The True Crime Weblog Message Board

yeah and you are a hypocrite Oceania or whatever your real name is!

You wrote an asusive post to me under a false name, you wrote very aggressively, at Franks and then fucking denied it, you are a coward, you are a fake and a liar, so get it into your head, hypocritical pain that you are.

And I'm speaking to you directly I do not need a fake ID to do it, get off your high horse.

Most people who know you know it was you who wrote that post to me. Your spelling mistakes were unique to you.

Then you go on about people making fake ID's



hypocrite

In your case there are no exchanges of ideas Oceania because you try to force others to accept only what you write by repeating the same thing like a record that is stuck in the groove and you belittle people if they do not agree with you and that is why I decided to go against you.

I think you do not understand certain things.

If you say
Yes Brian good post mostly better than the rest

Then that is not a fact, because you are not an authority on who is good and who is bad. It is your opinion and your opinion only.

You do not write it that way, you do not say my opinion is, and you wish instead to demean and belittle others as if you are some sort of superior person, but you are not superior, you are Oceania the anonymous, with - it seems to me judging by how you behave - an inferiority complex otherwise you'd value other people and accept that they have own viewpoints too, instead of trying to make out everyone thinks the same way here, thus taking away each person's sense of individuality. I think you are very arrogant indeed.

But you state it as fact, and at the same time try to make yourself look big by trying to make others look small, and not just one other, but others in general.

skeptical bystander wrote:Damian wrote:

Since the preliminary investigation in this case lasted more than 6 months, Mignini must have asked for the extension

Of course! How stupid of me. It lasted just over seven and a half months.

Not stupid at all Skep. In fact, I reckon alot of these technical details will come into play in the near future and it's not going to be easy to follow unless we know the Italian laws. This 'scadenze dei termini' for example. With things as they are here at the moment, it's not in the least outlandish to believe this could come into play at some point. It happens quite often, even when certain groups aren't threatening strike action. If one suspect in particular was to get out of prison before the trial, where could/would he/she go?

Oceania wrote:

I too enjoy the exchange of ideas here with people from all over the world, when it stays on topic and no-one is being insulting or libellous it is an extraordinary and unique forum. Between Charlie and I we have a couple of hundred posts supporting the 'Lone Wolf' and ‘let’s wait and hear what the defence has to say’, against 1,000’s that say all 3 are guilty. Trying to stamp out the minority so one voice can rule is not how a healthy public debate should work.

There are far more nuances than your worldview permits you to envision, so let me correct your post for you. You and Charlie support the Lone Wolf Theory.
Some people believe that the evidence points to more than one perpetrator.
Some people believe that some of the evidence, not to mention alibi problems, points to the involvement of the two other suspects.
Some people believe that all three should be charged and tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Most people here, perhaps including yourself and Charlie but certainly also including people too numerous to name, believe that we should wait and hear what the defense has to say.
In other words, you and Charlie are by no means the only two people who hold that view.
Most people here, but perhaps neither your nor Charlie, believe that we should wait and hear what the investigation has yielded and what the prosecutor has to say.
A couple of people here believe that no matter what he has to say it is wrong because two of the suspects are innocent of all involvement and the prosecutor is evil.
Nobody here is trying to stamp out the brave and lonely minority that you claim to represent. Your views come already prefabricated and are well represented elsewhere.
Just as the lone wolf theory has some serious flaws, so does your claim of being the lone defender of the lone wolf theory.
This list could get very long if I kept at it, but I think most people here get the point.

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: come on
I propose a truce; come on; I don't want to be all "can't we just get along" but really, can't we? This site is now descending to a level of snarky pettiness that is just not in keeping with the vibrant discourse about a terrible, tragic crime that has compelled all of us here in search of truth and catharsis. I think we should lay off of Oc8 and Oc8 should lay off of everyone else and we should prove that a board of diverging and even sometimes inflammatory opinions can thrive and transcend tit-for-tat personal attacks. Can we LET IT GO and move on here? Please? I won't give my lost if which posters I think have, on occasion, behaved badly, because we all can have such a list, we all can have disagreeable opinions -- I include myself -- I am simply saying we try to ignore the trash talk and do better than this. ALL of us. Because if we start pointing fingers and blaming one or another poster, there is no getting out of this quagmire. Let's just all step out of it and clear the slate.

Oceania8 wrote:If it bothers you so much Indie why did you advertise her website details here ?!

All of my son's friends, including Victoria knew I was passing on their comments and thoughts here and many who had pictures of Guede on their Facebooks said I could post links to the photo's if I wanted, Victoria included, none of them had an issue with their names and Facebook links being shared. You disgust me, carrying on some petty and nasty grudge, I certainly hope you don't teach that habit to your children, they learn by example.
Especially when parents have short tempers and low tolerance to people with different views and fly of the handle pushing the one fingered salute up people's noses, those adult behaviours get passed on by osmosis very effectively to kids.

Oh dear I must have hit a nerve. Your post is an excellent example of the psychological defense mechanism called projection.

PROJECTION: a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.

I am an awesome mom Oceania. My kids respect me and are on their way to becoming extremely productive members of society. I seriously doubt your son has a full grasp of the way you have conducted yourself in the discussion of the murder of a beautiful student.

PS I have NEVER advertised Victoria's website. I have NEVER posted a link to her photo or your son's photo albums. I have only stated that I wished you would have kept her name and her thoughts anonymous.

abby wrote:Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: come on
I propose a truce;

No problem for me Abby. I just could not ignore the fact that the lecturer was not following the very points she was lecturing about to the board.

Abby wrote:

I am simply saying we try to ignore the trash talk and do better than this. ALL of us. Because if we start pointing fingers and blaming one or another poster, there is no getting out of this quagmire. Let's just all step out of it and clear the slate.

This is a good idea, Abby, and I hope everyone will follow your lead.

There are a few basic ground rules that need to be kept in mind.

Nobody has to respond to any poster or any post.

We are here to discuss the murder of Meredith Kercher.

As such, we are free to speculate about the case, about the evidence, and about the three suspects, and to express our opinions on these and related matters.

You are right Abby.

Let's talk about the mop.

Raffaele and Amanda suffered a terrible blow with the sudden flooding of his sink/drain/kitchen. Being so stoned they could only look at the water and discuss how Amanda had this terrific mop which she would bring by the next. Friends do that. They offer their mops up instead of maybe just using a towel or clothes or whatever. Anyway, apparently the great flood lasted long enough for her to need to fetch it the next day. Did she run quickly to her home to get a mop? No. She took a shower (!) maybe did a little laundry, and sauntered back to Rafe's flat.

Okay, just to make sure everyone is sercure - these are tongue in cheek statements and not even my real conjecture on what happened - but the mop is a good subject which we have not delved into enough, save May and Kermit's delightful Emmy nominated production. So sue me.

Oceania8 wrote:I don't condone Chris Mellas's behaviour in some of his posts one bit, the only thing is, he has more of a reason to press for damages in the case of people insulting and libelling his daughter as guilty when it is not proven yet.
I don't think you are allowed to do it even if found guilty.

[font=Times New Roman]Are you kidding? You still don't understand the concept of libel, do you? If Knox is found guilty of murder, then she's a murderer. It is not libel to call a murderer a murderer, nor to form opinions about them based on their alleged crime. I can write freely that Harold Shipman was a psychopath who thought he was God and decided to use his powers to snuff out several of his elderly patients with lethal injections of morphine. He was a total head case, now he's a dead head case. How does that make my comments libellous?

If Knox's family choose to spend their precious time scouring through message boards and blogs for libellous comments about their daughter, they need to set aside a few hundred years in which to do so. And in that case, "CMellas" should be sued too, since his comments were personal and threatening. Yes Oceania, he threatened people, remember? Knox is in jail as a suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Her appeals for release/house arrest have been refused on more than one occasion.

