contradiction in their own beliefs? What is it they imagine will be different in the appeal?

Perhaps Chris C can provide us with an answer to this hole in Knox Cult logic?

_________________
"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 Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael,

'They' have faith in the Court of Appeals until the Court of appeals upholds the guilty verdict. 'They' will not speak of the victim, Meredith Kercher, who deserves the justice of having her perpetrators punished. Nor do 'They' acknowledge the egregious lies against Patrick Lumumba for which neither Amanda or Edda have apologized. Obvious, irrefutable, blatant lies.


Last edited by Emerald on Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Hello everyone,

Little OT about actual physical evidence again :)

Reading about Amanda's DNA samples I found some conflicting statements.
Some reports say there were a mix of Amanda's and Meredith's blood found. It is interesting to me if they are valid, or just some journalist's misunderstanding of the DNA mixed with Meredith's blood?

Also I remember seeing once a summary of DNA samples from the cottage, but can't seem to find anything like this now. Is such a document available?

Thanks in advance for any help.





Off topic of the OT: There is an interesting finding by Jools in the gallery. See comments of this pic




Amanda's DNA mix with Meredith's blood 'may' in some cases be blood. It is not possible to prove that it is, neither is it possible to know that it isn't. One has to draw ones own conclusions.

_________________
"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 Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Here is a list of evidence of footprints and DNA samples from the cottage. Unless I'm mistaken, there were no proven samples of Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. There was Amanda's blood on the faucet, and the other samples appear to be Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood as far as can be determined.



Huge thanks, thoughtful! That's the one I was thinking about.



Keeping Skeptical Bystander's advice I did also some searching on my own.
It seems the blood on blood issue began it's life as early as December 2007.
This CNN Online article even states the source:
Quote:
Alberto Intini, Italy's chief forensic officer, said traces of Amanda Knox's blood had been found "mixed together" with Kercher's blood in a sink in the bathroom at the villa they shared.

It looks like since then it was picked up as a prosecution supporters talking point, finding it's way not only into some articles on TJMK but even into some PMF posts. To be fair, the last time it was used in a discussion on PMF is around March 2010 (as far as my search skills go). I can only guess the emergence of the Massei report put a final blow to this particular piece of (mis-)information.



Getting back to the critique of the summary thoughtful posted:

Fiona wrote:
Hmm: selective reporting in the midst of selective reporting. I can see no better reason for distrusting this whole document than its description of sample 59:

Quote:
Rep. 59 Bra 6 samples tested, all revealed victim's DNA,
Trace B revealed Guede's DNA


Spot the missing element? This is the only reference to the bra in this document as presented. We can safely ignore it and we would be foolish not to


On the second page:
Quote:
Rep. 165 Bra clasp 2 samples, both matched victim, Trace B
match for Sollecito.

I can't help but call it a selective vision :), sorry Fiona :)
But to be serious, I can't see this summary withholding any particular occurrence of Amanda's DNA, except from the possible DNA trace on the bra clasp? Do we agree?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Here is a list of evidence of footprints and DNA samples from the cottage. Unless I'm mistaken, there were no proven samples of Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. There was Amanda's blood on the faucet, and the other samples appear to be Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood as far as can be determined.


Reperto 177 listed on that PDF as collected from Knox room is wrong.
This sample/exhibit 177 [Knox+Meredith DNA] was collected in Filomena's room.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
Michael,

'They' have faith in the Court of Appeals until the Court of appeals upholds the guilty verdict. 'They' will not speak of the victim, Meredith Kercher, who deserves the justice of having her perpetrators punished. Nor do 'They' acknowledge the egregious lies against Patrick Lumumba for which neither Amanda or Edda have apologized. Obvious, irrefutable, blatant lies.



Yes, when the appeal court upholds Amanda's conviction we'll be hearing again from the Knox Cult that it's because the Italian justice system, their courts, their prosecutors, their experts and their police are corrupt and/or incompetent and/or prejudiced. Then we'll see the same contradiction in their logic by their asserted certainty that the same Italian justice system, their courts, their prosecutors, their experts and their police that are corrupt and/or incompetent and/or prejudiced, will overturn her conviction in the third degree. Go figure.

And in the meantime, who cares about Meredith? Certainly not the Knox Cult.


The other contadiction from the Knox Cult of course is that the Italian justice system, their courts, their prosecutors, their experts and their police that are corrupt and/or incompetent and/or prejudiced are suddenly fair, honest, qualified, able, competent and non-prejudiced in their Investigation and conviction of Rudy Guede. An amazing turnaround there.

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


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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
If the convictions are overturned there will presumably be some compensation for them: that is true. It is also just that that should happen. Not sure it will be a fortune though. How is compensation calculated in Italy?

ETA: Thinking about this a bit more I am not convinced that compensation is paid except where it can be shown that the process was flawed or corrupt. I think there has to have been some wrongdoing on the part of at least some of the officials; or a procedural error. Not sure about that: does anyone know? It hinges on proper procedure and an unfortunate outcome: against a true miscarriage of justice because of avoidable error or wilful corruption of some kind, I think


Knox will be rich thanks to her PR team. The compensation will not be that great. That is, obviously, if their convictions are overturned. She will write books, give interviews and who knows, maybe she'll do some reality tv. At the end of the day, poor Meredith and her family, will be forgotten in this mess.
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
It looks like since then it was picked up as a prosecution supporters talking point, finding it's way not only into some articles on TJMK but even into some PMF posts. To be fair, the last time it was used in a discussion on PMF is around March 2010 (as far as my search skills go). I can only guess the emergence of the Massei report put a final blow to this particular piece of (mis-)information.


Have you read it...the Massei Report?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Here is a list of evidence of footprints and DNA samples from the cottage. Unless I'm mistaken, there were no proven samples of Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. There was Amanda's blood on the faucet, and the other samples appear to be Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood as far as can be determined.


Reperto 177 listed on that PDF as collected from Knox room is wrong.
This sample/exhibit 177 [Knox+Meredith DNA] was collected in Filomena's room.



Thanks for setting that straight Jools.

_________________
"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 Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This makes more sense...


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
It looks like since then it was picked up as a prosecution supporters talking point, finding it's way not only into some articles on TJMK but even into some PMF posts. To be fair, the last time it was used in a discussion on PMF is around March 2010 (as far as my search skills go). I can only guess the emergence of the Massei report put a final blow to this particular piece of (mis-)information.


Judge Massei did not categorically exclude the possibility that Amanda Knox's blood was mixed with Meredith's blood. However, he believes that Amanda Knox's DNA came from her skin cells when she scrubbed Meredith's blood off her hands and feet.

One of the reasons why Judge Massei doesn't think Knox's DNA didn't come from her blood is that it wasn't conclusively proven.

Both Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau reported that Knox's blood was mixed with Meredith's blood.
Andrea Vogt wrote the following:

"But mixed blood samples were found as well. Specifically, mixed blood of Knox and Kercher was found on the drain of the bidet, on a box of Q-tips sitting on the sink and the sink ledge." (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 22 March 2009).

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/406495_knox22.html

Amanda Knox's lawyers agreed with the prosecution's findings that Knox's blood was mixed with Meredith's blood:

"Why were you bleeding? Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it..." (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 29 May 2010).

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

Stewart Home, who got his information directly from one Knox's lawyers, wrote the following:

"Blood Evidence at the House – This, if proved to be correct, will be a bit harder to explain. The prosecution has not brought this out in court, but it will come out. There are at least THREE instances of blood evidence found in the house, one specifically being on a cotton swab container in the bathroom, which is positive for AK’s BLOOD and the victims BLOOD. Yes, you read that right blood mixed with blood. You have not heard this yet, but it will be presented soon enough. AK said she had a bloody earring. OK maybe a drop lands on drop, but three places? Motorhead, and FOA if this turns out to be true, how did Amanda’s BLOOD get mixed with M’s blood in three different places? If its not true, no worries."


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Let's also not forget, Amanda's blood was on the tap in the little bathroom. She herself testified on the stand that there was no blood the previous afternoon. It was dry in the morning. Therefore, it could only have got there the night before. If Amanda's blood got on the tap during the time of the murder, it is only logical to infer that it may also be in other places...like mixed with Meredith's blood.

_________________
"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 Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Zopi wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Catnip, you must really hate people that think Knox/Sollecito are innocent. I've noticed alot of people take personal shots at people because of their belief in Knox/Sollecito's innocence. I could even understand if there was a heated conversation, but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made and still get hammered because I believe them to be innocent makes me wonder if anyone other than Knox/Sollecito haters run this site.


Catnip's shoes are too big for you.


And she doesn't hammer, she plays the piano.


Last edited by Ava on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I believe knox to be innocent. Most the people on this forum thinks shes a murderer. However, its not innocence that will free her. It will be politics that will set Knox/Sollecito free. Mignini is a heck of a prosecutor but in getting his conviction of Knox/Sollecito he left a lot of baggage that has to be accounted for. It wont just be the overturned convictions that will make them rich, it will be the counter lawsuits they will file after being set free.



The "they'll be rich" is one of the nice little cultist dreams that perpetuates. The politics-will-get-them-off is another. Let me tell you why you are wrong;

...

I can tell you something for certain; Amanda thinks about what she did every single day of the year. She's thought about how she "fucked up so bad" (her words) several thousand times now. Prison, for all of those who wish her a longer term, is so very far from a picnic. Every day that you and I are talking to loved ones and friends, enjoying the fresh air, going to see a great film, having a meal she has been stuck in that cell. She won't be bambi to everyone, she'll be a scared young woman who has had some elbows in the ribs and some food dropped in her lap at best. She'd give up every single cent she could possibly ever make and trade a life on welfare not to have served that time already.

No, there's no happy-ever-after for Amanda - she's ruined her life and worse for a narcissist she did it to herself. The strain of self-realisation and self-responsibility has already played havoc with Raffaele's mental health. She's also ruined the lives of her family by not having the balls to face up to what she did and let them get on with theirs. Amanda's not going anywhere by every conceivable notion of justice and process I can see. If she had the courage, which she does not, she'd face up to what she's done and start trying to rebuild her character and her life and most importantly let the Kerchers and her own family start rebuilding their's.


Edited to explain sentence 5 para 2 better and some hideous typos - must be out of practice!



Yes. I think it was Bard who wrote that Amanda looked already haunted when she appeared at court in June, and I had the same feeling. She looked somehow scared.
Her subconscience is probably working day and night, mostly night, and I can't imagine that nothing inside her will change during her prison stay.
In a way I'd be really interested to see what she's like in ten-fifteen years from now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
OT))

I happened to be looking at the True Justice site and watched the LA7 videos. The male interviewing Mignini with Andrea Vogt is referred to as a "journalist". In fact, it is Luciano Garofano. He is a well-known forensic scientist and one of the authors, with Graham Johnson and Paul Russel, of "Darkness Descending - The murder of Meredith Kercher." I had the privilege of meeting him once, briefly.


No kidding? I have been re-reading DD lately and the passages about the DNA/forensic testing are fascinating and very well written, in my humble opinion. I can't help but think that Luciano Garafano wrote those parts now. Could he have been there when the testings were done? Were "journalists" invited or allowed to be? Whoever wrote them gives the impression of being there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"What is the source of that document?"

I downloaded a copy of the same file about a week ago. That link was by Charlie Wilkes. So it is clearly from the Amanda defence circles. (Not that I have problem with that, I'm a document freak, even an unreliable document is usually better than speculation or sloppy media reports)

'Is that the complete set of DNA forensics results?"

The file name is "selected DNA results"



Thanks for sourcing this "information", bolint.

As for "Katody's" incessant comments about journalistic incompetence, please note what Andrea Vogt reported on December 15, 2009 (post verdict):

Quote:
Mixed blood: Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of "mixed blood" genetic material -- spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher's -- in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in.

Defense attorneys argued that this genetic material couldn't be certified as blood and that even if it were, it wasn't abnormal since Knox lived in the house and could have left blood around at any time.

The attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said after the sentence that he believed this mixed blood evidence was "the most damning" piece of evidence against Knox.


So:

A. This is what the defense has always argued (nothing new under the sun)

and

B. The journalists did not get it wrong. Vogt got it absolutely right, in that she reported the defense position (which is basically that we can't be sure this genetic material is blood) and the prosecution position.

In the end, Massei reasons that, regardless of whether or not it is blood, these mixed samples are "probative".

This sounds to me like yet another "red" herring, and a recycled one at that.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mortytoad wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
OT))

I happened to be looking at the True Justice site and watched the LA7 videos. The male interviewing Mignini with Andrea Vogt is referred to as a "journalist". In fact, it is Luciano Garofano. He is a well-known forensic scientist and one of the authors, with Graham Johnson and Paul Russel, of "Darkness Descending - The murder of Meredith Kercher." I had the privilege of meeting him once, briefly.


No kidding? I have been re-reading DD lately and the passages about the DNA/forensic testing are fascinating and very well written, in my humble opinion. I can't help but think that Luciano Garafano wrote those parts now. Could he have been there when the testings were done? Were "journalists" invited or allowed to be? Whoever wrote them gives the impression of being there.



Here is an excerpt from Garofano's biography (source Wikipedia):

Laureatosi nell'anno accademico 1975-1976, in scienze biologiche all'Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza e si è specializzato all'Università degli Studi di Napoli in tossicologia forense, nell'anno accademico 1992-1993.

Nel 1978 si arruola nell'Arma dei Carabinieri e fino al 1988 comanda la Sezione Chimico-Biologica del Centro Carabinieri Investigazioni Scientifiche di Roma. Dall'1988 al 1995 è comandante della Sezione Biologia dello stesso centro.

Nel 1992 si è occupato anche delle indagini sulla strage di Capaci.

Dal 1995 fino al 2009 è comandante del R.I.S. di Parma (Reparto Carabinieri Investigazioni Scientifiche), chiamato sulla scena di molti casi giudiziari avvenuti negli ultimi decenni nel nord Italia (strage di Erba, il serial killer Bilancia, caso Cogne, ecc.).

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

donnie wrote:
Fiona wrote:
If the convictions are overturned there will presumably be some compensation for them: that is true. It is also just that that should happen. Not sure it will be a fortune though. How is compensation calculated in Italy?

ETA: Thinking about this a bit more I am not convinced that compensation is paid except where it can be shown that the process was flawed or corrupt. I think there has to have been some wrongdoing on the part of at least some of the officials; or a procedural error. Not sure about that: does anyone know? It hinges on proper procedure and an unfortunate outcome: against a true miscarriage of justice because of avoidable error or wilful corruption of some kind, I think


Knox will be rich thanks to her PR team. The compensation will not be that great. That is, obviously, if their convictions are overturned. She will write books, give interviews and who knows, maybe she'll do some reality tv. At the end of the day, poor Meredith and her family, will be forgotten in this mess.


Marriott has already secured the negotiating rights to future access to Amanda Knox; I suppose this is to ensure that he is paid for his work. I am not sure how many books she would write (one would probably be enough to tell the story) or how many interviews would be needed to sate any remaining curiosity about her. As for reality television, I don't see any pitch that would woo the public.

It may be instructive to look at how Patty Hearst handled her notoriety when she was released from prison. I see possible parallels, except that Patty Hearst's parents did not need to sell access to her for pecuniary reasons.

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

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
moving on from the doctored report - this from JREF -

"As for the blood landing in "just the right place", this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again. Amanda's DNA would have been all over her bathroom, and even if the police used proper evidence-handling procedures (and we know they did not) there is nothing extraordinary in scattered drops of blood landing on spots that held Amanda's DNA. You could scatter someone's blood droplets in your own bathroom right now and probably land on some of your own DNA."

True?

Spots will amazingly collude or there's a thin film of the householders DNA all over their bathroom? This was not 'blood splatter' - It was carried in there. There must have been small instances of Meredith Kerchers blood around the bathroom.

This talk of 'DNA' - but what does it actually consist of in these instances? Where is there blood mixed with blood - saliva mixed with blood or skin cells mixed with blood. I would think that if what the poster (Kevin Lowe) says is true then Meredith Kercher's DNA would be mixed with other flatmates (apart from AK) with the same representation. But even in that doctored report it is indicated where there is other DNA - unidentified. But none from the other flatmates.

The FOA will say that in testing only the DNA of AK was taken into account. How do they go about testing an entire area? Could bias have been introduced into the testing? I would think that any instances of DNA recorded within the original (undoctored) report would have to be substantial over a threshold level. So the ENTIRE police - forensics - postals - judges even were involved in this conspiracy against Knox and Solleceteo, an Italian citizen.

"The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy


Kevin's living in his own fantasy universe where the police investigators are right bang on about every piece of evidence implicating RG and completely incorrect (whether deliberately or not) about every piece of evidence pointing to AK and RS. Now if that isn't the dictionary definition of special pleading (or an "inverse Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy") then I don't know what is.

That's the problem facing not only the Amanda-groupies but also the defence teams. They really cannot argue too strenuously that the forensics were faulty because if they do they have to be ALL faulty.

Why this goes over the heads of the Amanda-groupies I simply cannot fathom.

By the way, ttrroonniicc, I seriously LOL'd at this peach: "[There's] a thin film of the householders DNA all over their bathroom?" This can only happen in FOA-World, a fantasy land where giant horseradish spills, elastic and semi-ethereal basketball players, and thin films of omnipresent DNA explain everything.


Ah yes, where would the JREF be without the sparkling erudition of Mr. Lowe? A fun drinking game could be devised based on his incessant bleatings of the phrase "Texas Sharpshooter Falacy" - as it is now, I already refer to him as "Tex". Now, he appears to have stepped up his game by dismissing the detractors of his desperate, feeble exonerative attempts on Knox's behalf as suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Ironically enough, the Wiki page he links to notes:

"Indeed, Dunning et al. cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as "above average" (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt"

;)

A few weeks ago, I pushed back against his smarmy bullying tactics by noting his own blatant faulty reasoning, especially the use of the "Begging the Question" and "Perfect Solution" fallacies. Curiously, I heard back not Peep One from our esteemed professor... nw)

Were I still posting in that thread, I would certianly be taking him and the others to task. The most dishonest posters there are the ones like Bruce and Charlie, who obviously know the case inside and out, yet persist in their ridiculous claims. A prime example of that from this weekend comes from Bruce here, where he observes hypothesizes proselytizes:

"You are completely missing the point. It has been argued that Amanda and Raffaele were caught off guard by the postal police arriving. You know the argument, they run off and hide and call the police after the postals arrive. It has all been proven wrong already. But for those that refuse to believe that they actually called the police before the postals arrived, the fact that they immediately invited the postals into the house is another sign that they had nothing to hide. They wanted the police there. That is the main point. Amanda and Raffaele wanted the police at the cottage. That would not be the expected behavior of two people who were guilty and had something to hide."

(emphasis added)

nnn-))

My second post here analyzed the case with respect to the Crime Classification Manual, and it was externally sourced - even (through Google Books) the entire document in question is available for free perusal. Bruce certainly reads here. It follows that he likely saw my post. My post detailed how, in many cases, Knox's "helpfulness" actually would "be the expected behavior of two people who were guilty and had something to hide". Expected by professional investigators and criminologists, though, which is an entirely different demographic from the FOAK's members and targets, perhaps illuminating the apparent discrepancy.

Assuming Bruce saw my post, I see only two alternatives: he is either willfully ignorant or he is knowingly dissembling. Neither speaks very well of him or of the level of discussion to which this argument has sadly descended, each side now in its own bifurcated ghetto as a consequence of some extremely slip-shod moderating that ruined the only place where both sides could previously meet to debate the issues in a polite and deliberative fashion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
donnie wrote:
Fiona wrote:
If the convictions are overturned there will presumably be some compensation for them: that is true. It is also just that that should happen. Not sure it will be a fortune though. How is compensation calculated in Italy?

ETA: Thinking about this a bit more I am not convinced that compensation is paid except where it can be shown that the process was flawed or corrupt. I think there has to have been some wrongdoing on the part of at least some of the officials; or a procedural error. Not sure about that: does anyone know? It hinges on proper procedure and an unfortunate outcome: against a true miscarriage of justice because of avoidable error or wilful corruption of some kind, I think


Knox will be rich thanks to her PR team. The compensation will not be that great. That is, obviously, if their convictions are overturned. She will write books, give interviews and who knows, maybe she'll do some reality tv. At the end of the day, poor Meredith and her family, will be forgotten in this mess.


Marriott has already secured the negotiating rights to future access to Amanda Knox; I suppose this is to ensure that he is paid for his work. I am not sure how many books she would write (one would probably be enough to tell the story) or how many interviews would be needed to sate any remaining curiosity about her. As for reality television, I don't see any pitch that would woo the public.

It may be instructive to look at how Patty Hearst handled her notoriety when she was released from prison. I see possible parallels, except that Patty Hearst's parents did not need to sell access to her for pecuniary reasons.


Who knows? Maybe she will go the Amy Fisher route instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Fisher
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/naked_f ... Y6siQOv6TK
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
donnie wrote:
Fiona wrote:
If the convictions are overturned there will presumably be some compensation for them: that is true. It is also just that that should happen. Not sure it will be a fortune though. How is compensation calculated in Italy?

ETA: Thinking about this a bit more I am not convinced that compensation is paid except where it can be shown that the process was flawed or corrupt. I think there has to have been some wrongdoing on the part of at least some of the officials; or a procedural error. Not sure about that: does anyone know? It hinges on proper procedure and an unfortunate outcome: against a true miscarriage of justice because of avoidable error or wilful corruption of some kind, I think


Knox will be rich thanks to her PR team. The compensation will not be that great. That is, obviously, if their convictions are overturned. She will write books, give interviews and who knows, maybe she'll do some reality tv. At the end of the day, poor Meredith and her family, will be forgotten in this mess.


Marriott has already secured the negotiating rights to future access to Amanda Knox; I suppose this is to ensure that he is paid for his work. I am not sure how many books she would write (one would probably be enough to tell the story) or how many interviews would be needed to sate any remaining curiosity about her. As for reality television, I don't see any pitch that would woo the public.

It may be instructive to look at how Patty Hearst handled her notoriety when she was released from prison. I see possible parallels, except that Patty Hearst's parents did not need to sell access to her for pecuniary reasons.


Who knows? Maybe she will go the Amy Fisher route instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Fisher
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/naked_f ... Y6siQOv6TK



Hey, it's what any self-respecting woman would do, to signify her empowerment.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Corrina wrote:
windfall wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
donnie wrote:
Fiona wrote:
If the convictions are overturned there will presumably be some compensation for them: that is true. It is also just that that should happen. Not sure it will be a fortune though. How is compensation calculated in Italy?

ETA: Thinking about this a bit more I am not convinced that compensation is paid except where it can be shown that the process was flawed or corrupt. I think there has to have been some wrongdoing on the part of at least some of the officials; or a procedural error. Not sure about that: does anyone know? It hinges on proper procedure and an unfortunate outcome: against a true miscarriage of justice because of avoidable error or wilful corruption of some kind, I think


Knox will be rich thanks to her PR team. The compensation will not be that great. That is, obviously, if their convictions are overturned. She will write books, give interviews and who knows, maybe she'll do some reality tv. At the end of the day, poor Meredith and her family, will be forgotten in this mess.


Marriott has already secured the negotiating rights to future access to Amanda Knox; I suppose this is to ensure that he is paid for his work. I am not sure how many books she would write (one would probably be enough to tell the story) or how many interviews would be needed to sate any remaining curiosity about her. As for reality television, I don't see any pitch that would woo the public.

It may be instructive to look at how Patty Hearst handled her notoriety when she was released from prison. I see possible parallels, except that Patty Hearst's parents did not need to sell access to her for pecuniary reasons.


Who knows? Maybe she will go the Amy Fisher route instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Fisher
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/naked_f ... Y6siQOv6TK



Hey, it's what any self-respecting woman would do, to signify her empowerment.


:lol:
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
bolint wrote:
"What is the source of that document?"

I downloaded a copy of the same file about a week ago. That link was by Charlie Wilkes. So it is clearly from the Amanda defence circles. (Not that I have problem with that, I'm a document freak, even an unreliable document is usually better than speculation or sloppy media reports)

'Is that the complete set of DNA forensics results?"

The file name is "selected DNA results"



Thanks for sourcing this "information", bolint.

As for "Katody's" incessant comments about journalistic incompetence, please note what Andrea Vogt reported on December 15, 2009 (post verdict):

Quote:
Mixed blood: Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of "mixed blood" genetic material -- spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher's -- in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in.

Defense attorneys argued that this genetic material couldn't be certified as blood and that even if it were, it wasn't abnormal since Knox lived in the house and could have left blood around at any time.

The attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said after the sentence that he believed this mixed blood evidence was "the most damning" piece of evidence against Knox.


So:

A. This is what the defense has always argued (nothing new under the sun)

and

B. The journalists did not get it wrong. Vogt got it absolutely right, in that she reported the defense position (which is basically that we can't be sure this genetic material is blood) and the prosecution position.

In the end, Massei reasons that, regardless of whether or not it is blood, these mixed samples are "probative".

This sounds to me like yet another "red" herring, and a recycled one at that.



And let's not forget, both Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau were in court in person to hear that testimony. Both are fluent Italian speakers.

_________________
"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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
bolint wrote:
"What is the source of that document?"

I downloaded a copy of the same file about a week ago. That link was by Charlie Wilkes. So it is clearly from the Amanda defence circles. (Not that I have problem with that, I'm a document freak, even an unreliable document is usually better than speculation or sloppy media reports)

'Is that the complete set of DNA forensics results?"

The file name is "selected DNA results"



Thanks for sourcing this "information", bolint.

As for "Katody's" incessant comments about journalistic incompetence, please note what Andrea Vogt reported on December 15, 2009 (post verdict):

Quote:
Mixed blood: Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of "mixed blood" genetic material -- spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher's -- in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in.

Defense attorneys argued that this genetic material couldn't be certified as blood and that even if it were, it wasn't abnormal since Knox lived in the house and could have left blood around at any time.

The attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said after the sentence that he believed this mixed blood evidence was "the most damning" piece of evidence against Knox.


