Thank you, Steve, for yet another thread! Thanks, Skep, for your help in securing it...
Thanks Steve, without you we would have no home for this ongoing discussion.
As regards your introduction to this new thread, I believe that many of us are holding back on specific feelings about who's guilty of what, although many of us want all those persons who can contribute to advancing the investigation - including the current suspects who proclaim their innocence - to come forward and testify.
-
Thank you Steve, thank you Skep 
Charlie Wilkes, I'm well aware that false confessions have been brought about by foul means in several cases. However, it is not the majority of cases. Out of, say, a thousand convictions, how many do you believe have been due to false confessions? And if it was Filomena and her boyfriend in jail right now - would you be here defending them to the hilt and discarding the million discrepancies that appeared in their accounts of what happened that night? Or is it just Amanda and RS that you are so concerned about?
---------
Crap, it loaded so fast it frightened me 
Thank you Steve for hosting this space.
Kermit, your view that Knox and Sollecito should agree to be questioned further is predicated on a belief that they are guilty.
If they are in fact innocent, had nothing to do with this crime, and were somewhere else altogether, then they can hardly shed any light on what happened.
Also, I'm not sure the police need or want any information. They seem confident they are holding the right people, and so they must think they have the crime all figured out. Now all they have to do is weather a few publicity squalls until they can present their case in court.
If they are in fact innocent, had nothing to do with this crime, and were somewhere else altogether, then they can hardly shed any light on what happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm | #
----------
That's the whole point isn't it? Neither of them can agree if they were "somewhere else together"!
That by itself is strange. It's not as if they were asked about it months after the event, when it was possible they might have forgotten.
And I disagree with you. They can "shed some light" if they can establish/agree they were somewhere else together - but to date, they haven't. Why?
---------
Soozie wrote:
Charlie Wilkes, I'm well aware that false confessions have been brought about by foul means in several cases. However, it is not the majority of cases.
No, it doesn't happen in a majority of cases, but it has happened in far more than "several" cases. One of the links I provided, the Richard Leo article, gives some statistical information. Project Innocence says a quarter of the people who have been freed by DNA analysis in the U.S. either incriminated themselves or confessed outright when questioned by police. It's a statistically significant phenomenon.
Out of, say, a thousand convictions, how many do you believe have been due to false confessions?
No one knows, because we don't know what percentage of false confessions are discovered. If the Hells Angels hadn't happened to discuss the murder of Gary Gauger's parents on a phone being tapped by the FBI, he'd have been executed and everyone would stil think his confession was valid.
And if it was Filomena and her boyfriend in jail right now - would you be here defending them to the hilt and discarding the million discrepancies that appeared in their accounts of what happened that night? Or is it just Amanda and RS that you are so concerned about?
I don't personally know Knox or Sollecito or anyone associated with either of them. My interest in this case is based on the fact pattern. If it were Filomena and her boyfriend, and the fact pattern were the same, I would feel just as I do about Knox and Sollecito.
Thanks again Steve for giving us the continued opportunity to debate this case. It was a timely moment to go past Steve's home page again and I willingly made a donation via Paypal. If other regular posters havn't already done so please consider making a donation to our very generous host.
I agree with Eric that some of the posts are far to long and emotive, mainly from a few regular posters, one in particular takes a lot of space. It's great to keep it on task and try and avoid the personal insult variety of post when someones conclusions are different than your own. This blog has got a lot more interesting now there is a more balanced debate going on regards was it a 'group crime' or a 'lone wolf'.
There are lots of valid arguments from both sides of the fence.
Kermit, I like the way you always cordially welcome new posters, while most of us are thrashing it out in the mosh pit, you make sure everyone gets a warm welcome at the front door. You did it to me and I really appreciated it, it's a nice quality on such a public blog.
Soozie wrote:
That's the whole point isn't it? Neither of them can agree if they were "somewhere else together"!
That by itself is strange. It's not as if they were asked about it months after the event, when it was possible they might have forgotten.
According to the report that Kermit cited earlier, there initial statements on November 2 were consistent. It was only on November 5, under more intense questioning, that their stories changed and became inconsistent. We disagree about why that happened. My view is that their initial statements were accurate.
And I disagree with you. They can "shed some light" if they can establish/agree they were somewhere else together - but to date, they haven't. Why?
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Kermit, I like the way you always cordially welcome new posters, while most of us are thrashing it out in the mosh pit, you make sure everyone gets a warm welcome at the front door. You did it to me and I really appreciated it, it's a nice quality on such a public blog.
Oceania88 | 04.11.08 - 9:29 pm | #
Yes, and your lively debate aint bad either!
OK Charlie, fair enough. But I would imagine the percentage of couples being falsely convicted, (husband/wife - boyfriend/girlfriend) is far less.
It's very unlikely that 2 people are both going to be forced into false confessions.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba. They're only her words - so you have no real reason to believe it's true, except I think you do. As noted, her boyfriend hasn't complained about mistreatment, no one has - only her. Why are you convinced she's telling the truth in this instance? Why aren't you waiting for it to be presented as 'fact'?
----------
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm | #
Charlie, I think they were suppose to call home and ask for permission before they spent that "private" time together! Then they would have had an alibi.
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:44 pm | #
I usually do, it was more a space issue in respect of Steve.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba. They're only her words - so you have no real reason to believe it's true, except I think you do. As noted, her boyfriend hasn't complained about mistreatment, no one has - only her. Why are you convinced she's telling the truth in this instance? Why aren't you waiting for it to be presented as 'fact'?
----------
Oceania: If you object to the long posts, skip over them, You don't have to read them. These types of posts have been around since Halo 1, so you may as well accept it.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:44 pm | #
Soozie, if the 48 hours piece discloses anyone from the ILE admitting to hitting her during the interogation, would you still believe that?
They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm |
---------
Then why did RS lie about speaking to his father at 11.30 pm when he phoned? It later transpired his father had rung, but the phone had not been answered. RS clearly lied in order to make it seem as if he was in his house at the time. Why didn't he just say his father called, but he didn't want to pick up the phone at the time?
--
Soozie, if the 48 hours piece discloses anyone from the ILE admitting to hitting her during the interogation, would you still believe that?
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 9:48 pm | #
---------
Of course. But we should define 'hitting'. If she was being arrogant and insolent and turning away when she was being asked questions, and someone pushed her head around to face them - I would not consider that 'hitting' or 'beating up'. I think she's exaggerated the whole thing to get pity. But yes, if someone admits whacking her repeatedly to get her to 'talk' then I'll accept she was being intimidated at the time.
But I find it odd that the police would single out an innocent 20-year-old American girl, and not her boyfriend or anyone else who was questioned at length.
----------
Soozie wrote:
OK Charlie, fair enough. But I would imagine the percentage of couples being falsely convicted, (husband/wife - boyfriend/girlfriend) is far less.
It's very unlikely that 2 people are both going to be forced into false confessions.
Neither of these two has confessed. But I have no trouble believing they could both be manipulated into changing their stories so as to implicate themselves and each other.
Further, if you're only looking at 'fact' - then you should discount the 'hitting Amanda' nonsense as being one of the factors that led to her implicating Lumumba.
I do not believe, and have never argued, that any kind of serious physical coercion was used against either Knox or Sollecito.
I suspect she implicated Lumumba because the police told her they had proof of his involvement. Just a hunch. Why do you think she implicated Lumumba?
Of course. But we should define 'hitting'. If she was being arrogant and insolent and turning away when she was being asked questions, and someone pushed her head around to face them - I would not consider that 'hitting' or 'beating up'. I think she's exaggerated the whole thing to get pity. But yes, if someone admits whacking her repeatedly to get her to 'talk' then I'll accept she was being intimidated at the time.
But I find it odd that the police would single out an innocent 20-year-old American girl, and not her boyfriend or anyone else who was questioned at length.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 9:55 pm | #
Ok thanks for the reply. If it turns out that way, I won't be surprised they picked on her that way. She was (I believe) the youngest and would have been an easy target vs Raffael who probably new the system well enough not to be taken advantage of. I'm not saying abuses took place but it needs to be examined along with everything else.
I suspect she implicated Lumumba because the police told her they had proof of his involvement. Just a hunch.
Why do you think she implicated Lumumba?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:05 pm |
----------
Because she didn't want to implicate Rudy? I honestly don't know. It's been suggested a few times that if we substitute Lumumba for Rudy, her story might make more sense. The fact she went into so much detail, invented a whole tale around how Lumumba had claimed to 'want' Meredith, had followed her into the bedroom, and how she'd been in the kitchen covering her ears to drown out Meredith's screams, the thuds she heard, etc etc. . . well, it seemed too detailed not to contain at least some truth in it. It's as if she told the truth, but put the wrong person in the frame. Maybe she was scared of grassing on Rudy, who knows? But I think to come up with such a tale shows either a highly active imagination, or a ring of truth.
-------------
Soozie wrote:
Then why did RS lie about speaking to his father at 11.30 pm when he phoned? It later transpired his father had rung, but the phone had not been answered. RS clearly lied in order to make it seem as if he was in his house at the time. Why didn't he just say his father called, but he didn't want to pick up the phone at the time?
I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #
Charlie, he spoke to his father several times a day. I would speculate that before he was interviewed he saw that his father had called and he just remembered that as one of the times and maybe inadvertantly said he was on the phone. Both of these suspects had to have been under a tremendous amount of stress whether they were participants or just having observed the results of a nasty murder.
Soozie wrote:
But I think to come up with such a tale shows either a highly active imagination, or a ring of truth.
There are active imaginations involved in this case, alright. Mignini and/or Matteini initially told the press that this murder resulted from some kind of orgy or extreme sex game involving three people besides the victim. That wasn't something Knox put in their heads. It makes me wonder who came up with all the details in her statement regarding Lumumba. Was Knox working her imagination, or was she nodding her head and saying "yes, yes... that's how it was... anything to get this over with"?
There are active imaginations involved in this case, alright. Mignini and/or Matteini initially told the press that this murder resulted from some kind of orgy or extreme sex game involving three people besides the victim. That wasn't something Knox put in their heads. It makes me wonder who came up with all the details in her statement regarding Lumumba. Was Knox working her imagination, or was she nodding her head and saying "yes, yes... that's how it was... anything to get this over with"?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:43 pm | #
nodding yes how it was or yes it could have happen that way? I have a vission vs while I was in the kitchen...ect...ect...
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #
Yes Charlie.
It appeared in many places earlier on. However, the conclusion appears to be that Raf's Dad DID make the phone call but left a message on the answer machine.
On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100.
Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.
He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events...
The Telegraph
hey Skep, idiot wind indeed!
Charlie:
From the Times
Police believe that all three suspects were present at the time of the murder,
although Mr Sollecito told them he received a phone call at his home from his father Franco at 11.30pm, which his father confirmed.
I can't find the contradiction to this right now, but I'll look for it tomorrow.
I definitely remember reading that RS did not answer his phone, and did not respond to a text his father had sent him.
Also from the Times:
"Pathologists’ reports suggest that two people were involved in the killing,
with one holding Ms Kercher down while the other “sexually violated” her."
By the way, regarding Amanda implicating Lumumba, I don't know how closely you followed the events in the early days, but she also claimed that after the murder,
(before anyone had been arrested), that Lumumba had approached her to ask if the police knew how Meredith had died, and what she'd told police etc.
Again, she appears to invent extra detail for the sake of it.
From RS's letter to his father:
Amanda is a fantasist who only thinks of her own pleasure
----------
Brian S. I type too slow!!
If interested. A ten minute video of Paul Ciolino & Peter Van Sant discussing Amanda Knox. They want everybody to contact the State Department?
http://www.kirotv.com/video/1585...8894/
index.html
Note: Steve thanks for the new web page.
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 10:48 pm | #
BTD If you go back to November/December/January timeframe there were so many leaks and documents coming from the ILE and the defence teams, it was crazy. This was much criticized by the by the judges and an "official caution" was handed out.
Then, "news" really did become short in supply for a few weeks. Everything did appear to clam up until one day Lalli released his final autopsy report to the press two weeks early. He was fired.
Back to Detention wrote:
This is what bothers me but how do any of us get to that part of the story? We don't have the transcripts to the interogation.....waaaaaaaaa!
We lack transcripts, and we don't really know how accurately the authorities and the media have described what the suspects actually said at various times.
If the case against Knox and Sollecito actually goes to trial, I suspect the court will render its verdict on the basis of physical evidence.
I think more 'truth' was revealed in the first few weeks than anything since. Except for Lumumba's involvement of course.
It would not surprise me to learn that Amanda had been the one holding Meredith down while Rudy did what he did. Then I suspect she fled to the kitchen and covered her ears while Rudy finished Meredith off. The 'alleged' handprint on Meredith's face (purported to have been Amandas) and various other things that link her to the scene could all end up being hard evidence against her. And only the police know what they have. But I'm assuming if the initial reports were correct, then Amanda is in the right place.
----------
We lack transcripts, and we don't really know how accurately the authorities and the media have described what the suspects actually said at various times.
If the case against Knox and Sollecito actually goes to trial, I suspect the court will render its verdict on the basis of physical evidence.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 11:13 pm | #
Charlie, today the cbs folks said that the statements they had were in broken english. Do you think they have an actual copy of the statement(s) by Amanda Knox? If not, they are just going to inflame the situation even more but if they do have an actual copy and it is in broken english then I would start to wonder why it would not be clearly written.
A friend sent me this link from a local radio station in Seattle. http://icestream.bonnint.net/
sea...12008154446.mp3
These guys were saying some pretty inflammatory things and I am certainly wondering if they have the balls/evidence to back up what they were saying. State Department? What does this mean?
It would not surprise me to learn that Amanda had been the one holding Meredith down while Rudy did what he did. Then I suspect she fled to the kitchen and covered her ears while Rudy finished Meredith off. The 'alleged' handprint on Meredith's face (purported to have been Amandas) and various other things that link her to the scene could all end up being hard evidence against her. And only the police know what they have. But I'm assuming if the initial reports were correct, then Amanda is in the right place.
----------
soozie UK | 04.11.08 - 11:18 pm | #
Soozie, I thought I read something about the hand print being larger...? I will go back and see where I saw that.
Hold on to your hats!
I don't remember reading about this before re: RS, or if I did, I forgot about it.
His diary also reveals how he was "psychologically tortured" at Perugia police station after being made to strip naked and put in handcuffs.
--------
Hold on to your hats!
Nowo | 04.11.08 - 11:23 pm | #
Woooooooooooooooooooooosssshhhhh
"An imprint found on the face of murdered British student Meredith Kercher reportedly matches Amanda Knox's fingerprints, a hearing in Italy has been told."
This was posted in an earlier Haloscan, 1 or 2, so I'll try and find the original later.
I just think that if ANY of this has been proved, (and we don't know about it), it would explain why the police are so confident about her involvement.
---------
Handprint on Merediths throat? It is real and it is from a large hand, like that of a basketball players.
I dunno but I bet if you placed a certain someones hand on that area, with the wounds being where they are, I bet it matches the wound that he has on his hand.
The knife...the one that is supposedly used in the murder is a straight edged knife and the one that inflicted the wounds on Meredith are from a serrated knife, so the report says. Mignini used our willingness to be quiet and our respect for the process to use this detail against us. He never corrected this error in the public domain because it helped him.
That is all changing now.
We will not be quiet, we no longer respect him or the process because it is flawed.
Watch the 48hrs show on April 12th to see just how flawed it is.
Mignini's butt is on the line. He has to look good in this case or else. His Supreme court hearing is the day after Amandas. She has not been charged, she is just a suspect. Mignini has been charged. He is more than a suspect and he is in deep for what he did to the judges in Florence.
So, ask me and if I know, I will tell you. I am done with amanda being accused of a crime she had no part of and I am done keeping quiet.
Chris Mellas | 03.27.08 - 2:14 am | #
I have not read that far back yet but I remembered the above from the night Chris Mellas was online. I know it can't be used as truth, but I don't know why he would say that about the hand.
Just posted this on the old thread by accident, so I repeat:
Charlie Wilkes: I have an idea
You seem like a fellow who has lots of energy, time to put into issues, and are willing to delve into discussions. What we need is someone to organize the material in a chart-like format for comparison - a chart of who did it/might have done it, and why - if you will. This way you can actually help all of us on the blog.
Presumably, you have a nearby library and time for research. You might enjoy looking at books on organizing material. An old book comes to mind: Edward Tufte's, 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.' It might give you ideas on how you can put the case material into a form that can be understood by many, not just verbal discussions that remain so linear. I would assume by now you have had enough of the back and forth on the case, and the questions you have asked have all been answered. So, this might be a great time to put it into form. We would all appreciate the document, to be sure. If it needs translation, you have a good group on hand. Editing skills abound. One direction could be by 'accused' taking each of the jailed accused and presenting a pro and con list. Another could be a list of clues: both admitted into court, and others that are presently hearsay. It could be done in color. Excel has lots of possibilities for this expression. It just seems you are ripe for developing and trying out other roles here. You might even put yourself in as devil's advocate! A good list of pros and cons for each of the accused might just be the thing that makes it very clear.
I do hope you take this in the spirit it was intended, as going around in circles is exhausting for everyone. Sorry if I don't have the time to respond, but earning a living trumps trivial pursuits.
Thanks,
Thanks for the links, DLW and BTD.
I'm looking forward to the 48 Hours Mystery tomorrow night.
The Pinecone Theory is still solid.
May wrote:
Presumably, you have a nearby library and time for research. You might enjoy looking at books on organizing material. An old book comes to mind: Edward Tufte's, 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.' It might give you ideas on how you can put the case material into a form that can be understood by many, not just verbal discussions that remain so linear.
It's a nice idea and would no doubt enhance my stature in this group. But someone whose views are more in line with the group consensus ought to take this project on. So I respectfully decline.
But thanks for thinking of me.
I do hope you take this in the spirit it was intended,
You may be sure of it. 
So, based on the links posted by Brian and BTD, 48 Hours is saying there is absolutely no evidence - zero, nada - against Amanda. That they checked everything out and every single accusation against her is false. That every parent of a college student should be outraged and contact the State Dept to protest.
I don't generally watch TV but does this program wield that kind of influence? Is this simply all for show? For ratings? Is it possible that they believe what they are saying AND have investigated in good faith?
Is there ANY possibility that absolutely NONE of the things that have been reported in the press over the past four months implicating Amanda have any basis in truth whatsoever?
Peter and Paul seem to have a very, um, "American" perspective on the Italian system. That certainly doesn't speak well for their objectivity. And they are very comfortable stating a slew of horrible accusations against Rudy as fact.
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
I still have so many unanswered questions - especially regarding all the conflicting alibis. But the scenarios of guilt are not yet convincing to me either.
Is it possible that this show will push the situation so that we will, in some way, get closer to the truth? Or is that just wishful thinking?
The link I referred to above was from DLW, not Brian. Sorry, DLW, I should have double-checked.
The link I referred to above was posted by DLW rather than Brian. Sorry, DLW, I should have double-checked.
Is it possible that this show will push the situation so that we will, in some way, get closer to the truth? Or is that just wishful thinking?
kb | 04.12.08 - 12:19 am | #
It won't make the slightest bit of difference in Italy.
Nor will the State Department be able to intervene.
Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are all being held for up to a year, as they can be according to the Italian process. They have not been charged for trial, but the courts consider they have enough evidence to justify holding them as suspects.
That's just the way it is in Italy.
It's the way their law is written by act of parliament. It would also appear that the Italian system has made allowances for those who are later found to have been held unjustly. They will be awarded compensation.
It may seem a strange way to run things to many of us(i'm from the UK) who are more used to common law, but that is the way they do things in Italy.
State Department? What does this mean?
BackToDetention
Paul Ciolino during his interview with KIRO in Seattle says ‘it’s going to take a lot of pressure from out State Department to get some forward movement for this young lady’ and ‘they need to get right on this'.
kp: No problem, Brian needs credit for his input, along with many other fine posters..
Thanks, DLW
Hi Corrina I was thinking of Bali somewhere like that I think Paul C Wilkes will gladly pay for all of us after all the dosh he makes on the CBS bull.
Hi Nicki,
Yes definitely south or Far East, not Scandinavia or somewhere ice cold like Oceania and her blog hubby Paul Wilke's theories, I strongly ponder.
To that I'd say, put another record on, it's so stuck
So here we go round and round
My baby loves to hide
Yes Oceania but you write billions of little posts in your full flight consdescension of towards others and that's why you get it mirrored back.
You say I unlike others here Me as breath of fresh air
but it is your cut on it not anyone elses.
You fail to offer explanations for questions asked and are sound like someone stuck in a revolving door.
How is Amanda going to explain how she was at Raffaele's place but he says she wasn't?
Explain that in a down to earth and believable way.
Is there ANY possibility that absolutely NONE of the things that have been reported in the press over the past four months implicating Amanda have any basis in truth whatsoever?
kb | 04.12.08 - 12:19 am | #
Sadly, yes.
Jeez, new gasoline computer like they have in Eye Talia typos again
Yes Oceania but you write billions of little posts in your full flight of condescension towards others and that's why you get it mirrored back.
_____________________________________
Knox: I was at Raffaele's house all evening and night.
I read Harry P and ate, watched a film with Raffaele, then woke up at 10 the next morning, then went to my house and found the door open.
I went in, there was blood, I took a shower, then went to Raffaele to tell him I think that there was a robbery at home.
Sollecito: I was at home all evening and I was on my own.
Amanda was not there with me, until 1 at night.
She left at 10 then I stayed in bed, then she came back then we went to her house to check the robbery out.
Judge to Knox's lawyer Ms Oceania: Please, what does your client have to say to Mr Sollecito's claims?
Sadly, yes.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 1:06 am
________________________
You must be kidding
Yes, Brian, I know it's the way they do things in Italy - and I don't have a problem with that.
But it is chilling to contemplate the possibility (the POSSIBILITY, people, however remote) that a naive, innocent, young girl (perhaps like my own daughter) might be unjustly spending many months in prison.
This could, however, happen anywhere. It is not the fault of Italian law. If Peter and Paul are correct, it is the failings of individuals, not of the system.
kb wrote:
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Hi Brian,
That what they keep saying about being able to keep suspects a year, before charges are brought, all within the guidelines for the preliminary proceedings, is another inaccuracy, the fact is, as far as I have found out about the law in Italy, that a suspect can be held for two years if neeed be, prermission has to be applied for, it can happen in certain cases.
I have explained how the concepts differ between say UK or USA and that of Italy, so because these folk are seen as having serious pointers towards them, as being involved in a murder, they are confined, under the concepts of 'custody pending trial' these folk are considered in a way, charged, otherwise they would have been released after four days, the maximum that Italian police may hold someone without charging them, the procedure now involves preliminary investigation, then charging formally, then trial.
These people in custody can be considered charged. Just the various system's concepts do not equate.
Some people have understood the difference I've pointed out Brian, and some others just keep shouting out their same inaccurate stuff based on their ignorance of law.
Oew they haven't been charged, oew they haven't been charged, oew they haven't even been charged, oew they haven't had bail (is no bail system in Italy comparable to that in UK or USA).
So, Charlie, we can't believe ANYTHING that has been published in any of the media?
And there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that, at this point, Amanda has no alibi? (She says she was with Raffaele, he says she wasn't.)
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
________________________________
Where do you get off Paul?
Like you are so fake. You pretend to know a little but all as you are doing is faking things, because you are involved as a paid-up person, the way yoiu camje here with this agenda, you are not arguing points, you are just telling everyone, this is how it is, when that is only your opinion.
How can you know what evidence the prosecutor has compiled, I know you don't know.
Simply because you say it is so, it is so.
That is ignorance to make such sweeping statements, based on nothing but yiour fixed agenda.
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
What is your factual basis for that statement, Charlie?
typing corrections
Hi Brian,
That what they keep saying about being able to keep suspects a year, before charges are brought, all within the guidelines for the preliminary proceedings, is another inaccuracy, the fact is - as far as I have found out about the law in Italy - that a suspect can be held for two years if need be, permission has to be applied for, it can happen in certain cases that an extension is
given so that preliminaries may run for up to TWO YEARS. FACT.
I guess those suspects had better get their stories straight fast.
Did anyone ever explain how Barcroft Media obtained copyrights on crime scene photos which appeared at this link: http://tinyurl.com/2fqqlp
I imagine all the leaked evidence would have had little value had the theory of the crime not been so outlandish.
Thanks to Seattleite for introducing me to that possible angle of the case. Knox appears to be Mignini's ace in the hole.
John,
Nobody is talking about charges or bail.
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb wrote:
This could, however, happen anywhere. It is not the fault of Italian law. If Peter and Paul are correct, it is the failings of individuals, not of the system.
Indeed. Italy is a civilized country, a democracy with a criminal justice system that affords suspects due process and an opportunity to defend themselves in court.
But abuses can happen in any system. I recognize the patterns in this case because I am familiar with so many cases in the U.S. where prosecutors railroaded innocent people.
Are people checking out these links, or have minds already been made up?
OK, it sounds like I'm getting cranky. I'm off to bed.
Until tomorrow...
Brian S. wrote:
What is your factual basis for that statement, Charlie?
My statement has the same factual basis as your statement that Sollecito killed Meredith to keep her from calling the cops. It's a conclusion reached by examining all the information I have found on this case.
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb | 04.12.08 - 1:39 am
________________--
You are talking about what you are talking about, I find that subject nonsense and irrelevant, CBS isn't going to get her released. You can believe the hype.
Your choice.
I AM talking about charges, I dictate to me what I talk about KB, you do not make up my mind for me, nor does Paul Wilkes.
These suspects are as good as charged.
And I think they may ALL be guilty.
Every reason to hold them is reasonable under the circumstances.
Amanda wasn't hit, in my view, no, and nobody is able to answer our questions here, about how Amanda is going to explain why Sollecito is calling her a liar. The RAILROAD is Paul Wilkes and his repeating the same robotic statements.
Explain that in a down to earth and believable way.
TLC | 04.12.08 - 12:59 am | #
I have been posting in a down to earth believable way since I got here. It's just that you, and many others, refuse to look at the other side of the story. I have read all your theories and opinions and arrived at my own conclusions. If you feel your view is threatened in any way you lash out with personal insults, condescension and derogatory remarks. Most of you have participated in this, the sly, snide comments, the group support, it fits with the group instinct mentality. You seem to think your all being terribly clever and funny but it's actually terribly childish and transparent. It amuses me.
You have gone on and on about the fresh air thing, it was a joke, a double entendree as you first seemed to have grasped but have since had some sort of humour lobotomy over. I have put forward a lot of well thought through and insightful accounts to what I think happened in terms of RG being the perpetrator of this crime covering his profile, motive and how he carried it out. Many of your theories revolve around things like "Raff lost it because he didn't want his reputation ruined and killed Meredith, but he didn't leave any DNA because he had a surgical suit and gloves on and a swim cap"
And you ask me to keep my theories down to earth and believable !
The only other person I have this much trouble trying to put to bed is 7 years old.
The cheapest trick you love to pull out of your well worn deck of insult cards is the 'because you think only RG did it Miss High and Mighty, you cannot care about Meredith'. I do feel a very real connection to Meredith as I have a son who went to Perugia under similar circumstances and who lives 750mtrs away from where her life was taken. I sincerely hope
whoever committed this horrible crime pays severly for it.
But I'm sure you will be able to find fault with those sincere words as well.
Maybe I should copy some of the other posters and say 'this is the last time wasting post of yours I shall ever read and respond to, I shall ignore you for the rest of my life....pout..stomp....slam..'
We're talking about time spent in prison. If the suspect is guilty, no problem. IF (I'm talking theoretically here) the suspect is completely innocent, and there are problems with the investigation, that is an unsettling situation.
kb | 04.12.08 - 1:39 am | #
kb,
The detention of Raffaele and Amanda has been appealed all the way up to the Italian Supreme Court by their defense teams.
Charlie will tell you that the Supreme Court is just a rubber stamp organisation, but I would suggest that's just his opinion.
MY EMAIL ADDRESS
charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com
Since we're getting so chummy...
Pinecone | 04.12.08 - 1:35 am | #
Hi Pinecone, good to see you back again, you disappeared shortly after I arrived here. Just wondering if you have you updated any part of your theory since reading RG's diary ?
AP Breaking News Friday Night
Charles Manson and Family Released!
Charles Manson and his merry band of followers were released today following a long series of appeals. Manson, a known Beatles afficionado and guitar hero to many, was released due to the fact that he neither confessed to the crimes, committed the crimes, or ever recovered from his LSD/Marijuana incduced interviews which were clearly politically motivated against the hippy generation, thus creating mental anguish which tornadoed into depression and ADD. According to Manson's team of attorneys from the firm Captain Mickey & Friends, Manson had recently become a big fan of news programs such as 20/20 featuring true crime stories, and recently applied for another appeal through the State Department. A recent case inspired Manson and his long suffering girlfriend, Sadie Mae Glutz, who continued to pine for each other in one most inspiring romances of all time, rivalling that of Romeo & Juliet, or even Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. Manson was quoted as saying, "I'm so pleased to finally have justice. I've always said these murders had nothing to do with me. It was you people, society, which brought this on yourselves. I'm just artist who loves the Beatles and the Beach Boys. Well maybe not the Beach Boys so much. They owe me money." At his release party at the Chateau Marmont, held in the famed bungalow where John Belushi was found dead, Manson announced that he has sold the rights of his final side of the Tate Murder story. In a bizarre twist, Roman Polanski has agreed to direct the screenplay, with Dina Lohan expressing interest in the Susan Atkins role for her daughter Lindsay, as long as the serious role includes full frontal. That's Hollywood!
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 1:59
I do not have any one theory, I have loked at it from all angles. I take objection to your I UNLIKE MOST OTHERS HERE, as if you are the only one with any sense.
Do not worry Oceania, you have not reacted to any of my questions because you could not answer them, it has been me pulling you up when yiou make riodiculous statements, so nothiung new then there.
I do care about the Kerchers and I know that nothing is okay for them except the truth about what happened. Nobody knows the truth yet. Nobody except the ones who murdered Meredith.
It means you do not know either Oceania.
I do not think you care truly about what happened to Meredith, you have something to do now, defending Amanda Knox.
That is your right. I just think you offer crap points based on theories that do not add up, like the one the other day where you said they would have thrown their own money away to make it look like a robbery. You said they'd have done that if they'd have been guilty of robbing her. It just made no sense at all.
Anyhow good luck and do your best then.
More on the CBS show:
Hired by "48 Hours" to review the case, Ciolino said police don't have any solid evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the killing. Speaking on the program, Ciolino said he's convinced that young women such as Knox -- a Seattle Prep grad who made the UW honor roll -- don't commit murder.
"Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students ... don't participate in orgies and homicides," Ciolino said. "They don't do it. And if you can tell me of one that does, I'd sure like to see her."...
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed...
Seattle PI
I have emerged from the shadows and have a questions to Kermit, SB et al....
Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes and BTD (and his alter egos). Your postings are getting railroaded and it is clear to me that this is a deliberate ploy, to take this blog down a blind one way street.
Keep the faith and just ignore the buggers!
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed...
Seattle PI
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 2:28 am | #
--------------------------------
Thanks Brain S... First time that I have seen abject reporting by Seattle PI recognising the fact that Amanda is not innocent just because the way she looks..... Hold off contacting the state police everyone... she may actually be guilty!
Best regards, LW
Oceania
As it is clear to 99% of the people on this blog that more that one person could not have done EVERYTHING that evening and morning as it is not physically possibly and Ruede has witnesses from disco etc..... Who do you think the other people may have been and why has their prints, DNA, evidence, witnesses been found??
I am sure that CBS may not have covered this question...
Charlie Boy BTD/Goofy/Abdar feel free to chip in also as I value your input greatly
Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf, why do you keep swimming out to sea? You're a land creature, and a lovely one at that.
TLC, we all read, and we all know what's going on. Love your posts.
Charlie Boy BTD/Goofy/Abdar feel free to chip in also as I value your input greatly
Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 2:51 am | #
Love Wolf, are you saying I am these other people? Love it!! Now I think I feel a breeze a blowing!
You have the same motives.... so I naturally link you.... Charlie is more intelligent so gets his own name.
You have the same motives.... so I naturally link you.... Charlie is more intelligent so gets his own name.
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 3:08 am | #
Whatever floats your boat as we drift out to sea (as sparrow points out).
By the way, what are my motives? I never stated any agenda here that would involve any particular motives unless this is a game you play with newcomers to your blog.
Now I see why Skeptical B was making the goofy remarks earlier; cute!
Has Sollecito tried to blame it on Knox by saying she was not with him?
If he did say she was not with him so as to try and make her take the blame how could he have imagined that she would react if it was not true?
Would she not possibly have flipped and revealed all about how they BOTH were involved after she heard that Sollecito said she was not with him?
It may be that he knew Amanda would never just tell the truth, not even if he said that she was not with him.
and that is why he said it.
If it is true, it leaves him at home and Amanda off out without him until 1 at night.
That makes Sollecito look innocent of murder. It means Knox might have done the killing alone or with Guede.
If Guede did it alone then surely Sollecito would have no reason to tell lies about Amanda.
It doesn't look like Sollecito did it alone.
It doesn't look like Guede did it alone, it could have been if the other two had not acted so out of place and strangely, and if Sollecito was not calling Amanda Knox a liar.
There are still many possibilities.
Some theories can be discluded already, like Sollecito operating alone.
Whichever way one looks at it, instead of being able to disclude one of the individuals and say they are innocent, instead one is left being unable to see how they are not involved.
TLC... which ever way you look in the "she said he said" scenario you just know that all 3 played some form of role and
1) based on what Guede says that it was Raf.... I feel that Raf did knife / murder Meredith
2) and what Raf says about AK... he blames her for the whole events that took place.....
Still do not know how Guede happended to be there that night and although I believe that he ws involved in the assault he did not actually murder Meredith. He has more to tell in the saga.. do not hold your breath regarding the other 2 they are following Charlie's advice and saying bugger all until court as each time they write or say anything it is blown away and proved to be false by the reality of what happened.
I cannot see their alibis coming together at all... If Raf changes his he risks everything... if AK changers hers she admits that she was out and about walking around during a period of memory loss!!
LW
I have emerged from the shadows and have a questions to Kermit, SB et al....
Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes and BTD (and his alter egos). Your postings are getting railroaded and it is clear to me that this is a deliberate ploy, to take this blog down a blind one way street.
Keep the faith and just ignore the buggers!
Lurker Boy | 04.12.08 - 2:43 am | #
______________________________________
That is exactly what I thought.
That guy Paul C Charlie Wilkes has no off switch.
TLC, we all read, and we all know what's going on. Love your posts.
Sparrow | 04.12.08 - 3:02 am
____________________________________
Hi ya Sparrow,
That is comforting, because, those with that one-sidedness, seem like enemies of justice for Meredith be it because they undermine all things involved, I find it hard to sit by and let them do that. Sound arguments, I will not ridicule, but simply saying, it's injustice Amanda is the victim, is simply unacceptable.
And it is, like Lurker Boy said, taking everything away from real open discussion.
Thanks for everything, you're very kind.
The tryuth will come out.
Well said Lurker Boy and TLC...
Justice will be served and I have 110% faith in the prosecution and investigation teams
The Media storm similar to the tactics here (probably are one of the same thing).
I think they are hoping for an OJ Simpson sort of trial, bit that will never happen as all this happened in Italy.... that will not change.
Have a great weekend all..... including you BTD.. I am sure you like me will spend some time away from this blog as I am sure that you are a real normal person behind the mask.
As it is clear to 99% of the people on this blog that more that one person could not have done EVERYTHING that evening and morning as it is not physically possibly and Ruede has witnesses from disco etc..... Who do you think the other people may have been and why has their prints, DNA, evidence, witnesses been found??Thanks, Chris
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 2:51 am | #
Hi Chris,
I think there is plenty of time for RG to carry out all the things that happened that night. RG had a time frame of between approx 9pm and 10.30pm, if the witness who saw a black man running from the house is to be relied on. But for the sake of a RG alone timeframe lets look at one and half hours.
9pm sees Meredith walking home, approaches her, says he is waiting for one of the guys downstairs (or some other story), can he wait with her. Within the next half hour he gets cosy with Meredith. They chat, RG flirts, they laugh, Meredith feels quite comfortable at this point.
9.30pm Meredith briefly phones her mum. After the call RG ups the ante about trying to score with her and starts to make a more serious move. Maybe at first she goes along with some kissing and caressing. Maybe this is the point where he gets his finger inside her. Meredith quickly realises where it's heading and starts to back off. RG keeps on pushing for it and starts to lose it. It quickly escalates into a rape situation. By this stage Meredith is fighting hard. RG pulls a knife he probably always carries with him (he was caught in a knife fight in Piazza and had a knife on him when he broke into a daycare in Milan). He holds it to Merediths throat. It turns into a violent frenzy. Meredith is fighting for her life, she grabs his hair. RG may have sustained other injuries from Meredith, which along with the cut on his hand he kept concealed. The knife wounds may have been inflicted over a 10-20 min period. Meredith is fighting for her life. RG strangles her.
10pm - 10.30pm (Not necessarily in this order) Gets towel from bathroom, drips blood on the bathroom floor. Goes to the toilet for some reason it dosn't get flushed. Searches AKs room/drawers. Searches Meredith's bag. Rinses his hands and knife. Gets toilet paper for his cut hand. Takes the money from M's drawer. Covers M's body. Takes phones. Locks bedroom door. Cleans any obvious blood from rest of cottage. Wipes blood from AK's room and drawers. Wipes blood off the outside of the bedroom door. Cleans bloody footprints from the hallway etc. Retrieves rock, throws it from inside at the window in Fm's room.
10.30pm Flees the cottage, leaving the door open, dropping bloodied toilet paper on the path. Either he makes the call to her bank or its some kind of misdial while the phones are in his possession. He ditches them on his way home to clean up.
I should imagine he was pumping adrenalin and moving quite fast, but 20-30 mins is ample to complete those tasks in that small cottage.
Oceania88
Yes. As a scenario, something very close to this.
Still do not know how Guede happended to be there that night and although I believe that he ws involved in the assault he did not actually murder Meredith. He has more to tell in the saga..
LW
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 3:57 am | #
____________________________
If the true version of events was Guede was the one who stabbed Meredith, then to me, it'd mean it would make no sense that the other two did not (and do not) just tell on him.
They've definitely shown they have told lies and that is something that points to their guilt.
They really do seem to be inter-linked. Even if they wanted to tell on the other they can't, what one reveals about the other, he or she reveals about themself, supposing it is a case of joint guilt that is the truth of the case.
In that case, the truth would mean they are all involved so they cannot just tell on the other, like Amanda couldn't, even after Sollecito abandoned her and in doing so cleverly adding a small but weak alibi for himself, robbing Amanda of her alibi.
kb wrote:
Many people do love conspirancy stories. I tend to roll my eyes. But this sort of thing DOES happen. Completely innocent people are accused - and convicted - in some cases. Is it within the realm of possibility in this case?
It's not merely within the realm of possibility in this case. It is all but certainly what has happened.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 1:20 am | #
The one thing I would be prepared to say with certainty about this case is that anyone who is prepared to used the expression "all but certainly" about their own pet theory hasn't really understood the case at all.
And I mean tkll on him because of the evidence pointing to the clean up, and their reasons behind not being able to agree on where they were, points to their involvement and presence, as does the evidence found in the cottage.
The blood spot from Knox was fresh and how they judged that was because it was still not dry and had started to dry only 'from the outside inwards', as blood spots do dry. That is why the forensics stated that the blood spot puts her at the cottage.
There was one fingerprint found from Knox, one fingerprint from the entire apartment, none in her own room.
No trace of anything of Knox, except one fingerprint and blood. I have lived in houses with women, I have had girlfriends enough, but never seen any blood anywhere like on a WC floor or bathroom. Maybe my friends were all very tidy.
Oceania....
OK based on your theory...
We have heard that AK removed the mop and other cleaning materials and it was at Raf's due to him having a burst pipe. We also know that bleach was used in the clean up and it was thorough... i.e. not one finger print of AK in her own room....
Did Guede go shopping and purchase a mop and cleaning stuff?
I disagree totally regarding he having done the cleaning otherwise he would have removed his own evidence not just AK's.... he surely is not that stupid!
Or are you know going to say not only was he as cunning as a fox but as thick as a door post!
I look forward to your views........
My view remains that AK and RS were doing the last night cleaning shift that night... and that is the think along with the alibis and lies that will damn them!
EXcuses the typo's caffeine still not hit me yet!!
Lurker Boy | 04.12.08 - 2:43 am | "a question to Kermit, SB et al.... Why are you pandering to Charlie Wilkes ..."
Welcome Lurker Boy. I hear you, and I apologise to all for the wild goose chase last night. I would probably want to keep on it, because Charlie - unlike Cheese&Rice types - tries to put a structure into his comments, which make them initially attractive for engaging in debate. Indeed, there are some facts behind some of his posts - the Wenatchee, Gauger cases did exist. However, when you start to debate his structure, and show the differences between those cases and Perugia, or the fact that his logic of "Sometimes innocent people are accused, therefore Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, therefore they don't have anything whatsoever to contribute to the investigation" ... that's when the wild goose chase starts.
The chase ended for me when I went to bed after posting the second post of this new thread:
Kermit | 04.11.08 - 8:53 pm | " many of us are holding back on specific feelings about who's guilty of what, although many of us want all those persons who can contribute to advancing the investigation - including the current suspects who proclaim their innocence - to come forward and testify.
Just a few minutes later and three posts later Charlie had the nerve to post:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm | "Kermit, your view that Knox and Sollecito should agree to be questioned further is predicated on a belief that they are guilty."
His misrepresenting my point of view - stated only minutes and a few lines previously - only leads me to believe that he doesn't want to dialogue, and that his famous posting of a few days ago applies at least as much or more to him than to other posters here:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
Enough said.
Lurker Boy, I hope we see more of you and other posters.
-
Kermit wrote:
His misrepresenting my point of view - stated only minutes and a few lines previously - only leads me to believe that he doesn't want to dialogue, and that his famous posting of a few days ago applies at least as much or more to him than to other posters here:
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
I guess maybe I just don't understand your point. How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
I guess maybe I just don't understand your point. How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 5:47 am | #
1) Telling the truth would be a start
2) Clearing up any misunderstanding
3) Clearing their names if they are innocent
They have everything to gain by telling the truth if they are hiding nothing
Lurker Boy wrote:
They have everything to gain by telling the truth if they are hiding nothing
That is a breathtakingly naive statement.
How do you think the suspects can contribute to the investigation, other than by confessing if they are in fact guilty?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 5:47 am |
----------
Interesting to note that you see their only 'option' to help the inquiry would be to 'confess'. What about the truth? Why can't they just tell the truth about where they were that night, just like all the others did who were questioned? Personally, I don't think it would be a good judgement call for them to be released until they can prove they're telling the truth about their whereabouts that night. Despite your comment about 'they didn't have an alibi because they were home alone all night together', so what? Still doesn't explain why they both DISAGREE about whether they were together. That's the problem. They DISAGREE with each other. Filomena and her boyfriend didn't disagree with each other, no doubt because they were really telling the truth and didn't need to deviate from it. I'm sure if they'd also contradicted each other, they would have been questioned further too.
I sure as hell wouldn't be happy for my daughter to be hanging out with them!
Charlie, there are two aspects to this issue.
One is legal strategy: Amanda and Raffaele have very capable lawyers who - from a purely legal strategy point of view - have probably given them good advice to invoke their right not to declare.
Quite another aspect is if Amanda and Raffaele are in possession of information which could help clarify what happened on the night of November 1. You have stated here on different occasions that you don't believe that either Amanda or Raffaele have any information beyond their declarations to ILE up to Nov. 5 ... To throw your words back at you once again:
"That is a breathtakingly naive statement."
By believing that they are in possession of information which could help clarify what happened, that doesn't mean they are guilty (REMEMBER your MISREPRESENTATION of my point of view?). We don't even know which crimes the ILE will deem to have occurred, nor in what order, although murder of one type or another will be amongst them. Quite likely, the information that Amanda could contribute to the investigation isn't 100% the same as Raffaele's.
Filomena, the victim's boyfriend, Sophie, Robyn, the Serbian, have been interviewed before and after November 5. Some old witnesses and perhaps some new ones will continue to be interviewed before the end of the investigation. There's always time and a need for input from anybody who can contribute.
-
LOVE WOLF | 04.12.08 - 5:33 am | #
We have heard that AK removed the mop and other cleaning materials and it was at Raf's due to him having a burst pipe. We also know that bleach was used in the clean up and it was thorough... i.e. not one finger print of AK in her own room....
I thought the mop was supposedly taken by AK back to RS in the morning. RG could have used cleaning materials from the cottage when he cleaned up as much blood as he could from oustide the room where Meredith was murdered.
Did Guede go shopping and purchase a mop and cleaning stuff?
No, what he cleaned up with was already at the cottage.
I disagree totally regarding he having done the cleaning otherwise he would have removed his own evidence not just AK's.... he surely is not that stupid!
He triend to remove as much evidence of his bloody trail outside M's room. He knew M's room was too big a job, so he locked the door on it to delay discovery. When he went into AK's room he may have left some bloody footprints on the floor and bloody fingerprints on her drawers. He cleaned it off possibly with a rag and bleach. So he removed both his bloody trail and some of AK's DNA that was there from previous. I don't know how much I believe of that 'absolutely none of AK's prints found in the cottage' story. Maybe that grew a life of it's own out of the cleaning that RG did in her room. As Charlie points out how could AK selectively remove only her DNA from the entire cottage and leave all the others, that's an impossiblity.
Or are you know going to say not only was he as cunning as a fox but as thick as a door post!
He was more cunning than stupid that's for sure. And luck so far has played sickeningly into his hands with the arrest and implication of AK and RS in his hideous crime. It's also incredible how many poeple believe his lies. How many people discuss about AK stealing M's rent money etc. That was all born out of RG's imagination.
I look forward to your views........
and I look forward to yours.
My view remains that AK and RS were doing the last night cleaning shift that night... and that is the think along with the alibis and lies that will damn them!
There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 7:08 am |
-------
I don't understand why you criticise other people for "refusing to look at the other side of the story", when you are absolutely guilty of it yourself.
It's so hypocritical. How can you not see what you're doing?
Take a look at some of the previous Haloscans, and you will see that yours and Charlie Wilkes theories are not widely shared by anybody. You are both in the minority of people who believe RS and Amanda are innocent of anything to do with this crime.
You seem to be here to present one theory and one theory only. You're entitled to that, but please don't insult the rest of us by accusing us of 'refusing' to look at the other side of the story, when you refuse to look at the 'other side' yourself.
--------------
Nice to see this thread getting (if just a little) back on track. Here are some comments arising from postings made yesterday:
Matteini's report of 9th November contains the ONLY hard facts we have access to.
It does NOT contain ALL the evidence that the investigators had at that date, simply what was considered enough to justify the holding of AK, RS and PL in custody pending further investigations.
That report has been appealed to the High Court who upheld it. We can thus be certain that the evidence it cites concerning RS and AK has not been subsequently been undermined, and can still be regarded as accurate. This is not the case with anything it says concerning PL.
What we have there is selective evidence, reflecting the state of play on 8th November.
Other, less hard facts, can be gleaned from media reports, mostly those that appeared within the first two weeks after the murder.
1. Faeces . When they underwent routine questioning on 2nd November (as did everyone else in any way connected with MK), the only discrepancy (according to the report) in their statements was about the faeces: AK had said there was shit in the lavatory; and RS said there wasn't. It is clear that he must have been questioned specifically on this point because RS 'affermava di aver trovato pulito'. He cannot, therefore have said he hadn't noticed.
In the context of the report, this is used to indicate that RS told a deliberate lie at the first routine questioning.
It is a very minor point; but the significance of the faeces must have emerged during the scientific investigations that also began on the afternoon of 2 November. If AK hadn't mentioned the shit, RS wouldn't have been questioned about it and their statements would have coincided precisely.
However, there must have been something (other things) else, either in these statements of 2 November or which emerged later to cause the police to bring back the two witnesses (as they then were) for a further grilling on 5th November; something serious enough for them to be called in after 22.00 rather than waiting till the next morning.
We do not know what that was (although it has been alleged without source, that the police, bugging AK's and RS's phones, heard her saying 'I can't keep this up'. The fact that AK's friends were re-questioned about what AK had told them about the finding of the body, also suggests that the police knew that AK had told more than she could have known simply from being present when the door was broken down.
They must know this; if it is the case, they chose not to mention it to Matteini when requesting to retain AK in custody.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 8:12 am |
Hi Minotaur. It's probably safe to say that at 13 h or so on Nov.2, when the postal police and AK and RS and Filomena were in the house, there was a clean slate as far as alibis go. But, right from that moment, in successive formal and informal contact with police and other witnesses, there was a chipping away of elements of a "10 point" alibi that the couple had established.
Or better said, rather than a chipping away, a constant addition of new elements, forced by ILE asking more questions. Inconsistencies arose. And the rest is history.
I would be interested to know if any other witnesses had their phones bugged. When did the moment occur that Matteini or Mignini said, "we're going in this direction, against AK and RS"? It wasn't on Nov.2, as the reports then were about an orgy and other types of initial speculation. The discovery was on Nov. 2. The "confession" questioning on Nov.5. In between there was time to decide to bug phones.
I'm out ...
-
2. Telephones
The Telegraph's translation of Matteini's report is quite good, but there are some lapses. One concerns the telephones:
'si deciseva pertanto di abbattere la porta in quanto la stessa Romanelli retenva strano sia il fatto che all'amica Kerker [sic] avesseri potuto sottrarre entrami i telefoni, essendo in usa a quest'ultima can Sim Card alla predetta inestata, sia il fatto che vi fosse la porta della stanza chiusa'
This means ' it was decided, however, to break down the door [to MK's room] , not only because Romanelli considered it strange that her friend Kercher could have lost both phones (the one with Romanelli's sim-card also being used by MK) but also because the door was locked.
The postal police had arrived at 12.35; Filomena arrived at 13.00. We do not know whether AK phoned Filomena before or after the arrival of the postal police. But the investigators do.
Furthermore: in her initial, routine, questioning, on 2 November AK states that she went to the cottage, arriving at 11.00: 'found the front door open; phoned her housemates, but without them replying; went into one of the two bathrooms where she found traces of blood, which she didn't bother to clean up; and to have noticed that in the other bathroom the lavatory was dirty with faeces, which she wondered at, but which she didn't try to flush away'
'verso le ore 11.00 di mattina, di aver traovato il portone d'ingresso aperto, di aver chiamato le coinquiine mas senza risposta, di essersi recata in uno dei due bagni e di avervi trovato tracce di sangui che communque non si preoccupava di puliere, di aver notato nell' altro bagno il water sporco di feci, di essersi meravigliata ma di non aver provveduto a ripulire, de essere uscita dall' appartamento verso le ore 11.30
As both telephones used by MK (i.e. her English one and her Italian one, which Filomena had acquired for her) were in the possession of the police, nothing could have been easier than to check whether AK did indeed try to phone MK around 11.00.
If there is no record of any attempt by AK to ring MK on the morning of 2 November; then AK was certainly lying at that very first interview that afternoon. If there was such a record, it proves nothing: in that case, and she cannot have been unaware that mobile phones record activity, she was deliberately doing what she assumed an innocent person would have done.
[In some of the very early media reports, it was suggested that Sig.na Lana, in whose garden they were found, had discovered the phones because one of them rang. If it was AK who was ringing, she (AK) would have realised that the phones had been found; that would have been the moment to abandon the clean-up....rumbled]
Nothing about the phones is contained in the Matteini report of 9th November. But by then the investigators would have known exactly who phoned whom and when. It was not necessary for Mignini to adduce it at the hearing on 8th November, there being plenty of other evidence sufficient to hold AK and RS (and at that moment PL).
We will only know this at the trial.
The other question is - and it is a crucial one - WHEN did she phone Filomena: before or after the unexpected arrival of the postal police. The investigators knew that too, but chose not to reveal it, on 8th November
In some of the very early media reports, it was suggested that Sig.na Lana, in whose garden they were found, had discovered the phones because one of them rang.
Minotaur| 04.12.08 - 9:03 am | #
--------
In one of the same earlier media reports, it was also stated that when Sig.na Lana answered the ringing phone, that she received a threatening message (evidently not intended for her).
No doubt the police know (or can trace) where the call came from. I'm positive they have plenty more up their sleeves which they're keeping for future reference.
----------
In one of the same earlier media reports, it was also stated that when Sig.na Lana answered the ringing phone, that she received a threatening message (evidently not intended for her).
No doubt the police know (or can trace) where the call came from. I'm positive they have plenty more up their sleeves which they're keeping for future reference.
----------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 9:41 am |
Hi Soozie UK
Did the media report if the caller was male or female? If they had any particular accent?
Raffaele has a pugliese accent
Guede has a local Umbriam accent,I doubt the call would have been done by AK.
The sun is back!
Ciao
"She told me that when she went back home she found the door wide open and traces of blood in the little bathroom. She asked me if it sounded strange to me. I answered that it did and I advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena (another housemate), but that Meredith wasn't answering."
He said the two went back to the house together.
---------
So according to RS, Amanda told him she'd already tried to call Filomena when she was at the cottage (and before she 'ran back' to RS's place).
This would have been at least a couple of hours before the postal police turned up, which no doubt can be proved one way or another.
If she didn't call Meredith, (as she claimed), then I can understand why the police decided to bug her phone, to perhaps catch her out on any other inconsistencies?
-------------
Charlie Boy.....
So you are you a father?
If so did you tell your child to tell the truth always?
LW
A questions Soozie and the Gang? Sounds almost as groovy as 'Cool and the Gang'
When AK said "I cannot lie" about where she was... what was her Mothers or Fathers response?
LW
Did the media report if the caller was male or female? If they had any particular accent?
nicki | 04.12.08 - 9:54 am | #
Not as far as I know. Just that 'someone' called. I think the mobile phone records hold a lot of evidence in relation to who made what calls, when they were made etc etc. If Amanda was already lying before the police even got there, well, you'd have to wonder why.
------------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 10:23 am |
I agree. It's clear that prosecutors have only released a tiny fraction of the evidence, just what is enough to keep them locked up.
Love Wolf - Amanda's mother said the comment had been taken out of context and that it meant "I cannot lie. I was at the house (RS's house) that night."
I haven't paid much attention to that comment since sentences taken out of context can be misleading. For example, the call to RS where she 'allegedly' said: "I can't do this anymore". . . what was the rest of the conversation? Without the full context we don't know what she meant. I know we can 'guess' what she meant, but still, it's only one sentence. The police clearly know, but we don't. They must be keeping the rest of it till later, when they need it.
--------------
About Amanda describing Meredith body in the wardrobe, I have find this link http://tinyurl.com/45kxgj
where it appears that she is quoting Sollecito for the description. Problem is, police excludes that Sollecito even saw the body. I've read several press reports where it is being stated that in no way anybody was even allowed close to the murder room.
Aplogies for typos above, particularly in the Italian.
3. Why did AK accuse Patrick?
There could be several reasons for this, any or all of which may have played a part: and what follows is hypothesis based on the little that we know:
On 5th November the investigators chose to question RS first (from 22.40) and then AK (after midnight). We do not know the reason for this sequence; but it suggests a greater suspicion of the role of AK.
During his interrogation RS said that he remained at the cottage with AK unitl about 18.00, when they went downtown. 'Around 20.30 to 21.00 Knox left him, saying she would go to Le Chic to meet up with some friends while he returned to his own flat, where he received a phone-call on his land-line from his father at 23.00'.
'verso le ore 20.30 - 21.00 la Knox se era allonntanata dicendogli che sarebbe andata presso il pub le Chic per incontrare degli amici mentre lo stesso era rientrato nella propria abitazione, che alle ore 23.00 aveva ricevuto una telefonata da padre sull' utenza fissa'.
It was a bad mistake that RS said he had 'received' a phone call on his land-line at 23.00; because we now know he didn't. And note his specification of land-line, to place him at home! So that useful alibi, which his father --who did try to phone him - must have put in his head, is worthless. But this is an aside: what concerns us here is that he said to the investigators, before they interrogated AK, that she had gone to Le Chic.
She, for her part (dal canto suo) told the investigators twice, at 01.45 and again at 05.45, that it was while she was chez RS that she had received a message at 20.30 on her mobile (voicemail or SMs we do not know) from Patrick saying that Le Chic would stay closed that night, [even though we now know (from the evidence of the Swiss academic) that it was open when this alleged message was sent. That important fact was still unconfirmed on 8th November].
'[AK] prima alle ore 1.45, poi alle ore 5.45, dichiarava al P.M che giovedì 5 novembre, alle ore 20.30, mentre si trovava presso l'abitazione di Sollectito Raffaele, receveva un messaggio sul proprio telefono cellulare inviatole da tale Patrick, titolare del pub Le Chic, dove la stessa lavorava, con il quale il predetto la avvisava che quella sera il locale sarebbe rimasto chiuso e che quindi non sarebbe dovuta andare, la medesima gle rispondeve che si sarebbero visti dopo....'
Because RS had told the investigators that AK had gone off to Le Chic, they would have focused on this when questioning her between midnight and 06.00 on 5th November. That may have given her the idea of implicating PL.
BUT, at the same time, the investigators -- as I havep pointed out before -- CANNOT have been unaware, by the morning of 3rd November at the latest, of the involvement of RG, whose fingerprints (on record as a petty criminal in Perugia) were all over the crime scene.
So they would certainly have grilled AK and RS about him (if only under the generic description of a black man). AK may well have found it convenient to conflate the two references to black at least one of which she knew.
What always worried me (Minotaur) is that PL is rather short; while RG is rather tall.
In any case, the investigators continued to hold PL, even after they had confirmed that there eas nothing to link him to the scene of the crime. Given AK's testimony, they had every reason to do so; and they may have done so quite cynically to lull RG into a false sense of security in the hope that he might reveal his whereabouts.
Which he did.
PL will get compensation; and he will be a celebrity for some time.
In any case, both RS and AK can be shown to have lied, and seriously so, at a very early stage when there would have been no reason to do so if they were not involved in the crime. Which I believe, on the basis of what we have been told by reliable, if not unimpeachable sources, to be the case.
Q.E.D.
Thanks Soozie,
Appreciate about the context bit but what the mother or fathers says probably gives an indication of what AK was talking about
Best regards, LW
nicki:
From the Times, Dec 18th.
"Mr Mignini reminded Ms Knox that when first questioned at Perugia police station as a witness the day Ms Kercher's body was discovered,
she had told other witnesses she had seen Ms Kercher lying next to the wardrobe with a wound to her throat which had cause her to die "in slow agony".
She had given a similar description of the scene to Marco Zaroli, the boyfriend of Filomena Romanelli, one of two Italian female students who shared
the cottage with Ms Knox and Ms Kercher."
There's nothing here to suggest she got this information from RS, especially as you correctly noted that NO ONE was allowed to enter the room (according to the police). But RS still gave an account of looking inside (once police had broken down the door) and described the scene, saying there was blood everywhere and he couldn't recognise it was Meredith etc etc. So he seems to have got a good view from the outside, even though he didn't actually go inside.
Also, Amanda was being questioned as a witness at the time, not a suspect.
----------
I think it is fair to say Oceania et al...
AK and RS have been rather dumb in all this......
or like Charlie and BTD they must think that the police and investigators are very dumb.......
I know which side I support and who I believe.......
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 10:53 am |
I guess this is a conflicting conflicting report then, La Stampa that I have linked above, has a different story. It did surprise me I have to say. Oh well guess we can discount it then, since the other reports are in line with the Times.
And the body wasn't found near the wardrobe. It had been moved. The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there. When I recall Amanda talking about 'thuds' while she covered her ears, I assumed it could have been Meredith's body being dragged from the wardrobe to the other side of the bed.
------------
The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there.
According to La Stampa, she learned it from Sollecito. But I guess that is wrong, the reporter must have been confused.
According to La Stampa, she learned it from Sollecito. But I guess that is wrong, the reporter must have been confused.
nicki | 04.12.08 - 11:05 am | #
----------
I'm confused too. Like I said, RS managed to describe the scene when police broke the door down, and he also describes dragging Amanda away as she was 'screaming'. The police must know which of them mentioned the wardrobe, and in Amanda's case, I think the 'defence' is that she overheard police talking about it at the police station.
------------
I would love to know by the Lone Wolf and "Guededidit" theorists why there is ANY confusion at all from RS and AK about what they did and not see especially when they were at home all night until AK came back on the Sunday and if it is proven that they were not allowed to see the crime scene then they should have said nothing as they knew nothing?
Cannot wait for this court case!
I think we should get TLC to write the court script.. he is rather good at that......
"...Dalla messinscena del furto nella casa della «morte», alle strane «visioni» di Sollecito - a detta di Amanda - che «vede» il corpo di Meredith nell’armadio..." La Stampa
"...From the staging of the break-in in the "house of death" to the strange "visions" of Sollecito-according to what reported by Amanda-who "sees" Meredith's body in the wardrobe..."
The who seems to be referring to Amanda, but then what are Solecito's "visions"? I find it confusing.
to the strange "visions" of Sollecito
-------------
Do you think it shold have read 'Lumumba' instead of Sollecito? That would make more sense.
"When police arrived they knocked the door down straightaway and
Raffaele followed them into the room."
"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said. "It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming.
I dragged her away because I didn't want her to see it, it was so horrible. "It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place. It was so sinister because other parts of the house were just as normal."
-----------------------
Is it any wonder we're confused??? I guess they were both present when the door was knocked down, and they both saw inside the room (without needing to go inside),
so I don't think RS followed them inside. How could the police run the risk of contamination?
But with regards to 'seeing Meredith's body by the wardrobe' - if this is true, it's pretty damning evidence, whichever one of them said it.
-------------
Do you think it shold have read 'Lumumba' instead of Sollecito? That would make more sense.
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:24 am | #
That would make much more semse, perhaps is a typo?
The police have said no way anybody entered the room and that makes very much sense. I do believe too that "seeing Meredith'd body by the wardrobe" is damning evidence. There is no way anybody overheard it at the police station because at the time the police didn't even know that Meredith had been killed by the wardrobe. They only found out a few days later. The story "Amanda overheard the police" is pure crap.
There is no way anybody overheard it at the police station because
at the time the police didn't even know that Meredith had been killed by the wardrobe.
---------------
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I did wonder how AK managed to overhear such private information (when nobody else did!). Are her ears much bigger than everyone elses?
And for the people who believe AK is an 'unfortunate' victim of circumstance - I wonder what they make of her comments. If the police didn't even know at the point, no one can argue that Mignini put the idea in her head, since he didn't know at that point either!!! So how did she know??
-------------
"the strange "visions" of Sollecito-according to what reported by Amanda-who "sees" Meredith's body in the wardrobe..."
'who' refers to RS, 'strange visions' because that is not what he could have seen (MK was not in or near the wardrobe at this point).
Well I guess we'll find out soon enough whether AK was reporting what RS told her, or if it was her own words.
So how did she know??
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:49 am | #
What about she was there when Meredith was murdered?
I think this is one of many reasons why she's been held. Meredith's friends told police that they learned the detail of the wardrobe from Amanda on Nov 2 I think.
Raffaele has almost become a prosecution witness against Amanda.
He is not providing her with an alibi. He recovered his position on Nov 5. He has not significantly changed his story since. I can understand him clinging to his right to silence. Any changes in his statement at this stage will only muddy the waters as far as his defense is concerned. His defense team are currently trying their damnedest to dispute any forensics linking him to the crime scene.
When eventually questioned at trial he (or his team if he remains silent) will continue to insist that he was home alone.
Does this explain and is it the case that Amanda's defense team at this stage can only offer the defense of abuse of process by the prosecution? Is this the line they will carry into court?
I don't understand why Chris Mellas clings to: "Amanda has told the truth, she was with Raffaele".
That's not what Raffaele says.
I don't understand why Chris Mellas clings to: "Amanda has told the truth, she was with Raffaele".
That's not what Raffaele says.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 11:54 am | #
-------------------------------------
Brian, because that has to be what they go into court with otherwise she is doomed. ... and they know it. If a witness saw only her out also that evening then I am not quite sure how that will also have to be explained away.
Once all the evidence is laid on the table then I think the writing will be on the wall.. hence the media storm at the moment about discrediting evidence and DNA samples and also the PM stories... they are desperate Brain... they know it... Charlie Wilkes knows it.....
I think Oceania truly believes her view which I admire but not the way that she discounts and explains away everything that merely hints that more than one person was involved... which I would stake my mortgage and house on!
Cannot wait for this court case!
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 11:12 am |
____________________________________
At your service Love Lupo (a wolf in Italian I think)
Court 1 in session
Charlie W McGarrett from the Five-O team tries to have the judges arrested before disguising himself and sneaking back in as lawyer.
Charlie Mc Garret: Book 'em, Danno!",
No, no, not them, there, says his secretary Oceangoer
Judge: Defence present your case
Charlie Mc Garrett quickly puts on an old grey wig not knowing they don't do that in Italy and proceeds as lawyer
Charlie Mc Garrett: Well, because women, from Catholic schools, never commit murder and nice girls like that just never do that, 'n' all, and, do I even have to state the obvious? a girl whom is pretty, could never do anything wrong, well, then I see it as my duty to order you 8, dumb Italian judges, to release this innocent girl immedi ate laaaay from your sav - age and prim - i - tive countraaaay, before I gits angraaaay. That pretty girl must be innoccent.
I rest my case.
Quickly grabbing a scrap of paper he makes an airplane and scrawls innocent in Latin - that he'd looked up and written on his wrist earlier - on both wings, throwing it full force in the direction of the judges panel.
Anon
Brilliant... I have just spilt my tea.....
lol
Thank you
That's not what Raffaele says.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 11:54 am |
I agree with you Brian that RS has almost become a prosecution witness,I can't see how at this point he could change his version again and revert to version no.1.
On the other side, there's RG claiming that RS was the misterious Italian murderer, and RS claiming he has never seen the guy in his whole life. So I think there must be much more to it, as prosecution is maintaining the involvement of all three.
That was my tender post to Charlie Mc Garrett up thaaar, ya all.
Sheriff John Brown here, from the Marley recud, I shot Mc Garrett, don't even mention his darned deputies, no no.
He's guilty of falsely letting every potential murdering, raping and a looting crook off that he can. Great guy.
So how did she know??
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:49 am | #
What about she was there when Meredith was murdered?
nicki | 04.12.08 - 11:54 am |
-------------
EXACTLY!! Even if the police are accused of manipulating her words in order to mention the wardrobe (when they themselves didn't even know) - how can it be explained that she also told one of the flatmates the same story?? Personally, I think she was over excited and just blabbed before she thought of what she was saying. And she can't take that back. The housemate is an impartial witness, no hidden motives, no agenda, nothing.
------------
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 12:02 pm |
Loved it, a TLC style piece !
Thank you
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 12:04 pm | #
________________________________
I forgot to mention he cocked his head downwards as though he ought to be staring at the floor but raised his eyes upwards like lifting two lead weights, and peered and sneered at the prosecutor in a long outward breathing through his nose job, exclaming, I should coco, in Italian, throwing the wee jet full force in the direction of the judges panel.
So when Oceania and Charlie Wilkes check back in - I'd be interested to hear what they think of Amanda's incriminating description of Meredith by the wardrobe.
They should also bear in mind she told this to a flatmate AND other witnesses. Are all the other witnesses lying??
No wonder they're keeping her locked up!
-----------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 12:07 pm |
I think this wardrobe issue is one of the first red flags that police saw along with the other inconsistencies. It doesn't matter if AK and RS saw or heard the police discussing the body, because at the time nobody had a clue about the wardrobe. The press reports of the first days actually speculate that Meredith was killed on or by the bed, where she had been found-see the drawings on La Stampa article-.
And the body wasn't found near the wardrobe. It had been moved. The police wanted to know how Amanda knew Meredith had been by the wardrobe (where it's suspected she was killed) if she hadn't been there. When I recall Amanda talking about 'thuds' while she covered her ears, I assumed it could have been Meredith's body being dragged from the wardrobe to the other side of the bed.