Why?

Judge Riccarelli described her as "crafty and cunning" with a "multi-faced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated, one would say fatal capacity"to repeat her offence."

TO REPEAT HER OFFENCE. Now that may not bother you, but I thank God there is a duty to consider the rights of innocent law-abiding citizens who don't wish to have their throats slashed while they're going about their daily business.

And for the record, the attacks you keep bleating about were never anything to do with your views. Stop flattering yourself. Several of us have different views here, but we're able to keep the lines of communication open because we share a mutual respect for each other. When you and Charlie came here, you ridiculed us at every opportunity you got. We were naive for not immediately swallowing your conspiracy theory, we were sheep, a monolith, we were living in La La Land, the list goes on. You think because you were careful enough to insult all of us rather than singling out an individual, that your behaviour is excusable. But it's not.
It's just sly and sneaky.

You can't expect to hack into people and get no reaction. You put people on the defensive, and you push them to the limits, and while I admire those who manage to ignore you - to the others I say: "I know how you feel".
[/font]

Jumpy: good topic. I would love to read what some of these excellent thinkers have to say about the mop, now that more info has come out. WOuld someone who knows more mind doing a break-down of the movement of the mop, or has that already been posted? Is the claim that AL brought the map back to RS's, they used it right away to clean his flood (despite her being freaked out and needing him to come back to flat with her), and brought mop back? Or, what? (And yes, Jumpy, the tongue-in-cheek is clear I think, you are very funny.)

disclaimer:
Everything I write and say here is just my .02.

Oceania8 wrote:I too enjoy the exchange of ideas here with people from all over the world, when it stays on topic and no-one is being insulting or libellous it is an extraordinary and unique forum. Between Charlie and I we have a couple of hundred posts supporting the 'Lone Wolf' and ‘let’s wait and hear what the defence has to say’, against 1,000’s that say all 3 are guilty. Trying to stamp out the minority so one voice can rule is not how a healthy public debate should work.

You seem to be saying that one should argue for argument's sake - the more people arguing all around the world the better. You seem to be saying that even if arguments are prejudiced, made under false pretenses, or based upon outright lies, we should still go ahead and hear them out because there really are no truths to be found, everyone deserves their say, and no one should be silenced for any reason.

Since you seem to be an expert on these things, can I ask you another question about posting on blogs? Is a blog about seeing who can manipulate and ultimately wrestle control of it, or is a blog about a group of people coming to a natural, public consensus? I'm unsure because my observation is that you have been allowed to speak your mind freely here, you have been considered, and that you yourself have exposed yourself for who you really are and completely destroyed your credibility in the process. Is this how it's supposed to work, or am I missing something?

Jumpy wrote:You are right Abby.

Let's talk about the mop.

Raffaele and Amanda suffered a terrible blow with the sudden flooding of his sink/drain/kitchen. Being so stoned they could only look at the water and discuss how Amanda had this terrific mop which she would bring by the next. Friends do that. They offer their mops up instead of maybe just using a towel or clothes or whatever. Anyway, apparently the great flood lasted long enough for her to need to fetch it the next day. Did she run quickly to her home to get a mop? No. She took a shower (!) maybe did a little laundry, and sauntered back to Rafe's flat.

Okay, just to make sure everyone is sercure - these are tongue in cheek statements and not even my real conjecture on what happened - but the mop is a good subject which we have not delved into enough, save May and Kermit's delightful Emmy nominated production. So sue me.

Hi Jumpy. The magic mop's interesting for sure. I'm still intrigued by the receipts taken from the supermarket too. Papers said that one of them was the same price as one of the bleach bottles reportedly found at RS's flat. The other was for 9 odd euros. Was the same bleach on that receipt too? Why would the police take that receipt? What else was purchased? Do you think the person on the till that morning could remember who had made those purchases? Could they be one of the 50 witnesses? It might all be nothing but I was just wondering.

Oceania wrote:

I'm unsure because my observation is that you have been allowed to speak your mind freely here, you have been considered, and that you yourself have exposed yourself for who you really are and completely destroyed your credibility in the process. Is this how it's supposed to work, or am I missing something?

I'm sure O8 will have a reply for you FBN, but I will weigh in and say that we have all been allowed to speak our minds quite freely here and, in the process, have revealed many things about who we are, what we believe and how we think. That is one of the goals of this type of board; the other, of course, is to work together in the interest of understanding what happened to Meredith Kercher and why.

We are all responsible for what we say, whether or not we take ownership of it, and for whatever credibility we earn or fail to earn. The expression "to command respect" is misleading, because the genuine respect of others is not something that can be ordered or to which one is entitled as a matter of right. Having said that, it doesn't hurt to be polite and to give others the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

On the subject of the things that people post here, one of the areas in which I have perhaps been remiss is in demanding that posts containing erroneous or false information be edited by their authors. In most cases of misinformation, I have tried to point out the error and correct it in my post, but from now on I will ask that posters edit their own posts when a mistake has been spotted and announced. Failure to do so will result in the post being edited by me. In certain cases, I will require the poster to make a public mea culpa acknowledging the error, particularly if I feel it was made in bad faith.

In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to say that this has nothing to do with the latest announcement suggesting that posters with opinions run for cover.

If anyone detects a factual error, or feels that an opinion is being disguised and passed off as a fact, please feel free to point it out so that it can be corrected.

indie wrote:PS I have NEVER advertised Victoria's website. I have NEVER posted a link to her photo or your son's photo albums. I have only stated that I wished you would have kept her name and her thoughts anonymous.

[font=Times New Roman]indie, that's quite a serious accusation to say you advertised the website. You should ask her to remove it since it's obviously a lie.[/font]

Hi Damian,
Raffaele made such a to-do about the mop. It is one of those pieces in the story which is a half-truth and makes my bs radar go ping! The guy can't remember anything but he remembers details about the mop.

No wonder the police were questioning them! They just couldn't shut up!

Jumpy wrote:Let's talk about the mop.

Raffaele and Amanda suffered a terrible blow with the sudden flooding of his sink/drain/kitchen. Being so stoned they could only look at the water and discuss how Amanda had this terrific mop which she would bring by the next. Friends do that. They offer their mops up instead of maybe just using a towel or clothes or whatever. Anyway, apparently the great flood lasted long enough for her to need to fetch it the next day. Did she run quickly to her home to get a mop?

Hi Jumpy, I'm in and out of here real quick (bed time was a couple of hours ago).

Fast question (I'll read the reply - if any - tomorrow). When did the pipe supposedly break? In the evening of Nov. 1, ¿no? Wouldn't that be the time to clean it up? The cottage is only a 5 minute walk away if they needed a mop (which I don't understand - Raffaele had a maid who came in a couple of times a week, she would have her work materials for his house at his house, and I'm sure that included a working mop).

To wait for a day to clean up a spill doesn't make much sense. It would already be dry, and any rotten humidity damage to caulking or whatever would already be done.

Hi Oceania8,

You said:

"Hi Rob, my intent was not to 'spread fear' as you say but pass on what I feel is relevant information to people who post on public forums."

You said on Frank's:

"The are quoting with their interpretation of what they think she is saying. Their interpretation is that she is guilty and they are 'confirming' this to us through expert analysis. It will be interesting to see if these experts have got it right.

Regards the HIV test, it seems fairly obvious the original positive test was told to her in an attempt to make her disclose everyone she had slept with in the hope Rudy Guede's name might appear on the list. Once they had the list of her partners out of her they told her 'sorry, made a mistake it was negative but thanks for the disclosure'.

July 4, 2008 6:59 PM"


I notice on other forums you have NO disclaimer. How come? You are making some strong assumptions here, in my opinion of course.