So:

A. This is what the defense has always argued (nothing new under the sun)

and

B. The journalists did not get it wrong. Vogt got it absolutely right, in that she reported the defense position (which is basically that we can't be sure this genetic material is blood) and the prosecution position.

In the end, Massei reasons that, regardless of whether or not it is blood, these mixed samples are "probative".

This sounds to me like yet another "red" herring, and a recycled one at that.



And let's not forget, both Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau were in court in person to hear that testimony. Both are fluent Italian speakers.



I am finding it quite amusing to obseve Katody, with his/her questions that find magic responses in FOA documents that just happen to have been made available, and with the by now familiar obsession with bad journalists -- you know, people like Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt, who steadfastly refused to be bullied by the FOA and Marriott. Has Katody written a single post that does not malign the media (in the vaguest possible terms)? It's a pretty strange approach for someone who just turned up a week ago! Not.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
I am finding it quite amusing to obseve Katody, with his/her questions that find magic responses in FOA documents that just happen to have been made available, and with the by now familiar obsession with bad journalists -- you know, people like Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt, who steadfastly refused to be bullied by the FOA and Marriott. Has Katody written a single post that does not malign the media (in the vaguest possible terms)? It's a pretty strange approach for someone who just turned up a week ago! Not.


Katody is working to a system. In Katody's world, it is the forensic evidence at the crime scene that convicted Amanda (and Raffaele). If that went away, so would the case against them. Never mind the witnesses, the false accusations, the changing stories, the lies, the alibis that don't match, the iffy behaviour etc,. So, his system requires debunking that physical evidence in order of importance (in Katody's mind). First of all, the contested print on the pillow (most important in Katody's mind since that is the only evidence that could be argued to put Amanda directly in Meredith's room). Next up is the mixed blood/DNA samples in the little bathroom, corridor and Filomena's room...DNA sounds a lot better then blood. Katody's next target will probably be either the bra clasp or the knife.

For Katody, if that requires undermining the few 'good' journalists that have reported on the case, then so be it...in fact, that would probably be a bonus. We know reporting on this case has been very poor, with a few exceptions...Vogt and Nadeau are two of those exceptions. So, Katody's maligning of the media is 'targeted' against specific individuals. Vogt and Nadeau have been thorns in the Knox Camp's side almost from the start. They believe in reporting the facts, out of the control of Marriott and the Knox family.

_________________
"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 TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
donnie wrote:
Fiona wrote:
If the convictions are overturned there will presumably be some compensation for them: that is true. It is also just that that should happen. Not sure it will be a fortune though. How is compensation calculated in Italy?

ETA: Thinking about this a bit more I am not convinced that compensation is paid except where it can be shown that the process was flawed or corrupt. I think there has to have been some wrongdoing on the part of at least some of the officials; or a procedural error. Not sure about that: does anyone know? It hinges on proper procedure and an unfortunate outcome: against a true miscarriage of justice because of avoidable error or wilful corruption of some kind, I think


Knox will be rich thanks to her PR team. The compensation will not be that great. That is, obviously, if their convictions are overturned. She will write books, give interviews and who knows, maybe she'll do some reality tv. At the end of the day, poor Meredith and her family, will be forgotten in this mess.


Marriott has already secured the negotiating rights to future access to Amanda Knox; I suppose this is to ensure that he is paid for his work. I am not sure how many books she would write (one would probably be enough to tell the story) or how many interviews would be needed to sate any remaining curiosity about her. As for reality television, I don't see any pitch that would woo the public.

It may be instructive to look at how Patty Hearst handled her notoriety when she was released from prison. I see possible parallels, except that Patty Hearst's parents did not need to sell access to her for pecuniary reasons.


Who knows? Maybe she will go the Amy Fisher route instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Fisher
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/naked_f ... Y6siQOv6TK

I just don't see big bucks coming AK's way. I have been sifting through my memory to try to recall some famous murderer or other type of criminal who became rich from books and fees for interviews. The nearest I can think is David Frost paying Richard Nixon $600,000 plus 20% of the profits for a series of interviews. Caril Fugate, who at age 14 had the misfortune of having a murderous boyfriend who killed her parents and took her on a bloody road trip in the mid-western US in 1956, was released from prison when she was 34. She moved to Minnesota and worked as a nurses aide.

I don't think that a decade or two in prison will add to her allure, or that the public will have any interest in her.

The one thing that could be done, if (huge if), all three of the participants would truthfully tell their story of what happened that night, there might be grounds for afilm in the manner of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Rashomon... or Courage Under Fire? Anyone know that one? I use it some times when talking to students about history being less about facts and more about telling stories.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
The one thing that could be done, if (huge if), all three of the participants would truthfully tell their story of what happened that night, there might be grounds for afilm in the manner of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon.


Good idea. Wish I'd thought of that. :mrgreen:

<taps microphone> Is this thing on? </tm>
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Catnip, you must really hate people that think Knox/Sollecito are innocent. I've noticed alot of people take personal shots at people because of their belief in Knox/Sollecito's innocence. I could even understand if there was a heated conversation, but for me to make a statement that is as close as to neutral as I made and still get hammered because I believe them to be innocent makes me wonder if anyone other than Knox/Sollecito haters run this site.


Personally, I'm an example of a person who was outraged at the conviction of Amanda Knox by the Perugia court. I had read the New York Times articles by Timothy Egan; when the verdict was announced, I couldn't sleep because of my anger. Having an 18-year-old daughter, I could scarcely imagine what Amanda and her parents were going through. It was intolerable.

But then I began to analyze the actual evidence as best I could on the Internet. During that sleepless night I slowly began to realize that Amanda is guilty as charged. The evidence is damning and you know it.

The problem I have with the FOA group is that they are making life far more difficult for poor Amanda than it needs to be. There is little evidence of premeditated murder. Why not encourage her to tell the truth instead of spinning those crazy stories? It would likely cut her sentence and allow her to finally stop the charades.

An honest resolution would permit Amanda to rehabilitate herself instead of living in her fantasy world. And it would bring a degree of closure to the family of her victim Meredith Kerchner.

It's in this context that I "hate" the those who pretend that Knox is innocent of involvement in the murder. I certainly understand the urge of Amanda's parents to free their daughter any way they can. But the paid PR people, the religious nuts, the phony "journalists" using this case to advance their careers (think Dempsey), and the lonely men taken by Amanda's charm ... all these individuals are just digging a deeper hole for Amanda. Shame on you!
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
I just don't see big bucks coming AK's way. I have been sifting through my memory to try to recall some famous murderer or other type of criminal who became rich from books and fees for interviews. The nearest I can think is David Frost paying Richard Nixon $600,000 plus 20% of the profits for a series of interviews. Caril Fugate, who at age 14 had the misfortune of having a murderous boyfriend who killed her parents and took her on a bloody road trip in the mid-western US in 1956, was released from prison when she was 34. She moved to Minnesota and worked as a nurses aide.

I don't think that a decade or two in prison will add to her allure, or that the public will have any interest in her.

The one thing that could be done, if (huge if), all three of the participants would truthfully tell their story of what happened that night, there might be grounds for afilm in the manner of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon.



Practically none. What she can make will depend on her looks when she gets out of prison. The media, television and Hollywood is highly superficial...when it comes to women it all depends on looks. When she finally gets out, she'll look more like Edda then Amanda. 'nuff said.

_________________
"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 capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Or (shudder) more like Curt.

_________________
"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 Jul 26, 2010 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quick giggle : Post by Bruce Fisher: Jref....#3789.
BEGIN QUOTE: " The Lamb has been a topic of online debate but I have not seen anything to indicate that it had any significant importance at trial". END QUOTE. Bruce then goes on to whinge that because of moderated status, he couldn't correct his error. He meant to write LAMP. It's almost as good as Michaels *EVERYTHONG, instead of everything :) :) :). Typed on chat.........

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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Or (shudder) more like Curt.


I dunno, Cape, I think Amanda resembles Curt quite a lot. Same cleft in the chin, skin tone (see the photo of Curt and Amanda, looks like they are at some function in the evening, and they both sort of look like they're "feeling no pain". I'm thinking she's going to look more like her father as she ages. Maybee it's just me...

I'll take a gander in the gallery and see if I can find that photo.

Edit to add: It's on page 5 in the Amanda gallery, first row, 3rd photo.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
In Katody's world, it is the forensic evidence at the crime scene that convicted Amanda (and Raffaele).


Oh, I'm not at all sure about it. I just thought that hard physical facts is something we can agree upon, or at least discuss and the discussion will not get personal too soon :) . The other thing is, as we all know the FOA side reports selectively, so where can I hope for some first hand information if not here?

And by the way, I stand corrected. If you all say that the blood-mix was not a media factoid thrown in early by the police but indeed postulated by prosecution experts, then it is surely so. This of course raises a question: What was such a finding based on?

Michael you're of course right about the sequence of my inquiries, but only because I was told that yes, maybe the shoeprint is not so strong, but the mixed DNA, this is really strong evidence placing Amanda at the crime scene. I understand that it was also important for the verdict, unlike the shoeprint.

To restate:
It is trivial that Amanda's DNA places her in the cottage spatially. But to conclude that she was involved, we need to place her not only spatially but temporally, too.
What is interesting for me is what kind of additional evidence, testing or maybe only reasoning was used for that.
I would of course love to hear your own opinions about it, too, not only what was in the report.

BTW I took a peek or two into Massei Report, but I only gained certainty that I'd rather wait for the translation :)



PS
SB wrote:
I am finding it quite amusing to obseve Katody, with his/her questions that find magic responses in FOA documents that just happen to have been made available, and with the by now familiar obsession with bad journalists -- you know, people like Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt, who steadfastly refused to be bullied by the FOA and Marriott. Has Katody written a single post that does not malign the media (in the vaguest possible terms)? It's a pretty strange approach for someone who just turned up a week ago! Not.


Your analyzing me is amusing and flattering on its own. PR job outsourced to a guy who checks every second word in a dictionary and have no grasp of conditionals. :)

Thank you, and of course - sorry for my English ;)
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Quick giggle : Post by Bruce Fisher: Jref....#3789.
BEGIN QUOTE: " The Lamb has been a topic of online debate but I have not seen anything to indicate that it had any significant importance at trial". END QUOTE. Bruce then goes on to whinge that because of moderated status, he couldn't correct his error. He meant to write LAMP. It's almost as good as Michaels *EVERYTHONG, instead of everything :) :) :). Typed on chat.........



I continue to maintain, I wasn't talking about ladies pants.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Corrina wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Or (shudder) more like Curt.


I dunno, Cape, I think Amanda resembles Curt quite a lot. Same cleft in the chin, skin tone (see the photo of Curt and Amanda, looks like they are at some function in the evening, and they both sort of look like they're "feeling no pain". I'm thinking she's going to look more like her father as she ages. Maybee it's just me...

I'll take a gander in the gallery and see if I can find that photo.

Edit to add: It's on page 5 in the Amanda gallery, first row, 3rd photo.



Same shape as her mum though.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Oh, I'm not at all sure about it. I just thought that hard physical facts is something we can agree upon, or at least discuss and the discussion will not get personal too soon . The other thing is, as we all know the FOA side reports selectively, so where can I hope for some first hand information if not here?


Hard physical facts? Do you have any?

katody wrote:
And by the way, I stand corrected. If you all say that the blood-mix was not a media factoid thrown in early by the police but indeed postulated by prosecution experts, then it is surely so.


All credit to you for that. I don't think I can remember a time when a cultist ever gave ground on a single point...so credit to you for that. You've earned some stars.


Katody wrote:
Michael you're of course right about the sequence of my inquiries, but only because I was told that yes, maybe the shoeprint is not so strong, but the mixed DNA, this is really strong evidence placing Amanda at the crime scene. I understand that it was also important for the verdict, unlike the shoeprint


I don't need you to tell me I was right, I knew that already.

But, I DID tell you when you arrived and the mention of the print on the pillow first arose, that I regarded it as relatively weak evidence in the scheme of things. That means, I don't see it as sound.


Katody wrote:
To restate:
It is trivial that Amanda's DNA places her in the cottage spatially. But to conclude that she was involved, we need to place her not only spatially but temporally, too.
What is interesting for me is what kind of additional evidence, testing or maybe only reasoning was used for that.
I would of course love to hear your own opinions about it, too, not only what was in the report.


Her blood does that (on the tap), as does her footprints in Meredith's blood. As does at least one witness. As does her DNA (which may be blood or not, but no matter) mixed with Meredith's blood in a luminol revealed sample in Filomena's room.

As for waiting for the translation of the Massei report...that's wise.

_________________
"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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
In Katody's world, it is the forensic evidence at the crime scene that convicted Amanda (and Raffaele).


Oh, I'm not at all sure about it. I just thought that hard physical facts is something we can agree upon, or at least discuss and the discussion will not get personal too soon :) . The other thing is, as we all know the FOA side reports selectively, so where can I hope for some first hand information if not here?

And by the way, I stand corrected. If you all say that the blood-mix was not a media factoid thrown in early by the police but indeed postulated by prosecution experts, then it is surely so. This of course raises a question: What was such a finding based on?

Michael you're of course right about the sequence of my inquiries, but only because I was told that yes, maybe the shoeprint is not so strong, but the mixed DNA, this is really strong evidence placing Amanda at the crime scene. I understand that it was also important for the verdict, unlike the shoeprint.

To restate:
It is trivial that Amanda's DNA places her in the cottage spatially. But to conclude that she was involved, we need to place her not only spatially but temporally, too.
What is interesting for me is what kind of additional evidence, testing or maybe only reasoning was used for that.
I would of course love to hear your own opinions about it, too, not only what was in the report.

BTW I took a peek or two into Massei Report, but I only gained certainty that I'd rather wait for the translation :)



PS
SB wrote:
I am finding it quite amusing to obseve Katody, with his/her questions that find magic responses in FOA documents that just happen to have been made available, and with the by now familiar obsession with bad journalists -- you know, people like Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt, who steadfastly refused to be bullied by the FOA and Marriott. Has Katody written a single post that does not malign the media (in the vaguest possible terms)? It's a pretty strange approach for someone who just turned up a week ago! Not.


Your analyzing me is amusing and flattering on its own. PR job outsourced to a guy who checks every second word in a dictionary and have no grasp of conditionals. :)

Thank you, and of course - sorry for my English ;)



There is no reason to feel flattered. It takes me about ten seconds a day. I am always fascinated by people who pretend to be something other than what they are. But don't let it distract you from your mission. I didn't say anything about a PR job and will just ignore your rubbish about looking up every second word in a dictionary.

As for my amusement, I can't help it. People who take themselves way too seriously always amuse me.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael you're of course right about the sequence of my inquiries, but only because I was told that yes, maybe the shoeprint is not so strong, but the mixed DNA, this is really strong evidence placing Amanda at the crime scene. I understand that it was also important for the verdict, unlike the shoeprint.


You need to put the mixed samples of Amanda Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood into context instead of considering them in isolation from the rest of the evidence. They were found in Filomena's room and the blood-spattered bathroom. This is highly significant because Rudy Guede didn't go into either room after Meredith had been stabbed.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that Raffaele Sollecito also went into the bathroom that Knox and Meredith Kercher shared. He left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.


Note from SB: TM, I changed your post because you wrote "Sollecito" when you meant "Meredith Kercher", who of course shared the bathroom with Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I know, Michael. But it was funny :) @ Katody: Don't worry. In time your english might improve :(

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
I know, Michael. But it was funny :) @ Katody: Don't worry. In time your english might improve :(



Don't worry, Katody's English is just fine ;)

Now I'm off to cook myself some dinner. I'm having steak. Normally I have it well done, but tonight I think I'll have it bloody...

_________________
"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 TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Or (shudder) more like Curt.

Mustache, and all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yes, I know, Michael. Wink. Steak? Lamb could be good :)

_________________
"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 Jul 26, 2010 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, Corrina. Yes, Amanda does look very much like Curt. I say shudder, but that's probably because, well, I don't like him :(.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Yes, I know, Michael. Wink. Steak? Lamb could be good :)



I don't eat the innocent.

_________________
"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 Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Yes, I know, Michael. Wink. Steak? Lamb could be good :)



I don't eat the innocent.


Bon Appétit Michael. :)


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fuji wrote:
Ah yes, where would the JREF be without the sparkling erudition of Mr. Lowe? A fun drinking game could be devised based on his incessant bleatings of the phrase "Texas Sharpshooter Falacy" - as it is now, I already refer to him as "Tex". Now, he appears to have stepped up his game by dismissing the detractors of his desperate, feeble exonerative attempts on Knox's behalf as suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Ironically enough, the Wiki page he links to notes:

"Indeed, Dunning et al. cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as "above average" (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt"


"Tex" indeed ignores any evidence that doesn't fit his preconceptions about the innocence of AK and RS. Note that he, among others, has never detailed an alternate narrative that fits all the evidence. Instead, he's "scoring points". This is a clumsy way to argue in defence of someone facing a quarter of her life in prison.

Let's just see the alternate narrative and then we can all assess them. I don't think that's too unfair to ask.

Fuji wrote:
My second post here analyzed the case with respect to the Crime Classification Manual, and it was externally sourced - even (through Google Books) the entire document in question is available for free perusal. Bruce certainly reads here. It follows that he likely saw my post. My post detailed how, in many cases, Knox's "helpfulness" actually would "be the expected behavior of two people who were guilty and had something to hide". Expected by professional investigators and criminologists, though, which is an entirely different demographic from the FOAK's members and targets, perhaps illuminating the apparent discrepancy.

Assuming Bruce saw my post, I see only two alternatives: he is either willfully ignorant or he is knowingly dissembling. Neither speaks very well of him or of the level of discussion to which this argument has sadly descended, each side now in its own bifurcated ghetto as a consequence of some extremely slip-shod moderating that ruined the only place where both sides could previously meet to debate the issues in a polite and deliberative fashion.


One thing you'll find about conspiracy theorists is their unwillingness to read or understand anything contrary to their cherished "theory". I've learned plenty from reading about this case: the distinctions between the Italian justice system and ours; the reasons for the courts to have refused the first two declarations signed by AK; the allowance for spontaneous statements in court by the accused; the list is practically endless.

There's little doubt that the LE professionals listened intently to AK's continual attempts to control the investigation (from 02 NOV through to her arrest). I am not as convinced that they "knew" that she participated in the attacks but she is absolutely the type of witness or suspect that cops love. You simply wind her up and she babbles ceaselessly. I'll bet they had a hard time writing down information quickly enough.

This is also why I think they merely suspected she knew more about what happened than she was letting on and that Raffaele was the one they thought murdered Meredith. Again, it would be really interesting to read the transcripts of her interviews prior to 05 NOV 2007.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I am finding it quite amusing to obseve Katody, with his/her questions that find magic responses in FOA documents that just happen to have been made available, and with the by now familiar obsession with bad journalists -- you know, people like Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt, who steadfastly refused to be bullied by the FOA and Marriott. Has Katody written a single post that does not malign the media (in the vaguest possible terms)? It's a pretty strange approach for someone who just turned up a week ago! Not.


Has Katody stooped to answer a single one of The Machine's questions instead of relentlessly seeking to shape the debate according to his/her agenda?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I am finding it quite amusing to obseve Katody, with his/her questions that find magic responses in FOA documents that just happen to have been made available, and with the by now familiar obsession with bad journalists -- you know, people like Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt, who steadfastly refused to be bullied by the FOA and Marriott. Has Katody written a single post that does not malign the media (in the vaguest possible terms)? It's a pretty strange approach for someone who just turned up a week ago! Not.


Has Katody stooped to answer a single one of The Machine's questions instead of relentlessly seeking to shape the debate according to his/her agenda?


HaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Thanks Stilicho, I needed a good laugh.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I have just heard that Casey Anthony's parents are deeply in debt. The limo rides and Ritz Carlton hotel stays are over. I think the money has dried up, or has trickled down for Amanda. Three books already. By the time the second appeal is done, so much time will have passed, I don't see much interest. If the convictions stand.....in 7-10 years time, people will have moved on. imo.

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Anyhow--back to something constructive--were you able to locate anything more on that defence expert who testified about pot smoking and memory loss? I am really interested in what he really said and whether it has anything to do with the selective memory loss that Amanda said she experienced.


________________________

Well, stilicho, it doesn't help that the media spells the expert's name as "Taglialatela" and sometimes as "Taglialaveta." In English I couldn't find any better summary of the expert's testimony than that provided by Nick Pisa HERE Maybe those fluent in Italian can provide more information about the expert's testimony.

I couldn't help but notice that the account given by Nick Pisa of this cannabis-induced amnesia is apparently contradicted by Amanda's Prison Diary. The expert said this:

____________________________________
Dr Taglialavela was called by the defence as both Knox and Sollecito have said they were at home and ''smoked a joint'' the night Meredith was murdered.

He said: ''Marijuana can have psychotropic effects for up to six hours from the initial consumption and it can affect the memory in particular, especially short term memory.

''The user will remember clearly what happened before they took the drug and after but the period they were under the influence of it will be very vague.
________________________________________



And yet, Amanda wrote: "I was in my cell, thinking and thinking, in the hope of remembering, in the hope of having done the right thing, worried that maybe the police were right, maybe I had seen Meredith's death, maybe I was confused and not able to remember such a tragic thing. But it's not like this. In my cell I was waiting for an answer from/through my mind when a nun appeared at my door. She told me to have patience because God knows everything and would help me to remember. Everything came flooding back to me, one detail after another, until the moment in which my head fell against the pillow and I fell asleep when Meredith was killed."

So it looks like Amanda suffered from---or pretended to suffer from---HIT IN THE HEAD amnesia, where one can no longer recall memories that were once well-formed and easily accessed....because trauma no longer permits recall of those memories. But the cannabis-induced amnesia described by Doctor Taglialatela/Taglialaveta is memory failure due to the memories not being properly formed in the first place--- because the subject is under the influence--- and so the memories should be, as he said, "very vague."
In which case Amanda should never have had that moment in prison when her memories "flooded back" to her, "one detail after another." Hmmmmm. You don't suppose Amanda was faking her memory loss? (WHY would she do such a thing?) Or was her amnesia caused by that chestnut-haired female police officer?!







///


Last edited by fine on Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:05 am, edited 6 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
I have just heard that Casey Anthony's parents are deeply in debt. The limo rides and Ritz Carlton hotel stays are over. I think the money has dried up, or has trickled down for Amanda. Three books already. By the time the second appeal is done, so much time will have passed, I don't see much interest. If the convictions stand.....in 7-10 years time, people will have moved on. imo.


Colin Thatcher published a book proclaming his innocence after a long sentence (after lying to the "faint hope" parole board by saying he only wished to live a quiet life with his family). His book is listed as #31,000 or so on Amazon and #46 under "Non-Fiction >> True Accounts >> Murder and Mayhem", even though his 'true account' leaves out plenty of factual information. #46 sounds like an impressive rank so I looked at the others at #45 and #47. One is about somebody called the Soham Psychic (never heard of him) and the other is about Lord Erroll and Alice de Janze (never heard of them either).

I don't think a book will sell since we already have her rambling 'diaries' and plenty of other junk and they didn't cost us a cent to read. They'd have to hire a really bad ghost writer to simulate Amanda's choppy and incoherent writing 'style'.

Maybe Bruce could write it and tell us more about the 'Lamb in the Room' and 'everythong' like that!

br-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
I just thought that hard physical facts is something we can agree upon, or at least discuss and the discussion will not get personal too soon :) .


I'm so glad to hear that you are interested in discussing hard physical facts. Me too. In particular, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the following specific facts. In her December 17 interrogation Knox states that she woke up "Around 10ish" on Nov. 2nd. In his prison diary, Sollecito states that he woke up after Amanda left to go shower at the cottage that morning.

From the phone records and computer records we know for a fact that someone was on Sollecito's computer for a substantial period of time before dawn that morning. We also know for a fact that he spoke with his father on the phone before 10 AM. I know you'll dispute the witness who places Amanda at the store before 8 AM so let's not even worry about that.

Please share with us why you think two innocent people who were the subject of a murder investigation would lie about what time they woke up the morning after a murder. Or, if it would be easier, tell us why you think two guilty people might lie about what time they awoke.

If you're not up for a discussion, let's just agree on the hard facts that the two lied about their activities on the morning after the murder. You are looking for an agreement on the hard facts, right?

Katody wrote:
To restate:
It is trivial that Amanda's DNA places her in the cottage spatially. But to conclude that she was involved, we need to place her not only spatially but temporally, too.
...
Your analyzing me is amusing and flattering on its own. PR job outsourced to a guy who checks every second word in a dictionary and have no grasp of conditionals. :)

Thank you, and of course - sorry for my English ;)


Let me be the first to compliment you on your English. Your overall usage and your understanding of complex topics like spatial and temporal locality surely demonstrates a mastery of the language that is well beyond that of the honors student Amanda Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
There's little doubt that the LE professionals listened intently to AK's continual attempts to control the investigation (from 02 NOV through to her arrest). I am not as convinced that they "knew" that she participated in the attacks but she is absolutely the type of witness or suspect that cops love. You simply wind her up and she babbles ceaselessly. I'll bet they had a hard time writing down information quickly enough.

This is also why I think they merely suspected she knew more about what happened than she was letting on and that Raffaele was the one they thought murdered Meredith. Again, it would be really interesting to read the transcripts of her interviews prior to 05 NOV 2007.


I think you are right on the money here. It also explains why her accusation against Patrick carried such weight. They were certain she knew more than she was telling (which she did), and when they thought she finally spilled the beans they were sure they had their man. And I'm quite certain she knew they would act on her accusation by arresting Patrick at the earliest opportunity. Despicable.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Excellent post, Stilicho. Well, I've read the book on Lord Errol. It was a murder, unsolved, but Lord Errol had the motive, means and opportunity....It happened in Happy Valley, Kenya, during the 30's. I believe by the same author who wrote "White Mischief". It was a Scandal......Hi, Itchy: Yes, not only did Amanda accuse Patrick, and say * He's Bad, It was him, I'm scared of him," she threw in the tidbit " He wanted Meredith". She was making sure the police were going to nab him, throwing in a motive.That's cold.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

fine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Anyhow--back to something constructive--were you able to locate anything more on that defence expert who testified about pot smoking and memory loss? I am really interested in what he really said and whether it has anything to do with the selective memory loss that Amanda said she experienced.