------------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 11:03 am | #
Forgive my ignorance, but as I look at the pic of Meredith's room, her body is "by the wardrobe" no matter where it lies on the floor of that very small room. And the bed seems to be against the wall, so the statement "moving the body to the other side of the bed" is very confusing.
nicki | 04.12.08 - 12:08 pm
________________________________
Imma don't wants ta make yas all miserable agin after the lightness but, that was serious, it is reality, that is what certain people are trying on as theory.
No matter how hard they try with all of that simple-minded nonsense, I can't help laughing louder, I can't say, laugh with them, but at that them, because fair is fair and what they are up to, the Charlie boy crew, isn't fair.
Forgive my ignorance, but as I look at the pic of Meredith's room, her body is "by the wardrobe" no matter where it lies on the floor of that very small room. And the bed seems to be against the wall, so the statement "moving the body to the other side of the bed" is very confusing.
Lv2rgu | 04.12.08 - 12:17 pm | #
_____________________________________
The way the investigation sees it she was slaughtered right in front of the wardrobe, not next to it, she was found next to it. They could see shéd been moved by the tracks in her blood on the tile floor.
Yes, but her body is still "by the wardrobe" in a manner of speaking, say, as opposed to "the other side of the bed".
"There was "unequivocal proof" from forensic science tests
that the murder had taken place in front of the dresser, with Kercher on her knees.
Reports said that a quilt had been used not only to cover Kercher’s body but
to drag it to where it was found on the floor between the bed and the bedroom door."
----------
The picture I'm looking at shows the door opening right up against the bed, or nearly so; no room for a body there.
So when Oceania and Charlie Wilkes check back in - I'd be interested to hear what they think of Amanda's incriminating description of Meredith by the wardrobe.
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 12:14 pm |
From what I have been reading in the past days I would expect anything Soozie, from "Mignini muurdered her and he planted the idea", to "the flatmates did it together and they told Amanda, not viceversa" to "
are we sure Meredith was murdered? Perhaps she committed suicide after RG rejected her avances".
Sorry about the above, but I've kept silent during the last couple of days and I needed to release some steam.
Back to ignoring disruption now.
PS TLC I knew it was you!
Among the six Britons are Meredith's best friends Sophie Purton, Amy Frost and Robyn Butterworth, who have already described Knox's questionable behaviour to police.
In particular, Miss Butterworth told officers how she was struck by how Knox, 20, seemed to boast about finding Miss Kercher's body as they all waited in Perugia police station to speak to officers.
Miss Butterworth said: "She was talking at the top of her voice, saying she found the front door open and she went into the bathroom and saw blood on the floor.
"I remember Amanda kept going on about how she found the body. It was as if she was proud to have been the one who found it.
"She was saying how she had seen Meredith's body reflecting in the mirror of a wardrobe.
"I remember thinking her behaviour was very strange. It was as if she wasn't bothered at all. Her behaviour also struck other friends who were there."
Miss Butterworth said Miss Kercher had told her that Knox often brought men back to their flat. And she said the flatmates fell out because Knox did not flush the toilet.
The Leeds University exchange student said she was one of the last people to see Miss Kercher alive.
They watched a DVD with two British friends a couple of hours before she was killed
A prosecution source added: "From their statements we know that Knox told them that Meredith had died slowly from a stab wound to the neck.
"The question is how did she know this particular detail, as only police and the killer would have been aware."
Sorry about the above, but I've kept silent during the last couple of days and I needed to release some steam.
Back to ignoring disruption now.
PS TLC I knew it was you!
nicki | 04.12.08 - 12:26 pm
_______________________________
You are doing just fine Nicki, and the sun is shining through.
LW
If a witness saw only her out also that evening then I am not quite sure how that will also have to be explained away.
I'm a great watcher of behind the scenes happenings.
I have noticed that since the announcement of the 60 year old "superwitness" (that's a new one on me, it must be an Italian invention ) placing Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, not to mention the car driver and tow truck mechanic, there hasn't been any responding comment from either of the defense teams.
Most unusual for this case.
The only response came from Sollecito Snr. Unfortunately he and/or the newspaper used the wrong day, 31st Oct, when stating that he was on the phone to Raf. for an hour at the time in question.
On the night the witness places Raffaele and Amanda in Piazza Grimana, 1st Nov, Sollecito Snr could only get Raf's answer phone at around 11:30.
there hasn't been any responding comment from either of the defense teams.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 12:34 pm |
Good point Brian!
Filomena Romanelli pointed out in successive interviews, on November 7 2007, that Meredith had never let any man into her bedroom except for Silenzi Giacomo, her boyfriend.
On the night the witness places Raffaele and Amanda in Piazza Grimana, 1st Nov, Sollecito Snr could only get Raf's answer phone at around 11:30.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 12:34 pm |
-----------
And yet RS had claimed to have spoken to his father when he called. When Kate Mansey noted RS "seemed desperate to show he had nothing to hide" - well, he also seemed desperate to prove he was at home surfing the internet and chatting to his dad. But we know he didn't speak to his dad.
Maybe, like Amanda - his mouth ran off with him and he can't take it back.
-----------
Below is a link to a Seattle news television interview with Paul Ciolino and Peter Van Sant regarding the 48 Hours TV show. It's almost off topic because it is all about Amanda Knox, although they do mention that Rudy Guede is in custody for the murder of Kercher and imply that he is the only real suspect in this simple rape and murder case.
The 10 minute Flash video (starts off with an ad) presents a lot of opinion and broad summary, and does not detail any hard information, facts, or evidence. Most regular visitors to this blog would view it as being highly superficial and will quickly realize that what has been discussed here goes far beyond what these two investigators have been able to uncover. For example, when they talk about getting to the bottom of Amanda's police interrogation they say they performed in depth interviews with her parents and looked at every detail of her diary.
There is nothing "earth-shattering" at all. They talk about going "undercover" and make the claim that they are the only ones who have actually investigated this case. Again, on the basis of what they present in this interview it is obvious that most regular visitors to this blog do know far more about this case than they do with their undercover tactics. It does not appear that they had any contact with ILE during the the course of their underground investigation.
In summary, this is a propaganda piece aimed at viewers who know nothing about this case. They implore Americans to write to the Sate Department and demand justice for Amanda Knox. They claim that the tsunami of negativity in the UK, Italian, and even US press has demonized an innocent, All American girl. They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty, she will never get a fair trial, and that based on their long experience in wrongful conviction cases the ILE will never back off now that they have started down this road, even if they came to believe that she was innocent.
Like I said - not much mention of Meredith Kercher. Amanda, her family, and all Americans are apparently the real victims here. Now we see the full scope of this massive propaganda attack that has brought so many enlightened visitors to this blog in recent weeks. It will be interesting to see if this approach can really get anywhere. For me this plays like a last-gasp effort in what has been Amanda Knox's only defense strategy so far. There is no apparent interest in getting at any overarching truth. To the contrary, the clear intent of these so-called investigators is to make all Americans jump up and yell, "Bring bring this innocent girl home NOW so she can get back to more important things, like shopping with her mom." Not very likely.
http://www.kirotv.com/video/1585...8894/ index.html
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 12:43 pm |
Thank you for posting the link!
I think the State Department has better and more important things to do than looking over this case.
FBN
They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty, she will never get a fair trial...
It doesn't matter what 98% of Italians believe. As I understand it, they won't make up the jury panel which consists of judges and other appointees.
Thanks FBN...
Last gasp effort just about sums it up...... it sheds NO new light on the case...
I am sure Charlie and Candace and the crew will use the terms 'blown the case wide open'.......
Sad really that at the end of all this they would still be stating that Amanda was an innocent victim and it was all Raf's fault because he drugged her and brainwashed her.....
In the UK we have the 'Sex, Lies and Meredith Kercher' Cutting Edge CH4 show airing on the 17th and I suspect it will be exactly the same.
------------
"With the help of leading Italian crime journalist, Meo Ponte, Cutting Edge examines why Amanda and Raffaele are still under suspicion
and explores intriguing reasons as to why they may have behaved in the way that they did.
Amanda's parents explain to Cutting Edge why they think their daughter is innocent, and the heartbreak they experience every time they see her in prison."
--------------------
I hope the program also highlights the heartbreak Meredith's family experience while all this is going on. It's not just about Amanda. Meredith is dead.
Perhaps they could ask AK's parents how their daughter knew Meredith was lying by the wardrobe??
-----------
Charlie Wilkes theories are not widely shared by anybody...
They are. Just not here.
Perhaps they could ask AK's parents how their daughter knew Meredith was lying by the wardrobe??
-----------
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 12:58 pm | #
According to Chris M Amanda never lies if you excuse the pun!
He said Ms Knox then "told me she was worried. She told me when she had got home the door was open and there were traces of blood in the bathroom. She asked me if that seemed strange. I replied that it did and advised her to phone her friends. She told me she had phoned Filomena (another housemate) but there was no reply from Meredith." The pair then went to the cottage together to investigate.
_______________________________
Here Sollecito in his actua 5th of November statement saying, according to Amanda, she had called Filomena before the pair of them left Raffaele's to go to the cottage. She told him she'd called but he didn't witness it.
These phone records are going to be known.
anonymous | 04.12.08 - 1:00 pm | #
________________________
Are you his mom?
TLC...
Probably the secretary of his fan club.......
he gives his email out he is that popular....
I hope the program also highlights the heartbreak Meredith's family experience while all this is going on.
If it is just an edited version of the CBS show, and no contribution is made by the Kercher family expressing concern about the investigation, it won't cut any ice in the UK at all. Currently the UK population doesn't carry many flags for the US of A.
Huff
"FYI -- I've noticed that several posters in these threads about Meredith's murder are better-than-average writers and incisive thinkers. Please check out this post and think about what I'm asking, if you have the time."
Quite what do you mean by this?
Handprint on Merediths throat? It is real and it is from a large hand, like that of a basketball players.
-----------------
I have not read that far back yet but I remembered the above from the night Chris Mellas was online. I know it can't be used as truth,
but I don't know why he would say that about the hand.
BackToDetention | 04.11.08 - 11:34 pm
----------
I suspect it is wishful thinking. "CMellas" also claimed they have a report which confirms the hair of a black man was found in Meredith's hand.
He doesn't seem to have been back since then, but some of us did ask if he would confirm 'black man's hair', or 'black hair'.
From the handprint comment, it would seem he almost certainly meant 'black man's hair'. In other words, anything that points to Rudy at the exclusion of anyone else.
I don't see any of this substantiated anywhere else. If someone has a link to anything that confirms what "CMellas" claims, please post it!
Charlie Wilkes theories are not widely shared by anybody...
That's because Charlie talks a lot about false confessions, as if everything in this case evolved from that. The Knox "false confession" is not a big factor in evaluating this case - there is tons of other more compelling stuff to consider.
And I repeat:
What always worried me (Minotaur) is that PL is rather short; while RG is rather tall.
FBN
They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty
I wonder what the figures are for Rudy and Raffaele?
And I repeat:
What always worried me (Minotaur) is that PL is rather short; while RG is rather tall.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 1:26 pm | #
There is an implication which could fit in with my "theory", that Amanda didn't see the "black man" and was relying on what Raffaele said.
Lumumba was perhaps the first black man who she could think of with any connection. Amanda was probably well aware that on 31st, Patrick had asked Meredith to see him on the Friday in connection with the bar job.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 1:29 pm wrote: "They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty - I wonder what the figures are for Rudy and Raffaele?"
Well Brian, if we can get around wondering about how these two geeks passed themselves as off as paisanos in their undercover operation we can assume that the unaccounted 2% goes to Rudy, because no Italian would rule against a true countryman.
"They say that 98% of all Italians believe she is guilty".
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 1:29 pm
98% of Italians don't even remeber who AK RS and RG are! They're concerned about elections, free Tibet, Alitalia, and the Erba and Garlasco murders.
"we can assume that the unaccounted 2% goes to Rudy, because no Italian would rule against a true countryman".
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 1:58 pm |
I wouldn't be so sure. In case people would remember who he is, I bet a great part of Northen Italians would think he's guilty.
Niki: sorry, just having a little fun...
I wouldn't be so sure. In case people would remember who he is, I bet a great part of Northen Italians would think he's guilty.
nicki | 04.12.08 - 2:12 pm | #
I'm glad you said that Nicki.
I did consider posting something about the Italian North/South divide the other day but decided against since I'm from the UK.
"That's because Charlie talks a lot about false confessions, as if everything in this case evolved from that. The Knox "false confession" is not a big factor in evaluating this case - there is tons of other more compelling stuff to consider.
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 1:26 pm | #"
Perhaps I have missed a post or two, but I did point out that with respect to the conditions under which this false confession was supposedly extracted, we have only Internet rumors to go by and assertions made by friends of the family. I would like to see confirmation that the struggle session lasted 14 hours and that food, water and toilet privileges were denied.
I think we all agree here that nothing needs to be accepted as an article of faith.
I did consider posting something about the Italian North/South divide the other day but decided against since I'm from the UK.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 2:21 pm |
It's all true Brian, you must now the country well!
OT :Did you read Bossi's latest declarations? I don't vote, but if I did ...it would be a hard decision
I would like to see confirmation that the struggle session lasted 14 hours
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 2:32 pm |
From the "ordine di custodia cautelare" that Kermit has posted in Italian, it doesn't seem that the session lasted so long, more likely 5-6 hours.
Oceana,
Now you are having Rudy buying a mop and cleaning the cottage too???
Okay, so he eats kabob, makes a date with the lovely English Girl, romances her, drinks her wine out of a cup, gets to 2nd base (or whatever) before he decides to kill her, take the money, get his moves on at the local discotheque, goes shopping for a mop and bleach, goes back to the cottage, cleans up, does a little bit of laundry (I wonder if he separated darks and lights!!!), throws a rock through the door, locks up, goes on vacay. To semi-quote another infamous mopper, Scott Peterson, "Rudy 'was amazing.'"
woopsie, I meant he drank the wine out of the bottle because they didn't have any clean cups!
"In any case, both RS and AK can be shown to have lied, and seriously so, at a very early stage when there would have been no reason to do so if they were not involved in the crime. Which I believe, on the basis of what we have been told by reliable, if not unimpeachable sources, to be the case.
Q.E.D.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 10:51 am | #"
Thanks, Minotaur, for this patient three-part demonstration. I have spent a good deal of time looking at the diaries and statements of the suspects, as well as the earliest and most reliable press accounts, and have come to the same conclusion. It may turn out that they have some reason for lying other than hiding their involvement in these crimes (the murder, the possible failure to assist a person in danger, the cover-up), but I am hard pressed right now to figure out what it might be.
Jumpy | 04.12.08 - 2:46 pm |
Wow a cross between Superman and Mandrake!
"CMellas" also claimed they have a report which confirms the hair of a black man was found in Meredith's hand.
He doesn't seem to have been back since then, but some of us did ask if he would confirm 'black man's hair', or 'black hair'.
From the handprint comment, it would seem he almost certainly meant 'black man's hair'. In other words, anything that points to Rudy at the exclusion of anyone else.
I don't see any of this substantiated anywhere else. If someone has a link to anything that confirms what "CMellas" claims, please post it!
soozie UK | 04.12.08 - 1:19 pm | #
Soozie,
I believe CMellas claimed it was from a report the family had received, which implied perhaps it was not released publicly. Many posters have requested that he provide info that is not already public knowledge (partially in order to prove who he says he is), yet when he does, it is discounted because it cannot be substantiated. There's no way to win - because of course information that has not been released to the public cannot be substantiated. We'll just have to wait for the evidence to come out in trial and then we will know if CMellas' information was accurate. Until then, it's like everything else in this case - some will believe it and some won't, but it's all just opinion at this point.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 2:32 pm wrote: "I would like to see confirmation that the struggle session lasted 14 hours and that food, water and toilet privileges were denied."
If the 48 Hours show doesn't pursue similar claims like a territorial baboon, you'll have your confirmation that nothing like that happened. Furthermore, if they try to support this kind of claim solely on the basis of parental statements and Amanda's diary (as they indicate), it will be a superbly weak accusation in the absence of complaints filed with the court to support it.
"There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
Oceania88 | 04.12.08 - 7:08 am | #"
Well, if one assumes Rudy is the lone wolf, then this comment makes perfect sense. The problem is that it assumes precisely what needs to be proven.
It may turn out that they have some reason for lying other than hiding their involvement in these crimes (the murder, the possible failure to assist a person in danger, the cover-up), but I am hard pressed right now to figure out what it might be.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 2:49 pm | #
The lies and conflicting alibis are a major sticking point for me as well. Is it possible that, as CMellas seems to claim, their stories do now match up, but that information has not been released? I assume ILE is in possession of much unreleased evidence (or statements), but I am not convinced that that evidence points solidly in one direction.
SkepThanks, Minotaur, for this patient three-part demonstration.
That's just the beginning. Why do you think the MOP plays such an enormous role in their 'so-called', and non-evidential, prison diaries?
Because they were grilled about the mop; and tried to justify themselves.
Rudy's 'prison diary' is entirely out of bounds as evidence. There is nothing in it that he couldn't have gleaned from the media BEFORE he was arressted in Germany.
Oh dear! This bold lark has made me look foolish again.
"We'll just have to wait for the evidence to come out in trial and then we will know if CMellas' information was accurate. Until then, it's like everything else in this case - some will believe it and some won't, but it's all just opinion at this point.
kb | 04.12.08 - 2:51 pm | #"
You do have to wonder, however, if the report said "black hair" or "black man's hair," which is precisely what we requested clarification on. With respect to the impression supposedly left by a "large hand" on the victim's face, I would like to know, preferably in the form of a simple decarative utterance, whether or not it was stated in precisely this way in a report that was released to the family but not to the public. Incidentally, I see that BTD has helpfully added that this large hand was "like a basketball player's," but again we don't know if that was stated in the report either.
It is both fair and necessary to request clarification when statements like this are planted here. If you look back at the posts in question, I think you'll see that these things are not quite phrased in a "you can quote me on this" way, which is why we ask for clarification. It seems the only responsible course if our goal is to keep rumor, insinuation and misinformation to a minimum.
kb, The detention of Raffaele and Amanda has been appealed all the way up to the Italian Supreme Court by their defense teams.
Charlie will tell you that the Supreme Court is just a rubber stamp organisation, but I would suggest that's just his opinion.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 2:00 am | #
Yes, Brian, that has made me feel there must be some substantial reasons behind Raffaele and Amanda's detention. But aren't the higher courts' rulings based pretty much exclusively on what the prosecution chooses to provide to them? So if the failings are with the investigators or with the prosecutors, isn't it possible that issues might not be discovered through the appeal process? I really don't know, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but nothing about this case seems cut and dried to me. This just seems like a remote possibility that shouldn't be completely ruled out quite yet.
Yes, Skep, I agree. Clarification would be immensely helpful.
Oh dear! This bold lark has made me look foolish again.
Minotaur | 04.12.08 - 3:05 pm | #
When using HTML it really does pay to use preview before posting.
I've been using HTML for some years now but I still regularly make mistakes.
Soozie wrote:
But with regards to 'seeing Meredith's body by the wardrobe' - if this is true, it's pretty damning evidence, whichever one of them said it.
I have read the back and forth on this and I am puzzled.
Why do you find it so hard to believe Knox and/or Sollecito might have seen the position of the body when the police broke the door down? The wardrobe is visible from the doorway, so anyone looking over the shoulders of the police would have been able to see that the body was up against the wardrobe.
But aren't the higher courts' rulings based pretty much exclusively on what the prosecution chooses to provide to them?
Yes and no. In this case the supreme court would have had access to all the 'verbali' from witnesses that had been taken before Matteini's decision on 9th November to keep the (then) three suspects in custodyl
That is what that thatjudgment is about. They Supreme Court simply confirmed Matteini's decision to keep the three (then two) in custtody on the basis of what had been presented to her on 8th November. It (the SC) would have had access to the statements and obligatory tape-recordings.
Nothing more; nothing less.We are still where we were on 9th November, legally. But we do know other things that have not yet been so explicitly confirmed.
The lies and conflicting alibis are a major sticking point for me as well. Is it possible that, as CMellas seems to claim, their stories do now match up, but that information has not been released?
Skep,
Surely, if AK and RS had made new statements, they would have been included in the appeal just over a week ago.
There was no mention of this by the defense teams, they appeared to say that the appeal was based on insufficient or poor forensic evidence.
Indeed RS team has announced it is to start a further appeal based on what they and Telenorba say is poor identification of RS from the footprint. They are going to claim it was made by RG.
AK's team does not appear to be included in any further appeal, but then that particular footprint has nothing to do with AK.
Why do you find it so hard to believe Knox and/or Sollecito might have seen the position of the body when the police broke the door down? The wardrobe is visible from the doorway, so anyone looking over the shoulders of the police would have been able to see that the body was up against the wardrobe.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 3:29 pm | #
That is indeed what Amanda's parents claim to have overheard in their phone call with her - resulting in the alleged hoof/foot mistranslation/misinterpretation.
Thank you for the clarification, Minotaur.
"I don't usually read the poster who sign himself Chris Mellas but this time I have gone through some of his posts because one of them caught my attention. Precisely, the one where he claims that AK called her Mom when she was at the cottage and the police broke down the door and found Meredith's body.He said that AK misunderstood the word "foot" and thought they said "hoof". As a bilingual person I smiled when I read this. A mistake of this kind could be made by an Italian speaker trying to understand English, after all "hoof" and "foot" have similar sounds. The opposite I find hard to believe.How she could confuse the word "zoccolo"(hoof) and "piede" (foot),is beyond me,since they sound totally different.Not that this detail makes a difference in the whole scenario, but it sounds like something entirely made up and as such, to me it is not an indication of the poster's honesty."
nicki | 04.09.08 - 3:09 pm | #
KB:
You may have missed bilingual Nicki's take on this.
Surely, if AK and RS had made new statements, they would have been included in the appeal just over a week ago.
Brian S. | 04.12.08 - 3:36 pm | #
That's what I would have thought, too, Brian, but if I understand Minotaur correctly, the judges were only considering statements from November. No one was allowed to present additional evidence. Is this accurate?
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think we all agree here that nothing needs to be accepted as an article of faith.
Well, some things are accepted as articles of faith by most people here. Here are a few examples:
Innocent people have nothing to fear in talking to the the police.
The police have accurately described statements made by Knox and Sollecito, and the press has conveyed these statements to the public without error.
Given the lies and contradictions in these statements, Knox and Sollecito must be guilty of something.
The fact that Knox and Sollecito are now exercising their right to silence is further proof that they must be hiding something.
The appeal in Rome was only to to consider the legality of retaining RS and AK in custody on the basis of Matteini's decision of 9th November.
The defence lawyers of those two hoped to undo that decision on a technicality (as their profession encourages them to). But they were disappointed.
RG's custody was not part of this process, as evidence relating to him was presented in Perugia only after 9th November.
Please do your homework: it's not difficult, and most of it is on this blog!
Thanks, Skep. I dd see Nicki's post. And Nicki, I am incredibly grateful for your translations as they have provided such valuable information.
I do think, however, that word substitutions happen for many reasons, and direct translation issues may not be the problem here. I often substitute words - or can't think of the exact one for a specific item, especially under pressure. It's the way my brain works (or, more accurately, doesn't work!). But CMellas had no compelling reason to provide that detail to us - it is irrelevant in many ways - so for the moment, I am inclined to believe it happened. I have seen nothing in his posts that leads me to suspect he is purposefully lying to us.
Here's an excerpt from the local Seattle paper (the PI, generally considered to be not as good as Seattle's other paper, the Times) about tonight's show. Notice that another investigator was interviewed, and he feels the evidence against RS and AK is compelling enough to warrant ongoing detention. I wonder if he appears on the show. I ask because I know of at least one Perugian local who was interviewed but whose interview was not used for the program. Notice also that Ciolino uses the same reasoning as Doug Preston (good girls from Jesuit schools don't commit murder). I wonder, though: Does this mean that they ever get into trouble or make mistakes? Maybe I should ask my mom, who was senior class president of her nun-run Catholic high school. Finally, the article ends with the news that 48 Hours did not interview Knox. I wonder why she was not interviewed:
"Hired by "48 Hours" to review the case, Ciolino said police don't have any solid evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the killing. Speaking on the program, Ciolino said he's convinced that young women such as Knox -- a Seattle Prep grad who made the UW honor roll -- don't commit murder.
"Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students ... don't participate in orgies and homicides," Ciolino said. "They don't do it. And if you can tell me of one that does, I'd sure like to see her."
.....
Another investigator hired by "48 Hours," Paolo Sfriso, didn't share Ciolino's view. Sfriso agreed there are problems with the case put forward by prosecutors, but he said there are also some apparently damning pieces of evidence.
There are the shoe print left in Kercher's blood that investigators say matches a pair owned by Sollecito, the knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade. There are the blood evidence on a bra strap that carries DNA from Guede and Sollecito, and more DNA in the sink showing blood from both Knox and Kercher.
And, Sfriso told "48 Hours," there's Knox's strange behavior in the days after Kercher was killed. Surveillance video shows Knox and Sollecito shopping for underwear the day after finding Kercher's body; other shoppers said they overheard the couple talking graphically about sex.
"48 Hours" did not interview Knox."
Well, you're right, Minotaur. It has been covered. But I appreciate your clarification. There's a lot to keep track of on this case. And you have to admit - sometimes there's a lot of **** to sort through on this blog! lol
Charlie Wilkes goes on and on about how police are experts at extracting false confessions and he is certain that this is what happened to Amanda. However, when Raffael was told that Amanda changed her story he wasn't exactly shocked. Instead, he said something to the effect of, "oh, well if that's the case I'm going to stop telling you all this crap I've been telling you because here's what really happened - she wasn't here with me at my place...". This last change came after he had already given several different accounts of what he/they were doing the night of the murder.
To my knowledge, he hasn't changed his story back, or come up with a newer version, to fully support Amanda's claim that she was with him at his place all evening. If Wilkes were to be right, how should we interpret Raffael's changing story line? Is this also be related to some kind of police-induced false confession scenario? This must have been asked before, but I'm not finding anything beyond Wilkes' simplistic police abuse theory regarding Amanda herself.
Fly by Night wrote:
This must have been asked before, but I'm not finding anything beyond Wilkes' simplistic police abuse theory regarding Amanda herself.
However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts.
"Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think we all agree here that nothing needs to be accepted as an article of faith.
Well, some things are accepted as articles of faith by most people here. Here are a few examples:
Innocent people have nothing to fear in talking to the the police.
The police have accurately described statements made by Knox and Sollecito, and the press has conveyed these statements to the public without error.
Given the lies and contradictions in these statements, Knox and Sollecito must be guilty of something.
The fact that Knox and Sollecito are now exercising their right to silence is further proof that they must be hiding something.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 3:46 pm | #"
Ah, Charlie. I think you know very well that we have had lively discussions on just these matters and hardly hold them as articles of faith. We have scrutinized and picked apart press errors, looked at multiple sources, checked with our local correspondents, used official reports issued by judges, in some cases retranslated them, translated Rudy's diary, and so on. We have pointed out the lies and inconsistencies and expressed astonishment that memory gaps have been explained by smoking large amounts of dope (I suspect there are many former stoners among us, which is why we are a little suspicious), but this does not mean I think they "must" be guilty of something--speaking only for myself. I do personally think that innocent people GENERALLY have nothing to fear from talking to the police. If they are socio-economically disadvantaged or a member of a racially "suspect" group, they might have more reason to fear speaking to the authorities in some parts of the world.
However, everyone here has cheerfully conceded that mistakes are sometimes made. We're just waiting to see all of the evidence arrayed and argued in public. As for the decision to remain silent being an indication of guilt, I think you are either willfully misrepresenting the view held by Kermit, Finn MacCool, myself and others or we have not made ourselves sufficiently clear. We think it would be good if they would give a full and coherent account of their whereabouts on the night of the crime and of their behavior in the aftermath of discovery. This may be because we have experience of legal cultures like Italy's, where the goal of this kind of investigation is to arrive at the truth.
In any case, I don't recognize any of my core beliefs in the articles of faith you present.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 3:46 pm | "Well, some things are accepted as articles of faith by most people here. Here are a few examples:"
You forgot to add to your list of articles of faith - yours:
- belief that since in a minority of criminal cases innocent persons are charged, that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent (of what, Charlie doesn't know ... they are just innocent)
- belief that Amanda's alibi was not challenged directly nor implicitly in any way, before the moment when her questioning began on November 5
- belief that Amanda and Raffaele must have low intellectual coefficients, since putting them together would not produce any straightening out of their conflicting alibis, and thereby help the investigation (no Charlie, that doesn't mean there is an expectation that it will happen... AK's and RS's expensive lawyers have given them good professional advice to invoke their right not to declare)
- belief that there is no evidence (physical or forensic) linking Amanda or Raffaele to the aspects of the crime
- belief that all the posters on this board are a monolithic block, convinced that Amanda is guilty of murder
And you complain that it is impossible to reason. Your barriers to entry are higher than those of any individual poster here.
-
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 4:05 pm | "However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts."
On the basis of what information from Perugia do you extend your prior research of police abuse of witnesses in other cases (which I have no doubt exists), to this specific case?
-
"But aren't the higher courts' rulings based pretty much exclusively on what the prosecution chooses to provide to them? So if the failings are with the investigators or with the prosecutors, isn't it possible that issues might not be discovered through the appeal process? I really don't know, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but nothing about this case seems cut and dried to me. This just seems like a remote possibility that shouldn't be completely ruled out quite yet.
kb | 04.12.08 - 3:14 pm | #
KB:
I know you find it laborious to read through all the posts, but I would recommend that you go to the thread that just closed and choose a key word like "Matteini" (the investigating judge assigned to oversee Mignini's work on this case, she has the right to order additional examinations, interview subjects, etc.) for a partial answer to your question here.
Do please turn your attention(s) to the mop:
That is to say the 'mocio'; the 'lavapavvimwnto'; the 'velena'; the 'spazztegole", and other euphemisms.
When this case comes to court, that innocent household item will be a major player.
For our Italian speakers, here's a good report from early November from Il Giornale, with different players' testimony. Reference is made of the GIP (Matteini), although I assume some of the testimony was to Mignini:
http://www.ilgiornale.it/pag_pdf...df.php?
ID=64356
-
Re the Seattle radio programme -- a sort of hors d'oeuvre advertisement for the forthcoming (Amanda-whitewashing) CBS 48 Hours Mystery -- BTD pointed out (04.11.08 - 11:20 pm. Thanks, BTD !).
I have just listened to it and noted some salient points.
Here goes (quotation marks for their very words (as far as possible), square brackets for my own comments (which are few, since what is said speaks for itself -- in more ways than one).
-- They refer to AK as a/this "young lady" (at least twice) and "this kid". Meredith is just the "British girl" (or "the body" or, once, "the victim").
-- They refer to AK as "*the* main suspect". "They have *the* wrong person" [what about RS ?]. "SHE is *the* target." [not RG or RS].
-- AK's "so-called confession" (and accusation of PL) was extorted during a gruelling and bullying 14 hour interrogation (from 4 pm to about 6 am) by 6 Italian interrogators. No food, no sleep, no lawyer. They hint at actual violence (a "physical component").
-- AK "is not fluent in Italian" ; she "doesn't read or write Italian" [??]. So her signing of the interrogation account (which is in Italian) does not mean anything.
-- "There is NO DNA" (of AK). Only DNA found : RG's.
-- Plenty of Rudy-bashing. RG was known (they say) as a violent knife-wielder. As proof they tell this story : he was banned from some nightclub because one night the bartender (or one of the bartenders) there woke up in his bed and saw RG standing there with a (threatening) knife.
-- Bloody handprints (both on Meredith's head and inside her bag) are RG's.
-- They say that RG "fled *the next day* to Germany" [I thought it was several days later ?].
-- RG and AK did not know each other at all. They "never laid eyes on each other". [??]
-- Persecution of AK. Motivation ?
(a) "Palpable antiamericanism" is rife in Perugia/Italy. Why ? Ungrateful Italians ! "We liberated them, remember?" -- "Short memory, Dave ! --like the French !"
(b) Police and judges are protecting their own "reputation".
No word on the alibi discrepancy, of course. But perhaps the (much longer) TV programme will try to sweep that too under the carpet.
At the risk of being OT, am I the only one in the world with a Catholic education who doesn't find it impossible that a product of this education could be capable of anything? Not to mention those who used to dispense this education, before the priest shortage hit. See article below. Given the satanic tie-in, I'm wondering if Mignini wasn't somehow involved in the investigation.
"Catholic priest convicted over satanic ritual murder of nun
A U.S. jury yesterday found a Roman Catholic priest guilty of the satanic ritual-style murder of a 71-year-old nun which went unsolved for more than 25 years.
Father Gerald Robinson, above, was sentenced to a mandatory jail term of between 15 years and life.
There were gasps in the court after the verdict, but the 68-year-old priest remained impassive.
Sister Margaret Ann Pahl was found murdered on a chapel floor in April, 1980. She had been strangled, covered in an altar cloth and stabbed 31 times in the shape of an upturned holy cross.
She had been grabbed from behind and choked so violently that the blood vessels in her eyes burst and two bones in her neck broke. Prosecutor Dean Mantros said that Robinson pushed up the nun's robe and pulled down her underwear.
Robinson was an early suspect but was only arrested in 2004, after a woman came forward with claims that she had been sexually abused by a group of priests who performed satanic rituals and held sadomasochistic orgies.
A spot of blood on the priest's letter opener was found to match a bloodstain on the altar cloth that had covered."
RE-POSTED BECAUSE DISCUSSION MOVES SO FAST HERE.
I may regret this, but -- I've created a message board:
http://truecrimeweblog.freeforum...s.org/
index.php
The only forum ready to go there at the moment is this one:
The Murder of Meredith Kercher.
To post there, you will have to register:
Register to post in the True Crime Weblog Forum.
Once you've done that, you can post messages in the forum I've begun, as well as pm myself and others via the board.
I will need volunteer moderators for the board in general -- at least one mod to start. I'd prefer someone who tries to look at all sides of an issue, not someone flogging a single concern in relation to a given case.
NOW, THIS IS IMPORTANT:
My creating that message board is not meant to completely divert commenters in this particular thread. If you find it easier to stay here and continue the discussion, PLEASE do so. If you like the message board format, like to have your own profile, etc., please give the board I've created a try.
And bear with me while I tweak the board's look and feel to make it more user-friendly. Currently I am the admin and the only moderator by default, so you'll need some patience with me there, too.
If this goes well, I will begin adding other forums about other cases and possibly more moderators.
Thanks,
Steve Huff
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 3:52 pm wrote: "Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students ... don't participate in orgies and homicides..."
Detective types like Ciolino do not have any kind of journalistic standard - they are in the slimy business of public opinion manipulation. I myself am Episcopalian-educated and, oh, if only that were all it took for anyone to be pure. Someone pointed out here that going to a church-run school does not mean you buy-in to the faith. Ciolino is right, however, in implying that dysfunctional behaviors do not come out of nowhere. Given the statements made by some of Amanda's friends in Seattle talking about how super-nice she was, and statements from testimony in Italy, including her own diary, revealing what I myself would call serious social dysfunctions (not limited to the multiple casual sex partners), we can infer that she knows how to play the good-girl image up for all it is worth. Her parents would definitely know if she were prone to temper or ego issues, but don't expect them to talk about that here. None of this makes here capable of or guilty of murder, but you can't merely write them off, or flat out lie about them like Ciolino.
"No word on the alibi discrepancy, of course. But perhaps the (much longer) TV programme will try to sweep that too under the carpet.
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 4:40 pm | #"
Bluetit:
Which radio station was this on?
Sorry. I forgot one of their contentions (or earthshaking revelations ?) :
-- They hint that the female witness (to scream and flight of two or more people) denied having told the police any such thing.
Quo usque tandem ... ?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 4:05 pm wrote: "However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts."
Correct me if I'm wrong: I'm hearing you imply that you believe police interrogation methods led to Raffael say what he said about Amanda not being with him because they wanted him to help destroy her alibi so they could place her at the scene of the murder.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.12.08 - 4:55 pm |
Which radio station was this on?
Here is the URL (provided by BTD some time ago) :
http://icestream.bonnint.net/
sea...12008154446.mp3
"Seattle Kiro", they seem to be called.
Kermit | 04.12.08 - 4:37 pm |
Thanks for the link Kermit.The article reports "Matteini stressing bruises on intimate parts" . I wasn't aware that bruises were found anywhere else besides on Meredith cheeks.
"Seattle Kiro", they seem to be called.
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 5:14 pm | #
___
Thanks, Bluetit. Know it well. Local am radio, audio partner of the local CBS television affiliate, KIRO.
All,
I did sign up for the other blog Steve set up, but will wait to see if that's where most of you will end up.
In the meantime, if you think Charlie Wilkes is busy here, just look at all the posts he's made out there. It's amazing! Who does he work for?
http://tinyurl.com/54asd4
"They hint that the female witness denied having told the police any such thing."
Bluetit
This is what BTD referred to yesterday. With CBS cameras trained on her, her face hidden behind a half-closed door, she says through an interpreter: "I did not talk to the police."
I know someone who was in Perugia recently and who could not get a single person on Rudy's street to talk to about him or even admit to knowing the guy. Imagine that! And she didn't even have a CBS television crew following her around. Whether or not this woman actually spoke to the police and gave testimony is actually none of CBS's business right now. We'll see, huh? You do at least have to entertain the possibility that maybe this person is not cooperating with CBS, rather than taking this as proof that the police are lying about having spoken to her. Don't you?
Or am I missing the point about what this is meant to show? On some level, I'd like this program to be better than it sounds like it is.
"Charlie Wilkes | 04.12.08 - 4:05 pm wrote: "However simplistic my ideas about police interrogation methods may be, they are well supported by experts.""
Charlie:
If I may quote you from as long ago as last week, if you can't get one expert to support your findings, find another. Or words to that effect. Can you really expect to be able to support your own views by appeal to the experts and then fault others for doing so?
May | 04.12.08 - 5:54 pm | #
_____
I did as well.
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 5:14 pm |
Hi Bluetit,
Thanks for posting the link!
Just one comment about the cops and prosecutors being on the Matrix show and having to save their reputation etc. They never went there, the only guests ever on the show were the omnipresent Dr Sollecito and his smiling team, Guede's defense, Patrick after he was freed and the Kercher's lawyer.It is easy to check the Matrix archives on their website.
How do they think they can get away with all this misinformation is beyond my understanding. They really have to watch out because all this trashing of the authorities, together with these claims of anti-americanism-they even dragged France in to make the point-may sort the opposite results and further damage Knox position, instead of helping her.
Oh the power of the almighty dollar... There 's no limit to what some people are willing to do for it!
Bluetit | 04.12.08 - 5:14 pm wrote: "Seattle Kiro", they seem to be called.
Right - the radio side of the TV station KIRO, a CBS affiliate in Seattle. This is the Dave Ross show that, in sum, makes him look like a complete idiot. It is highly embarrassing for him given what we know, but also for the blatant Italian bashing, and unquestioning acceptance of the same-old 48 Hours Peter and Paul tag team as having the indisputable proof.
Dave, Dave, Dave - where is the critical questioning? Peter and Paul say again that Americans need act now to bring this girl home - NOW - no investigation, no trial, no more questions - nothing - just put her on a plane tomorrow because she is so obviously innocent, and they are so outraged but these silly Italians.
The show makes a lot of claims, some of it laughable and some of it highly inflammatory, but all with righteous indignation played up for the radio audience. For example, they claim that Rudy and Amanda never laid eyes on each other before they got locked up in jail. They claim it is "crystal clear" that Rudy is the sole killer in a burglary gone wrong, that he probably thought the cottage would be empty for the holiday weekend, that he found Meredith at home and decided to rape, and then figured she had to be killed. They say that they will provide proof that Amanda was physically abused in her interrogation (not sure if they will cite specific charges that have been levied against the ILE), and that witness reports of a scream and footsteps running away are not true. Based on what we have identified as evidence here, I'm not seeing anything close to something that says she was in no way involved. In fact, I am simply stunned by how little of the details of case Peter and Paul actually know. The only thing clear about what they are saying is that they actually do have a motive - send Amanda Knox home tomorrow. In sum, this is a standard self-promoting talk radio performance - I would expect no more and no less and it is inconsequential.
Fly away Peter, Fly away Paul springs to mind.....
May | 04.12.08 - 5:54 pm wrote: "In the meantime, if you think Charlie Wilkes is busy here, just look at all the posts he's made out there."
Looks like he took my advice and got on that case about those 52 Mormons in Texas but, much to my chagrin, he's not making claims of law enforcement fabrication and railroading. Damn, this guy is good - just one glance and it's a done deal. He should run for governor of New York or something.
He should run for governor of New York or something.
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 6:35 pm | #
Ha ha FBN! or, how bout Texas or Florida?
"In sum, this is a standard self-promoting talk radio performance - I would expect no more and no less and it is inconsequential.
Fly by Night | 04.12.08 - 6:07 pm | #"
At least they don't have to worry about getting sued by the Italian authorities, who certainly did not listen to this show. Was it a call-in show? If so, I wonder if the PR firm lined up callers in advance.
Steve Huff -
A heartfelt thank you for your continuing generosity
Oceania -
"sees Meredith walking home, approaches her,"
Where does he see her? why was he there?
"Meredith quickly realises where it's heading and starts to back off. RG keeps on pushing for it and starts to lose it. It quickly escalates into a rape situation."
Is there anything in his history or anything reported by anyone who new him that would suggest he would react that way in that situation? What 'rape' by the way? In this scenario Rudy's 'Foreplay' with Meredith occurred 'before' he pulled out the knife.
"RG pulls a knife he probably always carries with him (he was caught in a knife fight in Piazza and had a knife on him when he broke into a daycare in Milan)"
Whoooooa!!! The 'a knife he probably always carries with him' conjecture is based on what you state as 'facts' in the bracketed section of your sentence...let's look a little closer at these facts, it's important, since you have just 'discovered' a 'new' one 'Words' are very important here...when you say 'caught' in a knife fight...'caught' by 'whom'...do you mean the police caught him in the piazza fighting with a knife and arrested him? 'What' do you believe happened to Rudy in the piazza? Please can you supply the link to your used term knife fight in regard to Rudy? How do you define the term knife fight? Now Milan. Rudy had a knife on him when police discovered him in the daycare centre in Milan...I'm not sure he had it on him when he 'broke in' though. I recall reading some time ago that Rudy got the knife 'from' the daycare centre...he picked it up whilst in there. Anyone...am I correct in that?
"RG may have sustained other injuries from Meredith, which along with the cut on his hand he kept concealed."
Where is Rudy's blood at the cottage from that 'cut' to the hand?
"The knife wounds may have been inflicted over a 10-20 min period. Meredith is fighting for her life. RG strangles her."
Since each knife wound would only have taken 'seconds' to make (the through -and-through would have taken longer) what was Rudy doing in the rest of the 10-20 mins he wasn't stabbing her? Since your second sentence says Meredith is fighting for her life...do you mean that the 10-20 min portion not stabbing Meredith is spent fighting? That's not a 'fight' in my view...if it was a fight would all the knife blows be arriving into the throat/neck? Those came at the end/after any fight...after any such fight had been lost. If this had happened 'during' I would expect to see knife wounds on other areas of Meredith's body and certainly defence wounds. He strangled her...he didn't suffocate her then?
"Gets towel from bathroom, drips blood on the bathroom floor. Goes to the toilet for some reason it dosn't get flushed. Searches AKs room/drawers. Searches Meredith's bag. Rinses his hands and knife."
Evidently not 'his' blood from that 'cut hand'.The toilet doesn't get flushed for....'some reason'? 'What' reason? His hand was hurting him? Why is Rudy using 'two' bathrooms spreading blood in each? Where's Meredith's bood in AK's room that Rudy would have dripped, left on handles etc,? Where's 'his' blood? It's 'his' blood on toilet paper? What were the towels (plural, two) for? Why is he trying to stem Meredith's bleeding...the girl he had just spent the last 10-20 mins fighting, stabbing, strangling?
"Cleans any obvious blood from rest of cottage".
Why does he? How would he have had time? With cut hand too? Why clean the blood but not flush the toilet or remove his bloody prints from Meredith's room? Why was he cleaning with 'bleach'? Where would all of that bleach have come from? Where are the empty bottles of the bleach he used? Why is Amanda washing both hers and MK's clothes in the morning on high temps...with 'bleach'? Is it 'coincidence' that both AK and Rudy each decide to use bleach for two completely different reasons? Why did RS also clean his apartment with bleach? Why did Rudy remove Meridith's bra some time after she had been stabbed...died even? What's RS's DNA doing on it right next to where it had been cut? Why is Rudy's DNA not where RS's was? Why put the keys in Ak's room before leaving? If the purpose of locking Meredith in the room was to prevent her discovery, why then leave the keys where they could easily be found by one of the residents so they could then easily open MK's door and discover the crime? Why not take them along with the phones? Why lock Meredith's door but not close the 'front' door (per AK)? Since you believe C Mellas...at which point and why did the bloody sheet appear in the dowstairs airing cupboard? Would he not by doing this have contaminated his hands with blood once again...which somehow did 'not' get on the phones or anywhere else on his journey whilst taking it downstairs? He remembers to shut the downstairs door and not the upstairs one though? How did 'his' blood not get on the phones from his cut hand? Did washing and toilet papering his hand magically immediately stop the bleeding? Why is Rudy washing and rinsing using two seperate receptacles in the bathroom (sink and bidet)...as one cleaner requires only 'one' receptacle? What was blood doing in the 'bath'? What is the explanation for AK's blood in the bathroom and the several occassions of her blood mixed with Meredith's? Why did Rudy take the phones...if he'd locked Meredith in her room why did he need to take them from the cottage...why not leave them there like the keys? Why take Meredith's credit cards...there was no attempt to use them? Finally...how does your sceneario explain the 'lamps' in MK's room?
"Retrieves rock, throws it from inside at the window in Fm's room."
Why oh why??? For what purpose? With hurt hand too. Did he then also trash Filomena's and Laura's rooms? Why? How did Ak's footprint get in Fillomena's room where she said she hadn't been? Rudy not only had time to 'do' all these things but think up the plan for it too?
"Flees the cottage, leaving the door open, dropping bloodied toilet paper on the path."
What...after all the 'cleaning' that he did he just drops them right outside to be found? ? Tissues that incidentally do 'not' contain 'Rudy's' blood.
What of the Serbian witness? What of the witness that saw them looking towards the house that night? What of the Albanian witness?
What of all the problems that your scenario doesn't even attempt to address...namely all the problems with AK and RS (some of which I've mentioned above), like their repeated failures with alibi, constant little changes and non matching of 'details' within those alibis, bleach receipts, phones turned on and off at the same time, Raf being so stoned he can't remember if Amanda was with him in a small apartment, yet he was perfectly capable of studying degree level computer science on his computer...which incidentally shows no activity after 9:10 pm? What of the knife with AK's and MK's dna? Why was it bleached...and only that knife? Why did Raf bleach 'his' apartment at this time? Why did RS bleach the soles of his trainers? Amanda's knowledge of the placement of the body and how she had been stabbed in the neck? What could Amanda 'not keep up' in her telephone conversation with RS? Why was RS's phone unanswered when his father called? The mop?
Why has AK transcended Meredith in victimhood in this case?
Oceania -
"sees Meredith walking home, approaches her,"
Where does he see her? why was he there?
"Meredith quickly realises where it's heading and starts to back off. RG keeps on pushing for it and starts to lose it. It quickly escalates into a rape situation."
Is there anything in his history or anything reported by anyone who new him that would suggest he would react that way in that situation? What 'rape' by the way? In this scenario Rudy's 'Foreplay' with Meredith occurred 'before' he pulled out the knife.
"RG pulls a knife he probably always carries with him (he was caught in a knife fight in Piazza and had a knife on him when he broke into a daycare in Milan)"
Whoooooa!!! The 'a knife he probably always carries with him' conjecture is based on what you state as 'facts' in the bracketed section of your sentence...let's look a little closer at these facts, it's important, since you have just 'discovered' a 'new' one 'Words' are very important here...when you say 'caught' in a knife fight...'caught' by 'whom'...do you mean the police caught him in the piazza fighting with a knife and arrested him? 'What' do you believe happened to Rudy in the piazza? Please can you supply the link to your used term knife fight in regard to Rudy? How do you define the term knife fight ? Now Milan. Rudy had a knife on him when police discovered him in the daycare centre in Milan...I'm not sure he had it on him when he 'broke in' though. I recall reading some time ago that Rudy got the knife 'from' the daycare centre...he picked it up whilst in there. Anyone...am I correct in that?
"RG may have sustained other injuries from Meredith, which along with the cut on his hand he kept concealed."
Where is Rudy's blood at the cottage from that 'cut' to the hand?
"The knife wounds may have been inflicted over a 10-20 min period. Meredith is fighting for her life. RG strangles her."
Since each knife wound would only have taken 'seconds' to make (the through -and-through would have taken longer) what was Rudy doing in the rest of the 10-20 mins he wasn't stabbing her? Since your second sentence says Meredith is fighting for her life...do you mean that the 10-20 min portion not stabbing Meredith is spent fighting? That's not a 'fight' in my view...if it was a fight would all the knife blows be arriving into the throat/neck? Those came at the end/after any fight...after any such fight had been lost. If this had happened 'during' I would expect to see knife wounds on other areas of Meredith's body and certainly defence wounds. He strangled her...he didn't suffocate her then?
"Gets towel from bathroom, drips blood on the bathroom floor. Goes to the toilet for some reason it dosn't get flushed. Searches AKs room/drawers. Searches Meredith's bag. Rinses his hands and knife."
Evidently not 'his' blood from that 'cut hand'.The toilet doesn't get flushed for....'some reason'? 'What' reason? His hand was hurting him? Why is Rudy using 'two' bathrooms spreading blood in each? Where's Meredith's bood in AK's room that Rudy would have dripped, left on handles etc,? Where's 'his' blood? It's 'his' blood on toilet paper? What were the towels (plural, two) for? Why is he trying to stem Meredith's bleeding...the girl he had just spent the last 10-20 mins fighting, stabbing, strangling?
Oceania -
"Cleans any obvious blood from rest of cottage".
Why does he? How would he have had time? With cut hand too? Why clean the blood but not flush the toilet or remove his bloody prints from Meredith's room? Why was he cleaning with 'bleach'? Where would all of that bleach have come from? Where are the empty bottles of the bleach he used? Why is Amanda washing both hers and MK's clothes in the morning on high temps...with 'bleach'? Is it 'coincidence' that both AK and Rudy each decide to use bleach for two completely different reasons? Why did RS also clean his apartment with bleach? Why did Rudy remove Meridith's bra some time after she had been stabbed...died even? What's RS's DNA doing on it right next to where it had been cut? Why is Rudy's DNA not where RS's was? Why put the keys in Ak's room before leaving? If the purpose of locking Meredith in the room was to prevent her discovery, why then leave the keys where they could easily be found by one of the residents so they could then easily open MK's door and discover the crime? Why not take them along with the phones? Why lock Meredith's door but not close the 'front' door (per AK)? Since you believe C Mellas...at which point and why did the bloody sheet appear in the dowstairs airing cupboard? Would he not by doing this have contaminated his hands with blood once again...which somehow did 'not' get on the phones or anywhere else on his journey whilst taking it downstairs? He remembers to shut the downstairs door and not the upstairs one though? How did 'his' blood not get on the phones from his cut hand? Did washing and toilet papering his hand magically immediately stop the bleeding? Why is Rudy washing and rinsing using two seperate receptacles in the bathroom (sink and bidet)...as one cleaner requires only 'one' receptacle? What was blood doing in the 'bath'? What is the explanation for AK's blood in the bathroom and the several occassions of her blood mixed with Meredith's? Why did Rudy take the phones...if he'd locked Meredith in her room why did he need to take them from the cottage...why not leave them there like the keys? Why take Meredith's credit cards...there was no attempt to use them? Finally...how does your sceneario explain the 'lamps' in MK's room?
"Retrieves rock, throws it from inside at the window in Fm's room."
Why oh why??? For what purpose? With hurt hand too. Did he then also trash Filomena's and Laura's rooms? Why? How did Ak's footprint get in Fillomena's room where she said she hadn't been? Rudy not only had time to 'do' all these things but think up the plan for it too?
"Flees the cottage, leaving the door open, dropping bloodied toilet paper on the path."
What...after all the 'cleaning' that he did he just drops them right outside to be found? ? Tissues that incidentally do 'not' contain 'Rudy's' blood. What of the Serbian witness? What of the witness that saw them looking towards the house that night? What of the Albanian witness?
What of all the problems that your scenario doesn't even attempt to address...namely all the problems with AK and RS (some of which I've mentioned above) like their repeated failures with alibi, constant little changes and non matching of 'details' within those alibis, bleach receipts, phones turned on and off at the same time, Raf being so stoned he can't remember if Amanda was with him in a small apartment, yet he was perfectly capable of studying degree level computer science on his computer...which incidentally shows no activity after 9:10 pm? What of the knife with AK's and MK's dna? Why was it bleached...and only that knife? Why did Raf bleach 'his' apartment at this time? Why did RS bleach the soles of his trainers? Amanda's knowledge of the placement of the body and how she had been stabbed in the neck? What could Amanda 'not keep up' in her telephone conversation with RS? Why was RS's phone unanswered when his father called? The mop?
Why has AK transcended Meredith in victimhood in this case?
Sorry for the double posting...my initial posting dissapeared...only to 'arrive' later...strange.
Kermit | 04.12.08 - 4:20 pm | #
I am actually not convinced Amanda is sincere and after all there hasn't been a reaction from lawyers about that.
Anyway a man, Aldo Bianzino, was found dead last October in the Capanne prison and at the end the pathologist Luca Lalli (him again!)found out that he was not killed because of natural heart disease but because he was maybe beaten up (he had a destroyed spleen and liver, brain hematomas) maybe because he had rebelled against some rule or imposition. He was arrested because he was cultivating and possessing indian hemp for having drug. In certain environments drug consuming (even light one) in Italy is regarded as a serious crime and like a sign of immorality. Maybe the man was also seen as a political enemy and an anarchist even if he was not involved in politics.
An enquest was open about this case (judge Petrazzini). Detainees witnesses say they think nobody entered his cellar and that the man called the guardians with a bell but nobody came to see what was happening to him. News say the policeman will be only accused of duty omission
Someone has promised to introduce a legal guarantor for the detainees
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/...&
post_id=114334
http://anconasiamonoi.forumcommu...net/?
t=10746337
The man's wife is invalid 100% with a pension of 250 euros per month. She is now alone wth a 91-year-old mother and her young 14-year-old son
They have even opened a postal account number to make donations to the
c/c postale number 27113620 to Roberta Radici
There is an inteview to her on Grillo's blog
http://www.beppegrillo.it/
immagi...ff_bianzino.pdf
They also say he probably slipped and hurt his head and body..but well, we know a lot about people slipping and falling down (see Pinelli..)
fran | 04.12.08 - 8:32 pm |
Thanks Fran for your research on a case of beating, or at least possible dereliction of duty by authorities in Italy.
And Charlie says we're a monolith, "The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire.", says he. Then he makes of list of "articles of faith".
Actually, my interest in Matteini over the last few days is because I thought there was a possibility that she was the one who did the famous questioning on Nov. 5.
That didn't interest Charlie much, as he posted at | 04.10.08 - 8:42 pm |"I wouldn't know where to find out more."
Well, all he had to do was google: Matteini Sollecito
Actually, I proved my own hunch wrong by re-encountering the Telegraph translated extract of the Matteini report, which indicated that the Nov. 5 declarations were made to Mignini. (I then confirmed that by going back to Matteini's original report in Italian).
But, what this does go to show is that we're interested in obtaining further information and understanding, and not hiding behind blind faiths based on research done on other crime cases, and no interest in researching this crime or the personalities. (This Charlie guy admitted that he hadn't even researched the Mignini side of the Florence administrative procedure which is so compelling and central for him in the Perugia case - about the only thing.)
-
(This Charlie guy admitted that he hadn't even researched the Mignini side of the Florence administrative procedure which is so compelling and central for him in the Perugia case - about the only thing.)
Kermit | 04.12.08 - 8:59 pm | #
----------
Even I did a little bit of reading up on that since I wanted to know about this 'corrupt' and 'evil' Mignini!
And I also went back to the Telegraph extract of the report since there's a lot of information and details that are easily missed or forgotten about, especially as we're 5 months on now, and totally bogged down in a million more details.
----------------
I have been away for awhile due to major family commitments. I did my best speed reading to catch up to the latest posts.
I took some time to preview the video clips promoting the 48 hour program to air tonight. Looks like CBS's hired investigator Paul Ciolino feels that Amanda is experiencing a "railroad job from hell".
Mr. Ciolino seems to think the murder was committed by an ugly person and thus the beautiful Amanda with her stellar academic, athletic, hard working background could never have been a part of such a crime. I can't believe a professional investigator would actually state this in public.
Be prepared also for a full blown attack of the ILE investigative tactics with Amanda. Oh wait! Charlie Wilkes already has set the stage for us.
I think SB was right CW popped on this scene for a reason.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
We think it would be good if they would give a full and coherent account of their whereabouts on the night of the crime and of their behavior in the aftermath of discovery. This may be because we have experience of legal cultures like Italy's, where the goal of this kind of investigation is to arrive at the truth.
This is exactly the point on which I part company with you and your friends on this board. You believe the authorities running this investigation are honest public servants who care only about the truth, whatever it might be. I regard that belief as preposterously naive. And I think more and more journalists and crime experts are taking note of this particular case, and realizing it doesn't add up. We'll see where it goes from here.
re ILE dumping Patrick for Rudy as the third suspect during the show tonight:
"But now we have another problem (be)cause Amanda don't know him, Raffaele don't know him."
< a brief expalnation that there are no phone records linking AK or RS to Rudy >
"There is no connection, so we have a big problem..."
Really?!? Seems to me Rudy and friends could corroborate this to the contrary.
Kermit wrote:
(This Charlie guy admitted that he hadn't even researched the Mignini side of the Florence administrative procedure which is so compelling and central for him in the Perugia case - about the only thing.)
I've read everything I could find on the web. Has Mignini told the world his side of the story?
Have been away all day, caught most of the 48 hours program--Very selective with the evidence presented, and Paul C stated his opinion as though it was fact. He repeated Tacopina's defense that good white kids don't commit crimes. Black men do. They neglected to talk about the number of men that Amanda brought home, how much dope she smoked or how much she was in debt to a dealer in Perugia. Handpicking the evidence and stating supposition as fact doesn't convince me of AK's or RS's innocence.
A half-assed attempt at finding truth, a full-out attempt to appeal to white, blue collar Americans. Most those Americans will watch their local news following 48 Hours, go to bed and forget Amanda by tomorrow morning.
The guilt or innocence of the suspects will not be decided in a television program that survives at the pleasure of the ratings, but will instead be decided in a court of law as it should. | #
Watched the 48 hours program--Very selective with the evidence presented, and Paul C stated his opinion as though it was fact. He repeated Tacopina's defense that good white kids don't commit crimes. Black men do. They neglected to talk about the number of men that Amanda brought home, how much dope she smoked or how much she was in debt to a dealer in Perugia. Handpicking the evidence and stating supposition as fact doesn't convince me of AK's or RS's innocence.
A half-assed attempt at finding truth, a full-out attempt to appeal to white, blue collar Americans. Most those Americans will watch their local news following 48 Hours, go to bed and forget Amanda by tomorrow morning.
The guilt or innocence of the suspects will not be decided in a television program that survives at the pleasure of the ratings, but will instead be decided in a court of law as it should be.
Yes a2.
The promo video clips for the show claimed, there were "shocking new details" as to why Amanda implicated PL and confessed to being there that night. Unfortunately no details where shared this evening.
And again Amanda's phone call to her mom was brought up without the full details. Was it before or after the shower? And if her mother did tell her to contact the police immediately why didn't Amanda?
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 11:20 pm wrote: "And I think more and more journalists and crime experts are taking note of this particular case, and realizing it doesn't add up. We'll see where it goes from here."
I think it would be absolutely fantastic if more people took a serious interest in this case and took the time to research the volumes of information that has become available over the past 5 months. You better believe it doesn't add up. We've got 3 suspects telling 3 different stories. Keeping them right where they are is the absolute best thing to do until the truth comes out.
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 11:24 pm wrote: "I've read everything I could find on the web. Has Mignini told the world his side of the story?"
I believe Mignini's issues are still being handled in the courts so he probably cannot comment on anything. However, the evidence and procedures surrounding the ongoing investigation of the Murder of Meredith Kercher have been reviewed and upheld by Italy's highest court as being valid. There's not much to say beyond that, except to note that this case would go forward with or without Mignini. As with any investigation, theories evolve as evidence is pieced together and none of the 3 suspects can be said to be helping with that task. This is surely contributing to the time factor in getting actual charges filed.
I sat home and watched tonight's "48 Hours" program.
And now I can once again load this site! CHE BELLO!!!!But, now that *I'm* here, where is everyone else?
Helllllooooo?.....
Here are some OTTOMH (Off the top of my head)observations and questions.
First, my impression of P.I. Paul Ciolino...
To sum up, I'd say he's..."Molto fumo e poco arrosto" which in English translates as "Great boast, small roast." Lots of shadow, little substance provided as to the claims of Amanda's innocence. (He also included Raffaele with Amanda's name in every utterance he made about the Italian Investigators (I.I.) railroading of the innocent incarcerated.(I.I)
And, please, someone help this man with his painfully bad grammar!!
1. According to the program, the owner of the "Merlin Club" had banned Rudy from entering his club because RUDY HAD ATTEMPTED TO ROB THE OWNER AT GUNPOINT??? (Is this fact or fiction?) Now that's a biggie, if it is true. Can it be easily verified?
2.FWIW, Paul Ciolino stated there was NO video and NO audio of Amanda's interrogation and signed "confession."
3. There's that "perp walk" footage of Amanda with her wool cap covering her face and most of her head. I couldn't help but notice that in this film, Amanda's hands were rendered out-of-focus by that digitally altered technique....Nicki, what's that term you supplied..? Anyway, what were they trying to hide on AK's hands while in cuffs? (Was AK perhaps giving the photographer the finger???!! Really!--what could it have been that had to be covered up for TV?)
4. They didn't even get Meredith's age right!! They said that Meredith was 20 years old. Why bother verifying those victim details, here,huh?
I mean, after all, the girl's deceased, right?...20?, 21?...23...Yeah, 20 is fine.. Amanda is 20...should be close enough.
The whole program (what a surprise) certainly "invisibilized" the victim. Worse, the closing of the show and Ciolino's words about not wanting Amanda to be "ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM" in this case. How crass and insensitive to the Kercher family and Meredith's friends to make such a statement.
5. With respect to the relationship between Meredith and Amanda: If they were such good friends, why have we yet to see a single photograph of the two girls together? NOT ONE! Isn't that a telling observation to how close and harmonious their relationship was (NOT)?
What few words I actually heard of the Italian words spoken by the police were:
"Non posso scendere nei particolari." (I can't get into specific details"
i.e, the MANY reasons AK and RS are actually being held.
And then he spoke of the "prova regina" (the key proof) but the interpreted audio of the English drowned out the Italian, which was, of course, edited, anyway.
6. The alleged RS shoe print photo(which I had never seen before like this) appeared to be a lot more detailed than I had expected. I'm not a forensics expert, but it sure looked like a good print to me. But, nooooo, says Ciolino--"it's not conclusive." OK, but why isn't it?
7. Too much time was dedicated to Mara the neighbor and the validity of her eyewitness testimony, which, as we know does not make or break this case. But the Average Joe Viewer doesn't know this.
8. I have to say I was genuinely moved by seeing how emotionally devastated Amanda's mother is.
OK, I'll stop now, lest I be cited again (!) for excessive carriage returns. Ciao, ciao
ddude | 04.12.08 - 11:21 pm wrote: "Really?!? Seems to me Rudy and friends could corroborate this to the contrary."
That's right. Perhaps these so-called ace investigators should have taken the time to simply read Rudy's diary where he describes his contacts with Amanda, and then followed up by interviewing Rudy's friends who were present at those times. There would be a problem with that though, since many people in Perugia are simply fed up with these so-called investigators and reporters bugging them, so they refuse to talk about the case to anyone. That does not imply that the evidence does not exist.
Sorry for the double post...my bad.
One more thought on the show.
I got a very strong feeling Amanda's defense is making every effort to stay on VERY good terms with Raffaele's team. Paul C even ended the show with a very pollyanna wish. He wanted to right there and then pick up the poor mistreated "kids" from prison and take them home where they belong, with their parents.
Where the #%^$&%#$ did that interloping sunglasses-wearing smiley face come from in my previous post?!?!?!...suddenly appearing right before my comment that I was genuinely moved by viewing Amanda's mother's emotional pain...
That "smiley" was not intended by me, I don't know how it got there and for the record, do not want it to diminish my sentiment, which was genuine.
Too tired to do so now, but must catch up on the latest posts...
Ooops, there I go again...
Excessive Ellipsis Expressor,
Traduco
Fly by Night wrote:
We've got 3 suspects telling 3 different stories. Keeping them right where they are is the absolute best thing to do until the truth comes out.
Do you feel the suspects should bear the burden of proving their innocence, rather than the prosecutor bearing the burden of proving their guilt?
Traduco asked:Where the #%^$&%#$ did that interloping sunglasses-wearing smiley face come from in my previous post?!?!?!.
Traduco, and everyone else -- certain combinations of parentheses and other symbols will just automatically convert to a smiley of one sort or another. Traduco wrote an 8 followed by a right-hand parentheses and it just converted to a stupid smiley with sunglasses.
I edited your post, Trad., to take out the smiley. I agree it was confounding.
Everyone please scroll up to check out my post (also all in bold, so you'll know it's me) about the forum I've started. Please consider using that. If you don't want to go to the trouble to register there, though, feel free to keep the discussion going here. (Note, several people have registered already. I thank them all.)
Thanks,
Steve
Edited By Siteowner
"And, please, someone help this man with his painfully bad grammar!!"
Traduco, a propos Paul Ciolino.
Traduco,
I am afraid he is beyond help.
"This is exactly the point on which I part company with you and your friends on this board. You believe the authorities running this investigation are honest public servants who care only about the truth, whatever it might be. I regard that belief as preposterously naive. And I think more and more journalists and crime experts are taking note of this particular case, and realizing it doesn't add up. We'll see where it goes from here.
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 11:20 pm | #"
I hope the journalists and crime experts you mention, whoever they may be, have done their homework a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight. I can't speak for others on this board, who represent a range of opinions and who together have impressive knowledge of Italian culture, language and criminal process, but I don't think we as individuals are "preposterously" naive. Whoever made this program seems to make that assumption about the average viewer, though. I do agree, however, that inevitably we will see where it goes from here. Why don't your give yourself a handle if you plan to stick around. Anonymous is way overused, everywhere.
Lets all hope the Italian police do their job a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight since they are tasked with the investigation not a mystery show.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I hope the journalists and crime experts you mention, whoever they may be, have done their homework a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight. I can't speak for others on this board, who represent a range of opinions and who together have impressive knowledge of Italian culture, language and criminal process, but I don't think we as individuals are "preposterously" naive.
Indeed I have gotten a lot of useful information from this board. I can see that you and many others here are intelligent people. That is why I am so bewildered that you are willing to assume these Italian investigators, who have been floundering for nearly six months, speculating wildly without arriving at a coherent theory about how and why this crime was committed, are competent people acting in good faith. I can only attribute this credulous streak to a lack of familiarity with normal criminal investigations and police procedures.
I noticed you brought up the Robinson
Why don't your give yourself a handle if you plan to stick around. Anonymous is way overused, everywhere.
My apologies. I posted the comments to which you responded. I am posting from a different computer and I forgot to fill out the form.
I meant to say, I noticed you brought up the Father Robinson case. I assume you know there's a cloud over this case and many people who think Robinson is innocent.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 1:14 am | "Do you feel the suspects should bear the burden of proving their innocence, rather than the prosecutor bearing the burden of proving their guilt?
Perhaps you are unaware of the legal situation of the current suspects, given that they are in an Italian judicial process.
Neither they have to prove their innocence right now, nor does the prosecutor have to prove their guilt right now.