And Kermit, regarding mold, it is very dangerous substance. Worse than pot! But I am so interested about the receipts and the mop only because Raffaele (I never spell the name right) was so insistant that he had a flood and that Amanda brought over a mop, which was then returned that day. Why the hurry to return a mop? Never saw such a flood which I didn't take care of in no time. Drama!

I love this board and how everyone brings something to it. I wish I had more to offer but I am lazy, sometimes I act the clown, hence my Smiths lyrics last night. I like the Smiths. Sue me. Anyway, what drew me to this case was the changing alibis and lies, and the fact that I do know firsthand a murder case and devastation and bullshit and waiting for trial and blah blah blah who cares, ....all in the past. In a different way, being argumentative, I really am amused by the different alibis and lying and posturing by the three accused and their representatives. Sometimes my tolerance level hits a level which tends to reflect in my posts. Thorry. I'm trying to restrain myself.

OT I just caught up on Frank blog (200 fricken comments- geez - post something new for god sake) and the question of who released the diary. I think the Sollecito or Guede team may be behind it. Why not? It seems to be all about Amanda and I imagine they were thrilled to read it for the first time.

damian wrote:

nicki wrote:


About RG going for shortened trial
As soon as he started spilling the beans -especially after having first claimed in Germany that he could recognize the "Italian assailant", then stating he couldn't, but finally fingering Sollecito-I have thought that it wouldn't be a surprise if he was going to ask for the "rito abbreviato". If footprints of RS have been found, the shoe print is no longer important now. Rudys' footprints have not been found, his DNA is not on the knife, and he has already said he was there when the murder happened. There's no indication that he has helped with the clean up. And there might be more to come from Rudy that we don't know yet, so a request for a short trial could be his best bet to get out of this story with the minimum possible damage such as rape, omission, obstructing justice...stuff like this. Serious stuff, but not as bad as voluntary murder.

Hi Nicki, if RG's team go for the shortened trial, I think it will be because they realise that in all probability, their client will be found guilty and they will therefore try to limit the damage. When I say limit the damage, I mean that there will be a third knocked off the sentence. The charges however, in a shortened trial or a full trial, would be the same. I think it is very likely that RG will be charged with 'omicidio volontario' along with 'violenza sessuale' and would therefore risk between 20 years and life with a shortened trial.

Clearly, we are talking in the dark here, since we don't know what is in the file.

I believe that AK's position is a little different because she is American. You may have read recently that various mafioisi will presently be released from prison because of a technicality; 'scandenze dei termini'. I think that some of them may in fact have already been released. One of them is accused of 15 murders. The first important 'deadline' in this case will be Nov6, by which time the time of the preliminary hearing must be fixed (or heard, I'm not sure which). If it's not, AK could be released from prison. Then, there are various other 'time limits' set between the different phases of the process, which will continue until the end of the appeal, or 'secondo grado'. I think it is likely that AK's team, being aware of the current 'climate' here, and also being aware of the fact that if one of the time limits is exceeded, for whatever reason, it could be of benefit to their client, will go for the full trial. This would obviously involve a certain element of risk but since Ghirga is an experienced penal lawyer, I think he will go for this option. He is working in the interests of his client and I think that the priority at the moment is to get her out of prison.

The pm must have asked for a 6 month extension to the preliminary investigation. It would have been 'normal' here for him to have used all this time, but he didn't. I think he wrapped up the investigation 'early' because he was aware of the fact that the suspects could have been released from prison in the meantime.
Unfortunately, Italian politics is relevant here. Over the past 15 years or so, many new laws have been introduced which some people believe have given advantages to people accused of crimes; sunset laws, changes in the 'scandenze dei termini', pardons, amnesties, the shortening of sentences etc...Obviously, the lawyers involved in this case will be operating within these new parametres, parametres which could also change from day to day. The lawyers know this and will act accordingly.

Yes Damian, I am aware of the "decorrenza dei termini" technicality that unfortunately in some cases has helped criminals to get away, but I don't understand what it has to do with the fact that AK is American...

indie wrote:

Oceania8 wrote:If it bothers you so much Indie why did you advertise her website details here ?!

All of my son's friends, including Victoria knew I was passing on their comments and thoughts here and many who had pictures of Guede on their Facebooks said I could post links to the photo's if I wanted, Victoria included, none of them had an issue with their names and Facebook links being shared. You disgust me, carrying on some petty and nasty grudge, I certainly hope you don't teach that habit to your children, they learn by example.
Especially when parents have short tempers and low tolerance to people with different views and fly of the handle pushing the one fingered salute up people's noses, those adult behaviours get passed on by osmosis very effectively to kids.

Oh dear I must have hit a nerve. Your post is an excellent example of the psychological defense mechanism called projection.

PROJECTION: a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.

I am an awesome mom Oceania. My kids respect me and are on their way to becoming extremely productive members of society. I seriously doubt your son has a full grasp of the way you have conducted yourself in the discussion of the murder of a beautiful student.

PS I have NEVER advertised Victoria's website. I have NEVER posted a link to her photo or your son's photo albums. I have only stated that I wished you would have kept her name and her thoughts anonymous.

Well Indie, NO SURPRISE. There she goes, lying and lying again

Tara wrote:Hi Oceania8,

You said:

"Hi Rob, my intent was not to 'spread fear' as you say but pass on what I feel is relevant information to people who post on public forums."

You said on Frank's:

"The are quoting with their interpretation of what they think she is saying. Their interpretation is that she is guilty and they are 'confirming' this to us through expert analysis. It will be interesting to see if these experts have got it right.

Regards the HIV test, it seems fairly obvious the original positive test was told to her in an attempt to make her disclose everyone she had slept with in the hope Rudy Guede's name might appear on the list. Once they had the list of her partners out of her they told her 'sorry, made a mistake it was negative but thanks for the disclosure'.

July 4, 2008 6:59 PM"


I notice on other forums you have NO disclaimer. How come? You are making some strong assumptions here, in my opinion of course.

HIV screening tests results may yield uncertain results, and additional testing is required to confirm a positive or negative result. O8 was only twisting facts, as she usual does.

That is all rather simplistic Abby.

Sorry, but that is my opinion

Obviously to get on is exactly what most of us want but this bull-bizznizz just goes on and on and on where two people stop nearly all discussion by posting things here with the intention to inflame, to inflame is to post in such and such a way as to beg a certain reaction, like constantly saying, well I am the only one who seems to have any sense, I am the only one who understands, I am the only one who can think for theirself, so all of you are a group and have no individual thoughts.
That is insulting.

It is only because Skep is more than kind and patient, that no action has been taken, people have also entered into discussion, tried to talk sense, but it appears that it has been like talking to a brick wall, no answers from Charlie Wilkes for Kermit, Charlie who continually plugs a book that many have said they are aware of but are uninterested in reading, and have said this based on their own personal and differing reasons.

Still he comes on here and starts the same monologue again and again like a robot. It means that it is not a place that feels comfortable for everyone in equal measure. I would treat Oceania immediately just like I do those who are reasonable,if she herself was capable of reasonable manners but Meredith Kercher has been murdered and I am not prepared to listen to such contrived, dishonest, unkind, one-sided, one size fits all warped crap from anyone.

Personally, I decided to just about ignore both of them, whilst others engaged with them, but when Oceania starts
slagging people off like Nicki, Sparrow, Indie, who I consider kind people, reasonable people, and projects everything that is wrong about herself, onto others then the measure is full.

On other forums it is the rule, very often, that a moderator can delete a person's account at any time, without warning and without telling the reason for doing it.

Skep is not that way inclined and provides a vast amount of space, trying all the time to stimulate the better in other people.

Sorry again, on this I find you get nothing at all Abby, though I know your intention is well-meant.