________________________

Well, stilicho, it doesn't help that the media spells the expert's name as "Taglialatela" and sometimes as "Taglialaveta."

....

So it looks like Amanda suffered from---or pretended to suffer from---HIT IN THE HEAD amnesia, where one can no longer recall memories that were once well-formed and easily accessed....until later suffering trauma. But Doctor Taglialatela/Taglialaveta describes cannabis-induced insomnia in which the memories are not properly formed in the first place--- while the subject is under the influence--- and so the memories should be, as he said, "very vague."
In which case Amanda should never have had that moment in prison when her memories "flooded back" to her, "one detail after another." Hmmmmm. You don't suppose Amanda was faking her memory loss? (WHY would she do such a thing?) Or was her amnesia caused by that chestnut-haired female police officer?!

///


I was struck by the alternate names for the expert too. I guess when you're a no-name expert with little to say about Amanda's actual self-diagnosed memory loss, you're bound to be lost in the shuffle.

I agree that Amanda's "visions" are extremely detailed, to the point where she knows where she was, who she saw, what she heard, and so forth. She even has some time sequences in there. I think we can all agree there's no such verifiable condition that does all that.

Apart from lying.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Excellent post, Stilicho. Well, I've read the book on Lord Errol. It was a murder, unsolved, but Lord Errol had the motive, means and opportunity....It happened in Happy Valley, Kenya, during the 30's. I believe by the same author who wrote "White Mischief". It was a Scandal......


Maybe Lord Erroll should have hired David Marriott. Of course it was long ago and on a different continent. We are all well aware of Thirties era scandals like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping.

I would gather that most of the people here know rather little about Colin Thatcher although his was a very high profile case in Canada, especially because he was the son of a Saskatchewan premier and held a seat in the provincial legislature. I think Knox is in much the same category. Outside the Pacific Northwest, her case is really not that high profile. I have business contacts on the eastern seaboard who've never even heard of her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
fine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Anyhow--back to something constructive--were you able to locate anything more on that defence expert who testified about pot smoking and memory loss? I am really interested in what he really said and whether it has anything to do with the selective memory loss that Amanda said she experienced.


________________________

Well, stilicho, it doesn't help that the media spells the expert's name as "Taglialatela" and sometimes as "Taglialaveta."

....

So it looks like Amanda suffered from---or pretended to suffer from---HIT IN THE HEAD amnesia, where one can no longer recall memories that were once well-formed and easily accessed....until later suffering trauma. But Doctor Taglialatela/Taglialaveta describes cannabis-induced insomnia in which the memories are not properly formed in the first place--- while the subject is under the influence--- and so the memories should be, as he said, "very vague."
In which case Amanda should never have had that moment in prison when her memories "flooded back" to her, "one detail after another." Hmmmmm. You don't suppose Amanda was faking her memory loss? (WHY would she do such a thing?) Or was her amnesia caused by that chestnut-haired female police officer?!

///


I was struck by the alternate names for the expert too. I guess when you're a no-name expert with little to say about Amanda's actual self-diagnosed memory loss, you're bound to be lost in the shuffle.

I agree that Amanda's "visions" are extremely detailed, to the point where she knows where she was, who she saw, what she heard, and so forth. She even has some time sequences in there. I think we can all agree there's no such verifiable condition that does all that.

Apart from lying.

________________________________

Stilicho, let me be more precise. The apologists explain those details you mention as somehow implanted by the cops or born of agitation caused by the cops. (Them stinkin' cops.) But how do the apologists explain Amanda's amnesia proper, as expressed, for example, in her handwritten note written later the day of her arrest? There she says this about her activities the night of the murder....

"These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much."

"I don't think I did much" is very vague and so, yeah, this is consistent with cannabis-induced amnesia, as described by Doctor Taglialatela/Taglialaveta. But---as I read the expert's testimony correctly --- if her amnesia was cannabis-induced, she should never have been able to recover her memories of that night, as she claimed to do in her Prison Diary. In effect, if her amnesia were due to the cannabis, her memory mechanisms were not functioning properly while she was stoned, so any normal memories were not properly formed in the first place, and so not subject to any later recall. Therefore she did not suffer from cannabis-induced amnesia.

(EDIT: I see that earlier in one instance wrote "insomnia" for "amnesia." It's getting late.)

"I don't think I did much." Yeah, if she's truthful, much seems to have escaped.......





Escapement Mechanism

///


Last edited by fine on Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:00 am, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Maurizio Taglialatela is not exactly a no-name expert. He has publications in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States and Nature among others. His publication list is extensive, I made a rough count of more than 100 publications in reputable journals in the fields of biochemistry, neurochemistry, cardiology, pharmacology, etc. as posted on the website http://www.biomedexperts.com. It is a little surprising to me to see him testify about the effect of marijuana on behavior since his expertise seems to be in basic biochemistry rather than behavioral science.

However, the testimony of several of the expert witnesses for the defense in this case have seemed to be a little outside their field of expertise. Francesco Introna, the forensic entymologist, whose research publications (listed on the same website) mostly deal with determining time and manner of death using the insect stages present in corpses, and determining the age, sex and identity of skeletal remains, testified that the large wound to Meredith's neck was made by repeated cuts with a smaller knife. He made this determination from photographs. He has a couple of publications on gunshot wounds one referencing the number of wounds in sefl-inflicted wounds as compared to shootings by a second party and one about a home-made gun, but nothing about knives. Maybe he really is expert about knife wounds, maybe not, but he hasn't published anything about the determination of knife size in different wounds. Hey maybe he spent an afternoon with his wife's kitchen knives and a roast.

And then there was the guy, sorry I can't remember his name right now, who made the lovely video of the rock being thrown through the outside of the window. He was asked about the effect that closed shutters would have on the proceedings and forced to admit that he didn't know about the shutters and of course they would interfere.

An expert witness may not actually have real expertise in the precise area of his/her testimony. Some do. But fancy titles and university connections and the mention of long lists of publications can go a long way to impress a jury with how "expert" they are.

Edited to correct typos.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

RG & Towels

How is it known that RG went into the small bathroom to get towels after dear Meredith was stabbed? Looking over photos of the cottage shows that it was very basic and compact living accommodation. Accordingly this is a likely scenario regarding personal towelling in a girl shared rental living accommodation.

AK & MK shared a small bathroom. There likely was a common hand towel left permanently in the bathroom for general hand washing. A different dynamic for personal bathing towels is likely though.

Assuming each girl used 2 towels after showering (smaller one for wrapping around wet hair; larger one for drying the body (help me out here ladies please)). There doesn’t appear to be a radiator or heated towel rack capable of drying 2x2 towels in this bathroom. Most likely each girl would place their towels on the radiator in their room to dry out after each use. Amanda did tell us in her court testimony that she forgot to bring her towel with her into the bathroom when she allegedly had a shower on the morning of 2 November (resulting in the alleged bath mat shuffle back to her bedroom to get it).

If this were the case then RG would have no need to visit the small bathroom to get towels on the night of 1 November; they were already there in Meredith’s room, possibly on the room’s radiator. Is it taken as a proven fact that RG went into the small bathroom to get towels on the night of 1 Nov? Where in the small bathroom is there suitable storage/drying apparatus for MK and AK to store their wet towels on a regular basis? Is it possible that RG just ran directly out the front door from Meredith’s room as his blood shoeprints indicate without visiting the small bathroom?

What we know is that RG certainly leaves plenty of signs in any room that he was visited in the cottage that night.

Thanks in advance for any help here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

beans wrote:
Maurizio Taglialatela is not exactly a no-name expert. He has publications in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States and Nature among others.


I was being flippant. I understand they paid a lot to the experts who arrived, provided testimony that this or that could have been the case, cashed the cheque and that was it.

I know from both PMF posts and Perugia-shock that two of the experts, Introna and Torre, couldn't agree on the manner of the attack(s). I meant that the experts were well compensated and the contradictions in their accounts (or even their lack of meaningful credentials) was less important than that "someone" was available to say "something".

As Catnip indicated before, and Fine confirmed, the cannabis-induced amnesia expert was there to simply say that pot can cause memory loss. It doesn't explain any of the inconsistencies that appeared well after AK was arrested and detained.

If they were serious about the innocence of RS and AK, I would have expected the experts to help formulate a reasonable doubt in the minds of the court. They'd do that by deliberately distancing AK and RS from RG--the "real killer"--and spending more time on showing the court that the "lone wolf" was the only realistic explanation for all the evidence.

I apologise to anyone who thinks that I haven't taken the experts seriously. I know that most of them are honest and professional and are there to establish a contrary view to that of the investigators. My issue is that the details of their testimony are sometimes scantly reported. This could be because it was largely irrelevant or because they didn't fully understand the weight of the evidence. I think you touched on that when you talked about the ballistics expert who testified that the status of Filomena's shutters made all his arguments moot.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
I have just heard that Casey Anthony's parents are deeply in debt. The limo rides and Ritz Carlton hotel stays are over. I think the money has dried up, or has trickled down for Amanda. Three books already. By the time the second appeal is done, so much time will have passed, I don't see much interest. If the convictions stand.....in 7-10 years time, people will have moved on. imo.


The Anthony's are not charged with any crime. There is no 'gag order' either. They can do any interviews, appearances or sell any images for profit.

The Knox/Mellas', on the other hand, are facing criminal charges of their own.

Curt can get a job. IMO, he saw this as an investment opportunity, completely ignoring the facts of the evidence. I don't buy the PR of one big happy family feverishly spending and working for a common goal. Doesn't matter what anyone says, I don't believe it for a nanosecond. Curt's wife will protect her own cubs first.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
RG & Towels

How is it known that RG went into the small bathroom to get towels after dear Meredith was stabbed? Looking over photos of the cottage shows that it was very basic and compact living accommodation. Accordingly this is a likely scenario regarding personal towelling in a girl shared rental living accommodation.


Were towels found in Meredith's room? I don't know where the blood-soaked towels were found, or if they were and entered as evidence. Any links?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I don't think you can make any general assumptions about how many towels each girl used or where they were kept, as in my experience this kind of thing varies hugely between people, location and circumstances. Just saying.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
RG & Towels

How is it known that RG went into the small bathroom to get towels after dear Meredith was stabbed? Looking over photos of the cottage shows that it was very basic and compact living accommodation. Accordingly this is a likely scenario regarding personal towelling in a girl shared rental living accommodation.


Were towels found in Meredith's room? I don't know where the blood-soaked towels were found, or if they were and entered as evidence. Any links?


________________

All three of the bloody towels were found in Meredith's bedroom. See the ATTACHMENT thoughtful posted above, July 26, 3:10 AM.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
capealadin wrote:
I have just heard that Casey Anthony's parents are deeply in debt. The limo rides and Ritz Carlton hotel stays are over. I think the money has dried up, or has trickled down for Amanda. Three books already. By the time the second appeal is done, so much time will have passed, I don't see much interest. If the convictions stand.....in 7-10 years time, people will have moved on. imo.


The Anthony's are not charged with any crime. There is no 'gag order' either. They can do any interviews, appearances or sell any images for profit.

The Knox/Mellas', on the other hand, are facing criminal charges of their own.

Curt can get a job. IMO, he saw this as an investment opportunity, completely ignoring the facts of the evidence. I don't buy the PR of one big happy family feverishly spending and working for a common goal. Doesn't matter what anyone says, I don't believe it for a nanosecond. Curt's wife will protect her own cubs first.


I don't think that any of those of the family started in on Amanda's defence as an investment opportunity.

Marriott is the one who's making the investment. He has nothing to lose and a great deal to gain from selling his services to a desperate family of some means whose deals might raise revenue for his firm.

We might not appreciate the antics of the various family members but they are not in it only for the money. Marriott is. He's the PT Barnum in this ragtag outfit.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

fine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
RG & Towels

How is it known that RG went into the small bathroom to get towels after dear Meredith was stabbed? Looking over photos of the cottage shows that it was very basic and compact living accommodation. Accordingly this is a likely scenario regarding personal towelling in a girl shared rental living accommodation.


Were towels found in Meredith's room? I don't know where the blood-soaked towels were found, or if they were and entered as evidence. Any links?


________________

All three of the bloody towels were found in Meredith's bedroom. See the ATTACHMENT thoughtful posted above, July 26, 3:10 AM.

///


Actually you should post the URL because the times are probably your local time and not my settings. There's a little "notepad" to the left of the header of the post and that will give you the URL in the address bar.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
fine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
RG & Towels

How is it known that RG went into the small bathroom to get towels after dear Meredith was stabbed? Looking over photos of the cottage shows that it was very basic and compact living accommodation. Accordingly this is a likely scenario regarding personal towelling in a girl shared rental living accommodation.


Were towels found in Meredith's room? I don't know where the blood-soaked towels were found, or if they were and entered as evidence. Any links?


________________

All three of the bloody towels were found in Meredith's bedroom. See the ATTACHMENT thoughtful posted above, July 26, 3:10 AM.

///


Actually you should post the URL because the times are probably your local time and not my settings. There's a little "notepad" to the left of the header of the post and that will give you the URL in the address bar.



_________________

Let me try..


thoughtful

This works. Thanks for the advise stilicho.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Should have made my query clearer.

It is established that the bloody towels were found in Meredith’s bedroom on 2 November, that is not at issue here.
What is at issue is; where is the original source of these towels on the night of 1 November? Bruce is asserting that RG took them from the bathroom first; is this established fact or is this “Bruce sais”. Is it possible that they were already located in MK’s bedroom from the start?

Thanks again.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

observer wrote:
I don't think you can make any general assumptions about how many towels each girl used or where they were kept, as in my experience this kind of thing varies hugely between people, location and circumstances. Just saying.


IMO

It doesn't matter the # of towels Amanda normally used. Her story just does not make any sense.

The door open when she arrives at the apartment. Amanda strips, takes a shower and parades naked back to her room. Not in an 'oops I forgot my towel so I'll scurry' kind of way.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

In my experience, we women always have a couple of hand towels, face cloths in the bathroom. With large bath towels. In my experience, guys only have bath towels. It is logical to expect that everyone in the cottage had their own bath towels in their rooms, because that is something we don't like sharing. Being married is different. In any event, I don't for a moment believe Amanda showered in the cottage that morning. She looked dishevelled , and didn't smell too fresh. It's possible that the towels WERE BY THE WASHING MACHINE or dryer, and Rudi didn't have to get them from a bathroom.

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


Last edited by capealadin on Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

AAAGGGHHH!!!

If anyone in the know is reading could you help me out on this PLEASE.

How in the hell do we know that Rudy took the towels from the small bathroom to Meredith’s room on the night of 1 November (instead of the towels already being in Meredith’s bedroom from the start)?

ie. did Rudy purchase the towels in the small bathroom using his credit card; or did he use his traceable swipe card to get them from an electronic towel dispenser in the small bathroom: or did the towels leave a trail of towel droppings from the small bathroom to Meredith’s room etc?

Thanks.

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sometimes, Hammer, we use small towels to remove our makeup. They therefore have to be washed often. Like kitchen towels. It therefore is more than possible that the towels were by the washing machine, or hanging with clothes on the drying rack. Which, if I remember correctly, was in the hallway, or outside the bathroom, and very accessible. And therefore it would not be necessary for Rudi to go INTO the bathroom at all. In fact, if he was panicked, he would have used t-shirts or something on the drying rack. ANYTHING!!

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


Last edited by capealadin on Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
In my experience, we women always have a couple of hand towels, face cloths in the bathroom. With large bath towels. In my experience, guys only have bath towels. It is logical to expect that everyone in the cottage had their own bath towels in their rooms, because that is something we don't like sharing. Being married is different. In any event, I don't for a moment believe Amanda showered in the cottage that morning. She looked dishevelled , and didn't smell too fresh. It's possible that the towels WERE BY THE WASHING MACHINE or dryer, and Rudi didn't have to get them from a bathroom.


Hi Cape, our posts crossed, wasn’t shouting at you. :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Didn't think you were :)

_________________
"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 Jul 27, 2010 10:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I still love ya !!!!!!!

_________________
"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 Jul 27, 2010 10:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

My last post for awhile. I'm so excited for my darling son, getting married, I can't sleep. But it is 3.30 am and have already made the house look beautiful for my guests. Yep, my brother comes in from London tomorrow. I shall miss you all, and be ready to read all the posts. My luck, the report will come out while I'm having a brilliant time, and everyone will have weighed in. So, I'm not expecting to weigh in with any gems :) ( not that I normally do :) I have just put out beautiful hand towels..........I value so many of you, ( you know who you are) so ciao, baci, Cape.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
My last post for awhile. I'm so excited for my darling son, getting married, I can't sleep. But it is 3.30 am and have already made the house look beautiful for my guests. Yep, my brother comes in from London tomorrow. I shall miss you all, and be ready to read all the posts. My luck, the report will come out while I'm having a brilliant time, and everyone will have weighed in. So, I'm not expecting to weigh in with any gems :) ( not that I normally do :) I have just put out beautiful hand towels..........I value so many of you, ( you know who you are) so ciao, baci, Cape.



mul-)
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
My last post for awhile. I'm so excited for my darling son, getting married, I can't sleep. But it is 3.30 am and have already made the house look beautiful for my guests. Yep, my brother comes in from London tomorrow. I shall miss you all, and be ready to read all the posts. My luck, the report will come out while I'm having a brilliant time, and everyone will have weighed in. So, I'm not expecting to weigh in with any gems :) ( not that I normally do :) I have just put out beautiful hand towels..........I value so many of you, ( you know who you are) so ciao, baci, Cape.


All the best Cape; no doubt it will be a magnificent and memorable day. :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
Katody wrote:
I just thought that hard physical facts is something we can agree upon, or at least discuss and the discussion will not get personal too soon :) .


I'm so glad to hear that you are interested in discussing hard physical facts. Me too. In particular, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the following specific facts. In her December 17 interrogation Knox states that she woke up "Around 10ish" on Nov. 2nd. In his prison diary, Sollecito states that he woke up after Amanda left to go shower at the cottage that morning.

From the phone records and computer records we know for a fact that someone was on Sollecito's computer for a substantial period of time before dawn that morning. We also know for a fact that he spoke with his father on the phone before 10 AM. I know you'll dispute the witness who places Amanda at the store before 8 AM so let's not even worry about that.


Thank you for your inquiry. I'm very glad to discuss it too. To be short: for now I don't see anything contradictory or in any way incriminating in the above findings. About the computer activity I could only speculate as I don't know any statements of Amanda or Raffaele about it.

But I will gladly learn more about the interrogation. Is the December interrogation transcript available? Was Raffaele interrogated too? Were they confronted about the night computer activity and wake up time? I sincerely don't remember Amanda being confronted about it during testimony. It would be interesting to know how do they explain it.

Quote:
Please share with us why you think two innocent people who were the subject of a murder investigation would lie about what time they woke up the morning after a murder. Or, if it would be easier, tell us why you think two guilty people might lie about what time they awoke.
Be sincere at least for this one time, have you stopped beating your wife? Or, if it would be easier, tell us why do you think it was Mignini who killed Meredith? ;)


And by the way, talking about the physical facts, do you happen to know what kind of forensic test, or maybe some other facts led the prosecution to think that the bathroom traces were mixed from blood of both of the girls ( If I understand correctly )? I know it is disputed too, but the prosecution must have had something substantial to support such a damning finding?

the two FOA sites say they had nothing, but I'm rather skeptical about it. They're known for selective reporting.

Thank you :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

((OT))

Here is a funny piece by columnist Alex Beam for the New York Times.
“Under the Umbrian Sun”
My wife and I recently spent a week in Umbria, Italy, in a gorgeous restored villa not far from Lake Trasimeno. We shared the eight-bedroom home with seven other couples, loosely defined, from all corners of the United States. Americans abroad are a species unto themselves.

More here: :lol:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/opini ... dbeam.html
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:

Be sincere at least for this one time, have you stopped beating your wife? Or, if it would be easier, tell us why do you think it was Mignini who killed Meredith? ;)




Ah, the wife-beating chestnut! The former food and travel blogger was fond of that one. I'm not implying you are her as you have a much better grasp of the language and your spelling far exceeds hers.

At any rate, why do I personally think Mignini killed Meredith? To frame Amanda Knox. Of course. He's been planning this for years.

Does anybody remember The Gong Show?

Towel question: I have very long hair, pretty much always have. I use two towels, a large one to dry then wrap up my hair into a turban sort of (or my hair will wind up soaking the back of whatever I am wearing) and a separate towel for drying the rest of me. I use a third towel to boogie down the hall...

Congrats to Cape, many blessings to *Love*
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
But I will gladly learn more about the interrogation. Is the December interrogation transcript available? Was Raffaele interrogated too? Were they confronted about the night computer activity and wake up time? I sincerely don't remember Amanda being confronted about it during testimony. It would be interesting to know how do they explain it.


So, as I understand it, Katody started out believing Knox and Sollecito to be completely innocent and is only now seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the case, mostly through examining only those things that the defense teams contested (i.e. the bloody footprint on pillowcase that Sollecito's team thought belonged to Guede while Knox's own team could not make up their mind about it) in court while walking swiftly past any evidence that creates problems for the happy young lovebirds. I see...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
((OT))

Here is a funny piece by columnist Alex Beam for the New York Times.
“Under the Umbrian Sun”
My wife and I recently spent a week in Umbria, Italy, in a gorgeous restored villa not far from Lake Trasimeno. We shared the eight-bedroom home with seven other couples, loosely defined, from all corners of the United States. Americans abroad are a species unto themselves.

More here: :lol:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/opini ... dbeam.html



Soooo funny and soooo true! Thanks, Jools. Laughter is a good way to start the day.:)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
But I will gladly learn more about the interrogation. Is the December interrogation transcript available? Was Raffaele interrogated too? Were they confronted about the night computer activity and wake up time? I sincerely don't remember Amanda being confronted about it during testimony. It would be interesting to know how do they explain it.


So, as I understand it, Katody started out believing Knox and Sollecito to be completely innocent and is only now seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the case, mostly through examining only those things that the defense teams contested (i.e. the bloody footprint on pillowcase that Sollecito's team thought belonged to Guede while Knox's own team could not make up their mind about it) in court while walking swiftly past any evidence that creates problems for the happy young lovebirds. I see...



Not that Katody will be able to listen to them, but the actual tapes from the December interrogation exist. In addition, a lot of material from that questioning session has been provided in various places in written form and partially translated. I know a couple of people who have listened to the entire tape. Mignini has stated that Knox came very close to confessing and my sources (who have heard the tapes) agree. Were it not for one particular attorney stepping in, she would have.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
But I will gladly learn more about the interrogation. Is the December interrogation transcript available? Was Raffaele interrogated too? Were they confronted about the night computer activity and wake up time? I sincerely don't remember Amanda being confronted about it during testimony. It would be interesting to know how do they explain it.


So, as I understand it, Katody started out believing Knox and Sollecito to be completely innocent and is only now seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the case, mostly through examining only those things that the defense teams contested (i.e. the bloody footprint on pillowcase that Sollecito's team thought belonged to Guede while Knox's own team could not make up their mind about it) in court while walking swiftly past any evidence that creates problems for the happy young lovebirds. I see...



Not that Katody will be able to listen to them, but the actual tapes from the December interrogation exist. In addition, a lot of material from that questioning session has been provided in various places in written form and partially translated. I know a couple of people who have listened to the entire tape. Mignini has stated that Knox came very close to confessing and my sources (who have heard the tapes) agree. Were it not for one particular attorney stepping in, she would have.


I don't know how this lawyer this can sleep at night.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This is slightly On and slightly Off Topic, but I was wondering if anyone had ever come across the case of the murder of Alison Shaughnessy in the UK in 1991. Michelle and Lisa were charged with her murder. The press had a field day with the fact that Michelle had had an affair with the victim's husband, John. There was also a line taken from Michelle's diary: 'I hate Alison, the unwashed bitch. My Dream solution would be for Alison to disappear as if she never existed and then maybe i could give everything to the man i love' - which was an influential piece of evidence.

The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.

The plot thickens, however: a man called Bernard O'Mahoney, who had got involved in the appeal and worked hard to secure their release, went on to have a "passionate" relationship with Michelle, whom he claims broke down and confessed her guilt. A court battle then ensued over whether O'Mahoney could publish his story.

A couple of things and a couple of links: after they were freed, a journalist asked Michelle and Lisa's mother whether she would have stood by them if she had believed them to be guilty: "No way. I'd have stood by them; they would still have been my daughters, yes. But I knew they were innocent, and I wasn't going to sit by and let them rot in prison."

The victim's mother, on the strength of O'Mahoney's story, now believes that the sisters' conviction should have stood (see second link). It is worth noting that O'Mahoney has had a colourful past, and has made a habit of writing to famous prisoners (often under pretence of being a woman!) in order to win their trust and then sell whatever he can glean to the tabloids.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 61656.html

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2000/jul/ ... y-go-free/

And before anyone starts, I am not posting this to make some cryptic hint about AK being innocent.
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: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
AAAGGGHHH!!!

If anyone in the know is reading could you help me out on this PLEASE.

How in the hell do we know that Rudy took the towels from the small bathroom to Meredith’s room on the night of 1 November (instead of the towels already being in Meredith’s bedroom from the start)?

ie. did Rudy purchase the towels in the small bathroom using his credit card; or did he use his traceable swipe card to get them from an electronic towel dispenser in the small bathroom: or did the towels leave a trail of towel droppings from the small bathroom to Meredith’s room etc?

Thanks.

H



No, nothing...other then Rudy's claim in his story. It is not known, nor can it ever be proven where the towels originally were. So, it all comes down to you pays yer money you takes yer choice.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Thank you for your inquiry. I'm very glad to discuss it too. To be short: for now I don't see anything contradictory or in any way incriminating in the above findings. About the computer activity I could only speculate as I don't know any statements of Amanda or Raffaele about it.