No charges have been laid. To prove guilt, a trial has to be underway.
What for an American unfamiliar with European civil law may appear to be legal limbo, is a judicial framework which - since Napoleon's time - never seemed to bother Americans as much as in the last six months.
This situation can last up to a year. For an American 9 time zones away, that may seem abusive. It may seem that the six months that have already gone by is too much. But you make it appear that the only person of interest to you here - Amanda - is getting some treatment that is unique or not applied in general within the Italian judicial processes. I think you'll have to hold off on these complaints until another six months are over.
If you are concerned about this characteristic of legal systems in continental Europe (Italy's system is not the only one), then I suggest you join Amnesty International and work to change a general judicial feature which is not specific to this case. Unless if you don't give two hoots about preventive prison in general, and your only concern is to get Amanda out of jail, but that's a different story.
Come on Charlie. You are a self-described student of other serious crime cases around the world. I wish you would do some serious research here - I was amused the other day when you replied to me when I brought up the possibility that you look into an issue here: Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 8:42 pm | "I wouldn't know where to find out more."). I found what I wanted by googling: Matteini Sollecito.
I think you'll find that even in the USA there are many investigations of serious crime which go well beyond 6 months, and meanwhile the suspects are in jail on the basis of lesser stop-gag charges. You sound like Claude Raines in Casablanca "I'm shocked, SHOCKED"
-
Kermit wrote:
If you are concerned about this characteristic of legal systems in continental Europe (Italy's system is not the only one), then I suggest you join Amnesty International and work to change a general judicial feature which is not specific to this case.
The purpose of my question was not to complain about Italy's legal system but to inquire about Fly by Night's opinion as to where the burden of proof should lie.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 4:14 am | "where the burden of proof should lie."
Save that for the trial. In this, the investigative stage, it would be nice for you to admit that Amanda and Raffaele possess information which could help clear up investigative lines which arise from their conflicting alibis.
As I have stressed in prior posts, they probably have good professional advice from their lawyers - and from a strictly legal strategy point of view - to invoke their right to remain silent. BUT on a non-legal common sense level, if two persons have testified two different things, from a purely theoretical point of view, if you put them together, you could straighten out the differences, and thereby help the investigation, ¿no?.
-
Charlie Boy
What did you think of the show as an intelligent neutral person?
LW
Hi Love Wolf. I think Charlie - who likes to remind persons when they haven't answered his questions - is going to think about the last couple of ones.
I didn't see the CBS report, but from the tenor of our fellow posters here, I didn't get the feeling that there was anything "explosive" about it, one way or the other.
All the pimping and spamming done by Paul C., seems to have been "much ado about nothing". Maybe all the hype was more about ratings than content ...
-
Lets all hope the Italian police do their job a little more thoroughly than what was on display tonight since they are tasked with the investigation not a mystery show.
anonymous | 04.13.08 - 2:50 am | #
Anon I think any criticism that you have should be directed to the producers, directors and participants of the mystery show..... Italian police are doing a good job very little help of the lies given by the suspects and all 3 of them are in the right place at this point in time and will remain there until the court case no matter what firestorm the American media try to generate.
Good morning Kermit....
Sitting in bed slugging coffee here in London, cloudy skies with nice pockets of blue skies!
I did not see it but by the sounds it of it did not disappoint regarding what we thought would be in it... very little in the way of content.
What is really strange in all this is that the BRitish media are saying very little, I think the global economy and credit crunch has taken care of that but people in the UK have not forgotten about this case. I think the show on C4 if it is the same rubbish that was on C4 will create uproar and I think they will be naive and stupid to come out with the same c*ap and disrespect for the ONLY innocent victim in this case and her family.
I feel sorry for AK's family... but I think that blind faith could destroy them even more in this case if they are not careful.
LW
I have seen nothing in his posts that leads me to suspect he is purposefully lying to us.
kb | 04.12.08 - 3:50 pm | #
I have to say I was genuinely moved by seeing how emotionally devastated Amanda's mother is.
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 12:49 am
I'm with the both of you on this. Though I have the utmost sympathy for Meredith's family, I sympathize with AK's family as well, and would like nothing more than for AK to be proven innocent of any wrong doing with regard to this case. I was brought to tears watching AK's Mother tonight, and I don't think I would have been as saddened if I could believe that AK is innocent. What truly broke my heart was watching Edda, and thinking it's likely her daughter is involved in this, even with as much faith as Edda has that she is not.
Charlie, (or anyone), IMHO, the theory of AK and RS being "railroaded" is a viable one, and those who believe that to be true, are just as entitled to post your opinions as any of the rest of us. Your opinions actually do give me food for thought. Still, as Kermit posted earlier, AK and RS's stories were changing even before the theorized unfair/abusive questioning of AK took place. I cannot for the life of me understand the strange behavior of the two of them in the days immediately following this tragedy, before they were detained. There are just TOO MANY points to be explained in order for them to be totally innocent or, at the very least, void of any information relating to the crime. Assuming we give AK the FULL benefit of doubt on every single point,(i.e.: her "confession" being coerced, the mop, the washing machine, the fresh mixed blood, her inconsistent alibis, lying about or mistaking Lumbumba for RG, the statements from Meredith's friends, etc.)then....
1. Why did RS tell the journalist he and AK had been at a party with friends the night of the murder?
2. Why did RS then tell a different story to the authorities?
3. Why did RS then claim that AK asked him to give her a false alibi?
4. Why did RS claim to have spoken to his father at 11:00 PM on the night of the murder?
5. Why did RS claim that his pot smoking on that day caused his memory loss and he would never smoke pot again because of it? (not really relevant but IMO, another blatant lie).
6. Why would RS admit to the authorities before he was even a suspect, that he had smoked a joint after speaking with his Father (at least I think this was about the time he said he smoked a joint when speaking with ILE), if he was innocent? It seems to me that he would not have shared this piece of information before he was even a suspect, if he was innocent of all events that took place on Nov. 1st. Wouldn't he be afraid to admit to the ILE that he smoked pot (hashish), unless he had something much more to fear than a drug arrest? The fact that he disclosed this so early on sounds to me as if he were already making excuses (can't remember because I smoked a joint) in case he became a suspect.
I'm only prompted to ask these things about RS because Paul C. is of the same opinion as you with regard to the innocence of AK and RS. He obviously believes (as stated at the end of the 48 Hours program) that if AK is innocent, then so must be RS. If that is the case, it has to work both ways. If RS is guilty, then so is AK. How do these statements by RS fit into your theory?
Sorry for the long post. Thank you for your input.
All the pimping and spamming done by Paul C., seems to have been "much ado about nothing". Maybe all the hype was more about ratings than content ...
Kermit | 04.13.08 - 4:49 am
Kermit, you didn't miss a thing. "Much ado about nothing" is exactly how I would describe it.
Thanks so much for all you contribute to this blog.
Michael | 04.12.08 - 7:30 pm | #
Replies to your questions....
'Where does he see her? why was he there?'
RG sees Meredith while she is walking home from her friends. He is known to hang out in Piazza Grimana playing basketball, it was well known to be his stomping ground. I don't believe it was a pre-arranged date with M as RG wants everyone to believe as per his diary.
'Is there anything in his history or anything reported by anyone who new him that would suggest he would react that way in that situation? '
I posted a profile of RG after reading his diary. His history is full of abandonment and rejection by his birth mother and later his father. He writes of fairly horrific childhood abuse at the hands of his father. He was unable to maintain a deep and meaningful relationships.
He also was known to lie, he was also known to the police in Perugia. He was in every sense a real lone wolf, a wolf in sheeps clothing. I surmised that Meredith's rejection triggered something inside RG.
'Whoooooa!!! The 'a knife he probably always carries with him' conjecture is based on what you state as 'facts'.. '
The knifing in the Piazza was widely reported in the early days as was the break in at the daycare. Even if these events hadn't been reported, it is not too much of a stretch to have a character like RG carry a knife with him, as he certainly did on this particular occasion. My conjecture stated as fact is no different from yours.
'Where is Rudy's blood at the cottage from that 'cut' to the hand?'
It is in the room where Meredith was murdered, he cleaned most other blood spots from outside the room. The ILE may have other blood traces from him that weren't obvious to the human eye after his clean up. I don't think there is any question about RG's blood or cut hand. He admits it himself, he tried to explain it away in his diary.
'Since each knife wound would only have taken 'seconds' to make (the through -and-through would have taken longer) what was Rudy doing in the rest of the 10-20 mins he wasn't stabbing her?'
No-one knows the exact details of how long there was between stab wounds. They have been reported as occuring over an up to 30 min period. Within the time frame of one hour to kill M and clean up, it's impossible to account for the exact time allocation to each and every task he did. The end result is that after one hour he had completed all those tasks.
'Evidently not 'his' blood from that 'cut hand'.The toilet doesn't get flushed for....'some reason'? 'What' reason?'
Maybe those blood drops are mixed RG and M blood and not mixed AK and M blood. Maybe another one of those carefully chopped up select pieces of information they were notorious for leaking ie. It is AK's blood spot on the faucet and mixed blood spots in other parts of the bathroom. The media put together the rest of the story for them in their usual obliging way.
Who knows why RG didn't flush, the fact is he didn't, the important thing is he had to find an excuse for why it was there and he concocted the story of 'strange man rushing in and murdered M'.
'Why is he trying to stem Meredith's bleeding...the girl he had just spent the last 10-20 mins fighting, stabbing, strangling?'
He didn't try to stem her bleeding, he has hooked you into his story. He was only taking care of himself, I think it will be mainly RG's blood on those towels (there only seems to be one in the photo's I have seen, but it could have been two).
'He strangled her...he didn't suffocate her then?'
She has bruise marks around her neck. He may have also tried suffocation, hence the towel/s. I get the impression that she didn't die quickly from the stab wounds and so he used other methods to 'finish her off'.
'Why does he? How would he have had time? With cut hand too? Why clean the blood but not flush the toilet or remove his bloody prints from Meredith's room?'
He cleans outside of M's room to buy himself some time, it worked intially when AK came in the next morning. No one knows what goes on inside a murderers head and why they make the decisions they do at the time of the crime. We were left with the evidence as he created it and as he tried to clean some of it up with what cleaning things he found in the cottage. The rest he tried to explain away with his cleverly crafted story.
There's still a lot more questions to answer Michael, I'll try and address them in another post. Long day today.
Stacey...
I like the posting and the angle you are going.
Irrespective of believing AK's story, Raf is the silent one in all this probably with the least evidence and DNA stacked against him at the same time IMHO he is the the loose canon regarding the fact that he had a knife collection, has taken acid and cocaine (according the AK) was a regular user of drugs, had an over protective father, mother committed suicide, I think somewhere was stated that he took drugs for depression....... and IMHO I think he was probably the one that flipped that night. Guede story states this also for what it is worth. AK and Raf need each other to change their alibi's (again) trouble is though if they do they are basically admitting their guilt.... ONly option now is to remain silent say nothing and try and create a media firestorm and discredit evidence (we call this the Charlie Theory!).
Kermit wrote:
Save that for the trial. In this, the investigative stage, it would be nice for you to admit that Amanda and Raffaele possess information which could help clear up investigative lines which arise from their conflicting alibis.
As I have stressed in prior posts, they probably have good professional advice from their lawyers - and from a strictly legal strategy point of view - to invoke their right to remain silent. BUT on a non-legal common sense level, if two persons have testified two different things, from a purely theoretical point of view, if you put them together, you could straighten out the differences, and thereby help the investigation, ¿no?.
Are you suggesting they could resolve inconsistencies that are perplexing the authorities? If so, I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators aren't sitting around scratching their heads and trying to puzzle out what happened on the night of November 1, and what Knox and Sollecito were really up to. They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty. It would be foolish for the suspects to assist in this effort.
They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty. It would be foolish for the suspects to assist in this effort.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | #
Charlie - you are an idiot, have you got nothing better to do on a Sunday like go walk your dog and clean up it's poop?!
Oceania
If it is proven that the washing machine that was running on the morning after the murder contains bloodied soiled clothes of AK and Meredith would you change your theory?
Best regards, LW
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am |"Are you suggesting they could resolve inconsistencies that are perplexing the authorities?"
Blimey, you're catching on.
"... I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators aren't sitting around scratching their heads and trying to puzzle out what happened on the night of November 1, and what Knox and Sollecito were really up to. They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty. It would be foolish for the suspects to assist in this effort."
My question was posed independently of their legal situation or their legal posture (invoking right to not declare). It is hypothetical. I'll repeat it, if you didn't catch it:
Kermit: "As I have stressed in prior posts, they probably have good professional advice from their lawyers - and from a strictly legal strategy point of view - to invoke their right to remain silent. BUT on a non-legal common sense level, if two persons have testified two different things, from a purely theoretical point of view, if you put them together, you could straighten out the differences, and thereby help the investigation, ¿no?."
Now, please respond to that specific, hypothetical question (I have responded in the past when you have felt I haven't replied to your questions). Thanks.
-
We were left with the evidence as he created it and as he tried to clean some of it up with what cleaning things he found in the cottage. The rest he tried to explain away with his cleverly crafted story.
There's still a lot more questions to answer Michael, I'll try and address them in another post. Long day today.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | #
Oceania if this is the case where are the cleaning materials and bloodied rags that he created in the 'big clean up'......... when he was seen running from the cottage I do not think he was riding a broom (or a mop) with a bucket on his head?!
If they exist the police would have found them at the scene.. no?
As far as I am aware some of the cleaning materials and rags etc were found at Raf's and are being analysed by forensics.
LW
As some one mentioned yesterday the cleaning materials, mop, rags, bleach bottles / receipts will be key in the case......... if some of this material is found at Raf's place... then the rest as they say is history!
Hi Stacey, Love Wolf, Oceania - good to see you out here with your questions, doubts and opinions. Even if it seems like Charlie and I are pummelling each other, the exercise of going through different points with him is a "Brain Training" sort of activity which is actually positive, at least for me: I have gone back to and dug up old and new stories over the last few days thanks to Charlie.
I can only hope that he does some additional work on the basis of our comments too, and doesn't just cling to the premises that he had when he started here, or at least shows openness for entertaining other scenarios.
As I state at the start of the powerpoint presentations, 1) all scenarios are valid for discussion, and 2) we'll just have to wait for the investigation to end to see the evidence.
-
Kermit,
I see the show did not quite get the desired reaction on Seattle PI regarding its airing....
The feedback blog postings are very interesting!
LW
Stacey wrote:
I'm only prompted to ask these things about RS because Paul C. is of the same opinion as you with regard to the innocence of AK and RS. He obviously believes (as stated at the end of the 48 Hours program) that if AK is innocent, then so must be RS. If that is the case, it has to work both ways. If RS is guilty, then so is AK. How do these statements by RS fit into your theory?
I think the suspects were coerced and manipulated into making statements in which they incriminated themselves and each other. I also doubt whether we have accurate information with regard to what statements they actually made.
Charlie,
I your last posting was that a yes or a no?
If RS is guilty then is AK guilty?
Irrespective of statements etc.
We are talking about doing the murder not the police statements buddy?!
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:36 am | "I also doubt whether we have accurate information with regard to what statements they actually made."
Are you suggesting that Judge Claudia Matteini introduced false testimony on the part of Amanda and Raffaele in her initial report, which is the ONLY legal document we have access to. (ie., that is NOT news reporting, nor Joe the Sleuth, nor even Paul C.)?
BTW, don't forget about my question ...
-
That would be a serious charge to make against Claudia.
-
Neither Sollecito, nor his father, nor his legal teams have ever complained nor even gotten close to suggesting that he suffered abuse on Nov.5. What do you base your claim on in the case of Raffaele?
Remember that the alibis were already conflicting before Amanda even started declaring on Nov. 5
-
Charlie,
In response to Kermit you can use 'yes or no' it really is quite simple to day and the letters are easy to find on a keyboard....
Regards, LW
Oceania
If it is proven that the washing machine that was running on the morning after the murder contains bloodied soiled clothes of AK and Meredith would you change your theory?
Best regards, LW
Love Wolf | 04.13.08 - 5:15 am | #
The washing machine is one of those things that could turn out be a completely false story, same as RS googling bleach and blood. Neither RS or AK mentioned the washing machine in their statements of that morning. If it was running when the PP arrived, they couldn't have hidden that fact so would have of course explained that AK had put a load of washing on when she come home earlier or at least tried to explain it or include it in their statements in some way.
It is highly unlikey they would have waited until that late hour in the morning to be washing the victims bloody clothes (and which ones exactly ? as all M's clothes seem to have been found on or around her body, mixed with AK's. And there goes that dreaded bleach again. If they were still 'cleaning up' in the morning, it's reasonable to assume they would have picked up the bloody tissues from outside the cottage, rinsed AK's & M's 'mixed' blood from the tap and flushed the toilet.
However, if the washing machine is proven to be running, it could easily have been done purely circumstantially by AK the next morning. Some of Meredith's clothes may have been placed in the machine at an earlier time and day. AK put her clothes on top and started the machine, the PP happened to arrived as it was finishing its cycle.
The bloody clothes, bleach etc were the over active imagination of the press reporters embellishing a relatively boring part of the story.
OT. Funnily enough in a famous murder case in Dunedin, NZ, the entire Bain family was found murdered in their beds early one morning. Only one son remained alive, he was out on his paper run. When the police arrived the washing machine was on its spin cycle and 'you are the only one who deserves to stay' was written on the family computer. David Bain was convicted of the murders but recently released after the Privy Council in London over turned the verdit. Much of that case hinged around that spinning washing machine.
Oceania
My view is that they were cleaning all night (AK and RS) so it was not unreasonable for the machine to be running.
Based on what you are saying if those clothes had blood stains on them then Guede would have put the bloodied clothes in the washing machine on the night of the murder but not bothered turning the machine on....
He sure was the dumbest murderer in history if that was the case!
Also neither Raf or AK has made any reference to AK having put on the washing machine in any story so far. You may want them to include that in any alibi changes gong forward if those clothes were indeed soiled or bleach had been used in the cleaning process.
Best regards LW
My view is that they were cleaning all night (AK and RS) so it was not unreasonable for the machine to be running.
Based on what you are saying if those clothes had blood stains on them then Guede would have put the bloodied clothes in the washing machine on the night of the murder but not bothered turning the machine on....
He sure was the dumbest murderer in history if that was the case!
My view is the cottage was far too small to take that long to clean, considering they didn't even touch M's bedroom. Most murders try and get away as quick as possible. They would have finished their clean well before daybreak and the chance of being 'sprung' by unexpected guests.
Of course RG did not put anything in the machine, all M's clothes were found on or near her as were the towel/s. RG was quite smart up until he started using the internet and Skyping with friends. He could have gone to ground and still be a free man today if his curiosity hadn't got the better of him.
Oceania... You are wrong I am sorry!!
The Police knew it was Guede as they had his prints on record..... They set the trap very quickly and were trying to track him down, they knew he was there that night. Only problem was AK's lies about PL that delayed and confused things.. that was a deliberate ploy by her as she knew Guede was there with her and Raf and she was creating the false trail not Guede.
Oceania - This was a thorough cleaning exercise, not ONE print of AK in her own bloody bedroom.. excuse the pun! Even a professional cleaning team would struggle to achieve that... let alone Guede in the 30 minutes he had to clean a 'small cottage'... of which this was not as evidence was planted along with cleaning all over the cottage....
Oceania,
In Meredith's bedroom there was blood everywhere and if AK did have a nose bleed or had got blood on clothing as a result of the murder or cleaning then the last thing she would have done is put that clothing to be cleaned as the final task of the overnight cleaning exercise.... if any of AK's clothes were in that machine and she signs of Meredith's blood on them would you start to doubt your theory. Or can you explain why (if it is is true) and how AK's clothes with Meredith's blood stains would be in that washing machine?
Yesterday when we were discussing AK's alleged treatment by the ILE, I thought of PL's 'exclusive' story that he sold to one paper. I tried to find it but didn't have any luck, I also couldn't remember which paper ran it. It was a fairly grim account of his treatment at the ILE's hands at the time of his arrest. Does anyone have a link to this story ?
I noted with interest when PL was interviewed by Frank at PS a while back that PL said that story was not correct and that the police had treated him well. But I don't believe that. That was such a well anticipated story the whole world was waitng for, he would have said something a lot sooner if that had been the case. I think him saying something different to Frank was more about his relationship going forward with the Perugian police.
Also of interest is that in spite of the things PL said about AK and her work performance etc, replacing her with M etc. AK was by all accounts still working for him and seemingly on friendly terms right up to the night of the murder.
Also of interest is that in spite of the things PL said about AK and her work performance etc, replacing her with M etc. AK was by all accounts still working for him and seemingly on friendly terms right up to the night of the murder.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:18 am | #
Good question Oceania..... the text message confirmed she was still working for PL and I also would be interested in peoples views... unless he was going to fire her but had not got around to doing the deed.... that is IMHO
LW
Oceania... You are wrong I am sorry!!
The Police knew it was Guede as they had his prints on record..... They set the trap very quickly and were trying to track him down, they knew he was there that night. Only problem was AK's lies about PL that delayed and confused things.. that was a deliberate ploy by her as she knew Guede was there with her and Raf and she was creating the false trail not Guede.
Yes Love Wolf, and I'm happy to meet you half way and say I'm just as wrong as you are !
The police didn't know it was RG until they got the DNA results back, this took some time. The didn't have them before the overnight interogation of AK. Chris Mellas has said that according to a report the family has seen, the police had the black mans hair from M's hand. They saw the txts on AK's phone to PL. CW explains well how she was co-erced into making that damning statement. To my mind this is a very real possibility and it is the possibility I am more inclined to go with. The reason the ILE went to so much expense to provide/back up PL with his alibi was because by that stage they did have the prelim. scientific reports back and knew it was RG and not PL, they knew he had to be released. By that stage AK had already unwittingly been trapped. At this stage I'm more inclined to believe something Chris Mellas has said than something you have read from a newspaper. Mignini was under a lot of pressure to close this case extremely quickly and he made a lot of incorrect judgements and assumptions.
Oceania, they had a set of prints within hours and knew there was a 4th person (thinking that PL was the 3rd) it was not DNA but his fingerprints on the pillow and other things. It was mentioned very early on.
She was not co-erced into making out a story involving her holding her hands over her ears, hearing the murder..... that was her own doing and probably does describe the real events if you replace PL name with RS or Guede
Also at this point in time I am not inclined to believe ANYTHING C Mellas (or whoever it is) as like last nights show he is completely one sided regarding the case, the evidence and real events.
Sorry but happy to meet you half way for the time being but I am certain more of thi supposed evidence will actually turn out to be real along with things that you and I and everyone here are not aware of.
The Mignini thing is a red herring and part of the defense strategy... it is easier to persue that to tell their clients to tell the truth.... that is what it is all about Oceania
Regards, LW
Im sure your typing furiously your reply Love Wolf ! and I look forward to reading it, but I will catch up with you tomorrow as it's late here ow. Have a lovely Sunday, if yours is just beginning I can report it was a very good day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1811
From Patrick Lumumba: "She was angry I was firing her and wanted revenge," he says.
"By the end, she hated me. But I don't even think she's evil.
To be evil you have to have a soul. "Amanda doesn't. She's empty; dead inside. She's the ultimate actress, able to switch her emotions on and off in an instant.
I don't believe a word she says. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. But those lies have stained me for ever"
------------------
For what it's worth, I don't think (and didn't think) that Lumumba was involved after the first few days. But I recall him saying that he had NO IDEA why Amanda would want to frame him. Then when he was released he said she wanted to get her revenge because he was firing her.
Seems to me a pretty good reason for Amanda being hacked off at him, but I wondered why Lumumba hadn't mentioned it from the start.
-----------------
Charlie Wilkes | 04.10.08 - 6:20 pm | "I'm afraid reason will get you nowhere in this discussion. The beliefs are too deeply held, and the threat to those beliefs is too dire."
Are YOU the one whose deeply held beliefs are threatened, Charlie?
You don't even feel that you should make a response to a high-school debate question of if it is theoretically possible to reconcile or at least understand the differences between two conflicting alibis - ceteris paribus (no legal strategies, no police abuse ...). I think the answer is self evident, and is on a simple logic level that any third-grader (or even younger) would understand.
You're threatened by what might be the next question. Don't worry, there is no next question. Maybe knowing that will alleviate you, and help you answer the question. I'm still waiting.
Look at the posts here. Sometimes we get heated up. There's Love Wolf and Oceania going at it. Two persons who have quite different views on what happened. No one expects them to change their respective gut feelings. But, Love Wolf just said | 04.13.08 - 6:24 am | "Good question Oceania..... the text message confirmed she was still working for PL ..."
And I won't go searching through O88's postings, but she has also recognised issues with scenarios she has described.
Calling different fellow posters "naive" from your pedestal doesn't help your integration in the board. You have lots to contribute. But there's give and take. There's recognising that all scenarios, not just yours, are valid.
-
That was such a well anticipated story the whole world was waiting for, he would have said something a lot sooner if that had been the case.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:18 am |
He stated that the day after the interviews came out, on the TV news and on the Matrix show back in November,
He stated that in countless newspaper interviews in November
He stated that on the Nero su Bianco show in November,
And I could go on and on as to how and where Lumumba declared he has been misquoted, including about him firing AK and hiring MK.
How many times does the poor man have to declare the English press got it wrong before you believe him??
How many times does the poor man have to declare the English press got it wrong before you believe him??
nicki | 04.13.08 - 6:48 am | #
Not as many as AK...
See you tommorow.
Bye Oceania.
-
nicki - that article I provided the link was supposed to be an "exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday"
Did I miss his retractment of it?
Dazed and Confused
-----------
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 6:57 am |
Hi Soozie,
Lumumba immediately retracted the ILE mistreatment and the firing of Amanda both on TV and to the press.
What he really said is that he was not happy with Amanda's performance, and if she had decided to quit he was only going to be happy about it. He also said that he had asked Meredith to work as bartender because he had tried her vodka based cocktail and it was great, but only on one specific upcoming ladies'night when dj, bartender, waitresses would all be females.
Thanks for the clarification nicki. I guess I must have had my ears blocked and eyes shut when that came out. I note that he didn't say he'd fired her, only that he was thinking of firing her. Still, shame on The Mail for such misquoting!!
P.S The other relevant date for more information is due on the 19th April - which is a Saturday?
--------
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | "I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators aren't sitting around scratching their heads and trying to puzzle out what happened on the night of November 1, and what Knox and Sollecito were really up to. They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty."
Don't worry Charlie, the pummelling session ended. (Although, I am still waiting for your reply, just as you have waited for mine).
We're back to normal discussion and analysis here.
If you read Matteini's original report and news reports from early November, the focus was on Patrick as a key figure, perhaps / probably even being THE KILLER.
What happened? He seemed initially like the perfect suspect, even better than Amanda: black, immigrant, works in a bar, a musician.
He was arrested, he was questioned, he stated his alibi.
Rather than trying to build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty, to paraphrase you above, the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
Conclusion: you can't generalise from other crimes, nor even within this crime, and say that the investigators are working to frame someone.
-
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 7:26 am |
Yes Soozie, the results of the medical examiners will be discussed in court with the GIP on April 19the. I don't know if there are going to be leaks before that date, it seems that everyone if keeping their mouth shut.
Rather than trying to build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty, to paraphrase you above, the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
Conclusion: you can't generalise from other crimes, nor even within this crime, and say that the investigators are working to frame someone.
-
Kermit| 04.13.08 - 7:47 am |
-------------
That's a really good point Kermit! They set him FREE, despite the phone-pinging incident and Amanda's claim that he MURDERED Meredith. If anyone was going to be beaten and railroaded into a confession, it would have been him, and yet it wasn't, because his story did not keep changing with the seasons.
I wonder what Charlie Wilkes thinks about that??
nicki - I'm surprised the court is open for business on a Saturday, I figured it would be on a working day.
----------
Nicki, Soozie et al
They probably get paid double time at the weekend so its a nice little earner as Del Boy Trotter would say!
This after all is becoming a nice cash cow for certain people heavily involved which in its self is sad and poor reflection of today's society!
nicki - I'm surprised the court is open for business on a Saturday, I figured it would be on a working day.
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 8:03 am |
Soozie, LW
Courts are opened on Saturdays here (morning), as well as post offices and government offices in general.
PS LW are my initials
Have a nice day you all!
Yeah, me, I'm getting so tired of listening to that crap from Wilkes over and over again, I'm putting him in court today again, "Book'im Danno!"
Such weak arguments, it's like, if he was employed to do a job, he'd go there, open his bag, pull out theme called, ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL, look in his book, 'theme one'; undermining a case, accuse everyone expect those who are going to be on trial and then, never stray from that, until the very last, and when, if the suspects are convicted, and guilt is proved and suspects, all or one or two or even three even admit to their guilt, he'd still say, it is not how it happened.
Yet, I know later, this dummy job Mc Garrett is going to chew and choke on his own baseless non-starter ideas.
See you tommorow.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:52 am | #
________________________________
You are in court soon, accused of condescension and being "The Only One Who Seem To Here, bla bla bla"
the theory of "I know it all" will be tried, you are not obliged to say anything
hopefully that will be the case
I having a sneaky suspicion TLC looks like Detective Colombo with his dirty raincoat....... but is more 'Defective' than 'Detective' regarding his theories....
Love Wolf | 04.13.08 - 8:28 am | #
________________________________
No, I have two eyes that see, not one blind one
I get the feeling Oceania just posted under Love Wolf's name.
Oopppsss Sorry TLC
That was actually me (LW) but I meant to type Charlie Wilkes not you!!!!
Sorry buddy
LW
more inclined to believe something Chris Mellas has said than something you have read from a newspaper. Mignini was under a lot of pressure to close this case extremely quickly and he made a lot of incorrect judgements and assumptions.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:34 am | #
_______________________________
Hilarious statements as usual.
Chris who just makes things worse for Amanda. It is good he is in the states because he is in a right state, coming onto a blog, and giving out all kinds of contradictory info can't be a helpful thing for his step-daughter, who is 13 years younger than he is. More like Chris under pressure.
What Mignini did was not make judgements that is what the courts do, he made the best use of what qwas coming out and as it goes it is absolutely normal for ideas about motives et cetera, to change as a case progresses, when it is vital all of what is known and compiled in is court. What is vital now, to know and understand, is that the investigation had enough information with which to keep these three people safely locked up in jail, safely, for the rest of the world, because they could kill again, whoever it was of the three. And, it may turn out to be all of them.
Saying Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, is the same as saying Guede is innocent.
They are as deep in the proverbial dungheap as he is.
LW
Love Wolf | 04.13.08 - 8:39 am | #
ha haa, that's funny, I actually thought those people were developing a sense of humour and an ability with wit.
Thought I'd managed to upset oceania so much that she'd reverted to false evidence, as the case goes for steaklling someone elses nickname.
Colombo, I hadn't though of him, he'll have to be introduced,
wid 'im wonky eye,
bookasha, aye,
and that Ali G,
now you says innit,
right, that me Jooly, was
bla bla bla
Having Captain EWilkes defend you would be about as much usew as having Ali G in employment. Give it up fa Mc Garrett Wilkes.
Correction, sounds Chinese what I wrote
What Mignini did was not make judgements, that is what the courts do, he made the best use of what was coming out and as it goes, it is absolutely normal for ideas about motives, et cetera, to change as a case progresses.
The moment it is vital what is said and done is when all of what is known and compiled in is court.
What is vital now, to know and understand, is that the investigation had enough information with which to keep these three people safely locked up in jail.
Safely, for the rest of the world, because they could kill again if released, whoever it was of the three. And, it may turn out to be all of them involved, just like the prosecution realized early on.
Of course RG did not put anything in the machine, all M's clothes were found on or near her as were the towel/s. RG was quite smart up until he started using the internet and Skyping with friends. He could have gone to ground and still be a free man today if his curiosity hadn't got the better of him.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:03 am | #
______________________
Nonsense, of course he would not have been free. The police had his fingerprints already and then when they recovered them on Meredith's pillow, it was only a matter of time.
Of course RG did not put anything in the machine, all M's clothes were found on or near her as were the towel/s
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 6:03 am | #
________________________________
You are imagining things deary, you can't know that, you are making sweeping statements based on hearsay.
And in the green corner....
introducing speculation and hearsay, we have Baroness Oceania
And in the corner with the light on, we have sound reasoning and facts based on evidence and therefore truth
Ding ding
No low punches though TLC!
The bloody clothes, bleach etc were the over active imagination of the press reporters embellishing a relatively boring part of the story.
Oceania88 | 04.13.08 - 5:44 am |
________________________________
Aye, says you, but you do not KNOW.
A lot of bleach was used, it appears according to all accounts, except yours.
Court time will reveal what is needed.
If they are innocent, they will walk, if they are guilty, that will be theend of the talk.
Lurker Boy | 04.13.08 - 9:18 am |
_____________________________
It is entirely reasonable in a murder case if people are undermining the case using character assassination against the prosecution team to then use sarcasm against such people. Because to endlessly undermine a case based on speculation is not fair to the Meredith family and to Meredith. I object to that happening, it's not fair to say things like this case is one where they just want to convict any old one, it is simply untrue that this is what is going on.
TLC....
I am in agreement there was clear evidence of 'bleaching' both at the murder scene and Raf's... and that this will become clearer as the case moves forward.. the cleaning or attempted cleaning will be crucial....
Burst pipe..... load of old codswollop!
KNOX:
The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide?
3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]
I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
______________________
Herewith, if it is true she was coaxed and coerced into saying untrue things then she could have left this out about Patrick.
She never changed her story about Patrick right up until there was no other way out, namely, he was released. To me it means she never would have changed her twisted story about Patrick if proceedings had seen him not being believed and especially if she had gotten out of prison, never would she have backed down, I say this then based on what she did and her behaviour. He would have remained in jail and possibly even somehow been jailed for life for a crime he did not commit. If Amanda is guilty of murder to have edone this kind of thing on top of the murder would indicate that she is very sick. If Sollecito is involved, if he took part in the murder he too is wicked, but at least he didn't accuse a person who was entirely uninvolved. To me it points to Amanda being the most wicked in this. Potentially then, because Guede, has, as things stand, potential to be on equal footing with Knox in the wickeness stakes, they may be involved together.
Not much can be counted out as things stand, not until the meat of the evidence id revealed properly in court, the only thing that can, in real terms, be counted out and dismissed, is that all three have been entirely truthful.
Then that apology, was as meaningless as someone saying sorry to you after beating you up and putting you in a coma for six months. It reeked of insincerity.
Burst pipe..... load of old codswollop!
LOVE WOLF | 04.13.08 - 9:38 am | #
________________________________
Hi
Yes, it does seem to go without saying that there is a lot of unrevealed links, evidence, and that the prosecution, in fact, has been building up a strong case all the way along. They've shown themselves to be reasonable, after all, taking in the reality of the case, a girl found with throat cut, and a girl accusing a local, what were they to do? allow Patrick to roam free? if a girl who at first, by all acounts ought to have been trustworthy, said he was there, that is a damning statement from her. if it had been them getting her to say that, for their sake, then they'd have kept him inside, even if they had no evidence, they could have always said, well, we expect to find some evidence in future and our investigation is continuing we are happy with it, she said she saw him go in there, she heard the screams but instead they let the man go.
They let the man go when it became clear to them that she had lied, and that the man they needed to lock up was Guede.
Because she lied, about Patrick, she them gravely indicated, through having done that and more, that she was hiding the truth, and because all of her excuses were so transparent and flimsy, they have continued to see her as being dishonest and have also reasonably, been able to keep her in prison.
Good morning all,
Just wondering if all of you (Traduco, Sparrow, a2, LW, Kermit, TLC, Lurker Boy, Stacey, Rob, damian, and more), are planning to sign up for the other blog Steve Huff started? I just checked and there are 12 signed up now. Skeptical Bystander is the moderator. Steve assures me that we just may prefer it to this format. Since he posted a second time reminding us, maybe we should give it a try.
Perhaps we're just waiting for the hostess to raise her fork?
Sollecito in testimony to police
"She went off about half past ten and I went back to sleep. When she went off Amanda took an empty plastic bag, telling me it was for DIRTY washing.
______________________________
Dirty, notice freshly washed and cleaned clothes, dirty washing.
__________________________________
KNOX
and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths
________________________________
takle back my dirty clothes (to Raffaele's place)
I know all this has been argued out long ago but because Oceania brought it forward arguing about the washing machine running when the Polizia Postale arrived and the reasons for all of that, then here we see that in both statements to the police it is a bag, seemingly with which to transport Amanda's dirty clothes back to Raffaele's house to be washed at his house. The police though, will be able to report in court, facts about whether Raffaele had a washing machine at his home. It seems likely his dad would have gotten him a good one.
May said:Just wondering if all of you (Traduco, Sparrow, a2, LW, Kermit, TLC, Lurker Boy, Stacey, Rob, damian, and more), are planning to sign up for the other blog Steve Huff started?
May -- people are signing up, but not using yet. I did want one thing clear -- this new site is not a blog. I'm not being persnickety so much as just trying to clarify. There are substantial differences in structure, for one thing. The new site is a message board. In a way, it is more democratic than a blog, and the potential for discussion is broader. There are more tools to format your messages and people are perhaps a little freer to establish new topics 'within a topic.' For instance, readers who have been using these open threads could go to the new board and start a new thread in the Kercher discussion forum that just lays out a timeline of the case. Another thread could be used to discuss the diaries of some of the accused. Things can be better broken down and parsed if you wish in message board format. In short, you all would have more control over the flow and organization of the discussion. I'm the board admin and Skep is my first moderator, and we may have to enforce board rules (usually simple netiquette), but short of creating a forum and naming it, all I do is say "discuss" and let you go.
Hope this clarified things a little. These various social media may have marked similarities, but there really are concrete differences between blogging, commenting on blogs, using message boards, etc. The mainstream media, ever reductive to the point of stupidity, has blurred the definitions over time. I'm just stubborn enough to keep trying to correct that, but am not sure I ever will.
Thanks May, for the note to others, by the way. It is much appreciated.
Steve
Thanks Steve for the clarification. When one enters through the kitchen door, often the rules of the house are not so clear...please leave shoes at the door, etc.
thnx,
I can extend the house analogy for you -- the blog is like my home. Comments are where folks visit, perhaps the parlor, and chat. At the end of the day, I should be able to tell them if the party is over and they need to move on. A message board is like a commune, where people can flit in and out at any time, find the niche where their subject is under discussion, and have at it.
And no, using a message board doesn't make you a communist
Thanks again.
Steve
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 1:14 am wrote: "Do you feel the suspects should bear the burden of proving their innocence, rather than the prosecutor bearing the burden of proving their guilt?"
The high court of Italy has upheld the evidence and reasoning behind keeping these 3 suspects in jail. Perhaps it is unfortunate that in Italy there is no provision for bail, but who are you or I to argue against the Italian justice system? There is, in fact, a tremendous burden on the prosecution to prove their guilt and if this can't be done these suspects will find their freedom. The suspects don't have to do a thing to try to prove their innocence, and that appears to be exactly what a few of them are doing. The time-line seems to stretch a bit long in Italy, but I do believe that their system is perfectly capable of providing a just outcome.
Fly By
ON BAIL
Ah, but the bail thing.
Though there is no bail system as applied in Britain and USA, if these charges were not so serious, of course in Italy, as in most other developed countries, people accused of crimes do not always have to wait in prison.
It is the level of crime committed that dictates that these people stay in jail.
If there had been a bail option/possibility, these suspects would not have been elligible for it, the severity of the crimes is too great.
Difference is, like Spector in the states, suspected of killing a woman, he was able to get bail, the bail bond (money- though it could have been property, anything worth money even put up by someone else is acceptable) amount was very high.
In this way, it can be argued, if Spector is suspected of such a serious crime but nevertheless could get bail because he had money, is that the most justified system, where money does the talking?
In Italy, it is not the money that dictates procedure.
Money does affect choice of counsel, just as it does in Britain and America, mostly the top lawyers charge unspeakable amounts for their services, services those with enough money are willing to pay if the top lawyer has a big chance of getting a person off.
Luckily, there will always be a certain amount of people who train to learn about law and who value justice above money and also value humanity, it means not all of the best people will work only privately, some will choose to serve those who have no money at all.
On proving innocence
I do not agree entirely with the summation that a person on trial will nbot have to prove innovcence.
If the prosecution starts gaining solid ground in the courtroom then the defence lawyers are going to have to counter attack to go against wha the prosecution has made good, if they don't then the prosecution wins. Point for point.
It the prosecution lays a strong case at the feet of defence then to sit by and say nothing will not help them a lot to get off and released.
If Amanda's story held any credence whatsoever - I imagine she would have been released under house arrest while the investigation continued.
The fact she wasn't probably indicates they have a lot more on her than we know, and perhaps even more than she knows.
------------
Soozie UK | 04.13.08 - 12:23 pm | #
I second that
After watching Edda state her absolute, 100% belief in her perfect angelic daughter's innocence, I wondered if Amanda's parents have left any room for Amanda to tell the truth. Sometimes as a parent, one needs to give the child permission to tell the truth and that one CAN and WILL accept the truth no matter how painful.
~
Dirty washing, not nice freshly washed and cleaned clothes, dirty washing
______________________
Some of this stuff defies logic.
Like, would Amanda take a bag to pick up DIRTY laundry, only to take the dirty washing back to Raffaele's house, only to take it back later on unwashed to the cottage?
"Perhaps we're just waiting for the hostess to raise her fork?
May | 04.13.08 - 10:28 am | #"
She's still trying to swallow the last fifteen minutes of 48 Hours, the only part she saw, and is finding it very hard to digest.
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
2. On the message board, will it be possible for one person to choose many different monikers (is that the right word?) as they have done here?
...imagine all the leaked evidence would have had little value had the theory of the crime not been so outlandish.
Thanks to Seattleite for introducing me to that possible angle of the case. Knox appears to be Mignini's ace in the hole.
Pinecone | 04.12.08 - 1:35 am | #
Thanks for the shout out about "ace in the hole"--I guess they basically said that on the 48 Hours program last night but I haven't seen the whole thing, but it's on the DVR.
Yes the theory you proposed back on November 18, 2007 looks more solid to me now than it did then.
I was trying to find out how the disposition of Spezi case was actually handled and what Mignini's part was in that disposition. There is a stray comment I found regarding a person who has a relative who is a "capitano" in the police in Italy that if true is illuminating.
I think this link will work: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...5474799/
#105691
Good luck to all at their new home on Steve's blog.
She's still trying to swallow the last fifteen minutes of 48 Hours, the only part she saw, and is finding it very hard to digest.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 12:50 pm | #
The last part was definitely the most flammatory - there were some attempts to appear to present a balanced perspective earlier in the program. The other, less featured, PI maintained that the evidence certainly raised many questions regarding all of the suspects' guilt. But I can't think of ANYTHING new that was presented in the program. (Unless you count the ridiculous through-the-closed-shutters "interview" of the witness from across the street.)
Why would an innocent suspect keep their mouth shut?
Soozie:
Because the police know how to make innocent people incriminate themselves, and they do so on a regular basis.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 8:47 pm
------------------
Do you have a reason why they failed to get Lumumba to incriminate himself? Bearing in mind Amanda had accused him of killing Meredith while she covered her ears? I can't think of anything more damning than being identified as the murderer, and placed at the scene of the crime killing the victim. Can you? Especially if the accuser is a white American girl and the accused is a black man.
How did the 'bumbling' police screw that up? With all their 'know how' and powers, how did they miss the 'opportunity' to stitch him up when it was presented to them on a plate? This is not rhetorical, I'd actually appreciate your views on that.
------------------
G'Day all! Buona Domenica!
By the way, I say "G'day" to remind myself... to ask everybody. . . is that the correct way to pronounce Rudy's surname? (i.e. Rudy "G'Day?"--as I heard on last night's broadcast. I guess I'd been thinking "Gway'-day" with the emphasis on the first syllable. But, no matter, you say tomato and I say to MAH to...
Next, under the heading of "meglio tardi che mai"....(better later than never)...I wanted to tell **MAY** how much I enjoyed her clever and hilarious "presentation."
And, I agree with the Lupo D'Amore (Love Wolf) that TLC's "screenplays" are a riot! There was one in particular that had me "ridendo a crepapelle"...literally "splitting my skin" from laughter!! (Don't worry, I used some healing lotion and balm to repair that splitting skin of mine.)
Thanks, Steve, for clarifying the interloper smiley. Alas, my wayward typing created that monster.
BTW, where can I find Skeptical Bystander's "blogette?" (or whatever it's called--I just think blogette has a nice French-sounding flavor to it, an homage to Skep!)
OK, now back to everyone's favorite TV program, the "48 Hours" show.
I must ask the group what they think of the charge that part of Rudy's criminal record includes him being banned from the Merlin club for having attempted to rob the bar owner at gunpoint.
How can this possibly be true (i.e., that he was "banned") since by all accounts, he went dancing there the night of the murder!! Furthermore, this is a very serious charge, if true. I would like to know the circumstances surrounding this "incident."
If NOT true, wouldn't that bring Rudy-bashing to a new level of well, libel. It's one thing to say that Rudy is a liar, he's a no-good, drug-using nuisance.
But to broadcast that he's committed ARMED ROBBERY (i.e., use of force with a deadly weapon), if this isn't true, no matter how the defense sees Rudy as a menace to society...it's criminal, it's libel. I know, I know, it's not going to be seen by the Italians...
I've tried to look up any documentation of this alleged earlier "crime", but have not been successful. Of course, my failure to locate information doesn't mean it's not true. But, how DID he enter "MERLIN" that night if he was "banned." I mean, it's not like Rudy would blend easily in a crowded club.
Feedback, anyone?
P.S. Oh, and now I read that Paul Ciolino is a LAWYER, as well as a PI? Ma...scherziamo?!!!??
To answer this:2. On the message board, will it be possible for one person to choose many different monikers (is that the right word?) as they have done here?
Technically, yes. But I do NOT like that, and will work to weed out people using multiple "hats." The admin has tools on that board that will help. That's all I'll say, so the more determined don't get ideas. If I get someone who's trying to use multiple nicks to make it seem as if they have a great cloud of witnesses backing up their stuff, I'll ban that person.
Steve
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
2. On the message board, will it be possible for one person to choose many different monikers (is that the right word?) as they have done here?
damian | 04.13.08 - 12:53 pm |
__________________________
I missed that, the translations, like to see them though.
2. That's a good point.
I'll ban that person.
Steve
Steve Huff | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 1:09 pm | #
_________________________________
That is good news Steve.
Just to clarify:
"Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint. "We know that Rudy has no visible means of support and is able to pay rent, go to clubs, and do all kinds of things," he says. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...725_page5.shtml
cbs news story:
"Jesuit educated high school girls who are high honors students 18 months ago don’t participate in orgies and homicides."
However, they do have sex with strangers on trains, smoke a lot of dope, and implicate innocent men of murder.
--------------
"But I can't think of ANYTHING new that was presented in the program. (Unless you count the ridiculous through-the-closed-shutters "interview" of the witness from across the street.)
kb | 04.13.08 - 1:00 pm | #"
I was hoping the interview was a low point, and was surprised to hear that the police learned of this witness's statement when it was shown on Italian television, which makes you wonder if her account has any bearing whatsoever on the investigation of this case.
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
damian | 04.13.08 - 12:53 pm | #
damian,
Please post it again. If one is not reading this comment section every single day it is extremely easy to not realize one is reading new material. It definitely was not intentional.
My mother was pick pocketed in Florence by a Gypsy needless to say we ended up at the police station for an interview. The police man who interviewed us spoke very good English but I have no idea how it was interpreted into Italian. We laughed because we had no ideas what we signed. As with every language interruption is in the mind of the one doing the interruption. Even with a full grasp of the English language it is very hard not all words and sayings match. Having said that what language did Amanda sign her statement in. Was it written in Italian or English? It may have been covered here I am new.
damian,
Please post it again. If one is not reading this comment section every single day it is extremely easy to not realize one is reading new material. It definitely was not intentional.
indie | 04.13.08 - 1:33 pm | #
I second that!
Thanks Traduco,
I agree, if a bartender had been threatened at knifepoint I cannot imagine that the barkeeper would not have called the police.
This = hearsay, nothing more.
Character assassination is what it is part of.
At the same time, stereotyping but then absolutely so simple-mindedly so, that it doesn't even bear thinking about, it would mean, that if you fall into and conform to that category of stereotyping, 'like nice girls like that don't do these things', then anyone who wishes to commit crime just needs to go to University, and nobody will ever suspect you when you rob, rape and kill.
I have never heard such preposterous ill-reasoned-out points in my entire life as these nutty theories of nonsense.
Signed
Judge Dread
let em go they're too good looking
"As with every language interruption is in the mind of the one doing the interruption."
Anon
Come again?
You should give yourself a handle. Anonymous posts tend to get ignored. This one caught my eye because I didn't understand it.
I have the feeling Sir Wilkes will not be back.
I may be wrong though.
Still, I keep thinking his presence here was in line with whatever it was on TV
Watched the 48 hour mystery show last night. I was really underwhelmed. Also the first part of the show was like something you would watch on the biography channel. Local girl makes good. Nothing much new. In the second part Paul Ciolino hits on this 14 hr interrogation of Amanda a lot. I was under the impression that she implicated herself well before the 14 hrs. Poor girl, no food, no water(?), hard to imagine going thru that. I’d tell the cops anything they wanted to hear. Just tell me who to implicate.
He sorts of discredited that one witness that was located across the street and heard the screams and footsteps. She may have heard something, maybe not. But it doesn’t seem like the police are banking to much on her. She doesn’t make or break the case. Also PC floats out the idea that Rudy wasn’t allowed back in one of the bars because he threatened a bar tender with a knife. He said he talked to a bar manager. But he doesn’t develop the story, he just tosses it out there. All news to me. Also I learned the 1st of the month is rent day in Perugia, and Rudy knew this. All the students make a run on the bank and are loaded with cash. How would he know Meredith had cash. Does anybody over there use checks to pay rent?? I agree with him that Rudy most likely didn’t know Meredith well enough to get in the flat. So how did he get in? PC doesn’t elaborate. From what I know she wasn’t accosted as soon as she walked in the flat, as a surprised robber would do..
If I was new to the case, I would be intrigued enough to find out more about what the investigators had on this girl. And what actually happened that night and more about the victim But I certainly wouldn’t have taken this ‘private I’s word for it. He kind of reminded me of a pushy used car salesman trying to get me to buy an old clunker.
Also does Rudy have TV privileges? He wasn’t particularly wild about the 20/20 show, and what Joe T. said about him. Or maybe they feel Rudy wouldn’t hurt them any more, or they are becoming more and more desperate. Also if CBS wants to give this case more airtime, I’m all for it. Remember, fair and balanced..
Below is a link to an interesting piece on media coverage of the murder. There is discussion of police leaks, sensationalism and ethics.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
gree..._have_ital.html
What I was trying to say since we spoke in English to the police and the police interpreted it on paper in Italian. He did read it to us but I had no idea if that was what he wrote. Word in different languages are used differently and are hard to translate. Like in England they say "the food was brilliant " we would say "the food was delicious" to us brilliant is someone who is smart or something bright. But this does not matter if she wrote her own confession in English and signed it.
Over at the new message board it is easier to scroll past the annoying posters who can't make their case in fewer than 100 lines! Go there and give it a try!
How can this possibly be true (i.e., that he was "banned") since by all accounts, he went dancing there the night of the murder!! Furthermore, this is a very serious charge, if true. I would like to know the circumstances surrounding this "incident."
If NOT true, wouldn't that bring Rudy-bashing to a new level of well, libel. It's one thing to say that Rudy is a liar, he's a no-good, drug-using nuisance.
But to broadcast that he's committed ARMED ROBBERY (i.e., use of force with a deadly weapon), if this isn't true, no matter how the defense sees Rudy as a menace to society...it's criminal, it's libel. I know, I know, it's not going to be seen by the Italians...
I've tried to look up any documentation of this alleged earlier "crime", but have not been successful. Of course, my failure to locate information doesn't mean it's not true. But, how DID he enter "MERLIN" that night if he was "banned." I mean, it's not like Rudy would blend easily in a crowded club.
Feedback, anyone?---Traduco
Buon Giorno, Traduco. So good to see you. You're always a breath of fresh air. Your reasoning is sound. How could Rudy have gone dancing at the Merlin if he was banned? But we also know that in the US, lies are easy to tell, as libel laws are very lax. The idea of telling lies in public is that even if they are proven wrong, so many people remember the lie, and ignore the correction. It doesn't matter if it's true, as long as it's planted well. I do Biscotti gets wind of this one, and makes a lot of noise on the Italian side.
That was supposed to say, "I do HOPE Biscotti gets wind of this one..."
"I didn't see the CBS report, but from the tenor of our fellow posters here, I didn't get the feeling that there was anything "explosive" about it, one way or the other.
All the pimping and spamming done by Paul C., seems to have been "much ado about nothing". Maybe all the hype was more about ratings than content ...
Kermit | 04.13.08 - 4:49 am | #"
Kermit:
Paul C. stated on Monica Guzman's blog (where he had posted an infomercial prior to Saturday night's program) that his pay was not at all ratings dependent. But CBS sure hyped the show, with or without Paul C's help. I saw only the last 15 minutes of the show, and only because my husband made me watch. He was right to do so; we both needed to get an idea of the level and content of the program. Our conclusion? The level was lower than even we expected and no new content. Maybe this week's hype had inured us. As kb pointed out, the interview behind closed shutters was simply ludicrous. And so was the "test" to see if the sound of running footsteps could be heard with the window closed. Finally, Edda Mellas is by now so distraught and weary that putting a camera in front of her seems almost cruel. It is difficult not to be moved by her obvious distress. But as indie pointed out, while it is hard to remain indifferent to that as a human being, you have to wonder if the families of both Knox and Sollecito are not making it more difficult for their adult children. They simply aren't leaving them any wiggle room at all.
Hi Sparrow. According to the papers, RG said he went to Domus and then onto Velvet the night of the murder.
and as indie pointed out, here is a link to the transcript of the 48 hours show:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2...725_page5.shtml
indie | 04.13.08 - 1:17 pm | #
Over here it is easier to scroll past the annoying posters who can't make their case up front, maybe they are two cowardly, that or they have simply nothing to say!
By the way how are you Lv2rgu?
I noticed you sometimes only you never say anything
I see, another Amanda is innocent fantatic. lv2rgu I doubt at all that you are doing anyone a favour by posting a link to that so thanks for nothing.
Let em go, they went to college.
damian | 04.13.08 - 2:53 pm |
__________________________________
If it had been true then the barkeeper wouldn't have just let someone threaten him with a knife without doing something about it, I can't see it.
seattleite, try this link to read about the famous Giuttari and Mignini
http://www.cpj.org/protests/
06lt...y19apr06pl.html
No, there wasn't much new on the 48 Hours show, but media coverage has been generally sketchy -- and the investigation might be in the same condition.
I don't know what the police will ultimately put on the table, but as some media sources are now pointing out, there seems to be a lack of resolution on important aspects like the murder weapon, time of death, connections between the suspects and motive.
Evidence being collected late, witnesses who emerge months after the killing and an overall shortage of forensic evidence on Knox and Sollecito give me doubts. Their problems with alibis definitely weighs against them, but one would need to know how the police handled the questioning before accepting that as proof of guilt. We'll see what happens next, but if conclusive evidence exists on the group murder theory, I don't think it's been revealed yet.
daniel mintz | 04.13.08 - 2:12 pm | #
_________________________________
Any journalist that quotes a Daily Mail reporter isn't worth much to me.
The Daily Mail, was owned by people who supported the Nazi's and those people were personal friends of Adolf Hitler, having visited their pal Adolf and Mussolini too, many times.
This journalist was editor of the Sun and The Daily Mirror, the crappiest papers in Britain along with the Mail, he must be very proud of his accomplishments as a journalist.
I found his article uninformed and uninteresting.
He wrote something about the uproar the video of Meredith's corpse caused and the upset to her family, without stating that the video got there, in all likelyhood, through Sollecito's lawyers putting into the TV station's hands.
"Over at the new message board it is easier to scroll past the annoying posters who can't make their case in fewer than 100 lines! Go there and give it a try!
Lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 2:29 pm | #"
I don't think it is easier. And I don't think line length is the best way to judge the content of a post. Some short ones are equally annoying. Thanks for reposting the CBS transcript link, just in case anyone missed it.
One clear bonus is that using multiple handles will be more difficult in the other forum.
Perhaps, rather than saying "easier", I should have pointed out that we don't need to scroll past the post to see who posted it, in order to decide whether to read it. Some posters just go on and on with the same drivel and personal attacks. I choose to look to the ones whose opinion I've come to respect.
"That is why I am so bewildered that you are willing to assume these Italian investigators, who have been floundering for nearly six months, speculating wildly without arriving at a coherent theory about how and why this crime was committed, are competent people acting in good faith. I can only attribute this credulous streak to a lack of familiarity with normal criminal investigations and police procedures."
Perhaps it is because we ARE familiar with criminal investigations and police procedures outside the US, conducted within Napoleonic code-inspired systems, that we do not assume this case IS floundering. I don't know how many other ways to say this: it was announced at the outset that the investigation would take AT LEAST six months and possibly until summer. The PM has been understandably reticent as the investigation is conducted; it would be abnormal otherwise. However, he has noted that the investigation is proceeding. How do you know that these professionals, whose competency and good faith you question, don't already have a pretty good idea of what happened? They aren't showing their hand to US media giants that manufacture true crime stories, and that is as it should be. The matter is pending (pendant); it has not yet been judged. Charges have yet to be filed, so it seems early to get all bent out of shape. If these suspects stand trial, they might even be acquitted. It happens all the time. A case is made; it is debated and rebutted; witnesses are called and evidence is produced; a judgement is rendered.
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 3:41 pm
________________
When you say WE you mean you.
Nobody has posted there yet except Skep and I and the only long posts are by Steve, the one long post from me is a poem by Chaucer about truth who you probably never heard about, you never write anything. I cannot help it if you have no appreciation of literature so why don't you have the guts to say it straight what you mean? I also do not happen to like you, no big deal, you don't like me and I don't like you.
I'll get over it have already and I hope you can.
Seeing as there were several posts asking people to take a look and Steve asking people to write I thought I would, write, and my posts there are short, you have posted nothing.
"Also, I'm not sure the police need or want any information. They seem confident they are holding the right people, and so they must think they have the crime all figured out. Now all they have to do is weather a few publicity squalls until they can present their case in court.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:11 pm |#"
Charlie,
This statement seems at odds with your view that the police and investigators haven't got a clue after six months of work.
"They can't establish an alibi because they spent the evening in his apartment with no one else present. The way Lumumba established his alibi is with independent witnesses. What if he had been alone the whole time? He might still be in jail.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 9:33 pm | #"
There was no forensic evidence whatsover on Lumumba, so that may also have had something to do with it.
"I can't answer this question. Do we know for sure that he told the police he had spoken with his father at that hour?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.11.08 - 10:31 pm | #"
Actually, it was Sollecito père who told police he HAD called his son's land line and spoken to him that night at 11 pm. He had to back-peddle when it transpired that phone records did not support this assertion.
It's funny those who are unable to articulate what they want to say, and then also wanting to defy a legal system and dictate their cut on a case to everyone else, use any old way they can to put that frame-up theory across, but to have the investigation railroaded by this complot theory by people who do not know the first thing about their own laws in their own country is ridiculous, as things go to see them picking holes in a system they have no idea about at all is insane.
Anyone who is able to express points better, they hate it.
Wilkes will not be back now that TV programme came out.
I expect anyhow.
When programmes like that, are about to be released, people like Wilkes seem to pop out of nowhere, say they became interested by something they read, but the truth is, they are momentarily interested as far as they are concerned themselves through their work. They try to get people to see things their way, then with the TV clips themselves, it could swing popular public opinion around, I call that low down dirty tricks.
That's one thing I am not guilty of, getting someone to believe everything I say, to some this whole story has drawn them in on nationalistic grounds not for the value of justice or for any feeling of sorrow for Meredith.
OT. What's your moniker on the message board lv2rgu?
"One clear bonus is that using multiple handles will be more difficult in the other forum."
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 3:32 pm | #
Sorry to trouble you SB, but why will it be more difficult there than it is here?
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:53 pm
I suppose it would add nothing for me to mention that I have only popped in at the other site in order to bookmark it and while there, noticed that the handles were to the left of the text, rather than below it, as in this blog. I've not read anything over there.
My interest in this blog is about justice and the murderers being punished, not whether my posts are the most popular. And as a mater of fact, I go out of my way to not divulge which "side" I'm on, but, unlike you, I do not judge.
Here is something about Giuttari, Mignini, and the police. It's a good read.
http://www.cpj.org/protests/
06lt...y19apr06pl.html
damian | 04.13.08 - 4:04 pm |
If I ever post there, it'll remain the same.
I can answer your question Damian -- basically, while people can sneak things by, there are administrative tools available to a message board admin that I don't have with Haloscan. Past that I'd rather not be much more specific. It's no guarantee that the trolls will be caught every time, but it's an improvement. The admin functions for Haloscan are very simple, black & white. People are banned or not. Their posts are published or deleted. You can's specifically ban a certain screen name choice here, or easily ferret out all the posts by one person. Hope that helped.
ETA: The message board has a function that doesn't allow for duplicate screen names. That doesn't exist here. Three different people could post as Damian. If they were all using the same computer, I wouldn't know it.
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 4:07 pm | #
______________________
I don't believe you on that you were making a sideways dig at me. That's all there is too it.
Write what you like.
I noticed you were one of those in for the conspiracy against Amanda theme so after that I took you with a dose of salt.
Jus the way it is. I don't like that crap, it isn't helping anything.
That's all there is to it too
I'm going to post the bit about how suspects can be held for up to two years not one.
I think nobody takes it seriously, but it is true.
Anonymous | 04.13.08 - 4:08 pm |
Over the course of the last few threads we have been inundated with alarmed postings concerning Mignini and the Florence case (about a serial killer who liked to multilate - as in cut off - the sexual organs of his victims).
I personally don't feel it is directly related to how the Perugia crime is being directed by Judge Claudia Matteini, but just in case Mignini is pulling the wool over her eyes, as well as all the judge's who have gone through the three levels of appeal ref. the preventive prison, I would like to ask you (it would be easier to do if you assumed - or reassumed - a moniker) do you have any references to Mignini's perspective on this issue?
It would help obtain a balanced perspective, and not make us feel we are participating in some book promotion a la the spamming of Paul C. to promote the CBS show.
-
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 4:07 pm | #
______________
I would have liked to believe you when you say you are here because you are concerned about justice and getting the murderers but, seeing as how so many people have taken that crap up about Amanda being hit, et cetera, it has pissed me off, that nobody of that theme, does seem to care about Meredith, it is all poor Amanda.
Where I come from, London, people are murdered every day, and brutalized, raped, robbed, but there's no way that I'd be sticking up for any potential crook just because I lived near them or that it was in my town. I hate nationalism, and if these people who keep going on about the prosecutor had real valid lines of reasoning, based on facts I'd take them up on it, and debate it but to debate in response to unfounded catcalling is a waste of time.
Pre-trial detention can be adopted only for crimes for which a sentence of four years or more can be imposed.
The aim of the detention is to allow the prosecuting authority to gather sufficient evidence during the preliminary investigation phase (which can last no more than two years).
Article 303, paragraph 1(a), point 3 in conjunction with article 407, paragraph 2(a), point 4 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure states tha the maximum for pre-trial detention is one year. This one year period runs from the hrearing in which the GIP decides to order pre-trial detention in order to safeguard the investigation and the course of the criminal trial. However, the judge has the authority to grant an extension to the above mentioned period if so rewquested by the PM under certain circumstances, most notably when there are serious precautionary needs.
______________
The suspects, it was said, by the prosecution, that they thought they'd need to detain these suspects for a year, that is why it was reported as "can detain them for up to a year" and the year is the normal amount but in more difficult cases where more people are involved, not specifically this case, the possibility exists to detain a suspect for up to two years.
Nobody has posted there yet except Skep and I and the only long posts are by Steve, the one long post from me is a poem by Chaucer...
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:53 pm | #
Hi TLC Just a minor correction. I did post twice over there this morning. I left an idea about how to make the timeline, if anyone is interested. Since one can use color, etc, it's got many possibilities. Anyway, I for one liked that you put the Chaucer there!
dashing again,
Sorry, message said error - not sent, and then it did anyway. Hmmm
OT Thanks for the clarification Steve. I'm naive about these things. It never occurred to me that people would post here under different names until Rob pointed it out on Haloscan 1 and 2. It still took me a couple of weeks to believe it, but that person having "a great cloud of witnesses backing up their stuff," was never really a problem for me. It's other stuff that irritates me.
Sorry lvr2gu, I thought you had to sign up to read the message board.
Anyway, if anyone is interested, Mr Maresca said that there was no phone contact between the couple and RG in the days leading up to the murder, nor the night of the murder. I thought that was interesting, he didn't have to say that. He also said that he believes a 'disgraziata coincidenza' was key with regard to the motive. He was referring to the crossing of paths between Meredith and AK. Again, I thought that was interesting, he didn't have to say that. Mr Maresca has read Ricciarelli's report.
Damian, what about that link you were asked to repost earlier today? I would love to read it.
Damian, re this post:
Just a couple of little questions.
1. I recently translated an interview with a man who has read all the judge's reports and participated in all the 'incidenti probatorio'. This man is not defending any of the 3 suspects. This interview was ignored here. Why?
Kermit
I am not participating in anyway with a book promotion. As I stated earlier my ties are in Italy with family that are involved with the politics in Italy. So many people here trust every word that comes out of the papers I wanted you to see how the journalist in Italy sometimes fear the law makers. Mignini will have his day in court pertaining to this case with Mario Spezi so I guess we will get his perspective then. I personally do feel it is related to how the Perugia crime is being directed the character of this prosecutor comes into play. Just as the character of all those accused. I hope Mignini does bring TRUTH and justice to Meredith's family
"Nobody has posted there yet except Skep and I and the only long posts are by Steve, the one long post from me is a poem by Chaucer...
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:53 pm | #
Hi TLC Just a minor correction. I did post twice over there this morning. I left an idea about how to make the timeline, if anyone is interested. Since one can use color, etc, it's got many possibilities. Anyway, I for one liked that you put the Chaucer there!
dashing again,
May | 04.13.08 - 4:50 pm | #"
Yes, and May has a good idea about how to go about upgrading the timeline. Now, if we can just find someone willing and able to do it.
It is really very easy to sign up, by the way. Just scroll up to Steve's first post on the subject. Plus, you can complete a profile for yourself and even upload a photo if you like (no obligation).
And best of all, no Anonymous posters.
TLC, I too appreciated it that you brought Chaucer on board, so to speak.
Lv2..."what about that link you were asked to repost earlier today?"
I bought the newspaper, I decided to translate the interview, I posted my translation. It was about a week ago.
Anonymous | 04.13.08 - 5:04 pm |
I hear you, Anonymous (please, give yourself a moniker!). Obviously I hope that the investigation (and later, trial, if there is one) is carried out to the maximum degree of professionalism, from the Postal Police, to the Homicide Squad, to the forensic teams, to the Prosecutor (Mignini), to the investigating judge (Matteini), the jail guards, and everyone else involved.
I would hope that there are numerous checks and controls in place to identify and act upon unprofessional conduct.
A curiosity, why do you refer to "the character of all those accused" .... as a balance to the reference of "the character of the prosecutor", or because of some negative aspect regarding the suspects (they're actually not "accused" yet)? It's neither here nor there, just wondering.
Please continue posting ...
-
Kermit
In regard to the suspects I feel there has been false information all around. I feel the press really had a free hand in that. Hey it sells papers.
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 1:06 pm |
Sei troppo carino!!!hai un modo ironico di porre le cose che mi fa morire
Grazie dei tuoi post, illuminano la giornata (o meglio la notte qui)
sciaoooo
N.
Anonymous | 04.13.08 - 5:34 pm |
Granted, but the suspects, their families and their lawyers have all participated directly in the circus.
At least we have the original Matteini report, untouched by any intermediary.