Terry

“if RG's team go for the shortened trial, I think it will be because they realise that in all probability, their client will be found guilty and they will therefore try to limit the damage. When I say limit the damage, I mean that there will be a third knocked off the sentence. The charges however, in a shortened trial or a full trial, would be the same. I think it is very likely that RG will be charged with 'omicidio volontario' along with 'violenza sessuale' and would therefore risk between 20 years and life with a shortened trial“….damian

Hi damian. Maybe you can help clarify something for me if you get time. Would Rudy have to give some semblance of the truth; or to the satisfaction of the prosecutors and judges in order to qualify for this 1/3 off, or reduced charges for a shortened trial? My understanding originally was that for major criminal activity the 1/3 off was not necessarily an automatic, but was up to the discretion of the Judge(s). However Frank is also saying that he would qualify for a 1/3 off for a shortened trial. I know we are operating somewhat in the dark right now. I guess they could give him a 1/3 off for a shortened trail, but at the same time tack on additional years if he isn’t forthright enough. So it would be 1/3 off of a much bigger sum. That is if he is convicted.

Skep wrote:

Obviously, in keeping with the definition of libel (and not slander, which relates to the spoken word and thus has no application here), all libelous posts are or will be removed. As a reminder, stating as fact something that is your opinion or that is known to be false is libel and will be deleted.

Skep, just to clarify--I know that this applies to statements about the suspects, and certainly about the other posters--does this apply to statements about Mignini? His professional and personal reputation are critical to his ability to effectively conduct investigations, deal with the criminal element and to make a living. Seems to me that he has more of a reason to press for damages in the case of people insulting and libelling him as corrupt when it is not proven. I don't think you are allowed to do it even if found guilty.

I wonder, can this extend even to the ILE or the police community in general? Labeling the police as corrupt could undermine their ability to protect the public good. Seems to me that they too have more of a reason to press for damages in the case of people insulting and libelling them as corrupt when it is not proven. I don't think you are allowed to do it even if found guilty.

I'm asking in the interest of keeping us all honest, on equal footing and the discussion on track--just want to make sure.

a2 wrote:

Skep, just to clarify--I know that this applies to statements about the suspects, and certainly about the other posters--does this apply to statements about Mignini? His professional and personal reputation are critical to his ability to effectively conduct investigations, deal with the criminal element and to make a living. Seems to me that he has more of a reason to press for damages in the case of people insulting and libelling him as corrupt when it is not proven. I don't think you are allowed to do it even if found guilty.

I wonder, can this extend even to the ILE or the police community in general? Labeling the police as corrupt could undermine their ability to protect the public good. Seems to me that they too have more of a reason to press for damages in the case of people insulting and libeling them as corrupt when it is not proven. I don't think you are allowed to do it even if found guilty.

The short answer to your question is that the standard for public figures is different from that for private citizens. And obviously, as Soozie pointed out in her post, it is easier to get away with character assassination and insults when you single out an entire group rather than an individual—blacks, women, cops, halotards….. It looks like you are engaging in sharp criticism rather than personal attacks. But I don’t think people are so easily misled.

The rest of my answer may seem off-topic, but I hope you’ll see the connection. For several months now, we have heard lots and lots about how incompetent and/or evil the prosecutor is, how incompetent ILE is and so on. One of the related comments that has most rankled me personally is the notion that one should never talk to a cop without a lawyer present.

Every time I hear that, I think of someone I knew who was killed in the line of duty in December 2006. His name was Steve Cox. He went to the same high school I did and was a friend of my younger brother’s.

He gave up a successful career in law in order to become a King County Sheriff's Deputy (Seattle is in King County). He was frustrated as a prosecutor because he saw too many criminals beat the legal system on technicalities. So he became a beat cop in White Center, the tough neighborhood in South Seattle where he had grown up—but on the right side of its tracks.
He also got involved in community politics and was elected president of the local council. One Saturday night, he went to investigate a house party after gunshots were reported. Here is the local newspaper account. “He was the lone deputy interviewing partygoers one-by-one in a bedroom when a man drew a gun. Cox was shot once in the head. Hearing shots, two other deputies ran toward the room and a firefight ensued…. Cox later died at Harborview Medical Center.”
And because stories like these are always thoroughly tragic, Steve Cox had married late in life, and he and his wife had just adopted an orphan from Guatamala. They had plans to adopt another child.

A friend said: "He made it clear that his goal in life was to go back and be a patrol officer. He was frustrated with what is frankly an imperfect system, and he wanted to always help people and make the community safer. He felt he could do that better back in law enforcement."
Recently, the stadium at the White Center Playfield was renamed in his honor.

Having worked with civil servants in a variety of situations, I believe that the vast majority are dedicated and competent. Many put their lives on the line daily, and they often forgo more lucrative careers in making this choice.

So when I read these armchair critiques, launched from a very safe distance and from behind a protective electronic veil of anonymity (and possibly ignorance), of the investigators, the prosecutors and the judges in this case, I feel that they are neither fair nor honest. Whether they qualify as libel or not is another matter. But they strike me as cowardly.

In any case, let's hope that the defense teams for all three suspects can muster up stronger arguments than these.

a2 wrote:Skep wrote:

Obviously, in keeping with the definition of libel (and not slander, which relates to the spoken word and thus has no application here), all libelous posts are or will be removed. As a reminder, stating as fact something that is your opinion or that is known to be false is libel and will be deleted.

Skep, just to clarify--I know that this applies to statements about the suspects, and certainly about the other posters--does this apply to statements about Mignini? His professional and personal reputation are critical to his ability to effectively conduct investigations, deal with the criminal element and to make a living. Seems to me that he has more of a reason to press for damages in the case of people insulting and libelling him as corrupt when it is not proven. I don't think you are allowed to do it even if found guilty.

I wonder, can this extend even to the ILE or the police community in general? Labeling the police as corrupt could undermine their ability to protect the public good. Seems to me that they too have more of a reason to press for damages in the case of people insulting and libelling them as corrupt when it is not proven. I don't think you are allowed to do it even if found guilty.

I'm asking in the interest of keeping us all honest, on equal footing and the discussion on track--just want to make sure.

Most definitely and Mignini has defamation law suits pending against people who have dared criticise him. It's a risk we take as I have said. The problem with two defamation cases Mignini has tried to pursue in the past is that they were superceded by current charges now pending against him for the things he said he was being defamed for.

skeptical bystander wrote:So when I read these armchair critiques, launched from a very safe distance and from behind a protective electronic veil of anonymity (and possibly ignorance), of the investigators, the prosecutors and the judges in this case, I feel that they are neither fair nor honest. Whether they qualify as libel or not is another matter. But they strike me as cowardly.

I feel the same way about the invective hurled at Amanda Knox and her family.

Oceania wrote:

The big difference here is that Amanda Knox's family live in the States and in the same town where one of the Moderator's lives and are aware of this site and others. I feel there is more risk from them than from Mignini and co coming after me and Charlie. Just just my opinion.

Maybe it would be a good idea to alert Mignini to the existence of this site so that he can take appropriate action if he wishes.

The fact that a moderator lives in the same city as the family of one of the suspects would have no impact whatsover on the level of risk in this particular case. Are you suggesting that I move to another state or country, or that I give up my role as moderator in order to minimize the risk?


Charlie wrote:

I feel the same way about the invective hurled at Amanda Knox and her family.

And you are of course entitled to voice that. But if you get my larger point, it is that criticizing an entire segment of the population is just the coward's way of pretending not to go in for personal attacks. Nobody is really fooled.

In this particular case, some of the members of this family have been willing participants in this and other forums. I personally find many of the comments made about them distasteful, but I can't say their comments have been distinguishable for their tastefulness. The invective is hurled in both directions and it is totally off the mark. The presence of these people on discussion boards is counter-productive and just serves to escalate the tension.

I also feel, and it is just my opinion, that insofar as you and O8 have gone from making contributions to just making snarky comments, goading people and trying to turn this board into a defense board, you have encouraged some of what you perceive as invective. If you would just let people here get on with the discussion and post your views on a site that is closer to your values, there would be less bad will and mud slinging all around. That is sad to say, but increasingly clear to me.