Wait...you seemingly know this case backwards yet know nothing about the computers? A most convenient omission in your knowledge I must say, especially as the computer is Raffaele's alibi for the night in question, as well as in part Amanda's. Raffaele claimed to be on his computer all night until 1 am. His computer records say otherwise, with the last human activity on his machine being at 9:10 PM. Amanda claims she and Raffaele watched Amelie on his computer together then stopped to have dinner (in one version dinner was at 10 pm, in another it was at 10:30 pm and in another still it was 11 pm). But, the computer records show Amelie finished long before 8:42 pm with them having had dinner and washed up also before 8:42 pm. Since Raffele's alibi was the computer, rather then Amanda, he suddenly has no alibi and it shows Amanda's times are completely out too.

This really is BASIC case knowledge.

Finally, they claim to have got up the next morning at 10 am and 10:30 am respectively. Yet, Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am and that someone switched on Raffaele's phone at 6:02 am.

Katody wrote:
And by the way, talking about the physical facts, do you happen to know what kind of forensic test, or maybe some other facts led the prosecution to think that the bathroom traces were mixed from blood of both of the girls ( If I understand correctly )? I know it is disputed too, but the prosecution must have had something substantial to support such a damning finding?


Perhaps because it's very difficult for such a mix of DNA to occur in so many places unless the mixture from both parties is in liquid form (such as bodily fluids...like blood). This is combined with the fact that Amanda was bleeding...her blood was on the tap in the sink in the little bathroom, blood which even she admits had not been there the afternoon before and was already dry when she entered the cottage in the morning (ergo, Amanda had bled during the time of the murder and deposited the blood then). If Amanda was bleeding, then it's not such a leap to infer that at least some of the positive DNA samples in which the DNA of both Amanda and Meredith presented (excluding the footprints) were due to a mix of blood from the both of them, although less blood from Amanda.

_________________
"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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Here's another example of DNA evidence being used to convict someone years after the crime had been committed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 36716.html
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Another case where DNS played a role in a successful murder conviction after 23 years. In this case it involves a woman murdering her husband with the assistance of her daughter’s boyfriend.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/shak ... 73857.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The lawyers for the following have all claimed the DNA evidence against their clients was contaminated:

OJ Simpson
Scott Peterson
Amanda Knox
Raffaele Sollecito

Can anyone add more names to this list?

LCN DNA evidence has been used to convict the following:

Bradley Murdoch
Tony Jasinsky
Ian Lowther
Antoni Imiela

Can anyone add more names to this list?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:31 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

NOTE TO THE TRANSLATORS:

I am posting questions about specific passages in the translation thread. Could you all have a look and let me know what you think?

Thanks!

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
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: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?



Press coverage of the Meredith Kercher Case is Windfall's pet 'thang'. I think he's eyeing up the writing of a paper on the Knox media reporting with a view to integrating it into his course sc-))

_________________
"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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?



Press coverage of the Meredith Kercher Case is Windfall's pet 'thang'. I think he's eyeing up the writing of a paper with a view to integrating it into his course sc-))


I'd like to see the legal basis for the claim that negative press coverage can be employed as a reason for appeal. And that it is employed successfully.

I'd hate to burst anyone's illusions but the media tends to write negative articles about suspects all the time--especially university students who murder their roommates for no real reason. Crimes where the victims are children, elderly, women, disabled, or visible minorities tend to attract a lot of negative publicity. I don't think anyone has to write a thesis to figure out why this is the case.

Ignored in all this, of course, is that Amanda in specific has attracted a lot of positive press coverage too. If anyone should be freed only for negative press coverage in this murder case it would be Rudy and not Amanda.
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: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stilicho wrote:
I'd like to see the legal basis for the claim that negative press coverage can be employed as a reason for appeal. And that it is employed successfully.


You'll have to wait for Windfall's paper ;)

Stilicho wrote:
Ignored in all this, of course, is that Amanda in specific has attracted a lot of positive press coverage too.


That would upset his paper. It needs to be based on a one track pony. Stereo is a bit...'modern'. And anyway, it undermines things if one intends to create a module out of the paper...it's best not to confuse students too much, but especially not ones own academic perspective. It spoils things. Let's just have a view and stick to it, it keeps things simple ;)

_________________
"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 Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Wait...you seemingly know this case backwards yet know nothing about the computers?

Well, I'm familiar with the prosecution's statement that the last computer interaction was recorded about 21.15.
I also understand, that unless the disabled hard drive is recovered, Amanda and Raffaele don't have any chance of an alibi from it.
In my opinion they spent the night together at Raffaele's flat, and I fail to see how any computer activity can make it improbable. That's all.

Quote:
Finally, they claim to have got up the next morning at 10 am and 10:30 am respectively. Yet, Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am and that someone switched on Raffaele's phone at 6:02 am.
I don't see any contradiction here. Starting a playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.



Quote:
Katody wrote:
what kind of forensic test, or maybe some other facts led the prosecution to think that the bathroom traces were mixed from blood of both of the girls ( If I understand correctly )? I know it is disputed too, but the prosecution must have had something substantial to support such a damning finding?


Perhaps because it's very difficult for such a mix of DNA to occur in so many places unless the mixture from both parties is in liquid form (such as bodily fluids...like blood). This is combined with the fact that Amanda was bleeding...her blood was on the tap in the sink in the little bathroom, blood which even she admits had not been there the afternoon before and was already dry when she entered the cottage in the morning (ergo, Amanda had bled during the time of the murder and deposited the blood then). If Amanda was bleeding, then it's not such a leap to infer that at least some of the positive DNA samples in which the DNA of both Amanda and Meredith presented (excluding the footprints) were due to a mix of blood from the both of them, although less blood from Amanda.

Is this what the Motivation says about it? That they reasoned it was possible? Wasn't it presented as a strong fact, at first in media, then at the court?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?


I may be off base here, as I just started reading about the case this afternoon. This comes from a report from The Independent, actually about the Michael Stone case, but with the conviction of Michelle and Lisa Taylor used as a reference point:

"They will also be acutely aware of a case in 1993 in which sisters Michelle and Lisa Taylor had their convictions for murdering Alison Shaughnessy, a bank clerk, quashed by the Court of Appeal after the judges decided they had been denied the right to a fair trial because of "prejudicial press publicity"."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 90940.html

And this, a more direct reference to the conviction of the Taylor sisters.

"In an unprecedented Court of Appeal judgment, the media were convicted of 'unremitting, extensive, sensational, inaccurate and misleading' coverage of the trial of Michelle and Lisa Taylor. Reporting was judged so bad that it created a 'real risk of prejudice'. And so bad that newspapers and television companies involved were reported to the Attorney General to see if editors should be charged with contempt."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 91906.html

I came across the case first in a collection of essays called GENDER AND CRIME, ed. Dobash, Dobash & Noaks (1995).

It may be, as Stillicho notes, that no-one needs to write a thesis to understand why this crime has attracted so much negative publicity. Fortunately, that's not what I am doing.

I am, nevertheless, interested in what has informed the press coverage (and other coverage) of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and in that respect I am drawing on quite a body of research into the representation of women accused and/or convicted of violent crime, and murder in particular. As a starting point...

Benedict, Helen (1992) Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes (NY & Oxford: OUP)
Birch, Helen (ed) (1993) Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation (London: Virago)
Boyle, Karen (2005) Media and Violence: Gendering the Debates (London: Sage)
Carter, C et al (eds) (1998) News, Gender and Power (London: Routledge)
D’Cruze, Shani, Sandra Walklate & Samantha Pegg (2006) Murder (Cullompton: Willan Publishing)
Dobash et al (eds) (1995) Gender and Crime (Cardiff: University of Wales)
Howe, Adrian (2008) Sex, Violence and Crime (London: Routledge)
Jewkes, Yvonne (2004) Media and Crime (London: Sage)
Jones, Ann (1991) Women Who Kill (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.)
Kennedy, Helena (2005) Eve was Framed: Women and British Justice. Revised Edition. (London: Vintage)
Kirsta, Alix (1994) Deadlier than the Male: Violence and Aggression in Women (London: HarperCollins)
Knox, SL (1998) Murder: A Tale of Modern American Life (Durham & London: Duke Univ Press)
Lloyd, Ann (1995) Doubly Deviant, Doubly Damned: Society’s Treatment of Violent Women (London: Penguin)
Marsh & Melville (2009) Crime, Justice and the Media (London: Routledge)
Morrissey, Belinda (2003) When Women Kill: Questions of Agency and Subjectivity (London: Routledge)
Myers & Wight (eds) (1996) No Angels: Women Who Commit Violence (London: HarperCollins)
Penfold-Mounce, Ruth (2009) Celebrity Culture and Crime (Basingstoke: Palgrave)
Pistorius, Micki (2004) Fatal Females: Women who Kill (London: Penguin)
Wykes & Welsh (2009) Violence, Gender and Justice (London: Sage)

These are for the most part concerned with late twentieth century cases and approaches.

Michael is partly right in that I am working on a paper looking at the media representation of the Meredith Kercher case. It's actually intended as part of a larger study of murderesses who fall roughly into a "femme fatale" category (so, women such as Frances Howard, Madeleine Smith, Ruth Snyder, Amy Fisher). But given pressures of research assessment in universities, the MK section may end up published as an article in a journal six people and their dogs will read in the meantime.

I am well aware that there has been positive coverage of Knox in all this as well as negative, and that is part of what I am researching. The representation of Meredith is also relevant of course. I will mention RG but since this is a chapter/section/article and not a book, or a trilogy, or whatever, and since my focus is on gender, it will probably be little more than a mention and a scholar's apology that it's no more than that.

Michael likes having a go at me whenever I pop my head over the parapet. I try to be open-minded in my teaching, but perhaps Michael's been sitting in on some of my classes and has formed a different opinion of my approach.

Anyone bored or sad enough to track my posts back through the message boards will probably pick up the fact that my perspective has shifted along the way, and I hope I have been gracious enough to acknowledge when people have helped me to new insights and ways of thinking.

I don't think anyone should be afraid of people analysing media representation of this case (and I am sure there are dozens of academics sharpening the nibs of their fountain pens - remember them?!? - as we "speak"). None of it will shake the firm foundations of the convictions, IMHO. There's nothing to be afraid of. Just more to discover.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Wait...you seemingly know this case backwards yet know nothing about the computers?

Well, I'm familiar with the prosecution's statement that the last computer interaction was recorded about 21.15.
I also understand, that unless the disabled hard drive is recovered, Amanda and Raffaele don't have any chance of an alibi from it.
In my opinion they spent the night together at Raffaele's flat, and I fail to see how any computer activity can make it improbable. That's all.

Quote:
Finally, they claim to have got up the next morning at 10 am and 10:30 am respectively. Yet, Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am and that someone switched on Raffaele's phone at 6:02 am.
I don't see any contradiction here. Starting a playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.



Quote:
Katody wrote:
what kind of forensic test, or maybe some other facts led the prosecution to think that the bathroom traces were mixed from blood of both of the girls ( If I understand correctly )? I know it is disputed too, but the prosecution must have had something substantial to support such a damning finding?


Perhaps because it's very difficult for such a mix of DNA to occur in so many places unless the mixture from both parties is in liquid form (such as bodily fluids...like blood). This is combined with the fact that Amanda was bleeding...her blood was on the tap in the sink in the little bathroom, blood which even she admits had not been there the afternoon before and was already dry when she entered the cottage in the morning (ergo, Amanda had bled during the time of the murder and deposited the blood then). If Amanda was bleeding, then it's not such a leap to infer that at least some of the positive DNA samples in which the DNA of both Amanda and Meredith presented (excluding the footprints) were due to a mix of blood from the both of them, although less blood from Amanda.

Is this what the Motivation says about it? That they reasoned it was possible? Wasn't it presented as a strong fact, at first in media, then at the court?


Your misconceptions are enormous. I hope someone has time to set you straight. I certainly don't.

First, about the fried hard drives.
Second, about the last computer interaction - it isn't just the prosecution which says so.
Third, about what time they got up and what they did the morning of the 2nd. Both RS and AK have written about these things, in addition to what they told investigators. And there are phone records, which were not invented by the prosecution.
Fourth, about the relationship of blood to DNA, what was presented in court and in the media. You are really mixed up it seems.

Anyway, as I said, perhaps someone will take the time to set you straight. You could also just do your own research. You seem incredibly naive and ill-informed for someone with such a strong conviction. Then again, maybe ceci explique cela.

I've got work to do, or I would be happy to explain what you could find if you took the time to read for about six weeks before posting. I strongly advise you to do the reading before posting again.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
I also understand, that unless the disabled hard drive is recovered, Amanda and Raffaele don't have any chance of an alibi from it.


The police were able to recover data from Sollecito's computer. The hard drive wasn't damaged.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
This is slightly On and slightly Off Topic, but I was wondering if anyone had ever come across the case of the murder of Alison Shaughnessy in the UK in 1991. Michelle and Lisa were charged with her murder. The press had a field day with the fact that Michelle had had an affair with the victim's husband, John. There was also a line taken from Michelle's diary: 'I hate Alison, the unwashed bitch. My Dream solution would be for Alison to disappear as if she never existed and then maybe i could give everything to the man i love' - which was an influential piece of evidence.

The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.

The plot thickens, however: a man called Bernard O'Mahoney, who had got involved in the appeal and worked hard to secure their release, went on to have a "passionate" relationship with Michelle, whom he claims broke down and confessed her guilt. A court battle then ensued over whether O'Mahoney could publish his story.

A couple of things and a couple of links: after they were freed, a journalist asked Michelle and Lisa's mother whether she would have stood by them if she had believed them to be guilty: "No way. I'd have stood by them; they would still have been my daughters, yes. But I knew they were innocent, and I wasn't going to sit by and let them rot in prison."

The victim's mother, on the strength of O'Mahoney's story, now believes that the sisters' conviction should have stood (see second link). It is worth noting that O'Mahoney has had a colourful past, and has made a habit of writing to famous prisoners (often under pretence of being a woman!) in order to win their trust and then sell whatever he can glean to the tabloids.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 61656.html

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2000/jul/ ... y-go-free/

And before anyone starts, I am not posting this to make some cryptic hint about AK being innocent.


Didn't one of the tabloid newspapers publish a misleading photograph which appeared to show Michelle Taylor kissing Michael Shaughnessy on the mouth when in fact she had kissed him on the cheek?

Was anyone else convicted of Alison Shaughnessy's murder?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?


I may be off base here, as I just started reading about the case this afternoon. This comes from a report from The Independent, actually about the Michael Stone case, but with the conviction of Michelle and Lisa Taylor used as a reference point:

"They will also be acutely aware of a case in 1993 in which sisters Michelle and Lisa Taylor had their convictions for murdering Alison Shaughnessy, a bank clerk, quashed by the Court of Appeal after the judges decided they had been denied the right to a fair trial because of "prejudicial press publicity"."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 90940.html

And this, a more direct reference to the conviction of the Taylor sisters.

"In an unprecedented Court of Appeal judgment, the media were convicted of 'unremitting, extensive, sensational, inaccurate and misleading' coverage of the trial of Michelle and Lisa Taylor. Reporting was judged so bad that it created a 'real risk of prejudice'. And so bad that newspapers and television companies involved were reported to the Attorney General to see if editors should be charged with contempt."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 91906.html

I came across the case first in a collection of essays called GENDER AND CRIME, ed. Dobash, Dobash & Noaks (1995).

It may be, as Stillicho notes, that no-one needs to write a thesis to understand why this crime has attracted so much negative publicity. Fortunately, that's not what I am doing.

I am, nevertheless, interested in what has informed the press coverage (and other coverage) of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and in that respect I am drawing on quite a body of research into the representation of women accused and/or convicted of violent crime, and murder in particular. As a starting point...

Benedict, Helen (1992) Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes (NY & Oxford: OUP)
Birch, Helen (ed) (1993) Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation (London: Virago)
Boyle, Karen (2005) Media and Violence: Gendering the Debates (London: Sage)
Carter, C et al (eds) (1998) News, Gender and Power (London: Routledge)
D’Cruze, Shani, Sandra Walklate & Samantha Pegg (2006) Murder (Cullompton: Willan Publishing)
Dobash et al (eds) (1995) Gender and Crime (Cardiff: University of Wales)
Howe, Adrian (2008) Sex, Violence and Crime (London: Routledge)
Jewkes, Yvonne (2004) Media and Crime (London: Sage)
Jones, Ann (1991) Women Who Kill (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.)
Kennedy, Helena (2005) Eve was Framed: Women and British Justice. Revised Edition. (London: Vintage)
Kirsta, Alix (1994) Deadlier than the Male: Violence and Aggression in Women (London: HarperCollins)
Knox, SL (1998) Murder: A Tale of Modern American Life (Durham & London: Duke Univ Press)
Lloyd, Ann (1995) Doubly Deviant, Doubly Damned: Society’s Treatment of Violent Women (London: Penguin)
Marsh & Melville (2009) Crime, Justice and the Media (London: Routledge)
Morrissey, Belinda (2003) When Women Kill: Questions of Agency and Subjectivity (London: Routledge)
Myers & Wight (eds) (1996) No Angels: Women Who Commit Violence (London: HarperCollins)
Penfold-Mounce, Ruth (2009) Celebrity Culture and Crime (Basingstoke: Palgrave)
Pistorius, Micki (2004) Fatal Females: Women who Kill (London: Penguin)
Wykes & Welsh (2009) Violence, Gender and Justice (London: Sage)

These are for the most part concerned with late twentieth century cases and approaches.

Michael is partly right in that I am working on a paper looking at the media representation of the Meredith Kercher case. It's actually intended as part of a larger study of murderesses who fall roughly into a "femme fatale" category (so, women such as Frances Howard, Madeleine Smith, Ruth Snyder, Amy Fisher). But given pressures of research assessment in universities, the MK section may end up published as an article in a journal six people and their dogs will read in the meantime.

I am well aware that there has been positive coverage of Knox in all this as well as negative, and that is part of what I am researching. The representation of Meredith is also relevant of course. I will mention RG but since this is a chapter/section/article and not a book, or a trilogy, or whatever, and since my focus is on gender, it will probably be little more than a mention and a scholar's apology that it's no more than that.

Michael likes having a go at me whenever I pop my head over the parapet. I try to be open-minded in my teaching, but perhaps Michael's been sitting in on some of my classes and has formed a different opinion of my approach.

Anyone bored or sad enough to track my posts back through the message boards will probably pick up the fact that my perspective has shifted along the way, and I hope I have been gracious enough to acknowledge when people have helped me to new insights and ways of thinking.

I don't think anyone should be afraid of people analysing media representation of this case (and I am sure there are dozens of academics sharpening the nibs of their fountain pens - remember them?!? - as we "speak"). None of it will shake the firm foundations of the convictions, IMHO. There's nothing to be afraid of. Just more to discover.


I agree there is nothing to be afraid of! But I really am curious about one thing: what is your hypothesis exactly, and what relationship does it have to the guilt or innocence of female suspects? Also, do you have any ideas about how murder victims are portrayed in the media or is that not interesting? Further, how does the portrayal of female murderers differ from that of male murderers? Is public perception of male murderers any less bound up in gender stereotypes? Finally, why is it important to study media portrayals of women murderers? How does it help us as a society?

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Phew. That's a lot of questions late at night, Skep. I will try and get back to you on some of them in due course.

TM, you remember correctly: I haven't tried to track down the pic specifically yet, but the essay I was reading suggests that, quote, 'The Sun published a still from a video of the victim's wedding showing Michelle Taylor kissing the groom (her lover) - a peck on the cheek turned into a passionate kiss by creative editing', with the headline 'Cheat's Kiss'. (Bronwyn Naylor, 'Women's Crime and media coverage: making explanations', pp.78-9, in the Dobash et al collection mentioned above.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?



Press coverage of the Meredith Kercher Case is Windfall's pet 'thang'. I think he's eyeing up the writing of a paper with a view to integrating it into his course sc-))


I'd like to see the legal basis for the claim that negative press coverage can be employed as a reason for appeal. And that it is employed successfully.

I'd hate to burst anyone's illusions but the media tends to write negative articles about suspects all the time--especially university students who murder their roommates for no real reason. Crimes where the victims are children, elderly, women, disabled, or visible minorities tend to attract a lot of negative publicity. I don't think anyone has to write a thesis to figure out why this is the case.

Ignored in all this, of course, is that Amanda in specific has attracted a lot of positive press coverage too. If anyone should be freed only for negative press coverage in this murder case it would be Rudy and not Amanda.

Both sets of family are responsible for most of the media circus surrounding this case, they created it. If prosecution and Kercher's lawyers need to argue the matter of the press coverage at the appeal, no doubt they'll be well prepared (as Maresca and Prosecutors are very aware) there is a lot of material around that, will show the families and or their defence as being the ones who initiated the media circus. Within the first two months of the murder and continuing even for many months before the investigation was concluded, both K/S families/defence were busy offering their stories, and in one instance 'illegally' gave gruesome pictures and a film that showed the victim's wounds and naked body mostly to 'selected' media so it could be shown on public TV!

Going by memory, just a few come to mind.

Remember very early on the case when Francesco Sollecito was on TV every other day either blaming Knox for ruining his son's life, or offering excuses like his son's shoeprint in victim's room was left there the same morning when body was discovered, victim's bra was borrowed by Knox and this is why it had his son's DNA on it, and selling the 'exclusive' son's prison diary to La Nazione. Also Knox's parents living La Dolce Vita in Italy when driven around in a limo, etc., courtesy of ABC, of course with a filming crew on tow!

If all of this is not creating a media circus, which will have consequences like, feeding a morbid interest in the case and its protagonists to the media, then I don't know what it is!
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?


I may be off base here, as I just started reading about the case this afternoon. This comes from a report from The Independent, actually about the Michael Stone case, but with the conviction of Michelle and Lisa Taylor used as a reference point:

"They will also be acutely aware of a case in 1993 in which sisters Michelle and Lisa Taylor had their convictions for murdering Alison Shaughnessy, a bank clerk, quashed by the Court of Appeal after the judges decided they had been denied the right to a fair trial because of "prejudicial press publicity"."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 90940.html


I don't know if that supports the contention that 'prejudicial press coverage' is grounds for appeal. I can certainly see why a defence attorney would say it was.

Too little information to form an opinion.

What's that bibliography supposed to mean?

You might want to include Karla Homolka and Kelly Ellard in your research because they're remorseless killers just like Amanda Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools, I agree that the families and the defendants' legal teams went into hyperdrive very swiftly, and I know that they had a significant impact on the coverage: the spin and counter-spin is dizzying and makes the case very complex. However, I would not agree that they *created* the media circus. If you look at some early reports in the UK press (which is the only angle I so far have much of a handle on), it was clearly going to be a case that attracted significant attention with or without the intervention of the lawyers, families and PR firms.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think what makes this case more interesting to the media is the firm denial by Amanda, by that I mean she is still claiming through her lawyers to be innocent. I don't think there would be as much interest if she took responsibility for the murder, or even admitted it was done under the influence of a drug/alcohol cocktail.


If she wasn't claiming innocence in the face of this overwhelming evidence, there would be little interest...


Last edited by H9 on Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Also, do you have any ideas about how murder victims are portrayed in the media or is that not interesting?


That's an excellent idea for windfall's teaching assignment/essay/book. Why not a full treatment of Meredith Kercher, Reena Virk, Leslie Mahaffy, Tammy Homolka and Kristen French? That would be a book worth reading and treasuring.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
The sisters were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, they were freed on appeal, and the appeal was based largely on prejudicial press coverage, particularly in The Sun, The Daily Mail, Mirror and Express.


Whoa there! I am not particularly acquainted with that case but it wasn't media bias that led the route to a successful appeal. Evidence against the two women was falsified and this was established in the courtroom.

Where did you get the idea they were freed because of 'prejudicial press coverage'?


I may be off base here, as I just started reading about the case this afternoon. This comes from a report from The Independent, actually about the Michael Stone case, but with the conviction of Michelle and Lisa Taylor used as a reference point:

"They will also be acutely aware of a case in 1993 in which sisters Michelle and Lisa Taylor had their convictions for murdering Alison Shaughnessy, a bank clerk, quashed by the Court of Appeal after the judges decided they had been denied the right to a fair trial because of "prejudicial press publicity"."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 90940.html


I don't know if that supports the contention that 'prejudicial press coverage' is grounds for appeal. I can certainly see why a defence attorney would say it was.

Too little information to form an opinion.

What's that bibliography supposed to mean?

You might want to include Karla Homolka and Kelly Ellard in your research because they're remorseless killers just like Amanda Knox.


Sure. As I say, it's something I happened across today. A BBC report also talks about press prejudicing the case while talking about the Lee Bowyer case

"Another famous case involved two sisters, Lisa and Michelle Taylor, who were convicted of murder but cleared on appeal in 1993 because of sensational reporting during their trial. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1269597.stm

but I am not trying to build a case here, and I am certainly not suggesting that the Knox/Sollecito convictions will be overturned on such an appeal.

The bibliography is intended a) to show that my interest is not solely in the killer Amanda Knox and b) to show that there is a large body of literature out there that has been looking at the way our culture's understanding of gender and gender relations has impacted on the way it makes sense of violent women. So I'm not completely bonkers thinking that the Knox case might fit into that body of research somewhere.

I am familiar with the Homolka/Bernardo case, and have referred to it before on this forum, but not with Kelly Ellard. Thanks for the tip.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
In my opinion they spent the night together at Raffaele's flat, and I fail to see how any computer activity can make it improbable.


Unless, of course, for your alibi you claimed that you were hard at work surfing the internet all night - but your computer activity records demonstrate that this is a lie. You want to deal with the facts, Katody - they repeatedly lied to investigators, and this is a FACT.

Quote:
...playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.


Well, you almost answer your own question here. The fact is, they said nothing about any of it. Neither of them. Not about sex, not about music, not about phone calls, not about waking up and going back to sleep.

None of it.