PLEASE give yourself a moniker
-
About these 'new' results from the autopsy, the alcohol in the blood, the compatability of the knife, the time of death etc. I believe it was Patrick's lawyers who first asked for this (tod), and then the gip asked for various other things. Does anyone know if the defence team's experts were present when these tests were carried out? If not, I guess they will have to do them again. Does it work like this in the US too?
With regards to the media circus, just a fast general question to anyone who saw the CBS show last night, concerning one of my favourite peeves:
Was any mention made of Joe the Sleuth's "20% Solution"? (that the victim's DNA on Raffaele's knife is only a "20% match"). I just wanted to know if that comment, which made it to newspaper headlines and fuelled many blogs, has vapourised and floated off into the aether.
--------------------
Nope, Damian, not familiar with that, sorry.
-
This, unfortunately, will go on for years. The trial will not be the end of it. After that, there's the appeal and after that there is the Cassazione. It will take between 3 and 6 years. We are in Italy. Just wondering if people were aware of that.
"Lv2..."what about that link you were asked to repost earlier today?"
I bought the newspaper, I decided to translate the interview, I posted my translation. It was about a week ago.
damian | 04.13.08 - 5:13 pm | #"
Lv2:
You can go to the previous thread yourself and reread Damian's post. There's no reason to repost it here or ask Damian to spend time looking for it. Reposting takes up needless space and asking Damian to do the leg work doesn't seem quite right.
I'll make it easy. You will find it here:
"Messaggero article contd...
damian | 04.07.08 - 6:04 pm | #"
"PLEASE give yourself a moniker
-
Kermit | 04.13.08 - 5:41 pm | #"
Kermit:
One, two, three strikes and you're ignored?
"One, two, three strikes and you're ignored?" Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 6:11 pm |
I'm patient, Skep. Baseball batters inevitably have to put on their own shirt with a name. It may be "Jones" or "Slugger", doesn't matter.
-
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 6:10 pm | #
Thanks for that! I had misunderstood and was asking for what I thought was just a link, not a complete repost. Lord knows I wouldn't want to take up needless space here.
Was any mention made of Joe the Sleuth's "20% Solution"? (that the victim's DNA on Raffaele's knife is only a "20% match"). I just wanted to know if that comment, which made it to newspaper headlines and fuelled many blogs, has vapourised and floated off into the aether…….Kermit
The knife was mentioned by Paul C., and all he said was that the cops weren’t even sure if it’s the murder weapon. Nothing about 20% match.
DLW | 04.13.08 - 6:33 pm | "Nothing about 20% match."
Thanks DLW. I suspected as much. I think someone has told Joe the Sleuth to dump boron on that one.
-
Just to bring Damian's piece over to this thread. I was surprised at the time when very few picked up on the inferences to be made from the things Maresca (The Kircher family lawyer) said.
Journalist. "What do you think the motive was for the murder?
Maresca. "I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda. That night, there could have been a triggering element, like, for example, the missing money. Certainly, pieces are still missing from the investaigation, but the essential points ('punti essenziale') are there. 'I riscontri che vengono fatti vanno tutti a rafforzare le indagine svolte fino ad ora'. There are also witness's statements which have been confirmed 'dai riscontri', like, for example the foriegn citizen who saw them the night before the crime was committed. And there are also 'riscontri' to what Rudy has said. I believe the investigation is going very well (stia andando avanti nel migliore dei modi) The Cassazione didn't reject either the 'teorema accusatorio' or the indications of guilt; the three suspects remained in prison."
Help please on the bits I didn't do...esp riscontri, confirm/verify/check??
Damian
Maresca seems to believe that Knox and Sollecito are well involved and that there appears to be at least some confirmation of Rudy's story.
Lord knows I wouldn't want to take up needless space here.
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 6:20 pm | #
____________________________________
Indeed, that would be terrible!
Kermit wrote:
Now, please respond to that specific, hypothetical question (I have responded in the past when you have felt I haven't replied to your questions). Thanks.
My short answer is no. I don't believe Knox and Sollecito can contribute to the investigation or improve the investigators' understanding of how and why Meredith was murdered. I think the investigators already know what happened but are lying about it to the public. I also think they know exactly why problems and inconsistencies developed as Knox and Sollecito were interrogated. They separated these people and played them against each other. They told Knox that Sollecito was incriminating her and vice versa. They assured the suspects they would rot in a cell if they didn't tell the investigators what they wanted to hear, or sign the statements put in front of them. This is SOP for lazy cops and the techniques are clearly reflected in Knox's written statement of November 6.
The fundamental disconnect between how you and I view this case is based on the fact that you trust the authorities. You think they are honest people who only want the truth. I think they are dishonest people who know perfectly well they are holding two innocent suspects but want to see them convicted of murder anyway, because at this point it is the only way they can save face and save their careers.
So, I respect your opinion but I think it is wrong, just as you think my opinion is wrong. We will never convince each other because our opinions are based on our much different views of how the world operates, which neither of us is likely to change.
nd after that there is the Cassazione. It will take between 3 and 6 years. We are in Italy. Just wondering if people were aware of that.
damian | 04.13.08 - 6:08 pm | #
_____________________
Yeah usually the Cassationary Court is third step, in this case they'll be saying, Oh no, not you lot again, what's up now, you love us, our coffee our pizza but you slag us Italians off and think we live in caves for the rest, now what can we do you for?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am | "I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators ... are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:36 am | "I think the suspects were coerced and manipulated into making statements in which they incriminated themselves and each other."
1. If you haven't yet had time to read one of the key documents in this case, you should go through Matteini's original report where it's clear from the time of the first arrests, the focus was on Patrick as a key figure, perhaps / probably even being THE KILLER.
What happened? He seemed initially like the perfect suspect, even better than Amanda: black, immigrant, works in a bar, a part-time musician. He was arrested, he was questioned, he stated his alibi.
Instead of trying to "build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty", (paraphrasing what you state in your post), the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
Conclusion: you can't generalise from other crimes, nor even within this crime and say that the investigators are working to frame someone. If they clearly didn't do it in the case of Patrick, the perfect suspect, then how can you suggest that the ILE is trying to frame Amanda and Raffaele?
2. How can you call us naive and suggest that Raffaele was coerced or abused inappropriately on November 5? At no point has there been any suggestion that between the crime and the end of his questioning on Nov. 5 was there any mistreatment. His father and his team are theatrical experts, they are on all the Italian talk shows, and while they have talked about wild and crazy things like the victim and Amanda sharing bras, they haven't come anywhere near suggesting abuse of Raffaele or coercion to extract from him a change in his alibi before or during his Nov. 5 questioning.
I can understand your concern with this issue, as it neutralises the complaint that Amanda was physically or psychologically abused. If she was, that is a process which should follow its own course, and if there is any doubt about the value of her declaration on the night of Nov.5-6, then let's throw it out ... but even if it is thrown out, Amanda still has a problem, as her alibi was already openly at odds with Raffaele's before her Nov. 5 questioning began.
-
TLC, I too appreciated it that you brought Chaucer on board, so to speak.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 5:13 pm
______________________________
Thanks Skep, I really did mean it with a good heart in memory of Meredith, and to raise our sense of dignity up, I thought it was fitting, thanks again.
May
Ooops sorry, my apologies, I didn't intend calling you nobody, I did read and respond to you as you may have seen, sorry, correction, was tired (in Italian from Napoli tired = Stan Getz = stanco) three of us had posted four including Steve.
May wrote:
Hi TLC Just a minor correction. I did post twice over there this morning. I left an idea about how to make the timeline, if anyone is interested. Since one can use color, etc, it's got many possibilities. Anyway, I for one liked that you put the Chaucer there!
Kermit wrote:
He was arrested, he was questioned, he stated his alibi.
Rather than trying to build a case so that a court will convict him for murder, whether or not he was guilty, to paraphrase you above, the ILE worked on the clues, on his alibi, on the witnesses. And they set him free from preventive prison.
It's a flawed comparison. Lumumba was in a public place, where he was seen by people with whom he had no relationship. Knox and Sollecito were holed up in an apartment, and had no independent witnesses to confirm their whereabouts.
Charlie Wilkes:
I don't believe Knox and Sollecito can contribute to the investigation or improve the investigators' understanding of how and why Meredith was murdered.
Maresca, the Kercher's lawyer:
"I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda. That night, there could have been a triggering element, like, for example, the missing money. Certainly, pieces are still missing from the investaigation, but the essential points ('punti essenziale') are there.
Wilkes wrore:
1/ The fundamental disconnect between how you and I view this case is based on the fact that you trust the authorities.
2/ You think they are honest people who only want the truth.
3/ a) I think they are dishonest people who know perfectly well they are holding two innocent suspects but want to see them convicted of murder anyway,
b) because at this point it is the only way they can save face and save their careers.
__________________________________________
That is such a misrepresentation by you, of what Kermit MAY believe, just because in this case he trusts that it is all going according to how it ought to, does not mean you have any right to decide for him what his opinion is on whether people in positions of authority are always honest, he may have been hit by a cop himself, or mistreated somewhere, your point is of no value at all because you are making up stuff about someone else and generalizing with sweeping statemnents based on assumption and an ignorance of factual knowledge. First the authorities and now Kermit.
Simply bullshit sorry Wilkes, you will need to do far better.
1/ Untrue
2/ Yes, he may well do, at least until there is a valid reason to believe that this is a wrong idea.
3/ Your number 3 makes me want to puke for the cheapness and bad smell of it.
a) Simply untrue and based on your unfair and warped idea based not on fact but a will to say that this case is a frame-up
b) that is utter nonsense, nothing anywhere says that would be the case
"It's a flawed comparison. Lumumba was in a public place, where he was seen by people with whom he had no relationship. Knox and Sollecito were holed up in an apartment, and had no independent witnesses to confirm their whereabouts.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 7:24 pm | #"
And yet, there is apparently at least one witness who saw and spoke to Knox outside the apartment where she was allegedly holed up. And Sollecito has written that after leaving the cottage at 6pm, he and Knox went into town for two hours and hung out before she left him to hang out with friends at Le Chic. Surely they were seen by at least one person who might have come forward to vouch for them if in fact they went into town. In fact, both have stated and written that they don't really remember what they were doing that night, so how can they know whether they were at the apartment or elsewhere, alone or together? Sollecito in particular will have a problem finding his way back to Amanda as alibi because he has denounced her so categorically. And she will have a problem if the evidence places him at the crime scene. So far, this evidence has been contested ONLY via the press by Sollecito's defense team, which I have read is fairly standard practice in Italy. In fact, it will ONLY really stand or fall once it is presented for consideration in a court of law.
What I wonder if whether the memory lapses they both appear to have suffered from will turn out to be temporary or permanent. I think this will prove to be of critical importance in the case.
It's a flawed comparison. Lumumba was in a public place, where he was seen by people with whom he had no relationship. Knox and Sollecito were holed up in an apartment, and had no independent witnesses to confirm their whereabouts.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 7:24 pm | #
___________________
Untrue, as most or all of your ideas are, sadly.
If they had been at home, then they may have picked up a phone, you don't know but maybe Solecito had a landline phone as well and if, as Amanda says, they were home all evening as well as night, then there was a chance they'd have had their mobile phones on, instead of turning them off for so long.
Then maybe what Sollecito senior had said about talking with his son at 11 at night would have been true as it is, it shows that not only son-love is a liar but daddio as well.
If they had really been at home and Soll had been on the computer so long then that too would have been evidence wouldnt'it, as it is, they found up until now no evidence of a person having been online at the times Soll said he had been online.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:36 am | "I think the suspects were coerced and manipulated into making statements in which they incriminated themselves and each other
___________________
Millionth time
Yes okay Wilkes but if that is so why the fook does Sollecito not say that was the case, only you say that, about him, not even he says it, don't you see how lame your conjecture is?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 7:24 pm|
Charlie, they had conflicting alibis before Amanda started her questioning on Nov. 5. Do you now agree that Raffaele wasn't abused or mishandled inappropriately? Jeepers, as long as the cops don't beat him up, it's their job to ask probing questions that might give way to contradictions, isn't it? And, in fact, there were contradictions. Is that sinister? You make it sound like SOP should from now on exclude asking if one has an alibi, then looking into inconsistencies. That's basic cop work.
Of course Amanda and Raffaele don't have witnesses who can confirm they were in the privacy of Raffaele's flat, because, as Skep said, there are witnesses who say they weren't there.
Regarding Mignini, you seem to say that he only tries to frame people who don't have witnesses backing their alibis.
Alibis are important. Very important. The problem, I don't think is that Amanda and Raffaele contradicted themselves in any of the basic points they may have agreed in their initial common alibi. Alibis fall apart not because cops getting you to denounce your girlfriend or boyfriend, nor because of what's there, but because of what's not there: new details that the suspects didn't think about how to deal with. (She: "Yikes, I forgot to tell him I bumped into Jovanovic". He: "Momma mia, didn't I tell her to ditch the knife in the dumpster?")
((Those are hypothetical examples. Also, I have no idea of if Amanda and Raffaele went over their alibis together ... although even in the most innocent scenario, it would have been normal for them - at the end of the day on Nov.2 - to have gone over what the ILE had asked, and how they replied)).
-
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This statement seems at odds with your view that the police and investigators haven't got a clue after six months of work.
I said they're floundering, not that they don't have a clue. In my opinion, they know what happened. But they got ahead of the evidence when they were preening for the media last fall, and now it's too late to climb down without losing face and damaging their careers. So they are struggling to come up with a narrative that will somehow implicate three people in a straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator.
Many who post here are concerned about inconsistencies and changes in the statements made by suspects last fall. But no one seems bothered by the fact that the police have radically changed their theory with regard to how and why this crime happened. It's no longer a sex orgy turned deadly... now it's some kind of robbery scenario.
But either way, they don't offer much detail, do they? They're throwing out all these circumstantial tidbits to implicate Knox and Sollecito -- supposed bleach receipts indicating a cleanup, supposed tiny fragments of victim DNA on a knife in Sollecito's apartment, hints that Knox owed money to a drug dealer -- but they can't come up with a narrative that makes sense.
Nor can anyone here I have noticed.
Your explanation of Rudy throwing the rock through the window didn't really convince many of us.
-
You know, this with Mr Wilkes, with all respect (mmmmnn) er, what world are we living in here?
Anyone who knows anything knows that even if a person, even me dear ol'mam, is pulled up by the cops they don't pass a bunch of flowers first and then say well if you don't want to answer our questions, you don't have to, still, you did just nearly run that little old man over at the crossing, never mind.
Bankrobber: hit the floor muthaf---
Cops: I say, I saw you do that you baddy, would you mind coming out with your hands up, please do not try anything funny or my colleague will give you one of her Chinese burns. We also happen to have a very fierce dog. Rocky gettem.
A small chihuahua runs out shivering,
Dog: Roof, roof, ruuuf, dressed in his best little jacket of velvet tartan with police written on it both sides.
Ah says the cops the dog says they're up on the roof. Much like the Captain's theories skywards.
Charlie Wilkes:
But either way, they don't offer much detail, do they?
And why should they?
This is still an ongoing investigation.
"But no one seems bothered by the fact that the police have radically changed their theory with regard to how and why this crime happened."
If they were unable to do that, then they would be guilty of what you suspect them of, i.e. to quote your post above: "they are dishonest people who know perfectly well they are holding two innocent suspects but want to see them convicted of murder anyway, because at this point it is the only way they can save face and save their careers."
I think the circular reasoning on display here is the main reason I disagree so profoundly with what you say here. That and your description of the investigators as "preening" last fall. I have seen a lot of preening, but not from that corner.
All who are on board:
I'm off for the evening. I have a lot of work to catch up on.
Mr Wilkes public enemy nr.1
Darn, did you ever get lost in Disneyland as a kid and instead of looking for you your parents said, "Thank f-- fa that, let's go Martha?"
Bye Skep.
-
Charlie, just a thought regarding witnesses who claim that Amanda wasn't in Raffaele's flat during the evening of Nov. 1. .... in addition to Jovanovic, the 60 year old man, the driver, etc., the number one witness if Raffaele himself.
It's kind of hard for Amanda to place herself there, if Raffaele, the person whose flat she says she was in, says she wasn't there.
Any thoughts on that, other than "they beat him up in ways he never realised were so dastardly"?
-
Night Skep
straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator
_______________________________
These are the exact words of Doug Preston, come on, who are you? I can reproduce those words he wrote, and you just did here, word for word, I think you are him.
Wilkes wrote
It's no longer a sex orgy turned deadly... now it's some kind of robbery scenario.
_________________________________
It is not, that is what you are making of it, it is a selection of concurrent events that led to Meredith being murdered so no one part is alone responsible.
You are saying stuff for others who have not even stated exactly what their case is yet. The prosecution has said no such thing, such as, it is a pure robbery case.
You are not very good at whatever it is you do are you.
What I wonder if whether the memory lapses they both appear to have suffered from will turn out to be temporary or permanent. I think this will prove to be of critical importance in the case.
If they had witnesses who could put them somewhere else at the time of the murder, which Lumumba does have, I think they'd have told the authorities about it, and their situation would be much different.
More Maresca courtesy of Damian:
"What are the facts of the investigation?
Maresca. "Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith. Raffaelle and Amanda's presence in the house the evening the crime was committed ('nella casa la sera del delitto'). Also, something which is rarely considered, is the contradictory behaviour ('comportamenti contadditori') of Raffaele and Amanda during the first days that the police interviewed them. (before they were arrested d) These are also serious indications of guilt. As the tribunale del riesame stated, the role that the 3 suspects had in the crime is yet to be ascertained, their positions are yet to be clarified. It's true for example, that there was no contact ('non ci sono stati contatti'. for me he's talking phone contact. It's inferred for me. d) between the couple and Rudy neither in the days leading up to the murder, nor the night of the murder."
Kermit wrote:
Charlie, just a thought regarding witnesses who claim that Amanda wasn't in Raffaele's flat during the evening of Nov. 1. .... in addition to Jovanovic, the 60 year old man, the driver, etc., the number one witness if Raffaele himself.
Exactly my point. The only witness who can confirm the suspect's alibi is another suspect. Lumumba didn't have that problem.
It's kind of hard for Amanda to place herself there, if Raffaele, the person whose flat she says she was in, says she wasn't there.
He did at first. Why do you suppose he changed his story, assuming he did?
TLC wrote:
"If it had been true then the barkeeper wouldn't have just let someone threaten him with a knife without doing something about it, I can't see it."
TLC | 04.13.08 - 3:24 pm | #
TRADUCO responds:
Precisely.
And as SPARROW reminds us:
"The idea of telling lies in public is that even if they are proven wrong, so many people remember the lie, and ignore the correction. It doesn't matter if it's true, as long as it's planted well."
It's all subliminal, or as George W. says, it's "sub-lim-inable."
BUT- what I found REALLY jarring in that segment was hearing this report that Rudy had been attempting to rob the bar NOT with a knife, but "AT GUNPOINT".. We've heard that Rudy has been found carrying around a knife. That's not news.
But, now he possesses/had possessed a GUN?! And this alleged act of intimidation with a deadly weapon merely warrants the owner barring him from returning. I don't think so!
Which would beg the question, where did Rudy acquire said gun?
Hmmmm...Ya think maybe he might have "borrowed" one from Papa Sollecito's vast gun collection? !(Remember, of course, that Raffaele has got the knife collection, Papa Sollecito has got the gun collection, Nonno Sollecito had the venomous snake collection, the Bisnonno had ... )
Kermit wrote:
Regarding Mignini, you seem to say that he only tries to frame people who don't have witnesses backing their alibis
Of course. Police frameups always involve people who can't prove an alibi. Otherwise the frameups don't work. Read about a few cases and you'll see what I mean.
Alibis fall apart not because cops getting you to denounce your girlfriend or boyfriend, nor because of what's there, but because of what's not there:
Believe whatever you want. As I have already said, we aren't going to agree on this because we have fundamentally different views of how the world operates.
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 8:24 pm |
____________________________
Hi Traduco,
Yes, I do not believe that for a moment about Guede holding a barman up with a gun. I've lived in Italy too, and I know the way things go, if that had happened aftewrwards the guy would have called the police especially because he'd have known Guede, like the tourist guide did too.
Well, Sollecito's dad, to me seems like not an upstanding citizen but a liar too, I mean, saying to police he'd spoken to his somn on the phone on the night of the murder then after tests were carried out it turning out to be the case that he had in fact called but there had been no connection, the phone had not been answered, yes, because they also determined both phones had been turned of simultaneously in the early evening.
I mean, the prosecution has not brought out a whole statement of what they think happened, not at all, so anyone who says they know what the prosecution has or thinks exactly, is talking rubbish.
Are you in Italy Traduco?
You can't help noticing:
Il Messaggero Umbria. 7April.2008
Journalists Carmignani Ugolini
"Until a few days ago, the Kercher family was in silence, closed in their pain, with just the hope that their daughter could at least have justice. Then, the violation, the footage transmitted by a private tv company from Bari. The news that Meredith was drunk (without doubting the fact that mistakes may have been made in the analysis of the blood sample taken from the victim), and the pain has turned to anger. A sense of desecration, of respect being trodden on (respetto calpestato. Meredith Kercher's family have spoken out, and they've done so through their lawyer, Francesco Maresca, because "there's a clear attempt to discredit Meredith, and this goes completely agaisnt the truth."
My translation of the article.
damian | 04.07.08 - 4:28 pm | #
A Google search for "Meredith Kercher" sorted by date on Italian news gives the most recent entry:
Immagini Meredith, Ordine dei giornalisti avvia procedimento ...
BariLive.it - 8 apr 2008
... in cui furono mandate in onda le immagini del cadavere di Meredith Kercher (girate dalla polizia scientifica a Perugia la sera del ritrovamento della ...
Francesco Maresca: "You have been warned!"
Believe whatever you want. As I have already said, we aren't going to agree on this because we have fundamentally different views of how the world operates.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 8:31 p
_______________________
You do seem to talk out of your posterior Wilkes.
How do you know where Kermit lived, where he was born, what things he has done, whether he has lived in all kinds of places and seen all types of people, you just don't know, it is not a question of what you say it is, that you have different views on the world, it is that you are not a true thinker, you get an idea in your brain then you are like a lump of concrete, like a mule stuck in clay ground, stubborn and unable to reason, you are like someone spewing out words like grey lava of dogma that smothers all colour and signs of life.
BUT- what I found REALLY jarring in that segment was hearing this report that Rudy had been attempting to rob the bar NOT with a knife, but "AT GUNPOINT"..
Traduco | 04.13.08 - 8:24 pm |
He attempted to rob the bartender at KNIFEPOINT.
Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...725_page5.shtml
Brian S. | 04.13.08 - 7:01 pm
re Damian's translation
Yes, and I was struck by another point too :
Maresca seems to know that the Albanian witness's testimony has been checked and found trustworthy.
("There are also witness's statements which have been confirmed by evidence ('dai riscontri'), like, for example the foreign citizen who saw them the night before the crime was committed.")
Now, Maresca is the Kerchers' lawyer, and I think he cannot be suspected of any bias or 'idée fixe' -- unlike some defense lawyers (and at least one unpaid and unacknowledged consultant) I could name !
Charlie, sometimes it's hard to engage you because one may get the feeling that you're ducking and bobbing and weaving.
For example, at times you direct all of your criticism of Amanda's current situation (it appears you are quite concerned about her) towards Prosecutor Mignini and his evil tactics. Your objective seems to be summed up with "If Mignini were replaced with a good, honest prosecutor, then I would be satisfied".
At other times, like now, you start talking about the ways the world operates, about how in cases like this, certainly things inevitably happen (whoever the prosecutor may be).
At some moments alibis are important, at other moments they aren't. At some moments the ILE in this Perugia case are a farce because they're taking six months for a "straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator"
(BTW, can you confirm / deny TLC's statement that you are Douglas Preston ... that's how rumours start)
And at other times you say they already have the investigation wrapped up. At times your focus is on Amanda, at other times on Amanda and Raffaele.
The only thing that is clear is that you have a critical view of Amanda's situation, but some of your angles of analysis are at odds with other angles you take at times.
Sorry, I'm off to bed, will see your reply in the morning...
-
NICKI HA SCRITTO:
Sei troppo carino!!!hai un modo ironico di porre le cose che mi fa morire
Grazie dei tuoi post, illuminano la giornata (o meglio la notte qui)
sciaoooo
N.
nicki | 04.13.08 - 5:35 pm | #
TRADUCO RISPONDE:
Ti ringrazio, cara! Ehhh..Ci vuole un pizzico di ironia per poter affrontare certe cose, vero? Comunque, mi fa piacere che io possa averti dato in qualche modo un po' d'illuminazione--cosi`facendo ti faccio risparmiare un po' sulla tua bolletta della luce?!!
Ma,sul serio--Complimenti a TE! Hai dimostrato qui, come la nostra amica Sparrow, di essere molto in gamba, informatissima e svelta. Sogni d'oro, Nicki, sono le 3,55 orario milanese in questo momento...zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry for "ide fixe". Accented letters seem to disappear into thin air. I should have typed 'idee fixe'.
--
Pinecone | 04.13.08 - 8:43 pm
at KNIFEpoint : yes, that is what I heard on the radio programme.
So let no one get excited about this. No gun.
If I were to read between the lines of Maresca's interview:
I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda...
And there are also 'riscontri' (confirmations??) to what Rudy has said. I believe the investigation is going very well...
Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith...something which is rarely considered, is the contradictory behaviour ('comportamenti contadditori') of Raffaele and Amanda during the first days that the police interviewed them. (before they were arrested d) These are also serious indications of guilt...
It's true for example, that there was no contact ('non ci sono stati contatti'. for me he's talking phone contact. It's inferred for me. d) between the couple and Rudy neither in the days leading up to the murder, nor the night of the murder.
This from a man who has no interest except in representing the position of the victim and her family in ensuring a correct outcome to this investigation.
A man who has also been privy to all relevant documents, statements, witness statements, court documents etc. etc. and has been present at the various court proceedings.
I'd say that man was pointing a finger at Amanda and Raffaele far more than he was pointing a finger at Rudy.
Brian S. | 04.13.08 - 9:03 pm |
Exactly !
Pinecone:
My bad. Thanks for the correction!
Perhaps it's time for me to invest in a hearing aide!
OT Thanks for the clarification Steve. I'm naive about these things. It never occurred to me that people would post here under different names until Rob pointed it out on Haloscan 1 and 2.---Damian
OT: Sometimes they use different computers too, so they wouldn't be detected in the way Steve mentioned. Oh well, we have to live with devils sometimes.
Damian, thanks for the correction regarding the discos at which Rudy danced that night. A strange development of my following this story, is that I get excited at the idea of Biscotti getting excited. I hope you're laughing now. Anyway you slice it, we should find out if this story about the attempted robbery is true or false.
"Anyway you slice it, we should find out if this story about the attempted robbery is true or false.
Sparrow | 04.13.08 - 9:32 pm | #"
I'm working on that right now. Can someone who actually saw this part of the show tell me if Ciolino reported the conversation with the bartender or if the bartender actually recounted it on camera?
I'm working on that right now. Can someone who actually saw this part of the show tell me if Ciolino reported the conversation with the bartender or if the bartender actually recounted it on camera?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 9:39 pm | #
He reported it-- no interview. Hot air, maybe? And didn't mention a source...
SB
He said he talked to the bar owner.
"He reported it-- no interview. Hot air, maybe? And didn't mention a source...
lv2rgu | 04.13.08 - 9:44 pm |#"
Thanks! That helps. I'm trying to find a local source or confirmation for it.
My bad, he did source it:
Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint. "We know that Rudy has no visible means of support and is able to pay rent, go to clubs, and do all kinds of things," he says.
Thanks to both of you for that.
So we have a source, given by Ciolino himself, but no confirmation and no face on camera, no name, no direct quotes.
Did Ciolino get any other dirt on Rudy from the local population?
From Rudy's diary page 16:
I often saw Meredith at the Merlin and spoke to her...
It wouldn't appear that he was banned.
He was well-known in the student community and frequented the Merlin bar where Kercher was known to go, according to media reports...
ABC News - Nov. 19, 2007
A local barman confirmed seeing Guede walking in Perugia on October 31, the night before her death. Police have been showing a photograph of Guede around Perugia bars in recent days.
Pasquale Alessi, the co-owner of the city's Merlin pub, said Guede was a frequent visitor to the Domus nightclub in Perugia, where Kercher danced the night before she was killed...
The Guardian - 19th November
Knox said she had arranged to meet Diya on the night of the killing via text and he had told Meredith they wanted to "have some fun". She added: "Patrick wanted her.
I get the feeling this "have some fun"
might have been what Amanda told to Meredith.
Meredith's boyfriend, on the one hand, said that he wasn't sure abot leaving to visit his family for that short holiday, but, Meredith had assured him it was okay and that she would wait for him.
On the other hand, he said, that they felt things for each other but then described it as though they were both quite free. He said he wasn't jealous at all even though he was fond of Meredith.
This is the only way, I can see a possibility of something consensual between Meredith and Guede happening being reality.
I mean, if it wasn't exactly the case that Meredith and Guede were boyfriend and girlfriend. Yet, seeing as how Meredith's friends will know whether or not Meredith really was with Giacomo Silenzi, then, in a way it's mad to think of a theory, where Meredith did willingly see Guede, if later anyway, the girls, Meredith's friends, are going to quite plainly state, no, definitely, Meredith was crazy about Giacomo and didn't stop talking about him. Or things like that.
But if it was, as Giacomo said, that they were loose, and he wouldn't have been jealous he had not claimed her, and Meredith did see Guede, the possibility exists that Amanda went off her head with jealousy, or she set Meredith up with Guede but then Guede went all too far, too quick.
Seeing as how, even if she liked Guede, she took two weeks of knowing Giacomo before having a kiss.
Which to me sounds nice, loving, romantic, not cheap, not promiscuous.
The scene where it is Amanda telling Meredith that they just want to have some fun would be with Sollecito not there, and Amanda arriving to the cottage with Guede.
Then something going on between the three of them, like Amanda getting enraged, that's how she looks to me, not tearful but very angry in her eye, eye not eyes. She looks livid in the moments when the Polizia Postale had arrived. Like someone who'd had a fight would be, not be always so fast to feel any compassion or anything much for the one the fight was with.
Anoher idea is Amanda and Guede being in the cottage and Guede having stolen Meredith's money.
Meredith arriving later but joining in the social chat, eating a little a glas of wine, and later finding her money gone. Meredith would never have instantly accused Guede, even if she thought he'd done it, because Amanda was responsible for having brought him into the house.
That might have been where the movements in that house slid into insanity.
I can't see it being that Meredith was with Guede in her room then Amanda got jealous of Meredith.
This
"have some fun
bit seems to strike a cord.
It was stupid
Want to have some fun
He wanted her
Bits like that strike me as being real but used in a setting that is fake, not the way it happened.
The barman saying Guede robbed him with a knife, sounds like a made up story like a rascist would use, whilst not having reported it, and not having said a thing up until now. I think unimportant of no value just more bull put in to lead away from staying focussed on the things that are important.
Kermit wrote:
Charlie, sometimes it's hard to engage you because one may get the feeling that you're ducking and bobbing and weaving.
For example, at times you direct all of your criticism of Amanda's current situation (it appears you are quite concerned about her) towards Prosecutor Mignini and his evil tactics. Your objective seems to be summed up with "If Mignini were replaced with a good, honest prosecutor, then I would be satisfied".
I've never put it that way.
I think Mignini is a problem. But at this point a number of people have signed off on the theory that three people were involved in this murder. If they release Knox and Sollecito now without charging them, they'll all look foolish. They have a shared interest in railroading these two. And they won't let go without a fight.
The Jeanine Nicarico case was like this, if you care to read about it. Half a dozen cops and prosecutors fought tooth and nail to keep the wrong guys behind bars for years, even after DNA evidence proved their innocence, even after the real killer confessed and was proven guilty by DNA evidence, and despite public outrage and a steady rain of fire and brimstone from the Chicago Tribune.
At other times, like now, you start talking about the ways the world operates, about how in cases like this, certainly things inevitably happen (whoever the prosecutor may be).
My point is that we don't agree and I don't think that will change.
At some moments alibis are important, at other moments they aren't.
Whether alibis matter depends on the cicrumstances. All (or almost all) people who can prove their alibis are innocent, but not all people who cannot prove their alibis are guilty.
At some moments the ILE in this Perugia case are a farce because they're taking six months for a "straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator"
(BTW, can you confirm / deny TLC's statement that you are Douglas Preston ... that's how rumours start)
I am not Douglas Preston, nor do I know him, nor had I ever heard of him until I read Candace Dempsey's interview.
And at other times you say they already have the investigation wrapped up.
I think they know what happened, but I don't think the investigation is wrapped up. They still have to coach witnesses, teach them how to perjure themselves without getting caught, etc. etc. It takes a lot of work to get an innocent person convicted of murder.
At times your focus is on Amanda, at other times on Amanda and Raffaele.
The only thing that is clear is that you have a critical view of Amanda's situation, but some of your angles of analysis are at odds with other angles you take at times.
You need to be more specific if you want a meaningful response.
Did Ciolino get any other dirt on Rudy from the local population?……..SB
A former student (from America) and now working in Perugia; said that Rudy danced on a table during a party, and would sometimes be harassing girls.
Meredith arriving later but joining in the social chat, eating, drinking a little a glas of wine, and later finding her money gone. Meredith would never have instantly accused Guede, even if she thought he'd done it, because Amanda was responsible for having brought him into the house.
said that Rudy danced on a table during a party
_________________________
The amount of criminals I know then based on that
"Did Ciolino get any other dirt on Rudy from the local population?……..SB
A former student (from America) and now working in Perugia; said that Rudy danced on a table during a party, and would sometimes be harassing girls.
DLW | 04.13.08 - 10:19 pm | #"
Would that be Zach Nowak, the recently published crime novel author?
Charlie Wilkes:
They still have to coach witnesses, teach them how to perjure themselves without getting caught
I can't speak with certainty about Italy but unlike the US, "witness coaching" as such is not allowed in much of Europe.
Many places only allow what they call court familiarisation. ie. they are prepared for the process and actuality of giving evidence in court but not on the content of their evidence. I've known judges in the UK throw out witnesses who they consider have been coached.
Would that be Zach Nowak, the recently published crime novel author?......SB
No, it was some African American young man named Nathan. He also spoke very highly of Patrick.
I posted this character assessment of Rudy, which was published in the International Herald Tribune on November 20, 2007:
"Kevin Massoletti, 20, a junior at the University of Oregon who knew Guede when he was studying in Perugia last summer, said he never saw any drug use or selling. In a telephone interview Tuesday he described Guede as "a really friendly guy, really outgoing." He added: "Once you got to know him, a very social guy, kind of the life of the party."
Massoletti said they played basketball several times a week and saw each other at parties or at a local club, where Guede was known as a good dancer. "The whole thing kind of baffles me," he added in the interview."
"Also I learned the 1st of the month is rent day in Perugia, and Rudy knew this. All the students make a run on the bank and are loaded with cash.
DLW | 04.13.08 - 2:09 pm | #"
Presumably, if the first of the month is rent day in Perugia (and probably almost everywhere in the wide world, come to think of it), then Rudy was not the only person in the know. Using that line of reasoning, he and about 60,000 other people fit the bill as possible robbers/thieves/burglars.
What is odd, however, is why the victim was still in possession of her money on the night of November 1. Why would she not have paid her rent that day?
Charlie,
Would you care to take up your issues with the Kercher's lawyer?
I believe the motive is complex, comprised of different elements: the financial motive along with the 'contrasti accesi' strong disagreements/arguments between Meredith and Amanda and the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele. Raffaele was 'frastornato' confused, he was studying for his thesis, he was using drugs and he'd just met this 'ragazza' (young woman/girl) with a strong character; he could have lost 'lucidita''. We are convinced that this was all born of a 'disgraziata coincidenza; the meeting of Meredith and Amanda...I believe the investigation is going very well...
He must have got an idea about those strong disagreements and arguments from somewhere don't you think?
Perhaps from Meredith's family and friends?
Skep,
They also showed a clip of the infamous "vampire" video of Rudy. Which as we have discussed before, doesn't help his image. I actually thought of Sparrow and her "he may have just been horsing around in front of a camera" theory when viewing it last night.
What is odd, however, is why the victim was still in possession of her money on the night of November 1. Why would she not have paid her rent that day?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 10:54 pm | #
Skep,
since she was holding it in cash, it may point to something like the landlord calling around once a month to check out the cottage and collect the rents.
He did at first. Why do you suppose he changed his story, assuming he did?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 8:21 pm
Charlie, if we are to believe Raffaele, he changed his story because he realized he erred in his first story, by giving Amanda the alibi she had requested of him.
Brian S. | 04.13.08 - 11:11 pm | #
______
Also, I think November 1 and 2 are both holidays in Italy. All Saints' Day and Day of the Dead. This may explain why she had not yet parted with the cash.
Hi SB
"Also I learned the 1st of the month is rent day in Perugia, and Rudy knew this. All the students make a run on the bank and are loaded with cash."
I was just paraphrasing what Paul said, and I don‘t put a lot of faith in what he said, or whatever logic he was trying to convey.
From CBS:
Amanda even got a job in a local bar. "She told me she must work because she need the money," says bar owner Patrick Lumumba, who hired her.
CBS news
What happened to the $5000?
DLW:
Actually, what you posted was quite useful. I'm trying to get an idea of the kind of ideas that were put forward and what conclusions viewers were meant to draw. I saw only a few short minutes of Ciolino, but like you I was seriously underwhelmed. I've been looking at the Soundoff comments board in the Seattle PI that follows yesterday's article/advert for the show, and have been struck by how underwhelmed the public (at least that part of it that chooses this avenue of expression) seems to be with the program. From a PR perspective, the only explosion coming from the people sounds like an engine backfiring.
Stacey wrote:
Charlie, if we are to believe Raffaele, he changed his story because he realized he erred in his first story, by giving Amanda the alibi she had requested of him.
But should we believe him? I'm a little confused about who is alleged to have said what and when. Sollecito destroyed Knox's alibi by saying he was home alone... but didn't they both account for carrying the mop back and forth by saying a pipe broke in his kitchen? Knox supposedly implicated Lumumba to protect Guede, but during the "big cleanup," they left Guede's feces unflushed and set up the murder room to frame him.
I guess maybe Knox is just inconsistent in her whims... she wanted to frame Guede right after the murder, but on reflection, she changed her mind and decided instead to lie for him by implicating Lumumba.
Or maybe she was just bored during the interrogation, and wanted to make the game more interesting.
On this board, any theory is bound to be more popular than my theory, which is that they changed their initial statements to incriminate themselves and each other because they were manipulated by the police.
From CBS:
The windows, Nara told the translator, were closed at the time.
Ciolino wanted to see-or hear-for himself. Nara's upstairs neighbor let Ciolino into her apartment to find out what he could hear.
Outside, 48 Hours got some local kids to do some running to see if the sounds were audible inside the neighbor's apartment, with the window's closed.
The result: Ciolino says he heard something but couldn't tell if it was footsteps; the neighbor, Christine, says she didn't hear anything.
Now do that again at 10:30 at night.
Brian S. wrote:
He must have got an idea about those strong disagreements and arguments from somewhere don't you think?
My guess is he's getting his information from the police.
I wonder what he thinks Guede's role is?
From CBS:
The longer this thing goes on, the longer everybody sits in jail, somebody’s gonna figure out sooner or later: my best chance escaping this nonsense is to hang Amanda out to dry," Ciolino says.
And that’s exactly what happened just two weeks ago: after months of silence, Rudy asked to speak to the prosecutor. Before, Rudy had said he could not identify Meredith’s killer. Now he says he saw Raffaele with a knife in the apartment, and that Amanda was there, too.
I would suggest (metaphorically) that Rudy actually took the knife out of Amanda's hand and very firmly gave it to Raffaele.
http://tinyurl.com/3mj9ay
Advanced Forensic Criminal Investigations
By Paul J. Ciolino, Grace Elting Castle
Some of the pages are available for preview.
CBS certainly did not hire an objective investigator for the show.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
"Kevin Massoletti, 20, a junior at the University of Oregon who knew Guede when he was studying in Perugia last summer, said he never saw any drug use or selling. In a telephone interview Tuesday he described Guede as "a really friendly guy, really outgoing." He added: "Once you got to know him, a very social guy, kind of the life of the party."
Poor, honest Rudy, life of the party, loved by all who knew him. He was just getting cozy with his new friend Meredith when a murderer came along and ruined everything by slitting her throat.
So he got her a towel and went to the disco.
Charlie Wilkes:
My guess is he's getting his information from the police.
You don't think he talks to his clients and Meredith's friends?
Come on Charlie. Just who is this guy representing?
Some of the information has obviously come from the police, but I would suggest that the information on Meredith's relationship with Amanda comes from the people who knew her best. The people he is representing.
And for your information Charlie, people in the Kercher's position DON'T WANT THE WRONG PEOPLE LOCKED UP. If the Kercher's believe at the end of this there has been a miscarriage of justice, it will do nothing to help them come to terms with Meredith's death.
Brian S. wrote:
I can't speak with certainty about Italy but unlike the US, "witness coaching" as such is not allowed in much of Europe.
How do they prevent it?
Charlie
Charlie Wilkes:
He was just getting cozy with his new friend Meredith...
Francesco Maresca:
Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith...
Brian S. wrote:
And for your information Charlie, people in the Kercher's position DON'T WANT THE WRONG PEOPLE LOCKED UP. If the Kercher's believe at the end of this there has been a miscarriage of justice, it will do nothing to help them come to terms with Meredith's death.
Jeanine Nicarico's parents wanted the wrong people put to death. But it wasn't their fault. They believed the nice, friendly prosecutors and not those nosy reporters from the Chicago Tribune.
I can't speak with certainty about Italy but unlike the US, "witness coaching" as such is not allowed in much of Europe.
How do they prevent it?
Charlie
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:24 am | #
I don't know.
Perhaps judges are taught and learn to recognize the "signs" of coaching.
I'd imagine that witnesses probably appear more "amateur and vulnerable".
All I can tell you is that coaching US style is not allowed.
Brian S. wrote:
All I can tell you is that coaching US style is not allowed.
Lots of things happen even though they're not allowed.
And for your information Charlie, people in the Kercher's position DON'T WANT THE WRONG PEOPLE LOCKED UP. If the Kercher's believe at the end of this there has been a miscarriage of justice, it will do nothing to help them come to terms with Meredith's death.
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 12:18 am | #
Absolutely Brian, but unfortunately they are just as much victims of what's currently going on. Note the horrific pictures of M recently viewed could only have come from one source originally. This was done with no concern out in the public arena where these might end up being shown and viewed and its effect on M's family. The Kerchers, like everyone else, will have to sit it out, waiting patiently for the real truth to come out.
This shouldn't be any problem for the majority here. If you believe that AK and RS are guilty then they are already incarerated. The trial will be a mere formality to make it official for a much longer time.
If it transpires that the instincts of those that believe there is a strong possibility that a miscarriage of justice is occuring in this case, then as you say Brian it will be devastating for the Kerchers and do nothing to help with their healing.
Brian S. wrote:
Francesco Maresca:
Rudy's presence in the house ('nella casa dell delitto')and the fact that he knew Meredith.
Maresca isn't troubled by the fact that Guede left Meredith to die, eh?
Lots of things happen even though they're not allowed.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:35 am | #
So now we have amateur witnesses being coached so well in Europe they can "cover up their training" in court.
I suspect it does happen to a degree, but you'll never convince me it's an accepted part of the legal systems over here.
Maresca isn't troubled by the fact that Guede left Meredith to die, eh?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:37 am | #
That wasn't my point Charlie.
My point is that is obvious that the Kerchers and their lawyer know that Meredith knew Rudy Guede.
ie. He didn't arrive at the cottage as a stranger, whatever his motives.
"Maresca isn't troubled by the fact that Guede left Meredith to die, eh?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 12:37 am | #"
I hate to be inflammatory, but could it be that it is because he thinks Rudy was not the only one who left her to die? He may have been the last one out of there, but does that make him the only bad guy?
Charlie, don't you ever feel like maybe you are railroading Rudy? You love to talk at length about people who are wrongly accused and/or convicted, but you have no such qualms about Rudy. Why is that? You cite cases of police abuse, prosecutorial zeal and so on, but you cut Rudy no slack whatsoever. What gives here? You talk about people saving face and career at all costs....
Why do your general theories have such specific limitations? What do you know or think about Rudy that we don't?
What was reported in Patrick Lumumba's exclusive story in The Daily Mail.
6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.
"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.
"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.
"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'
"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that – still handcuffed and unfed – he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.
He had then, she claimed, gone into Meredith's room and raped her before killing her while she sat and listened to the screams from the kitchen. She said he was motivated by revenge after Meredith had rejected him.
"It was only then I realised just how mad she was," he says. "I had no sexual feelings towards Meredith, and have never cheated on Aleksandra.
"Although I was filled with anger, I was determined to stay calm in front of the police. What Amanda was saying was insane. I have seven sisters and there's no way I could even imagine hurting a woman."
Her flawed evidence was, however, enough to keep Patrick in custody, as police feared he, Knox and Sollecito, would flee the country.
His fingerprints and a blood sample were taken and he was put in isolation in a sparse 6ft by 12ft cell in the town's Capanne prison.
As the days passed police claimed to have further evidence against him, including proof from his mobile phone that he was near Meredith's house around the time of her death, records of calls to Amanda, whose DNA had allegedly been found on the murder weapon, and a lack of till receipts to substantiate his claim he'd been working behind the bar on the night of the murder.
I did not see this subsequently refutted publicly by PL after this came out. The first I knew he refutted it was his i/v with Frank at PS. Does anyone have links to PL public denials that he did not say these things ?
If he didn't say it, and the Daily Mail made it all up, what about the rest of what we have read ?
Strange tactic to pay him such a huge sum for an exclusive if they were going to make it up anyway.
"My point is that is obvious that the Kerchers and their lawyer know that Meredith knew Rudy Guede.
ie. He didn't arrive at the cottage as a stranger, whatever his motives.
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 12:46 am | #"
Many people understood your point. Thanks for making it. For some, it really doesn't matter what the representative of the victim and her family might think. They are pushing a broader agenda. Don't let it bring you down.
Oceania88:
Note the horrific pictures of M recently viewed could only have come from one source originally.
Yes, and that source handed a copy to Raffaele's defense team, one of whom appeared on the show when the video was shown. The video was used as part of an effort on their part to show that the forensics against Raffaele were compromised.
Who do you think gave the video to Telenorba in Raf's home town?
PS It's time for me to call it a day.
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Why do your general theories have such specific limitations? What do you know or think about Rudy that we don't?
I know they tracked him down because his bloody fingerprints were at the crime scene. I've never heard of a murder where anyone but the killer left bloody fingerprints at the crime scene. And I've never heard of a killer who left bloody fingerprints having a couple of college students either framing him or assisting him or covering for him, or whatever Knox and Sollecito are supposed to have done in connection with this crime.
According to Chris M Amanda never lies if you excuse the pun!
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 1:02 pm
Love Wolf - FUCK YOU!
You are a filthy peice of shit.
How is that anywhere near relevent or acceptable in this blog??
If that is, then so is my comment to you.
You all can go to hell.
I will be back when she is found innocent and I will rub your faces in it.
I will not be back till then.
"Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 1:13 am | #"
Go and lend your services, then. You obviously have this thing figured out, in spite of not knowing the cultural context and not having privileged access to the evidence.
Brian S. wrote:
My point is that is obvious that the Kerchers and their lawyer know that Meredith knew Rudy Guede.
I wonder how they know that, given that Guede says he only met Meredith the night before. Apparently she didn't mention him to her friends when she went to their house to watch a movie.
"I wonder how they know that, given that Guede says he only met Meredith the night before. Apparently she didn't mention him to her friends when she went to their house to watch a movie.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 1:19 am | #"
Actually, he doesn't say that at all. I guess you haven't read his diary. Too busy?
I wonder how they know that, given that Guede says he only met Meredith the night before.
Last one Charlie.
Guede says he met Meredith at the guy's flat downstairs a couple of weeks earlier. (presumably they can corroborate this - they said he was a bit drunk). He also bumped into her several times around town, before getting a chance to speak to her on his own on the "night before".
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Actually, he doesn't say that at all. I guess you haven't read his diary. Too busy?
In fact I have read it and should have been more careful in my wording.
"In fact I have read it and should have been more careful in my wording.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 1:46 am | #"
Or maybe in your reading?
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Or maybe in your reading?
Fair enough. This is a case where I should have been more careful in both.
"Fair enough. This is a case where I should have been more careful in both.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 2:05 am | #"
Thank you. I appreciate that. It does matter, immensely.
Good night.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 11:56 pm | "my theory, which is that they changed their initial statements to incriminate themselves and each other because they were manipulated by the police."
1. At least you're using words like "theory" now, and not "certain", "obvious" concerning your beliefs, or "naive" concerning us.
2. We have already seen that neither Raffaele nor his father nor his legal team have at any point suggested he was manipulated on Nov. 5. (or otherwised abused). His legal team are one of the best. If they really believed that, or if they simply felt that it was a legal strategy, they would have already gone down that road.
And that leaves Amanda with an alibi that even the person in whose house she said she spent the evening, says that she left at 9.30 p.m. and came back at 1 a.m.
I think it's worthwhile for Amanda to try and reconcile her alibi, starting with Raffaele.
(BTW, I don't agree with your analysis regarding alibis in general: You seem to say, alibis are useful in investigations and court if they add up; but they should be removed from lines of investigation if they don't)
-
((you're suggesting police should not be allowed to pursue alibis which don't add up))
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 10:14 pm | "(Kermit: ) Your objective seems to be summed up with "If Mignini were replaced with a good, honest prosecutor, then I would be satisfied".
(Charlie)I've never put it that way. I think Mignini is a problem. But at this point a number of people have signed off on the theory that three people were involved in this murder. If they release Knox and Sollecito now without charging them, they'll all look foolish."
So, after kicking the dead horse of Mignini and the Monster of Florence for so long, that isn't the issue?
Also, regarding ILE pride / foolishness, they had no problem in releasing Patrick.
The way you state it, it seems that "just because" the police are following the line they are investigating, it must be wrong. What if something extraordinary occurred which is that between the three current suspects, some combination of them are charged with some crimes which are deemed to have occurred on Nov. 1, and aren't charged for other crimes, in a investigation which closes with a set of evidence which is sufficient to convince a trial judge to go forward? (Remember that if someone is in preventive prison, that doesn't necessarily mean that he/she will be charged with any specific crime). Would you find that acceptable under any circumstances, especially now that Mignini isn't the centre of your ire?
-
I have noticed in watching interviews of parents of sociopaths that the parents are in many ways the creators of these folks, they Deny their children are monsters when the evidence is always right there to be seen and instead these parents actually Enable these peopls to become the prepetrators they are, I do not see the parents of AK or RS taking any responsiblility whatsoever for who these people are and they are not innocent, inside they are doing what they have always done, protecting these sociopaths at the extreme expense of others.
Kermit!
I've only been able to skim lately, so am a little out of touch. I saw some discussion above about AK saying she saw MK in the wardrobe. Wasn't there also somewhere where AK said she saw MK in the mirror? And it was determined that even if she were standing in the doorway of the room, she couldn't have seen this because the mirror was on the wall facing the wardrobe, that it the same wall as the doorway? So the speculation was that she was really talking about seeing MK in the mirror when she was in the room, on the night of the murder, and that this was not lost to the ILE? We've been through so much information over such a long period...
I was just reviewing the comments over the past day. I notice the comments are VERY combative, especially the past few hours and also more than usual. Is it the absence of new material? Or possibly the compulsiveness to argue for the sake of arguing?
None the less, it does appear that some heartfelt friendships have been developed along the way, in the comments and the alliances that have developed - based on beliefs that are ongoing here in this community. Not criticizing, just observing behaviour.
It is interesting - societies, cultures, and resulting behaviours, well, just being humans - how "group thinking" develops...it certainly Does transcend to "the world wide web."
This comment is only an observation, from someone that has been interested in this case (the Murder of Meredith) and checking in here for quite sometime.
Best,
Gwen
I did not see this subsequently refutted publicly by PL after this came out. The first I knew he refutted it was his i/v with Frank at PS. Does anyone have links to PL public denials that he did not say these things ?
Oceania,
google Matrix Lumumba or Nero e Bianco Lumumba or go to their website and you'll find the several show on which Lumumba made it clear what happened. They speak in Italian, butyou are a fluent speaker aren't you? Oh and please, don't ask the same question again, I think this is the third time I post how to find Lumumba's retractions
Thanks
PS Strange how all in a sudden a "tabloid" becomes the bible! Sometime your logic is very hard to follow Oceanina!
Nicki,
PS Strange how all in a sudden a "tabloid" becomes the bible! Sometime your logic is very hard to follow Oceanina!
nicki | 04.14.08 - 3:15 am | #
Dear, your grammar is hard to follow, as much as your argument is.
I must say this goes back to my earlier point, in a sense - arguing for the sake of arguing?
Best,
Gwen
Dear, your grammar is hard to follow, as much as your argument is.
I must say this goes back to my earlier point, in a sense - arguing for the sake of arguing?
Best,
Gwen
Gwenyth | 04.14.08 - 3:23 am | #
1)It's your problem, not mine
2)I don't know what you're talking about neither I care
Is there a spell check, hopefully with an audio feature, for people that are drinking and typing?
Please make it so?!
citing: 04.14.08 - 3:15 am | #
I do admit - I just succumbed to arguing with Nicki, for what is easily reasoned as "for the sake of arguing."
Done.
Best,
Gwen
According to Chris M Amanda never lies if you excuse the pun!
Love Wolf | 04.12.08 - 1:02 pm
Love Wolf - FUCK YOU!
You are a filthy peice of shit.
How is that anywhere near relevent or acceptable in this blog??
If that is, then so is my comment to you.
You all can go to hell.
I will be back when she is found innocent and I will rub your faces in it.
I will not be back till then.
Chris Mellas | 04.14.08 - 1:14 am | #
--------------------------------
Sorry to hear that Chris, what in my statement was not true? You have maintained her innocence throughtout and stated that she has been telling the truth despite the varying stories and alibis? If the errors in her stories are due to the consumption of drugs or having been beaten or due to a bent judge then I look forward to seeing this in court.
I also look forward to you coming back when you say her innocence will be proven and my nose will be ready.....
LW
TLC....
What was that you said on Sunday about 'Chris under pressure'?
LW
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 2:47 am |"I saw some discussion above about AK saying she saw MK in the wardrobe. Wasn't there also somewhere where AK said she saw MK in the mirror?"
Hi Sparrow! Yeah, I'm not quite sure about the resurgence of the wardrobe discussion. The original issue (which is the same as what was being talked about in the posts you refer to, as far as I am aware) is about if Amanda could have seen the victim's body and it's condition, and have been able to surmise what an agony the victim suffered, as per her comments to the victim's friends. That's great material for transformation in the media, although it may be very valid for the investigation, so I think we'll just have to wait for the formal evidence in order see exactly what the Postal Police's, Amanda's, Raffaele's and Filomena's declarations are to the homicide squad regarding Amanda's and Raffaele's physical situation.
Poster Chris Mellas stated that Amanda was speaking to her mother and him at the time on the phone and that the persons in the cottage were transmitting to her what they saw (the whole "hoof" / "foot" misinterpretation).
The "I saw the victim's body in the mirror" (my paraphrasing) is a confusing reference from supposed comments by Amanda in the police station. The only way for Amanda to see the victim's body in the bedroom mirror is to have been physically next to, basically touching the victim, given the position of the mirror in the room, which is not visible from the doorway.
-
Gwen -
"Dear, your grammar is hard to follow, as much as your argument is.
I must say this goes back to my earlier point, in a sense - arguing for the sake of arguing?"
In light of your last comment I find it strange that you start an argument with Nicki.
Kermit wrote:
And that leaves Amanda with an alibi that even the person in whose house she said she spent the evening, says that she left at 9.30 p.m. and came back at 1 a.m.
Why do you think he changed his story that way, instead of sticking with the original account in which the two of them were alone together all evening? It was most useful to the police that he did so, but what did Sollecito gain?
((you're suggesting police should not be allowed to pursue alibis which don't add up))
No, my point is that the lack of an alibi, or even inconsistencies in a suspect's story to police, are not enough in themselves to convict someone of a crime.
Also, regarding ILE pride / foolishness, they had no problem in releasing Patrick.
You circle back to that comparison, and I again point out that Lumumba, unlike Knox and Sollecito, had an alibi he could prove with independent witnesses. If Knox and Sollecito had spent their entire evening at Lumumba's bar instead of Sollecito's apartment, they too would be free today.
What if something extraordinary occurred which is that between the three current suspects, some combination of them are charged with some crimes which are deemed to have occurred on Nov. 1, and aren't charged for other crimes, in a investigation which closes with a set of evidence which is sufficient to convince a trial judge to go forward?
Indeed -- what if? I'm well aware that the Italian authorities have presented this case as an exotic specimen in the annals of crime. Two college students, although lacking any obvious motive, conspired with a small-time thief to commit murder. We are assured that, while the details may be murky, sophisticated police work will ensure that justice triumphs.
Nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story. But I don't. I am one of those people who thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We will see if the proof materializes when and if this case moves to trial.
Why do you think he changed his story that way, instead of sticking with the original account in which the two of them were alone together all evening? It was most useful to the police that he did so, but what did Sollecito gain?
What does one gain from insisting on blatant discrepancies and holes in his alibi? If the police point to the sky and say: Look, it really is blue, can RS say, no it's pink?
my point is that the lack of an alibi, or even inconsistencies in a suspect's story to police, are not enough in themselves to convict someone of a crime
So then you do allow that it is useful for the ILE to pursue discrepancies in Amanda's and Raffaele's alibis? (even if it doesn't form the whole of the evidence against them).
-
straightforward rape/murder that in fact involved one perpetrator
_______________________________
These are the exact words of Doug Preston, come on, who are you? I can reproduce those words he wrote, and you just did here, word for word, I think you are him.
TLC | 04.13.08 - 8:08 pm | #
TLC if he is Dougie Boy then that explains a lot.... also I believe his views are doing NOTHING for the cause of AK apart from making himself look and sound like a complete idiot!
If Knox and Sollecito had spent their entire evening ...
Sollecito says they weren't together.
-
And he wasn't beaten up to say so.
-
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 3:55 am | "Nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story.
Charlie, I can tell you right now that what Love Wolf believes happened is not what I believed happened. Neither Love Wolf nor I are convinced of Bpcl's theory, although we respect his right to hold it, and I think it has its merits. KB has another point of view. Have you connected recently with Daniel Mintz?, because he has another point of view. Oceania88 has her point of view and defends it, and - as we saw yesterday - can actually agree on certain details with people like Love Wolf who are worlds apart in their scenarios.
What crimes were committed? Which ones do you think I believe were committed by whom?
Please tell me my take on the crime! Please!! I promise you I will confirm honestly those points where you are correct and where you diverge. You seem to know what I think - and what "nearly everyone here" thinks about this crime. While some people may think like me, all of the above persons and many others have different "favourite scenarios" from mine. Please tell me mine, I want to see if it shows through.
(at least you're no longer calling me and others "naive")
-
I've been looking at the Soundoff comments board in the Seattle PI that follows yesterday's article/advert for the show, and have been struck by how underwhelmed the public (at least that part of it that chooses this avenue of expression) seems to be with the program. From a PR perspective, the only explosion coming from the people sounds like an engine backfiring.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.13.08 - 11:47 pm | #
------------------------------------
SB could not agree more.. not quite the effect they were looking for.
LW
Indeed -- what if? I'm well aware that the Italian authorities have presented this case as an exotic specimen in the annals of crime. Two college students, although lacking any obvious motive, conspired with a small-time thief to commit murder. We are assured that, while the details may be murky, sophisticated police work will ensure that justice triumphs.---CW
Everything in this paragraph is factually wrong.
1. ILE has not presented the case as an exotic specimen.
2. The two college students are not lacking in motive.
3. Rudy has not been proven to be a thief.
4. Not everyone, in fact I would guess very few, believe the three "conspired" to commit murder. And the police have not stated that they believe this either.
5. Some of us have confidence in the police in the case, some do not.
Everything in this paragraph is factually wrong.
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 4:21 am | #
Sparrow that is because this guy is a fiction writer, he does it for a living....
LW
Oceania -
"There is no way that either of them were involved in any clean up or cover up of RG's crime, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it."
This statement I wholly agree with. They made no attempt to remove evidence of Rudy's involvment in the crime. They did however remove that which showed 'their' involvment in the crime (apart from the few odd bits they missed)..... and that makes 'absolute' sense no matter how you look at it.
"He didn't try to stem her bleeding, he has hooked you into his story. He was only taking care of himself, I think it will be mainly RG's blood on those towels (there only seems to be one in the photo's I have seen, but it could have been two)."
'Will' be his blood on the towels? It will transmute?
"She has bruise marks around her neck. He may have also tried suffocation, hence the towel/s. I get the impression that she didn't die quickly from the stab wounds and so he used other methods to 'finish her off'."
Sort of...trying different ones out?
"He cleans outside of M's room to buy himself some time, it worked intially when AK came in the next morning. No one knows what goes on inside a murderers head and why they make the decisions they do at the time of the crime. We were left with the evidence as he created it and as he tried to clean some of it up with what cleaning things he found in the cottage. The rest he tried to explain away with his cleverly crafted story."
If he cleans to 'buy himself some time'...why does he then create the obvious impression of a break in to immediately alert people something had happened? Can you help me with the logic of that one? Where are the cleaning things from around the cottage he used?
"The washing machine is one of those things that could turn out be a completely false story"
and
"The bloody clothes, bleach etc were the over active imagination of the press reporters embellishing a relatively boring part of the story."
We can easily all elliminate evidence that is 'inconvenient' by saying it will 'probably turn out to not be true'...but that is actually a very desperate and weak argument when constructing a theory.
"Neither RS or AK mentioned the washing machine in their statements of that morning."
Yes, strange that isn't it? Could it be they didn't want to draw attention to it?
"If they were still 'cleaning up' in the morning, it's reasonable to assume they would have picked up the bloody tissues from outside the cottage, rinsed AK's & M's 'mixed' blood from the tap and flushed the toilet."
You can apply the same argument to Rudy not flushing the toilet but you don't (clearly it's different rules for him). It is also 'just' as reasonble to 'assume' they missed them due to shock/fatigue/time restriction/running out of cleaning products. We don't know what time they 'started' the clean-up, so it's a moot point how much time they had. We still don't know if the bloody tissues had anything to do with the crime. They may even have planted them to add to the confusion.
"My view is the cottage was far too small to take that long to clean, considering they didn't even touch M's bedroom."
It's not the size of the cottage, it's the size of the 'job'. Again, we also don't know what time they 'started'.
"all M's clothes were found on or near her"
Are you absoulutely sure about that?
"At this stage I'm more inclined to believe something Chris Mellas has said than something you have read from a newspaper."
This then applies to Chris Mellas saying Amanda did 'not' go back to Rafs with the mop in direct contradiction of Raf's statement? You are also not concerned that C Mellas is far from being a non-biased party for your source of information?
Oceania, now onto your 'knife-fight' evidence. 'Nowhere' was it 'ever' reported that Rudy was in a 'knife-fight' and I think your saying so is quite dishonest and cynical. Rudy being in a 'knife-fight' by definition states that he was also armed with a knife and was trying to stab someone with it. What 'was' reported was Rudy was 'stabbed' after getting into an 'argument' with some men in the piazza. That is 'not' a 'knife-fight'! Nice try though. This cannot be used as evidence to say that Rudy carried a knife. Using conjecture in your conclusion is allowed, manipulating the actual facts is not.
While you're thinking of what to reply, Charlie, let me say that I think you just have to accept that the three suspects are in preventive prison, which is not an unusual judicial situation in Italy. This can last up to a year, which is not unusual. And when the investigation winds up, evidence will be presented. Only then will we see if Mignini has a load of prefabricated lies (it seems he's back to being the bad guy). Sit back. Don't hold your breath. We have until November. And at that point each one of us will see if our hunches and scenarios are more or less coincidental with Mignini's.
-
Charlie Wilkes -
"Two college students, although lacking any obvious motive, conspired with a small-time thief to commit murder. We are assured that, while the details may be murky, sophisticated police work will ensure that justice triumphs.
Nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story. But I don't. I am one of those people who thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Yet you'd cheerfully accuse Rudy of being a 'thief' without even 'evidence', let alone 'proof'?
Michael wrote:
Yet you'd cheerfully accuse Rudy of being a 'thief' without even 'evidence', let alone 'proof'?
Why were his fingerprints on file?
Why were his fingerprints on file?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:02 am | #
For breaking into a building (school) and sleeping rough I though Charlie.... he was caught in the morning when police called in with a morning cup of tea to wake him up.......
He he was a hardened criminal I am sure he would have nicked some pens and paper and done a runner!
Charlie Wilkes -
"Why were his fingerprints on file?
They got the prints from his immigration records I believe.
ILE got his DNA from his toothbrush in his flat, if that helps.
-
Sparrow wrote:
1. ILE has not presented the case as an exotic specimen.
2. The two college students are not lacking in motive.
3. Rudy has not been proven to be a thief.
4. Not everyone, in fact I would guess very few, believe the three "conspired" to commit murder. And the police have not stated that they believe this either.
5. Some of us have confidence in the police in the case, some do not.
What is your take on the sequence of events in this murder and the motives of those involved?
Charlie,
I think AK was also fingerprinted in America when she gt busted for a party that she hosted thay went all a bit wild under the influence of alcohol....
Does that mean anything to you either?
Does that mean she is an alcoholic?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:10 am | "What is your take on the sequence of events in this murder and the motives of those involved?"
Wait! Charlie, that's not fair. You said above that "nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story."
Tell us first what our monolithic view is of the crime(s) of Perugia.
-
And Charlie, is it obligatory for each person to have a sequence of events / scenario? Can't some of us just wait for the evidence to be presented? Why do you force us to take sides?
-
Charlie Wilkes -
Charlie, I have noticed that you have regularly asked questions about things that have been discussed in depth throughout past Haloscans, showing you haven't been reading as much as you should have. Yet, despite that, you are very quick and steadfast to convict Rudy of all wrongdoing along with the police and completely absolve AK and RS of being involved in any way. This concerns me.
Wait! Charlie, that's not fair. You said above that "nearly everyone here accepts this beguiling story."
Tell us first what our monolithic view is of the crime(s) of Perugia.
-
Kermit | 04.14.08 - 5:13 am | #
-----------
You're flogging a dead horse Kermit! His own 'beguiling' story is apparently much more believable. Remember now, the police WANT to convict 2 'innocent' people based on 'no' evidence because they will look 'stupid' if they don't. There is nothing you (or anyone) can say to open up his mind to any other possibility. For him, it is set in stone. It's a waste of energy to enter into any discussion with him. He is not open to suggestion.
-----------
Kermit wrote:
And Charlie, is it obligatory for each person to have a sequence of events / scenario? Can't some of us just wait for the evidence to be presented? Why do you force us to take sides?
Do you feel that your position now is neutral?
Neutral as regards what exactly?:
- Amanda being guilty of murder? Yes I am neutral.
Are you neutral?
-
Hey, I'm giving you hints to develop the beguiling story which you said I have swallowed, together with the rest of this motley crew of posters. Tell me what is my scenario?
-
Kermit wrote:
Neutral as regards what exactly?:
- Amanda being guilty of murder? Yes I am neutral.
I'm sorry to say this, but I don't believe you are being intellectually honest. I think you are quite convinced of her guilt. You say Mignini has a long leg and he lifts his skirt slowly... that is not the commentary of someone who is neutral.
Are you neutral?
No. Haven't I made that clear? I think she's completely innocent and is being framed. But, I'll change my opinion if the authorities over there can produce some convincing evidence... something better than bleach receipts and fables about a big cleanup that didn't really clean anything up except possibly the fingerprints in Knox's bedroom.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:55 am | "You say Mignini has a long leg and he lifts his skirt slowly... that is not the commentary of someone who is neutral."