As for the notion that the discussion requires your presence to be balanced, that may have been true at one time but it no longer is. People here know the case inside out, and they read all the blogs and boards and forums. They already know your arguments.

abby wrote:Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: come on
I propose a truce; come on; I don't want to be all "can't we just get along" but really, can't we? This site is now descending to a level of snarky pettiness that is just not in keeping with the vibrant discourse about a terrible, tragic crime that has compelled all of us here in search of truth and catharsis. I think we should lay off of Oc8 and Oc8 should lay off of everyone else and we should prove that a board of diverging and even sometimes inflammatory opinions can thrive and transcend tit-for-tat personal attacks. Can we LET IT GO and move on here? Please? I won't give my lost if which posters I think have, on occasion, behaved badly, because we all can have such a list, we all can have disagreeable opinions -- I include myself -- I am simply saying we try to ignore the trash talk and do better than this. ALL of us. Because if we start pointing fingers and blaming one or another poster, there is no getting out of this quagmire. Let's just all step out of it and clear the slate.

Thank-you Thank-you Thank-you

"The big difference here is that Amanda Knox's family live in the States and in the same town where one of the Moderator's lives and are aware of this site and others. I feel there is more risk from them than from Mignini and co coming after me and Charlie. Just just my opinion."---Oceania8

Oceania, in a way I feel sorry for you. You are in so way over your head. Those people you are working with are not going to be there for you when this is all over. Whatever they're promising, you should just forget about it. Meanwhile their words stand as YOUR words here, now and even when it's all over. They stand as OCEANIA'S WORDS. Oceania from New Zealand, with the Italian husband, with the son in Perugia, with the in-law who works for a university, with the husband whose email is... was revealed by none other than you. They've put you in a real soup, and with your complicity.

So don't think we can't see "your" opinion here for what it is; a threat to Skep.

ONE THING YOU FORGET. Skep is smarter than you and your minders, as are most people on this board. Mignini may have a few libel suits pending, IN ITALY!

Did you know libel laws are different in the US? They're very different. The people you work for don't have a leg to stand on. I bet they know it too. They're just trying to scare us. And you are the FOOL who's acting as their mouthpiece. When it's all over are they going to back you up?

WHY SHOULD THEY?

The problem with two defamation cases Mignini has tried to pursue in the past is that they were superceded by current charges now pending against him for the things he said he was being defamed for.

The big difference here is that Amanda Knox's family live in the States and in the same town where one of the Moderator's lives and are aware of this site and others. I feel there is more risk from them than from Mignini and co coming after me and Charlie. Just just my opinion.

I assume then that any defamation case that the Knox family could bring would also be superseded by a likely, immenent charge to be pending against Amanda for the same thing that her family would likely claim that she is being defamed for (murder).

I don’t know what residence in the same city/country has to do with bring libel charges, but if it is a concern that the Knox family and one of our moderators live in the US. then perhaps the same worry should apply to you. Am I mistaken that you, or at least family members reside in Italy or even Perugia?

I don’t doubt that Mignini and the Italian authorities are aware of this blog, especially because one of the suspect's family members has been an active poster here, and because of the cross connections between this and the Perugia Shock site which has garnered a lot of attention. The attacks against Mignini (and the police in Perugia specifically, and Italy in general) are unproven and have been relentless during a very high profile case. I don’t doubt that there could be a risk for you, as well.

Please understand that I am not defending libelous remarks about any of the suspects, but I do feel that whatever precautions and threats of deletion are deemed necessary for posters here, should be uniform. If there is a danger in speaking our minds in this forum, the danger is equal to all, regardless of point of view. Personally, I am quite surprised that in a discussion of an unsolved murder, that examining the evidence and constructing theories based upon that evidence, could constitute libel.

Oceania wrote:

The big difference here is that Amanda Knox's family live in the States and in the same town where one of the Moderator's lives and are aware of this site and others. I feel there is more risk from them than from Mignini and co coming after me and Charlie. Just just my opinion.

Sparrow wrote:

The people you work for don't have a leg to stand on. I bet they know it too. They're just trying to scare us. And you are the FOOL who's acting as their mouthpiece. When it's all over are they going to back you up?

I think it is clear that a concerted effort is afoot to scare people out of posting their opinions about this case, when in fact those opinions are protected from the threat of libel. I guess for some people it does no good to say that over and over and over again. Let's drop the discussion of libel, shall we, O8, and just resume discussing the case. Or is that a problem?

I have been told in writing by one such local family member that he believes a lawsuit against statements on a website would never get off ground. I have also been told that the family does not want a lawsuit on its hands. I think they have other preoccupations. They may have friends, recently banned from this board, who are suggesting otherwise. It is probably best to ignore them, and continue posting opinions about this case. They are just trying to stir people up. It isn't very productive to help them in any way.

It would be interesting to have O8's thoughts on FBN's interesting comment about credibility and boards of this kind.

Skep, Sparrow...I posted without refreshing. You both said it better than I.

I agree, Skep. The libel discussion is getting old and is taking more time than its worth. The good news delivered by Rob earlier today is that we shoud have some new developments very shortly as the defense teams respond to the prosecution's evidence.

Phew... Back to substantive discussion of something that matters.

a2 wrote:

Skep, Sparrow...I posted without refreshing. You both said it better than I.

I beg to differ. You said it quite well.

a2 wrote:

Phew... Back to substantive discussion of something that matters.

Amen.

skeptical bystander wrote:I think it is clear that a concerted effort is afoot to scare people out of posting their opinions about this case, when in fact those opinions are protected from the threat of libel. I guess for some people it does no good to say that over and over and over again. Let's drop the discussion of libel, shall we, O8, and just resume discussing the case...It would be interesting to have O8's thoughts on FBN's interesting comment about credibility and boards of this kind.

I think CW and O8 have become petrified from reading too many (non?)-fiction novels by the campfire late at night, with that Lone Wolf howling in the distance. This is surprising to me, because CW goes on and on about the his glory days of flaming on the UseNet. All that garbage CW used to spew is still out there to view, and while it may be quite embarrasing to look back on no one has ever been sued over any of it. And yes, of course, I am still waiting for answers to my questions asked of O8 just like Kermit is still waiting on answers to questions asked of CW. But, apparently, if things are not on the talking-point hitlist of the day they won't get any attention. In your expert opinion, O8, is this how blogs are designed to work?

Fly by Night wrote:

Oceania8 wrote:I too enjoy the exchange of ideas here with people from all over the world, when it stays on topic and no-one is being insulting or libellous it is an extraordinary and unique forum. Between Charlie and I we have a couple of hundred posts supporting the 'Lone Wolf' and ‘let’s wait and hear what the defence has to say’, against 1,000’s that say all 3 are guilty. Trying to stamp out the minority so one voice can rule is not how a healthy public debate should work.

You seem to be saying that one should argue for argument's sake - the more people arguing all around the world the better. You seem to be saying that even if arguments are prejudiced, made under false pretenses, or based upon outright lies, we should still go ahead and hear them out because there really are no truths to be found, everyone deserves their say, and no one should be silenced for any reason.

Since you seem to be an expert on these things, can I ask you another question about posting on blogs? Is a blog about seeing who can manipulate and ultimately wrestle control of it, or is a blog about a group of people coming to a natural, public consensus? I'm unsure because my observation is that you have been allowed to speak your mind freely here, you have been considered, and that you yourself have exposed yourself for who you really are and completely destroyed your credibility in the process. Is this how it's supposed to work, or am I missing something?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, that is your rather strange interpretation of what I said which was repeating exactly what another poster said.