Not even when presented with the evidence that the investigators discovered.

It would have been so easy to say, "oh yeah, now I remember", but they said nothing.

It's far too late to be inventing hypothetical excuses on their behalf, Katody. The trial is over.
Top Profile 

Offline cyyates


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:51 am

Posts: 64

Location: U.S. Nebraska

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Wait...you seemingly know this case backwards yet know nothing about the computers?

Well, I'm familiar with the prosecution's statement that the last computer interaction was recorded about 21.15.
I also understand, that unless the disabled hard drive is recovered, Amanda and Raffaele don't have any chance of an alibi from it.
In my opinion they spent the night together at Raffaele's flat, and I fail to see how any computer activity can make it improbable. That's all.

Quote:
Finally, they claim to have got up the next morning at 10 am and 10:30 am respectively. Yet, Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am and that someone switched on Raffaele's phone at 6:02 am.
I don't see any contradiction here. Starting a playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.



Quote:
Katody wrote:
what kind of forensic test, or maybe some other facts led the prosecution to think that the bathroom traces were mixed from blood of both of the girls ( If I understand correctly )? I know it is disputed too, but the prosecution must have had something substantial to support such a damning finding?


Perhaps because it's very difficult for such a mix of DNA to occur in so many places unless the mixture from both parties is in liquid form (such as bodily fluids...like blood). This is combined with the fact that Amanda was bleeding...her blood was on the tap in the sink in the little bathroom, blood which even she admits had not been there the afternoon before and was already dry when she entered the cottage in the morning (ergo, Amanda had bled during the time of the murder and deposited the blood then). If Amanda was bleeding, then it's not such a leap to infer that at least some of the positive DNA samples in which the DNA of both Amanda and Meredith presented (excluding the footprints) were due to a mix of blood from the both of them, although less blood from Amanda.

Is this what the Motivation says about it? That they reasoned it was possible? Wasn't it presented as a strong fact, at first in media, then at the court?



Well......I think I'm done with this board for now. I'll jump back on closer to the appeals, but for now, tired of the tolerance of obvious trolls, so gonna take a break.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
In my opinion they spent the night together at Raffaele's flat, and I fail to see how any computer activity can make it improbable.


Unless, of course, for your alibi you claimed that you were hard at work surfing the internet all night - but your computer activity records demonstrate that this is a lie. You want to deal with the facts, Katody - they repeatedly lied to investigators, and this is a FACT.

Quote:
...playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.


Well, you almost answer your own question here. The fact is, they said nothing about any of it. Neither of them. Not about sex, not about music, not about phone calls, not about waking up and going back to sleep.

None of it.

Not even when presented with the evidence that the investigators discovered.

It would have been so easy to say, "oh yeah, now I remember", but they said nothing.

It's far too late to be inventing hypothetical excuses on their behalf, Katody. The trial is over.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

cyyates wrote:
Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Wait...you seemingly know this case backwards yet know nothing about the computers?

Well, I'm familiar with the prosecution's statement that the last computer interaction was recorded about 21.15.
I also understand, that unless the disabled hard drive is recovered, Amanda and Raffaele don't have any chance of an alibi from it.
In my opinion they spent the night together at Raffaele's flat, and I fail to see how any computer activity can make it improbable. That's all.

Quote:
Finally, they claim to have got up the next morning at 10 am and 10:30 am respectively. Yet, Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am and that someone switched on Raffaele's phone at 6:02 am.
I don't see any contradiction here. Starting a playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.



Quote:
Katody wrote:
what kind of forensic test, or maybe some other facts led the prosecution to think that the bathroom traces were mixed from blood of both of the girls ( If I understand correctly )? I know it is disputed too, but the prosecution must have had something substantial to support such a damning finding?


Perhaps because it's very difficult for such a mix of DNA to occur in so many places unless the mixture from both parties is in liquid form (such as bodily fluids...like blood). This is combined with the fact that Amanda was bleeding...her blood was on the tap in the sink in the little bathroom, blood which even she admits had not been there the afternoon before and was already dry when she entered the cottage in the morning (ergo, Amanda had bled during the time of the murder and deposited the blood then). If Amanda was bleeding, then it's not such a leap to infer that at least some of the positive DNA samples in which the DNA of both Amanda and Meredith presented (excluding the footprints) were due to a mix of blood from the both of them, although less blood from Amanda.

Is this what the Motivation says about it? That they reasoned it was possible? Wasn't it presented as a strong fact, at first in media, then at the court?



Well......I think I'm done with this board for now. I'll jump back on closer to the appeals, but for now, tired of the tolerance of obvious trolls, so gonna take a break.



I can see that my polite attempts to ease the latest one out the door have fallen on deaf ears. Maybe it is time to move to phase two, which involves using a pressure washer.:)

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Also, do you have any ideas about how murder victims are portrayed in the media or is that not interesting?


That's an excellent idea for windfall's teaching assignment/essay/book. Why not a full treatment of Meredith Kercher, Reena Virk, Leslie Mahaffy, Tammy Homolka and Kristen French? That would be a book worth reading and treasuring.


Yes. No doubt.

It's probably worth spelling out at this point, as I have done in the past, that, in terms of the work I am doing, I am not a white knight for Amanda. But neither am I a white knight for Meredith. There are plenty of people far better qualified, and with a far better knowledge of the detail of the case than I, and they do an incredible job fighting off FOA viruses here and elsewhere. I have nothing but respect for those who are committed to seeing justice done. Meredith's death was a terrible, terrible thing, and I understand why the case moves many people to the level of dedication that is evident here every day.

My research into the case came from a sideways angle (femme fatales) and has continued on that trajectory. Maybe I will return to research on female victims of violence at some point in the future (it was a significant element in research I undertook a few years ago, in quite a different context).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I don't know if that supports the contention that 'prejudicial press coverage' is grounds for appeal. I can certainly see why a defence attorney would say it was.

Too little information to form an opinion.

What's that bibliography supposed to mean?

You might want to include Karla Homolka and Kelly Ellard in your research because they're remorseless killers just like Amanda Knox.


Sure. As I say, it's something I happened across today. A BBC report also talks about press prejudicing the case while talking about the Lee Bowyer case

"Another famous case involved two sisters, Lisa and Michelle Taylor, who were convicted of murder but cleared on appeal in 1993 because of sensational reporting during their trial. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1269597.stm

but I am not trying to build a case here, and I am certainly not suggesting that the Knox/Sollecito convictions will be overturned on such an appeal.


OK, look at this story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/media-did-the-messengers-shoot-themselves-coverage-of-the-taylor-sisters-trial-was-sensational-but-far-from-extraordinary-heather-mills-reports-1491906.html

It remains an unhappy fact that had the police not concealed crucial evidence that pointed to the sisters' innocence, perhaps the media would not have ended up in the dock.

There is no "such an appeal". That case you're discussing involved police complicity in hastening the arrest of the two women for murder.

Or this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/powerful-extra-evidence-backed-taylor-sisters-1491436.html

In their judgment, the appeal court judges, Lord Justice McCowan, Mr Justice Tuckey and Mr Justice Douglas Brown, criticised the police and the press. The case raises questions about the adequacy of supervision by the Crown Prosecution Service and the conduct of professional and lay witnesses.

Contemporary articles focus almost exclusively on the evidence suppressed by the police, including forensics. The idea that this was an appeal successful purely or primarily on 'prejudicial media' is a fantasy. I don't have the time or inclination to delve any more deeply into the case but the reports don't support the idea that the convictions were caused by the media or that the media was the reason for the appeal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Am I wrong in thinking that there is no sub-judice rule in Italy? I was my understanding based on some digging I did a few months ago that the Italian approach to handling the tension between free press and fair trial was different to what we see in the uk and america. I do not think such a case/appeal could possibly fly in Italy. Is there any reason to suppose it would?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Some of you might be aware of the Twitter fave "Shitmydadsays" which is now also a book. In honour of this internet phenomena, I'd like to start a new series - "ShitAmandasays" which I will update periodically with some of my faves in an affectionate look-back. Talking of periodically;

"Then when I got out of the shower, I saw
that I had forgotten my towel, so I wanted to use the bathmat to get to my
room, and that's when I saw the bloody stain that was on the bathmat. And
I thought "Hm, strange." Maybe someone had a problem with menstruation that
didn't get cleaned up right away. I used the mat to kind of hop over to
my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back
to the bathroom because I thought well, by now...then I put the mat back
where it was supposed to go, then I dried myself, put my earrings back,
brushed my teeth, then I went back into my room to put on new clothes, I took
-- no! "

~ ~ ~

GB: Do you remember how you slid with the bathmat? When you took it from the
bathroom to your room, did you have both bare feet on it or just one foot.

AK: Sometimes I...heh heh...by mistake, I put my foot on the floor like this,
but I tried -- I slid along trying to kind of make little jumps with the
bathmat, but I didn't quite succeed.

(Trial testimony of Amanda Knox).


Attachment:
Bathmat uh-huh.jpg



Sooooo, you managed to hop, skippity jump all the way over to your room, get a towel, hop skippity jump all the way back to the bathroom on it then you dried yourself rather than in your room and you managed to slide it with millimetre precision underneath that plastic bag without disturbing it (there's nothing in the plastic bag you were using that day to dry your hair or brush your teeth - just a box of tampax and it wasn't you menstruating or you would have said). And then you managed to create the same sort of ridge my bathmat has in it when it has been very gradually pushed up against a sink over a long period of time;


Attachment:
Bathmat (1).jpg



Uh-huh. Some menstruation.

Attachment:
Bent ridged slipped-under mat.jpg



Hairbrush in bag or on sink? Nup. Toothbrush in bag or on sink? Nup. Box of tampax that has pushed edge of bag over long-in-situ bathmat - bingo. Bottle of discarded shampoo / shower-gel used in feverish showering the night before in top of bin to right? Bingo bango bongo!

Periodically speaking Amanda, you're full of shit. "Heh, heh... I didn't quite succeed". Quite.


Added bonus tip for inaugural ShitAmandaSays; when watching video testimony, watch for blink response and unconvincing humour / distractors. Heh-heh indeed. Double bonus question; Most blinks per minute in early Amanda testimony video? Answer to how many times she'd met Rudy.


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

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Phew. That's a lot of questions late at night, Skep. I will try and get back to you on some of them in due course.

TM, you remember correctly: I haven't tried to track down the pic specifically yet, but the essay I was reading suggests that, quote, 'The Sun published a still from a video of the victim's wedding showing Michelle Taylor kissing the groom (her lover) - a peck on the cheek turned into a passionate kiss by creative editing', with the headline 'Cheat's Kiss'. (Bronwyn Naylor, 'Women's Crime and media coverage: making explanations', pp.78-9, in the Dobash et al collection mentioned above.


Quoting myself in reply to save on space and tiny text in ever more tiny boxes.

Skep, the research I have been doing up to now divides in two: the bigger picture, which is informed by the reading I have been doing in that territory where criminology and media studies meet. And then the primary research on the coverage of the MK case in particular.
The bigger picture derives from the references I listed earlier, and others. And it's hard to know where to start, but perhaps I can put out a few ideas. Can I underline that these may or may not relate to a greater or lesser extent to Knox, who is one of a number of case studies (sorry, did I say that already?).

Madonna/whore... (frequently discussed here, and applies to both perpetrator and victim - obvious example of rape trials and how the credibility of the victim as witness can be thrown into question by reference to her sexual history... we have also of course seen attempts to spin this in favour of AK by smearing MK). The tendency to assume a capacity for other, greater transgressive behaviour in a woman assumed to be sexually "immoral".

Madness... Attempts to understand female violence in terms of their biology; significance of PMT, post-natal depression, etc. The idea that elements of women's physical make-up predispose them to irrational (including violent!) behaviour.

Notions of woman as maternal/nurturing figure... hence particular horror around crimes involving children (female paedophiles draw much greater opprobrium than male, for instance). Female killers are seen as much more "deviant" than male killers, since men are understood to have a greater capacity for or predisposition to violence... I am not sure if this answers in part your question about stereotypes of male violence as well, which I am sure abound.

The white devil... Western culture's preoccupation with the relationship between the physical exterior (beautiful/ugly or deformed) and the interior (morality and immorality), and what happens when what is understood as the natural order breaks down.

And, yes, I would say that trying to glean a fuller understanding of these things is a worthwhile endeavour and, I would hope, helpful to society as a whole, whether it is to understand better the way that society dealt speifically with, say, Ruth Snyder, Aileen Wuornos, Karla Homolka or even Amanda Knox, or to get a clearer picture of the way in which gender intersects with the justice system. That's got to be a good thing, right?

It's been helpful debating these things again. Nothing like a bit of PMF buffeting to sharpen one's wits.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking that there is no sub-judice rule in Italy? I was my understanding based on some digging I did a few months ago that the Italian approach to handling the tension between free press and fair trial was different to what we see in the uk and america. I do not think such a case/appeal could possibly fly in Italy. Is there any reason to suppose it would?


No, I really don't think there is. I raised the Taylor sisters issue because I thought there were some interesting resonances. The press prejudicing the case issue was filleted out and made into the bone of contention (ha! See what I did there?). I was more interested in the case in terms of guilty, not guilty, then questions raised again over whether or not they WERE the perpetrators. And the parents' reactions, etc.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Right, last one. Since SA is back in circulation, I hope I will be forgiven for re-posting this. I got one interesting perspective on it from a US poster (Tom?) but would be interested to know what you think.

**********************
A QUESTION FOR SOME ALIBI

SA, I know you tend to check in later in the day, UK time.

This is in relation to an earlier discussion about the way Ghirga relates to AK. Whether its purely fatherly or something else/as well, would you say it is unusual (unwise?) for lawyers to form affectionate bonds like this with their clients? My wife and I work in different professions (neither of them legal - well, they're legal, but we're not lawyers!), and we both have similar views about boundaries with our respective "clients". My wife thought the Ghirga/AK thing, as I related it to her, was unusual... allowing himself to get so personally invested in it all.

Funnily enough, I had never really looked at it this way. I guess I had in mind a recent CRIMINAL JUSTICE I had watched (Maxine Peake as abused wife murdering her husband), and assumed that the clear bond of sympathy between suspect and lawyers there was typical, at least in such emotive cases. Pretty naive of me, quite possibly.

I'd be interested to get a perspective from a legal brain, SA's or anyone else's for that matter.
**********************
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking that there is no sub-judice rule in Italy? I was my understanding based on some digging I did a few months ago that the Italian approach to handling the tension between free press and fair trial was different to what we see in the uk and america. I do not think such a case/appeal could possibly fly in Italy. Is there any reason to suppose it would?


No, I really don't think there is. I raised the Taylor sisters issue because I thought there were some interesting resonances. The press prejudicing the case issue was filleted out and made into the bone of contention (ha! See what I did there?). I was more interested in the case in terms of guilty, not guilty, then questions raised again over whether or not they WERE the perpetrators. And the parents' reactions, etc.


But it wasn't the basis of the appeal. Contemporary accounts, two of which I posted, explained that it was police suppression of evidence and the behaviour of witnesses. That's from articles in 1993. You're quoting articles from much later that are looking at the role of the press. It's a completely different issue.

The appeals were not launched nor did they succeed due to 'prejudicial media'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking that there is no sub-judice rule in Italy? I was my understanding based on some digging I did a few months ago that the Italian approach to handling the tension between free press and fair trial was different to what we see in the uk and america. I do not think such a case/appeal could possibly fly in Italy. Is there any reason to suppose it would?


No, I really don't think there is. I raised the Taylor sisters issue because I thought there were some interesting resonances. The press prejudicing the case issue was filleted out and made into the bone of contention (ha! See what I did there?). I was more interested in the case in terms of guilty, not guilty, then questions raised again over whether or not they WERE the perpetrators. And the parents' reactions, etc.


But it wasn't the basis of the appeal. Contemporary accounts, two of which I posted, explained that it was police suppression of evidence and the behaviour of witnesses. That's from articles in 1993. You're quoting articles from much later that are looking at the role of the press. It's a completely different issue.

The appeals were not launched nor did they succeed due to 'prejudicial media'.


Well, I'm not sure that's the case. The opening para

"LAST WEEK the media were found guilty - alongside police officers - of causing the latest miscarriage of justice, which saw two young sisters jailed for a murder they did not commit."

comes from a 1993 report.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 91906.html

On the other hand, the same report ends:

"It remains an unhappy fact that had the police not concealed crucial evidence that pointed to the sisters' innocence, perhaps the media would not have ended up in the dock."

So, I take your point.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sooooo, you managed to hop, skippity jump all the way over to your room, get a towel, hop skippity jump all the way back to the bathroom on it then you dried yourself rather than in your room and you managed to slide it with millimetre precision underneath that plastic bag without disturbing it...


SA - I'm sure at the time that Amanda must have considered herself a genius for somehow coming up with a comprehensive story that could account for 1. evidence of cleanup activities, AND 2. of bare footprints apparently set in blood on the floor. Much like Sollecito and his "I pricked Meredith with the knife" story, we have embedded in the story here yet another confession: "Of course my bloodstained, cleaned-up bare footprints on the floor showed up with luminol, officer - here's how it happened...there was this bloodstained mat, you see..."
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
stilicho wrote:
But it wasn't the basis of the appeal. Contemporary accounts, two of which I posted, explained that it was police suppression of evidence and the behaviour of witnesses. That's from articles in 1993. You're quoting articles from much later that are looking at the role of the press. It's a completely different issue.

The appeals were not launched nor did they succeed due to 'prejudicial media'.


Well, I'm not sure that's the case. The opening para

"LAST WEEK the media were found guilty - alongside police officers - of causing the latest miscarriage of justice, which saw two young sisters jailed for a murder they did not commit."

comes from a 1993 report.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 91906.html

On the other hand, the same report ends:

"It remains an unhappy fact that had the police not concealed crucial evidence that pointed to the sisters' innocence, perhaps the media would not have ended up in the dock."

So, I take your point.


Right. But you're the academic in this discipline and I am not. I looked at what the media--remember them?--reported about both the actions of the media and what the judges actually ruled.

I don't have the time to delve into it to support an academic paper on the role of the media in wrongful convictions. I figure that you must have the time to do that or you wouldn't be writing an academic paper. Yet it took me about two hours (not always looking at the reasons) to find that the appeal court ruled on two separate issues and one of those was the suppressed evidence and the behaviour of the witnesses. You're seemingly conflating them and erring on the side of the 'prejudicial media coverage'.

None of those articles are primary sources. I ask you, academic-in-a-different-discipline to academic-in-a-different-discipline, whether it's even appropriate to speculate which one was more influential with the original trial and the court of appeals. I am not suggesting you're being dishonest--simply unaware--but you've said this is your discipline. So you tell me why you'd mention the case when it isn't even clear that media bias entered into any of the arrests, the convictions, or the successful appeals.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Also, do you have any ideas about how murder victims are portrayed in the media or is that not interesting?


That's an excellent idea for windfall's teaching assignment/essay/book. Why not a full treatment of Meredith Kercher, Reena Virk, Leslie Mahaffy, Tammy Homolka and Kristen French? That would be a book worth reading and treasuring.


_________________________________
A peripheral story....

A memorial erected in Vancouver sparked controversy because it was dedicated to "all women murdered by men", which critics say implies all men are potential murderers.[74] As a result, women involved in the project received death threats and the Vancouver Park Board subsequently banned any future memorials that might "antagonize" other groups.
wikipedia

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The media will always make their own judgment on any particular case but we have to rely on the fact that during a trial the jury will hear all of the evidence available. Is anyone suggesting that the jury did not hear all of the evidence in the Meredith Kercher case. I will agree that there was a degree of prejudicial reporting but let’s not forget a substantive part of this was generated by Amanda’s own Face Book page, the press did not invent the Foxy Knoxy tag or the list of sexual conquests, Amanda passed them the ball all the press did was run with it. I would really like to point out that the press also did not invent the mad satanic ritual obsessed prosecutor, the trial without a scintilla of evidence, the African American hair found in Meredith’s hand, the forced confession or any of the other misrepresentations and outright lies that regularly appear in the US and British media. I hate media sensationalism but News papers in particular stand or fall on sales and sensationalism sells. The Knox supporters seem to want to have it all their own way, crying foul over negative press while propagating lies as facts to serve their own ends. You only have to look at the reporting in the US it’s always the Amanda Knox case rather than the Meredith Kercher case, in fact there is a valid subject for an academic paper, “control of the media to subvert justice” or how about "Face Book, watch out it could bite you in the arse".
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Wonderful post, Some Alibi. Quick question. In the paragraph quoting Amanda, she says she put her EARRINGS back on. I thought she had lost one, or had only one on???????

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

Offline Competence


Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:27 am

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Frome SomeAlibi:

Quote:
I'd like to start a new series - "ShitAmandasays" which I will update periodically with some of my faves in an affectionate look-back.


Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.

However I have to point this out: in the very text you quoted Amanda said "...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go".

You follow this up with photographs, emphasising the point with MS Paint, that showed that the bathmat was... drum roll please... back where it was supposed to go. Now call me a troll if you like, but I don't see how this is evidence that Amanda lied in the quoted text. She said she put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go, and you have photographs that indeed make it look like someone put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go.

So who am I, and why am I pointing out the fairly obvious problem in your post?

We might as well get it out of the way, I post on the JREF forums as Kevin_Lowe and the main reason I've bothered to register here at all is that Stilicho and one or two others have been helping themselves to the opportunity to impugn my character on this forum where I have no capability to reply. I'm at this point firmly of the opinion that the available evidence indicates that the conviction of Knox and Sollecito was not justified, and that there is excellent reason to think that they had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. If you plan to ban me for that, you might as well save us all some time and do it now, because I'm not going to play any games about those facts.

I'm also letting you know in advance that to the extent that I post at all I intend to stick to the important issues of hard fact that the case hinges on, which seems to be characterised around here as "controlling the conversation" or something similar. Further, I will also say in advance that I'm not interested in rehashing issues which are available for public perusal in the JREF thread. Stilicho, for example, has been shown ample academic research that shows that Amanda's false accusation of Lumumba is so perfectly consistent with an internalised false confession that either she was an expert on the topic beforehand, or it was indeed an internalised false confession. He has also been shown well-documented cases where police mishandling of interrogations have led to innocent people accusing other innocent people of crimes, so he knows that too is not something new under the sun. Yet he's still posting here as if he had never been led to that particular intellectual water-trough. In cases like that, I'm just going to point you back to the JREF thread.

I think if the population of this board are actually interested in getting to the best-supported position on the case, instead of slapping each other on the back for posting content like SomeAlibi's, you need to focus on the problems with the prosecution timeline and with the physical evidence in the murder room. If Knox and Sollecito weren't physically there when Meredith was murdered it doesn't matter where the bathmat was or whether you think Amanda sounded guilty on tape, they can't have done it. By the same token if they were in the room when Meredith died it doesn't matter who left the front door unlocked or whether Sollecito needs remedial Italian grammar classes, they were in on it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
Frome SomeAlibi:

Quote:
I'd like to start a new series - "ShitAmandasays" which I will update periodically with some of my faves in an affectionate look-back.


Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.

However I have to point this out: in the very text you quoted Amanda said "...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go".

You follow this up with photographs, emphasising the point with MS Paint, that showed that the bathmat was... drum roll please... back where it was supposed to go. Now call me a troll if you like, but I don't see how this is evidence that Amanda lied in the quoted text. She said she put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go, and you have photographs that indeed make it look like someone put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go.

So who am I, and why am I pointing out the fairly obvious problem in your post?

We might as well get it out of the way, I post on the JREF forums as Kevin_Lowe and the main reason I've bothered to register here at all is that Stilicho and one or two others have been helping themselves to the opportunity to impugn my character on this forum where I have no capability to reply. I'm at this point firmly of the opinion that the available evidence indicates that the conviction of Knox and Sollecito was not justified, and that there is excellent reason to think that they had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. If you plan to ban me for that, you might as well save us all some time and do it now, because I'm not going to play any games about those facts.

I'm also letting you know in advance that to the extent that I post at all I intend to stick to the important issues of hard fact that the case hinges on, which seems to be characterised around here as "controlling the conversation" or something similar. Further, I will also say in advance that I'm not interested in rehashing issues which are available for public perusal in the JREF thread. Stilicho, for example, has been shown ample academic research that shows that Amanda's false accusation of Lumumba is so perfectly consistent with an internalised false confession that either she was an expert on the topic beforehand, or it was indeed an internalised false confession. He has also been shown well-documented cases where police mishandling of interrogations have led to innocent people accusing other innocent people of crimes, so he knows that too is not something new under the sun. Yet he's still posting here as if he had never been led to that particular intellectual water-trough. In cases like that, I'm just going to point you back to the JREF thread.

I think if the population of this board are actually interested in getting to the best-supported position on the case, instead of slapping each other on the back for posting content like SomeAlibi's, you need to focus on the problems with the prosecution timeline and with the physical evidence in the murder room. If Knox and Sollecito weren't physically there when Meredith was murdered it doesn't matter where the bathmat was or whether you think Amanda sounded guilty on tape, they can't have done it. By the same token if they were in the room when Meredith died it doesn't matter who left the front door unlocked or whether Sollecito needs remedial Italian grammar classes, they were in on it.


I don't care what you think about the population of this board. Go back to JREF. Others before you have caused nothing but problems. Thanks for stopping by. We have a lot of smart people here; they don't need you to tell them what to focus on or what matters/doesn't matter.

In addition, since you clearly have issues with Stilicho and perhaps others, your presence is divisive. I am happy to prevent you from posting, but I hope you'll just leave.

Thanks.

SB

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
We might as well get it out of the way, I post on the JREF forums as Kevin_Lowe and the main reason I've bothered to register here at all is that Stilicho and one or two others have been helping themselves to the opportunity to impugn my character on this forum where I have no capability to reply.


As with one of our other best-known narcissists, you must be advised that Meredith's murder is not all about you. In fact, none of it is about you at all. That's what you haven't noticed at the JREF and now you dip in your toe here with exactly that self-appreciative nonsense.