I don't understand why not. Mignini has had a long career as a prosecutor and has had to deal with all sorts of defense tactics. While I'm not convinced that the Monster of Florence is an issue here, I certainly don't think that Mignini was born yesterday. When Telenorba comes out with its coverage of the forensic sampling, is it not surprising to see Mignini show a few details of evidence.
I'm sure he hasn't shown it all, and if you just sit on your hands for a while, we'll end up seeing what he has. And much more important than my opinion or yours when that happens, is what the trial judge thinks of the evidence.
-
Let me ask you a question, Charlie. If a Green Beret Special Forces helicopter buzzes over Capanne prison tomorrow and whisks Amanda to freedom, will you really give two hoots about Rudy and Raffaele and Mignini the day after?.
Would you continue your passionate blogging on this crime?
-
(Oops, not blogging, but rather, posting).
Charlie, I have noticed that you have regularly asked questions about things that have been discussed in depth throughout past Haloscans, showing you haven't been reading as much as you should have. Yet, despite that, you are very quick and steadfast to convict Rudy of all wrongdoing along with the police and completely absolve AK and RS of being involved in any way. This concerns me.
Michael | 04.14.08 - 5:26 am | #
Yes Charlie, if you had kept up with the programme and read what the experts here all said in earlier threads you would have known it was impossible that any other scenario was in any way plausable. It is quite exasperating talking to you because you seem so completely unaware of the incredible amount of reasearch and debate that has gone into forming the hallowed opinions of this board, you really are far too rigid and set in your ways ! It seems incredulous that having not read each and every one of the 4,300 posts, and only a mere 1,500 to date, you seem to think that RG did it ! You need to catch up Charlie, you will find the real answers to this case is in the other 2,800 posts on this topic. Just because you have studied a few cases somewhere you think you can bring your fancy ideas in here and start throwing them around. You seem to have a mind of your own, to not be afraid to step out away from that group instinct and support network and to develop and voice your own opinions.
This concerns me.
I think you are quite convinced of her guilt.
Charlie, let's stop this bickering and work hand in hand. You have a structured way of looking at things. Our poster May suggested that we do some homework ... rather than getting too involved with a Cray supercomputer (do they still exist?) supported Perugia Crime Analysis application ("PCA"), maybe we can do some more simple stuff, and stop boring our fellow posters.
I propose that we compile a list of potential crimes that occurred on Nov. 1-2 in Perugia (after all, that's what we're here to discuss, ¿no?).
I'll start off, and you can add and comment:
- Murder
- Sexual assault (before or after murder)
- (if not sexual assault, potentially: ) desecration of a corpse (may be a long shot)
- abandoning a person in mortal danger
- tampering / modification of a crime scene or evidence
- theft (money, mobile phones)
- damage to property (rock through window, potentially damage to downstairs apartment)
I'm not saying any or all of these occurred, and of course this list is based on what I have seen in Matteini's report, plus the press. For the moment, I don't even want to get close to the identification of suspects and assigning responsibility for each potential crime. I'm only interested in the list.
Do you want to participate?
-
Well, I'm certainly neutral in this case, and I would say that from my reading of these posts over the past few months, Kermit seems pretty neutral also. Charlie Wilkes isn't neutral - he's starting from a viewpoint that Amanda Knox is 100% innocent - and that gives him the impression that anyone with any doubts about that isn't "neutral".
Charlie's claim that the investigators now know what has happened but are lying about it to save face is ludicrous. It shows an almost total lack of understanding of the Italian judicial process.
A few days ago, Oceania posited a theory about Rudy Guede acting singly in this crime. I thought it was a very good theory and very plausible; it might even turn out to be close to the truth.
The problem with it remains the various well-documented inconsistencies in the versions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Their side of the story is obviously germane to the case, and it's bizarre that Charlie Wilkes has managed to engineer a discussion along the lines of silence being a good policy for innocent suspects. It isn't.
I think it's a great pity that Chris Mellas has been chased away from this blog. His frankness and honesty deserved better treatment.
If Amanda Knox (or any suspect) is innocent, then I strongly hope that she is found to be innocent - but for that to happen, she will need a case that involves her telling the truth. Her case will also have to provide some kind of explanation for past inconsistencies. These explanations cannot depend on a combination of corrupt policemen and/or fantasist journalists, because if they do then the case for the defense is likely to fail.
You're flogging a dead horse Kermit! His own 'beguiling' story is apparently much more believable. Remember now, the police WANT to convict 2 'innocent' people based on 'no' evidence because they will look 'stupid' if they don't. There is nothing you (or anyone) can say to open up his mind to any other possibility. For him, it is set in stone. It's a waste of energy to enter into any discussion with him. He is not open to suggestion.
-----------
Soozie UK | 04.14.08 - 5:32 am | #
_____________________________
I agree.
I will have to ignore Mr Wilkes.
And you complain that it is impossible to reason. Your barriers to entry are higher than those of any individual poster here.
-
Kermit | 04.12.08 - 4:18 pm
i would consider it an honour and a privileged to embody the monolithic block of unreasonableness for the purposes of generalised attack on the individuals commenting here.
hang em high, lets watch em swing, the dirty drugged up scumbags...
.
I think it's a great pity that Chris Mellas has been chased away from this blog. His frankness and honesty deserved better treatment.
FinnMacCool | 04.14.08 - 6:34 am | #
---------
Hi Finn
I didn't feel Mellas was frank or honest. For obvious reasons he is not impartial to the case and his comments were understandably biased.
I also felt his swearing and rudeness (coming back to 'rub people's noses in it??) was incredibly tasteless.
Have we seen Meredith's family or RS's family on here constantly posting comments which a) can't be substantiated, while b) hurling insults at other people? No. Because they have better things to do than argue with a bunch of stranger on a blog. If "Mellas" becomes enraged so easily, ("F**k you"??). . . nice - then I wonder how much of that attitude rubbed off on Amanda.
-----------------
Uh, Charlie, as you can see, we're not being too monolithic.
Even I had a spat with Finn a couple of weeks ago about some silly thing.
-
If Amanda Knox (or any suspect) is innocent, then I strongly hope that she is found to be innocent - but for that to happen, she will need a case that involves her telling the truth. Her case will also have to provide some kind of explanation for past inconsistencies. These explanations cannot depend on a combination of corrupt policemen and/or fantasist journalists, because if they do then the case for the defense is likely to fail.
FinnMacCool | 04.14.08 - 6:34 am | #
Hi Finn, good post. There is so much confusion and speculation around the alibi's it will be key that both AK and RS legal treams will have to be completely in unison over these. I'm figuring both legal teams will be going with the very first alibi's given by both with only the toilet detail different, nothing else will work for them in court. Regards providing explanation for subsequent inconsistencies, getting this in sync is going to be the challenge for them but I don't think it will be insurmountable. They both have very experienced and excellent lawyers. The prosecution have put forward very weak motives at this stage. The DNA against AK and RS is not strong and I think this will be easily refutted in court. Any sort of credible scenario of how the whole three fit into the scheme of things seems to be elusive at this stage. To try and fit AK and RS into the evidence in the house with some plausible scenario with who did what, when and why will be the biggest challenge for the prosecution in my mind. Although RG's diary as a document is inadmissable one would presume that their case to prove that RG was the sole perpetrator will procide the groundwork for them.
It may be that Amanda Knox was/is over-sexed. The term or word 'over-sexed' is confused often with the line 'a very sexual person'.
The relevance of any possible clue to her and her possible involvement in this case, will be revealed later by psychologists and witnesses in court and may show who she might be. On one hand Amanda Knox's mother, Mrs Mellas and others called as character witnesses are obviously going to say positive things about Amanda, and as someone here earlier pointed out, that sometimes a parent must allow a child to tell the truth, which means, if a parent is absolutely unable and unwilling to accept that the child may have done wrong and will also not accept it from the child's lips, then the child has to keep up the front because he or she is not allowed by the parent, to shatter the illusions, to break the hopes and dreams of the parent.
It may be that Amanda Knox was/is over-sexed. The term or word 'over-sexed' is confused often with the line 'a very sexual person'.
Some parents, depending on how the children have been brought up (and depending on how the parents were brought up), are open about sexuality and sex, many are not open, still not, even now.
The fact of sex has been a main topic, because of the way Meredith was found, because of the connection to the way she was found and to Guede because of his presence at Meredith's room shows some involvement, whether forced or not, with Meredith and because reliable (friends of Meredith and Amanda's own accounts of her experiences), independent accounts, have revealed that Amanda brought a string of men home into the cottage and Sollecito wanted "extreme experiences" (Written on his blog 13 Oct 07 as confirmed in the audience chamber experiences that can include also an intense sexual relation which breaks up the monotony of everyday life) there still is a possibility that the horrific outfall at the cottage was a mixture of things, where something to do with sex was one part.
Amanda 'may' ( and may not have been too) have been promiscuous as was said. The guy downstairs revealed how he knew Amanda was with Sollecito, had a boyfriend in America but had sex with the guy from Rome. There are more pointers to the sex exploits such as that about sex with a stranger in the train. Writing on Myspace am own creation about rape is not usual, it can be explained away as having to do with being a creative writer or having to do with the a possible fixation with sex. Having a strong sex drive isn't necessarily a negative thing, being a person who was always a very sexual person is not automatically a negative way to be. In the case of Michael Douglas it was negative, because he was a (self-professed) sex addict.
Note, Madonna calls herself or has done in the past, 'a very sexual person', 'I was always a very sexual person' she said. To say it that way has become a fashion, the near same words are repeated by ordinary people or other celebrities, this could very well be because of people looking up to celebrities as role models. Madonna says something that way, on purpose, stating it openly, about her sexuality, because she wishes to break taboos, amongst other things, perhaps. There are so many varying ways to use some words and misinterpretations arise.
Sexualization of society, isn't a thing that is anything to do with the positive mode of using words like the word sexy, it has nothing to do with what Madonna said. Sexualization points to an unhealthy trend, an unhealthy development, it can be applied in a lot of different ways. It is presently applied to society, being that if ever women, to start with, were, as was said by feminists in the 60's and 70's, pieces of meat, therefore sex objects, nowadays that tends to be greatly forgotten and there is no shame in applying sex in some way to everything, so that if sexual connotations were applied before and women had become sex objects and were not allowed to be viewed as people, now sex is used to sell everything and the idea of empowerment for women, thought previously, to be possible for women, by them becoming more feministic, standing up for themselves, et cetera, is a lost cause.
Where stimulants are involved, sexual feelings can be heightened, aroused or lead people into levels of promiscuity that they'd never have embarked on before without the drugs, cocaine is one, and crystal meth seems to be an even more powerful one.
Where jealousy is involved these feelings may lead to fights about partners, about being wanted and feeling left out or second best or feeling to be the object of desire. By all accounts Sollecito was, for his age, relatively inexperienced, there are people his age with three kids, he had one girl up until Amanda who according to him, he only had sex with in the traditional way (missionary position?). Having a strong sex drive and being a model child within a set-up where religion is involved can lead to people with a lot of hidden hang-ups. Look at the Catholic priests buggering little boys and the churches protecting these men for years. Fact. It is also pretty well known that some girls or men who had strict Catholic upbringings or other strict and prudent upbringings may when let loose turn wild and become very promiscuous. Just because Amanda by external appearance was a good girl doesn't mean she was not very active sexually, does not mean that she didn't have a strong libido, in street terms she may have been horny and Sollecito overpowered by her, dazzled as it were, by his already more worldly American girlfriend, he with a nervous disposition and stoned head, may quite easily have been under Amanda's spell but that he himself took it on himself to go and murder Meredith thinking somewhere in his brain that he was doing right for HIS Amanda. The reason Amanda may be unable to say a thing is either perhaps because she just wants to get off entirely and is too fearful to admit to the truth for fear of getting the full whack of punishment anyhow, or that because they all were involved and Amanda was arguing and fighting at a certain point with Meredith that she feels equally guilty. It may be that it was her who threatened Meredith with a knife but her who was as shocked as anyone when before she knew it Raffaela went berserk and actually went the full whack with anger, rage, violence. With Amanda Sollecito perhaps began to have the sex he had never had, it may well be the case, and judging by how the two of them seemed not as much emotionally entwined outside the cottage when Meredith was found, as they seemed physically attuned it might exp lain how the imagery of them at that moment didn't seem (to me) to correspond to the reality of what had just been discovered. I'd say there's some twisted element in this that has to do with why Meredith died. And that is what has been hidden by cleaning the house.
If I'm truly honest with myself I can't imagine Meredith being with Guede, not after what was revealed about how she waited two weeks to have a first kiss with Giacomo Silenzi, and also in relation to what her father repeated about having heard from Meredith how Meredith was surprised by just how fast Amanda had a boyfriend. After all, Amanda and Sollecito had sex on the very first day they'd met. In this way it seems somehow that all three of these suspects were possibly involved in a sexual escapade. Amanda revealed she had drunk a lot. When a person has drunk a lot they are not capable of normal responses and entirely rational thinking. They may not have planned to overpower Meredith or harm her they may have planned to try and get her involved and this bit Amanda said "We told her we wanted to have some fun" may have been at the start of it. After Meredith ate and drank something with them on returning home, the others may have been either very high on 'not only weed', or possibly only weed, and then also intoxicated by alcohol whilst Meredith was not as intoxicated as they were. The events spiralled out of hand and because they were beyond their own normal limitations they went to excesses and ended up forcing Meredith. That led to the fighting, and the accusations, and to the threats or rather just cries for help in the way of leave me alone I am going to call the police.
Charlie Wilkes has managed to engineer a discussion along the lines of silence being a good policy for innocent suspects. It isn't.
FinnMacCool | 04.14.08 - 6:34 am | #
They are only being silent now under the guidance of their legal teams whom of course know the best way to work within the system and will only be doing and advising what is best for their clients at this stage, innocent or otherwise.
Maybe silence is the very best policy for them at this point in time. We have to assume the respective lawyers have this well under control.
Hi Oceania, I can more or less agree with your prior post. Just one point, not so much a disagreement as an observation, when you say the AK's and RS's legal teams will have to be in unison, AK's needs that unison much more than RS's.
AK's defence currently has only one hill to stand on, that she was at Raffaele's place.
RS has the option of going back to that, or agreeing with what is in the Matteini report, that Amanda was out. I would like to understand better the pro's and con's of each posture.
(Also, I would like to understand the "weight" of the declarations in Matteini's report ... how possible is it for RS to go back to his original alibi - if he wanted to - unless if he denounces extreme circumstances like physical or psychological abuse?)
-
If "Mellas" becomes enraged so easily, ("F**k you"??). . . nice - then I wonder how much of that attitude rubbed off on Amanda.
-----------------
Soozie UK | 04.14.08 - 6:59 am | #
_________________________________
That is what struck me more than once with him.
If "Mellas" becomes enraged so easily, ("F**k you"??). . . nice - then I wonder how much of that attitude rubbed off on Amanda.
-----------------
Soozie UK | 04.14.08 - 6:59 am | #
Soozie and TLC I am just pleased that he never discovered that I am a Jew otherwise I think he may have been even more offensive!!
LW
Are you suggesting they could resolve inconsistencies that are perplexing the authorities? If so, I think you have a naive understanding of the situation. The investigators aren't sitting around scratching their heads and trying to puzzle out what happened on the night of November 1, and what Knox and Sollecito were really up to. They are trying to build a case so that a court will convict these two for murder, whether or not they are guilty. It would be foolish for the suspects to assist in this effort.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.13.08 - 5:06 am
this is bogus reasoning, the ILE can pin it on the vampire...he admits being there and forensics places him there. the italians dont need to pin it on the big a and the boyfriend to be able to enter 'case closed' in their records.
they are working to establish a case that demonstrates the guilt of these two idiots for very good reasons...they are both guilty of something!
.
OT OT OT:
Getting close to lunch here, and it's time for some comic relief. Here's an all-time favourite video podcast of mine, which somehow came to mind.
Less than 10 minutes long. There are no offensive images, but you really need to watch it with sound, so if you're not in appropriate circumstances, wait until you can watch it and hear the dialog.
http://www.tikibartv.com/detect_...flash=go&
vid=13
-
TLC soozi love wolf...
do you remeber the exchange i had with mellas about using 'shithead' as a term of endearment and his claims that his myspace was private (even though it had a bio introducing his shitheads to readers)?
this is not a nice guy he is abusive and i bet that extends to phyical abuse too.
he knows little about what happened - he was not there. it does not seem to me he was chased away but rather, after the big victory in the appeal was not forthcoming, he had nothing to bash anybody here with.
.
I will not be back till then.
Chris Mellas | 04.14.08 - 1:14 am | #
Hi Chris,
Today was a bad day for you it seems, or maybe just a bit worse than usual. The emotional stress and pressure you and your family are under must be extreme. I have really appreciated you coming here and answering our questions and at times this hasn't been easy for you. I admire and respect acting upon your strong instinct to speak out for and protect your daughter even in this sometimes hostile environment.
I do wonder though if it is wise for you to come here and read some of things that are written about Amanda. Many here have not been at all kind in things they have said and continue to say, I don't like reading it, it must tear you apart.
As far as I'm concerned you are welcome back here any time you wish to, but please consider carefully if it is really wise for you to do so for your own wellbeing.
I felt for Curt and Edda when I saw them on 48hrs, their pain is palpable. I pray for everyone concerned that the truth will really come out one day and only those truly guilty pay for this crime.
In the meantime, take care.
I pray for everyone concerned that the truth will really come out one day and only those truly guilty pay for this crime.
Oceania8 | 04.14.08 - 8:02 am | #
I echo the above comments Oceania and it is what most (NOT all) on here want.
Also when the truth is known and people accept what the truth is only then can the healing commence for the family and friends taht are the closest to this on both sides.
I think that the 'One Day' will be sooner than we realise.
LW
Oceania wrote:
They are only being silent now under the guidance of their legal teams whom of course know the best way to work within the system and will only be doing and advising what is best for their clients at this stage, innocent or otherwise.
Maybe silence is the very best policy for them at this point in time. We have to assume the respective lawyers have this well under control.
Yes, I'd agree with pretty much all of that. Looking at it from the outside, it seems to me that all the lawyers, investigators, judges, and so on, have done a pretty good job in the case - not perfect, but pretty good - with the possible exception of the one who announced "caso chiuso" to the waiting media.
Then again, George Bush announced "Mission accomplished" in May 2003. Sometimes people get carried away.
I don't think Amanda Knox has been "railroaded", nor anything like it. I do think that her defense will have to acknowledge that the "maybe my dreams are real" line will have to be squared up to.
Soozie, I can understand what you're saying about Chris Mellas, but I don't really agree with it. Chris obviously knows Amanda better than any of us. He believes she's innocent, but he's been prepared to come on here where a lot of people think she might be quilty, and a few seem convinced that she definitely is.
I suppose that's what I mean about honesty and frankness - it would be easy (and more comforting) for Chris just to talk to the likes of Charlie, who are quite happy to believe the whole case against Amanda has been invented by the police. I'm not surprised that he gets angry sometimes.
finn -
mellas thought he could persuade those here that belive the big a guilty with his 'presence'. that's what bullies do and this master fisherman and lover of shitheads is a major, major bully.
he must be very frustrated that his 'presence' posting made no difference to the outcomes that unfold event by event for him.
the big a is well shot of this geezer -he is an angry angry man.
.
I suppose that's what I mean about honesty and frankness - it would be easy (and more comforting) for Chris just to talk to the likes of Charlie, who are quite happy to believe the whole case against Amanda has been invented by the police. I'm not surprised that he gets angry sometimes.
FinnMacCool | 04.14.08 - 8:39 am | #
Finn I would go one step further and get Charlie to also to talk to CHris. The other day Charlie gave out his email and it may be best if they correspond with each other.
I am one of those that think AK is guilty, RS is guilty and Guede is guilty.... they have a triangle of deceit, lies and involvement in the death of Meredith. Each of them consider that if they tell the truth it would not be look on favourably reagrding the role that they themselves played. I truly believe that the police know this and the 3 people in questions are exactly where they should be... behind bars... pending the trial.... when all the evidence will be laid in front of the world and we will see who has been telling the truth in recent months, weeks and days.......
Kermit, Ha ha, very cute. Now that the Drink Bot has served up a starter, here's something for a wrap up desert. Some of you may have seen it, but it remains a tickler. OT OT OT! We need it!
Rated for everyone, and not as crude as the title may suggest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o...h?v=oFex-
MiLrzo
cheers, and off again for a few days,
TLC soozi love wolf...
do you remember the exchange i had with mellas about using 'shithead' as a term of endearment and his claims that his myspace was private (even though it had a bio introducing his shitheads to readers)?
this is not a nice guy he is abusive and i bet that extends to phyical abuse too.
he knows little about what happened - he was not there. it does not seem to me he was chased away but rather, after the big victory in the appeal was not forthcoming, he had nothing to bash anybody here with.
.
rob | 04.14.08 - 7:57 am | #
___________________________________
Yeah I do remember it Rob and I also don't like that kind of thing, as I know a bit about psychology too and if you call a child a thing the child will automatically try to live up to it to please the parent, so calling a child, hey droopy drawers, stupid or shithead will cause the kid to become it, in order to please.
I find him abusive too.
Let's say even if LoveWolf gave him something to get upset about, the fast reaction with aggressive words shows no self-control.
God the amount of times I wished to tell Mr Charlie Wilkes who used to be Brains in Thunderbirds, what a James Hunt I think he is are uncountable.
He got dead uptight with me when I said, it was weird to hear him keep going on about his daughter, I can't help it if I think 13 is too young to be a father. That's how much older he is than Amanda, Amanda was 14 when Mr Mellas married Amanda's mother, Amanda was nearly an adult. It has been a few years that he has had the father function. As an argument he screamed that he had known Amanda since she was small. What, was he her dad when he was 13 or 15. I mean get real, he is a step-father by law but she is nearly the same age as him, the way he speaks sounds creepy to me. Amanda has a real father, he didn't seem entirely out of the picture. If that father is President at Macey's then it's hard to imagine he didn't help out financially.
I know all about step- relations, having step-brothers, sisters, mums and dads. Who knows Amanda may have a problem with men, promiscuity sometimes is a result of not having had a father around. Girls end up choosing the wrong men.
Sometimes some men get creepy in their step-dad roles.
They get a woman and enter her home and take over the place not realizing that to the children it's like how animals experience a break-in to their territory.
Then some kids don't accept it that this not-dad acts like he is THE dad and then tells them what to do as well as their mother.
Sometimes, of course, a good man may do it well, it may be a welcomed addition to the family, there may be real love, when there is no other dad around.
In his case keeping on calling himself dad, would mean that either Amanda's dad was not like a real dad to her and they were distant or that Chris is over the top with his dad role. To start calling a girl your daughter when you become her step-dad at 27 and she is 14 sounds weird.
May | 04.14.08 - 8:51 am | "cheers, and off again for a few days"
Great video May! Have a safe trip.
-
Soozie and TLC I am just pleased that he never discovered that I am a Jew otherwise I think he may have been even more offensive!!
LW
Love Wolf | 04.14.08 - 7:42 am | #
___________________
Though you may have a problem with Thunderbirds says GO Charlie Wilkes, starring as Brains, he seems to be a rascist. He is not fair to Guede, in light of the other two. Though of course, I'm not saying Guede is innocent, just that Wilkes has one way with the other two whities and then a typically souther States way with Guede. Is Charlie Wilkes possibly from some place where the KU Klux Clan have their merry get togethers?
Soozie, I can understand what you're saying about Chris Mellas, but I don't really agree with it. Chris obviously knows Amanda better than any of us. He believes she's innocent
FinnMacCool | 04.14.08 - 8:39 am | #
--------
Finn, I appreciate he knows her better than any of us. Of course he does. But he has come here with one frame of mind, and that is to dismiss any evidence against her and (for some reason), convince a bunch of strangers that she had nothing to do with anything. He cannot be impartial in this, but he does not need to curse and insult as part of his game plan.
He is able to 'preview' his message, in other words, he has time to think about, and see what he is going to post before he posts. And yet, still, he hurls insults at anyone who disagrees with him. It's hard to view him as a heartbroken stepfather, and easier to see him as a control freak who would perhaps benefit from a course in anger management. When children grow up with parents who are unable to control their tempers, it often rubs off on them, and they 'learn' the behaviour themselves. I am curious as to how often Amanda witnessed that temper.
And let's not forget that he is not giving us any 'new' or 'substantiated' information, ie; STILL he won't confirm if the "black man's hair" found in Meredith's hand actually belonged to a black man. He says 'they' have a report. If this is true/confirmed, would I be correct in assuming it would form part of the evidence to be discussed on the 19th? I would be very interested in this.
Finally, it's patently clear he's not here to 'discuss' anything, he just wants to tell us we have it all wrong. Tell me something, do you believe Amanda told her parents the truth?
Suppose she lied to them like she lied to the police. Her parents would then be basing their faith in lies. There's still no hard evidence that the words she's spoken are true.
On a side note, Steve asked us to try and remain 'civil' - I don't think "F**k you" falls into that category. Amanda's stepfather should learn to control his tantrums if he wants a better chance of being taken seriously. I still think it's beyond weird he's here at all. I'm sure there are better things he could be doing with his time.
------------
I'm getting flashes of Captain Wilkes as Governor Wilkes now in some old film, maybe with Sidney Poitier, there's a chaingang, men in striped suits with balls and chains attached to their feet, spitting out tobacco on the dusty ground
Prison guard Wilkes: Ai doughnt rightlaaaay know about yeeeew, now dig, or I swear by almightaaaay god I'm sending you down da hole, you is guilty and dey is innocent da yas hear me boy?
Prisoners raise their pickaxes and start to sing slow and long
Lord lord, swing low sweet Char i ot
Wilkes: Hush dat wimping naw da ya hear
Maybe,
the three were involved but that it was Sollecito and Knox who attempted to frame Guede for it.
A lot of the fighting may have gone on in the house and not in Meredith's room, it may be that Guede had gone in Meredith's room to try it on, and it had swiftly gotten out of control. Guede may have stepped into Meredith's room with Amanda's (at least hers) full approval being that it may be so that Amanda was trying to help fix Meredith up with Guede, without Meredith knowing anything about it. Amanda may have warmed Guede up to that idea. Then Guede quickly went, perhaps unexpectedly for Amanda too, down the road of molestation. That leading to protests and screams but then the other two did not help Meredith.
Somehow it turned into a desperate battle outside of Meredith's room.
In one way or the other, it looks like Sollecito and Knox did not even know that the police would be able to detect Guede, so instead of a frame-up of Guede, to Knox and Sollecito it was more like, Guede is out of the way, Guede does not live here, he was the one in Meredith's room, the actual killing took place in Meredith's room but happened very fast leaving no traces of either Sollecito or Knox, because Knox may have had no contact in Meredith's room with Meredith, and Sollecito only in the swift last plunging of the knife, Amanda may have only prodded with a knife. It could also be that both Sollecito and Knox used knives on Meredith and still had no other physical contact in Meredith's room with her.
Cleaning the rest of the house would then leave no clues as to the events of the night before, where Guede, Sollecito, Knox and Meredith were together.
Without Guede's traces in Amanda's room or in the kitchen, through Sollecito and Knox cleaning up, and with Guede out of the way, it would mean, in their minds, Guede wouldn't be caught and he'd be out of town if not out of the country anyway (or he may have been so scared he choose to go of his own accord but Knox and Sollecito had been busy cleaning anyhow not thinking Guede could be traced), and the mystery person whose tracks were left in Meredith's room and the rest would have been impossible to find. They didn't know Guede had been in trouble with the police already and they didn't set up the clean-up with him anyway, because he fled the scene. Maybe they fled too at first, and returned later because Amanda HAD TO, after all, if Amanda had fled the country it would have been obvious she was involved, as she lived in the cottage.
I still also don't count it out that Guede did spend some time with Meredith, of Meredith's own accord, because to say, impossible is a big word, impossible is not applicable in this.
Discounted Theories
1/ Sollecito did it alone
2/ Knox did it alone
3/ Sollecito and Guede did it together
4/ Guede did it alone (the other two acting far too weird, lying, etc, for that)
5/ Knox and Sollecito did it together without Guede
Possible Solutions
1/ Guede did it together with Knox
2/ The three of them are involved
2/
a) Guede molested Meredith, Knox threatened her and Sollecito killed her
b) Guede spent some time with Meredith then the other two somehow assaulted and killed Meredith, either Knox or Sollecito doing the killing
c) All three of them assaulted Meredith
d) Guede molested Meredith, Knox killed her and Sollecito helped
e) Guede molested Meredith, Sollecito killed her and Knox helped
The theory that Guede did it alone then somehow the other two with their university educations, if it were and is so, that though being entirely innocent, they were so terrified that it would lead to them telling differing stories on vital details, and harm each other, on purpose, seems ludicrous.
If Raffaele was innocent, and Amanda had been with him all evening, he would just say so, how in God's name would he come to the conclusion that he would be right to entirely ruin her life by shitting on her in such an awful way if she was innocent? Blaming her as he has tried to do in a gentlenaly manner has actually pointed the finger of blame at himself, it shows him as being the ice-cold killer with no conscience. He probably, if I am right that is, knows why he did what he did, after all he applauded the serial killer of children because of the relation to depression, he empathized and understood the motives of that killer, he empathized with the serial killer because he suffered too from depression, to his mind, he could not condemn such a killer as could the general population, instead, he pitied the killer. He knew rationally it was wrong to be a murderer, he knew the serial killer was wrong but he blamed it on the depression the killer suffered with and in that way Raffaele not able to blame the killer as others would, in fact he underlined why it happened, the depression caused it.
So he is either telling the truth that he was home or he is hiding his own involvement and it leaves only one possibility and that is he is lying too, she was not at home with him, because he was not at home either. They were both at the cottage.
Sollecito is just hard and cold that even if he did not have much with Amanda for very long that though being guilty he would greedily carry on lying but at the same time dump Amanda in the dung. To him it is like playing chess and he thought up the move that he knew would leave Amanda checkmate obviously if they both are guilty in different ways, and were at the house and were involved in differing ways in Meredith's death then they'd have been talking non-stop about what to do and Sollecito was and is clever enough to ice-cold, calculate what it would mean to say what he did, and that is why he quickly changed his story.
The only way Amanda could counter-attack and go at him, would be to say that is a lie, you know you was not at home, you was with me, yes it is true what Raffaele says, he's right I was not at home and neither was he,e we were at the cottage and look, this is what happened.....
He knew she 'could not' (would not) do that. So in saying she was not with him, gave himself a small alibi but it is one that is like a cold bronze statue unclothed, the naked truth is clearly visible about his depths of intent and ability to lie and deceive. I think he could very well be the killer, even if Amanda has done wrong along the line, Sollecito's depths of coldness and selfishness, the calculated nature he shows tells me he is the vicious one.
Thanks May that was funny
have a nice time, where you off to? Bali?
Nice
TLC
Hi TLC
Did you see Skep and Michael posts on the message board re legal context? I think it's a great idea .If you still have some of those info on preventive incarceration and the Italian judicial system in general, I'll be happy to help with the translation.
ciao
I hate to say that Amanda Knox is a harbinger of the future we have chosen for ourselves. She is the culmination of the Baby Boomer's 50 year experiment. We threw off the yoke of conformism, community standards, tradition and shame. Instead, everyone was encouraged to pursue their own desires, live by their own values, star in their own dream. Amanda Knox is the result. Educated, affluent, raised with every advantage in the wealthiest country on the planet.
She is superficial, selfish, a narcisist wholly lacking in real empathy or compassion. Like the rest of her generation she may go through the motions, exhibit the outward signs of love and loyalty, but its only surface, there is no connection to any inner values or real emotions.
We've raised a generation of Amandas whose only goal in life is to CONSUME. Drugs, sex, experiences, people, things. A souless generation.
Accomplished, yes, but to what end? A young woman so narcisistic that even now as she sits in a jail cell having confessed she was presnt when her alleged good friend was sexually attacked and murdered, that she left her for dead, what is Amanda Knox doing? Writing in her journal. Writing down her impressions of this newest "experience"...assuredly recasting herself as the victim, reworking her mask, retelling her story to conform to a new set of rules never encountered before...
Amanda Knox is hollow, rudderless, amoral, sick, left to create her own universe and value system, this is what she has chosen, it's all she knows because it's what we have taught her. Bombarded her entire life with messages about independence, freedom, desire, wealth, but barely a whisper about the flip side of freedom--duty, sacrifice, responsibility, morality.
This is the ultimate result of freedom divorced from values. Why any other country in the world seeks to emulate American society as it is today is beyond my understanding.
nicki | 04.14.08 - 10:23 am
________________________________
Hi Nicki,
No I hadn't seen that yet. Thanks.
Sure, I do have the appropriate info' concerning Italian law, in relation to this case and also, the academic and reliable information on some differences and similarities between law systems around the world.
I located the entire Italian Codice Penale too, that's where your help would be great, to translate the entries concerning omicidio, of course 'homicide' in English. I was able to make head and tail of it, but not too well.
I'll put it together and post it later on.
Good for that site, yeah great idea.
Nice to see you as always, e ciao bella
Soozie wrote: Finally, it's patently clear he's not here to 'discuss' anything, he just wants to tell us we have it all wrong. Tell me something, do you believe Amanda told her parents the truth?
Soozie, there
´s quite a lot that I´ve been able to work out about the various people involved with this case, but even so there really isn't much I'd be prepared to claim I was sure about.
I know that Amanda Knox had changed a lot over the few months leading up to the murder of Mez Kercher. I can read her MySpace blog, where she claims that she doesn't drink or smoke, and I believe those friends who saw her as clean-living and sporty. But equally I see her posing with pictures of marijuana, or pretending to be drunk on YouTube, and that shows a different side to her. In June she was fined for public disturbance, for organising an out-of-control party. In September she walked out on a job at the Bundestag that a distant relative had organized for her. Here's what she wrote about that:
so i talked to [my uncle] today and explain ed the mess, but not before freaking out and crying a little becaue i was afraid i made my uncle look bad in front of these very importan people. oops. to say the least.
And here's what she wrote about first meeting her German relatives:
uve, my uncle, and tore, my unlce who's 25 (and inadvertantly hit on us when he first saw us, much to his embarassment-ewwwww)
It's possible to read a lot into that: certainly there's immaturity, thoughtlessness and dissemination. But it doesn't automatically lead to murder, a couple of months later - even though it could well be a sign of things starting to go badly wrong in her life and in her head.
Is she capable of lying to her parents? Of course she is, most people are. Does that mean she DID lie to them? Does any of that stuff make her likely to be guilty?
I'd still say "not necessarily".
This too, from the Mail ( I know, I know):
Sollecito:
"Reconstructing the events I think she was with me but I can't quite remember if she left me for a few minutes early on that evening."
His diary also reveals how he was "psychologically tortured" at Perugia police station after being made to strip naked and put in handcuffs.
For all who have signed up for the message board or who would like to:
Kermit has left an interesting post comparing the case to L'Etranger by Camus.
If you want to register for The Murder of Meredith Kercher message board, do so in the True Crime Weblog Forum. (See Steve's post above)
I have read Chris Mellas' last post. It both saddens and angers me. I find it hard to believe that LW's pun set him off like that. If you take a casual stroll on the web, you will find far worse things said about his step-daughter. I have seen things that make me feel utter despair for humanity. I have felt for some time that this board has taken the brunt of this man's anger. Whether or not the anger is justified is not for me to say, but I don't like the insinuation that "we" are somehow responsible for the current situation. There is a rush to claim victim status that seems a little hasty. I can't say I am sorry that Chris Mellas has left. I just hope his close friend(s) who posts here for the purpose of baiting people and sidetracking discussion goes with him. They serve no other purpose than to get people bickering with one another rather than discussing this case. I am not saying there should be no conflict: there should and will be.
I hope that if and when Amanda Knox is proven innocent, Chris Mellas will be on top of the world and that he'll have other priorities than rubbing people's nose in it. If he feels he must, then he should start with the posters on other boards who call his step-daughter names and say she should burn in hell. That will keep him busy for awhile.
I just don't like being bullied, intimidated or brutalized by anybody.
Lv2rgu | 04.14.08 - 11:07 am |
"Reconstructing the events I think she was with me but I can't quite remember if she left me for a few minutes early on that evening."
These "visions" and recollections only starting occurring when he was in prison. They are from his diary, written in prison, concerning his arrest and later entrance in prison, ie. from Nov. 6 onwards.
He was not stripped nor handcuffed in order to humiliate him or force him to change his alibi at 22.40 h. on Nov. 5 when he was still a witness.
I think you (we all) have to be extremely careful with points on the time-line.
This "psychological torture", I assume was just standard procedures for putting people in jail. They have a medical check, they are arrested and therefore are handcuffed.
-
Ya, I know it was pretty weak, but just to put it out there...
Lv2rgu, what I see with RS's diary comments is that he is hedging his legal bets. Presented with evidence in the questioning on Nov.5 (when he was fully clothed and not handcuffed), he was quite specific:
"On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1 ... he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100. Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am ..."
That is from Matteini's report, was - I believe - sworn testimony, and has more weight than a personal journal, where he says in a wishy washy way: "I can't quite remember if she left me for a few minutes early on that evening".
-
Kermit:
I agree with you on the importance of timeline and would also note that Raffaele's diary is an interesting document to ponder. In the passage cited, he also notes that when he was stripped he was carrying his trusty knife.
Further on in time, November 18 2007 to be exact, he reacts to the news of the DNA on the knife as follows:
"They are keeping me in jail because there is a kitchen knife with a
trace of Meredith's DNA. It seems like a horror movie ... Looking back
and remembering it came to mind that the night dad sent me an sms
message of goodnight to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with
Amanda), then the day after Amanda repeated to me that if she had not
been with me at this time she would be dead. Thinking and
reconstructing, it seems to me that she always remained with me, the
only thing I do not remember exactly is when she left in the early
evening for a few minutes.
I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return
home. The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling
the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I
apologized but she had nothing done to her. So the only real
explanation of the kitchen knife is this."
With respect to the last sentence, the only real problem with it is that Amanda Knox has stated that they never cooked a meal with Meredith at Raffaele's apartment as he says. Remember, he and Amanda had met only two weeks prior to Nov 1, and he has stated elsewhere that his only contact with Meredith was when he came to the cottage and waited while Amanda fetched her clothing.
Once again, is difficult to separate truth from fiction in the narratives of the three suspects.
SB, what strikes me about the knife reference is that he must have meant the cottage, since why else specify "in the house"?
SB, what strikes me about the knife reference is that he must have meant the cottage, since why else specify "in the house"?
lv2rgu | 04.14.08 - 11:44 am | #
(Which, by the way I think is a crock Personally I believe RS is a bit of a spinelesss putz.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.14.08 - 11:40 am | "So the only real explanation of the kitchen knife is this."
When this came up on a Matrix show where Dr. S. appeared, Dr.S. basically said that that wasn't a believable story, but you can't blame his son for making an effort to try to clear up issues in the investigation.
-
lv2rgu | 04.14.08 - 11:44 am | "SB, what strikes me about the knife reference is that he must have meant the cottage, since why else specify "in the house"?"
Sorry I don't have time to track down the original Italian text, but in Spanish at least "en casa" is both "in (my) house" and "at home".
Another analysis is that he in fact was saying that it occurred in the cottage, but then it would be normal for RS and AK to say which day in the 14 days they went out that occurred, and when did the knife go back to RS's casa.
-
"It's possible to read a lot into that: certainly there's immaturity, thoughtlessness and dissemination. But it doesn't automatically lead to murder, a couple of months later - even though it could well be a sign of things starting to go badly wrong in her life and in her head.
Is she capable of lying to her parents? Of course she is, most people are. Does that mean she DID lie to them? Does any of that stuff make her likely to be guilty?
I'd still say "not necessarily".
FinnMacCool | 04.14.08 - 10:59 am | #"
Finn:
I agree with your assessment here. From the pre-event evidence we have, it looks like some kind of change was occurring, which is common at the age of 20. There is also a certain degree of thoughtlessness and immaturity, which may also be common at the age of 20. But there is a strange dichotomy between the Seattle portrait of Amanda Knox (honor student, Jesuit-school educated (though I must once again say, there are a total of 2 priests teaching at her Jesuit school), etc.) and the portrait that emerges from her own self-presentation. There is a self-conscious attempt to present herself as being "edgy" and ready for a thrill. The photo I find the most troubling is the one where she's laughing into the barrel of a machine gun. If the US media's corrective portrait is true, then it would seem that something set Amanda on a different course somewhere along the way.
I don't see this thoughtlessness as leading inevitably to murder--far from it. This is one of the reasons I think that if AK and RS were involved, what actually happened was accidental and unexpected on some level. This is not incompatible with the idea that there was a vague plan to "do something." For me, Raffaele has become the wild card in all of this. Why, upon learning that Rudy has been arrested, does he immediately fear this guy he claims never to have met will invent strange things?
"...will invent strange things?"
Skeptical Bystander | 04.14.08 - 11:57 am |
That's one of my favorite RS quotes!
"SB, what strikes me about the knife reference is that he must have meant the cottage, since why else specify "in the house"?
lv2rgu | 04.14.08 - 11:44 am | #"
See Kermit's comment about the translation aspect. Also, what the hell would his kitchen knife be doing over at the cottage? And then there's the problem I mentioned, that no such meal ever took place according to Amanda. I'm just troubled that he would make up a story like this rather than saying I have no idea how that could have happened. It makes him look like a liar, you know what I mean?
SB, I agree completely, but I was just commenting on his statement, not agreeing that it was accurate or true.
Gotta run.
Yet you'd cheerfully accuse Rudy of being a 'thief' without even 'evidence', let alone 'proof'?
Why were his fingerprints on file?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:02 am | #
Proof of your dishonesty. You don't even know how his fingerprints were on file, but you choose to make up that it was because he was a "petty thief" without any proof of such.
...but in Spanish at least "en casa" is both "in (my) house" and "at home".
Kermit | 04.14.08 - 11:56 am |
Hi Kermit,
same in Italian.
Thanks Nicki.
-
i am beginning to think the boyfriend has been set up. remember he said his first statement to police was bullshit because he believed the big a when she asked him to lie for her and say they were together all night. that seems really peculiar if they were both EQUALLY involved at the time of the killing. the boyfriend is arrogant about his view of the 'stupid' cops but i can't square this 'buckling' and saying the big a asked him to lie with a 'clever' plan that he was involved in. if he was 'there' at the time of the killing why would he blow the alibi of the big a off in his second statement?
(no torture comments please)
.
if he was 'there' at the time of the killing why would he blow the alibi of the big a off in his second statement?
Because she had become a liability.
Her story couldn't be reconciled with his in the details.
Daddy and his lawyers decided it was best to go it alone. This was at the same time they "damned the day he met that girl".
I agree with Brian. Raf and his people trust themselves to get out of this, and feel that AK is a liability. She can never be trusted. AK has already falsely accused Patrick. They hope she won't accuse Raf, but if she does, they can always say she's doing the same thing she did to Patrick
Food for thought?
Raffaele has disowned Amanda.
Amanda is reaching out for Raffaele.
Rudy Guede in his German diary is reaching out for Amanda.
Will Rudy ever turn Amanda's head?
rob | 04.14.08 - 12:17 pm |
I have been considering this as well. But then I wonder why after 5 months in jail he hasn't explained exactly how things went.If he just helped to clean up and supplied an alibi on demand, a full confession is his best choice since the alternative is to be charged with murder.
Sparrow, Brian
You answered my question
Thanks!
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 12:34 pm |"They hope she won't accuse Raf, but if she does, they can always say she's doing the same thing she did to Patrick"
Hi Sparrow. She has already proven that she can go in that direction in her "letter to Raffaele from prison" where she says something like "you could have gone, killed her, and returned home and pressed the knife into my hand while I was asleep ... but I can't believe you would have done that".
Some people might say that that smacks of cynicism. Charlie would say it's simply an innocent girl going through possibilities in her mind in a document which has no value in court.
-
Yet you'd cheerfully accuse Rudy of being a 'thief' without even 'evidence', let alone 'proof'?
Why were his fingerprints on file?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 5:02 am | #
Proof of your dishonesty. You don't even know how his fingerprints were on file, but you choose to make up that it was because he was a "petty thief" without any proof of such.
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 12:08 pm | #
Sparrow,
I agree you and with Michael above. Although I couldn't find a quick link, I also seem to remember that his prints were found in his immigration file. An obvious place to look really. They already knew they were looking for a "black man".
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 12:35 pm | "Will Rudy ever turn Amanda's head?"
You're too imaginative, Brian. This case is similar to many others out (want the list?) there where a lone black thief rapes and murders a girl, then throws a rock through the window to make it look like a robbery, just to through off the police.
And if you don't believe me, you're naive and beguiled. Oh, and intellectually dishonest.
-
I also seem to remember that his prints were found in his immigration file. An obvious place to look really. They already knew they were looking for a "black man".
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 12:46 pm |
...and although a few Italians of African descent are natives of Italy, the majority of them are not, i.e. they are immigrants.
If he just helped to clean up and supplied an alibi on demand, a full confession is his best choice since the alternative is to be charged with murder.
nicki | 04.14.08 - 12:43 pm | #
Which is what I believe he will claim if and when his defense team can overcome the footprint and other forensics against him.
Skeptical Bystander wrote: "But there is a strange dichotomy between the Seattle portrait of Amanda Knox ... and the portrait that emerges from her own self-presentation. There is a self-conscious attempt to present herself as being "edgy" and ready for a thrill. The photo I find the most troubling is the one where she's laughing into the barrel of a machine gun."
I think all of this is good analysis, and of course if we take away the murder, then that photo becomes silly, rather than troubling.
We could even say the same thing for Rudy's horsing around on the "I am a vampire" video. (And the girl's voice in the background, "Rudy, maybe you want to delete that one...")
What strikes me with Amanda's YouTube video is not that she is drunk - I don't believe she is - but that she's pretending to be drunk. She sees the camera, and with it she sees an opportunity to play up to an image, to deny being drunk while pretending to be drunk. ("One and a half.")
That's also about self-consciously contriving an edgy image.
In her blog entries, Amanda comes across as immature about drink, drugs, and sex. She also lacks self-awareness.
But if we're going to lock up every twenty-year-old who shares those characteristics, we'd better start building a lot more jails quick.
You're too imaginative, Brian. This case is similar to many others out (want the list?) there where a lone black thief rapes and murders a girl, then throws a rock through the window to make it look like a robbery, just to through off the police.
And if you don't believe me, you're naive and beguiled. Oh, and intellectually dishonest.
-
Kermit | 04.14.08 - 12:51 pm | #
Brian, it seems you caught me out. Just seeing if I could be a bad ass.
-
Thanks, Steve! Would have thanked you sooner but I'm only on here during the week.
Trying to catch up; looks like I didn't miss anything "explosive". Will be lurking for a bit.
I agree you and with Michael above. Although I couldn't find a quick link, I also seem to remember that his prints were found in his immigration file. An obvious place to look really. They already knew they were looking for a "black man".
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 12:46 pm |
This is interesting, Brian. How is it they already knew they were looking for a black man? CMellas would have us believe it was because the hair of a black man was found underneath MK's fingernails. But maybe it's just that a witness saw a black man running from the house at around 10:30 pm.
"But if we're going to lock up every twenty-year-old who shares those characteristics, we'd better start building a lot more jails quick.
FinnMacCool | 04.14.08 - 12:56 pm | #"
Absolutely! It would be just as foolish to make assumptions on this basis alone as it would be to say something like "Girls who go to Catholic schools just do not take part in orgies and commit murder."
I have two tentative suggestions for new threads/topics on the Message Board (I should probably be posting them over there, but I have not mastered the use of the MB yet !) :
1. Motives & psychology
That would be a place in which to discuss
(a) possible motives of the jailed suspects
and
(b) psychological analyses (based on their words and conduct) of the three and others (e.g. Papa Sollecito, Patrick, ...).
2. Diaries etc.
Might be gathered there (for easy and accurate reference)
(a) all the "diaries",
(b) the officially released written documents (e.g. Matteini's initial report, what few interrogation transcripts are available, ...),
and perhaps (?)
(c) some of the more respectable interviews actually quoting any of the suspects (e.g. the one published by La Stampa that somebody -- probably Damian -- kindly translated for us in early April, the one in which Raffaele was answering an Italian journalist's questions).
BTW,
-- I think that ideally we might wish to have both the Italian original texts and their translations there, but I suppose it's impossible (too unwieldy ...),
-- because of the cumbersome combined bulk of these documents, too, some of them might well be replaced by links to reliable "editions" (cf. Rudy's "diary").
Maybe I am drivelling ("You are old, mother Bluetit ..."). If so, sorry.
the big a captioned herself the gun photo with the phrase
'the nazi within'
surely the caption belies a state of mind as it is an elaboration on the photo stemming from the big a's imagination and self-image?
.
Damian: The Maresca article you kindly translated is about the most valuable thing to have appeared on this site in months. If there is one lawyer who doesn't have an agenda (except his fee), it is Maresca; and he has kept quiet until provoked by the Bari televesion show.
If he is correctly quoted, then when he talks about what is and what is not backed up by evidence is vital.
This applies to the Albanian citing, about which I have always been very dubious. But the night the Albanian saw them was Haloween; and the three might well have been dressed up, with knife, for some sort of Haloween prank. This may have been re-enacted the following night, for whatever reasons: don't forget that MK's vampire teeth were removed at the sopra alluogo which took place a few weeks ago.
Guede
I have not, so far, been convinced by the reports that RG went dancing on the night of 1/2 November. But if he did, it would point to his (partial) innocence.
If he had left the cottage when MK was dead or dying, his only instinct would have been to flee; and he would have spent his time thinking where and how!
But, as I have also said: if he only left Perugia after the discovery of the corpse it was because he knew only then that things had got out of hand in the cottage after his departure.
He would also have known that his fingerprints were all over the scene of the crime, and that they had been taken during his previous arrests for a (very) petty break-in, and a (very) petty drugs charge.
In any case, again as I have also said earlier, because of the fingerprints the police would have been looking for him by name and by photo by the morning of Sat. 3 November at the latest.
[Anything he writes in his prison diary can be discounted, as he was then taking account of everything he had read in the press: reconciling his account and the press-reports is a useful exercise].
When the police called in AK and RS on the night of 5/6 November, they would certainly have questioned them about Guede (perhaps under the generic description of a black man). This may well have been the trigger that sparked AK to blame PL.
I repeat: PL is short; and RG is tall.
[PS: I only came on to post the link to the Guardian; but find that has been done already. And to apologise to Damian, who is one of, if not THE hero of this blog]
and i commented ages ago about how UNUSUAL the vampire's youtube video was...becasue it was the only thing he put up!!! and it was months before the killing.
i find it odd that that is the only thing this skype user found worthy of posting on his youtube site.
that ol black magic (that can wipe computer discs)!
.
"I have two tentative suggestions for new threads/topics on the Message Board (I should probably be posting them over there, but I have not mastered the use of the MB yet !) :
...
Maybe I am drivelling ("You are old, mother Bluetit ..."). If so, sorry.
Bluetit | 04.14.08 - 1:11 pm | #"
Hey Old Bluetit:
Don't worry. I'm on a learning curve too, as are many others. You may be old and driveling, but your suggestions are good ones.
I grow old
I grow old
I shall wear my trousers rolled
kermit you have bad assed CW big time....
all that come here can see your bad ass self shake that tree and grab that fruit of truth before it hits the ground...
.
"I repeat: PL is short; and RG is tall.
[PS: I only came on to post the link to the Guardian; but find that has been done already. And to apologise to Damian, who is one of, if not THE hero of this blog]
Minotaur | 04.14.08 - 1:13 pm | #"
Yes and yes. Thanks, Damian, for constantly reminding us that, in his subtle yet persistent way, Maresca is quietly and effectively setting the record straight. You are helping us hear him above the din.
PPS: Haloween
Haloween is a northern European thing, now commercialised by the US, from where it has come back to England (where it had migrated until recently to Guy Fawkes day).
Italians tend to go to their parents on the evening of 31st Oct in order to spend Ognissanti with their families (=Thanksgiving).
It there was a prime mover for Haloween celebrations amongs our group of confrères(soeurs), it would have been AK, followed by MK; rather than from RS or RG. And it would also explain the migration of the knife.
And might also refer back to some well-known photos of RS with cleaver and bleach on his Facebook.
The conjunction of Haloween/Ognisanti with a weekend is a significant factor in this case. And it has nothing to do with diabolism (apart from the Sorcerer's Apprentice/Harry Potter coincidence, which I have previously drawn attention to.
It there was a prime mover for Haloween celebrations amongs our group of confrères(soeurs), it would have been AK, followed by MK; rather than from RS or RG. And it would also explain the migration of the knife.---Minotaur
As illustrated in May's powerpoint.
s and m
you miss out on the vampire's voudoun fantasies (that may even have some basis in reality - just like the big a being a german ergo nazi)
.
s and m
you miss out on the vampire's voudoun fantasies (that may even have some basis in reality - just like the big a being a german ergo nazi)
.
rob | 04.14.08 - 1:30 pm | #
Rob, am I the 's' you're talking to? You can be blunt, I can take it. If so then yes, I do miss that. I don't see it. It could be true, as can other things I don't see.
sorry Sparrow i meant no offense, just being breif. the vampire only posted that one video many months before the killing. dont you find it odd that that is ALL the skype user was minded to post up on youtube?
the big a captioning herself a nazi is something i commented on before but nobody responded to it. it is something she branded herelf when posting up the machine gun photo.
i think the big a is someone who upon leaving her mother for university living increasingly thought and saw she could get away with anything and i believe that feeling was over stimulated by her experiences abroad and swelled to the point that she THOUGHT SHE COULD GET AWAY WITH MURDER.
.
the big a captioning herself a nazi is something i commented on before but nobody responded to it.
It fits nicely with what a former Jewish coworker said about her remarks on the Holocaust.
Absolutely! It would be just as foolish to make assumptions on this basis alone as it would be to say something like "Girls who go to Catholic schools just do not take part in orgies and commit murder."
Skeptical Bystander | 04.14.08 - 1:05 pm |
Exactly.
Back in early November, the Seattle PI blogs were full of posts saying, "It's obviously the Congo guy that did it," and coming up with statistics taken from the brutal war in DRC to justify the racist kneejerkery that found Patrick Lumumba guilty just because of his ethnicity. (It struck me at the time that, since he's been in Perugia since 1989, Patrick Lumumba has a perfect alibi for any and all crimes committed during the DRC war of 1998-2003.)
Those posts were deleted and those users were banned.
I don't put the current "Guede did it on his own" critics in the same boat as those early racists, but I share Skeptical Bystander's distrust of any analysis that's based on the supposed likelihood or probability of a particular ethnic/social group committing a crime.
Although I live and work in Europe (and indeed regularly teach on an Erasmus program), I am also from an African background - in fact, from a neighboring country to Rudy Guede and from a country which has likewise endured more than our fair share of atrocities.
Nevertheless, I would like to reassure this board that to date I have never murdered anyone in my life, and that my feelings about the guilt or otherwise of Rudy Guede is not influenced by the fact of his being my near compatriot.
OT - berlusconi on course to win Italy's election
.
finn
are you lying when you say 'to date i have never murdered anyone in my life'?
dont mislead us now...
OT - berlusconi on course to win Italy's election
.
rob | 04.14.08 - 1:52 pm |
OT ohmygod!
finn
are you lying when you say 'to date i have never murdered anyone in my life'?
No, Rob, that is the God's honest truth. I have a good alibi for the night of November 1st last year, too.
rob | 04.14.08 - 1:43 pm |
Rob, I know you didn't mean offense. I thought maybe you were being sensitive... Like I said, I can take it. I try to be honest always, and am glad that this morning I see so many companions in honesty who have been regulars here. It may be strange that Rudy posted that video only, however I don't see it. Maybe it's because it's not there, or maybe it's because I am blind to something. I guess I would need more proof of this side to him. As I've posted before, that video can be seen as someone simply clowning around. Or maybe there's more to it. I have to admit Rob, that I look at things in a more ordinary way... choosing the ordinary solution, as I've found people are so rarely extraordinary. Often I've seen some of your opinions as extra harsh, or on the edge, but also often when a new detail will come out about this case, or about some posts made here by others, I will find myself thinking "Rob was right..." so... anyway, no time to go into it further now. We'll get back to it later.
Sparrow
Rudy was sent to italy for a reason, his father is still in the picture. there are many children from west africa that are persecuted as 'possessed' and these children are often tortured and eventually killed.
i dont know his his tory but 'the vampire' as i call him may well have had early childhood experiences being implicated along thses lines, just like the big a 'friends' taunt jews among them (no harm done they say) they may have taunted the big a for her german ancestery - hence her nazi within.
like waht TLC | 04.14.08 - 9:10 am said - if you repeat stuff about a kid to a kid enough they become what you said.
.
sorry about my crap typing today, i am aching from starting cricket nets and the feeling in my fingers is very limited.
.
thanks finn! hope teaching is rewarding for you!
.
Minotaur | 04.14.08 - 1:23 pm |
And it would also explain the migration of the knife.
--
Yes, it might explain that -- especially if we are willing to accept that there was no proper kitchen knife at the cottage (?!).
However, I have a(nother) problem with another knife, the one the Albanian witness is supposed to have seen in AK's hand. What about that one ? Is that an American custom, waving knives about on Halloween night ? This is not a rhetorical question, by the way : being neither a US nor a UK citizen, I don't know much about Halloween.
Sparrow
i was on the edge when i was the only poster defending Patrick's innocence all those months ago..im not mad or even extreme but i know that it takes something unseen to generate the storm we are engulfed in since this murder.
it is not clever it is not even knowing but it was enough to evoke a powerful force that is beyond any ONE's control. kermit instinctively knows this in desiring 'the meeting' as this is the only 'ritual' that can move this force along.
magic is about place, time, active participants and witnesses.
this cases will unravel in 'the right way' it cannot be held back.
.
clarification of above:
"the performance was not clever it was not even knowing but it was enough to evoke a powerful force that is beyond any ONE's control. kermit instinctively knows this in desiring 'the meeting' as this is the only 'ritual' that can move this force along."
.
Sparrow wrote:
Proof of your dishonesty. You don't even know how his fingerprints were on file, but you choose to make up that it was because he was a "petty thief" without any proof of such.
I am not being intentionally dishonest. I have read a number of news reports saying that Guede has run-ins with the police, and I thought that was why his fingerprints were on file.
"I don't put the current "Guede did it on his own" critics in the same boat as those early racists, but I share Skeptical Bystander's distrust of any analysis that's based on the supposed likelihood or probability of a particular ethnic/social group committing a crime."
Even if you correct for all sorts of variables, statistics of this kind have no predictive value whatsoever when applied to any particular case. Anyone who tells you otherwise either has--or hasn't--read How to Lie with Statistics.
If I might comment on Rudy's vampire video, I would say that it looks to me like a young man fooling about. He has turned back his eyelids, to make himself look frightening, and in the background an Italian girl advises him to delete the video. She doesn't sound scared, or even particularly interested - I would say that she just sounds tolerant of Rudy's messing about.
I haven't ever come across any vampire mythology in any part of west Africa (nor elsewhere on the continent). We have enough barbarism on our continent already, without borrowing that piece of European strangeness. I don't see it as being part of Rudy's make-up.
On the contrary, he is an African youth who speaks (in addition, I would guess, to his mother tongue - plus maybe Dyula?) French and Italian, and who is now fooling about with a video camera in English. His talk of aliens and vampires sounds to me just like his use of English and YouTube - an attempt to prove himself cool and street-cultured.
Finn McCool wrote:
it's bizarre that Charlie Wilkes has managed to engineer a discussion along the lines of silence being a good policy for innocent suspects. It isn't.
This is why my assessment of what is going on in this case will never line up with the thinking of this group. My view of the world is fundamentally too different from those that I see here.
To me, the above statement is just incredibly. stupendously naive. I can't think of any other way to describe it. Everything I have read about criminal investigations tells me that suspects, whether they are guilty or innocent, have nothing to gain and much to lose by talking to the police. I know of, and can document, many cases in which completely innocent people were convicted of a crime but would not have been had they exercised their right to silence.
Only when a suspect has an airtight, provable alibi should he volunteer information to the police. And even then he should relay this information through an attorney.
But if you sincerely believe that innocent people have nothing to fear by opening their hearts to the police, then who am I to disabuse you of your innocence? I only hope that you don't ever find yourself accused of a crime you did not commit.
Charlie, I suspect that I have traveled the world more than you have. I will admit that I have sometimes found myself accused of crimes I did not commit, for that is not altogether unusual, particularly at police checkpoints in certain parts of the world.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, I urge you to forget your love of silence. If you are a good enough talker, you may even be able to get away without paying a bribe.
You have your little fistful of incidents where suspects were convicted because they didn't keep quiet, but it is plainly ridiculous to generalize from that and claim that no innocent suspects should ever talk to the police.
A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.
Keep drinking, Charlie. It would be dangerous to stop where you are.
Charlie: "My view of the world is fundamentally too different from those that I see here.
If you feel uncomfortable here, then why do you keep coming back here? To save us from ourselves, the Monolith with its single view of what happened, Amanda obligatorily guilty of murder?
We, the naive, beguiled, intellectually dishonest (your words).
-
I only hope that you don't ever find yourself accused of a crime you did not commit.
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 3:10 pm | #
_______________________________
Hi mate you're my favourite, hows professor nutz doing?
Why would you hope anything about people you've never ever seen, if if if, when when when, then then then.
Thunderbirds is GO.
da da da da
Penelope Pitstop: Brains, what did you say?
Wilkes Brains: I said years ago my dear I had the honour of solving a crime with Joe 90, we made a great team, he talked crap and I was full a it.
Penelope: Why Brains, you never talked dirty before, do you have any new super ideas about who stole my jewellery?
Brains: I had them released, the ones who were caught red-handed, it's obvious to me they were framed by your chauffeur
Penelope: But he was caught in the act and recorded on film blowing up my safe and his left leg too in the process that's how they caught him
Brains: He was forced to do it, he wasn't there I say, it's impossible and if he was then it is clear to me, that nasty black guy on the corner of your mansion made him do it, guys like that just don't do crime, real criminals are easy to spot, they have signs on their backs in neon flashing lights, baddy, keep out of my way and they never shave, probably have long hair and vote communist
Penelope: Well I don't know rightly Brains but there have been a lot of unsolved robberies since you became commissioner of police
Brains: That's not true I was set up, it wasn't me, I've been framed I nevva do nuffing wrong but I always...
get the blame,
framed
Kermit wrote:
Charlie: "My view of the world is fundamentally too different from those that I see here.
If you feel uncomfortable here, then why do you keep coming back here? To save us from ourselves, the Monolith with its single view of what happened, Amanda obligatorily guilty of murder?
We, the naive, beguiled, intellectually dishonest (your words).
I don't know why I keep coming back here. It's poihtless, isn't it?
I think it's time for me to depart and leave you to your discussion. I wish you all the best.
Regards,
Praise da lawd sing alle lu jah
Goodbye, and good luck, Charlie.
That is something that Rob said about beginning to think Sollecito has been set-up.
It seems either he is telling the truth about being at home or both of them were at the cottage.
If both were at the cottage, it seems that even trying very hard to believe Guede, he doesn't come across as being someone who is entirely honest either, that way, it is all three involved.
If Sollecito is telling the truth, it means Knox and Guede may have met up, moved to Amanda's house together, Guede may in fact have let Knox know how he wanted Meredith, and somehow it was the pair of them that did the lot. They told Amanda we want to have some fun.
Amanda going home at 1 and staying with Sollecito telling him an entirely different version of what happened, getting him on her side.
And that is why Sollecito has said it is all her fault. Because he like a fool helped her clean up.
His reasons for not coming out with the truth yet would have to do with him realizing doing what he did would still ruin his life if he has to pay for it.
He'd think that, assuming and realizing, that even if it is the truth nobody is going to believe him, or, not all people will ever think he was innocent.
"I don't know why I keep coming back here. It's pointless, isn't it?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 3:35 pm | #"
It depends on what your point is.
You can always change your mind.
"I don't know why I keep coming back here. It's pointless, isn't it?
Charlie Wilkes | 04.14.08 - 3:35 pm | #"
Well, that and the explosive show that was going to blow this case wide open has aired.
To anyone who actually watched it, did Joey the T make an appearance? Just curious...
Bye, Charlie. Please don't go off and say we're all those things, especially the monolith part, or that we all think Amanda is guilty. On this thread you "accused" me twice of thinking that, when in fact I explained the opposite is the case.
And remember, the world is not black and white. Those who do not automatically believe in Amanda's innocence (of whatever crimes you think we should pass judgment on), do not necessarily think she is automatically guilty of anything in particular.
Please don't force people to take sides.
-
To anyone who actually watched it, did Joey the T make an appearance? Just curious...Corrina
No, and i'm fairly certain his name wasn't mentioned.
Darn what a mistake not
Amanda but Meredith
They told Meredith we want to have some fun
Charlie,
BRAVO
Hey Any Old Mouse still no handle then
Fork handles?
No four candles
"Charlie,
BRAVO
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:07 pm | #"
Mission Accomplished?
Charlie is right I hope none of you find yourself across from the police in the U.S. or a foreign country. Number 1 rule from any good attorney never talk to the police without an lawyer present.
"No, and i'm fairly certain his name wasn't mentioned.
DLW | 04.14.08 - 4:00 pm | #"
DLW:
Did you actually watch it from start to finish? Did you watch the two other major network treatments? If so, how would you rank the three programs in terms of content and balance? I know you were underwhelmed by this one.
Charlie is right I hope none of you find yourself across from the police in the U.S. or a foreign country. Number 1 rule from any good attorney never talk to the police without an lawyer present.
As I admitted to your alterego, Anonymous, I have personally been in that situation on more than one occasion. I would certainly agree that it is better to have a lawyer present at all times in one's dealings with the police.
However, all three of the current suspects have very good lawyers at their side. To advise continued silence, for people who are hoping to be released from jail, is - if I may borrow one of the departed Charlie's expressions, "stupendously naive".
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:20 pm |
Hi Charlie. Finn told you his experience. I have had encounters with armed authorities in different foreign countries over the years too, and I never ever thought of zipping my mouth.(in some situations that can be really stupid)
In any case, it's interesting you say "I hope none of you find yourself across from the police in the U.S. or a foreign country. Number 1 rule from any good attorney never talk to the police without an lawyer present." With reference to the Perugia case, the suspects have lawyers. In your point of view, does that mean that they can now break their vow of silence and start explaining the inconsistencies between their alibis?
-
You are being naive. It is a waiting game now. Let's see what they have. Then the attorneys plan their defense. They will not give them any fuel for the fire nor will they help them add any more.
Finn: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep ..."
Wonderful, Finn.
-
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:36 pm |
Who was that masked avenger?
-
"Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:36 pm |
Who was that masked avenger?
Kermit | 04.14.08 - 4:38 pm | #"
Never can say goodbye....
Hi Anonymous,
Just butting in for a minute. That argument goes around and around. The tactic seems to be, they don't need to explain themselves if they are innocent. Let them go. That is not practical. I've said before and I'll say it again, if I had any shred of info that would get myself out of trouble, i.e. the truth, I would tell it! This trial may not occur for many, many months. If one is sitting on pertinent info, then spill it! They cannot spill anything because they are all thick in this together.
finn
i dont think the vampire had a firm grip on the spiritual aspects of his country of birth but i can only make an assumption based on what is widely known of him. one thing we do know though is that he had great conflict with his 'adopted' family to the point they appear to have disowned him. that his birth father has come onto the scene strikes me as unusual.
it is odd that the vampire only posted the 'vampire' video on his youtube. i dont think there are many that only post one thing once they set up their youtube presence. maybe he had other youtube alaises, i dont know.
as for drinking blood it goes on ritually in west africa just like many other places around the globe. rudy becoming 'the vampire' can be understood in the context in which he was raised in both in africa and in europe.
.
"You are being naive. It is a waiting game now. Let's see what they have. Then the attorneys plan their defense. They will not give them any fuel for the fire nor will they help them add any more.
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:36 pm | #"
I hope the attorneys have already started doing that. In the meantime, there is certainly no harm in our continued scrutiny of court documents, statements, evidence and press clippings.