Whose arguments are you saying are prejudiced, made under false pretences or based on outright lies ? People who argue based on what they read in the tabloids and other media reports? People who argue based on their interpretation of what is happening ? People who argue that the judges reports are gospel and should not be questioned? People who slander and insult people repeatedly ? Which ones exactly are you referring to ?

I don't claim myself to be an expert, I have based my opinions on my own observations and readings just like you have yours.

In answer to your last question/s a blog is where a group of people come together and put forward different or similar ideas. Where everyone has equal rights and equal respect and everyone respects the rules of the forum and they are administered equally and fairly. Many have exposed themselves here for their ability to fly off the handle, insult, hold petty grudges and generally take discussion right off track repeatedly.

We are only half way through studying this case, things might pan out the way I think they will or they might pan out in a different way, it's a bit too premature to state whose credibility is to be questioned and to state it so emphatically. It's a bit like pronouncing someone guilty before a trial, or before they have even been charged.

http://tinyurl.com/ljsff Berlusconi's Pizzo.

I used to write OT when I put up links to articles like this, even though my heart was never in it. I'm not going to do that anymore because I believe it is relevant to this case. It's Marco Travaglio on Berlusconi's plans for the Italian Justice system and it's in English. Unfortunately, they seem to have translated only half of his discourse. I hope people who understand either spoken or written Italian will click on the youtube link and see the rest of it, or read it on the Italian version of the blog. The second part is about the 'leggi razziali' which have recently been introduced in Italy, 2008.

DLW, I just did a nice, long post responding to your question but it went up in cyber smoke. I'll try again later. (No is the short answer, but it's pertinent for other reasons.)

Skeptical Bystander wrote:-
I think it is clear that a concerted effort is afoot to scare people out of posting their opinions about this case, when in fact those opinions are protected from the threat of libel. I guess for some people it does no good to say that over and over and over again. Let's drop the discussion of libel, shall we, O8, and just resume discussing the case. Or is that a problem?

There is no concerted effort to scare anyone about anything, if so it obviousy hasn't worked with the same old invective being spewed forth from the same old sources. I was interested to read of the legal responsiblities resting with Bloggers and Moderators to monitor their blogs in these respects.

Anyway, between cats, fish and the risks of internet libel, we await the news.

Oceania8 wrote:advised people to put IMHO in front of their opinion which clearly is not enough if what follows is libellous. You also said that anything libellous would be removed although something libellous was blatanly posted and allowed to stand.

[font=Times New Roman]Don't play games. Point out the post to which you're referring. If it was my opinion about Knox, I forgot to include 'slanderous' to the other adjectives. I believe that falls under 'careless' rather than libellous. While you're at it, perhaps you could answer Tara's question about why you post freely elsewhere without adding a disclaimer?

Is it because you're allowed to state your opinion as fact, but here, you're required to substantiate your claims?

And what rules do you set for accusing other people of 'crimes' they haven't committed? Like laying into indie for posting details of a website when no such thing had been done? Did you apologise?[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]And I noted with interest (and I use the term loosely), that your spiteful comments towards indie were ominously similar to the tone "CMellas" likes to use. Perhaps that's why you defend the family so vehemently, because you have an affinity with them.

As for double standards, get real! You've hung, drawn and quartered Mignini in advance. There's always one rule for you, and one rule for others. And to post anonymously on other blogs simply to attack people is beyond vengeful. [/font]

Skep

Oceania does not even understand the difference between slander and libel

Oceania:
People who slander and insult people repeatedly ?

_____

So I think you are wasting your time trying to explain things to her. You cannot slander someone through writing. These concepts she seems unable to comprehend.

Nothing is going to change because she does not respect what you or other posters say, her choice of words like that just now above:

'the same old invective being spewed forth from the same old sources'


shows she is not willing to accept what you or other people say all as she does is put individuals into a group and belittle them that way.

Within 20 days, the various defense teams will present their defensive memos and ask for another audience with the prosecutors.

2-After evaluating their responses the prosecutors will decide whether to ask for a trial or for their release (with a lot of apologies).

Perugia-Shock



With just hours to go, it would appear that none of the defense teams has put forward a defensive memo.

I guess that means no-one will be released with or without apologies and the prosecutors will ask the judge to move forward to the trial.


Nessuna richiesta istruttoria alla procura di Perugia, finora, da parte dei legali di Raffale Sollecito, Amanda Knox e Rudy Guede ai quali i pm Giuliano Mignini e Manuela Comodi hanno notificato l'avviso di conclusione indagini perché ritenuti responsabili dell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher. Le difese hanno comunque tempo fino a domani alle 13 per presentare in cancelleria eventuali istanze.....

fondazioneitaliani


Perhaps Damian,Nicki or Cinsky would like to offer an opinion of the significance (or not) of this?

O8 wrote:

yet others can put forward libellous content and insult regularly and this seems accepted and encouraged. I was interested to read of the legal responsiblities resting with Bloggers and Moderators to monitor their blogs in these respects. Yesterday you advised people to put IMHO in front of their opinion which clearly is not enough if what follows is libellous. You also said that anything libellous would be removed although something libellous was blatanly posted and allowed to stand. It's hard keeping up with the double standards. And yes, I agree, let's get back to the case.

Please help the entire board by hunting down this libelous content and bringing it to our attention, either publicly or privately. I consider this to be your duty as a member at present of this board. If you fail to do so, but claim publicly to have spotted such content, then you are doing a disservice to everyone here and possibly making a false claim. If no such libelous content exists, then you must amend every post in which you have made this false claim. The difference between slander and libel has been explained here, most recently in a post I wrote yesterday. Apparently you (and an "anonymous" person making private threats at just this time) do not know that slander involves the spoken word and what is written on a board is, well, written. Don't post anything else here until you have either retrieved this libelous content or retracted your statement.

If nothing else, this will be a useful exercise because then we can all see exactly what libel (not slander) does and does not mean.

Skeptical Bystander (Moderator)

Damian wrote:

I used to write OT when I put up links to articles like this, even though my heart was never in it. I'm not going to do that anymore because I believe it is relevant to this case.

Thanks Damian. In your spare time, maybe you could translate the rest of the speech. Just kidding.

Brian:

With just hours to go, it would appear that none of the defense teams has put forward a defensive memo.

I guess that means no-one will be released with or without apologies and the prosecutors will ask the judge to move forward to the trial.

______________________

That seems to be the case.

Even though the defence gained the right to access to all of the evidence, still it has not been made clear exactly what the evidence is.

Not by prosecution because why would they be busy spending time doing that when they are not obliged by law to do so?

And defence, contrary to what some may have made of it, are not going to be publishing everything that is against them.

The fact that what is against the suspects amounts to more than any unofficial person made of it is not going to see the defence publishing things that only make their case look worse when they have no way of righting the wrongs that are very clearly apparent in this case.

They have enough work to do and the question is whether there is a way to be successful at that work when all as they have are alibis that clash and evidence that goes against their clients.

Three suspects with totally inconclusive strories.

One or two parts that seems to make no sense at all, okay then, if it did not fit, it might be some kind of accident, memory loss, misunderstanding, even a lie and not a lie made up by any of the suspects because they are guilty, but when so many things do not work out, then the defence, is most likely sat there trying to make a meal of a dog's dinner.

For they already know - being that it is so that they are, after all, Italians lawyers - that they will have a hard job convincing anyone that any of the three are telling the whole truth, unless someone, one of them, or more of them, actually really does come clean, because when that happens is it starts to explain a lot of things, and then all the missing links start to fall into place.

I think it is easier to tell the truth than to be a convincing and good liar. These people are not good at lying. They have been failing at it.

Though Guede has also told lies it may be the case that his lawyers added up everything and decided they had better persuade him that telling the truth, admitting guilt, is the best option open to him.

Lawyers cannot tell a client I think you are guilty but they do have ways to get things done.