Three young people are in prison for an extended period of time, judged upon their deeds as unanimously responsible for the Meredith Kercher, and each were trapped by their lies and a mountain of circumstantial and physical evidence.

Competence wrote:
Stilicho, for example, has been shown ample academic research that shows that Amanda's false accusation of Lumumba is so perfectly consistent with an internalised false confession that either she was an expert on the topic beforehand, or it was indeed an internalised false confession. He has also been shown well-documented cases where police mishandling of interrogations have led to innocent people accusing other innocent people of crimes, so he knows that too is not something new under the sun. Yet he's still posting here as if he had never been led to that particular intellectual water-trough. In cases like that, I'm just going to point you back to the JREF thread.


The "ample academic research" has been in the form of carefully edited and sometimes entirely irrelevant selections by academics or simply interested and skilled amateurs. No honest self-appointed intellectual would ever confuse random posts on an internet forum with the assessments of trained professionals with the opportunity to examine the evidence first-hand.

Amanda herself was provided the opportunity to identify the officer(s) responsible for brutalising her into a false "confession" (in reality a caustic and cynical misdirection of the investigation from her true accomplice to a man she knew was innocent) and she chose instead to talk about doing homework by the elevator. Your own best expert disagrees with your assessment of her "confession". Perhaps you could write to her in prison and find out from her yourself why she didn't want to back up your assertion.

You don't have the luxury here of a biased moderation team to edit out objections to your crass and unfounded speculations.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Competence wrote:
We might as well get it out of the way, I post on the JREF forums as Kevin_Lowe and the main reason I've bothered to register here at all is that Stilicho and one or two others have been helping themselves to the opportunity to impugn my character on this forum where I have no capability to reply.


As with one of our other best-known narcissists, you must be advised that Meredith's murder is not all about you. In fact, none of it is about you at all. That's what you haven't noticed at the JREF and now you dip in your toe here with exactly that self-appreciative nonsense.

Three young people are in prison for an extended period of time, judged upon their deeds as unanimously responsible for the Meredith Kercher, and each were trapped by their lies and a mountain of circumstantial and physical evidence.

Competence wrote:
Stilicho, for example, has been shown ample academic research that shows that Amanda's false accusation of Lumumba is so perfectly consistent with an internalised false confession that either she was an expert on the topic beforehand, or it was indeed an internalised false confession. He has also been shown well-documented cases where police mishandling of interrogations have led to innocent people accusing other innocent people of crimes, so he knows that too is not something new under the sun. Yet he's still posting here as if he had never been led to that particular intellectual water-trough. In cases like that, I'm just going to point you back to the JREF thread.


The "ample academic research" has been in the form of carefully edited and sometimes entirely irrelevant selections by academics or simply interested and skilled amateurs. No honest self-appointed intellectual would ever confuse random posts on an internet forum with the assessments of trained professionals with the opportunity to examine the evidence first-hand.

Amanda herself was provided the opportunity to identify the officer(s) responsible for brutalising her into a false "confession" (in reality a caustic and cynical misdirection of the investigation from her true accomplice to a man she knew was innocent) and she chose instead to talk about doing homework by the elevator. Your own best expert disagrees with your assessment of her "confession". Perhaps you could write to her in prison and find out from her yourself why she didn't want to back up your assertion.

You don't have the luxury here of a biased moderation team to edit out objections to your crass and unfounded speculations.


The level of narcissism is indeed disturbing, and a disturbing pattern among these posters. They have proven time and again that they cannot co-exist with the people who post here. I see no reason for yet another experiment that is doomed to fail.

Again, thanks for stopping by Kevin.

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
...you need to focus on the problems with the prosecution timeline and with the physical evidence in the murder room.


Well, forget about the Massei summary folks - finally, after all these years someone comes up with a simple, definitive acid test for solving the damn murder.
w-((
Top Profile 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
Frome SomeAlibi:

Quote:
I'd like to start a new series - "ShitAmandasays" which I will update periodically with some of my faves in an affectionate look-back.


Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.

However I have to point this out: in the very text you quoted Amanda said "...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go".

You follow this up with photographs, emphasising the point with MS Paint, that showed that the bathmat was... drum roll please... back where it was supposed to go. Now call me a troll if you like, but I don't see how this is evidence that Amanda lied in the quoted text. She said she put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go, and you have photographs that indeed make it look like someone put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go.

So who am I, and why am I pointing out the fairly obvious problem in your post?

We might as well get it out of the way, I post on the JREF forums as Kevin_Lowe and the main reason I've bothered to register here at all is that Stilicho and one or two others have been helping themselves to the opportunity to impugn my character on this forum where I have no capability to reply. I'm at this point firmly of the opinion that the available evidence indicates that the conviction of Knox and Sollecito was not justified, and that there is excellent reason to think that they had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. If you plan to ban me for that, you might as well save us all some time and do it now, because I'm not going to play any games about those facts.

I'm also letting you know in advance that to the extent that I post at all I intend to stick to the important issues of hard fact that the case hinges on, which seems to be characterised around here as "controlling the conversation" or something similar. Further, I will also say in advance that I'm not interested in rehashing issues which are available for public perusal in the JREF thread. Stilicho, for example, has been shown ample academic research that shows that Amanda's false accusation of Lumumba is so perfectly consistent with an internalised false confession that either she was an expert on the topic beforehand, or it was indeed an internalised false confession. He has also been shown well-documented cases where police mishandling of interrogations have led to innocent people accusing other innocent people of crimes, so he knows that too is not something new under the sun. Yet he's still posting here as if he had never been led to that particular intellectual water-trough. In cases like that, I'm just going to point you back to the JREF thread.

I think if the population of this board are actually interested in getting to the best-supported position on the case, instead of slapping each other on the back for posting content like SomeAlibi's, you need to focus on the problems with the prosecution timeline and with the physical evidence in the murder room. If Knox and Sollecito weren't physically there when Meredith was murdered it doesn't matter where the bathmat was or whether you think Amanda sounded guilty on tape, they can't have done it. By the same token if they were in the room when Meredith died it doesn't matter who left the front door unlocked or whether Sollecito needs remedial Italian grammar classes, they were in on it.

The JREF thread where ignorance of any facts contrary to your position is common?

Actually, you're wrong. None of the research suggests that Stilicho was wrong regarding the confession. In fact, by reading the actual research, Stilicho (et al) found that Amanda's confession specifically does not match that of a false confession. The same goes for Halides' DNA papers.

But why deal with facts when you can embroil yourself in ignorance and a white suit of armor.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Competence


Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:27 am

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't care what you think about the population of this board. Go back to JREF. Others before you have caused nothing but problems. Thanks for stopping by. We have a lot of smart people here; they don't need you to tell them what to focus on or what matters/doesn't matter.

In addition, since you clearly have issues with Stilicho and perhaps others, your presence is divisive. I am happy to prevent you from posting, but I hope you'll just leave.

Thanks.

SB


It's your sandbox, and you can exclude whoever you like.

However it's your loss, in an important sense. If you surround yourself with yes-men who will never contradict the party line no matter how weak the arguments presented (witness the applause for SomeAlibi's post from two other posters), especially by excluding the people making the best arguments against your position, you'll never learn to deal with competent opposition.

Come on down to the JREF forums if you are willing to discuss the Kercher murder in a civilised, intelligent fashion with opposition who cite hard facts. Your posts won't get blocked as long as you follow simple rules of civility, which I do not think is very much to ask.

Until then, I won't be back unless the people you allow to post here decide to pop more knives into my back on these forums. If you don't want me back, I suggest you discourage that particular form of incivility.

You may now slap each other on the back for repelling another attack from the reality-based community.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
...witness the applause for SomeAlibi's post from two other posters...



What, did you not see me worshiping you above?
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
Come on down to the JREF forums if you are willing to discuss the Kercher murder in a civilised, intelligent fashion with opposition who cite hard facts.

hilarious!!!
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
stilicho wrote:
But it wasn't the basis of the appeal. Contemporary accounts, two of which I posted, explained that it was police suppression of evidence and the behaviour of witnesses. That's from articles in 1993. You're quoting articles from much later that are looking at the role of the press. It's a completely different issue.

The appeals were not launched nor did they succeed due to 'prejudicial media'.


Well, I'm not sure that's the case. The opening para

"LAST WEEK the media were found guilty - alongside police officers - of causing the latest miscarriage of justice, which saw two young sisters jailed for a murder they did not commit."

comes from a 1993 report.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 91906.html

On the other hand, the same report ends:

"It remains an unhappy fact that had the police not concealed crucial evidence that pointed to the sisters' innocence, perhaps the media would not have ended up in the dock."

So, I take your point.


Right. But you're the academic in this discipline and I am not. I looked at what the media--remember them?--reported about both the actions of the media and what the judges actually ruled.

I don't have the time to delve into it to support an academic paper on the role of the media in wrongful convictions. I figure that you must have the time to do that or you wouldn't be writing an academic paper. Yet it took me about two hours (not always looking at the reasons) to find that the appeal court ruled on two separate issues and one of those was the suppressed evidence and the behaviour of the witnesses. You're seemingly conflating them and erring on the side of the 'prejudicial media coverage'.

None of those articles are primary sources. I ask you, academic-in-a-different-discipline to academic-in-a-different-discipline, whether it's even appropriate to speculate which one was more influential with the original trial and the court of appeals. I am not suggesting you're being dishonest--simply unaware--but you've said this is your discipline. So you tell me why you'd mention the case when it isn't even clear that media bias entered into any of the arrests, the convictions, or the successful appeals.


Hi. Probably my last post here for a while before I go on holiday (many will be glad to hear :-) ).

It seems clear that the judge had made a point about prejudicial press coverage. I may have conflated that with suppressed evidence in my first post in summarizing the two or three things I had read about the case, because I was working with precisely that - a mention in an essay on gender and crime and a google to discover a little more. That's why I began by asking if anyone had heard of the Shaughnessy/Taylor case. It was meant in a tone of "has anyone heard of this case? can someone help me out here?" If I had begun, "Has anyone heard of this case, because, don't you know, the media convicted these women of murder just as they did Amanda Knox?" then you'd have a point. It's great that you have had the time to research this a little further than I have and I am grateful to you for sharing what you have dug up.

As I've said a couple of times, the case is interesting in terms of the role of the press in reporting it, but that is not the only or primary reason I mentioned it here. There are other fascinating aspects in terms of so-called confessions, tabloid press involvement (via O'Mahoney), and reactions of parents (Shaughnessy's and the Taylors').

Thanks again for debating this with me. It's been instructive.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brogan wrote:
The media will always make their own judgment on any particular case but we have to rely on the fact that during a trial the jury will hear all of the evidence available. Is anyone suggesting that the jury did not hear all of the evidence in the Meredith Kercher case. I will agree that there was a degree of prejudicial reporting but let’s not forget a substantive part of this was generated by Amanda’s own Face Book page, the press did not invent the Foxy Knoxy tag or the list of sexual conquests, Amanda passed them the ball all the press did was run with it. I would really like to point out that the press also did not invent the mad satanic ritual obsessed prosecutor, the trial without a scintilla of evidence, the African American hair found in Meredith’s hand, the forced confession or any of the other misrepresentations and outright lies that regularly appear in the US and British media. I hate media sensationalism but News papers in particular stand or fall on sales and sensationalism sells. The Knox supporters seem to want to have it all their own way, crying foul over negative press while propagating lies as facts to serve their own ends. You only have to look at the reporting in the US it’s always the Amanda Knox case rather than the Meredith Kercher case, in fact there is a valid subject for an academic paper, “control of the media to subvert justice” or how about "Face Book, watch out it could bite you in the arse".


Yes, good subjects for academic papers. Board members are coming up with plenty of future projects for a jobbing academic.

Whether Knox *handed* the press the ball marked foxyknoxy3 is debatable. There is certainly a growing trend in the press to take social networking sites as route 1 when investigating suspects. How helpful that is is a moot point. Just as one quick for instance, the choice to caption the familiar photo of Knox partying with this: "Party people: Amanda Knox (left) often took men back to the flat she shared with Meredith Kercher" is instructive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olice.html

The photo is real. It is true that AK's flatmates told members of the press (and later the court, I believe) that Knox had a habit of bringing men back to the flat. But the juxtaposition of photo and caption implies something else. On the other hand, the Mail does at least show the entire picture and does not crop out the young woman on the RH edge of the photo, which I believe is more familiar practice with this shot.

Not that this has any bearing on the conviction or Knox's guilt. That's not what I am arguing. But it does say something about the press's approach to this kind of crime.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Brogan wrote:
The media will always make their own judgment on any particular case but we have to rely on the fact that during a trial the jury will hear all of the evidence available.

Not that this has any bearing on the conviction or Knox's guilt. That's not what I am arguing. But it does say something about the press's approach to this kind of crime.


I think you might want to do a comparative approach and you're probably starting with the wrong case. It's a far better idea to look at coverage of Canadian crimes as they are covered in both the Canadian and cross-border media. That's enlightening. The Meredith Kercher case is not a very instructive example in any way because the problem there was the contrast between overwhelmingly favourable coverage in the USA and overwhelmingly negative coverage in Italy and the UK.

Robert Pickton might be a good place to start: http://www.missingpeople.net/robert_pickton.htm. You can compare and contrast the media coverage with that of the Green River killer (just across national boundaries). The murderers were similar in a lot of ways but the coverage was different.

How did that affect the outcome of the trials and appeals?

I think you're starting out with a case that is simply controversial and the media coverage has been uneven at best. I would like to know what your actual thesis is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OK. Parting thought. And I'll add my usual rider, "I believe Knox, Sollectio and Guede together murdered Meredith Kercher".

If we can imagine a parallel universe where Knox and Sollecito were not Meredith's killers, whether we imagine that scenario unfolding with a court case in which they were found not guilty two years later, or whether they were arrested and released two weeks after the crime was committed, once the real perps were identified. In that case, do you think it would be fair enough that the media had used Knox and Sollecito's social networking sites in the way they did in the earliest days following the discovery of Meredith's body? I am not even talking about how it might impact on their status as suspects, but how it might have affected them and their families in particular in subsequent years.

Is it possible to imagine a young woman posting images of herself partying, even posting a story about rape, and actually being not guilty of murder? If the answer is yes, then there is an issue here worth investigating.

I don't know whether the Taylor sisters murdered Alison Shaughnessy or not. From the little I have read, I do know that their lives have been changed irrevocably *both* by their conviction, imprisonment, and release, and by the way the press chose to report the case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't care what you think about the population of this board. Go back to JREF. Others before you have caused nothing but problems. Thanks for stopping by. We have a lot of smart people here; they don't need you to tell them what to focus on or what matters/doesn't matter.

In addition, since you clearly have issues with Stilicho and perhaps others, your presence is divisive. I am happy to prevent you from posting, but I hope you'll just leave.

Thanks.

SB


However it's your loss, in an important sense.


Another howler! Mr "Tex" Narcissist strikes again!! la-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
windfall wrote:
Brogan wrote:
The media will always make their own judgment on any particular case but we have to rely on the fact that during a trial the jury will hear all of the evidence available.

Not that this has any bearing on the conviction or Knox's guilt. That's not what I am arguing. But it does say something about the press's approach to this kind of crime.


I think you might want to do a comparative approach and you're probably starting with the wrong case. It's a far better idea to look at coverage of Canadian crimes as they are covered in both the Canadian and cross-border media. That's enlightening. The Meredith Kercher case is not a very instructive example in any way because the problem there was the contrast between overwhelmingly favourable coverage in the USA and overwhelmingly negative coverage in Italy and the UK.

Robert Pickton might be a good place to start: http://www.missingpeople.net/robert_pickton.htm. You can compare and contrast the media coverage with that of the Green River killer (just across national boundaries). The murderers were similar in a lot of ways but the coverage was different.

How did that affect the outcome of the trials and appeals?

I think you're starting out with a case that is simply controversial and the media coverage has been uneven at best. I would like to know what your actual thesis is.


Just a quick reply, then I have to go sort my kids' breakfast!

I see where you are coming from, and I appreciate the advice of a different angle on this, but my thesis is quite different, and it's central tenet is not about the influence of the media on judicial process, though I can see why our recent exchanges might have given that wrong impression.

I've outlined some of the issues I am researching a few posts above. In a nutshell, the proposed study is an interdisciplinary one which seeks to trace the figure of the lethal woman across a broad historical map, via analysis of cultural texts (literature, drama, film and television) and via some aspects of media and communication studies (especially representations of crime and justice in news media). The key aim is to come to a clearer understanding of the precise nature of the relationship between perceptions and representations of these “real life” “lethal women” and those elements of culture that inform the ways they are encoded (particularly via news media), decoded (in popular perception) and re-encoded (in subsequent studies, biographies, novels, as well as in film, TV and the theatre). Knox is one case study alongside, potentially, Frances Howard, Madeleine Smith, Ruth Snyder, Karla Homolka and Amy Fisher.

As the thesis hopefully suggests, my background and my key focus is not criminology as such, which is why I always learn lots here. Thanks again for engaging with me on these points.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:

Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.

However I have to point this out: in the very text you quoted Amanda said "...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go".

You follow this up with photographs, emphasising the point with MS Paint, that showed that the bathmat was... drum roll please... back where it was supposed to go. Now call me a troll if you like, but I don't see how this is evidence that Amanda lied in the quoted text. She said she put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go, and you have photographs that indeed make it look like someone put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go.


If you miss the whole point of the photographs, then yes. And this is the whole problem with your contributions. You may sincerely believe you are being objective. But you did not address the point being made: you dismissed it. Admittedly your tone is far pleasanter than the one you usually adopt: but the content is the same. You have not made an argument: you have made an assertion. And that, for you, is enough. And that is why it is not worth talking to you. It is nothing to do with your position on innocence or guilt.

Quote:
I'm at this point firmly of the opinion that the available evidence indicates that the conviction of Knox and Sollecito was not justified, and that there is excellent reason to think that they had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. If you plan to ban me for that, you might as well save us all some time and do it now, because I'm not going to play any games about those facts.


I am sorry to say you have done nothing BUT play games with the facts.

Quote:
I'm also letting you know in advance that to the extent that I post at all I intend to stick to the important issues of hard fact that the case hinges on,


If you can do it here you can do it at JREF: I really don't see why you didn't if you are capable of it.


Quote:
which seems to be characterised around here as "controlling the conversation" or something similar. Further, I will also say in advance that I'm not interested in rehashing issues which are available for public perusal in the JREF thread.


I don't suppose you see any tension between those two sentences?

<snip arrogant nonsense>
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi Windfall,
It does seem these days that the first thing a journalist does when researching a new case is to check that person/s social networking pages as soon as they get a name.
The same thing happened with Roaul Moat, the steroid pumped thug who shot three people, killing one and seriously injuring the other two - blinding a police officer in the process.
Looking at his tweets shown in the press one could hardly call him a well balanced and loving family man, in fact he came across to me as a 'Big Vern' type character from the Viz comic - obviously paranoid and a very dangerous individual indeed. In this sense I do think it is an insight into a person or at least a clue into a persons true character.
I appreciate some people have an alter ego in so much as they publish a false picture of themselves and in doing so they create an image of themselves of something they are not - but in Amanda Knox's case I don't think posting an violent essay of drugging and raping a girl did her any favours.
It is hardly "What I did on my holidays" is it.
Regarding representation of a person from their own self - posted images, I see your point regarding the inference of the caption on the Amanda partying image but it seems a contradiction when in the same article further up the page there is an FOA favourite of a smiling Amanda with a lovely cutesy pie miniature Teddy bear (aww...) with the caption: 'An unscrupulous tendency to lie constantly to investigators'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
In that case, do you think it would be fair enough that the media had used Knox and Sollecito's social networking sites in the way they did in the earliest days following the discovery of Meredith's body?


This is an interesting question. I presume the debate resolution is: Be it resolved that personal entries on a social network site should be entered into the public record and allowed to be reprinted by the media in the event the account owner is arrested and charged with an offense.

There are several issues with anyone trying to argue the negative. The first and most obvious is that social networking sites are in the public domain and they are a form of media. Amanda's own stepfather had to quickly edit his own site because it showed pictures of people vomiting after apparent over-indulgence in alcohol and reference to his wife's children as "shit heads". The second and nearly as obvious is the case for media censorship. Should the media be held accountable for publicly available information it reprints and distributes?

What about this site? We know for a fact that it ranks among the top in Google searches for information about Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher. Should Google be held responsible for guiding interested parties to a site that openly argues that the three accused were guilty?

Finally, of course, we have to ask ourselves whether any of those involved in the case--investigators, scientists, police, prosecution, judges--were influenced by revelations of Amanda's or Raffaele's backgrounds gleaned through the publication of what they probably intended as "fun". We're told by people such as our recently departed friend "Tex" Lowe that simply posting a photograph of Amanda in the police station is enough to create all kinds of mischief. Where do we stop? Should we refrain from printing her name? Should she simply be referred to as "A Person Of Interest #1"?

Individuals certainly have recourse against media if they print outright falsehoods. Perhaps the caption of the photo you object to could be entitled: "Foxy Knoxy and a bunch of people not murdering anyone."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Cottage front door lock; an update.

If you get bored with this stuff just move on. :)

It was suggested be Dan O on JREF to compare the Corbin PS 350 03 05 multipoint mortice locks to Charlie’s photos showing a Corbin Euro Profile Cylinder lockset on the Cottage front door.

Mul-T-Lock (UK) are official importers of Corbin Lock Products from Italy to the UK and the Brochure linked by Dan O is in fact the same one featured on their home web site (see link below).

To get accurate information I contacted an approved agent for the above to establish if the PS 350 03 05 Euro Cylinder multipoint mortice lock with the deadbolt retracted, the spring latch disabled as per Charlie’s photo and the outside handle unattached etc. , could the other two auxiliary bolts be engaged using the internal handle only.

First problem was to explain accurately the exact configuration that existed on the front door of the cottage. The second obstacle was to convince him that I wasn’t trying to stitch him up on a bogus Insurance burglary claim. After eventually establishing my bona fides I was asked to leave it with him.

The response has arrived and this is it. Yes the two auxiliary bolts, upper and lower, can be thrown (ie. engaged) in the circumstances of the above configuration by rotating the handle upwards circa 45 degrees from a horizontal starting position. To retract the auxiliary bolts you need to reverse the action ie. rotate the handle downwards circa 45 degrees from a horizontal starting position. This is true for all of the Corbin Euro Cylinder multipoint mortice lock models in the PS 350 range.

So if the lock on the cottage front door was in fact a Corbin Euro Cylinder multipoint mortice lock from the PS 350 range then it was not necessary to use a key to ‘lock and unlock’ the door from the inside. The handle alone could ‘lock and unlock’ the front door from the inside using the auxiliary bolts; this is from a professional locksmith and approved Corbin sales and instillation agent. In this case Rudy could have come to the front door from the kitchen, pushed the handle down to open it and exited without the need to use a key.

If Charlie has any more photos of the front door showing the complete lock mechanism it would go a long way in clearing this up.

http://www.mul-t-lock.co.uk/uploads/fil ... 0locks.pdf
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.


If you're not trolling, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to answer the questions that Rose Montague, Katody, Chris C and undecided have refused to answer:

Why did Amanda Knox repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007?

After Amanda Knox had been confronted with proof that she had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did she choose to tell the police even more lies?

After Raffaele Sollecito had been confronted with proof that he had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did he choose to tell the police even more lies?

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three diifferent locations in the cottage?

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

Why do you think Sollecito lied on two separate occasions about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand whilst cooking?

Rudy Guede's visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena's room and who do you think left the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?

How did Raffaele Sollecito know that nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room?

Why won't Raffaele Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba?

Why did Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox tell Filomena that she had already called Meredith's mobile phone when she spoke to her at 12.08pm on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox tell the postal police that Meredith always locked her door?

Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox phone her mother in the middle of the night before anything had happened?

Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio couldn't remember very much about the evening Meredith was murdered because they were suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia?

Thanks in advance.
Top Profile 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.


Quote:
So who am I, and why am I pointing out the fairly obvious problem in your post?


Quote:
I think if the population of this board are actually interested in getting to the best-supported position on the case, instead of slapping each other on the back for posting content like SomeAlibi's, you need to focus on the problems with the prosecution timeline and with the physical evidence in the murder room.



This is why no one is seriously debating you anymore at JREF. You, as well as LondonJohn and Bruce Fisher, reply to dissenters with unconcealed condescension and contempt. Your posts are allowed to stand. Of course, the fairest thing to do would be to disallow yours and the others' posts that convey this nastiness. However, in the absence of that resoultion, the next fairest thing would be for detractors to be allowed to respond to you and your ilk in likewise fashion. This has been persistently denied by the moderator(s) of that thread. Don't blame us for your side ruining that thread as a venue for lively debate.

And really - you chose Competence as a username? How much of an unbridled egotist can you be?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
If you surround yourself with yes-men who will never contradict the party line no matter how weak the arguments presented (witness the applause for SomeAlibi's post from two other posters), especially by excluding the people making the best arguments against your position, you'll never learn to deal with competent opposition.


This is some kind of post-modernist so-ironic-it's-beyond irony performance art, isn't it?

Quote:
Come on down to the JREF forums if you are willing to discuss the Kercher murder in a civilised, intelligent fashion with opposition who cite hard facts. Your posts won't get blocked as long as you follow simple rules of civility, which I do not think is very much to ask.


If you're really convinced that the moderation is so "fair and balanced" why don't you try an experiment? Get a friend to join up at the JREF and ask him to post something really simple to that thread, such as "I think Amanda Knox is guilty. It's beyond me how some people are immune to logic and reason and persist in denying her obvious guilt. It's as if they're all members of a cult." You know, the same basic sleazy MO that you and your side utilize to get in the substance of an ad hominem attack without necessarily the explicit form. Go on and try it. I'll wait right here for you to report back on your results.

Quote:
You may now slap each other on the back for repelling another attack from the reality-based community.


So, we are, by implication, psychotics divorced from reality - and you think this passes for civility?