I still see it as being a possibility that one of these days something miraculous is going to happen that takes all by surprise, like Sollecito Raffaele or Knox Amanda shedding their load.
Who knows, it may be in court when the full seriousness hits Knox or Sollecito as proceedings move along.
If things do not go well for Knox and Sollecito, and they are advised they are looking at the 24 to 30 stretch, because the case presented by the prosecution takes the defendants by surprise for being stronger than anyone imagined then Sollecito or Knox might realize they need to do something.
If for instance, Raffaele knows much more but was not the killer only the domestic servant, cleaning up with Amanda, then at that point he is likely to have to give up on getting off entirely and take it like a man, rather than risk spending far longer in jail than necessary than if he tells the truth.
Of course, equally so, it may be round about the same for Amanda, if she is the one who was maybe the source of incitement and maybe the one guilty of being angry and nasty but in fact not the killer. She will come out with it rather than stew.
She doesn't want her life ruined if she is guilty thinking she can get off.
Who will it be of those two to tell the truth if one or the other is not guilty of the fatal knifing?
If they are both guilty of having used a knife it means there is a potential sentence of at least 21 years. 21 years is without aggravated circumstances, namely, premeditation.
With premeditation included, the sentence for homicide is 24 to 30 years and even life imprisonment. With the added crimes of sexual violence subtracting from the benefits of the mitigating circumstances, the sentencing points more to 30 years than to 24, if premeditation was involved.
I think premeditation is a long stretch and can can be counted out. It would mean at least 21 years for murder, the suspects' attempts to further deceive and the other crimes involved will add onto the 21 years.
Seeing as these defendants, through their families, have sought to undermine the authority entirely that sought to see them brought to justice, it is only bound to add to the way the suspects are judged qua type of criminals. It is not a positive image those making the decisions will have, not in light of what the first bunch of crimes is all about, Meredith's vicious end.
They have added and added to the original crimes by adding all of the extra deception.
That's if they're guilty. If they're innocent, then they have nothing to worry about. The prosecution will not have damning evidence, it seems this is not the case. They do have a lot.
the butler did it...set those kids free!
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:36 pm | "You are being naive. It is a waiting game now."
For goodness' sake, Charlie, take off your invisible cloak and post with your moniker.
I'll even post back and forth with you if you stop calling me naive.
-
Maybe they can not say what they don't know. It's called discovery. They are waiting to see all the forensics. This is going to trial unless they find something that will blow the case apart . The police know it and the defense attorneys know it. All they can do now is plan their defense.
All they can do now is plan their defense....the butler, um no i remember...the black guy did it.
.
the butler did it...set those kids free!
rob | 04.14.08 - 4:50 pm | #
_______
ahaha
Free Amanda now she's going sex mad locked up in there
Free Sollecito now and donate to the soap on a rope fund for Christmas presents
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:56 pm | "something that will blow the case apart"
Charlie, I thought the CBS special was going to blow the case apart. Did you see it? Did it fulfill your expectations?
-
Rob wrote: "as for drinking blood it goes on ritually in west africa just like many other places around the globe. rudy becoming 'the vampire' can be understood in the context in which he was raised in both in africa and in europe."
Rob, I will admit that I am a little sensitive on this issue.
Although it is true that "drinking blood" - and worse - goes on in West Africa, this should not imply that it is part of the culture. Indeed those who carry out such acts are seen as a kind of bogeyman.
It seems to me that many parts of the world have their own forms of barbarism. Sometimes in Europe, for example, a single man will kill a series of women who are strangers to him. I am not aware of any equivalent case to this anywhere in Africa, but I would not seek to generalize for this in arguing that such behavior is typical of European men. It is not typical, nor is the drinking of human blood "typical" of West Africans.
I can't imagine any way for someone of Rudy Guede's age and background to become involved in such activity, since he has never so much as attended the Poro society.
All they can do now is plan their defense.
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 4:56 pm | #
_______________
yeah right al they can do it cut a hole in dafence
I have no idea who Charlie is but he has made some good points. So have you but everybody should be able to voice how they feel and everybody was ganging up on him so I did a shout out to him.
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 5:12 pm |
yes also the exact same words about having no idea who Doug is.
I dunno Doug why you take the case so personally. Poor Mignini what you've done to him.
I have no idea who Charlie is but he has made some good points. So have you but everybody should be able to voice how they feel and everybody was ganging up on him so I did a shout out to him.
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 5:12 pm | #
Anon he may have made some good points but sadly they were buried and well hidden under his own agenda .... and that is not the purpose of this blog I suspect!
finn
i dont want to labour the point or tread on your sensitivity. i know many west africans and am not prejudiced in my knowing them as individuals by my knowledge of ritual magic from their region. in the same way i would not think the big a a nazi because she had german ancestry.
that rudy was 'adopted' is the issue for me here. was he sent to europe to escape a threat from practitioners? was he identified in his first years as a 'child possessed'? you know what happens to those children and it would be informative to find out more about the circumstances surrounding 'the vampire's' childhood exodus to italy.
im glad you are a teacher, it is good. the world needs more teachers.
.
"I have no idea who Charlie is but he has made some good points. So have you but everybody should be able to voice how they feel and everybody was ganging up on him so I did a shout out to him.
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 5:12 pm | #"
Charlie is a big boy and he apparently decided to take leave of this board. So let's honor his wish and stop dragging him and his agenda back into the conversation.
Charlie is a big boy and he apparently...has kermits teeth lodged firmly in him.
rightly so but now he goes.
who knew frogs had such fangs!.
.
Rob wrote: that rudy was 'adopted' is the issue for me here. was he sent to europe to escape a threat from practitioners? was he identified in his first years as a 'child possessed'? you know what happens to those children and it would be informative to find out more about the circumstances surrounding 'the vampire's' childhood exodus to italy.
I don't know anything about Rudy's homelife, Rob, but in my experience one common way that African children are adopted by friendly European families is because someone takes a liking to them and decides they can help them by providing a European education and upbringing.
I'm not aware of any cases where people would seek to send a child away to escape from practitioners. Air tickets to Europe cost a lot of money. "Practitioners" of child sacrifice usually prey on poor children who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - they don't target a particular child.
Everybody has an opinion some are good and some...... well have been watching the soaps to much. The way people are speaking about this and are forming an opinion on what they read is naive. Yea it maybe fun to some to think up scenarios that may have happened and may not but there are real people involved. Some of the comments are sick. That's all
finn
victoria climbie was considered 'possessed' by her auntie and things have moved on apace here in london with the child abuse and killings. the met is setting up a special unit now. it would be interesting to learn the circumstances around rudy coming to italy.
i will let it rest now.
.
Why, upon learning that Rudy has been arrested, does he immediately fear this guy he claims never to have met will invent strange things?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.14.08 - 11:57 am | #
That is a saying that could be interpreted both ways. Plenty of interpretation has been made about this line as pertaining to RS guilt. But if you think about it from the perspective that RS is innocent (I know that is hard for some), that he's been incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit. He knows that they are looking for a RG character, then he hears that he has been arrested and will be brought back to Perugia.
RS knows that this guy has been free for a few weeks and has probably read news that AK and RS have been arrested in connection with the crime. It would be a natural worry that this RG guy is going to start 'inventing strange things', this risk to RS was very real. As it happened RG didn't start inventing strange things about RS until after he'd had a long time to talk with his lawyers.
Oceania88 | 04.11.08 - 4:44 am | #
Oceania,
I was innocent of the crime I would not give a damn what anyone says as I know that I am innocent and I have an alibi and nothing to fear
For RS to have said those words he knew what Guede knows that is why he said them.
Sorry but not willing to meet you 50/50 on this one.
I also believe that Guede has spoken more of the truth about that night compared to the 2 drugged up, memory loss muppets!
Oceania... is your problem that you are worried that AK and RS have actually committed this crime against Meredith and it is easier for you to accept if it was a black boy?
This is a genuine question and no dig against your belief but your views and theories are so anti Guede and you give us 101 theories why it has to be him where so much evidence points to it being more than one person let alone the lies and lack of truth from AK and RS
Sollecito's own lawyers brought him a book to read in jail, called Testimone inconsapevole by Gianrico Carofiglio. I picked up an English translation of it, and found it very interesting, not least about Italian legal process.
It deals with, ironically, a wrongly suspected African hawker, and takes place in Sollecitos' home town of Bari. The suspect is found innocent, thanks to a good lawyer, who shows up the racism of the key witness for what it is.
There's also a passage where the lawyer tells his client: "Listen, Abdou, I don't know what you've done. But for a lawyer it can be better not to know what his client has done. This can help him to be more lucid, to make better decisions without being influenced by emotion. Do you see what I'm getting at?"
This is the book that Raffaele's lawyers brought to him in jail.
Anonymous | 04.14.08 - 5:12 pm |
yes also the exact same words about having no idea who Doug is.
I dunno Doug why you take the case so personally. Poor Mignini what you've done to him.
"As it happened RG didn't start inventing strange things about RS until after he'd had a long time to talk with his lawyers.
Oceania88 | 04.11.08 - 4:44 am | #"
First, we don't know yet how much of his story is "invented," so your word choice (which was Raffaele's) may not be the right one to use, unless you assume that Rudy is lying. That is a pending issue.
Second, Papa was "smiling" when he heard the news, which seems to be a more natural and expected reaction to it.
Third, most of the strange things Rudy recounted recently, when he named names and provided details, are being checked out and will or will not be corroborated. We don't even know what they are. If they don't corroborate, then it won't make any difference.
So Raffaele's statement is an odd one to make, although it is not proof of anything. In fact, its significance will not be known until it is examined in light of the evidence and other statements. Alone, it proves nothing whatsoever.
Finally, the story about cutting Meredith with his kitchen knife while cooking is the truly bizarre statement to have made in the diary. It never happened, and yet is presented as if it were fact.
Love Wolf: "is your problem that you are worried that AK and RS have actually committed this crime against Meredith and it is easier for you to accept if it was a black boy?"
OK, since you've stated it so blatently, let's have at it. For awhile now, some posters have suggested or said outright that racism is the root of some of the opinions on Guede. That's inevitable, I guess, but considering the circumstances of the case, I don't think it's a fair shot.
I'm wary of allegations of racism here, because they could discourage valid opinions about who committed the murder, for fear that they be branded racist.
But then again, wasn't it the alleged murderer himself who said (as quoted by Guede): "A black man found is a black man condemned."
it is odd that the vampire only posted the 'vampire' video on his youtube. i dont think there are many that only post one thing once they set up their youtube presence. maybe he had other youtube alaises, i dont know.---Rob
Hi Rob, my first take on this is that Rudy didn't have his own camera, so he didn't make any more videos after that. Or that he wasn't that interested in posting videos after that. Like I said before, I tend to think people are more ordinary than extraordinary and there several perfectly normal explanations for something like this. That doesn't mean you're wrong. But I would have to have more reason to think you're right when there are perfectly ordinary reasons for this.
And the same goes for the reasons Rudy was adopted. If I'm not mistaken, Rudy's father didn't just leave Rudy in Italy right away. He lived there for some time also before leaving. I haven't found a timeline for that, however.
And I don't know if one can say he was "disowned" by his adoptive family either. If I'm not mistaken, he spent only two years with that latest family, and he was technically an adult when he left. Although the father said some harsh things about Rudy being a liar, the mother and sister said some very nice things about Rudy in an interview, and in fact the mother was in terrible grief over what's happened and can't believe Rudy would do anything violent. Certainly she may be mistaken. I'm just saying this to get it out there. It just doesn't sound like disowning to me.
Rob, if you find any other info that supports your angle, I'd like to hear it. It could be true. There's so much we don't know. But it's not what I'd tend to believe without more evidence. This kind of thing may happen, but that doesn't mean it happened to him. We have to find out. And don't worry, I don't think you're a racist. I can tell. I'll post a link to the article that interviewed his adoptive mother and sister later.
About RG. I remember reading in the papers that he came to Italy with his parents (I think...they certainly mentioned his dad) when he was 5. Then at some point , his parents (see above) returned to the Ivory Coast. Some papers spoke of him being abandoned, some spoke of him being adopted.
After he was arrested, there were reports that his dad had heard the news at work in Italy. I don't remember where he works in Italy but I don't think it's too far from Perugia. I didn't read much about it and it was never very clear. I reckon a few other people may have put up some links ages ago.
OT
Few stats on the sentenced criminals, statute-barred offenders, people under investigation and remanded for trial, who were elected to the Italian parliament today. (just from the victorious parties)
PDL 56
Lega Nord 8
daniel mintz | 04.14.08 - 6:14 pm | #
Daniel people here are reasonable. The only people who are suspected to have racist ideas are those who seem to lose their power of reasoning in the case along racial lines. When all excuses are valid for the white kids, but none are valid for the black kid, when all evidence against the white kids is suspect and all evidence against the black kid is seen as rock solid, there's a race problem going on.
Some papers spoke of him being abandoned, some spoke of him being adopted.
damian | 04.14.08 - 6:19 pm |
In his diary, he says that he lived in several foster homes.
Hi Nicki,
When all excuses are valid for the white kids, but none are valid for the black kid, when all evidence against the white kids is suspect and all evidence against the black kid is seen as rock solid, there's a race problem going on.
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 6:21 pm | #
Speaking from my outlook on life and the world, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my reasoning, deductions and obeservations in this case if AK and RS were purple and RG was orange.
Better watch out Mignini, Il Berlusca's back in town!
Better watch out Mignini, Il Berlusca's back in town!
Oceania8 | 04.14.08 - 8:29 pm | #
I don't know about that, but Sollecito Snr. might get cut off in Bari.
Mr Veltroni warned that Mr Berlusconi's government could be held to ransom by the Northern League, the secessionist party headed by Umberto Bossi, his coalition partner.
"The League is strong. We are a great force!" said Mr Bossi after winning between seven and eight per cent of the vote.
Mr Bossi, who is one of Italy's most controversial and unpredictable politicians, called on Mr Berlusconi to give him a large share of cabinet posts and to carry out the devolution of Italy "immediately".
His party is bent on splitting the industrial north of the country away from the poor regions of the south.
Mr Bossi has wrecked Mr Berlusconi's government before, when he broke off their alliance in 1994...
The Telegraph
Speaking from my outlook on life and the world, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my reasoning, deductions and obeservations in this case if AK and RS were purple and RG was orange.
Oceania88 | 04.14.08 - 8:10 pm | #
Well of course it wouldn't. They could never be orange or purple. You really should have ignored my post.
You really should have ignored my post.
Sparrow | 04.14.08 - 8:47 pm | #
I'll remember that for future.
Did you actually watch it from start to finish? Did you watch the two other major network treatments? If so, how would you rank the three programs in terms of content and balance? I know you were underwhelmed by this one……SB
Yes, I did watch the 48 hour mystery from start to finish. I’d give it a B- for effort, and a D for results. I liked the 20/20 version better. Joe T., whatever his many downfalls, is more polished than Paul C. I also look at context, and how they fit the whole picture together, and whether it will help bring interest to new people on this case. I also look at the cinematography of the program and see how well it’s produced . And most of all does it bring any new information on the case. The best part of the 48 hour mystery, I thought was the interview of the one witness that lived across the street. However, I think she is a minor player in this and will not influence this case. I liked the family interviews better on the 20/20 program; also felt the show had a little more balance, better scenery, and more crime scene photo‘s. It brought the true horror of the crime to life, without the need to show the victim. I don’t have the Cliff Van Zandt special on tape, so I can’t review it again. But from a technical point of view, I think it was the most informative, and by far the best. Also to me Cliff doesn’t have a perceived bias on the case, and is pretty much of a straight shooter. Also as a former profiler for the FBI, he brings a lot of credentials to the table. He’s also good at crime scene reconstruction, and how the different personalities fit into a possible scenarios. He also didn’t agitate the Italian Authorities, but got along with them. If he has faith on how the authorities and forensics are progressing on this case ( not sure about the autopsy part) , than I’m satisfied.
All in all, I like the added attention the media sometimes brings to the case Even without prior knowledge of the case, viewers aren’t dumb. They’re not voting on Miss America. They want a hard look at the evidence before deciding guilt or innocence, and anything short of that doesn‘t wash.
"Sparrow -"
"Well of course it wouldn't. They could never be orange or purple. You really should have ignored my post."
Oh Sparrow...double hugs...you're fantastic, I'd say more but I'm laughing too much!!!
"All in all, I like the added attention the media sometimes brings to the case. Even without prior knowledge of the case, viewers aren’t dumb. They’re not voting on Miss America. They want a hard look at the evidence before deciding guilt or innocence, and anything short of that doesn‘t wash.
DLW | 04.14.08 - 9:12 pm | #"
DLW:
Thanks for such a thoughtful and thorough reply. I agree with you that the first treatment was the best, and this may be because cooperation actually produces better results than antagonism in these instances. The part you describe as being the best was one of the only parts I saw, which makes me think I didn't miss much.
The Seattle PI ran an article on the show the day of, and I looked at the 105 comments that had been posted by last night. There were a few of the usual distasteful and/or stupid ones, but many people seem to have been turned off by just what you describe: they felt dumb-downed to. Many people also wrote that the investigation should continue unimpeded, that we should respect Italy's laws and customary ways of dealing with things, that the investigation is being handled on Italian soil, etc.
As for what I saw of the show, I was surprised at the low quality from a technical standpoint. It looked like it had been done on a shoestring budget.
As for what I saw of the show, I was surprised at the low quality from a technical standpoint. It looked like it had been done on a shoestring budget.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.14.08 - 9:29 pm | #
Or maybe they spent 95% of the budget on the topnotch investigator from Chicago...Paul C. and had little left for the technical aspects of the show. The reenactment of the running feet scenario was definitely of "shoestring budget" quality. 
Reminded me of my kids in the woods using walkie-talkies while playing spy games.
As for what I saw of the show, I was surprised at the low quality from a technical standpoint. It looked like it had been done on a shoestring budget.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.14.08 - 9:29 pm | #
I was pleased they didn't use any shots of PC walking over a railway line as he talked about how the suspects had been railroaded. I saw this shot used in another 48hrs programme I watched a short piece of on their website. I was also pleased they didn't use the Clorox Bleach advertising banner that they used in this other programme as well.
"Reminded me of my kids in the woods using walkie-talkies while playing spy games.
indie | 04.14.08 - 10:14 pm | #"
Exactly!!!
Quote from the 48 Hours program:
That's why there's no video. There is no audio. There is no independent party. There's Amanda and there's the cops. That's it. And who's gonna believe Amanda?" Ciolino says.
I am curious if anyone knows was there a transcriber of any sort in the room during the interrogation?
On the subject of the footsteps witness, it's worth remembering this from Walter Biscotti on Perugia-Shock Tacopina, I sued you.
Q: Is the garage witness reliable?
A: I think so. She was heard by the PM on November 27th and said she heard a scream and then two people escaping in different directions--one through the stairs above the garage. The only problem is that she cannot say exactly what time this occurred...
Denials through half open windows may not be what they used to be.
So it looks like everyone is staying with Halo?? Are you gonna use the message board for just setting up a place to divide and set up info into categories?? I get insecure when the tribe divides...lol The message board is much nicer and has many more possibilities than the discus adventure...
Michael, nice to see you. You're terrific too.
"So it looks like everyone is staying with Halo?? Are you gonna use the message board for just setting up a place to divide and set up info into categories?? I get insecure when the tribe divides...lol The message board is much nicer and has many more possibilities than the discus adventure...
Rhonda | 04.14.08 - 11:13 pm | #"
I can only speak for myself, but I think the message board is a work in progress and we have to figure out how to best use it. I can see that the MB is a much more flexible tool, but it will take some getting used to. I like the idea of categorizing and then formatting certain kinds of information, however.
Indie:
I wish I knew the answer to that question. A full transcript (written) has been mentioned by several here, including Chris Mellas. He complained that it was dialogue and not questions and answers, as I recall.
I think this is a we shall see question.
NOW, THIS IS IMPORTANT:
My creating that message board is not meant to completely divert commenters in this particular thread. If you find it easier to stay here and continue the discussion, PLEASE do so. If you like the message board format, like to have your own profile, etc., please give the board I've created a try.
Rhonda,
This was said by Steve Huff.
Currently, ISTM that that Halo is better able to cope with the daily ebb and flow of events.
Maybe when the message board has achieved some kind of multiple subject format it may be able to take over.
As it stands it's format could hardly cope with the 30 or 40 posts in an hour which sometimes happen here.
Thanks Skep.
Just some thoughts on a comment section vs. a message board issue:
a. Sometimes it is best to have a daily thread where everyone meets and continues a unified discussion. Too many threads started on too many topics can be confusing and result in a disjointed discussion.
b. Reserve the separate threads for reference material as you have now: a timeline, the translated diaries, legal aspects and media links.
c. Another thread that might be useful is the names of all the key players and a brief description of their relationship to the case.
I wish I had more time to be of help but I have huge family and work commitments at this time.
"As it stands its format could hardly cope with the 30 or 40 posts in an hour which sometimes happen here.
Brian S. | 04.14.08 - 11:41 pm | #"
Good point.
"I wish I had more time to be of help but I have huge family and work commitments at this time.
indie | 04.14.08 - 11:43 pm | #"
Your ideas above are good ones, I think and I for one have really valued your input so far. Do what you can!
Ran accross this comment from one of the posters on The Eclectic Chapbook,
CBS PEDDLES CO-VICTIMHOOD
‘I expected them to present a reconstruction of the crime scene and related material that would help clarify the situation for us. They did less of that and spent most of their efforts, it seemed, on a promotional video glorifying Amanda Knox.
That actually offended me was their introduction of the argument that Knox is a "Co-Victim" in this case along with the murdered Meredith Kercher. This argument is simply unacceptable. And it's quite obnoxious. Meredith Kercher is the victim in this case. But their approach may provide some weird insight as to a possible motive in this murder. Their efforts to compete with Kercher even in death and victimhood do not paint a very pretty picture on TV about the girls' relationship. Even post mortem they are still trying to best her. This is a rather grim picture.’
This kind of ties in with Patrick’s theory of Amanda’s Queen Bee syndrome.
"DLW | 04.15.08 - 1:02 am | #"
Thanks, DLW, for finding that post and your earlier analysis of the show. I think the post expresses well what bothers many people, including me. Obviously, a story can have more than one victim, but in this case a clear "hierarchy" (how distateful to have to put it this way) should be respected and, as I noted with the passing of Chris Mellas, the rush to claim victim status feels a little hasty in this case. Not to mention tacky.
I am curious if anyone knows was there a transcriber of any sort in the room during the interrogation?
indie | 04.14.08 - 10:54 pm |
Yes Indie, there's always a transcriber.
Justice for those who can pay?
Dear landlord,
Please don't put a price on my soul.
My burden is heavy,
My dreams are beyond control.
When that steamboat whistle blows,
I'm gonna give you all I got to give,
And I do hope you receive it well,
Dependin' on the way you feel that you live.
Dear landlord,
Please heed these words that I speak.
I know you've suffered much,
But in this you are not so unique.
All of us, at times, we might work too hard
To have it too fast and too much,
And anyone can fill his life up
With things he can see but he just cannot touch.
Dear landlord,
Please don't dismiss my case.
I'm not about to argue,
I'm not about to move to no other place.
Now, each of us has his own special gift
And you know this was meant to be true,
And if you don't underestimate me,
I won't underestimate you.
by Dob Bylan
I'm wondering if 'Sex, Lies and the murder of Meredith Kercher' (to be aired on Channel 4 this week) will be exactly the same programme which was already screened (48hours etc).
"With the help of leading Italian crime journalist, Meo Ponte, Cutting Edge probes the evidence against the students"
Maybe it will include most of the footage already seen but with some UK input. I'm going to watch it anyway. I'd like to see what slant it has on it!
-----------
Yes, they are selling portraits of the hanging, they're painting the passports brown, the beauty parlour's filled with sailors the circus is in town.
But, capital punishment was stopped in Italy, quite a long time ago, otherwise those responsible for it, might have been looking at a rope.
Instead, those suspected of committing what are seen as the most serious of crimes in any country in the world will face eight judges sat on a bench or panel.
Two of those judges will be trained to be judges the other six will be lay persons, which means they are not experts but citizens.
Unlike a jury the jurors do not get to decide who they believe is innocent and who they think is guilty.
The two main judges, the ones who are career judges, are also in the first place categorized as magistrates just like the prosecutors are always magistrates but not judges.
Defence and prosecution are on equal footing stood before the judges.
So there is no preferential treatment, like only believing the prosecutor because the prosecutor is suoperior in court, the prosecutor has to convince the panel of judges of the prosecution's version of events and do it like someone driving a car dreives but has to observe the traffic codes and laws and signposts along the way.
The same story goes for the defence.
So if the defence wishes to waste its time using character assassination through lending a hand in the making of programmes for commercial television they can go ahead and do that but it will not convince the panel of judges because they will not be watching it they will be watching the evidence presented in line with the sequence of events as they come to know them based on detailed evidence provided in court.
Chris Mellas, may be in real life not such a bad man, yet, he may be better off, finding out what it is those he cares about needs to know, especially his wife if she is going to appear in court as a character witness to help her daughter.
Father Sollecito will be, as an academic, be doing that right now, studying it, and his type of circle of friens will include all kinds of people, police, lawyers, other doctors, forensics he wil be able to get the info fast that he needs to klnow in order to try to find any possible loopholes, or mistake in procedure that could get his son of, even if he may be guilty.
Guede, whatever he is doing, he has just about only his legal team doing whatever they are going to do. He may be better off that way, because the approach of trying to undermine authority may be a crime in itself at a certain moment.
Therefore the idea ought to be to study the law as needed but not try to dictate it to those who are trained and employed in positions of authority to carry it out, when the accusations are based on hearsay and character assassination.
Dear dear a lack of the drug caffeine
But, capital punishment was stopped in Italy, quite a long time ago, otherwise those responsible for the crimes, might have been looking at a rope.
I’m wondering about the word ‘premeditation’ and its legal definition and whether that definition is the same in Italy as elsewhere. Would ‘intent’ be an accurate synonym for it?
In this sorry affair, say the lethal weapon or weapons are drawn and used for intimidatory purposes, leading on to the actual wounding of the victim whether that was the initial intention of the drama or not. The situation has now altered and has gone into a different phase where the attacker(s) knows there is no turning back, or at least that they will face a problem with the law. Could it be argued that the final blow was made with the intent to kill (and it would certainly seem so) and was the result of a premeditative process? It was reported (mooted?) above that up to 30 minutes may have elapsed between initial and final blows. If that is verified, would it then follow that prosecutors could at least argue the case for premeditation on the basis of that alone? Or do they have to prove that the attackers 'arrived' at the scene with murder in mind or something?
Father Sollecito will be, as an academic, doing that right now, studying it. His type of circle of friends will include all kinds of people, police, lawyers, other doctors, forensic info' he will be able to get the fast, all that he needs to know in order to try to find any possible loopholes, or mistake(s) in procedure that could get his son off, even if he may be guilty.
Unintended homicide 10 to 18 years
I'm looking it up for you Nowo
By Italian law, murder (omicidio) is regulated by articles 575-582, 584-585, and 589 of the Penal Code (Codice Penale).
In general, according to Art.575, "whoever causes the death of a human being is punishable by no less than 21 years in prison"; nevertheless, the law indicates a series of circumstances under which murder has to be punished with life in prison.
_____________________________________
Injury resulting in death - (Omicidio preterintenzionale) occurs when, as a result of a deliberated act of violence not meant to kill (articles 581,582), the death of a person occurs. This crime is punishable with a sentence between 10 and 18 years (art.584). This sentence can be increased from one third to one half (up to 27 years) if a circumstance stated by articles 576 and 577 occurs, or if a weapon is used (art.585).
I think I'll leave this to be translated by a competent translator because Babel Fish just confuses the issue.
Art. 576 Circostanza aggravanti. Pena di morte
. Si applica la pena di morte (1) se il fatto preveduto dall'articolo precedente e' commesso: 1) col concorso di taluna delle circostanze indicate nel n. 2 dell'articolo 61; 2) contro l'ascendente o il discendente, quando occorre taluna delle circostanze indicate nei numeri 1 e 4 dell'articolo 61 o quando e' adoperato un mezzo venefico o un altro mezzo insidioso ovvero quando vi e' premeditazione; 3) dal latitante, per sottrarsi all'arresto, alla cattura o alla carcerazione ovvero per procurarsi i mezzi di sussistenza durante la latitanza; 4) dall'associato per delinquere, per sottrarsi all'arresto, alla cattura o alla carcerazione; 5) nell'atto di commettere taluno dei delitti preveduti dagli articoli 519, 520 e 521. E' latitante, agli effetti della legge penale, chi si trova nelle condizioni indicate nel n. 6 dell'articolo 61. (1) La pena di morte e' stata soppressa e sostituita con l'ergastolo.
Art. 577 Altre circostanze aggravanti. Ergastolo
Si applica la pena dell'ergastolo se il fatto preveduto dall'articolo 575 e' commesso: 1) contro l'ascendente o il discendente; 2) col mezzo di sostanze venefiche, ovvero con un altro mezzo insidioso; 3) con premeditazione; 4) con concorso di talune delle circostanze indicate nei numeri 1 e 4 dell'articolo 61. La pena e' della reclusione da ventiquattro a trenta anni, se il fatto e' commesso contro il coniuge, il fratello o la sorella, il padre o la madre adottivi, o il figlio adottivo o contro un affine in linea retta
In detail, according to articles 576 and 577 is punishable with life imprisonment murder committed:
In order to commit another crime, or in order to escape, of favor, or take advantage from another crime (art.61, sect.2);
Against a next of kin (parent or child) and either through insidious means, with premeditation, cruelly, of for futile motives;
By a fugitive in order to escape capture, or in order to acquire means of subsistence;
While raping or sexually assaulting a person (articles 519, 520, 521).
In a cruel way and/or through the use of torture (art.61, sect.1);
For abject and/or futile motives (art.61, sect.4);
Against a next of kin (parent or child);
Through insidious means;
With premeditation.
Cases 1 through 4 (art.576) used to be considered capital murder, and therefore punishable by death by firing squad. Since 1946, though, death penalty was discontinued in Italy, and death was substituted with life imprisonment . Sentences for murder under cases 5 through 9 (art.577). instead, are subject to parole or probation.A person that is serving a life sentence can reach libertà condizionata
Besides the criminal murder detailed above, in Italian law the following cases also exist:
Infanticide - (Infanticidio in condizioni di abbandono materiale e morale), murder of the infant immediately following the birth committed by the mother who is in conditions of material or moral disorder, is punishable with a sentence between 4 and 12 years (art. 57
.
Killing on demand - (Omicidio del consenziente), the action to kill someone with his/her consent, is punishable with a sentence between 6 and 15 years. This, however, is considered murder if the victim, when giving his/her consent, was under the age of 18, intoxicated, mentally disable, or if the consent was obtained through violence, menace, or deception (art.579).
Assistance or instigation of suicide -(Istigazione o aiuto al suicidio), the action to help someone to commit suicide, or to convince someone to commit suicide, is punishable with a sentence between 5 and 12 years if the suicide succeeds, or between 1 and 5 years if it does not succeed but a body injury has been made. This , however, is considered murder if the suicide is under the age of 14 (art.580).
Injury resulting in death - (Omicidio preterintenzionale) occurs when, as a result of a deliberated act of violence not meant to kill (articles 581,582), the death of a person occurs. This crime is punishable with a sentence between 10 and 18 years (art.584). This sentence can be increased from one third to one half (up to 27 years) if a circumstance stated by articles 576 and 577 occurs, or if a weapon is used (art.585).
Manslaughter - (Omicidio colposo), the action of causing the death of a person without intention, is punished with a sentence between 6 months and 5 years. If the victims are more than one as a consequence of the same act, multiple counts can be added up to 12 years in prison (art.589).
In detail, according to articles 576 and 577 is punishable with life imprisonment murder committed:
1/ In order to commit another crime, or in order to escape, of favor, or take advantage from another crime (art.61, sect.2);
2/ Against a next of kin (parent or child) and either through insidious means, with premeditation, cruelly, of for futile motives;
3/ By a fugitive in order to escape capture, or in order to acquire means of subsistence;
4/ While raping or sexually assaulting a person (articles 519, 520, 521).
5/ In a cruel way and/or through the use of torture (art.61, sect.1);
6/ For abject and/or futile motives (art.61, sect.4);
7/ Against a next of kin (parent or child);
8/ Through insidious means;
9/ With premeditation.
Besides the criminal murder detailed above, in Italian law the following cases also exist:
1/ Infanticide - (Infanticidio in condizioni di abbandono materiale e morale), murder of the infant immediately following the birth committed by the mother who is in conditions of material or moral disorder, is punishable with a sentence between 4 and 12 years (art. 57.
2/ Killing on demand - (Omicidio del consenziente), the action to kill someone with his/her consent, is punishable with a sentence between 6 and 15 years. This, however, is considered murder if the victim, when giving his/her consent, was under the age of 18, intoxicated, mentally disable, or if the consent was obtained through violence, menace, or deception (art.579).
3/ Assistance or instigation of suicide - (Istigazione o aiuto al suicidio), the action to help someone to commit suicide, or to convince someone to commit suicide, is punishable with a sentence between 5 and 12 years if the suicide succeeds, or between 1 and 5 years if it does not succeed but a body injury has been made. This , however, is considered murder if the suicide is under the age of 14 (art.580).
4/ Injury resulting in death - (Omicidio preterintenzionale) occurs when, as a result of a deliberated act of violence not meant to kill (articles 581,582), the death of a person occurs. This crime is punishable with a sentence between 10 and 18 years (art.584). This sentence can be increased from one third to one half (up to 27 years) if a circumstance stated by articles 576 and 577 occurs, or if a weapon is used (art.585).
5/ Manslaughter - (Omicidio colposo), the action of causing the death of a person without intention, is punished with a sentence between 6 months and 5 years. If the victims are more than one as a consequence of the same act, multiple counts can be added up to 12 years in prison (art.589).
It seems thus, that under the Italian Penal Code (Codice Penale) numbers 576 and 577 that even without premeditation playing a role the nature of the crimes commiited on and againt the person of Meredith Kercher can, on several counts, lead to life imprisonment.
Thanks for putting it in context TLC, looks like we'll be hearing a lot about 576/577 over the coming months/years.
The latest on the "new" medical report:
"Meredith couldn't be saved after the last fatal blows"
"The kitchen knife is compatible with the wounds, the other two knives belonging to Sollecito are not"
"Meredith had sexal intercourse before her death but it is impossible to establish if it was consensual"
http://tinyurl.com/68x9nz
4/ Injury resulting in death - (Omicidio preterintenzionale) occurs when, as a result of a deliberated act of violence not meant to kill (articles 581,582), the death of a person occurs. This crime is punishable with a sentence between 10 and 18 years (art.584). This sentence can be increased from one third to one half (up to 27 years) if a circumstance stated by articles 576 and 577 occurs, or if a weapon is used (art.585).
_________________
Therefore if under this number 4 through rape for instance, a person dies though it was not intended to kill, it can increase the sentence from a maximum of 18 years to 27 years, which is just about the maximum for aggravated and premediated murder short of receiving life imprisonment.
If a person tried and found guilty of premeditated murder with aggravated circumstances involved, had other things/elements/factors weighing up on the other side, such as, though the crimes were horrific the guilty culprit was a person who was mentally, physically abused as a child, sexually perhaps too, then mitigation might lead not to life imprisonment but the maximum sentence under special conditions, to be decided or recommended by specialists on mental health, like pychiatrists and psychologists once the prisoner is in prison after trial. The main judge listens to advice from such people at trial but is under no obligation to act on it, the judge decides sentencing.
After trial, in Italy, there are ample conditions/facilities in place to treat prisoners with, to try to help them, and then what psycholists and psychiatrists say is acted on. They decide what the danger is to society and whether a prisoner has changed and if or not it is safe to have such a person reintroduced back into society.
Prisoners, some, are allowed to work outside the prison, this will not include serial killers and other dangerous irredeemable characters.
Thanks for putting it in context TLC, looks like we'll be hearing a lot about 576/577 over the coming months/years.
Nowo | 04.15.08 - 8:08 am
__________________
Glad to help.
Yes I think so too.
Thanks Nicki.
My brother in law was a Capitano with the Italian police not the Carabinieri in Florence. Mignini is not a very well liked man in Florence nor is he trusted. There are very strict union and labor laws in Italy that is why we still see him at his job. I think he might be trying to save face with this high profile crime. What he did to Spezi was an outrage and he really crossed the line. People and I mean high profile people backed Spezi in that mess and Mignini was finally put in his place. I hope this is not another ego trip for Mignini and the real truth comes out. You would think he would play it by the book, but we must remember the ego of a man like Mignini is dangerous
Anonymous | 04.12.08 - 1:02 pm | #
This Anon post was right at the end of the last thread and was mostly overlooked or ignored. But it helps explain to why Mignini is still able to stay in his job as a Public Prosecutor with charges pending against him. I have trouble accepting that as being morally correct for someone in the position of Public Prosecutor. But then, this is a country that has for a PM a media baron who controls much of the media in Italy, so I suppose anything is acceptable. If you are still lurking Anon, what is your and/or your brother's thoughts on this case ?
I think it is safe to say that the wounds inflicted on Meredith do not say we are playing, and it will be very hard to make a case saying the intention was not to kill her. If there was only one blow that would perhaps have been a possibility but with the amount of wounds and the other brusing to Meredith's body, trhe intention was to kill, it seems fair to conclude.
The kitchen knife is compatible with the wounds, the other two knives belonging to Sollecito are not
----------
nicki, is the one with Merdith's and Amanda's dna on it? The one Amanda claims RS could have put her fingerprints on?
----
It is healthy to leave the bait for yet more time wasted on nonsense like hearsay, erhum, cough cough.
yes soozie, the article says it's not incompatible.
Even though it's 'impossible' to state that the sex was 'consensual' - when you take into account all the bruising and wounds, it's not bloody likely is it
--------------------
Thanks Damian
I wonder why it took 5 months to establish if a knife was compatible with a knife wound? Is it that hard?
----------------------
Even though it's 'impossible' to state that the sex was 'consensual' - when you take into account all the bruising and wounds, it's not bloody likely is it
--------------------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:34 am | #
________________________________
No and if Guede said we did not have intercourse because we did'nt have condoms, then, it must mean she was forced. Giacomo Silenzi was at his family's place.
Soozie. I fear you'll be wondering why things take so long for years.
Can I suggest people go easy with these leaks? The article spoke of 'sexual relations'. On this, it seems to say the same as Lalli. But let's wait and see.
TLC
I thought Rudy had explained his dna away already. I've lost count of how many times I've read the 'we did have sex' - 'we didn't have sex, we just kissed', blah blah blah. But if his dna/sperm was actually found inside Meredith, how's he going to explain that one? RS or Amanda put it there???
Can I suggest people go easy with these leaks? The article spoke of 'sexual relations'. On this, it seems to say the same as Lalli. But let's wait and see.
damian | 04.15.08 - 8:42 am |
__________________________
Ah, I see, relations, that's different.
TLC
I thought Rudy had explained his dna away already. I've lost count of how many times I've read the 'we did have sex' - 'we didn't have sex, we just kissed', blah blah blah. But if his dna/sperm was actually found inside Meredith, how's he going to explain that one? RS or Amanda put it there???
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:43 am | #
____________________________
If it could have been proved that Guede had sexual intercourse then his alibi about not having condoms would have shown he was lying.
Anyway, if that weed of a Sollecito stood before me with a knife and I saw he'd harmed someone or was going to, someone like Meredith, or anyone in fact, I'd have tried to hurt him badly with anything I could lay my hands on, let's face it, there were enough objects in the house, and Guede looks bigger than Sollecito to me. Though Guede looks guilty so do the other two from where I am standing, I only wish we knew exactly how and in which measure to each.
Did RG speak about his dad in the diary? I was surprised to find out that his dad lives and works in Italy. (Umbria I think) Just wondering for how long and whether they were in contact.
Silly question, but does anyone have any idea if it's 'common' for a murderer working on his own, to use 2 knives on the victims?
--------------------
But if his dna/sperm was actually found inside Meredith, how's he going to explain that one? RS or Amanda put it there???
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:43 am
____________________________
It looks like only his DNA not his sperm was found.
I mean, when these things happen, standing far from it, normal people would imagine, how could anyone think they could do that, and get away with uit, but, in real life, people do the craziest things and are led by impulses andemotion, anger, jealousy but the one that is maybe the strongest, has somethinbg to do with sex, I think so anyhow.
I mean, it is well known now how rapists are most often not total strangers but friends, ex-boyfriends, uncles, and when they do commit rape I'm not sure that they plan it all out, but are overcone instead by urges.
So many factors are involved in that, because some men rape even when they have a girlfriend and do have regular sex.
The sequence of events seems to have happened, not with a plan to kill Meredith but to get her into what someone, maybe all three or just Amanda and Sollecito wanted fotr sexual kicks, then somehow Guede became part of it, he may have been even a chief instigator in it, being that he wanted Meredith as Amanda described (about Patrick). It may be they were drinking, smoking, then Meredith came home, from fun it turned nasty and it was all over for Meredith at that point, when the argument was triggered.
I reckon that's why it's hard to imagine how they all could have been so dumb. Perhaps it happened because of the underlying bad vibes between Amanda and Meredith. Amanda beding unhygenic, Meredith was only being reasonable to ask Amanda to pull her weight at home and the chain.
Did RG speak about his dad in the diary? I was surprised to find out that his dad lives and works in Italy. (Umbria I think) Just wondering for how long and whether they were in contact.
damian | 04.15.08 - 8:58 am | #
Only to say as a Dad he could have been a better father , but then, RG says he could have been a better son. I think I read in the reports when RG was first caught in Germany that he was reunited with his real father whom he had not been in contact for years. I'm sorry I don't have a link for that.
I wonder why it took 5 months to establish if a knife was compatible with a knife wound? Is it that hard?
----------------------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:35 am | #
I was thinking that, too, but then the three experts from the *new* post-mortem were supposed to deliver their reports early February but asked for an extension til April. Skep posted that a little bit ago. So, maybe it wouldn't have taken as long if the extension was never asked for/granted?
I wonder why it took 5 months to establish if a knife was compatible with a knife wound? Is it that hard?
----------------------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:35 am | #
C mellas said that according to the coroners report the knife wounds were from a different blade than that found at RS. He said the Mignini had not retracted the false information circulating about RS knife as it suited his theory better. There is also the possibility that the 'two knife' theory that seems to be circulating around this 'new,improved' report maybe just what Mignini wants to get out there to make it look like more than one person was involved. And before you get all hot under the collar TLC I said 'a possibility' and besides the two knife theory is only hearsay at this point.
Oceania8
I have not spoken to my brother in law about this case in a while. The elections are the most important issue in Italy right now. Disappointment is what he stated about the elections today. Regarding the prosecutor who is the same as in this case he what can he say. He has no opinion as to who is guilty or how the police are handling the case. It is all out there about Mignini his character and his actions previously and now. I think once the prosecutor announced to the whole world that it was a sex orgy his case was doomed. He now has to back track. This reminds me of the Duke prosecutor who was quick in his judgement on that case and like Ken Starr and will break the rules to try to make his case. What I would love to know is how Rudy's attorney will be received in court because of the fact he did defend one of the Red Brigade. I would not think he would be to popular.
Look over there! It's the Evil Mignini, burning the American flag and performing a civil union for an interracial gay couple!
Hey, Skep, I have an idea for the message board. A place where we can all discuss how Mignini has replaced Bill Clinton as the man to blame everything on.
Now, where *was* that blogment on the murder of Meredith Kercher?
Hey, Skep, I have an idea for the message board. A place where we can all discuss how Mignini has replaced Bill Clinton as the man to blame everything on.
Now, where *was* that blogment on the murder of Meredith Kercher?
Corrina | 04.15.08 - 9:52 am |
Corinna:
It is a little disheartening and seems to have become rather hysterical. A start would be to ignore anonymous posts, especially ones that seem to have been written by people who also post with real handles. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Maybe we should create a Mignini topic on the Message Board for people who just want to talk about him. We could ask a conspiracy nut--oops, I mean theorist--to moderate it.
If it takes 5 months to establish whether a knife was the murder weapon or not, does this mean we can expect a result on the 'black man's hair' around 2010??
Or would that be rushing it. . .
----------------
Skep, could the message board be used to discuss the mixed and 'unsubstantiated' reports about the injuries Meredith received? Like the bruises to the gum, fingerprints on face and stuff like that? It's hard to discuss that here sometimes since everything seems to be discarded as 'unsubstantiated' - but these things might turn out to be fact at a later date, and I'd like to dissect some of the reports on the injuries without being shouted at
"Skep, could the message board be used to discuss the mixed and 'unsubstantiated' reports about the injuries Meredith received?
Soozie (UK) | 04.15.08 - 10:54 am | #"
I see no reason why not. Could you compile the unsubstantiated information that we have to date and put it in a post under the general thread over there? I believe the results from the second post-mortem are due on Saturday, April 19. If you could get this information together before then, we could compare with whatever emerges on Saturday. But I do understand Damian's point about being extremely cautious with unsubstantiated information. It just adds to the confusion, and in the hands of less scrupulous people than you gets treated and touted as fact.
"If it takes 5 months to establish whether a knife was the murder weapon or not, does this mean we can expect a result on the 'black man's hair' around 2010??
Or would that be rushing it. . .
----------------
Soozie (UK) | 04.15.08 - 10:49 am | #"
My take on that, which could be wrong, is that the results on the hair are already in but they will not be presented until the preliminary investigation is over. It was stated at the outset that this process would last at least six months and possibly not be over until summer begins. The Prosecutor has presented just enough evidence to convince 3 different magistratures (the last one a five-judge panel) that there are serious indications of guilt (unfortunate phrase for the Anglo-Saxon mind, but there you go), enough to justify keeping the three suspects in custody.
The Green River Strangler may not be well known in Old Blighty, but this guy continued to kill young women, mostly prostitutes, for the longest time while the police worked to get enough hard evidence to arrest him. The investigation leading to his arrest lasted for years, with a pile of dead bodies to show for it.
Skep, yes, I can do that before Saturday. Lots of stuff to trawl through. I appreciate we have to be cautious about it, that's why I thought it might be good to actually discuss in it the vein of 'unsubstantiated information' so there's no criticism or contradiction about it, ie; we know it's unsubstantiated (but acknowledge it could turn out to be more than that.) And I'd be really interested to see which parts are discarded after Saturday. For the moment, I was just thinking of the varying reports of physical injuries.
-----------
ANONYMOUS wrote:
"What I would love to know is how Rudy's attorney will be received in court because of the fact he did defend one of the Red Brigade. I would not think he would be to popular.
Anonymous | 04.15.08 - 9:45 am | #
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TRADUCO responds:
I think you have your facts confused.
By Rudy's attorney, I believe you mean WALTER BISCOTTI.
By mentioning Biscotti's legal association with the Red Brigades, are you referring to the 2003 shooting of Emanuele Petri ?
In that case, Walter Biscotti was the attorney representing the FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE VICTIM (i.e., family members of Police Chief Emanuale Petri, who was killed in a shoot-out with the B.R.).
He was NOT the attorney defending the two Brigatisti convicted in the shooting.
Au contraire.
"Au contraire.
Traduco | 04.15.08 - 11:39 am | #"
Thanks, Traduco. I started to hunt for the facts of the matter and then got sidetracked. It would be nice if we could just ignore anonymous posters, but when they get their facts wrong (which seems to be more frequent in anonymous posts), the record needs to be set straight. I think in this case, Biscotti's client was Petri's widow.
It would have been easy for Anon to check before making a false claim about Walter Biscotti, Rudy's lawyer.
See how simple it is?
Just go to Frank's Perugia Shock and you will find the following, with a nice photo of Walter Biscotti in his office:
"Rudy Guede's attorney, Walter Biscotti --the one who defeated the last Red Brigade terrorists and fought against the strong powers of Clean Hands (Tangentopoli 2) -- is ready for a new battle and has kept his promise: he has sued Joe Tacopina.
Actually, it is Rudy who is suing Joe, since the young Ivorian is the subject of Tacopina's offending statements.
I hope the determined but not very fact-driven attempt to put Mignini on trial rather than two of the three suspects does not now sloppily spill over into a smear campaign involving the lawyer whose job is to defend Rudy Guede.
Here's an english language report on the postmortem findings.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/
arti...1312963,00.html
"I wonder why it took 5 months to establish if a knife was compatible with a knife wound? Is it that hard?
----------------------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:35 am | #"
Soozie:
As part of your mission you can check this, but I believe that it has been stated from the beginning that the fatal knife wound is generically compatible with the kitchen knife in question.
Many here (Sparrow, for example) do not think that this knife was actually used to kill the victim.
The independent team performing the second post-mortem asked Matteini for a two-month extension in February and it was granted. Matteini ordered the second post-mortem, not Mignini. The independent team has stated that it is not the source of any leaks and will present all of its findings at once on the appointed date.
From the Sky report:
A new report by three forensic experts, requested by the judge in the case, questions whether there was any sexual activity.
Sky's Nick Pisa, in Rome, said: "In their conclusions the experts say there is no evidence to suggest that Meredith had any form of sexual activity, whether concensual or not, leading up to her death.
I guess that blows CW's theory out of the water.
According to Fox:
"Italy Murder Inquiry: Meredith Kercher 'Was Not Sexually Assaulted' Says Judge"
http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/myfo...TY&
pageId=3.1.1
Will do Skep. I remember reading about the compatibility issue a long time ago. I'll go back over the old stuff and see what I can find. Like I said, I'm just interested in discussing what we 'thought' we knew all that time ago, and to see if any of it can be placed in context, despite the fact so much has still not been substantiated. I hope it won't turn into an argumentative thread (!!), as I'd hoped separate threads would attract only those who want to thrash out the same stuff. It's not about establishing who's innocent and who's not - just what injuries Meredith was 'reported' to have received at the beginning before the leaks dried up!
I wonder why today is April 19th in the world of Nick Pisa...
Damian was wise to warn us about jumping too quickly on the new leaks.
Skep:
Here's one source, just for the record. The quote below is taken from the fourth or fifth paragraph from the top of this article...
"Cosi' l'avvocato Walter Biscotti - che rappresenta i familiari dell'agente della Polfer ucciso esattamente tre anni fa sul treno Roma-Firenze in una sparatoria con le nuove B.R. -"
in altre parole= in other words...
"Walter Biscotti, who represents the family members of the Railroad Police Agent killed exactly three years ago on the Rome-Florence train in a shoot-out with the new Red Brigades."
http://www.archivio900.it/it/new...ews.aspx?
id=946
WHAT'S IN A NAME?...
As a former ANON, myself, I urge all current ANONS to get a handle, STAT.
Skep mentioned "Festering Grudges" as a colorful possibility, one which I adore!! Had I the opportunity to choose another handle, I might have gone with "Handle, With Care."
Or...going from the ridiculous to the sublime...
Why not take inspiration from the RIDICULOUS "Rice and Cheese" " ( and turn it into something SUBLIME i.e., "Risotto a Quattro Formaggi."
OK, back to my day job now...
From the International Herald Tribune quoting ANSA:
The finding backs up a coroner's report in February that also said it could not establish if Kercher had been raped...
According to ANSA, the report says there was no chance of saving Kercher due to her injuries and that the murder weapon was "not incompatible" with a knife found in Sollecito's apartment. The knife had Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade...
I wonder why it took 5 months to establish if a knife was compatible with a knife wound? Is it that hard?
----------------------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:35 am | #
C mellas said that according to the coroners report the knife wounds were from a different blade than that found at RS. He said the Mignini had not retracted the false information circulating about RS knife as it suited his theory better. There is also the possibility that the 'two knife' theory that seems to be circulating around this 'new,improved' report maybe just what Mignini wants to get out there to make it look like more than one person was involved. And before you get all hot under the collar TLC I said 'a possibility' and besides the two knife theory is only hearsay at this point.
Oceania8 | 04.15.08 - 9:31 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Oceania8
I have not spoken to my brother in law about this case in a while. The elections are the most important issue in Italy right now. Disappointment is what he stated about the elections today. Regarding the prosecutor who is the same as in this case he what can he say. He has no opinion as to who is guilty or how the police are handling the case. It is all out there about Mignini his character and his actions previously and now. I think once the prosecutor announced to the whole world that it was a sex orgy his case was doomed. He now has to back track. This reminds me of the Duke prosecutor who was quick in his judgement on that case and like Ken Starr and will break the rules to try to make his case. What I would love to know is how Rudy's attorney will be received in court because of the fact he did defend one of the Red Brigade. I would not think he would be to popular.
Anonymous | 04.15.08 - 9:45 am | #
These two posting have me all verklempt!
Oceanian, please talk amongs yourSELF! Is this because no one else here will discuss the case in a way to your liking?
"OK, back to my day job now...
Traduco | 04.15.08 - 12:55 pm | #"
Medical experts appointed by a court in Perugia to firm up details surrounding the murder have filed papers to judge Claudia Matteini that have been leaked to Italian media ahead of a hearing on Saturday.
News agency Ansa reported that experts said Miss Kercher had had sex shortly before she was killed but that it was impossible to say if the sex had been non-consensual...
The Press Association
yeah sad but true Nick Pisa is like some kind of jouranlistic whore working for every crap paper, I mean to say me ol' fruit... Sky News?
gis a break padre, lasia mi stare amore the Sun, Daily Heil?
great
mama mia un oltra volta per le bambini
once moree for the kiddies
yeah sad but true Nick Pisa is like some kind of journlistic whore, working for every crap paper, I mean to say me ol' fruit... Sky News?
gis a break padre, lascia mi stare amore, The Sun, Daily Heil?
great
Oceania -
"C mellas said that according to the coroners report the knife wounds were from a different blade than that found at RS."
Obviously C Mellas was wrong then wasn't he?
TLC:
yeah sad but true Nick Pisa is like some kind of journlistic whore...
He also played no inconsiderable part in the CBS show.
Nick Pisa spreads himself a bit thin. I'd rather wait for Christian Fraser (BBC) to confirm what's going on since at least he's supposed to be in Perugia.
Isn't Pisa Boy covering the election as well???
----------------
o sbaliato mio ancora
The sequence of events seems to have happened, not with a plan to kill Meredith but to get her into what someone, maybe all three or just Amanda and Sollecito wanted for sexual kicks, then somehow Guede became part of it.
He may have even been a chief instigator in it, being that he wanted Meredith as Amanda described (about Patrick).
It may be that they were drinking, smoking, then Meredith came home, from fun it turned nasty and it was all over for Meredith at that point, when the argument was triggered.
I reckon that's why it's hard to imagine how they all could have been so dumb.
Perhaps it happened because of the underlying bad vibes between Amanda and Meredith.
Amanda being unhygienic, Meredith was only being reasonable to ask Amanda to pull her weight at home and the toilet chain too.
"OK, back to my day job now...
Traduco | 04.15.08 - 12:55 pm | #"
Skeptical Bystander | 04.15.08 - 1:38 pm | #"
Traduco:
I had a nice post for you but it disappeared. It was like the onscreen version of invisible ink. I did not intend to merely repost your post, although I too am back to my day job. I said something about Cheese & Rice and Jesus Christ but it is gone now. Thanks again for the Biscotti!
He also played no inconsiderable part in the CBS show.
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 1:54 pm |
_______________
Really?
My god, what a man-slag he is!
I wouldn't read him with a barge pole.
dear fancy that
journalistic whore
whatddaya want after a couple of real beers from Belgium?
more beers?
According to ANSA, the report says there was no chance of saving Kercher due to her injuries and that the murder weapon was "not incompatible" with a knife found in Sollecito's apartment. The knife had Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's on the blade...
So now we have a knife found in Sollecito's apartment:
Identified by Filomena as coming from the girls cottage.
It had been bleached but not well enough to remove all traces of DNA.
It'sb>not incompatible with the wounds to Meredith's neck.
"Identified by Filomena as coming from the girls cottage.
It had been bleached but not well enough to remove all traces of DNA.
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 2:06 pm | #"
Don't you mean identified by Filomena as NOT coming from the cottage?
I don't think so Skep.
The black handled kitchen knife was found at the house of Knox's Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 23 - ten minutes walk from the scene of the crime.
According to police, Miss Kercher had never visited Sollecito's house.
Giacinto Profazio, the head of the Flying Squad in Perugia, Italy, confirmed that there were traces of Miss Kercher's DNA at the tip of the blade, and traces of Knox's DNA near the handle.
'It is not blood, but the DNA is very important,' he said. Knox, 20, from Seattle, Sollecito, and Patrick Diya Lumumba, a 37-year-old Congolese bar owner, are all in prison pending charges of sexual assault and murder.
Police believe that although the suspects washed the knife clean of any blood, they were unable to remove the DNA. It is possible that Knox left her traces on the knife while washing it.
Mr Profazio added: 'The knife had been cleaned with bleach, which removes blood, but not DNA.' It is understood the kitchen knife may have come from the house that Knox and Miss Kercher shared in Perugia...
The Telegraph - 17 Nov
O/T
whatddaya want after a couple of real beers from Belgium?
more beers?
TLC | 04.15.08 - 2:06 pm | #
Um, sure. I'll take the Belgian beer over the journalistic whore any day. Actually, I'll take the beer, well, any day. It's not just for breakfast anymore...
Back to the knife, though, didn't Lalli say roughly the same thing; i.e. wasn't incompatible with the wound but wasn't being identified as the murder weapon either? So the latest post mortem sort of sounds like it confirms Lalli's theory so far.
News agency Ansa reported that experts said Miss Kercher had had sex shortly before she was killed but that it was impossible to say if the sex had been non-consensual...
The Press Association
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 1:39 pm |
_______________________
Hi Brian.
In a way, I find it highly inarticulate of them.
If there were any signs of someone's DNA in Meredith, it doesn't mean she had sex, or sex relation discluding intercourse, all as it means is that someone's DNA was found, how it got there, if there is no tearing, bleeding, vicious wounds to the genital area, does not mean it was consensual, I know many stories, of women who were so terrified when raped they were left unable to even speak let alone scream or resist.
These screams Amanda mentioned, seem to me to have happened, it is so obvious, but as things progressed and if she was threatened with a knife and shouted at simultaneously, she'd have been scared out of her wits and if she was able to make any more sound or fight back, she may have been too scared to do either.
I can see that but I can't see Guede reciting his poetry as he stood aside for fear.
He wasn't the one who was scared.
Amanda is not the one who was robbed of her life.
Sollecito did not invent fish fingers as Amanda said, with his bloodied hands.
Who would sit by when her boyfriend's hands had blood on them without saying, hey, your hands are covered in blood, wash them or everything will get blood on it.
Those people are sick.
TLC i love your poetic input..it shows your romantic side battling it out with your wit.
i feel the vampire's diary shows his romantic nature - a nature which appears to be lacking in the other 2 held.
i think most of us here are suckers for the romantic hue and cry...anyhows thanks for the odes.
.
um tLC i didnt see after the dob bylan post so i dont know what is directly above..gulp
.
It's not just for breakfast anymore...
Back to the knife, though, didn't Lalli say roughly the same thing; i.e. wasn't incompatible with the wound but wasn't being identified as the murder weapon either? So the latest post mortem sort of sounds like it confirms Lalli's theory so far.
____________________________
I understand about the beer my dear Corinna, we can't all be Jim Morrison, I'm anxiously looking forward to meeting you at Heathrow, whereupon we'll fly off to Bali, thanks for that holiday of a lifetime, I deserve it.
Anyway, back to business, yes, it does look like Lalli did his job well.
"Mr Profazio added: 'The knife had been cleaned with bleach, which removes blood, but not DNA.' It is understood the kitchen knife may have come from the house that Knox and Miss Kercher shared in Perugia...
The Telegraph - 17 Nov
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 2:16 pm | #"
This is a little confusing to me. Do you have a source stating that Filomena confirmed that the knife found in Raffaele's apartment came from the cottage?
rob | 04.15.08 - 2:25 pm |
thanks very much Rob, very kind, I didn't want to be the one dealing the razors out for a communial what's it, it's not what we are about, though there are couple I'd gladly arrange a generous dose of euthanasia for, free!!!
Nick Pisa spreads himself a bit thin. I'd rather wait for Christian Fraser (BBC) to confirm what's going on since at least he's supposed to be in Perugia.
Isn't Pisa Boy covering the election as well???
----------------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 1:55 pm | #
_________________________
That Nick Pisa, they only choose 'em if their names have some resemblance to national dishes or buildings in the country they're working, the bloke probably speaks cockney and gets his mum to check his work.
Anyway, I think he's comparable to some double spy.
He writes for the mail a right wing toilet roll and he writes for the left wing lot, so-called too, but all it is, is this, those guys earn a pretty penny sat around dining out, staying in nice hotels, having a wonderful old jolly time writing a lot of old bollocks that they have not studied well beforehand.
I take it dead seriously when it is about defenceless little girls who have been totally abused, it realy does make me very sad and also angry because so much of it is going on. Not just to girls a little boy in Liverpoool shot dead on his bike I don't know where to turn at times hearing such stuff, it is frightening when you have kidsand grandkids. There can't be anything much worse than losing your child, I'd be unable to make it further I'm afraid, I often think so anyhow and don't even dare think about it.
These folk are the cause of a lot of misinformation it's true. I may go to a journalists get together if he's there, one like what was in Perugia, and give him a right good slagging off or a kick up the unmentionables, darned pimp.
This is a little confusing to me. Do you have a source stating that Filomena confirmed that the knife found in Raffaele's apartment came from the cottage?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.15.08 - 2:31 pm | #
Skep,
I've just done a quick search without luck and I may be shortly called away. If so, I will come back to this.
I read recently in an old story/report?, that Filomena was taken by the police to Raffael's apartment to identify anything that came from the
girl's cottage.
I will track it down.
"I will track it down.
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 2:49 pm | #"
No worries. It is important, however. I thought it had been established that the knife came from Raffaele's kitchen set and not just from his apartment. I must admit that the Telegraph is not one of the published sources I have relied on. I thought it was better than the tabs but not as good as the BBC, the Guardian or the Times (although the latter is getting worse since Murdoch took over).
Hi All
Quick question of Oceania - If it is stated that more than one knife was used any chance of changing your view that this could not have been a lone wolf (i.e. Guede) crime?
Interested in your thoughts......
Thanks, LW
Skep,
I'll retract my statement about the knife coming from the cottage. Thanks for pulling me up, I may have wrongly put two and three together from the report of Filomena's visit with the police to Raffaele's apartment(that much is true).
From Sollecito's prison diary:
Sollecito's 40-page diary reads more like a defense testimony statement than random thoughts. "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologized immediately and she said it was not a problem." (Friends of Kercher have told police and reporters that the victim had never been to Sollecito's apartment.) Sollecito also points a finger at his former girlfriend Knox, "I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her… Amanda may have set me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith. When I saw the knife on TV ... my heart jumped into my throat."...
Newsweek
I will be very upset if a British Channel replays the cr*p that was on 48 hours to the British public. The programme at the very least should be about the only victim in this as should be done with a resemblance of taste and dignity.... I think I am going to be disappointed....... and I hope that C4 are inundated with complaints if this is the case!
LW
Brian....
I am sure AK supporters (who need RS) would say that the following statement was beaten out of him by corrupt police..... It was not they will be sadly disappointed....
"Amanda may have set me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith. When I saw the knife on TV ... my heart jumped into my throat.".."
Brian:
No problem whatsoever. I had just never seen this before so it grabbed my attention. The early Telegraph article does indeed suggest that the knife came from the cottage, but notice how they hedge their bests by avoiding the use of a definite subject ("it is thought that"). I do remember reading that the two Italian girls had confirmed that the knife in question did not come from the cottage.
Re. Nick Pisa and other UK journalists.
A handy source:
Articles by Nick Pisa mentioning "meredith"
Journalisted Home
It seems to work quite well when you try it out.
Maybe a good source for old stories.
is it true what sky says there will be kermit's 'meeting' of the suspects at the hearing on saturday?
lordy, lordy...
.
More from Nick Pisa:
The 56-page report also concluded that Meredith, from Croydon, had died as a result of strangulation and from choking on her own blood as a result of the knife wound to her throat...
They also concluded that an eight inch kitchen knife found in the kitchen of Mr Sollecito, a computer studies graduate, was compatible with the murder weapon.
DNA from Meredith was allegedly found on the tip of the knife while DNA from Miss Knox was allegedly on the black handle....
The report concluded that ''there are elements which suggest Meredith Kercher was involved in recent sexual activity before she died but from the data obtained it is impossible to say whether it was consensual or not''...
Valter Biscotti, Mr Guede’s lawyer, said: "The new report backs up what our client has said all along.
"There is no evidence that poor Meredith was the victim of a violent sex attack.
"Our client has never denied the fact that he was at the scene and he has admitted being at the scene but he has denied sexually attacking her and having anything to do with her death. The report backs his story up."...
The Telegraph
TLC,
Sounds good. I'm thinking a private villa; at $280.00 a night I don't think Paul C. will begrudge us that, do you?
Eyes on the road
I do remember reading that the two Italian girls had confirmed that the knife in question did not come from the cottage.
I remember reading that too, Skep.
"Drug tests found no traces of cocaine, ecstasy or heroin and although her blood alcohol level was 2.7mg per litre compared to the original 0.43 this was said to have been as a result of ''mishandling'' of her blood sample." Telegraph. Brian's link above.
If that's confirmed, it's one less 'aggravante', at best.
A 56-page report? The first one was 19 pages so it's clearly a big update.
If it's common knowledge and has been substantiated by her friends, that Meredith left them at 9m and arrived home aroun 9.15, why would they suggest she "died sometime between 8.30pm and 00.50 on 2 November 2007"
I know it's only approximate but they know she can't have died before 9.30 don't they??
---------
A Question....
Would RS and AK have had to take blood and drug tests when they were arrested and then jailed pending further investigation?
I would love to know what was in their blood!
LW
or better yet in their hair tests..
.
Skep, I thought that the flatmates were specifically taken to Sollecito's place to see if the knife had come from the cottage, and they confirmed it hadn't?
NEWS: On Channel 5 in the UK, yhey just mentioned that Meredith had 'probably' not been sexually attacked. It's the first time she's been mentioned on the news for months.
I'm going to see if it's on the BBC news right now.
---------------
Yeah Rob
I think you are right tests from hair show results that go back longer regarding what drugs have been taken. Does anyone know if this is normal procedure when someone is in custody or a suspect?
LW
I thought the last line from the Telegraph article was interesting; that some in the Italian media are now thinking the investigation was too quick. Can any of our Italian posters confirm or deny this?
I think the hair test is fairly expensive, which is why employers here in the US usually want you to pee in a cup. Regular marijuana usage pretty much stays in your system for up to 30 days though an occasional toker who drinks a lot of water daily would probably pass a test done 5 to 10 days after last smoking but then I don't think any of here believe that pot leads to vicious killings. It would be nice to know if they had been taking something else, though, be it meth or coke or something. I don't think most people would be capable of murder on xtc; maybe guilty of petting the kitty too long or stroking the carpet for hours but beyond that...
I wonder if they would have felt the need to drug test A & R?
Corrina,
I hope they did as at least it would show what they were on and also make their story about smoking a bit of pot go up in smoke!!
LW
i knew a coke dealer that was arrested. he was a registered heroin addict and used as his defense that he parcelled out coke to control his own use with his heroin so he could continue working in the theatre. his excuse therefore for having numerous wraps of coke was for this purpose not for dealing. the prosecution scoffed at this and tried to mock such sophistry. the dealer's barrister got his hair tested which showed over 8 months or both coke and heroin use. he got off with possession not intent to supply.
hair testing is valuable in serious cases where you wish to establish prior drug use of people, in this case hair tests could be ordered two weeks after additives to the suspects food were planted to act as markers enabling back dating of the hair samples. it would be smart of those held to shave their heads (that is assuming they took more than hash).
.
although her blood alcohol level was 2.7mg per litre compared to the original 0.43 this was said to have been as a result of ''mishandling'' of her blood sample. ….. Damian
They are tossing so many numbers around it's hard to keep track of them. This article says 2.7 mg per liter, another article says 2.3 mg per liter. Also they are getting there digits all wrong. I think they mean grams per liter, not mg per liter. A 2.7 mg per liter would come out to BAC of .00027%. How well are they checking? The mishandling of the sample, if it happened, is the big kicker.
correction:
over 8 months of both coke and heroin use
.