If they are protecting a client because the client tells them he or she is innocent then they are not allowed to be told by the client that in fact, Hey I am guilty, if that is the case the lawyer would not be able to defend such a person as innocent when knowing they are guilty. It is not ethical. It is not allowed by law.

Yet, lawyers may defend a person who they believe is in fact guilty, as long as they have not been told by the client I am guilty, lawyers defend people as though they were innocent when the lawyer in actual fact believes them to be guilty, lawyers do it all the time.

I reckon they would in Guede's case, get him to change his story to them, in a tactful way they'd do that but only after explaining to him what happens as regards their stance and position towards him and what they can then do for for him if he tells them, I am guilty of this or that.

They explain to a client that if he or she ever tells them they are in fact guilty then they cannot defend him or her as an innocent person after that.


Personally, I'd say, if they did not get him to make a big move/change his story, and come up with a big deal, then they would be pretty useless lawyers because as things stood with his evidence, it did not look good for him, even though it still doesn't make him Freddy the loner, still with or without the others his position is not wonderful but with or without him neither do the positions of the other two look bright and sparkly.

I say the position they are in is their own fault, I think they are very guilty, and if they were not guilty, then anything they'd have done would not have landed them in the position they are in now, there are just too many oddities for it all to be pure coincidence or plain accident.


I think Biscotti has an ace up his sleeve and that ace may be that he knew all along, more than he let on, and he was building the best strategy for Guede after allowing the other two to spend time incriminating themselves yet further.

The ace I would imagine would be Guede facing the music, much more than he has admitted to, so it means none of it has been known to anyone but his lawyers and the judge and prosecutor and they were under no law to have to give that information to anyone until recently.

He may have had a part in it with the others and have been able to explain it so convincingly to Biscotti that it was clear he was not hiding anything anymore, he raped Meredith, may be what he revealed, whilst working in some kind of team with the other two.

This is what may have convinced the judges that Guede was actually being truthful.
Guede admitting things (that have not been made public yet) may have changed everything (Sollecito's biggest fear, Guede saying strange things) the other defence teams will be aware of those things now.

If there are things that have made it look even worse for their clients, things said by Guede and team, Guede is getting to the point and that is why the judges may think they have some proper information from one of the suspects if none from the other two, yet.

Anyway if something like this has not happened, I'd say Biscotti would be a fool for continuing to try to get Guede off entirely with some weak WC, I-pod story. I think he is wiser than that.


This may be why the Knox and Soll defence teams are all as quiet as mice now.

With just hours to go, it would appear that none of the defense teams has put forward a defensive memo.

I guess that means no-one will be released with or without apologies and the prosecutors will ask the judge to move forward to the trial.

Answering myself and at the risk of jumping the gun because I guess there is still time a defensive memo to be presented:

The prosecution evidence and the defensive memos were to be reviewed by a brand new Judge who has had no involvement with this case.

In the eyes of Charlie and Oceania, this would signal the breakup of the evil team, Mignini and Matteini.

So what has happened? Ever since they were arrested the suspects have appealed up through the courts against lack of evidence etc. etc. in an attempt to gain release or at least house arrest.

What is in those 10,000 pages which prevents Amanda's team from presenting a defensive memo which, whilst not completely absolving her from some involvement in the events of Nov 1, would at least support her appeal for house arrest?

Raffaele, who insists he was at home, on his computer and not involved in any way doesn't feel able to put forward a memo to even contest the footprint in Meredith's room.

In the case of Rudy it is probably easier to understand. His presence at the crime scene is admitted and maybe he doesn't feel he has anything to add to the statements he made on March 26 and May 14.

It was his statement on March 26 which seemed to signal Papa's retreat from the front line of of publicly defending Raffaele.

It was Rudy's statement which Raffaele's defence team so badly wanted to see but apparently Mignini had picked the slowest printers in Perugia to produce the transcript and he wasn't able to provide it until it came in a package with 10,000 other pieces of paper.

ISTM there MUST be some damaging evidence contained in the documents the defence teams have been reading.

BRIAN:

ISTM there MUST be some damaging evidence contained in the documents the defence teams have been reading.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Exactly what I think.

Brian wrote:

ISTM there MUST be some damaging evidence contained in the documents the defence teams have been reading.

My guess is that the circumstantial evidence is quite extensive, and that the teams for both RS and AK will focus on contesting the forensics, which is what they have been doing so far. It will be interesting to see the status of the mop and other items of interest, including the footprints that recently came to light. Also whether or not RS's prison document is admissible.

Oceania8 wrote:We are only half way through studying this case...

Then I suggest you and CW invest a little more time and try catching up with the rest of us. Thank you for clarifying your "expert" status - I will remember to read your disclaimer.

thank you so fucking much skep. 10 reduced to 3 is a great leap forward in my book. i loved the halo thread being one long discussion because it made searching posts much easier and communications flowed even if they did end up in a 'shit-sandwich'.

the deadline for the big a , the boyfriend and the vampire to submit their 'version' of 'truth' relating to the proposed charges is 13.00 italian time on wednesday. so hold your fire and lets have no premature ejaculations im sure goofy has enough of those already.

.

Brian S. wrote:

Nessuna richiesta istruttoria alla procura di Perugia, finora, da parte dei legali di Raffale Sollecito, Amanda Knox e Rudy Guede ai quali i pm Giuliano Mignini e Manuela Comodi hanno notificato l'avviso di conclusione indagini perché ritenuti responsabili dell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher. Le difese hanno comunque tempo fino a domani alle 13 per presentare in cancelleria eventuali istanze.....

fondazioneitaliani


Perhaps Damian,Nicki or Cinsky would like to offer an opinion of the significance (or not) of this?

Hi Brian. I don't think this is of particular significance. The only thing it shows is your ability to find any article about this case written anywhere! This 20 day period could have been used by the lawyers to speak to the pm. They could do this if they were convinced that the pm had got it all wrong and that they could prove it. I'm not saying anything here about the guilt or innocence of the suspects and neither are the lawyers in their silence up until now. Cases in which the lawyers convince the pm at this stage of the innocence of their clients are few and far between. From what has already been released, I don't think anyone was expecting the cases agaisnt the suspects to be archived at this point. There'll be a trial, it'll be decided there. The lawyers will present their defence there, and also their expert medical witness reports which are unlikely to tie in with the prosecution's.

HI all... keeping a low profile but lurking in the background, pleased to see that 90% of the board are keeping the faith and using the board what it is actually meant for and unlike others do not have a hidden agenda in respect to their great and insightful postings!

As Rob said hold off until 1pm tomorrow and also I am expecting a new posting from the Italian lady person tomorrow and cannot wait to see what the title will be!

Regards to all...

LW

rob,

The "Wheels of Justice" march on. It has been difficult for us who post on this Message Board because we all know this to be the case, but still, we must wait. We have discussed the evidence down to the minutest detail. There is nothing new really for us to talk about.

It must be even more difficult for the family of Meredith Kercher. Their lives are probably measured in minutes because of the 'gaping hole' that now exists in their individual lives. Some people on this Message Board have talked about their own personal experience living with this kind of loss. Each of us fear it too and hope that it does not pass our way.

But it did pass the way of the Kercher family. That family has immeasurable support here. And one fine day in the future, perhaps these three individuals will reveal the truth about what happened on the night of November 1st, 2007 when time stopped for Meredith. At that moment, the healing process, such as it is or can be, will start.

I cannot imagine spending the next six months discussing this case. I cannot imagine the Kercher family spending their lives without Meredith. All any one of these three individuals has to do, is 'Just Tell the Truth,' and we can move on.