Whatever you say, Tex.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
Frome SomeAlibi:

Quote:
I'd like to start a new series - "ShitAmandasays" which I will update periodically with some of my faves in an affectionate look-back.


Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.

However I have to point this out: in the very text you quoted Amanda said "...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go".

You follow this up with photographs, emphasising the point with MS Paint, that showed that the bathmat was... drum roll please... back where it was supposed to go. Now call me a troll if you like, but I don't see how this is evidence that Amanda lied in the quoted text. She said she put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go, and you have photographs that indeed make it look like someone put the bathmat back where it was supposed to go.

<snip>




Well Kevin, as they say in my trade, you've got serious form and I'm not going to get into a debate with you in a wider sense.
Less than two months ago on 30th May your balanced knowledge of this case was so undeveloped that you hadn't even read Raffaele's prison diary and were stomping around demanding cites for Raffaele's explanation of how Meredith's DNA got on the knife. You had never read it and you were basically inferring on JREF that it was a made up "fact" - that's how little primary understanding you had. It reminded me of Mary H's glorious high speed flaming nose dive when declaring imperiously on the Daily Beast thread that Amanda and Raffaele had never blamed their confusion about their memories on marijuana. She got drilled into about 40ft of turf by multiple quotations from both Raffaele and Amanda in their diaries doing precisely that and then mounted one of the greatest failed Comical-Ali type retreats seen in the debate. Like you she'd never read the diaries because if you sup in the cultist camp then you're not referred to all the documentation since they don't want you to-know-about-the-tricky-stuff.

If you can't even read publically available primary sources you're really disqualified from being taken seriously given that you were posting with such confidence in the value of your own insights. Cite? You didn't even know the sources. This is why you get hoist on your own petard for being such an ego on the loose.

You of course, through no fault of your own, have also not read the Motivations but I really consider you not worth debating the serious stuff with at this stage of the debate when it has all been so comprehensively worked through already until you come up to speed on it all given the above. Hence a bit of more speculative stuff about the bath mat which is one of the most unsatisfying and least convincing parts of Amanda's testimony. While it provides no prospect of a case conviction in its own right, the pictures are such that they can provide some very interesting thoughts, just like looking at Amanda's admission of her own responsibility for accusing Lamumba in the "fucked up so bad" letter to Madison and picking up that Sollecito was not carrying pocket-knives but hundred-euro plus tactical knives for "hard core knife knuts" according to the knife manufacturers. As much as my contributions are small beer compared to many others, I do have a lawyers eyes and I find looking is *good*. I admit it, I also enjoy you guys getting twitchy when I post ;)

Back to the history and you; of course once you were led by the hand to Raffaele's diary (basic basic ground-level information for someone posting so "authoritatively" about the case), you came up with the absolutely astonishing idea that Raffaele was referring to Amanda that he pricked with the knife and that we were talking about secondary transfer of Meredith's DNA from the back of Amanda's hand through the medium of a pin-prick at the tip of a knife. If you had come into my office working for the defence with this explanation to try and get our client out of this very difficult situation I would have said "don't be fucking stupid - do you think a jury is going to buy that?" and sent you away. Even RoseMontag couldn't support you in this on the JREF boards. It was ASTONISHING.

Worse, your supposidly mature balanced way of discussing this case produced this post from you as you discussed what I have to say is probably the least convincing explanation of a single issue I've read on either side in this case;

"This makes BobTheDonkey, who claimed that "in Raffaele's diary he stated that he had pricked Meredith's finger while cooking" a ******* liar..... Chalk up one more claimed slam-dunk that, once dragged out into the light of day, turned out to be complete miss."

then you call him a "student that failed the course". One second you don't even know about the diaries or you're so shoddy in researching them you haven't grasped this very important issue, the next you are flaming away with your ludicrously unlikely double transfer theory. LOL'd? I nearly bought it through asphyxiation.

So let's dispense with the moral high ground. You were very poorly informed about primary sources in the case and your approach is decidely antagonistic and egotistical. Let us also dispense with the idea that there's something imbalanced about people on PMF supporting each other's posts. Of course both sides post appreciatively about other posters' views - it's exactly the same situation on JREF; "excellent post" going to LondonJohn recently and we can all see self-congratulatory posts about "tremendous progress" and sniping at "guilters" intellectual abilities etc etc etc, similarly at Injustice in Perugia. We all do it so get over yourself. It's a very silly non-point other than any time you are the pot calling the kettle black arse as the Irish would say, you're going to look foolish. And you do.

Then your suggestion that Amanda's statement that she replaced the bath mat nullifies my post is of course missing the entire point of the post about the photos as Fiona says. It is also an extremely weak refutation in logical terms. Consider the two scenarios (don't choose - just consider);

i) An innocent flatmate shuffles / replaces a bathmat against a sink pedestal. The physics work such that the pressure ridges observed in the photograph are consistent with that action. Her explanation is "then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go". She is telling the truth.

ii) A murderer concocts an alibi concerning a bath mat because she has a) seen it and knows there is significant amounts of blood on it and knows that she cannot credibly claim she didn't see it b) is concerned her DNA may be on the mat which she can't know if it is or isn't and c) she needs to explain the rubbing-out / smearing of large amounts of surface area of the bathroom and corridor. She knows the bath mat is where it is because she was looking at it on the morning after the crime and wondering what could be done about it, if anything. She knows what state it is in because of her references to the blood and the possible menstrual origin of it. She has to concoct an alibi therefore and of course it MUST end with the bathmat located where it finally resides back at the sink. So she says "then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go". There can be no other end to the alibi given she knows where it is! She is, in this case, lying.

So a completely zero sum game. Absolutely no greater credibility, likelihood or value whatsoever to either the true or lying scenario. Not hard to think through if you think more than one chess move ahead at the time. The real questions of course are i) Is the photographic evidence consistent with Amanda's explanation and ii) Is the story behaviourly consistent with the jury's real world experience.

What I will do is post a much much longer post tonight to explain my thinking on the bathmat. Again, this is not an area where the photographic evidence provides a slam-dunk - of course not - but I will take you through a lot more detail on why it does not support the already extremely unlikely scenario related by Amanda with all her inappropriate heh-hehs in the dock in the trial. I'm afraid it will be a two mug of coffee job and by then everyone will be heartily sick of bath mats.

A bientot.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:43 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Back to the history and you; of course once you were led by the hand to Raffaele's diary (basic basic ground-level information for someone posting so "authoritatively" about the case), you came up with the absolutely astonishing idea that Raffaele was referring to Amanda that he pricked with the knife and that we were talking about secondary transfer of Meredith's DNA from the back of Amanda's hand through the medium of a pin-prick at the tip of a knife. If you had come into my office working for the defence with this explanation to try and get our client out of this very difficult situation I would have said "don't be fucking stupid - do you think a jury is going to buy that?" and sent you away. Even RoseMontag couldn't support you in this on the JREF boards. It was ASTONISHING.


:D :D :D

I didn't realise it was possible for someone to be so thick.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Competence wrote:
However it's your loss, in an important sense. If you surround yourself with yes-men who will never contradict the party line no matter how weak the arguments presented (witness the applause for SomeAlibi's post from two other posters), especially by excluding the people making the best arguments against your position, you'll never learn to deal with competent opposition.


This mistakenly assumes two things:

1. That you actually intend (and are even able) to bring something new to the discussion, rather then the same old talking points that we've heard MANY times before.

2. That many of us are not already familiar with your arguments, tone and method of debate.

However, I do agree that it will be 'our loss', for we will certainly lose the circular arguments, the assertions of opinion masquerading as facts, the sophistry and the weasel words.

I can live with that.



Competence wrote:
Come on down to the JREF forums if you are willing to discuss the Kercher murder in a civilised, intelligent fashion with opposition who cite hard facts. Your posts won't get blocked as long as you follow simple rules of civility, which I do not think is very much to ask.


Why would we go there when we have a perfectly good forum of our own, a forum wholly dedicated to the case (as opposed to a single open thread on the JREF) that has existed in one form or another right since three or four days following the murder in 2007 as opposed to a thread on the JREF that was created under the premise that Knox was convicted of murder for no other reason then that she'd done a cartwheel, a thread created only a mere few months ago? Why would we want to post in a moderated thread? Why would we want to waste our time when Moderator policy there is discriminatory rather then balanced? Why would we go there when no evidence, logic or argument that can be provided will dissuade a single Knox Cultist from any of their talking points that they've carved in stone? Finally, why would we post in a place where the Knox Cultists are so self-important they only want to read themselves anyway? Why would we want to read all the sophistry and weasel words?



Competence wrote:
Until then, I won't be back unless the people you allow to post here decide to pop more knives into my back on these forums. If you don't want me back, I suggest you discourage that particular form of incivility.


Understand this...when you publicly bloviate and opine, especially when it's on a very serious matter, people are entitled and will comment, whether that commentary be there, here or elsewhere. If you stand up, you're going to be counted, weighed and measured. If you don't like that, then I suggest that the Internet probably isn't for you.

_________________
"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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

London John deserves a Darwin Award for:

1. His scenario showing that Rudy Guede could have staged the break-in in Filomena's room.

2. His shockingly bad translation of Sollecito knife-pricking story and explanation that Sollecito could have been referring to Knox and not Meredith.

"My theory* would go something like this:

1) Guede kills Meredith;
2) Guede goes to get towels from bathroom to clean up blood, and washes blood off his hands at the same time (leaving some of Meredith's blood in the batchroom);
3) Guede goes from the bathroom to Filomena's room to stage the break-in;
4) Guede goes to the front door to exit the house, but it's locked and he can't see any keys (lots of footprints in the kitchen/lounge, perhaps as Guede looks for keys there);
5) Guede re-enters Meredith's room, to get Meredith's keys from her handbag (leaving her blood and his DNA on the bag;
6) Guede takes the keys from the bag, and also opportunistically takes the purse and the mobile phones;
7) Guede exits Meredith's room for a second time since the murder, but this time he steps in her blood with one of his shoes on his way out;
8) Guede closes and locks Meredith's door behind him, and exits the front door - leaving the bloody shoeprint trail behind him."

"Ahhhh - I'd asked if anyone had the original Italian quote from the diary before I'd got down to this post, so thanks for reposting it.

The reason it's gibberish in the google translation is because it's pretty much gibberish in Italian, as far as I can tell! If he seriously wrote these words in this order in his diary, then it's a bit of a shocker for the lad!

But, I'll have my own stab at a translation, for what it's worth. I think he writes (with presumed missing words, or my own extrapolations, in brackets):

"The reason why Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife is because once, while we were cooking together, I came into the house holding the knife up, (and) I (put) the tip on her hand, and I apologized at once, but she did not mind. So this is the only real explanation for the kitchen knife being this way."

I believe that my translation is not a world away from what RS was intending in this passage. It still casts no real light on whether he was referring to Meredith or Amanda as the person who he touched with the tip of the knife. Note, however, that he doesn't anywhere mention "pricking" or, in fact, anything that implies drawing blood. He merely says that the tip of the knife came into contact with "her" hand ("l’ho punta sulla mano").

I suppose that one area of my translation that might lend more credence to the opinion that he was referring here to Meredith, rather than Amanda, is the part where he describes where the incident occurred. It's true to say that his Italian at this point is pretty terrible, BUT he seems to be referring to "coming into the house holding the knife up". One might argue that he'd be unlikely to come into his own house holding his own kitchen knife (implying that his knife had previously been removed from his house), whereas it makes more sense if he was talking about entering the girls' house - especially since the front door opened more-or-less directly into the kitchen/lounge room. And additionally, if he was referring to his own house, I think he would have likely said "my house" ("mia casa") rather than "into (the) house" ("in casa").

Of course, even if he WAS referring to an incident that happened (or might have happened) at the girls' house rather than his own, he could still be describing a scenario where the knife touched Amanda. But the other thing with regard to this interpretation is whether RS ever DID participate in cooking at the girls' house. I believe that there's some evidence that he didn't. Although wasn't there a suggestion that he and AK actually cooked at the girls' house (mushrooms?) on the very night of the murder? If that HAD happened, could it therefore be possible that the "tip of the knife" incident he's grasping at might have occurred on 1st November? I welcome comments, feedback, and correction where appropriate!"


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?


Is this true? Not that it matters that much, beacuse Meredith's blood could get there in a million of ways after the murder, but i've never heard of it. Can you tell me where can i look for more information about these three traces? Is it in the upcoming translated report?
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 Jul 28, 2010 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Windfall wrote:
In that case, do you think it would be fair enough that the media had used Knox and Sollecito's social networking sites in the way they did in the earliest days following the discovery of Meredith's body?


Well, isn't that standard media practice these days? In any high profile case the media rush over to MySpace and the like to see if the alleged perpetrator has a page there and puts it under scrutiny. A very good example is the recent case of Raul Moat. His social networking sites were not only covered in the printed press but unlike in the case of Amanda Knox, were also a regular feature on the main TV news channels (BBC News, Sky News, ITN, Channel 4 News etc,).

I should also quickly point out...the media didn't only use Amanda and Raffaele's social networking sites, they also used Rudy's. That's where they got the early photos of him and his infamous 'vampire video'.

_________________
"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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?


Is this true? Not that it matters that much, beacuse Meredith's blood could get there in a million of ways after the murder, but i've never heard of it. Can you tell me where can i look for more information about these three traces? Is it in the upcoming translated report?


It's in the judges' sentencing report. Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room and her own room.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?


Is this true? Not that it matters that much, beacuse Meredith's blood could get there in a million of ways after the murder, but i've never heard of it. Can you tell me where can i look for more information about these three traces? Is it in the upcoming translated report?


It's in the judges' sentencing report. Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room and her own room.


Ok, thanks.
How do you know it was Knox who tracked Merediht's blood into her room? Is there also a mixed DNA and blood thing goin on or is it just blood?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?


Is this true? Not that it matters that much, beacuse Meredith's blood could get there in a million of ways after the murder, but i've never heard of it. Can you tell me where can i look for more information about these three traces? Is it in the upcoming translated report?


It's in the judges' sentencing report. Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room and her own room.


Ok, thanks.
How do you know it was Knox who tracked Merediht's blood into her room? Is there also a mixed DNA and blood thing goin on or is it just blood?


It's just blood. Judge Massei believes that Knox tracked the blood into her room and Filomena's room because she was checking the situation outside the cottage.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thank you.
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 Jul 28, 2010 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Cottage front door lock; an update.

If you get bored with this stuff just move on. :)

It was suggested be Dan O on JREF to compare the Corbin PS 350 03 05 multipoint mortice locks to Charlie’s photos showing a Corbin Euro Profile Cylinder lockset on the Cottage front door.

Mul-T-Lock (UK) are official importers of Corbin Lock Products from Italy to the UK and the Brochure linked by Dan O is in fact the same one featured on their home web site (see link below).

To get accurate information I contacted an approved agent for the above to establish if the PS 350 03 05 Euro Cylinder multipoint mortice lock with the deadbolt retracted, the spring latch disabled as per Charlie’s photo and the outside handle unattached etc. , could the other two auxiliary bolts be engaged using the internal handle only.

First problem was to explain accurately the exact configuration that existed on the front door of the cottage. The second obstacle was to convince him that I wasn’t trying to stitch him up on a bogus Insurance burglary claim. After eventually establishing my bona fides I was asked to leave it with him.

The response has arrived and this is it. Yes the two auxiliary bolts, upper and lower, can be thrown (ie. engaged) in the circumstances of the above configuration by rotating the handle upwards circa 45 degrees from a horizontal starting position. To retract the auxiliary bolts you need to reverse the action ie. rotate the handle downwards circa 45 degrees from a horizontal starting position. This is true for all of the Corbin Euro Cylinder multipoint mortice lock models in the PS 350 range.

So if the lock on the cottage front door was in fact a Corbin Euro Cylinder multipoint mortice lock from the PS 350 range then it was not necessary to use a key to ‘lock and unlock’ the door from the inside. The handle alone could ‘lock and unlock’ the front door from the inside using the auxiliary bolts; this is from a professional locksmith and approved Corbin sales and instillation agent. In this case Rudy could have come to the front door from the kitchen, pushed the handle down to open it and exited without the need to use a key.

If Charlie has any more photos of the front door showing the complete lock mechanism it would go a long way in clearing this up.

http://www.mul-t-lock.co.uk/uploads/fil ... 0locks.pdf



Excellent detective work Hammerite, that's exactly what PMF is about!!! :) :) :)

I have to say, I'm not the least bit surprised at your findings since logic indicated this to be the case anyway. Meredith's stolen keys has been one of the core mysteries of the case and the ability to establish exactly who took them would be particularly damning and important evidence against them indeed. Likewise, to be able to establish other particular individuals 'didn't' take them would be of great benefit to their case for innocence. Therefore, had the keys been a requirement to exit the cottage if the door was shut and the evidence strongly suggests Rudy left first, then we would have expected to see this fact raised and strongly argued in the trial, even if not by the prosecution, certainly by the defence. The argument we would have expected to hear would have been simple 'Rudy took the keys as he couldn't leave the cottage via the front door without them'. This argument was never once made in the trial...ergo, it is false.

By the way, a certain 'Katy_Did' over on the JREF will be just DELIGHTED with your research ;)



Note
Just a Note.
~ I have preserved your research for posterity in the 'Forensics' subforum: COTTAGE FRONT DOOR LOCK~

_________________
"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 tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
So if the lock on the cottage front door was in fact a Corbin Euro Cylinder multipoint mortice lock from the PS 350 range then it was not necessary to use a key to ‘lock and unlock’ the door from the inside. The handle alone could ‘lock and unlock’ the front door from the inside using the auxiliary bolts; this is from a professional locksmith and approved Corbin sales and instillation agent. In this case Rudy could have come to the front door from the kitchen, pushed the handle down to open it and exited without the need to use a key.

But ONLY if the door hadn't been locked with a key.

Yes, I agree that the secondary bolts are engaged by the handle and not the key, and that the lack of an outside handle means that they can only be disengaged from the outside with a key. But, if a key was used, whether inside or outside, to engage the deadbolt, then a key would be needed to open the door from either the inside or the outside.

So, were they in the habit of using a key, or just the handle, to bolt the door when at home?

Tom
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 Jul 28, 2010 12:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I wrote:

"Finally, they claim to have got up the next morning at 10 am and 10:30 am respectively. Yet, Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am and that someone switched on Raffaele's phone at 6:02 am."

To which Katody replied:


Katody wrote:
I don't see any contradiction here. Starting a playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.


Whooooaa there Nelly! Wait a minute...In my original post, I never mentioned anything about a 'playlist'! But hitherto, you had maintained that you knew almost nothing about the computers. Yet, it's now quite clear that you knew only too well that they, or one of them, was up or got up at 5:30 am and messed around on the computer for half an hour and WHAT they were doing on it. Therefore, it is clear you were being completely dishonest about your familiarity with the computer evidence. Gotcha!

Do you think we are stupid?

_________________
"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 katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
By the way, a certain 'Katy_Did' over on the JREF will be just DELIGHTED with your research ;)

You don't use the secondary bolts to lock the door Michael. ;)

They're engaged inadvertently when you lift the handle in order to lock the door with a key. In fact, you generally can't lock the door without doing that. They're not used as a main way to lock the door, but rather as an extra security feature when you activate the main lock.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tom_ch wrote:
But ONLY if the door hadn't been locked with a key.

Yes, I agree that the secondary bolts are engaged by the handle and not the key, and that the lack of an outside handle means that they can only be disengaged from the outside with a key. But, if a key was used, whether inside or outside, to engage the deadbolt, then a key would be needed to open the door from either the inside or the outside.

So, were they in the habit of using a key, or just the handle, to bolt the door when at home?

Tom


They used a key (see Amanda's testimony in court about always needing to lock the door with the key, and presumably Filomena and Laura were questioned about it too). I suspect they wouldn't even have been aware of any secondary locks, if indeed there were any on this door; we have them on our front door, but I didn't realize that till I was trying to figure out how the cottage door worked and went to check ours. They're certainly not mean to be used to lock the door, but rather just as an additional security feature when you use the key to lock it.
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 Jul 28, 2010 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
But ONLY if the door hadn't been locked with a key.

Yes, I agree that the secondary bolts are engaged by the handle and not the key, and that the lack of an outside handle means that they can only be disengaged from the outside with a key. But, if a key was used, whether inside or outside, to engage the deadbolt, then a key would be needed to open the door from either the inside or the outside.

So, were they in the habit of using a key, or just the handle, to bolt the door when at home?

Tom


They used a key (see Amanda's testimony in court about always needing to lock the door with the key, and presumably Filomena and Laura were questioned about it too). I suspect they wouldn't even have been aware of any secondary locks, if indeed there were any on this door; we have them on our front door, but I didn't realize that till I was trying to figure out how the cottage door worked and went to check ours. They're certainly not mean to be used to lock the door, but rather just as an additional security feature when you use the key to lock it.



I am sure Hammerite took this into account when he did his research. In any case, I'm sure he'll explain further later. One thing you should know, Hammerite certainly knows his stuff about locks.

But, you have ignored completely 'my' points on the matter. 'If' you are correct, why was this not raised as a core argument of defence by either Raffaele's or Amanda's defence teams? Why not so much as a squeak? Neglect? Omission? Incompetence? Or, is it because your argument is flawed? Which is it?

Why also, did Judge Massei not conclude in his report that Rudy Guede took the keys?

_________________
"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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fuji wrote:
Competence wrote:
Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.


Quote:
So who am I, and why am I pointing out the fairly obvious problem in your post?


Quote:
I think if the population of this board are actually interested in getting to the best-supported position on the case, instead of slapping each other on the back for posting content like SomeAlibi's, you need to focus on the problems with the prosecution timeline and with the physical evidence in the murder room.



This is why no one is seriously debating you anymore at JREF. You, as well as LondonJohn and Bruce Fisher, reply to dissenters with unconcealed condescension and contempt. Your posts are allowed to stand. Of course, the fairest thing to do would be to disallow yours and the others' posts that convey this nastiness. However, in the absence of that resoultion, the next fairest thing would be for detractors to be allowed to respond to you and your ilk in likewise fashion. This has been persistently denied by the moderator(s) of that thread. Don't blame us for your side ruining that thread as a venue for lively debate.

And really - you chose [b]Competence as a username? How much of an unbridled egotist can you be?[/b]



I understood it as unintended irony of the kind that narcissists excel at.
I have the pressure washer in hand and am ready to use it until the people who ruined JREF kindly go back there and stay. Y'all spend most of your waking hours reading this board, and that is fine, but I don't want you to post your garbage here. Our readers don't want to look at it and our posters have created and deserve to enjoy a space where intelligent and collegial debate is the norm. It is always impossible to have fruitful debate with narcissists because they always make it about them. It is that simple. Look at Competence's inaugural post. Look back at London John's.

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

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Whooooaa there Nelly! Wait a minute...In my original post, I never mentioned anything about a 'playlist'! But hitherto, you had maintained that you knew almost nothing about the computers. Yet, it's now quite clear that you knew only too well that they, or one of them, was up or got up at 5:30 am and messed around on the computer for half an hour and WHAT they were doing on it. Therefore, it is clear you were being completely dishonest about your familiarity with the computer evidence. Gotcha!

I'm afraid your hands are empty :)
What likely happend is that you read slightly more into my statements, then I meant, and maybe missed some of the context of the conversation. Specifically, I never maintained that I know or knew almost nothing about the computers. I'm sure rereading my statements in context would clarify a lot.



But to the point. ( And my point is always broadening my knowledge)

From what you say, Michael I understand a half an our long interaction with the computer took place in the morning.
Quote:
messed around on the computer for half an hour
Quote:
Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am

Unfortunately, The Massei Timeline here on PMF (and this is my initial source of knowledge)
says only:
Quote:
05:32–06:00
Activity on Raffaele’s MacBookPro laptop begins for the day: the VLC application attempts to open an MP3 file and crashes three times: at 05:32:09, 05:32:12, 05:32:13. iTunes successfully plays the MP3 files for the next half hour (p327).

But that accounts for less then a minute of interaction, (unless we consider the playing of mp3 with iTunes an interaction).
Now, what I honestly would like to ask you (and the answer will likely change a lot in my view of the case) is:

What were the activities of that half an hour long "messing around"?


PS.
Quote:
Do you think we are stupid?

Oh, come on.
Heavens forbid no! Maybe a little bit obsessed (but who isn't :) )
A little bit paranoid too, but that's understandable in the light of the recent unnerving visit of the prominent "cultist".
Disclaimer: I'm not a JREF member nor in any contact with any of them or the FOA :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
I wrote:

"Finally, they claim to have got up the next morning at 10 am and 10:30 am respectively. Yet, Raffaele's computer records show someone went on his computer and used it for half an hour at 5:30 am and that someone switched on Raffaele's phone at 6:02 am."

To which Katody replied:


Katody wrote:
I don't see any contradiction here. Starting a playlist for a morning sex, then going back to sleep (reasonable at 6 in the morning) is what comes to my mind. But I wonder what did they say when interrogated about it.


Whooooaa there Nelly! Wait a minute...In my original post, I never mentioned anything about a 'playlist'! But hitherto, you had maintained that you knew almost nothing about the computers. Yet, it's now quite clear that you knew only too well that they, or one of them, was up or got up at 5:30 am and messed around on the computer for half an hour and WHAT they were doing on it. Therefore, it is clear you were being completely dishonest about your familiarity with the computer evidence. Gotcha!

Do you think we are stupid?



Katody would never have gotten past round one in the secret service screening process. He is the uninformed "firm innocenter" to LJ's uninformed "firm guilter"; they are both tropes, stock characters, figures of fun. But I digress....

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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

If you weren't already aware of it, Competence, you sure come across as one pompous ass.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Corrina wrote:
If you weren't already aware of it, Competence, you sure come across as one pompous ass.


Ya think?!

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?


Is this true? Not that it matters that much, beacuse Meredith's blood could get there in a million of ways after the murder, but i've never heard of it. Can you tell me where can i look for more information about these three traces? Is it in the upcoming translated report?


It's in the judges' sentencing report. Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room and her own room.