They should certainly have tested them, once they'd admitted to smoking dope all day. I'm sure there are some hard drugs that screw with your brain and you could do something without even being really aware you're doing it.
--------------------
wait a minute they took hair samples from the lot already because of the alleged hair in Meredith's hand. they will find anything right at the root level from those first samples taken...
duh. sorry.
.
Well, the BBC didn't mention anything about Meredith at all.
-----------------
Good point, Rob. The hair samples being taken because of the hair (supposedly) found in Meredith's hand. Speaking of which, I came across something in one of the older articles posted here in the past two days about that hair "being medium length" or something. I think it was in a Telegraph article...I meant to post it here because of the black man's hair or hair of a black man debacle from last week.
Medium length hair would rule out Rudy then wouldn't it?
isnt it all mumbo-journo-jumbo till we have sight of the actual reports?
.
Rob
re: shaving of heads. Brian S recently posted a picture and interview from the Daily Mail of Meredith's boyfriend from the downstairs flat. That article was dated 11-18-07. His head was shaved. In a prior interview, same paper, on 11-10-07, the boyfriend had long hair. It struck me as an odd thing to do - with a cold winter coming on.
anon e mouse do you implicate 'the REAL boyfriend'?
interesting...if thats what you suggest. do you have the link to the shaved photo?
.
Anon,
That boyfriend was also questioned extensively by the same police that thumped little Amanda on her poor haid but he isn't sitting in a jail cell. Methinks he had a little something called an alibi. Besides, the Italians just want to pin this all on the American girl from Seattle.
corrina maybe the boyfriend saw himself in press photos with long hair and thought he looked atwat so shaved it off, or felt guilty that he couldnt 'protect' Meredith in her time of need.
or maybe the police didnt thump him hard enough to get him to confess to hearing her being killed...
.
Meredith's boyfriend was away at his parents for the holiday weekend. Is it being suggested he came back to kill her before returning to his parents, and coming back to Perugia with a shaved head? Yes, that makes sense,
People do strange things when a loved one dies, like cut their hair off, or grow a beard. Or go shopping for underwear because, well, the cops won't let me back in my house even though I have a history of wearing my boyfriend's skivvies. Mind you, I didn't need any clothes, only undergarments you see. Yeah, the cops must have given him and Filomena an easy time and saved all their harsh techniques for the American girl of German ancestry. That's it!
What, Soozie? You aren't buying that? tee hee hee...
Survey says, these folks are getting desperate!
it is the flaky alibis and being found at the scene of the crime that has been the undoing of our intrepid young lovers, isnt it?
it really is back to basics in this case not flying with the 'science' as useful as it proves it is not the be all and end all, convictions (true and false) are made every day without 'quatitive' forensics or even a corpse.
a conviction without a corpse is pretty bizarre...
.
I thought the last line from the Telegraph article was interesting; that some in the Italian media are now thinking the investigation was too quick. Can any of our Italian posters confirm or deny this?
Corrina | 04.15.08 - 4:09 pm | #
The full sentence reads: "There have been growing concerns in the Italian media that the arrests were made too quickly and there is no real evidence against them."
I too would like to hear from our Italian posters about this.
i think the telegraph 'on-line' journo is reading more into the upcoming channel 4 sub-48 hours show with neo what's his name as 'the italian media'.
you can hold them horses daniel.
.
remember daniel our italian posters, even the ones from umbria, have all said the media has moved on to other things entirely, even other murders; unfortunately more people have been murdered since Meredith in italy ( and everywhere else for that matter).
.
that some in the Italian media are now thinking the investigation was too quick. Can any of our Italian posters confirm or deny this?
Never heard of it.Besides,as Rob wrote, the media has been covering other issues for months now.
Just had a look at the Skynews article
(see link posted by daniel mintz (04.15.08 - 12:17 pm)).
Meredith ... was found dead in the bedroom of her flat on November 3.
Wasn't it on Nov. 2nd ???
Another instance of grossly sloppy journalism, or what ?
"Some in the Italian media are now thinking the investigation was too quick."
Could it be Telenorba?
More observations on leaks and lawyers:
Sollecito's lawyers have not commented to the press since the Telenorba broadcast and the announcement of the 60 year old "superwitness". Both occurred at the in the first 2 or 3 days at the beginning of this month. Daddy Sollecito did try to poor cold water on the evidence of the new witness with a comment to the press but unfortunately he got his dates wrong.
Amanda's lawyers have not commented to the press on either of those incidents. Indeed, I don't believe Amanda's lawyers have commented since Rudy gave his revised evidence of March 26.
Rudy's lawyers have been full of it ever since Rudy gave his new evidence.
They've commented quite often since. They commented on the new witness and now on the new medical evidence.
On leaks:
Who leaked this report?
Since its 56 pages have been delivered to Matteini and a meeting to discuss it's contents has been called for all parties this Saturday, one must assume copies have been given to the lawyers.
It's instantly apparent that this report does little harm to Rudy, indeed, it may well help his case.
Hey Ho, Biscuits, it must be your turn now.
A few moments ago I put on armour, helmet and shield and took a cautious peek at The Other Place (Hell ? the House of Lords ?) – the "P-I Reader Blog" of a Seattle person called Candace. Well, for once, I found some sanity there, and even some information, thanks to a fearless lie-slayer.
Unregistered user (#117744) :
I believe Frank stated at Perugia Shock that this witness spoke with the PM on November 27
Candace (#117847) ;
I read the Nov. 27 blog posted by Frank on Perugia Shock but it said nothing about an eyewitness. I will ask him about the eyewitness. He is actually on the ground in Perugia and does his own interviews and research on this case. That makes him alone in the world.
Another anonymous user then patiently replied (#117860)
Candace, I think what 117744 meant was that the PM spoke with this witness on November 27, not that Frank at Perugia Shock posted on November 27th. I found the reference in Frank's "Tacopina, I Sued You" post. It is down towards the end of the article wherein Frank and Biscotti are having a Q & A.
She then had to back-pedal somewhat (#117877) :
Thanks for pointing me to Perugia Shock's information on the eyewitness, the one who supposedly heard three people running on the night of the murder (and never called police). Frank is saying the PM interviewed her. 48 Hours says the police never did.
Here's the info. We can all judge for ourselves.
This is a Q&A with Rudy's lawyer, Mr. Biscotti, by Frank of Perugia Shock.
" Q: Is the garage witness reliable?
A: I think so. She was heard by the PM on November 27th and said she heard a scream and then two people escaping in different directions--one through the stairs above the garage. The only problem is that she cannot say exactly what time this occurred."
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.co...i-sued-
you.html
Now, let's go to 48 Hours. CBS hired a detective, Mr. Ciolino, to talk to this eyewitness. I quote from the transcript:
'< ... > she is very clear about one thing: she says she was never interviewed by the police.
As hard as it is to believe, police only saw the witness on television. "This is fascinating to me because not one cop in this town has ever knocked on this woman's door, not one time," Ciolino says.'
So the 48 Hours programme seems to have used a technical trick in order to "tell *the* truth" : they said that the witness was not interviewed by the POLICE – but (according to Biscotti and Frank, whom we have no reason to suspect of lying !) she was questioned by the PM ...
This is not to say that I believe that testimony to be either perfectly accurate or very helpful (especially since the Italian lady could not pinpoint the time of the incident). But I think that Frank is more reliable than most other unofficial sources, and I feel sure that the 48 Hours show is less than honest ... much less !
I had to laugh when I saw how C. had been hoist by her own petard : after praising Frank, she was forced to accept what he had reported !
By the way, according to Frank, the witness mentioned two persons running away.
If it's common knowledge and has been substantiated by her friends, that Meredith left them at 9m and arrived home aroun 9.15, why would they suggest she "died sometime between 8.30pm and 00.50 on 2 November 2007"
I know it's only approximate but they know she can't have died before 9.30 don't they??
---------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 4:02 pm | #
Soozie,
This report is pathological, it's evidence gives time of death according to the doctors.
Other evidence can obviously narrow this down for the court. Meredith didn't arrive home before 9:15 and after her death, Rudy was with his friends sometime around midnight.
Re my previous post
Bluetit | 04.15.08 - 7:15 pm |
I meant to provide a heading such as
Sra Capezzali did give an official statement
but I must have deleted it in my excitement. Sorry !
This is fascinating to me because not one cop in this town has ever knocked on this woman's door, not one time," Ciolino says.'
Bluetit | 04.15.08 - 7:15 pm | #
I posted shortly after I got back from Perugia in February about the feelings of some local people that I had spoken to about this case. One couple who live in an apartment building that can see part of the cottage told me that there was no door knocking by the police to them or any of their neighbours at any time after crime. Maybe this would have been hard for the ILE to do after it was announced publicly that the case was closed. We can only sepculate why they didn't do this. They said many neighbours commented amoungst themselves about why they wern't canvassed to see if anyone had seen or heard anything. Although there was plenty of media around asking locals questions.
They told me how they watched the rubbish truck arrive and clean the dumpsters near the house as usual a few days after the murder. And how the environs of the house did not appear to be sealed off and seen to be searched systematically. Like the marjority of things written here it is hearsay so make of it what you will(as per Damien's favourite saying).
If Mignini did interview this woman it could still have been done so after he saw her on TV, that is not made clear in Biscotti's statement.
Regards the sound tests done on 48hrs etc, I should imagine the lawyers for AK,RS and RG will bring evidence along these lines in court to question the original statements this woman made to the media and dispprove their accuracy.
Whether she can be proven to be a reliable witness remains to be seen.
By the way, according to Frank, the witness mentioned two persons running away.
Bluetit | 04.15.08 - 7:15 pm | #
On 48hrs they did the test with 3 people. 2 running in one direction and 1 running in another. So which version is correct ? Is this another incident of Chinese whispers that this case is famous for ?
It is cheap journalism to write headers to articles as though what is written is fact, like;
Report Says Not Raped
then later in the article, it says; nobody can say whether it was rape or not
that means the title was entirely inaccurate and misleading considering nobody can say one way or the other.
TLC
I agree with you. The 'reports' seem to contradict themselves. If they can't be sure sex was consensual, then they can't be sure it wasn't rape.
The words have been twisted so you can read it either way. I still maintain that all the bruising and injuries Meredith suffered make it highly
implausible she had consensual anything with anyone.
And then there's the knife. I read it was 'compatible' with the wound, and I also read it was 'not incompatible' with the wound which makes it sound less likely than 'compatble'.
Words words words, so difficult to interpret exactly what they really mean.
-------------------
A snippet from today’s AGI news source;
‘The lesions observed, moreover, would not be inconsistent with a knife seized at the home of Raffaele urge on which were highlighted traces of the DNA of Meredith (the tip) and Amanda (between handle and blade), the incompatibility 'and' absolute instead with two other knives, repertati always because of Doctor of Engineering Science (the young Bari, and 'was more' repeatedly stressed by his father and legal, loves collecting knives and bears also wearing coordinated to clothing.’
Looks like they’re still keeping an eye on Raf.
"So the 48 Hours programme seems to have used a technical trick in order to "tell *the* truth" : they said that the witness was not interviewed by the POLICE but (according to Biscotti and Frank, whom we have no reason to suspect of lying !) she was questioned by the PM ...
Bluetit | 04.15.08 - 7:15 pm | #"
This may be the reason for the discrepancy. It may also be that the woman didn't feel like talking to these people. I have been known to lie to Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door in the middle of the day to ask me personal questions. If they came with a camera in tow, I would slam the door in their faces.
It is cheap journalism to write headers to articles as though what is written is fact, like;
Report Says Not Raped
then later in the article, it says; nobody can say whether it was rape or not
that means the title was entirely inaccurate and misleading considering nobody can say one way or the other.
TLC | 04.15.08 - 8:19 pm | #
TLC,
About 5 years ago, I became heavily involved in another blog(on a totally different subject than crime).
The blog - hundreds of posts a day - began attacking journalists' reporting of the subject. It became a VERY high profile blog. There were hundreds of emails floating around and it became such that the press had no option but to eventually respond. They did both in print and posting themselves on the blog.
A couple of relevant things to emerge:
Most journalists are generalists. They have no particular knowledge of any one subject and as such can be wildly lead astray in the things they print.
Most journalists have no input to a headline. They present their story to the editorial team, who may well edit it to fit, and that team or the editor is normally the one who comes up with the headline.
It's worth noting that the press these days quote from and refer to that blog as a source of fine information and expertise.
"So the 48 Hours programme seems to have used a technical trick in order to "tell *the* truth" : they said that the witness was not interviewed by the POLICE but (according to Biscotti and Frank, whom we have no reason to suspect of lying !) she was questioned by the PM ...
Bluetit | 04.15.08 - 7:15 pm | #"
As I posted earlier she could have been interviewed by the PM AFTER he had seen her on the news as 48 hrs said. The main point is that witnesses did not appear to be canvassed at any time after the murder. This woman was apparently bought to Mignini's attention by way of her i/v on TV.
it was 'not incompatible' with the wound which makes it sound less likely than 'compatble'.
Words words words, so difficult to interpret exactly what they really mean.
-------------------
Soozie UK | 04.15.08 - 8:42 pm | #
_____________
Hello Soozie,
Yes, I think anyone with a bit of common sense would tend to think that if anything sexual happened it was not consensual. Like you said, the state Meredith was found in, the damages not being only the knife wounds, and especially with the addition all of the reliable character info' such as that provided by those who truly knew, loved and respected Meredith, her friends and father of course, to start with, the evidence cannot perhaps state definitely what happened but common sense can deduce that the poor lady was savagely abused in every way.
That 'not incompatible' bit, and the other 'compatible', if you are reading things fast you could be forgiven for understanding the 'not incompatible' to mean the opposite, I nearly did that. I suppose they were expressing that the knife has not been declared as the murder weapon yet.
Compatible and incompatible are the only two words needed.
This woman was apparently bought to Mignini's attention by way of her i/v on TV.
Oceania8 | 04.15.08 - 9:34 pm | #
What interview on TV?
Most journalists have no input to a headline. They present their story to the editorial team, who may well edit it to fit, and that team or the editor is normally the one who comes up with the headline.
It's worth noting that the press these days quote from and refer to that blog as a source of fine information and expertise.
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 9:13 pm |
___________________________
What a coincidence, some of the points you answered, good post Brian, thanks. I was about to post about how homogonous the whole business is being, as it is, owned by hugely wealthy tycoons like R. Murdoch, when he took over the Times there were many very unhappy with it and especially when he overruled the editors and wanted to do the editing sometimes.
That's sad eh, that the editor decides the titles, so you've got one of those Speedy Gonzales flash types sat there only dealing with the titles all day, with a mind to grab attention, the ethics of the misleading techniques used doesn't matter, they must keep sales up at all costs. It means that if you are a writer who does stand behind what you write, still you need to bring home your money, if you disagree too much they'll get rid of you, in that way, you do not have complete freedom. Your article may also be chopped up and end up looking very different to what you put down and conveyed, I guess some end up having to take it or go mad with frustration and anger. I don't think I could do it, it'd be like selling your soul. I guess then the bit you wrote about them being generalists is related to how they have to approach everything surgically just like a doctor, going to eat lunch 15 minutes after completing a heart transplant, totally able to do all of that.
Still, it is slightly different, professionality of a doctor means he must be able to take the work he does and not be too upset if the patient dies or the Dr wouldn't be able to sleep at night but nobody messes with the Dr's work.
The newspapers quoting blogs, that's life imitating art syndrome again.
New article posted on Frank's re: the 48 Hours show:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/
Sounds good. I'm thinking a private villa; at $280.00 a night I don't think Paul C. will begrudge us that, do you?
Eyes on the road
Corrina | 04.15.08 - 3:51 pm |
_____________________________
Yes, but 2,800 a night with an own swimming pool or whatever you get for all of that dough, that's a lot of luxury burgers for that price, wouldn't that be nice to put it on his or Tacky Joe''s bill
"This woman was apparently bought to Mignini's attention by way of her i/v on TV.
Oceania8 | 04.15.08 - 9:34 pm | #
What interview on TV?
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 9:45 pm | #"
A most interesting slip of the tongue!
"This woman was apparently bought to Mignini's attention by way of her i/v on TV.
Oceania8 | 04.15.08 - 9:34 pm | #
What interview on TV?
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 9:45 pm | # "
Q: Is the garage witness reliable?
Biscotti: I think so. She was heard by the PM on November 27th and said she heard a scream and then two people escaping in different directions--one through the stairs above the garage. The only problem is that she cannot say exactly what time this occurred....
Paul the PI got an interpreter and camera and went to talk to Nara Cappezalli, the lady who said last December on television that she heard people running from the crime scene. Her initial fifteen minutes of fame must have been enough, because she refused to open her shutters—even when Paul told the interpreter Julia to tell Nara it was important. They asked her about talking to the police and from behind closed shutters she said she never talked to the police. For Paul, this means the police must have learned about her testimony on television because never interviewed her. Can you believe it?
Perugia-Shock
From Frank's:
Q: Then how did you realize what happened?
A: I saw it the next day on television.
Q: And what did you do? Did you call the police?
A: No.
Q: How did they hear about your testimony?
A: Because I told my neighbors. Then I went to see the cottage and there were journalists there. They asked me and I told them. But why are you asking me again after so long?
Q: Because your interview behind the shutters was aired and you said that the police and judges did not hear you. Is that true?
A: I can't remember that.
Q: You remember everything else so well and your testimony never changed one iota in several months. How is it possible that you don't remember if you were interviewed by the police? I was told by a reliable source that you had been heard on December 27.
A: If you have that information... I can't answer this question.
Q: Why? You already answered it. You said on American television that you were not interviewed by the police.
A: I don't know. I was busy. One was speaking, another one was translating.
Q: So, is it true that you were not heard?
A: I'm sorry, I can't speak about that.
Methinks Nora has been told by the investigators not to speak to anyone about her evidence.
Brian S -
"Methinks Nora has been told by the investigators not to speak to anyone about her evidence."
Exactly!
"Q: How did they hear about your testimony?
A: Because I told my neighbors. Then I went to see the cottage and there were journalists there. They asked me and I told them. But why are you asking me again after so long?"
From reading this, you get the impression that the investigators may have canvassed at least some of the neighbors. I remember reading in an early Guardian article that a 100-person team was brought in immediately and that a massive manhunt was on. This is either a sad example of journalists getting it wrong or indirect evidence that the police actually did mobilize resources and do what they usually do.
From Franks:
In the run-up to the show, Paul the PI visited some locally-hosted blogs and pretty much told everyone to just shut up and watch the show.
Don't we just know, Charlie.
A most interesting slip of the tongue!
Skeptical Bystander | 04.15.08 - 10:14 pm | #
It really is interesting. "Bought"-- bought by who? I was just realizing it could be interpreted in more than one way.
"Sounds good. I'm thinking a private villa; at $280.00 a night I don't think Paul C. will begrudge us that, do you?
Eyes on the road
Corrina | 04.15.08 - 3:51 pm |
_____________________________
Yes, but 2,800 a night with an own swimming pool or whatever you get for all of that dough, that's a lot of luxury burgers for that price, wouldn't that be nice to put it on his or Tacky Joe''s bill
TLC | 04.15.08 - 10:02 pm | #"
OT)))
When you two do the documentary version, can I please be in charge of the musical soundtrack? I'm thinking Wasted Away in Margaretaville with the opening credits.
When you two do the documentary version, can I please be in charge of the musical soundtrack? I'm thinking Wasted Away in Margaretaville with the opening credits.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.15.08 - 10:52 pm
___________________
By all means, I know you have good musical taste. Need to make a film about some nutty PI with an endless monologue who talks to himself.
Bluetit,
I hope from now on that you will follow Steve's rules and not carry disagreements over from one blog to another.
You are free to criticize me on my own blog, as long as you do it politely. Please also try to be accurate.
I may have been jet-lagged and slow on the uptake this morning, but I never expressed doubt about Frank of Perugia Shock or his research--as you have suggested. Nor did I do any lying. Your assertion that it takes courage to read my blog is comical.
Frank is a good friend of mine. He is also the only journalist anywhere who is doing actual reporting on the ground in Perugia. He has my respect and he knows that.
Cease and desist.
He is also the only journalist anywhere who is doing actual reporting on the ground in Perugia.
Candace Dempsey | 04.16.08 - 12:28 am |
Factually untrue.
Damian, I read an article that said that Rudy arrived in Perugia at the age of five with his father, and that thereafter his father returned to IC for one month every year. It didn't mention the father going back to Africa for good. He may have been in Italy all along. So his situation is not as simple as we may have thought it in the beginning. There are bits and pieces in different articles. When I have time, I will try to gather them all. It might be after a couple of weeks though.
Quick question of Oceania - If it is stated that more than one knife was used any chance of changing your view that this could not have been a lone wolf (i.e. Guede) crime?
Interested in your thoughts......
Thanks, LW
Love Wolf | 04.15.08 - 3:05 pm | #
I presume you mean if it is 'proven' that more than one knife was used. Based on all the other DNA evidence known at this stage to be on, around and inside MK at the crime scene I would not change my view that RG acted alone. If it is proven 100% to be two knives it would probably increase my certainty that it was soley RG as no bloody fingerprints were found of the other two on MK body or at the scene of the murder as you would expect in a double murderer assault scenario.
You would not be able to assume by two different types of knife wounds caused by two seperate knives to automatically mean two different attackers were involved, unless other DNA evidence substantiated that.
What about you, if it is proven that the footprint and DNA on the bra clip is soley RG's and AK's 'mixed' blood sample is proven to be circumstantial (ie AK's blood from say a nose bleed mixed with DNA of MK already present in the bathroom)would you change your mind ?
By all means, I know you have good musical taste. Need to make a film about some nutty PI with an endless monologue who talks to himself.
TLC | 04.15.08 - 11:18 pm | #
No, no, 'ol chap! Need to make a film about a nutty poster that rambles on far too long and far too often...likely the same results, I'd say.
"No, no, 'ol chap! Need to make a film about a nutty poster that rambles on far too long and far too often...likely the same results, I'd say.
Spectator | 04.16.08 - 1:40 am | #"
I'd say you can always skip his posts if you don't like them. Some of us appreciate TLC.
For Paul, this means the police must have learned about her testimony on television because never interviewed her. Can you believe it?
I think Paul the PI's "discovery" of Nara - the "explosive" news that was going to "blow the case open" - is going to go the same route as Joe the Sleuth's 20% DNA match ... after being bandied about here and there and used by interested parties, it will get boron dumped on it and the interested parties will conveniently stop talking about it.
Why doesn't Paul the PI continue his pimping and spamming campaign? I suppose because his contract wasn't renewed after the CBS show.
-
Was just thinking of Hen's Nest by John Clare.
Yeah poor ol' Charlie Paul Wilkes
but a spectacle... thank god his contract has ended.
Spectator | 04.16.08 - 1:49 am | #
_______
I think it'd do you good to pluck out your eyes with a red hot poker and fill em up with molten lead it'd help you to see better
Why doesn't Paul the PI continue his pimping and spamming campaign? I suppose because his contract wasn't renewed after the CBS show.
-
Kermit | 04.16.08 - 1:47 am | #
________________________________
He invents a new name every day. Like Spectator.
Wilkes wrote on Ms Candace's blog that he'd tried here to plant some seeds to get people to take his line of thinking onboard but he said nobody here would listen.
TLC
If perhaps you were speculating, once again, that this poster is Charlie in disguise...well, Sorry 'ol chap! Guess ya gonna hafta to come up with a new shtick.
For all the Brits, Americans, Italians and other European nationals on this thread, here are some real facts that any good journalist can get the information on if he/she has the contacts in DC. And this is on topic, OT I believe as you refer to it.
1) Berclusconi has just won the election and his coalition of People of Freedom and the Northern League will permit him to govern with a clear majority. Berclusconi has always had good relations with Bush and his administration through normal consular affairs and his support for the war.
2) Patty Murray and Jim McDermott are all over this case now with Maria Cantwell on both of their formal letters to Bush and Condeleeza Rice. Rice's aides are on top of it with Ron Spogli and his people in Rome as well as with Ambassador Cianni Castellaneta and his aides in Washington.
3) The word is there will be some wait until Berlusconi's aides can get organized enough to get the message down stream through the acting Minister of Justice. (Although appointing a new MOJ will be a priority anyway. But the result will be force Mignini to essentially put up or shut up before early summer.
4) At this time there is no feedback from Justice in Italy because of the political changes occurring and that there has been no MOJ since Mastella's resignation in January. But there is stirring in the proper channels.
5) Berlusconi and Bush are buddy-buddy obviously as Berlusconi supported Bush's war efforts and so does Castellaneta, who just threw a big dinner party for a number of wounded American troops at the Embassy here in Washington.
Although neither Berlusconi or Bush will probably ever hear of or recognize the name Amanda Knox (Bush probably just signed off the letter from McDermott to an aide, the way the channels work it is that there will be commitment from Italian Justice authorities to get internal and quiet pressure onto the prosecutors and judges to render clear and impartial hearings and trial (that is if, charges are warranted and filed).
So hopefully all of you here and the defendants there will get a more open and honest trial than might otherwise be the case.
Good Luck.
pet gator | 04.16.08 - 2:10 am |
___________
hardly about to waste time on someone like you who has nothing to say now am I,
Just did TLC. You are something else...really.
RE: danielleinDC | 04.16.08 - 2:10 am |
Great timing, this post. Something new for everyone to chew on like a pack of puppies!
danielleinDC | 04.16.08 - 2:10 am |
Welcome danielleinDC. Keep posting.
Yes, we'll have to see if and how the elections change things in general in the Ministry of Justice in Italy and this case in particular. I would hope that, since Italian judicial procedures foresee up to a year of preventive prison, and don't foresee any limit on the length of investigations, that within the administrative controls and checks that exist, this investigation gets the time it needs.
If one looks at Italian newspapers, while this "Giallo" has certain prominence because of the international angle, there are a number of Giallos being investigated across Italy (not surprising, it's a big country). Some investigations are going to be shorter, some longer than this one.
International pressure? Maybe. However, do we know how Mignini votes? If it's for Berlusconi, he may just get an extension on the year-long preventive prison.
-
International pressure? Maybe. However, do we know how Mignini votes? If it's for Berlusconi, he may just get an extension on the year-long preventive prison.
-
Kermit | 04.16.08 - 2:38 am |
__________________________________
Yes, imagine if things were as simplistic as that!
There are Italians in jail in America who aren't happy with things.
I doubt that these people are going to escape being taken to court.
What about you, if it is proven that the footprint and DNA on the bra clip is soley RG's and AK's 'mixed' blood sample is proven to be circumstantial (ie AK's blood from say a nose bleed mixed with DNA of MK already present in the bathroom)would you change your mind ?
Oceania8 | 04.16.08 - 1:08 am | #
YES - If RS and AK also had an alibi that matched and also the witnesses that saw AK or AK/RS were discredited or proven incorrect... And that the bleaching evidence at the cottage and the flat was proven to lead no where....
Then yes I would Oceania...
We will see who is correct.....
Best regards, LW
If it's for Berlusconi, he may just get an extension on the year-long preventive prison.
-
Kermit | 04.16.08 - 2:38 am |
You got it Kermit!
Buenos dias
With a report which in the space of 12 hours has gone down from 56 pages to 52,
La Stampa says that Meredith's face was pushed against the floor.
So hopefully all of you here and the defendants there will get a more open and honest trial than might otherwise be the case.
Good Luck.
danielleinDC | 04.16.08 - 2:10 am | #
Thanks danielle for this post. Yes,as soon as I heard Il Berlusca was back in power I knew there would be some movement on this. It is reassuring to hear this news that the powers that be are finally going to be putting some international pressure where it so desperately needs to be applied in this case. One cannot hope for anything more than open and honest trial, if it indeed goes that far for AK and RS. Keep us updated.
I doubt that these people are going to escape being taken to court.
TLC | 04.16.08 - 2:42 am |
Perhaps it should be noted that in Italy justice is independent meaning that pm and judges are not elected but they get their post based on experience and merit. This is to guarantee freedom from any kind of political pressure.
Good morning from sunny Milano TLC,after a few days of "blade runner"-like weather the sun shines again
Berlusconi will face demands from the volatile Northern League party, an ally that had a better-than-expected showing in the election and is crucial to ensuring the Senate majority — giving it critical leverage.
"Now we need to implement reforms. If not, we will lose our patience," Northern League leader Umberto Bossi said in an interview with Turin-based newspaper La Stampa.
The league wants tougher immigration rules and zero-tolerance on crime... Associated Press
International pressure? Maybe. However, do we know how Mignini votes? If it's for Berlusconi, he may just get an extension on the year-long preventive prison.
-
Kermit | 04.16.08 - 2:38 am | #
I think we can be assured that Mignini did not vote for Berlusconi!
Berlusconi is a long term outspoken adversary of the crazy powers the Public Prosecutors and Judges in Italy have, he has been pushing to have this changed for many years. Berlusconi has already said publicly since being elected that Public Prosecutors and Judges are top of his hit list. Berlusconi and Bush are pappa e cicca and have been for years.
Hey guys, why are you even bothering with that post which is all made up, and makes no sense? Bush is a lame duck president. Berlusconi has no reason to care what he wants. And the idea that Bush would even bother with this is laughable.
Hey guys, why are you even bothering with that post which is all made up, and makes no sense? Bush is a lame duck president. Berlusconi has no reason to care what he wants. And the idea that Bush would even bother with this is laughable.
Sparrow | 04.16.08 - 3:53 am
Ciao SParrow,
You are so right about this. I'm afraid Berlusconi priorities are others right now.
Something danielleinDC and many Americans fail to remember is that Italy in line with most of Europe has an independent judiciary.
Domenico Pacitti: There have been 13 criminal cases against Berlusconi so far. Some of these had multiple charges, most of them have now been concluded and all of them are pretty remarkable, even for an Italian prime minister. Let me just give you the list: bribing policemen and judges, false accounting, tax fraud, illicitly financing political parties, purchasing property illegally, violating antitrust laws, money laundering and Mafia involvement. He was also accused of perjury. That was for denying his membership of the P2 masonic lodge, an anti-Communist organisation that used Italy’s security services for political purposes. Well, perhaps the most perplexing of these accusations – and this really hasn’t received proper attention – was Berlusconi’s alleged complicity in 2 car bombings back in 1992. Those were the ones that killed anti-Mafia judges Falcone and Borsellino together with their police escorts. Berlusconi was also implicated in a series of 5 car bombings that shook Milan, Florence and Rome in ’93. Now, all of these bombings have been officially attributed to the Mafia. But who exactly the instigators were is, as far as I can see, still very much an open question. So those are the criminal accusations.
JUST Response: Was Berlusconi actually found guilty and sentenced on any of these charges?
Pacitti: He picked up an initial total of 77 months from 3 of these cases. Sixteen months were dropped after he won an appeal. And the remaining 61 months were eventually annulled by Italy’s statutory law of time limitations. This is a law which causes criminal liability to expire after a set period, usually 10 years. Eight more cases were similarly annulled as a result of time expiries and also as a result of amnesties – another way of helping Italian politicians to evade the law. There are just 2 charges on which Berlusconi has been found technically not guilty. One was for bribing financial police and another was for false accounts.
JUST Response: What exactly happened in the case of the charges against Berlusconi for his alleged involvement in the car bombings?
Pacitti: Basically what happened was that the public prosecutors in Caltanissetta and Florence who were investigating Berlusconi's involvement in those killings failed to conclude their investigations within the allotted time and were thus forced to drop the cases.
JUST Response: New legislation is reported to have been introduced in Italy purely in order to favour Berlusconi. Is that right?
Pacitti: Three new laws appear to have been purposely built just to let him off the hook. The first was passed in April of last year and what it did was to decriminalise the offence of false accounting for private companies. An investigating magistrate in Milan has referred this to the European Court of Justice on the grounds that it’s incompatible with EU law. The second...
Just Response
Does Berlusconi really want to take on the judges again over Amanda Knox?
I think not.
I also think that maybe while GWB may need Burlesconi, Burlesconi needs GWB like a hole in the head.
Thanks Sparrow for the info on RG. Don't go searching for the source, I know that's no fun.
Nicki, sorry but I don't agree with you about 'merit'. This is not a meritocracy. People don't get places based on merit. This is one of the most difficult things for foreigners to understand and it's also one of Italy's biggest problems.
I'm afraid Berlusconi priorities are others right now.
nicki | 04.16.08 - 3:58 am | #
Certo, Nicki. Vado a dormire. Ciao.
This is not a meritocracy. People don't get places based on merit. This is one of the most difficult things for foreigners to understand and it's also one of Italy's biggest problems.
damian | 04.16.08 - 4:09 am | #
It's a "concorso pubblico" Damian. Unless you are implying that all "concorsi" are manipulated-which I don't believe-then the posts are assigned based on experience and the "esame per magistratura" results
I know all about these "public competitions". I'm not implying they are all fixed, I'm saying that the huge majority are. Some good, honest competent people occasionally win them, but rarely without knowing the right people. Things may well be slightly different in Milan, I wouldn't know. I've never met anyone here who disagrees with me on this. The context is important and I understand the temptation to defend Italy from the daft attacks from certain quarters here. I never thought I'd defend the ILE or the pm when I came here, but found myself doing just that(on certain things) because I thought the criticism was based in ignorance. That said however, rose coloured glasses aren't going to help either.
It's who you know that counts.
Candace Dempsey | 04.16.08 - 12:28 am
I hope from now on that you will follow Steve's rules and not carry disagreements over from one blog to another.
You are right, and I apologise to you and to Steve.
I would point out in mitigation, however, that the aim of my post was to provide some information (ultimately from Frank's blog) about the witness. Of course I might have quoted Frank directly, but it did not seem quite fair to take the credit for finding it from the Anonymous User(s) on your blog.
I never expressed doubt about Frank of Perugia Shock or his research--as you have suggested
I never suggested such a thing. You must be jet-lagged still.
Nor did I do any lying.
I did not say you did. What I did said was, I thought the 48 Hours programme -- not you -- was ... hum, less than honest.
It's who you know that counts.
damian | 04.16.08 - 5:00 am | #
Damian, a "concorso pubblico" is transparent by definition, and it has the purpose to discourage the practice of "helping the friends of friends" (a practice that BTW I haven't seen much over here in the North).Perhaps things are different in Milano, I don't know where are you based. But after 20 years in Italy I am the living proof that it doesn't always work that way.Also many other people that I know have made it without having the "right connections", so although I agree that the system is not based exclusively on meritocracy and competition, to say that no meritocracy exists seems excessive to me.
As for the ILE, I don't question their good faith, but about their efficiency well...generally speaking, efficiency is not one of the top Italian qualities
Bluetit | 04.16.08 - 5:07 am |
Good morning Bluetit,
I think everybody understands you were in good faith
nicki | 04.16.08 - 5:54 am |
Thanks !
BTW I have just noticed that I mispelt 'apologize'. Sorry. I am not a native speaker of English, and I am afraid the rules about those -ize/-ise endings escape me !
Bluetit - 'Apologise' is the correct spelling in the UK. I think Americans always use the IZE ending, as well as leaving the 'U' out of 'color, flavor' etc
Frank's take on the witness Nara.
2befrank said...
she looks like a fake stupid to me.
I'm glad he explained it.
2befrank said...
Hey, I've been using an italian expression which may be misunderstood.
A fake stupid means someone who wants to appear stupid but he's not.
OT OT
Brian S. | 04.16.08 - 4:07 am |"Burlesconi, Burlesconi needs GWB like a hole in the head."
Brian, as Love Wolf well knows, I'm the last one to make comments about spelling ... as I know my postings are replete with them. I laughed at "Burlesconi" as I imagine him dressed up in drag and singing (didn't he really do that? or am I thinking of Rudy Giuliani?).
"Life is a cabaret, old chum ..."
-
"Life is a cabaret, old chum ..."
-
Kermit | 04.16.08 - 8:30 am | #
Well I could make an excuse about someone switching my e and u keys around, but if I'm honest it's probably something to do with the fact that I'm just not used to typing all these Italian names. I've even managed to spell both Mignini and Sollecito different in the same paragraph.
From La Nazione. "The characteristics of the weapon, which has 17'5 cm by 3cm blade, do not contrast with those of the injuries."
Cause of death. "asfissia meccanica da strozzamento-soffocamento e sommersione interna"
The article then goes onto explain "Blood impeded her breathing and the wounds to her neck were such that she could not have been saved."
They say she was stabbed and then strangled. They say it took between 7-10 minutes.
They give 2 possible explanations for the alcohol level; it was stored incorrectly and the ethanol reacted or someone added ethanol to the sample.
"transparent by definition" Nicki.
The only transparent things I've come across here are glass and water. Not the water in the lake, that's all murky...you could mistake your own reflection in that.
I don't think Lalli analyzed the knife...may be wrong, anybody know?
Kermit,
That WAS Rudy in drag!!...but
"BURLESQUE-ONI?"
What a great idea for a ("Cabaret"-inspired) musical parody all'italiana.
All together now, let's sing:
"Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go 'round. Money, money, money, money....."
The Cutting Edge documentary to be shown on Channel 4 will also include an interview with A Knox's prison chaplain:
http://www.epsomguardian.co.uk/
n...to_be_aired.php
Damian, All -
"They say it took between 7-10 minutes."
7-10 minutes is quite a long time to die isn't it? Poor Meredith!
http://
www.yourlocalguardian.co....ith_kercher.php
the tributes are very enlightening.
i still havnt followed up what many of Meredith's classmates suggested of a memorial fund to be held by their old school's governing charity. if anybody wants the name and contact email of the finance officer that was the last person i dealt with in my chain of enquiries let me know by private message on Steve's new board and i will message you back with the details. maybe the Kerchers italian laywer is just as good an approach, i dont know.
i feel paralysed by my desire to be tactful when approaching a family i dont know whilst being aware that tact is a quality i sorely lack.
just for the record somebody flamed me a few halos ago implying i would be collecting money. no chance - never occurred to me to touch anything and indeed i swore off all banks accounts 3 years ago - somebody else even paypals for me for any ebay transactions i do that are not cash.
it sickens me that uncooperative persons in the investigation of Meredith's death are being trumpeted as 'victims'. DLW | 04.15.08 - 1:02 am sums it up for me. God give the Kerchers strength.
.
7-10 minutes is quite a long time to die isn't it? Poor Meredith!
Michael | 04.16.08 - 9:28 am | #
Michael:
I've never thought those 7-10 minutes prior to her death were the worst part of Meredith's agony, and I don't think it's just my wishful thinking.
Mercifully, there is a lot of hard medical evidence to suggest that in traumatic injuries and violence, morphine-like substances in the brain alter normal sensory awareness. Thank God for those biochemical changes just prior to dying.
I hope and pray--and do believe that unconsciousness came quickly for her.
What DOES haunt me is what Meredith experienced in the time immediately PRIOR to the infliction of the wounds--the indescribable terror and panic of CONSCIOUS Meredith facing one or more ferocious knife-wielding killers.
Traduco -
"Mercifully, there is a lot of hard medical evidence to suggest that in traumatic injuries and violence, morphine-like substances in the brain alter normal sensory awareness. Thank God for those biochemical changes just prior to dying."
I really hope you're right about that.
As for the time leading up to her being stabbed? Part of me is hoping she thought it to be some tasteless prank....but I know that's a very slim hope and pretty damn unlikely.
Fake stupid,
In English, borrowed from French, we use the term "faux naïf" to refer to someone who makes a false show of innocent simplicity. In other words, someone who feigns ignorance.
As for the quality and thoroughness of the investigation, I'd be tempted to put more store in what Frank says than in what one couple said in casual conversation with a stranger, as reported by that stranger. Frank lives in Perugia; he knows many of the protagonaists; when he has a doubt or a question he obtains an interview with the person in question. He has professional interviewing skills. Like my mom says, you always have to consider the source. Some are more reliable than others. As Frank has often said, he's not rooting for anyone. And I believe him. If he has a target, it is sloppy, hasty and dishonesting reporting. If anyone has screwed up so far, I'd have to say it is some but by no means not all of the journalists who are covering the case. And it isn't entirely their fault. Nick Pisa, for example, is certainly under pressure to get whatever tidbit he can out before anyone else. Media competition is ferocious. As circulation and audience decline, so do budgets. This means no money for such things as competent interpreters and translators. As Steve Huff noted in an earlier thread, the reporting on this case has become confused and confusing. We are lucky here to have people who are bilingual, because it helps to compare information from as many sources as possible.
I don't think we'll know how effective the investigation was until it is over and the evidence is presented. And while everyone has the right to make any claims they want about how Mignini votes or how this investigation is being conducted, no matter how anecdotal the evidence (someone said the dumpsters weren't checked and so on), for me it amounts to wishful thinking and nothing more. As the Big Lebowski said, "that's just, like, your opinion, man." And this is mine.
The Cutting Edge documentary to be shown on Channel 4 will also include an interview with A Knox's prison chaplain:
http://www.epsomguardian.co.uk/ n...to_be_aired.php
Michael | 04.16.08 - 9:26 am | #
At the very least, they are calling it the Meredith Kercher documentary. Better than CBS at any rate, though who knows what the slant will be.
Sorry about that. Anonymous at 10:36 am was me. Not sure what happened there...
"I feel paralysed by my desire to be tactful when approaching a family I dont know whilst being aware that tact is a quality I sorely lack.
God give the Kerchers strength.
rob | 04.16.08 - 10:05 am |"
Rob:
Tact can be vastly overrated, Rob. You have said many things in many places that I have applauded from the wings, silently, because a certain degree of tact made me hold my tongue.
Corrina,
Who feels the upcoming Meredith Kercher documentary will be better than CBS's?
thanks skep.
.
Indie,
Well, I certainly don't but I didn't watch the CBS special and won't be watching this either. I was just trying to give that article Michael posted a little bit of an "atta boy" since the headline stated "Meredith Kercher documentary" instead of having Amanda's name anywhere in the headline, unlike the US media or CBS for example in their articles that make Amanda out to be the poor victim. I'm sure this special on 4 will be more crap, like the 48 Hours. (I did read the transcript)
Soozie, I hope you didn't think I was 'shouting' at you the other day. I just wanted to clear up a translation problem before people started 'speculating' on erroneous information. I wasn't angry and I wasn't referring to you. Somebody else here recently seemed to revel in talking about somekind of 10 hour ordeal involving lots of booze. That kind of crap is what many crap newspapers were trying to generate last week...Corriere della Sera at the top of the list.
Corrina, atta girl!
Hello, Damian. Dog of a Wednesday here, but 70 degrees and sunny.
Hoping you are well...
Thanks Corrina and I agree with your sentiment.
Well our headlines today are all about a special visitor from the Vatican.
Pope Benedict XVI is celebrating his 81st birthday in Washington with a lot of happy Catholics and dignitaries.
and he's pushing mr brown to the sidelines.
.
Soozie, I hope you didn't think I was 'shouting' at you the other day.
damian | 04.16.08 - 11:00 am |
---------
I'm confused. Did you shout at me? If so, I have no recollection of it as I was smoking hashish all day
Seriously, I didn't take offence to anything you said, that shows how innocuous I must have thought it was.
And even if you had shouted, I would have forgiven you
-----------------
I'm confused. Did you shout at me? If so, I have no recollection of it as I was smoking hashish all day
Soozie UK | 04.16.08 - 11:27 am | #
That was hilarious
xo
What DOES haunt me is what Meredith experienced in the time immediately PRIOR to the infliction of the wounds--the indescribable terror and panic of CONSCIOUS Meredith facing one or more ferocious knife-wielding killers.
Traduco | 04.16.08 - 10:16 am
--------
I know. It's horrifying that her family have to live with this. I am still haunted by my mum's final 30 minutes as the police told us in graphic detail how she had been murdered.
Those images and waves of pain remembering the suffering she went through never go away, no matter how many years have gone by.
Time may pass, but in the cases of a savage murder, it rarely 'heals'.
--------------
Damn Skep, you're good.
I only wish that I could do it.
Oceania88,
Regarding the lack of canvassing in the neighborhood surrounding the cottage, well, that is great news then for the defense. I hope you asked your friends to come forward and perhaps approach Telenorba so they might be able to do a segment on that. Seems like that would be one more nail in the prosecutions coffin, particularly given the great number of neighbors affected and wondering why they hadn't been approached by the police for interrogation. Or maybe you could alert the defense yourself and alert them to this crucial information relayed to you by close friends in Perugia. This could blow the case wide open and demonstrate how incompetent these keystone cops have been.
The real reason I take this case at face value is because it is what it is.
A girl was murdered in Perugia Italy.
There are no politics or local intrigue involved.
Why shouldn't the cops solve it?
It's just part of the day job.
"2) Patty Murray and Jim McDermott are all over this case now with Maria Cantwell on both of their formal letters to Bush and Condeleeza Rice. Rice's aides are on top of it with Ron Spogli and his people in Rome as well as with Ambassador Cianni Castellaneta and his aides in Washington.
...There will be commitment from Italian Justice authorities to get internal and quiet pressure onto the prosecutors and judges to render clear and impartial hearings and trial (that is if, charges are warranted and filed).
danielleinDC | 04.16.08 - 2:10 am | #"
Thanks for posting, Danielle. It is good to have information from an insider about what is going on behind the scenes. This is OT (which means Off Topic, not On Topic), but I also appreciated the update on what my state senators are up to. As a voter, I hope they are also spending sufficient time on other pressing matters of the day:
1) The ongoing war in Iraq, where more than 4,000 US soldiers have now lost their lives since 2003, in a war the Bush's defense secretary said was an open and shut case that would be wrapped up after five days.
2) The fallout from the subprime fiasco, which has been a boon for locksmiths, because they get to put lockboxes on all those foreclosed homes.
3) The recession, which is related to the subprime fiasco, and which has arrived in tandem with inflation, particularly in food and gas prices.
4) Global warming, which appears to be insensitive to higher gas prices.
This list is not exhaustive, of course.
In any case, the authorities announced some time ago that the investigation would be wrapped up by this summer at the latest. It would be good if any charges to be filed were filed quickly and any suspects charged brought to trial. The Kercher family deserves this courtesy above all. They have been very patient.
Brian,
I think the only reason it is being manufactured/*sold* to the American public as a matter of politics and intrigue is because the defense of Amanda needs it to be so, because they don't want the truth to come out. Much like the selling of the Iraq war/invasion/liberation/Bushmasturbation, you just keep repeating and repeating and repeating the same thing over and over and over again and people start to believe it. They are playing it like a new product campaign.
On a side note, this brought to mind the post on the 15th of April by DLW (thanks for that; I visited the Electic Chapbook to read in full)and how that poster brought up a good point of how even with Meredith's death, Amanda and her family are still competing with her. It's a air of "yes, yes, she's dead. Can't we all just finally forget about her and concentrate on ME?" ~insert stamping of foot here~
Fake stupid
Skeptical Bystander | 04.16.08 - 10:35 am |
Indeed the Italian is "fare la tonta"
Great Skep as usual!
damian | 04.16.08 - 9:06 am | #
I am sorry to hear that you have had such a negative experience. Luckily for me, I cannot say the same.
'They are playing it like a new product campaign"
yeah the latest leaks from the autopsy review seems to have UPHELD the first report stating that there is no evidence of rape but it is now being HEADLINED like BREAKING NEWS so in this light set them free...(the same light as all those months ago)
the cops believe the 'sex attack' element is a staging for very blatantly obvious reasons, not because they are perverse...
.
Mignini, lifting his skirt slowly, Berlusconi in drag... what's going on with Kermit?!
Hello all. Welcome DanielleinDC.
I just got off the phone with Jim McDermott's office in DC. The nice woman I spoke with informed me that Jim McDermott NOR his office are "all over this". They have been contacted by the Knox's or the Knox's lawyers but Mr. McDermott has NOT gotten involved and has written NO letters to Bush and Co. She did say that Amanda's lawyers are sending them different information, keeping them up on the case but that you know, this is Italy we're talking about, not some place where you would worry, oh, my goodness, what COULD they be doing to her. She did say that they have heard *nothing* at all from the Knox family regarding Amanda being hit. I thought that was interesting. She did ask if I was calling from some organization and I said no, just a normal citizen who saw something on a blog stating that Mr. McDermott and others were on the case, right up to Bush and Rice. She seemed to find that very amusing.
Off to call Patty Murray's office...yep, this journalist stuff is absolute rocket science, kids!
Sparrow | 04.16.08 - 1:08 pm |"Mignini, lifting his skirt slowly, Berlusconi in drag... what's going on with Kermit?!"
OT OT ... I think I'll use the same argument as Soozie: I smoked so much weed that I can't remember.
Don't they say that power is an aphrodisiac?
-
blinding, corrina, fucking blinding!!!
like TV said the truth is out there!!!
.
Corrina | 04.16.08 - 1:10 pm | "Off to call Patty Murray's office...yep, this journalist stuff is absolute rocket science, kids!"
Go Corrina! Go!
-
Just got off the phone with Patty Murray's office. Tried her Washington DC office but alas, got voice mail. Called the Seattle office and the kind gentleman who answered stated that Patty is not "on top of this" and has not been in touch with Bush or Rice.
Now, who was next on that list?
me too corrina me too!! im 'all over this'...
.
just ignore my secretary please...
.
Corrina | 04.16.08 - 1:10 pm |
Simply fantastic!
,i>Good Luck.
danielleinDC | 04.16.08 - 2:10 am,/i>
do you really think us the us government will interfere with the JUDICIAL proceedings of another 'developed' country? if YOU are a proud american buck up and glory in the constitutional SEPARATION of the judiciary, legislature and executive.
learn what it means to be american, i did as a child gazing upon the constitution in washington dc (the city conceived of by that famous frenchman...)
.
Corrina - you are amazing. Go get 'em!
Huh, so no one heard of the supposed Amanda battering? Hmmmmm. . .
----------
Soozie,
Well at least not in McDermott's office but granted, I called his DC office (since Danielle was well, in DC, according to her handle). Murray's office didn't bring it up and neither did I.
Okay, I think I will try one more call and if I strike out again, will take the post from D in DC to be one of them thar diversionary tactics.
the big a team should get in to with fair trials abroad if they really believe the big a is being 'railroaded' by a 'corrupt' judicial process...that organisation will be glad to get involved if they see prima facie that a miscarriage of justice is occurring.
the big a and team of wailing whiners is to me, a holder of dual nationality - scottish/usa, portray the depths of the ugly american.
.
Maria Cantwell's office said they haven't heard anything about it but they have heard about the case itself but to her knowledge, they are not involved.
I was going to try Spogli but don't want to pay for an international phone call to strike out again.
Perhaps Danielle will come back on and let us know where she got her information from. Would be interesting to know.
correction:
they 'should get in touch with'
and the team is to me....a portrayal of the depths of the ugly american.
i swear by the almighty flag to use preview from now on to spare you my hideous typos...
.
Terrific work by Corrina. That has given me a good laugh on a busy day.
Damn, Corrina.
You are good! Might I suggest a call to the White House?
where is coyote waits and the medal awards when you need her? surely corrina 'goes to the head of the class'
lol just an dodgy joke for you old timers
.
"Off to call Patty Murray's office...yep, this journalist stuff is absolute rocket science, kids!
Corrina | 04.16.08 - 1:10 pm | #"
Good for you, Corinna.
I sent emails to both Murray and McDermott with a copy of the information from Danielle, just asking that they confirm their level of involvement.
I tend to be suspicious of politics and political channels. In this case, as I noted above, the investigation is supposed to wind up by early summer at the latest. Look at the Newsweek article from late January, the one with excerpts from the prison diaries released by the defense attorneys.
I do hope that once the investigation is over charges will be filed (or not) swiftly and that, if they are filed, the trial will happen sooner rather than later. I'll say it again: Meredith's family deserves this above all. For the suspects and their families I also wish for a speedy trial. And I feel for Edda Mellas. Her pain is real. It seems to me that, in addition to being concerned for her daughter's mental health, she is also uncomfortable with the "co-victim" strategy that has been pursued of late. That's just a guess on my part based on her body language.
Well, now, Rob I was once "Head Teller" at the bank. Imagine my surprise when I found out what that REALLY means. (awful, I know. Unlike the Italian police, I admittedly AM perverse, but a lot of fun at parties) tee hee hee
go go go corrina - i know it feels great to pursue your own line of information..now i must off to feed the ravenous weimaraner.
.
I got a bird that whistles,
I got a bird that sings.
I got a bird that whistles,
I got a bird that sings.
But I ain' a-got Corrina,
Life don't mean a thing.
Mercy, but this board is full of sweets today. I just figured it was something I could do to contribute to make up for my often tactless comments. And like Danielle implied, it was very easy to look up their numbers and pick up the phone.
Gal, you been on my mind...
Thanks, Brian.
xo
Corrina,
If there is such a thing as a blog award for being fu*king funny and ace, and also for the respect of Meredith and true justice you would have it dangling around your pretty neck my dear!!
I have just got in and read the exchanges and you have made my evening girl.
I have had enough of all the politics bullsh*t and it is so clear what people are trying to do...
Thank you Corrina and kisses you to you Soozie regarding your Mother. I have not lost a family member as a result of an evil deed but did find out today that my younger sister is riddled with bone cancer having what we thought had beaten breast cancer 6 years ago.... Life can be cruel... BUT having a loved one taken away by an evil deed, and then the lies and contempt that follows.... is even worse.... and in the case of Meredith that is what has happened... the defense want to turn this in to a circus... This suits them as Corrina says, as this is the only defense strategy.. telling the truth is not.... as that means they will have to admit their involvement in the murder of Meredith.......
Regards to all
LW
LW,
As an oncology nurse I feel compelled to clarify something about your dear sister's cancer. It most likely isn't a new primary cancer in her bones but your sister's breast cancer has now metastasized to the bones. So in other words your sister's original breast cancer has spread to the bones. If your sister elects to undergo more treatment it will be for breast cancer not bone cancer. Sometimes people misunderstand this concept and think they or a loved one as a "new" cancer when in fact it is the "old" cancer rearing it's ugly head again.
But after saying all that and without knowing all the facts it is possible for people to have two different primary cancers at the same time.
LW I wish your sister comfort as she fights another battle. May she be blessed with wonderful caregivers.
the big a and team of wailing whiners is to me, a holder of dual nationality - scottish/usa, portray the depths of the ugly american.
.
rob | 04.16.08 - 1:38 pm | #
This reminds me of what Meo Ponte said, that AK wanted to make up yet another story, but her lawyer threatened to quit if she did so. It seems that Danielle and her group think laying lie upon lie is a good strategy. They are Amanda's worst enemy, other than herself. They should all thank God she has a good Italian lawyer, smarter and classier than the whole lot of them.
Thanks Indie..... appreciate your thoughts and advice.. She has a CT scan next week as they feel that it has spread further to liver etc... so not looking good, she has had sore hip for a few weeks and that is the reason she went to doctor then she was referred and had results today regarding extensive spreading.. she is a fighter.... and I admire you indie for what you do... thank you x
OT: I'm sorry Love Wolf for your terrible personal news. I have seen cancer close up in people around me, as you and many of us have, I'm sure. I've seen sad stories but also some happy ones. Bone cancer is not good ... but if it's there, help your sister take up the fight. We're with you in our little virtual, yet supportive world.
-
Kermit.... thank you are right, friends and now family..... Sadly it is a sign of us all growing that these thing become more frequent..... it does hit home though that Meredith was young, beautiful and happy with her world ahead of her.... before it was cruelly ripped away.....
"LW I wish your sister comfort as she fights another battle. May she be blessed with wonderful caregivers.
indie | 04.16.08 - 3:06 pm | #"
Me too, LW.
Wow. Soozie, so sorry to hear the heartbreak you must have been through; losing a mom is never going to be easy but in such a way. No words can begin to express it so I won't try but will send you a hug on the astral...you, too LW. Best wishes and courage for your sister and you and your family as well.
xo
Oceania8 | 04.16.08 - 3:34 am | #
_________________
Be just your luck that if your son gets murdered on a Friday night in Perugia (it might happen) a bunch of ignoramuses will go and undermine everything to do with getting the killers brought to justice, and could you complain? what with your rotten attitude and all and your total lack of empathy for the Kercher family.
Although neither Berlusconi or Bush will probably ever hear of or recognize the name Amanda Knox (Bush probably just signed off the letter from McDermott to an aide, the way the channels work it is that there will be commitment from Italian Justice authorities to get internal and quiet pressure onto the prosecutors and judges to render clear and impartial hearings and trial (that is if, charges are warranted and filed).
So hopefully all of you here and the defendants there will get a more open and honest trial than might otherwise be the case.
Good Luck.
danielleinDC | 04.16.08 - 2:10 am
Hahaha..This really is a silly post. First, the implication that the Italian justice system will not conduct an open and honest trial without the intervention of George Bush is presumptious and ignorant! Secondly, I wouldn't think George W would want to cast any stones about unfair detention or trials as long as the glass house known as Guantanamo is still standing.
Note to DanielleinDC: if you want to find a cause regarding trials, imprisonment and justice read "Five Years of My Life" by Murat Kurnaz
A2,
Great post! Yep, like King George is some sort of monument to truth and justice, right? Dream on, Danielle, you'll get to wonderland. More tea?
nicki | 04.16.08 - 3:42 am |
___________________________
Hi Nicky thanks for the sun it arrived a bit today, though monkeys, brass and balls, not as in foot, are not entirely absent. I know it can be cold enough up in the north there.
The street is being dug up here for gas piping, they started 6.17, I'm sure they have their clocks adjusted wrong.
Small streets in Holland, I'd say they had more space on Alcatraz, if I don't move soon I'm going change into the Birdman.
Anyway, am pleased to see the discrediting agenda is going all wrong for the schiaccianoci and assorted cupcakes
ciao mi amore.
Ciao bella
Hello Love Wolf,
I'm sorry to hear about your sister, wishing you strength and sending blessings.
Corrina,
Like I said, despite her attempt at authority by throwing the "DC" in her handle, it's just a silly post (maybe DC means "DisConnect"?).
By the way, thanks to you, too, Corrina!! Loved your phone work on this subject! You are officially in charge of debunking all governmental threats to this trial being seen through!
LW, So sorry to hear about your sister. Wishing you, your sister and your family much grace, strength and compassionate support throughout this fight.
Well, can't get a human being at Condi's office. Guess I'm going to the cowboy from Texachussetts now "he who hides behind walls, he who hides behind desks"
"Note to DanielleinDC: if you want to find a cause regarding trials, imprisonment and justice read "Five Years of My Life" by Murat Kurnaz
a2 | 04.16.08 - 4:19 pm | #"
Not to mention Leonard Peltier. I'm surprised we haven't heard from Friend of Peltier yet.
Corrina | 04.16.08 - 4:43 pm |
__________
You is not just a pretty face eh, well done, imagine a loony like Bush getting involved, they'd end up bringing back the death penalty
Yes, now would be a great time to encourage Bonehead Bush to consider a presidential pardon for Peltier. Clinton promised he would, but bowed down to the FBI protest just before he left office. Bonehead could free Peltier just prior to Nov just to make the Dissappointing Party look bad and do wonders for the Ridiculous Party candidate
No, TLC, not just a pretty face but I did warn you up front I'm just a little beggar girl (and Sally is me name, if you call me a skiver then I'll call you the same...whoops, lapsed into Richard and Linda Thompson there)
Anywho, called the White House switchboard, explained myself and asked if the (p)Resident was aware of the case and was getting involved after the letters he's apparently received from Cantwell and Murray and the nice girl who sounded very confused said to the best of her knowledge, they aren't even aware of the case.
Now, I'm sure that Danielle would not deliberately mislead us, therefore I can only assume that she *misspoke* (or would that be typed) ;P
Corrina
The person who answered the phone sounded very confused and wasn't even aware????
Sounds like you got right through to George himself
Or his dog.
-
Regarding the lack of canvassing in the neighborhood surrounding the cottage, well, that is great news then for the defense. I hope you asked your friends to come forward and perhaps approach Telenorba so they might be able to do a segment on that. Seems like that would be one more nail in the prosecutions coffin, particularly given the great number of neighbors affected and wondering why they hadn't been approached by the police for interrogation. Or maybe you could alert the defense yourself and alert them to this crucial information relayed to you by close friends in Perugia. This could blow the case wide open and demonstrate how incompetent these keystone cops have been.
Corrina | 04.16.08 - 12:16 pm | #
I hear Mignini has a vacancy for a new publicist, you should apply, you and Mignini would make a great team.
TLC
What you said to me in your last post is appalling and upsetting. You have reached a new level of low. I'm sure it makes you feel big and strong saying nasty things like this to people while hiding behind the safety of your computer, especially with all your friends around you applauding and sniggering.
Corrina - thanks for the sweet words. By the way, I did not receive your astral hug. Or did I???
You see, after the hashish, I think I made love with my fish and ate my boyfriend during a late dinner, but I cannot be sure.
So maybe I did receive your hug.
I will go check my diary.
---------------
LW, sending positive vibes for your sister to get through this with as little suffering as possible. She clearly has a family that care very much for her. That must be of some comfort to her.
------------
OT STUFF
So little time, but so many thought-provoking posts today.
SOOZIE: Let me add my voice to the chorus of those who extend their deepest sympathy to you. For the grieving, I know, it is never to late to hear heartfelt condolences.
In some small way, I think I can understand what you lived and do live every day of your life as a result of your catastrophic loss. As I think I mentioned here before, I had a close friend who was murdered about 10 years ago.
Drugs and alcohol fueled the killing, and the man convicted of his killing confessed.It was a textbook open and shut case. This was almost 10 years ago, and news of his savage murder and the trial was available on line for ages. Recently, I tried to look up a detail about the trial, and to my surprise, there is practically nothing left. (I know, of course, that I could get any info. if I wanted to, from newspaper archives. But, of course, I don't need to "know" anything more. ) What a strange feeling. In the beginning, I was horrified that all that you could Google about this Ivy League educated man with a fascinating life, loving family and a multitude of interests...all that you could read about him online were sordid details of his murder. And then, in time, when the information was removed...believe it or not, it felt like a second loss.
LOVE WOLF: I am one of the many who sends my very best wishes to your sister. I know this is very OT, but may I suggest a website that is very helpful SPECIFICALLY FOR WOMEN WITH BREAST CANCER that has metastasized. www.bcmets.org
Stage III and Stage IV breast cancer can be a tricky, but the amazing news is that there are some patients who live
A GOOD QOL FOR YEARS AND YEARS *WITH* THEIR CANCER. May your sister be one of those!
AND, BTW, A BLESSED PASSOVER TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!
On a lighter note--
CORRINA: BRAVA!!! Sei troppo forte!! You're a gal with "grinta" (pluck and determination all rolled up in one) Thanks for your efforts!!
Traduco, thank you, and so sorry about what happened to your friend. It's almost surreal isn't it? Fortunately for me, there was no internet when my mother was killed so I didn't have to see anything about it. I think it would be awful if the details of it were online for other people to make judgement calls about her (as did the newspapers at the time.)
I kept all the newspaper cuttings out of some morbid need that I still can't explain. Meredith's family have all this to come. You can't help but feel so affected by it all. I just hope they're a close family that don't get ripped apart by it (like mine did), as they'll need the support of each other to get through the rest of their lives.
--------------
Oceania8 | 04.16.08 - 5:10 pm
__________________________
i find your bad vibes appalling too.
It's like you are obsessed, no matter what anyone says, even asks you just keep on. I stand by what I said, because you just do not have the Kercher family in your sight at all, if you do, you have a very strange way of showing it.
So what's different about your kids then Oceania?
If they get murdered, are you telling me you'd welcome it, to have someone like you, behaving as you have done, here, going on about the system that is in place to apprehend criminals being no good? Wo uld you like it? The Kerchers have acted very bravely, very graciously, they lost their daughter, recently, they said they trustthe opeople involved in the investigation. Could you face those people, in person? and keep on and on about the prosecutor? and when they ask you to stop because they disagree, would you then keep on at them too?
I don't feel in any way sorry for you except that I find you unkind, and that is sad, for you it is sad.
It is true though, your son may get killed, because there is then a killer, according to your reasoning or lack of it, on the loose, the one that killed Meredith, because you think the wrong people are locked up. That adds up to if that is true then one or more of the killers is perhaps, on the loose and still in Perugia. If he does end up dead then who will stand by you? Would you like people to allow wha the police would do, to truly try and get justice, to be criticized unfairly? so that they'd even not be able to do their jobs. I mean because if you have your way, no police can do a job in Perugia.
You are un unfair and insensitive mother, so you deserve the same as you give out.
I am not the one wishing that on you, it is you who are responsible for you, I am not responsible for your karma.
Oceania8 | 04.15.08 - 9:34 pm |
As I posted earlier she could have been interviewed by the PM AFTER he had seen her on the news as 48 hrs said. The main point is that witnesses did not appear to be canvassed at any time after the murder. This woman was apparently bought to Mignini's attention by way of her i/v on TV.
Brian S. | 04.15.08 - 9:45 pm |
What interview on TV?
Re Sra Capezzali's testimony (see Bluetit | 04.15.08 - 7:15 pm |)
I have been trying (in a very amateurish way, I am afraid) to trace that TV interview, but I have been unable to find out anything about it, not even the date. Now, I am quite willing to believe there was such a programme, but I really would like to know when it went on the air. Does anyone know ? Oceania ?
However I got something from a -- questionable, I know -- source (Corriere della Sera,) :
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/
...3ba99c53b.shtml
C'e una nuova testimone nell'inchiesta sul delitto di Meredith Kercher. E una signora che abita di fronte alla villetta dove la ragazza inglese e stata assassinata. La polizia l'ha interrogata alla fine di novembre.
This agrees with Biscotti's November 27th (as reported by Frank). Assuming that the publication date (December 14th) of the article would be likely to be close to the time when the story broke, I suppose that any TV programme would have taken place about that time too -- therefore appreciably later than the interrogation.
P.S. The CdS journalist (Fiorenza Sarzanini) mentions the police, while Biscotti said the PM. Another press inaccuracy ?
TLC,
It's like you are obsessed, no matter what anyone says, even asks you just keep on. | 04.16.08 - 5:59 pm | #
LoveWolf,
I'm sorry about your sister's bad news and hope very much that she will be okay. Hang in there.
~Jumpy
SOOZIE:
Yes, "surreal" doesn't even begin to cover it--the aftermath of a murder. The ripple effect of such a tragic event is staggering and lasts a lifetime. No, make that LIFETIMES...(the aftermath is often visited on more than one generation)
A mother is often the lynchpin of of the family, so it's terribly sad and painful, however not surprising, maybe even normal what happened to your family. How awful.
As for the Kerchers, I recall that Meredith's mother was undergoing kidney dialysis. What a excruciatingly difficult life that is. Adding the nightmare of losing Meredith--her suffering is incomprehensible.
One of the most gut-wrenching and distressing images I can recall ever watching on TV was the face of Ron Goldman's sister as the "not guilty" OJ Simpson verdict was read. While details of THAT trial have faded, the image of shock and sheer anguish on Kim's face in that moment remains a vivid reminder of what it means when the second most horrible thing that could happen to you, happens--i.e., that the killer or killers of your loved one are set free, unpunished by the criminal justice system.
As for the Kerchers, I recall that Meredith's mother was undergoing kidney dialysis. What a excruciatingly difficult life that is. Adding the nightmare of losing Meredith--her suffering is incomprehensible.
One of the most gut-wrenching and distressing images I can recall ever watching on TV was the face of Ron Goldman's sister as the "not guilty" OJ Simpson verdict was read. While details of THAT trial have faded, the image of shock and sheer anguish on Kim's face in that moment remains a vivid reminder of what it means when the second most horrible thing that could happen to you, happens--i.e., that the killer or killers of your loved one are set free, unpunished by the criminal justice system.
Traduco | 04.16.08 - 6:43 pm | #
___________________________________
Very well put Traduco, exactly.
Meredith's mother, had been paying most of Meredith's fees/costs and her house is in bad need of repairs. I hope somehow she is managing. I will definitely donate somehing if a fund is made to help.
ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder
Specifically, the dissocial personality disorder is described by the World Health Organization by the following criteria:
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
Marked proneness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
Persistent irritability.
The criteria specifically rule out Conduct disorders.[3] Dissocial personality disorder criteria differs from that for antisocial and sociopathic personality disorders.[4]
"of what it means when the second most horrible thing that could happen to you, happens--i.e., that the killer or killers of your loved one are set free, unpunished by the criminal justice system."
Traduco | 04.16.08 - 6:43 pm | #
------------
Absolutely. My mother's murderer, a CID officer, got the minimum sentence for manslaughter (15 months) and he only served 5 months before he was out for the summer. The fact he brought a knife to her shop, hired a different car so she wouldn't recognise him cruising up and down, and had a motive (to stop her talking to the police about him that very evening), made no difference, since the police protect their own. It was so clearly premeditated murder, but the police themselves were responsible for deciding to accept a plea for manslaughter. Unbelievable!!
---------------
About Nara:
I'll have to check with my source, but I believe Nara was on television in December. Personally, I don't think it matters much.
TLC:
If I were you, I would just ignore Spectator from now on. Go to the top of this thread and look carefully at the times Spectator posts. Spectator gets a cheap thrill out of making snide and nasty comments that add no value whatsoever. If Spectator is ready for a new handle, I think Festering Grudges is available.
Nara:
I found the email I received from Frank about Nara. I had sent him one asking about Nara after the CBS show. I told him she refused to show her face and said she had not been interviewed by the police. He was surprised by the latter statement, which is I think why he tracked her down for an interview.
Here's what he said in the email I received on April 14:
"Strange she didn't want to talk, she had the cameras even in her bedroom in December..."
That may help, Bluetit, if you are still looking for the date of that television appearance.
Hi Lone Wolf
Blessings to your Sis.
A hug
Skeptical Bystander | 04.16.08 - 7:34 pm |
_______________
Thanks Skep,
I came to that same conclusion.
she didn't want to talk,
Skeptical Bystander | 04.16.08 - 7:39 pm
_________________________________
I'm not surprised at all, what many don't realize, not knowing Italy Italians or Italian ways, is that Italians are far from stupid, the woman obviously has good sense, if she talked to every Tom, Dick and Harry, imagine what would happen, she'd have a string of people on her door every day.
One of the most gut-wrenching and distressing images I can recall ever watching on TV was the face of Ron Goldman's sister as the "not guilty" OJ Simpson verdict was read.
Traduco | 04.16.08 - 6:43 pm |
---------
I have no recollection of that at all, but I can imagine how she must have felt. What a tragic letdown for her after all she'd been through. It's a double blow when the killer goes free, and the people left behind can never get closure for that or move on or anything. How terribly sad to live the rest of your days with that hanging over you. I just hope/pray there's somewhere better than this when we all depart. A place where the guilty are punished and the victims are at peace. ------------------
--------------
TLC | 04.16.08 - 8:09 pm |
Ciao Bello
I agree, that's the classic "no see no hear no talk, just leave me alone" attitude.You surely know Italy and Italians quite well!
Bacioni
"that's the classic no see no hear no talk, just leave me alone" attitude.
Bacioni
nicki | 04.16.08 - 8:16 pm | #
__________________________________
Did me good to read that about her Nicki, very discreet, just like things ought to be.
bacio carina (I'll get fluent, hope you liked my nutcracker word in italiano, I think it probably means nothing but I thought you'd laugh or get it)
ciao ciao
stai bene stai tranquillo
che vediamo subito
I came to that same conclusion.
TLC | 04.16.08 - 8:04 pm | #
Hen's Nest
Among the orchard weeds, from every search,
Snugly and sure, the old hen's nest is made,
Who cackles every morning from her perch
To tell the servant girl new eggs are laid;
Who lays her washing by, and far and near
Goes seeking all about from day to day,
And stung with nettles tramples everywhere;
But still the cackling pullet lays away.
The boy on Sundays goes the stack to pull
In hopes to find her there, but naught is seen,
And takes his hat and thinks to find it full,
She's laid so long so many might have been.
But naught is found and all is given o'er
Till the young brood come chirping to the door.
John Clare
Here is a song, for you TLC, beautiful melody and nice lyrics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=s...feature=related
"See The World"
Day to day
Where do you want to be?
'Cos now you're trying to pick a fight
With everyone you need
You seem like a soldier
Who's lost his composure
You're wounded and playing a waiting game
In no-man's land no-one's to blame
See the world
Find an old fashioned girl
And when all's been said and done
It's the things that are given, not won
Are the things that you earned
Empty handed, surrounded by a senseless scene
With nothing of significance
Besides a shadow of a dream
You sound like an old joke
You're worn out, a bit broken
Asking me time and time again
And the answer's still the same
See the world
Find an old fashioned girl
And when alls been said and done
It's the things that are given, not won
Are the things that you earned
You've got a chance to put things right
So how's it going to be?
Lay down your arms now
And put us beyond doubt
So reach out it's not too far away
Don't mess around now, don't delay
See the world...
GOMEZ
Sickening how people again must come here with new agenda. Money will buy anything, even a soul.
What were we talking about? Oh yes, the knife plunged into Meredith Kercher's neck.
This has been discussed before but I still don't understand the reasoning behind it. Perhaps someone else does. Charlie Wilkes, are you here???
Reading through the initial Telegraph's Matteini report, it's clear that when Amanda and RS were initially questioned as witnesses on November 2nd, (along with the other flatmates),
they did indeed have the same story. Both were at the cottage with Meredith until about 3 or 4pm when Meredith left.
Amanda states that around 5pm, she and RS went back to his place where they spent the whole night together.
On the same day, RS was also interviewed (as a witness, not a suspect), and gave exactly the same account of events that Amanda did -
he and Amanda went back to his place where they spent the whole night together.
Given that on November 2nd, RS, Amanda and all the other people were being questioned only as witnesses - why would RS tell Kate Mansey just after he left the police station,
that he and Amanda had gone to party with one of his friends?
If he'd just been questioned by the police (while Amanda was at the cottage with the police) - why would RS tell the journalist a different story to the one he told police only minutes before?
Charlie Wilkes (and a few others) maintain that their stories matched until they were questioned again on November 5th and were 'interrogated' and pressured to change their stories. If we were to accept that - how does CW or anyone else explain the discrepancy in RS's story on the very same day he'd been questioned as a witness?
He wasn't under pressure, he was fully clothed and not handcuffed. He was not being treated as a suspect. So why the change in story so fast?
Is this one of the reasons police picked him up as a suspect later?
-------------------
What were we talking about? Oh yes, the knife plunged into Meredith Kercher's neck.
Jumpy | 04.16.08 - 10:43 pm | #
Exactly! Thank you...
"Soozie UK | 04.16.08 - 10:46 pm | #"
Good questions.
His interview with Kate Mansey is a mysterious thing. It was published on November 4. She had some interesting things to say about the circumstances of the original interview in her short article on Nov 11.
I wonder if the interview was tape recorded, or if she took notes, or both? I was recently interviewed for an article, and the journalist asked my permission to tape, even though I was really just giving a couple of sound bites. Isn't taping pretty much standard practice in newspaper reporting?
I don't recall that Charlie addressed this when he was here, but the question of that interview was raised.
jumpy - I think it's best simply to ignore those people whose interest here is clearly not about Meredith. And I'm sure Meredith would be smiling down at us to see how he defend her name and her honour with the loyalty and affection most of us have come to feel for her during the past few months.
The troublemakers are not worth responding to. It just plays into their slimy little paws when we react. So lets make a pact and ignore them - totally.
-------------
Isn't taping pretty much standard practice in newspaper reporting?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.16.08 - 10:58 pm
--------------
No it's not. Not in the UK anyway, you always have to get permission to tape.
Re: Mansey, I cannot see that she got it wrong or misquoted him. "We went to party with one of my friends"
and "We stayed at my place all night" can't possibly be mixed up unless she had also been smoking hashish all afternoon. . .
I assume she just took notes. It wasn't a long interview by all accounts so it wouldn't have been a hardship at all. No doubt the police know about it
and I can see why suspicions were aroused at an early stage in the investigation. It kind of quashes CW's theory entirely.
RS was under no pressure but it seems his mouth may have run away with him in his eagerness to "show he had nothing to hide".
-------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...MAIL&
ICL=TOPART
"Isn't taping pretty much standard practice in newspaper reporting?
Skeptical Bystander | 04.16.08 - 10:58 pm
--------------
No it's not. Not in the UK anyway, you always have to get permission to tape.
-------------------
Soozie UK | 04.16.08 - 11:11 pm | #"
That's what I meant, sorry. The journalist who interviewed asked if he could use his tape recorder.
‘that he and Amanda had gone to party with one of his friends?’....Soozie UK
Can’t answer for Charlie. Charles would probably say he that got his nights confused, after all it was a couple days after the murder. If he said that in contrast to what he said earlier, about staying home, then it would raise red flags. Michael has speculated that he went off script, and accidentally blurted out a version of the truth. Don’t know for sure which ‘party’ he was speaking about or what ‘friend’. That’s why his dad probably didn’t want him doing any interviews.
"RS was under no pressure but it seems his mouth may have run away with him in his eagerness to "show he had nothing to hide".
-------------------
Soozie UK | 04.16.08 - 11:11 pm | #"
Mansey noted in the follow-up piece that he seemed eager to be interviewed. Maybe he was seeking attention, showing off a little. Remember when he appeared in court just to give the judge his password? If you look at the photo taken that day, his expression is giddy and his eyes look vacant. He seems to be silently jubilating. I know I am reading lots into that photo; but I remember deing struck by it at the time.
In the comments to his latest post, Frank offers this clarification of his position on the witness Nara:
"I've published my interview with Signora Nara and I thought that was enough to explain the value of this witness.
But it seems that I have to add some comments because she looks to me the only reliable witness among the 3.
If I defined her a fake stupid there's a reason. I don't waste a frankism like this.
I was impressed to hear from her this week exactly the same story she told in november.
This woman is not a megalomaniac, she never tried to appear publicly, she has good memory and she tells things particular, detailed, original, bounded to those few, never changing, and in a way that you couldn't predict and you couldn't find on newspapers (assumed that she reads newspapers, which I doubt).
Not only that, she's even able to make fun of PI and to make him buy the story that she wasn't heard.
But talking with her for a while I had clear the impression that she was following a duty they gave her.
They told her not to tell anyone she was heard and that's what she does. Not that stupid, it seems, right?
And her testimony is very important. The Pm told me he knows exactly what happened. So they know who made that scream, who run towards that direction and who to the other. One day they will tell us."
The Pm told me he knows exactly what happened. So they know who made that scream, who run towards that direction and who to the other. One day they will tell us.
Bets are on that it is Amanda and Raf, case closed.
In case you have questions you would like asked for you...
"Posted by Candace Dempsey at 4/16/08 9:38 p.m.
Good news. Frank of Perugia Shock has agreed to be interviewed by me.
Since this is a grim story, I thought it would be fun if I asked you to suggest questions."
[from her P-I blog]
SB,
C'est bien de voir que vous continuez la bataille!
Please, let's leave speculations about other poster's children out of our discussions here. At the bare minimum, it's off topic.
bcpl
Glad to see you posting aqain.
DLW,
You don't say!
I do say. You have had many interesting comments.
"I do say. You have had many interesting comments.
DLW | 04.17.08 - 1:31 am | #"
Beep:
Je commencais à m'inquiéter.
I was beginning to worry.
Ravie que vous soyez de retour.
Glad you're back.
DLW,
'Thank you' is about all that I can say to you personally. With sure certainty, what I miss most about this place, is all the people who come here to discuss, for lack of a better term, this case; people like yourself for example. Looking back at the posts, I cannot help but see the humanity in all of the comments; probably like you, I find this blog to have an inexorable pull on me. I find it to be a cathartic experience almost. I wish you well. Good night.
SB,
'Ravie' est un bon mot. Cela me rend heureux. Bonne nuit. A bientot!
Beep:
Faites de beaux rêves et revenez vite!
Sweet dreams and come back soon!
About that Daily Mail article. (link above)
They say the police found RG's trainers at his flat, I thought it was an empty box of trainers. Anyone know if the police ever found those trainers?
They say RS claimed to have 'borrowed' that knife. Anyone seen that reported elsewhere?
The criminologist they quote,FB, the one from the C4 documentary, is working for RS's team.
ALL
Many thanks for you kind thoughts.... they are well received...
LW
"Why, then, the police's fixation with Knox? "Amanda is depicted by the investigators as a kind of spider, or what we call a black widow, a dangerous and murderous woman who catches in her erotic coil all the members of the crime scene," says Professor Bruno.
"I believe that had Amanda been ugly, this would not have happened." "
FB quoted by Daily Mail (from C4 documentary)
This is the expert criminologist who is working for RS's team. I wonder if C4 will mention that.
"members of the crime scene." ?
Sickening how people again must come here with new agenda. Money will buy anything, even a soul.
What were we talking about? Oh yes, the knife plunged into Meredith Kercher's neck.
Jumpy | 04.16.08 - 10:43 pm | #
__________________________________
Hi Jumpy,
Sad but true
_________________________________
They told her not to tell anyone she was heard and that's what she does. Not that stupid, it seems, right?
And her testimony is very important. The Pm told me he knows exactly what happened. So they know who made that scream, who run towards that direction and who to the other. One day they will tell us."
Skeptical Bystander | 04.17.08 - 12:02 am | #
__________________________________
Hi Skep,
Just as I thought.
"I am sorry to hear that you have had such a negative experience. Luckily for me, I cannot say the same." Nicki.
Nicki, my experience is irrelevant. La Repubblica led a few months ago with the findings of an official report on these things. 40 something percent of Italians get their jobs through raccomendazione. (through friends, not based on merit) As you correctly say, this happens much less in the north and/so it happens much more in the centre and south of Italy.
That was all I wanted to say. The link to the Repubblica article was put up in December I think.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.16.08 - 7:39 pm |
Thank you very much, SB. Sorry for the delay (time zones ... I live in France).
Candace Dempsey at 4/16/08 9:38 p.m.
Since this is a grim story, I thought it would be fun
jesus wept this cannot be true.
.
new evidence throws the Meredith Kercher case into chaos screams the mail online.
re mail and other hysterical headlines.
i think they are tied into the C4 show and pr spinners that have been scurrying around lately on behalf of the one and only big a.
remember a second autopsy was not allowed, just a review of the documented findings of lalli
slap me if i am wrong, but it seems to me the review of the original autopsy that has been leaked and is for discussion saturday JUST CONFIRMS THAT THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE INDICATIONS OF SEXUAL VIOLATION. just as was thought in Matteini's nov report.
a rape was never alleged but rather an "extreme sex game", which i believe by now may well have been discounted.
.
.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
gree..._have_ital.html
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 7:56 am |
useless jump on the bandwagon.
.
jesus wept this cannot be true.
.
rob | 04.17.08 - 7:14 am | #
__________________________________
I couldn't agree more, can you believe she calls herself a journalist?
A follow up on Rob.
I've got to laugh.
You have to put some things in the context of the the relationship between the UK and the EU.
The Daily Mail is rabidly anti-european and would love nothing better than UK withdrawal from the union.
Throwing mud at an Italian investigation is just another part of their forte.
brian
journos are lazy and are spoon fed stories by publicists who effectively write the stories for them so the journos can spend more time drinking and eating.
the lines we are getting have come from the press agents for the big a bandwagon and tonight's C4 show, which i guess we can imagine will be about poor little big a and not Meredith.
the tributes to Meredith by those that knew her http://
www.yourlocalguardian.co....ith_kercher.php show me that she was a genuinely likeable and considerate person.
.
A comment on John Kercher.
He's a freelance journalist.
If you Google his name, it's now very much drowned out by what happened to Meredith. BUT if you look, he's written for all the major UK publications, he's no amateur.
I suspect that one reason he's kept his head down is because he knows what goes on.
there is nothing in the press for John Kercher in this, i expect the investigation and trial hold more relevance for him.
.
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 7:56 am
Anonymous,
http://tinyurl.com/wmak
I omitted what I really wanted to say.
Neither C4 or the Daily Mail will carry the public unless they have input from the Kerchers.
C4 carrying the flag for an American without their comment just won't work.
Rob. I agree with you about the new report and the confusing articles. From the leaks, there seem to be 2 differences; the alcohol level(which the 3 experts put down to bad storage or another type of contamination) and the TOD, whose range seems to be an hour longer. I think the analysis of the knives wasn't done by Lalli, so that's new. Too much smoke and mirrors.
When/if the results are put in the public arena, it'll be interesting to go back and read that Corriere della Sera article again. I mention this because it's the 'biggest', 'most-highly reputed' paper in the land.
OT. Hope you've been finding the middle of the bat.
TLC | 04.16.08 - 5:59 pm | #
As someone who has read each of Steve's blogs on this case, read each comment ever posted ... I am simply stunned only one poster called out TLC on his/her vile comments about Oceania88's son.
To suggest someone's child may be murdered because of that person's position on the guilt or innocence of the suspects in Meredith Kercher's murder ... appalling.
Insincerity abounds in discussions of empathy and consideration for others.
Aw, shucks. Thanks, Traduco. I have always wanted to be plucky! You made me blush~
xo
"Insincerity abounds in discussions of empathy and consideration for others.
Andie | 04.17.08 - 9:54 am | #"
Sometimes silence speaks volumes, and if you have been reading intently you know that controversy and bickering between posters has been rampant of late.
I remember an earlier thread, where a certain poster asked me how I would like to have a finger shoved up my vagina, and when I said I found the remark offensive, I was told this was not a support group. I didn't expect anyone to come to my defense simply because it would have led to acrimony. Sometimes you have to read between the lines and move on.
Bluetit | 04.16.08 - 6:03 pm | I have been trying to trace that TV interview, but I have been unable to find out anything about it, not even the date....Assuming that the publication date (December 14th) of the article would be likely to be close to the time when the story broke, I suppose that any TV programme would have taken place about that time too.
Hi Bluetit. You are spot on regarding the publicity given to Nara Capezzali. I'm not sure if she also appeared on programs such as Matrix or Porta - Porta, but she was on the TV news on December 14 (I assume that is her)( BTW, that was the day of Meredith's funeral, which occupied much of the day's reporting concerning this crime):
Channel: Studio Aperto Time of broadcast: 12:25 h. December 14, 2007
Interview with neighbourhood witness (Capezali?) at the 2'00" mark.
http://video.centrodiascolto.it/...ideo/
220588.wmv
The interview at the beginning is with Vittorio Lombardo, one of Rudy's lawyers. He explains the significance of the neighbour's testimony, the noise of the metallic stair, and the fact that the carpark CCTV cameras should have filmed the "assassin's face".
(There's a jaunty looking Mignini with a pipe in his mouth at the 1'47" mark).
At the 2'00" mark there a doorway interview with the witness. My spoken Italian is inexistent, I can't make out if she talks only about "hearing" or also "seeing". Her house doesn't seem very large / deep.
------------------------------------------
While I was looking for that video, I came across this one, where the first 2 minutes is the voice of Rudy, in his famous Skype conversation before being arrested in Germany. He sounds pretty Italian and not too Ivorian to me. One article I read said he speaks with a local Perugian accent, which I certainly wouldn't pick up.
Channel: TG1 Time of broadcast: 20:00 h. December 14, 2007
Rudy's voice in the Skype conversation before he was arrested in Germany
http://video.centrodiascolto.it/...ideo/
220868.wmv
-
"As someone who has read each of Steve's blogs on this case, read each comment ever posted ... I am simply stunned only one poster called out TLC on his/her vile comments about Oceania88's son.
Andie | 04.17.08 - 9:54 am | #"
Sometimes, all it takes is one comment to get things back on or off track.
The one poster who called out TLC--and I mean this as no defense or condemnation of either party to this dispute--being perhaps a little more subtle than he, compares TLC to the nature poet John Clare. Go and read a bit about the life of John Clare and you'll see what is being implied.
If you were to ask me and probably most of the people who post here what we think about making personal comments like TLC's, you would find that it makes most of us uncomfortable. But what would you have us do? Put TLC on a time out? At least he signs his posts and is therefore accountable for them. What about those who hide behind a new moniker when they want to be nasty? Is that better?
I'm sorry to belabor this, because it is OT, but there was nothing to prevent you from stepping in and objecting to TLC's remark yourself, rather than reading along silently and then speaking out to condmn others for their own silence.
It's enriching to get input on the case from as wide a variety of opinions as possible, especially people who have been following all of the threads without weighing in.
Kermit, it's true that RG has a perugian accent.
It seems RS's team have a new lawyer. People say he is very, very good.
Damian, do you know his name?
-
Not off the top of my head, but I believe he represented them at the latest appeal. I don't know if he'll be involved in the trial, but from what I gather, that could be an advantage. If it's who I think it is, he's a prof at the University in Perugia, but doesn't practice here. He specializes in penal procedure I think. I saw his name last night in a national paper, April 2 maybe...
I can't make out if she talks only about "hearing" or also "seeing". Her house doesn't seem very large / deep.
Kermit | 04.17.08 - 10:41 am |
The lady says she heard the scream, and then heard the footsteps.Interesting what the reporter says about the security cam on the stairs (should have recorded the murderer face) What happened to it?
They also mention a bugged conversation that supposedly took place between Rudy and his dad, during which Rudy tells him that "He is afraid to name who killed Meredith". I didn't know about this.
Thanks Nicki. I assume we can say that this witness is Nara Capezzali, the one who Paul the PI "discovered", is that correct?
-
Ie. "discovered" four months after this TV interview.
-
Kermit | 04.17.08 - 11:25 am |
Yes, that must be the one
Okay. It seems that Joe the Sleuth and Paul the PI both went to the Daisyhill Detective Academy.
Joe failed in Biology class, and Paul failed in History (Background Checks) and also in Acoustics.
-
Okay. It seems that Joe the Sleuth and Paul the PI both went to the Daisyhill Detective Academy.
Joe failed in Biology class, and Paul failed in History (Background Checks) and also in Acoustics.
-
Kermit | 04.17.08 - 11:33 am |
I loved this one Kermit!
Actually the reporter asks the woman if she has seen the people, and the answer is :"It was pitch dark how could I possibly be able to see anything? But as far as hearing, well I heard very well".
The woman tone of voice sounds quite irritated, almost rude. It clearly shows that she doesn't like the idea of talking to the reporter at all.
Please, let's leave speculations about other poster's children out of our discussions here. At the bare minimum, it's off topic.
kb | 04.17.08 - 1:12 am | #
SB
I was referencing the above "call-out" by kb. I didn't note Spectator's comments for the very reason you point out.
I apologize for condemning others, when in fact, you are correct, I did not just express my own displeasure. So I will say that now: the comments were over-the-top and IMO have no place on a blog that strives to provide intelligent and thoughtful commentary.
There are some exceedingly bright and well-spoken posters on this particular blog . . . I guess I was just disappointed.
FWIW I did post in the early days ... I think I stopped around the time the medals were being handed out.
I've continued to follow silently, and am grateful for the incredible amount of knowledge many have provided.
Andie, keep posting. There's lots of input that we can all benefit from, from both our longtime lurkers and sometime posters.
--------------------
nicki | 04.17.08 - 11:44 am | "The woman's tone of voice sounds quite irritated, almost rude. It clearly shows that she doesn't like the idea of talking to the reporter at all."
I'm sure you picked up on the camera being hidden in the reporter's handbag or briefcase (or casually turned on as it was slung over a shoulder).
-
Kermit | 04.17.08 - 11:55 am |
Yes Kermit I did. My strong impression is that this woman hated to speak to the reported and couldn't wait to get rid of her.
"FWIW I did post in the early days ... I think I stopped around the time the medals were being handed out.
I've continued to follow silently, and am grateful for the incredible amount of knowledge many have provided.
Andie | 04.17.08 - 11:47 am | #"
Thanks for coming back and replying, Andie.
I didn't know any medals were handed out, though. Guess I missed the ceremony or was passed over. Darn! Maybe next year
I am kidding.
My own personal discomfort stems from a desire not to make this about the posters, and to keep it to being about Meredith Kercher. I know that is a pie-in-the-sky pipedream, and that behind every poster is a living, breathing and sometimes seething person, but what I learned from my unfortunate earlier encounter (the V monologue) is that it is best insofar as possible to ignore personal attacks and focus on the substance of the other person's argument. If there is no substance, then the best strategy is to ignore the post. It is so hard to do, but I can see no other way to avoid letting this degenerate into a rumpus room. Arguments can get very heated; they need not get personal, however. I truly believe this, and I say it knowing full well that I have not always lived up to that ideal. I'm not sure anyone has, but I think most of us try.
To suggest someone's child may be murdered because of that person's position on the guilt or innocence of the suspects in Meredith Kercher's murder
Andie | 04.17.08 - 9:54 am |
_______________
Andie, you are probably Spectator. it's in your little use there of ... maybe but I coukldn't give a shit
You don't seem to understand much.
I didn't say that, I said, and meant and still do, why should someone be kind and pitying of another if that person is not kind?
I think Oceania is very unkind to undermine everything about this case.
That is what I call vile.
The meaning of what I am saying is her son got killed, she would not like it if others did to her what she is doing.
My opinion is she does not care about the Kercher family she cares about Amanda Knox. I do'nt care about Amanda Knox because my opinion is that she is a liar.
So Andie here is the latest news.
Knox Free, Mignini to be Tried Instead
by a bunch of ignorant hypocrites.
Andie, you seem like a coward like the others who offer nothing and are unable to stand up to debate and then just cut in out of nowhere with nonsense and bad poems. You need others to fight your battles for you.
All of the nationalists shouting out about Knox, I do not like it, and I will use sarcasm to show what fools they are. Oceania is just on the roundabout, she doesn't want to get off.
I don't feel sorry for her.
I made a perfectly valid point. Her son is in Perugia she says, so if she says Amanda and Sollecito are innocent and Guede says he saw them and it has not been fought out in a court of law, and Guede is in fact innocent too, then it means the killer(s) are on the loose and, well, she is helping to undermine the case, (as has that whole team defending our own from the States, they are not doing it on grounds of justice but because of nationalistic sentiments) she is against the authorities carrying out justice there so it is a possibility, her son could get murdered just like Meredith did, would she like it if the police were doing their best to apprehend the killer(s) responsible and then certain people started trying to assassinate the characters of certain people involved in the law? No she would not like it and I do not need you or her to tell me that.
It is logical. So I'm saying have a heart, Meredith has been murdered, Know and Sollecito have damning evidence against them, and they ARE going to have to fight it out in court. They have theirselves to blame for that not the police or Mignini, they lied not Mignini.
If I was part of that lynch Mignini club like that and then I too had something happen to my family I'd think I wouldn't be able to say hey what are you lot saying let them do their work when I didn't let them do it before when it didn't affect me but was just a game to play. I'd be a hypocrite, I think Oceania and others like her are hypocrites.
And karma might I add has nothing to do with what I wish or hope or like it is what it is, if you dónt understand the concepts behind it too bad.
Do as you would be done by
is all about karma
The meaning of what I am saying is
if her son got killed, she would not like it if others did to her what she is doing.
A question Most people including the police are calling Amanda and Rafelle on how they responded and their responses and actions right after the killing. It seems to play a big part I am not talking DNA it just seems more personal. Maybe it that way it is in the press. But Rudy's actions leaving the country is something that really a guilty person would do. Is it me but his explanation for leaving seems ok with the police he was scared. But buying underwear, kissing, and other things seem suspicious.
TLC
Are am with you on the following comments...
"If I was part of that lynch Mignini club like that and then I too had something happen to my family I'd think I wouldn't be able to say hey what are you lot saying let them do their work when I didn't let them do it before when it didn't affect me but was just a game to play. I'd be a hypocrite, I think Oceania and others like her are hypocrites"
I also made a comment the other day regarding it is easy to heap the blame on Guede as he is black. I think there is a real issue here that people do not want to think that a supposed 'sweet white gal' could have been involved in such a diabolical murder...... sadly folks.... she is... live with it and do not blame the PM, Italian Justice system.... blame her!
Hello Anonymous.
Giving yourself a real name would help; that one is already taken by many.
The police are "calling" Raf and Amanda on their behavior in addition to evidence that places them at the scene. I don't believe they have ever gone on the record as saying that it was okay that Rudy left the country, nor do I think anyone here is implying that.
Anon
But Rudy's actions leaving the country is something that really a guilty person would do. Is it me but his explanation for leaving seems ok with the police he was scared
I do not think one person here or the Italian police think that way.....
And OT but Helloooooooooo bcpl! Nice to see you back...
A question Most people including the police are calling Amanda and Rafelle on how they responded and their responses and actions right after the killing. It seems to play a big part I am not talking DNA it just seems more personal. Maybe it that way it is in the press. But Rudy's actions leaving the country is something that really a guilty person would do. Is it me but his explanation for leaving seems ok with the police he was scared. But buying underwear, kissing, and other things seem suspicious.
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 12:38 pm | #
__________
You can bet your life Amanda would have liked to have been able to leave but then that would have been suspicious too, so she could not leave.
They didn't think Guede would be able to get caught. And Guede only left when he realized the police were ionto him otherwise he wouldn't have left either.
Anon...
If Guede had thought that a proper clean up operation had been completed in the night and the following morning then he may have hung around a wee bit longer......
It was not......
"Is it me but his explanation for leaving seems ok with the police he was scared. But buying underwear, kissing, and other things seem suspicious.
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 12:38 pm | #"
I doubt Rudy's flight was or is seen as "okay" by the police. And this is not a case of either/or. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall reading any official police statements about buying underwear, etc. That information was brought to us via the press.
TLC
Are am with you on the following comments...
"If I was part of that lynch Mignini club like that and then I too had something happen to my family I'd think I wouldn't be able to say hey what are you lot saying let them do their work when I didn't let them do it before when it didn't affect me but was just a game to play. I'd be a hypocrite, I think Oceania and others like her are hypocrites"
I also made a comment the other day regarding it is easy to heap the blame on Guede as he is black. I think there is a real issue here that people do not want to think that a supposed 'sweet white gal' could have been involved in such a diabolical murder...... sadly folks.... she is... live with it and do not blame the PM, Italian Justice system.... blame her!
LOVE WOLF | 04.17.08 - 12:40 pm | #
__________________________________
Right Love Wolf,
It is all so backward.
I mean that lot do not say a thing about Sollecito just their Amanda.
Where's the sense imagine if people with nice faces could get away with everything just based on their looks.
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 12:38 pm |
I think that no one harbours any doubts that Rudy is guilty of some of the things that occurred on Nov. 1.
He admits at the very least to abandoning a dying Meredith.
His is in preventive prison, being investigated. His appeals for release have been rejected.
"his explanation for leaving seems ok with the police"
I think you're the only one who would like to believe that some of us think Rudy should walk free.
-
Kermit | 04.17.08 - 10:41 am |
Thanks a million, Kermit.
(And thank you, nicki [04.17.08 - 11:13] for the English summary.)
So, that TV programme was aired on December 14th (and any other TV programme about the same topic would have been shown about the same time).
The relevant dates are now clear :
November 27th : Nara C. interviewed by PM (and/or police, depending on the source)
December 14th : Nara C. shown on TV.
So much for the accurate, professional and unbiased reporting achieved by the 48 Hours people ...
FWIW I did post in the early days ... I think I stopped around the time the medals were being handed out.
I've continued to follow silently, and am grateful for the incredible amount of knowledge many have provided.
Andie | 04.17.08 - 11:47 am
lol corrina was in line for medals yesterday, what a timely return!
.
TLC -
Easy there TLC...from what I read in Andie's posts he wasn't meaning to be disrespectful rather he was 'concerned'. He's not attacking you, rather he finds your approach a little disturbing. I uderstood what you wrote and whilst you meant nothing heinous I can see how an observer may be a little shocked. One thing...we are all guilty of it on occassion...is we get so empassioned about this case we can sometimes forget how we may appear to others looking in, even how we may appear to ourselves on a 'cool' day. We are very close to this...perhaps 'too' close do you get me? Especially once we start getting personal. We sometimes need to take a step back, a time out...go outside and smell the roses a bit, know what I mean?...That's what I'm doing right now, you may have noticed I've been a little quiet for the last two or three days? I'm still observing, but I'm just having a little break from the cut and thrust of the board. It's important we do this on occassion...for our 'health', trust me...I know, I learned this lesson the hard way. I know you are frustrated and I understand 'exactly' why...I know it well. Sometimes though, we need someone else to point out to us that we need to take a step back...just for a breather. Keep the faith my friend
Where's the sense imagine if people with nice faces could get away with everything just based on their looks.
TLC | 04.17.08 - 12:48 pm |
---------------------
Ted Bundy! Good looking well-educated, psychology degree etc etc. Judge Cowart said: "You'd have made a good lawyer, and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me,
but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that."
If Bundy had been fat, ugly, and uneducated, I bet the Judge wouldn't have been quite so complimentary about a SERIAL KILLER.
-------
Michael | 04.17.08 - 12:53 pm |
_________
Oh come off it Michael Andie IS Spectator most obviously
Yes but the other stuff you said is right Michael
(OT) Love Wolf -
I just wanted to say my friend how sorry I was to read about your sister. My thoughts go to you and I hope she gets the world's very best treatment. If you ever feel like you want to chat at all...feel free to send me a PM via the Truecrime Message Board, I'll always have time
So, that TV programme was aired on December 14th (and any other TV programme about the same topic would have been shown about the same time).
"The relevant dates are now clear :
November 27th : Nara C. interviewed by PM (and/or police, depending on the source)
December 14th : Nara C. shown on TV.
So much for the accurate, professional and unbiased reporting achieved by the 48 Hours people ...
Bluetit | 04.17.08 - 12:50 pm | #"
And if anyone's taking bets, I'd like to place a large one on the option that on or about December 15 Nara got a call from an official source telling her to keep a low profile and stop allowing reporters into her house.
OT))
Bluetit:
Yesterday you said English was not your native language, and last night you apologized to me for the lag in response by saying you were in France. Vous ne seriez pas français par hasard ? (un peu/beacoup/à fond la caisse...)
TLC -
"Oh come off it Michael Andie IS Spectator most obviously"
Well, I can't speak for him/her on that...but say that's true, maybe he/she did you a backhand favour by posting that. You be the judge of that though
Beep -
I was wondering where you'd got to...I missed you...great to see you back
damian forward defence is shaky but ball is bruised and flying off cuts and drives. hooks and pulls nowhere to be seen - bowling hopelessly offline.
thanks for your indulgence.
.
Michael... many thanks :o) May take you up on that offer!
Also good advice to TLC.... who I find one of the sharpest and funniest posters with a great cutting edge.... same as many here.... it would be a shame for him to get the red card!
LW
damian forward defence is shaky but ball is bruised and flying off cuts and drives. hooks and pulls nowhere to be seen - bowling hopelessly offline.
thanks for your indulgence.
.
rob | 04.17.08 - 1:11 pm | #
Rob - Keep your head down and be the ball fella! Please do not blame the Italian judicial system for any loss of form... that is the easy way out ;o)
LW
lol corrina was in line for medals yesterday, what a timely return!
.
rob | 04.17.08 - 12:51 pm | #
I read that too and figured I was too and wondered if that was a sideways dig somehow. Anyway, I didn't know we ever received medals and I've never been much of a trophy whore for what that's worth.
Sometimes shock is the only way to assist somebody in putting on a wider lens. TLC can take care of himself and takes responsibility for his own actions. I'll take truth over popularity any day, but I only speak for myself. It may have seemed a harsh way to put it but the truth of it cannot be denied. If there is a killer loose in Perugia, not only is her son in danger, but so is every other son and daughter of every mother and father.
It's like a domino effect...seems Sarah Horne at Radar has swallowed the 48 Hours show hook, line and sinker:
http://radaronline.com/exclusive...xy-
innocent.php
Radar isn't a publication I'm familiar with though.
I don't know what happened in my post. That should have read "I read that, too and wondered..."
I think I must have been figuring and wondering at the same time in my head if that was a sideways dig (I prefer them straight on)
At any rate, John Clare and I share a birthday. Well, not anymore I guess, since I'm still very much alive and he isn't.
corrina there were no medals but ages ago coyote waits got really up herself and was awarding them out..it was nipped in the bud pretty sharply. i dont reckon anybody has a bad thought about your efforts and posts yesterday - on the contrary, and i dont see any digs at you today. you did great work especially as it was rebuttal that kept up the integrity of the facts that held as common knowledge here.
tlc got an attack not for an attack but for the way it was said, but really tlc only posed a scenario (however distressing) in order to induce reflection in oceania88. the reflection does seem to be lacking and tlc has paid for being a mirror by biting the bullet and learning that people deflect a seriously challenging message by dismissing 'the form in which it was put was unacceptable' or more simply 'you may have a point but i dont like the way you say it - so i reject it'.
and love wolf my message to damian really was about my poor form in the nets and not a crime metaphor!
.
it would be amazing if somebody could get a copy of the big a publicity team press release(s)....
.
The program on TV stated they brought them back to the house to watch the reactions of Amanda and Rafelle after the murder, their reactions the police said raised some guilt. When they picked up Rudy in Germany he did not mention Amanda or Rafelle. Really if they were all involved together I would think would have said something and fast because he said he was afraid that he would be accused because of the color of his skin. Is all this just reported in the press? Because the more I read the more I feel we don't know half of it.
hey anonymous get real THEY FOUND THEM AT THE HOUSE!!!
get lost, find somewhere else to go...
.
Kermit, the new lawyer is called Gaito.
OT. Panic on the streets of Perugia seems to be at a minimum, except for the occasional terrified pedestrian, trying to get out of the way of a car, driven by a nutter. (wink)
Rob, thanks for the update "hooks and pulls nowhere to be seen, bowling hopelessly offline." good memories.(smile)
Since going to the message board, I don't seem able to do those smiley, winkie things anymore...perhaps somekind of small electric choc?
Anyway,in the meantime, lots of smiles and winks and shades to lots of people.
oh my gawd! they made them go to the house after the murder?1? they are innocent send them home to the US right now!
i am going to write my senator right away and i will boycott pizza and spaghetti until they are brought back to america!!!!!
.
damian click on the blue ? after comment and you can click your 
.
Rob,
It just seemed odd that someone brought up the medals thing. I've been reading these boards since early November now but I must have missed Coyote Waits and medal incident because until that was posted yesterday, I hadn't seen anything about it. None of that matters anyway. The point is, this is just more diversion and disruption.
I was just asking about what I saw on TV You guys are idiots I am glad people like you are here blabbing away then out in the world
sorry corrina i 'resurrected' the medals trying to be witty and sarcastic at the same time. you did great and i bet old coyote waits is one of our new handled posters, she loved lording it on the board too much to let it go. anyway its gone for me no worries for you i hope.
.
I was just asking about what I saw on TV You guys are idiots I am glad people like you are here blabbing away then out in the world
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 1:48 pm | #
What a stunning comeback. Try coming up with a nickname. I can't believe your mother didn't think to give you all different names. Much less confusing that way.
i am not in this world i am in outer space....
jesus
.
No worries at all, Rob. I do remember coyote though. I made the mistake of asking what the acronym stood for (burn her! burn her! gasp, forgive me, for I have sinned and enjoyed every second of it)
Peace
xo
And yes I will leave so I don't have to read your psycho slander
Whatever shall we do...
Jesus/Rob, you've gone and made er, um, whatitsname leave.
slander? yeah let me get my publicist on that asap
.
Oh come off it Michael Andie IS Spectator most obviously
TLC | 04.17.08 - 12:59 pm | #
I meant no harm in mentioning the medals. I'm sorry I ever said anything. For the record ... I've never posted under any other handle (however, I was here during the reign of the sock puppets) and I was not trying to be diversionary.
Early exchanges:
------------------------------
I've never participated on a blog before, let alone one like this. I came here to try and understand a horrific crime which has deeply shocked the city in which I live. You have all helped me alot and I really appreciate it.
Maybe these blogs always end up like this?? Is there usually a medal giving ceremony at the end for the smartest arse? Does it usually go to the person who suggests five hundred theories? Or the one who gives the best backgroung info on the Congo 'land of the rapists'?
Please, for god's sake man. I'm starting to think I made a big mistake coming here.
damian | 11.17.07 - 2:09 pm | #
_____________________________
Damian . . . please know you didn't make a mistake coming here. I'm a long-time reader of Steve's . . . don't post very often. Your input has been incredibly helpful.
I have a dear friend who moved to Perugia 18 - 19 years ago and I know what a lovely place it is. This crime is horrific and shocking to all . . . I very much thank you for keeping us up-to-date on what's going on there in town.
Andie | 11.17.07 - 2:22 pm | #
______________________________
This case continues to confuse. Rob, your posts are always clear . . . I enjoy them.
Andie | 11.23.07 - 8:39 am | #
______________________________
And since I know this is all way OT, I am, again, sorry . . . and I'll go back to reading.
on TV You guys are idiots I am
Skeptical Bystander | 04.17.08 - 1:04 pm | OT
Oui, je suis francaise (avec c cedille). Une "vieille dame indigne".
But let no one suggest that I change my pen-name to Froggy ! Bluetit I am and Bluetit I shall remain !
You, SB, have very good French, obviously. Do you do translations from French to English on a professional basis ?
(BTW don't you think it frustrating, that accented letters and c cedille seem to disappear or produce strange squiggles when we post French words on this blog ? At least, that's what they do in my case.)
andie i didnt think you were taking the piss out of anyone with your 'medals' posting, its my fault for dredging medals up again on a lark.
pls dont take the bait for personal arguments, the thread had had posters trying to re-rail and control the flow of information between us all here and some have got stuck in defensive-attack mode and tlc may just have gotten carried away with demonstrating a witty and well versed persona here. i see the paranoid posts tlc has made but understand them knowing what has been happening here with the 'paid' posters piping up.
anyhow i reckon tlc is taking a well earned timeout to touch base with the good things again and hope it goes well.
i am sure you would appreciate a warm welcome back from kermit and i only wish i could relay that to you.
.
bluetit there is only room for one froggy here! and he is in spain...lol but i do think he is le boeuf.
.
But let no one suggest that I change my pen-name to Froggy ! Bluetit I am and Bluetit I shall remain !
Bluetit | 04.17.08 - 2:21 pm | #
OT))))
Chère Bluetit
Je ne vous ferait jamais le coup de grenouille, c'est promis.
Quant aux accents et autres caractères spéciaux, j'ai regardé mes posts et je ne semble pas avoir ce problème, peut être parce que j'ai un clavier français (azerty plutôt que qwerty).
Et pour finir, je vous confirme que mon métier est bien la traduction (francais-anglais).
It's like a domino effect...seems Sarah Horne at Radar has swallowed the 48 Hours show hook, line and sinker:
http://radaronline.com/exclusive...xy- innocent.php
Radar isn't a publication I'm familiar with though.
Michael | 04.17.08 - 1:25 pm | #
Surprised you do not know them. Steve Huff has written rather extensively for them and they are one of the largest online current news sites. They are picked up by news aggregaters and numerous high profile blogs.
"bluetit there is only room for one froggy here! and he is in spain...lol but i do think he is le boeuf.
rob | 04.17.08 - 2:32 pm | #"
Way OT)))))
Il vaut mieux être un boeuf qu'un beauf!
"Surprised you do not know them. Steve Huff has written rather extensively for them and they are one of the largest online current news sites. anonymous | 04.17.08 - 2:34 pm | #"
I think many of us do know radar. But more importantly, having read the article Michael linked, my interpretation is rather different from his. It seems to be more straightforward factual reporting than opinion; I don't think the reporter's stance on this case is obvious from what is presented. I could be wrong, however. Radar is a very good online publication. I bet Michael is blushing!
"Et pour finir, je vous confirme que mon métier est bien la traduction (francais-anglais).
Skeptical Bystander | 04.17.08 - 2:34 pm |#"
OT)))
Mieux avec la cédille (français-anglais)!
Aw, Andie, I didn't mean to seem like I was attacking you. It was just curious is all. TLC is wicked clever and bitingly sarcastic. I appreciate that. Some don't. Oceania88 can give just as well as she gets. And speaking of Oceania:
I hear Mignini has a vacancy for a new publicist, you should apply, you and Mignini would make a great team. Oceania8 | 04.16.08 - 5:10 pm | #
I did but he said "No" when I suggested that our theme song be Sympathy for the Devil. I bailed. Well, that and no marijuana breaks.
if the big a is innocent as the radar piece asks, then she is very very stupid. if that is what an honour student from the pacific northwest of usa is like then i really cant rate the lower achievers as being much more than knuckle draggers.
.
(OT) "Surprised you do not know them. Steve Huff has written rather extensively for them and they are one of the largest online current news sites. They are picked up by news aggregaters and numerous high profile blogs."
Perhaps I would, but I'm no crime buff. This is the first criminal case I have gotten involved in online (most likely my last). My interests actually draw me to other kinds of places. Were my interest in crime more general I would possibly be more familiar with such sites. If it's crime related and doesn't have anything to do with the Meredith Kercer case...then I probably don't know about it. I do watch a lot of news, but for that I tend to rely on BBC News 24, BBC Online and Channel 4 news.
Please give yourself a handle though, it really would be...'polite'.
"I bet Michael is blushing!"
Going back to being a quiet ignoramous
"Going back to being a quiet ignoramous
Michael | 04.17.08 - 2:56 pm | #"
Not being a crime junkie is no crime!
Michael, and any UK'ers, are we all watching CH 4's version of the 48hrs show tonight? It's on in an hour. I wonder how it's going to be presented, given that Meredith's from the UK. I hope it's not all about Amanda and her unjustified 'incarceration' . I'm sure Meredith's family don't need their noses rubbed in this anymore than it already has been.
--------------
rob | 04.17.08 - 2:27 pm | "i am sure you would appreciate a warm welcome back from kermit and i only wish i could relay that to you."
Just got in from the traffic jam. There's a welcome mat out for Andie and all others who wish to chip in to the discussion about the crime in Perugia. Have no fear, my frog teeth only flash if I'm called naive, beguiled and intellectually dishonest!
-
dont you lie to me now, i know you are really le boeuf and not le froggy!
.
Michael,
"This is the first criminal case I have gotten involved in online (most likely my last)."
Thank you for your kind post above and my sentiments precisely.
Soozie UK -
Yes, I'm waiting for it to start. I spoke to my mother on the phone and she'd seen the TV trailer for it (I haven't) and she says from the sound of that it'll be quite sympathetic to Knox. However, Cutting Edge tends to be more professional then what the US shows that have covered the case sounded (from the reports of posters here) so I'm hoping for a rather more balanced, rounded and thoughtful investigation from them. I'll be very dissapointed if it isn't. I do hope the Kerchers won't be watching it tonight. The temptation must be great. I should imagine when Mrs Mellas' interview portion of it is aired they would be thinking her comparatively rich...since her daughter is still alive, whilst they can never even hug theirs ever again.
im taking my dog out for a long walk along the thames and through a park. i await your comments on the c4 show, i am avoiding it but not because i cant face the truth of the big a's innocence and the pm's railroad job.
rasta la bagel everybody, until the morn...
.
Beep -
Indeed. Our presence here is in very much similar circumstances. I've learned much along the way though.
Michael,
I have tried to read up on the past posts. Can you give me 'your' sense of where this case is at the present moment, if it is anywhere at all. I was heartened by the news that came out this past week from the people who were brought in by the Court to review the forensic material. These past few weeks must have been difficult ones for the Kercher family I would imagine.
bpcl | 04.17.08 - 3:27 pm |
beep
I'm so happy you're back, I was worried
you had disappeared in this virtual ocean!
Beep -
Well, whilst the wind may be turning in regard to the views of the media and there has of late been consistent and sustained attempts at subverting the debate here from certain parties...reading between the lines I feel confident that the investigation is on course.
I certainly now feel the ILE have quite a few cards up their sleeve. The incident with Nara indicates to me that there are beyond a doubt, other witnesses out there that have been heard by the ILE and will give important testimony in court. I also feel that the recent raid on the cottage to take certain specific items indicates the ILE have some important leads they were following that they are not making known to us. Whilst the clamour to make Knox a second victim is loud, to me the quiet confidence of the ILE is even louder still.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.17.08 - 2:34 pm | Way OT
Quant aux accents et autres caract�res sp�ciaux, j'ai regard� mes posts et je ne semble pas avoir ce probl�me, peut �tre parce que j'ai un clavier fran�ais (azerty plut�t que qwerty).
Dear Skep,
Thank you.
Re caracteres speciaux : moi aussi, j'ai le clavier azerty. Il se passe quelque chose de tres etrange : quand je dactylographie dans le cadre Comment, tout va bien. Mais quand je demande l'affichage Preview, je vois les bizarreries a l'ecran (dans les deux cadres).
Dans les deux phrases de vous que je copie ici (plus haut et plus bas), voyez-vous les voyelles accentuees et le c cedille ? Moi, non.
Par exemple,
(a) dans le blog, j'ai TRE pour (angl.) "be", PROBLME pour "problem", franais pour "French",
(b) quand je demande la "preview" du present message, je vois des signes bizarres !
Encore un mystere ...
Enfin, ce n'est pas bien grave. L'essentiel, c'est de pouvoir nous comprendre, entre personnes de bonne foi qui cherchons la verite -- a tatons, peut-etre, mais nous la cherchons.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.17.08 - 2:36 pm |
Il vaut mieux tre un boeuf qu'un beauf!
Je vous soumets ce proverbe bilingue :
Qui vole un beauf vole un oaf !
Pardon pour cet atroce calembour !
Corrina,
The whole medal thing came from our short trip in discus, it had a rating system and as Rob said coyotewait, jumped right on it. It was pretty inane. Andie has been around for a long time and has always posted as Andie as far as I have seen. Andie has never posted anything close to Spectator's post.
Rhonda,
Thanks. That makes a whole lot of sense now. I stopped following when it switched to the discus because I just couldn't make hide nor hair of it. (My name is Corrine and I am technology-challenged) No wonder I missed the medals being awarded. ;P
I never thought Andie was Spectator. Sorry for any confusion and/or distraction.
Peace
xo
Nicki,
You are very kind.
Michael,
I am confident that one day, in the not too distant future, Meredith Kercher will be able to rest in peace and her family will be able to find some peace.
From Ecclesiates Chapter 3,
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them; a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
You know the rest.
Skeptical Bystander, HI, back in town. Did you get the PM I sent Monday on the message board? Just wondering.
thnx.
Well, whilst the wind may be turning in regard to the views of the media and there has of late been consistent and sustained attempts at subverting the debate here from certain parties...reading between the lines I feel confident that the investigation is on course.
Michael, I couldn't agree more. All the noise in the media doesn't really matter. The Knoxs and the Sollecitos have paid for a PR offensive (and Lord knows, much of it is--offensive, I mean), and the results are showing up in a variety of places. But Sarah Horne, George Bush(ha!) Joe Tacopina, Paul Ciolino--None of them will be testifying to anything on the stand.
The Italian investigation will continue compiling evidence as they have done all along, and the trial will proceed as it should with each side presenting their case...The rest is just noise.
I also agree with you that the ILE has a great deal more solid evidence than they have let on...
a2,
Very encouraging to hear your words; nice post.
Glad to see you back, bpcl. Not the same here without your voice!
a2,
Thank you! You are too kind as well.
The Italian investigation will continue compiling evidence as they have done all along, and the trial will proceed as it should with each side presenting their case...The rest is just noise.
I also agree with you that the ILE has a great deal more solid evidence than they have let on...
a2 | 04.17.08 - 4:36 pm | #
a2 great posting... and my faith remains intact that they will complete the task in hand successfully....
Best regards, LW
Well, Cutting Edge has just finished. The end credits went up fast but I noted on the Italian side of the production team were two familiar names...Nick Pisa and Zack Nowhak (spelling?).
Whilst I did not learn too much that was new...one confirmed thing is that RS's DNA on the bra strap was 'high peak' DNA. Also, a bar manager that knew Meredith said that at the police station when they all had to make statements AK and RS were laughing and joking with each other.
Oh, and Kermit would be really jealous...they also created a full virtual reality construct of the inside of the cottage...complete with all Meredith's pictures on her wall.
Only one person really inferred that it was Rudy who did it and that was the criminal phsycologist consultant to RS' defence team, so no surprises there. A professor of patholgy said in his view the murder had been committed by one person. However, much was left out in terms of evidence and the fact that RS's and Ak's alibis still don't match. Next to no background information was given on Guede.
Technically, the program was high quality and done as a narrative, with numerous talking heads, although only one from the ILE side of things.
to me the quiet confidence of the ILE is even louder still.
Michael | 04.17.08 - 3:48 pm
the ILE has a great deal more solid evidence than they have let on...
Thanks, LW. I know that there are people who believe that the ILE are corrupt and without conscience.
But I'm not convinced. In fact, I tend to think more that solving this murder--and getting it right, is of great importance both personally and professionally to the investigators. I suspect that they are just as offended (for lack of a stronger word) by this crime, and want to do right by Meredith and by her family. And obviously, theres a ton of people watching from around the world so its also critical for them professionally that they get the evidence right.
Charlie would say I'm a pitiful victim of naiveté. I say he's blinded by cynicism...
Well, I watched the Channel 4 show and I didn't think it was too biased towards Knox. Hers and RS's behaviour was studied in depth, the kissing outside the house, the shopping for lingerie etc. One of the students said Knox didn't appear bothered by Meredith's death, and of course the fact she changed her story so many times didn't help her 'innocent' plea.
I think the worst part was 'reconstructing' (using an actual knife on a real person) how Meredith could have been stabbed in the neck.
I really hope her family weren't watching it. It was quite horrible to see that.
Bearing in mind my other half knows nothing about the case, I asked him at the end what he thought. He said that based purely on what he'd just seen and heard - that Rudy definitely killed Meredith, but that the other 2 were involved 100% in some way. So I guess other viewers might have seen it that way too.
I didn't view it as a program designed to cast doubt over Amanda's imprisonment, if anything, I'd say it did the opposite.
For example, if you come home one day, find your front door open, and spots of blood in the bathroom - would you honestly stop to take a shower? Amanda took a shower before going to Rafaelle's house. That was confirmed. Any 'normal' or 'innocent' person would have got the hell out of there as fast as their feet could carry them. Why wasn't Amanda scared? So she called her mother to say she was worried - and then jumped in the shower?
I think (despite the lack of actual hard evidence that we know about), there is plenty of strange stuff, that when it's all put together, puts Amanda right in the firing line.
-----------------
Michael | 04.17.08 - 5:17 pm |"Technically, the program was high quality and done as a narrative ..."
Thanks Michael for your summary. With these "special" programs, my feeling is that no news is good news. Ie, if there aren't really any scoops, then things are progressing as they should.
As for the "full virtual reality construct", those BBC guys just haven't discovered the full possibilities one has if one sticks to Powerpoint!
-
a2 | 04.17.08 - 5:17 pm |"he's blinded by cynicism..."
AnnA! You're going to get an anonymous monkey on your back!
Cheers.
------
Thanks Soozie for your summary too.
-
Michael, yes, Cutting Edge is normally quality stuff.
I forgot to mention that Rudy had said nothing happened sexually between him and Meredith except for some petting and 'oral'?? I find that even harder to believe. Oral sex is not something entered into on a 'first date' with a virtual stranger, while NOT being high on drugs and booze, by girls like Meredith. When I say 'girls like Meredith', that describes me and all my friends too. It just defies credibility. It took 2 weeks for her to and her new boyfriend to kiss - I cannot accept Rudy performed 'consensual' oral sex on her.
One point that was bought up, was that if he had felt so affectionate towards Meredith, how come he left her there dying and went to the disco???
-------------
AnnA! You're going to get an anonymous monkey on your back!
Kermit | 04.17.08 - 5:38 pm | #
Hahaha! Yeah, Kermit, I may end up with an anonymous monkey on my back--I figured I'd give your back a rest!!
Cheers to you!
Kermit...well, nobody can touch your powerpoints
Soozie, All,...what I did find it to be was rather 'vague'...for example, they mentioned hardly any of the problems with AK and RS...the fact that their alibis 'still' don't match (someone unfamiliar would assume AK had simply changed her story back to how it was and it matches fime with that of RS), the clean-up and the bleaching wasn't mentioned at all...yet they showed an empty bottle of bleach...but with no explanation for why they showed it. No background on Guede was given all. They stated it was Meredith's blood mixed with Amanda's 'DNA' instead of blood DNA. There was no mention of the Serbiann or basketball court witnesses, yet strangly they related the Albanian's account...but no attempt was made to look at what, if true, his account 'suggested'. No mention was made about the phones being turned off and on together or the lack of RS's computer activity after 9:10 pm. RS and AK were referred to as kids...whilst Rudy was just referred to as Rudy Guede.
Michael, I think the problem was the program was too short. It needed to be at least 2 hours to get even half the information in. The lack of alibis should have been mentioned though, only the change in stories. I don't understand why more wasn't made of that.
----------------
i should have said that ONLY the change of stories was mentioned.
Soozie -
Indeed, they could have done with longer...but they could have cut back on some of the Perugia background stuff and they could certainly have cut out the criminal phsychologist who let's face it, was offering a biased professional 'assessment' of the killer and 'his' motive being a consultant to RS's defence team and replaced it with facts to do with the case. Personally, I'd have preferred it if Channel 4 had covered it with their Dispatches program rather then Cutting Edge...Dispatches crams more facts in per minute, it gets straight to buisness, no mucking about.
To all,
It seems there is another witness that saw AK + RS the nigh of the murder.
http://www.wikio.it/societa/cron...r?
wfid=53464984
Jools, I did a google translation of the article which left me puzzled(what a surprise). Is this a different witness than the one we heard about a week or two ago? The one that was on a bench near the basketball court?
If that's tonight's porta a porta jools, I missed it...just got in. But those wonderful pieces of journalism can normally be found on the net. From what I read there though, it sounds like the super witness scoop from the local paper a while back.
But talking of super witnesses, does anyone remember what the consensus was on the origins of the leak for the albanian witness? Just thinking about the rain.
Soozie, All,...what I did find it to be was rather 'vague'...for example, they mentioned hardly any of the problems with AK and RS...the fact that their alibis 'still' don't match (someone unfamiliar would assume AK had simply changed her story back to how it was and it matches fime with that of RS), the clean-up and the bleaching wasn't mentioned at all...yet they showed an empty bottle of bleach...but with no explanation for why they showed it.
Michael | 04.17.08 - 6:08 pm | #
I don't know how to put this:
C4 seems to have started from an uninformed position.
ISTM that the biggest problem most people have with AK and RS is directly related to their failure to voice complimentary alibis or explain their cleaning frenzy.
Michael, Soozie. Did they say that the criminologist worked for RS's team? Do you remember the name of the pathologist?
Great video May! Have a safe trip.
-Kermit | 04.14.08 - 9:27 am | #
Thanks May that was funny
...where you off to? Bali?
TLC | 04.14.08 - 9:59 am | #
Thanks Kermit and TLC, your well wishes were found much later, but then, I was on the way home! Sorry, only o.t.(that's outta town) for work! No play today.
Downloading the posts to read while traveling back home made made me think I am taking a class - and I'm WAY behind on the readings. Oh me.
However, despite the bickering and annoying posters, the humanity of the group certainly shines through. I too was touched by Soozie and Lone Wolf's situations, and acknowledge how hard things are sometimes. The softer and kind side of the postings is what I hope we all strive for in a community, using our tenacity to defend it. The spirit of Meredith certainly lives on here.
Am glad for the return of bpcl. And, I must say, Kermit should be called Ambassador Kermit: such unbiased welcomes and goodbyes.
Michael,
Did C4 have any input from Meredith's family at all?
If they didn't, that speaks volumes.
The Times is scathing of Cutting Edge:
http://
entertainment.timesonline...icle3767166.ece
Damien...trying to remember off the top of my head...I think the pathologist's name was Trelle...ring any bells?
No, they didn't say the criminologist worked for RS' team...what happened was his name came up below his talking head, below that was written his profession and below that in very small writing was 'Consultant to Sollecito legal team' and vanished after a moment or two, a real case of blink and you'll miss it. I only saw it because I was deliberately looking for his credentials.
Re a doubter above, this from 48 hours:
But the Italian police aren't basing their case on a nickname. They were looking at Amanda and Raffaele’s public behavior after the murder; police brought Amanda and her boyfriend back to the crime scene the day after the murder to see how they would react.
Brian S -
No, none. The only mention of Mez's family was when they said Meredith had told her father AK brought strange men home. That was it.
damian,
I recorded it. I can go back through and check some of the details if you like
Michael
Do you remember how far into the programme you saw the 'Consultant to Sollecito legal team' pop up?
It's also possible that Meredith's family didn't want to take part. I doubt they were asked anyway, but they've kept such a low and dignified profile, that I can't imagine them wanting to expose themselves to such a programme.
-------------------------
However, despite the bickering and annoying posters, the humanity of the group certainly shines through.
May | 04.17.08 - 7:42 pm | #
-----------
Yes, it's comforting to know there are still some lovely people posting here, caring and genuine. It restores some of my faith in humanity.
---------------------
"Police brought Amanda and her boyfriend back to the crime scene the day after the murder to see how they would react.
lv2rgu | 04.17.08 - 7:47 pm | #"
I may have missed something. I'm not sure what "doubter" you're referring to. Didn't the police bring Amanda and Filomena and possibly others back to the crime scene the day after? I remember reading this in an early article, prior to November 5. Also, in the November 4 interview with Kate Mansey, Raffaele tells her that his girlfriend has been taken back to the cottage by police because they want her to show them something.
Soozie -
It's the fat guy with a braed sitting in an office...he doesn't appear too far into it...though I can't recall exactly when...I really have a bad memory when it comes to 'time'.
Umm...that should read 'beard'
Is this a different witness than the one we heard about a week or two ago?
a2 | 04.17.08 - 7:34 pm | #
a2/Damian
I'm not sure if he is the same...I've got the impression he is a different person...he was a guest at tonight's Porta Porta...his face was not shown...wants to remain anonymous...I only manage to see a few minutes of the end of the TV show... I'm in Spain and just realised I can get RAI on Satellite but got there too late to watch it.
Thanks, Jools. We can hope he is a new witness--the more witnesses the better, right? Guess we have to just wait and see. Thanks again...
SB, from earlier:
The program on TV stated they brought them back to the house to watch the reactions of Amanda and Rafelle after the murder, their reactions the police said raised some guilt. When they picked up Rudy in Germany he did not mention Amanda or Rafelle. Really if they were all involved together I would think would have said something and fast because he said he was afraid that he would be accused because of the color of his skin. Is all this just reported in the press? Because the more I read the more I feel we don't know half of it.
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 1:32 pm | #
hey anonymous get real THEY FOUND THEM AT THE HOUSE!!!
get lost, find somewhere else to go...
.
rob | 04.17.08 - 1:37 pm | #
Skep,
Yes, RS told Mansey that Amanda was at the crime scene 'now'. That would have been the same day, November 2nd as the other flatmates were taken back there.
Michael and Damian Cutting Edge
Prof Carlo Torre - Forensic Pathologist/Consultant for Amanda Knox's defence. He was the one who demonstrated how Meredith was 'probably' killed by just one person.
Prof Francesco Bruno (fatty with beard) - Criminologist/Consultant for Rafaelle Sollecito's defence.
Mao Pente said: "Amanda was a very complex and convoluted character who had to put with the fact Meredith's friends obviously disliked her.
ALL these girls said Amanda did not have a good relationship with Meredith,
The one thing that struck me was the absence of a single friend of Amanda's from the University speaking out. A couple of Meredith's friends spoke about what a lovely girl Meredith was,
but not one person mentioned Amanda (only the girl who said she didn't seem bothered that her flatmate had just been nurdered.) Did only the boys like Amanda???
Michael, they didn't say blood was found on the knife, they said dna. I wasn't sure myself till I went back through it.
-------------------
Umm, Nurdered = Murdered!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...MAIL& ICL=TOPART
Anonymous | 04.16.08 - 11:14 pm | #
Pot Calling Kettle
Yes, RS told Mansey that Amanda was at the crime scene 'now'. That would have been the same day, November 2nd as the other flatmates were taken back there.
Soozie,
I believe it would have been November 3rd.
RS speaks of talking to the police much of the previous day and that morning.
I felt so sorry for Lumumba watching him being dragged out in handcuffs. He said they kept asking him to tell them what he'd done, and he asked them what they were talking about. They said: "You know what you did", but he didn't have a clue what they were talking about! Now there is permanent footage of him linked to a murder of which he had nothing to do with.
Amanda is directly responsible for that.
-----------------------
Brian, sorry, I thought it was November 2nd. I know Amanda was as the cottage with police while RS was talking to the journalist and I assumed it was Nov 2nd.
------------------
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/ gree..._have_ital.html
Anonymous | 04.17.08 - 7:56 am | #
A timely piece about the murder of Meredith Kercher in the Daily Mail today ahead of tonight's TV documentary on Channel 4. Tom Rawstorne's article not only asks all the right questions. He has picked his way through the so-called clues and has clearly interviewed almost everyone connected to the mystery...
Newspapers in Britain, the United States and Italy ran loads of detailed material about the case throughout November and December last year. But the case gradually vanished from the media. After an initial statement, Meredith's parents (her father, John, is a journalist) kept silent as they waited for the law to take its course.
But it now appears that the cast-iron evidence against the three suspects is anything but conclusive. Aside from Know's contradictory statements, the police do not seem able to mount a convincing case.
According to Rawstorne, Knox's parents "have orchestrated a media offensive [in the US] to swing public opinion back in their daughter's favour" and "have launched a no-holds-barred attack on the Italian police."
It's a fascinating case. As Rawstorne concludes: "After all these months and a tortuous trail of accusation, confession and denial, Meredith's parents must wonder if they will ever discover who was to blame for their daughter's death." Indeed.
The Guardian
Roy Greenslade appears to have gone off on one. Perhaps it's his age.
or
He also writes a column for the London Evening Standard.
Of course we won't mention the "connection" between The Daily Mail and The Evening Standard.
Why don't you ask John Kercher want he thinks Roy? He's only just down the road from central London. Come on, you're better than this. At least read up on the subject before you write about it.
Brian S.
Newspapers are designed for sensationalism; that is the job of most journalists. They want to get the scoop before their rival newspapers get them. It is not important for them to get to the truth of the matter as much as it is to be first at getting some part of the truth. Journalists realize that they have the power of the pen, so even though they might not get it right the first time, they can always have a second, and third and maybe even a fourth chance. A few weeks back the Telegraph ran an article that was rife with innuendo about the forensic information about this case. Do you think they would run a retraction? Do you think they would care about the victim's family and their feelings? Not a chance. First to scoop, means first to sell. The veracity of the article(s), why they can always try to get that aspect of it latter. And I know you know all this!
Brian and Beep:
It is interesting to look at the press coverage since day one and note the sentences that begin "it is understood that" and "it is thought that." In the parlance of our times, this is called covering your ass or hedging your bets.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.18.08 - 1:33 am wrote: "In the parlance of our times, this is called covering your ass or hedging your bets."
Right, well, the media has been doing far more than that in recent weeks. More like hanging a** way over the line; so much so that I've had no interest at all in posting. Actually, fact is I've flown by night once again to some remote place (where it is still early in the evening) for some messy business. But where there is 3G there is hope and I do enjoy catching up and look forward to some very revealing hard facts in the next day or so.
Thanks soozie, Michael for the info from C4. The pathologist CT is very high profile. RS's dad said in December that he is also their expert medical witness. It would be interesting to know what he said. I imagine it will be similar to what he'll be saying tomorrow.
All
If RS and AK family and lawyers are soo cerain of their innocence why do they not purchase a lie detector? I would chip in with £20 towards the costs!
Morning all
LW
OT. The Inquiry into the death of Narducci has just finished. The pm has asked the judge to put 23 people on trial, accused of various crimes.
damian, Carlos Torre is working for Knox's team. I hope what you wrote was a misprint and that he's not working for both sides!!!
----------------
Soozie, I think he's working for both of them but I may be wrong. RS's dad said in December that he was their expert medical witness. It's possible that they have the same one.
Do you remember what he said Soozie?
All
If RS and AK family and lawyers are soo cerain of their innocence why do they not purchase a lie detector? I would chip in with £20 towards the costs!
Morn