Ok, thanks.
How do you know it was Knox who tracked Merediht's blood into her room? Is there also a mixed DNA and blood thing goin on or is it just blood?


One of Amanda Knox's footprints in her room was set in Meredith's blood.
Top Profile 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
I am sure Hammerite took this into account when he did his research. In any case, I'm sure he'll explain further later. One thing you should know, Hammerite certainly knows his stuff about locks.

But, you have ignored completely 'my' points on the matter. 'If' you are correct, why was this not raised as a core argument of defence by either Raffaele's or Amanda's defence teams? Why not so much as a squeak? Neglect? Omission? Incompetence? Or, is it because your argument is flawed? Which is it?

Why also, did Judge Massei not conclude in his report that Rudy Guede took the keys?

It's an argument put forward in the appeal:

Quote:
Come indicato dalla Corte, le chiavi di casa di Meredith Kercher non sono state mai ritrovate (p. 96 sentenza), segno evidente, questo, che delle stesse si è impossessato il soggetto che è entrato in quell’appartamento.
Visto che Amanda Knox aveva le sue chiavi, quale ragione avrebbe avuto di impossessarsi di quelle di Meredith?
Di contro, un simile interesse lo avrebbe potuto avere un ladro che, entrato furtivamente e, poi, sorpreso, per fuggire non avrebbe avuto altra possibilità che utilizzare la porta d’ingresso che - come ben evidenziato in corso di dibattimento e confermato in sentenza - aveva la serratura danneggiata e, quindi, doveva essere chiusa, anche dall’interno, con le mandate.
In tal modo, risulta logicamente spiegata la ragione per cui quelle chiavi non sono state mai ritrovate.

Basically it's saying that since the front door was damaged and therefore was always locked with a key even from the inside, a thief who broke into the house would have had no option but to take the keys in order to exit the house, and that this gives us a logical explanation as to why the keys were taken. Amanda, of course, would have had her own keys.

I agree that it was pretty incompetent of the defence not to have brought this up in the initial trial. I suspect they simply didn't realize the significance of this until now (maybe they were reading our JREF discussion ;)).

In terms of the technical aspects of the lock itself, another thing I'd add (perhaps more for Hammerite, when he's around) is that ordinarily with these types of locks you have to lift the handle in order to lock the door with the key (activating the secondary locks), otherwise you simply can't turn the key. So there would need to be some way of doing this on the outside of the door as well - yet there's no lever handle on the outside of the door. How then could they lock it from outside, if these secondary locks were active?


Last edited by katy_did on Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 Jul 28, 2010 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
I'm afraid your hands are empty
What likely happend is that you read slightly more into my statements, then I meant, and maybe missed some of the context of the conversation. Specifically, I never maintained that I know or knew almost nothing about the computers. I'm sure rereading my statements in context would clarify a lot.


Listen, You wrote the following to 'Itchy Brother':

Katody wrote:
Thank you for your inquiry. I'm very glad to discuss it too. To be short: for now I don't see anything contradictory or in any way incriminating in the above findings. About the computer activity I could only speculate as I don't know any statements of Amanda or Raffaele about it.


viewtopic.php?p=52270#p52270


Now, one will expectedly interpret that to mean you are unfamiliar with the computer evidence. 'Unless', the key to your meaning is in "I don't know any statements of Amanda or Raffaele about it", as to say 'If Raffaele and Amanda haven't said it, then I don't accept it' as in 'it' being the evidence provided by the prosecution and ACCEPTED by the court . The former is dishonest, the latter is weasel words (which is actually, by the the by , also dishonest). So, which one is it?


In reply, I posted this:

Michael wrote:
Wait...you seemingly know this case backwards yet know nothing about the computers? A most convenient omission in your knowledge I must say, especially as the computer is Raffaele's alibi for the night in question, as well as in part Amanda's.


viewtopic.php?p=52279#p52279


To which you replied:

Katody wrote:
Well, I'm familiar with the prosecution's statement that the last computer interaction was recorded about 21.15.
I also understand, that unless the disabled hard drive is recovered, Amanda and Raffaele don't have any chance of an alibi from it.
In my opinion they spent the night together at Raffaele's flat, and I fail to see how any computer activity can make it improbable. That's all.



viewtopic.php?p=52291#p52291


Not only did you not in your reply correct my inference that you were not familiar with the computer evidence, you actially reinforced it...as in your above statement "I'm familiar with the prosecution's statement that the last computer interaction was recorded about 21.15" concluding with "That's all" (you know).

Therefore, I stand by what I said previously...you're a bloody liar!

Don't take the piss and think you can play this game with me, you'll lose!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Basically it's saying that since the front door was damaged and therefore was always locked with a key even from the inside, a thief who broke into the house would have had no option but to take the keys in order to exit the house, and that this gives us a logical explanation as to why the keys were taken. Amanda, of course, would have had her own keys.


It's in the appeal is it? Why then did it not feature in the main trial, rather then suddenly only in the appeal as part of an 'Oh Shit!' plan?

_________________
"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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Basically it's saying that since the front door was damaged and therefore was always locked with a key even from the inside, a thief who broke into the house would have had no option but to take the keys in order to exit the house, and that this gives us a logical explanation as to why the keys were taken. Amanda, of course, would have had her own keys.


Nobody broke into the cottage. The break-in was staged. Furthermore, Rudy Guede didn't go into Filomena's room and then go back into Meredith's room, so he couldn't have locked Meredith's door.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
But that accounts for less then a minute of interaction, (unless we consider the playing of mp3 with iTunes an interaction).
Now, what I honestly would like to ask you (and the answer will likely change a lot in my view of the case) is:

What were the activities of that half an hour long "messing around"?



I don't know, you tell us what they were doing for (at least) half an hour when according to them they were fast asleep and off with the fairies.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
katy_did wrote:
Basically it's saying that since the front door was damaged and therefore was always locked with a key even from the inside, a thief who broke into the house would have had no option but to take the keys in order to exit the house, and that this gives us a logical explanation as to why the keys were taken. Amanda, of course, would have had her own keys.


Nobody broke into the cottage. The break-in was staged.


It's not true that was the only exit anyway. One could easily step out through the balcony doors in the corridor and have an easy climb down from the balcony to the ground. No need to mess about with looking for/taking keys...that's your easy way out.

_________________
"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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
katy_did wrote:
Basically it's saying that since the front door was damaged and therefore was always locked with a key even from the inside, a thief who broke into the house would have had no option but to take the keys in order to exit the house, and that this gives us a logical explanation as to why the keys were taken. Amanda, of course, would have had her own keys.


Nobody broke into the cottage. The break-in was staged.


It's not true that was the only exit anyway. One could easily step out through the balcony doors in the corridor and have an easy climb down from the balcony to the ground. No need to mess about with looking for/taking keys...that's your easy way out.



It would have been a hell of a lot easier for our "lone thief" to jump out the window than to scale the wall and climb in through it. Why mess with keys or even look for them under the circumstances? We know, in addition, that AK had trouble with that pesky lock, which is probably why the front door (according to her) was ajar when she came home. She was not able to lock it properly.

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

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
It's in the appeal is it? Why then did it not feature in the main trial, rather then suddenly only in the appeal as part of an 'Oh Shit!' plan?


As I said, the only reason I can think of that they didn't bring it up in the main trial is that they simply didn't realize the significance of it until now. Which is certainly a major error and rather incompetent on their part. If posters on an internet forum can figure it out, shouldn't the defence have done so ages ago, rather than bringing it up as a startling new piece of evidence in the appeal?

IIRC, there's even a bit in Micheli's report where he says maybe the reason Guede didn't leave the house immediately is because he was locked in (when he's considering hypothetical burglary scenarios). You would think the defence would've seen the possible ways they could use that statement, but apparently not...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Competence wrote:
Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.


If you're not trolling, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to answer the questions that Rose Montague, Katody, Chris C and undecided have refused to answer:

Why did Amanda Knox repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007?

After Amanda Knox had been confronted with proof that she had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did she choose to tell the police even more lies?

After Raffaele Sollecito had been confronted with proof that he had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did he choose to tell the police even more lies?

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three diifferent locations in the cottage?

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

Why do you think Sollecito lied on two separate occasions about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand whilst cooking?

Rudy Guede's visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena's room and who do you think left the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?

How did Raffaele Sollecito know that nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room?

Why won't Raffaele Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba?

Why did Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox tell Filomena that she had already called Meredith's mobile phone when she spoke to her at 12.08pm on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox tell the postal police that Meredith always locked her door?

Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox phone her mother in the middle of the night before anything had happened?

Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio couldn't remember very much about the evening Meredith was murdered because they were suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia?

Thanks in advance.


This seems like a reasonable request. I'm waiting for a reply.

I'd also like to know why two people on trial for murder wouldn't insist on clearly addressing each of these points in writing and in front of the jury. And if they really were so drugged out of their minds (as Barbie suggests) that the whole thing is a blur, then say that. (But in that case - please also explain the clean up.) Damn, if I were innocent I'd say: Look! Give me a lie detector test, put me in front of the jury, let me write it all down again. An honest person would have little to fear. Everything I've seen from Knox and Sollecito reeks of a cover-up.

When I read that Joran van der Sloot is using the same kind of bullshit (a "third man" broke in and killed her; it was an accident; she hit me first; I was drugged; my confession was forced, etc etc.), I really start to lose it.

Actually, the question isn't why there are people like the FOA, Dempsey, Kadoly, the Mafia characters, etc. The question is why aren't there more. Historically, sensational murders have caused hundreds of social misfits to seek public attention: false confessions, false witnesses, marriage proposals, etc.
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 Jul 28, 2010 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
katy_did wrote:
Basically it's saying that since the front door was damaged and therefore was always locked with a key even from the inside, a thief who broke into the house would have had no option but to take the keys in order to exit the house, and that this gives us a logical explanation as to why the keys were taken. Amanda, of course, would have had her own keys.


Nobody broke into the cottage. The break-in was staged.


It's not true that was the only exit anyway. One could easily step out through the balcony doors in the corridor and have an easy climb down from the balcony to the ground. No need to mess about with looking for/taking keys...that's your easy way out.



It would have been a hell of a lot easier for our "lone thief" to jump out the window than to scale the wall and climb in through it. Why mess with keys or even look for them under the circumstances? We know, in addition, that AK had trouble with that pesky lock, which is probably why the front door (according to her) was ajar when she came home. She was not able to lock it properly.


Indeed and I think the same thing happened when they all entered the cottage that night, probably with the attitude of 'We're just dropping by, we're not not staying long'. As such, I don't think Amanda bothered locking the door. Hence, Rudy was able to just run out later.

The premise that the door was locked and Rudy would have required the key to exit, or find some other way out is not supported by the evidence (not only logic). He wouldn't have known the lock was faulty and required a key (IF Katy_Did is correct in her hypothesis). He would only have discovered that once he got to the door. However, his bloody prints show he exited immediately, without deviation, or return. One can only conclude that his exit was not impeded, by locks or anything else.

_________________
"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 katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
It would have been a hell of a lot easier for our "lone thief" to jump out the window than to scale the wall and climb in through it. Why mess with keys or even look for them under the circumstances? We know, in addition, that AK had trouble with that pesky lock, which is probably why the front door (according to her) was ajar when she came home. She was not able to lock it properly.

I think the easiest way out would have been to take the keys and let himself out through the front door, if he had access to them. You're right, of course, in the sense that if he hadn't been able to get a-hold of the keys, he would have needed to find another way out, and I'm sure he'd have managed it. But it's really about Rudy having that bit of an extra motive to take them, which tips the scales towards him and away from Knox and Sollecito doing so (in his story, he added the little detail that they were in her handbag, of course).

That isn't to say they couldn't have taken them, or that Rudy absolutely had no choice but to do so (since as you and Michael say, he could certainly have found another way out). The defence exaggerates by saying he had 'no choice'. But it does make it a little more probable that he took them. It also makes sense of something which to me has always seemed a little odd - why the keys were taken in the first place, and why the bedroom door was locked (probably a spur of the moment decision by Rudy, noting he had the bedroom door key in his hand).
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 Jul 28, 2010 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's in the appeal is it? Why then did it not feature in the main trial, rather then suddenly only in the appeal as part of an 'Oh Shit!' plan?


As I said, the only reason I can think of that they didn't bring it up in the main trial is that they simply didn't realize the significance of it until now. Which is certainly a major error and rather incompetent on their part. If posters on an internet forum can figure it out, shouldn't the defence have done so ages ago, rather than bringing it up as a startling new piece of evidence in the appeal?

IIRC, there's even a bit in Micheli's report where he says maybe the reason Guede didn't leave the house immediately is because he was locked in (when he's considering hypothetical burglary scenarios). You would think the defence would've seen the possible ways they could use that statement, but apparently not...


"They didn't realise the significance of it until now"...that's your best shot???

_________________
"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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
It would have been a hell of a lot easier for our "lone thief" to jump out the window than to scale the wall and climb in through it. Why mess with keys or even look for them under the circumstances? We know, in addition, that AK had trouble with that pesky lock, which is probably why the front door (according to her) was ajar when she came home. She was not able to lock it properly.

I think the easiest way out would have been to take the keys and let himself out through the front door, if he had access to them. You're right, of course, in the sense that if he hadn't been able to get a-hold of the keys, he would have needed to find another way out, and I'm sure he'd have managed it. But it's really about Rudy having that bit of an extra motive to take them, which tips the scales towards him and away from Knox and Sollecito doing so (in his story, he added the little detail that they were in her handbag, of course).

That isn't to say they couldn't have taken them, or that Rudy absolutely had no choice but to do so (since as you and Michael say, he could certainly have found another way out). The defence exaggerates by saying he had 'no choice'. But it does make it a little more probable that he took them. It also makes sense of something which to me has always seemed a little odd - why the keys were taken in the first place, and why the bedroom door was locked (probably a spur of the moment decision by Rudy, noting he had the bedroom door key in his hand).[/quote]


Except there is no reason to believe Rudy was aware that it was the bedroom door key. Amanda would have known, of course, though I believe she played dumb about the keys during her performance at the trial. I doubt the bedroom door was locked until much later, long after Rudy was gone.

The keys were taken after they were used by AK and RS to lock the door to the bedroom, probably along with the cell phones. And the cell phones were taken in a lame attempt to make it look like a burglary (with only the victim as the victim of the burglary). They didn't think that through very well, did they?


Incidentally, it seems that most experts agree there is no cure for narcissism. It is also interesting to note that many narcissists have an obsession with pornography.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
That isn't to say they couldn't have taken them, or that Rudy absolutely had no choice but to do so (since as you and Michael say, he could certainly have found another way out). The defence exaggerates by saying he had 'no choice'. But it does make it a little more probable that he took them. It also makes sense of something which to me has always seemed a little odd - why the keys were taken in the first place, and why the bedroom door was locked (probably a spur of the moment decision by Rudy, noting he had the bedroom door key in his hand).


Rudy Guede left the cottage almost immediately after Meredith had been stabbed. His visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. This means the following:

1. He didn't stage the break-in in Filomena's room.

2. He didn't go back into Meredith's room after being in Filomena's room.

3. He didn't go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

5. He didn't go outside to get the rock that was found in Filomena's room.

6. He didn't clean up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
katy_did wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's in the appeal is it? Why then did it not feature in the main trial, rather then suddenly only in the appeal as part of an 'Oh Shit!' plan?


As I said, the only reason I can think of that they didn't bring it up in the main trial is that they simply didn't realize the significance of it until now. Which is certainly a major error and rather incompetent on their part. If posters on an internet forum can figure it out, shouldn't the defence have done so ages ago, rather than bringing it up as a startling new piece of evidence in the appeal?

IIRC, there's even a bit in Micheli's report where he says maybe the reason Guede didn't leave the house immediately is because he was locked in (when he's considering hypothetical burglary scenarios). You would think the defence would've seen the possible ways they could use that statement, but apparently not...


"They didn't realise the significance of it until now"...that's your best shot???


Katy_did, is it really so boring over on JREF that you need to find yourself among us? Or have you tired of the narcissists' convention that has pitched a tent there?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
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 Jul 28, 2010 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Rudy didn't put Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room. And Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have put it there if Rudy had locked the door and taken the keys. Yet...it was there.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

norbertc wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Competence wrote:
Okay, I realise that I am going to be accused of trolling. Some people will, almost certainly, attempt to spin this post as an attempt to cause trouble for its own sake, rather than as a contribution to an intelligent discussion.


If you're not trolling, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to answer the questions that Rose Montague, Katody, Chris C and undecided have refused to answer:

Why did Amanda Knox repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007?

After Amanda Knox had been confronted with proof that she had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did she choose to tell the police even more lies?

After Raffaele Sollecito had been confronted with proof that he had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did he choose to tell the police even more lies?

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three diifferent locations in the cottage?

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

Why do you think Sollecito lied on two separate occasions about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand whilst cooking?

Rudy Guede's visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena's room and who do you think left the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?

How did Raffaele Sollecito know that nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room?

Why won't Raffaele Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba?

Why did Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox tell Filomena that she had already called Meredith's mobile phone when she spoke to her at 12.08pm on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox tell the postal police that Meredith always locked her door?

Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox phone her mother in the middle of the night before anything had happened?

Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio couldn't remember very much about the evening Meredith was murdered because they were suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia?

Thanks in advance.


This seems like a reasonable request. I'm waiting for a reply.

I'd also like to know why two people on trial for murder wouldn't insist on clearly addressing each of these points in writing and in front of the jury. And if they really were so drugged out of their minds (as Barbie suggests) that the whole thing is a blur, then say that. (But in that case - please also explain the clean up.) Damn, if I were innocent I'd say: Look! Give me a lie detector test, put me in front of the jury, let me write it all down again. An honest person would have little to fear. Everything I've seen from Knox and Sollecito reeks of a cover-up.

When I read that Joran van der Sloot is using the same kind of bullshit (a "third man" broke in and killed her; it was an accident; she hit me first; I was drugged; my confession was forced, etc etc.), I really start to lose it.

Actually, the question isn't why there are people like the FOA, Dempsey, Kadoly, the Mafia characters, etc. The question is why aren't there more. Historically, sensational murders have caused hundreds of social misfits to seek public attention: false confessions, false witnesses, marriage proposals, etc.



There is strong narcissistic identification in cases like this, because of the sensationalism. It attracts them like moths to a flame. What surprises me the most is the unshakable belief that the judges and jury should have overlooked the evidence, the lies, the lack of alibi, or at least swallowed every attempt to explain them all away. The fact is, most people smell a rat when everything is given an implausible spin. After awhile, most people realize they are being asked to suspend disbelief beyond reasonable limits.

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

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
katy_did wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's in the appeal is it? Why then did it not feature in the main trial, rather then suddenly only in the appeal as part of an 'Oh Shit!' plan?


As I said, the only reason I can think of that they didn't bring it up in the main trial is that they simply didn't realize the significance of it until now. Which is certainly a major error and rather incompetent on their part. If posters on an internet forum can figure it out, shouldn't the defence have done so ages ago, rather than bringing it up as a startling new piece of evidence in the appeal?

IIRC, there's even a bit in Micheli's report where he says maybe the reason Guede didn't leave the house immediately is because he was locked in (when he's considering hypothetical burglary scenarios). You would think the defence would've seen the possible ways they could use that statement, but apparently not...


"They didn't realise the significance of it until now"...that's your best shot???


cl-) Bravo! LOL!!!
This statement is remarkedly similar to the FOA mantra regarding Sollecito informing the police that what he had previously told them was a load of old bollocks.
In other words he admitted to the police that he had lied to them (after only realising later all the inconsistencies) then told them the reason he did so was because Amanda asked him to lie.
So Sollecito stated to the police that AMANDA ASKED HIM TO LIE.

FOA response? 'Raffy' made a 'flippant' remark, as he didn't realise the seriousness of the situation.
My 4 year old daughter is laughing at this one. cl-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

What's the scoop on the cocaine angle over at TJMK?

Cocaine leaves the system in as little as three days. It would also be easy to blow (unintended, really) through 1/2 of one's savings in a month's time were one feeding that demon. Depending on cutting agent, a pungent body aroma. And hey, if it was the oh so popular baby laxative cut, you have that urge to defecate...no spicy kabob necessary. The lies; cokeheads and honesty don't hang that well together.

Anyway, just musing. This doesn't appear to be confirmed and until or if it is proved, is all just speculation. Still, it would explain some unexplainable things and would definitely explain Amanda and Raffaele's behavior (not to mention their appearance the morning after).
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

FAO; tom _ch & Katy_did

I have lots more information from my ‘locksmith friend’ which answers both your questions and offers additional insights not already in play (didn’t think anyone was interested). Unfortunately I have a business meeting scheduled and must dash right now. Will get a descriptive post up here in the next day or so.

Regards, :)

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, Corrina. I remember Patrick saying that Amanda was having big mood swings, and her behaviour was unpredictable. I forget his exact terminology, but that was the gist. That could happen from smoking weed, I guess, but I think it would mean smoking a lot, often, and I don't see how smoking spinelli, would cause that kind of behaviour. Perhaps the drinking. I can't believe I left the thread at Jref because of some posters absurd, untenable, and often ridiculous assertions!!!! And now they have the nerve to come here :( ... No worries , our informed, brilliant, and excellent posters and moderators have it in hand. Checking in now and again, ( I can't help myself :) ) and see that all is well here.....

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Cottage front door lock; an update.

If you get bored with this stuff just move on. :)


Not boring at all. I also have to ask why--if the front door of the cottage could only be 'engaged' or 'disengaged' from the inside with a key--this assertion was not supplied as evidence at the trial. I would think such a detail would be rather important to understanding how anyone--let alone a stranger--would be able to reliably enter and exit the cottage.

I have heard people here maintain that they have been locked inside apartments.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Concerning Amandas habitual drug abuse.
I will always remember Edda Mellas and Curt Knox being interviewed together on British TV, I think it was in fact the first interview the two of them had done together, close to when the murder of Meredith Kercher had first been committed.
They were chatting normally and answering questions when asked, until boom! - the reporter asked them directly if they knew Amanda had been using drugs.
There followed a long and awkward pregnant pause until they composed themselves and Edda answered no.
One could almost taste the silence of that pregnant pause and the supressed anger and outrage of Edda Mellas for being asked such a question.I think it was shorlty after this that the PR company was employed, which of course gives the lie to the claim that the PR company were employed to counteract the negative press Amanda had been receiving.
It comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that now stories are circulating regarding Amanda and Raffaeles heavy use of cocaine - in addition to their widely known heavy use of strong marijuana and alcohol.
Something it seems, the parents of Amanda have been well aware of since day one.


Last edited by Black Dog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Cottage front door lock; an update.

If you get bored with this stuff just move on. :)


Not boring at all. I also have to ask why--if the front door of the cottage could only be 'engaged' or 'disengaged' from the inside with a key--this assertion was not supplied as evidence at the trial. I would think such a detail would be rather important to understanding how anyone--let alone a stranger--would be able to reliably enter and exit the cottage.

I have heard people here maintain that they have been locked inside apartments.


I got locked inside the upstairs room of an apartment in Paris just a few days ago. I had the key but the room had cooled enough overnight to make it stick in the lock. My hostess (who I called; she was at work) said it had happened to her and that there was nothing to do until the temperature change occurred naturally. Taking matters into my own hands, I reasoned that if the key was hot enough it might work. I heated it under very hot water for a minute or two and - bingo! - the key turned and the door opened immediately and easily.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Back to the history and you; of course once you were led by the hand to Raffaele's diary (basic basic ground-level information for someone posting so "authoritatively" about the case), you came up with the absolutely astonishing idea that Raffaele was referring to Amanda that he pricked with the knife and that we were talking about secondary transfer of Meredith's DNA from the back of Amanda's hand through the medium of a pin-prick at the tip of a knife. If you had come into my office working for the defence with this explanation to try and get our client out of this very difficult situation I would have said "don't be fucking stupid - do you think a jury is going to buy that?" and sent you away. Even RoseMontag couldn't support you in this on the JREF boards. It was ASTONISHING.


:D :D :D

I didn't realise it was possible for someone to be so thick.


You must have missed the ones where they thought Raffaele's statements to the police regarded his activities of 31 OCT 2007 and not the night of the murder. You see, being a native Italian speaker, he was simply assuming the police were not interested about his whereabouts when Meredith was slain but wondering instead about what he did for Hallowe'en.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
katy_did wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
But ONLY if the door hadn't been locked with a key.

Yes, I agree that the secondary bolts are engaged by the handle and not the key, and that the lack of an outside handle means that they can only be disengaged from the outside with a key. But, if a key was used, whether inside or outside, to engage the deadbolt, then a key would be needed to open the door from either the inside or the outside.

So, were they in the habit of using a key, or just the handle, to bolt the door when at home?

Tom


They used a key (see Amanda's testimony in court about always needing to lock the door with the key, and presumably Filomena and Laura were questioned about it too). I suspect they wouldn't even have been aware of any secondary locks, if indeed there were any on this door; we have them on our front door, but I didn't realize that till I was trying to figure out how the cottage door worked and went to check ours. They're certainly not mean to be used to lock the door, but rather just as an additional security feature when you use the key to lock it.



I am sure Hammerite took this into account when he did his research. In any case, I'm sure he'll explain further later. One thing you should know, Hammerite certainly knows his stuff about locks.

But, you have ignored completely 'my' points on the matter. 'If' you are correct, why was this not raised as a core argument of defence by either Raffaele's or Amanda's defence teams? Why not so much as a squeak? Neglect? Omission? Incompetence? Or, is it because your argument is flawed? Which is it?

Why also, did Judge Massei not conclude in his report that Rudy Guede took the keys?


I posted my thoughts on Hammerite's entry before I saw this. But you're spot on. No lawyer in the world would avoid the chance to put Rudy's exit together with positively requiring a key to get out of the building. They went through the trouble to help a guy up the slope to the grating so he could show off his climbing ability. A simple key demonstration would have placed grave doubts in the minds of everyone in the courtroom.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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 


30,240,109 Views