Brian S. wrote:With just hours to go, it would appear that none of the defense teams has put forward a defensive memo.
fondazioneitaliani

Hi Brian. I think the main point of the article is summarised in your comment. In any case, here's a fast and dirty translation:

HEADLINE: Perugia Crime, no investigative claims by the suspects

SUBTITLE: Murder of Perugia. All the pieces

July 8, 2008 - There are still no investigative claims [requests/pleas...] to the Perugia Prosecutors' office, by the lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede, and to whom State Prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi notified the conclusion of the investigations regarding them being deemed responsible for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The defense teams have until tomorrow at 1 p.m. to present the Court with any instances [claims/counterarguments] they may have. None of the three, however, seems to have the intention to solicit prosecutors to carry out further activities or to present defense reports, although it is not possible to exclude news in this regard in the coming hours. If the situation remains as it currently is, it is probable that once the deadline has expired, the Prosecutors' office of the Umbrian capital will formalise within a short period of time its request for trial. The preliminary hearing would be fixed soon after the summer. Sollecito, Knox and Guede reject all allegations that have them implicated in the murder Kercher. (Ansa)
==================================

I can only conclude that the Evil Mignini conspiracy theory is dead:

1) Amanda was not subject to illegal coercive interrogation methods (Charlie says he never said "torture", I'm too tired to go back and find how he described it) inspired in the Preston case.

2) No one has formally complained or sued the Police for illegal coercive interrogation methods inspired in the Preston case.

3) Apart from the slander / libel (she said it in interrogation, then she wrote it in the "spontaneous" document) charge relating to Patrick, the central murder charge is unaffected by the interrogation of Nov. 5. (First of all, it seems that both Amanda's and Raffaele's legal teams consider it a non-issue, and secondly, everyone agrees that at this point, said interrogation is irrelevant to a courtroom trial for the murder charge: Patrick is innocent, and Amanda's own words can't be used against her).

HA! OT

The White House has apologised to Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi for a briefing describing him as a political "amateur" who is "hated by many".

The "insulting" biography was included in a press kit distributed to reporters travelling with President George W Bush to a meeting of world leaders in Japan.

He was "one of the most controversial leaders" of a country "known for governmental corruption and vice"...."regarded by many as a political dilettante (amateur) who gained his high office only through use of his considerable influence on the national media"....

The BBC

Kermit,

Thanks for the translation. On the issue of

"5. (First of all, it seems that both Amanda's and Raffaele's legal teams consider it a non-issue, and secondly, everyone agrees that at this point, said interrogation is irrelevant to a courtroom trial for the murder charge: Patrick is innocent, and Amanda's own words can't be used against her)."

Amanda Knox has been additionally charged with 'Slander' against the person of Patrick Lumumba.

Brian wrote:

The White House has apologised to Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi for a briefing describing him as a political "amateur" who is "hated by many".

The "insulting" biography was included in a press kit distributed to reporters travelling with President George W Bush to a meeting of world leaders in Japan.

For once, the Bush administration gets something right (IMO)!

i walked past the italian consulate in belgravia today and saw 'democracy' protestors with their banner oposite. armed with damians info i walked up to them fist clenched in an upheld power salute and said 'striking judges free the power' or something very similar. my dog reared up at another dog and the protestors looked on blankly. i walked away thinking right on damian thanks for keeping me informed and then thought the delay of procedure game and judicial/political trumoil in italy means there is a very big probability of the big a , the boyfriend and probably to a lesser extent the vampire getting out of jail free. on the terrible technicalities brought about by the elite in order to protect themselves and their corrupted cohorts.

the trial(s) i fear will be very very far from stragiht-forward and may very well deliver the miscarriage of justice the 'supporters' have been bleating on about - only it will be a travestry of justice and a true inversion of their plantive cries. how sad that it is likely their ugly ugly expressions shall appear to be verified when nothing could be further from the 'actual' version of the truth and the Kerchers shall suffer suffer suffer such injustice.

.

damian wrote: This 20 day period could have been used by the lawyers to speak to the pm. They could do this if they were convinced that the pm had got it all wrong and that they could prove it.

Damian: Am I right in assuming that any defendant who is thinking of going for the rito abbreviato would do better to file his objections, or the contrary opinions of his own expert forensic experts, now? As I understand it, a rito abbreviato would not not allow for the cross-examination of forensic experts in court, simply the assessment of their depositions.

Or do those requesting a rito abbreviato have another chance to submit a written defence, including depositions from their own (independent) experts, after applying for the rito abbreviato?

Are applications for the rito abbreviato always accepted; or can the GUP rule that the case must go to a full hearing?

Sorry to ask so many questions, some of which you may have answered already. But I find the whole RA thing intriguing, and can't find much about it. I ask because I understand that the RA is based on the indagini prelliminari; and that I believe that the indagini preliminari is what Mignini handed over, all 10 thousand pages of it, 20 days ago. Or have I got it completely wrong?

Rob,

"the trial(s) i fear will be very very far from stragiht-forward and may very well deliver the miscarriage of justice the 'supporters' have been bleating on about "

Do not worry too much. Justice for Meredith will be delivered. Sometimes it is hard to see. The three suspects were taken into custody very quickly, in spite of the outcry "it was a rush to judgement." Patrick Lumumba was falsely accused, willfully, deliberately and voluntarily by one of the suspects in custody. That suspect has been charged additionally with 'Slander.'

A third suspect was taken into custody while in Germany. This suspect made the false claim that he had a 'date' with Meredith. That claim has been officially debunked. And this person has been charged with the crime of 'Voluntary Homicide.'

In order to hide their involvement in the crime, all three suspects in custody have systematically lied to the authorities. In return, the Court has said, using Kermit's words, "Okay, make our day." All three suspects have been charged with 'Voluntary Homicide."

There was a clean up in the cottage by two of the suspects in custody. In spite of the vociferous outcry by some to the contrary, these two suspects have been additionally charged with 'Changing a crime scene."

The Court has given the three suspects in custody 20 days to counter the charges that have been filed against them. By tomorrow, or the next day, or the next day after that, these charges will stick.

So I say to you Rob, the "Wheels of Justice" are turning, albeit slowly, just be patient. Justice will be delivered to Meredith Kercher, her family and all those who love/loved her.

TLC,

I replied to your email. I have had problems with this email system on this Message Board. I have written messages that are not in the Outbox. Has anyone else has this problem?

SB,

Is there a problem with delivering emails to others on this Message Board?

Bpcl wrote:

TLC,

I replied to your email. I have had problems with this email system on this Message Board. I have written messages that are not in the Outbox. Has anyone else has this problem?

SB,

Is there a problem with delivering emails to others on this Message Board?

Beep,
Do you mean messages that stay in the outbox after you send them instead of moving to the sent box? If so, this just means that the receiver has not picked the message up. Sometimes that happens because the person has not activated the "notify me when I have messages" function.
If you mean that messages are disappearing, I have no answer for that one but will try and find out.

Alternatively, if you mean is it okay to send people who are on this board emails instead of PMs, there is no problem with that.

Let me know if I haven't addressed your issue.

Skeptical Bystander (Moderator)

SB,

Messages are disappearing, either sent by someone else to myself, or myself having sent one to them. Is there a limit on the size of an email?

bpcl wrote:

Messages are disappearing, either sent by someone else to myself, or myself having sent one to them. Is there a limit on the size of an email?

Send me a PM and we'll see if we can't figure this out.
SB

rob wrote:i walked past the italian consulate in belgravia today and saw 'democracy' protestors with their banner oposite. armed with damians info i walked up to them fist clenched in an upheld power salute and said 'striking judges free the power' or something very similar. my dog reared up at another dog and the protestors looked on blankly. i walked away thinking right on damian thanks for keeping me informed and then thought the delay of procedure game and judicial/political trumoil in italy means there is a very big probability of the big a , the boyfriend and probably to a lesser extent the vampire getting out of jail free. on the terrible technicalities brought about by the elite in order to protect themselves and their corrupted cohorts.

the trial(s) i fear will be very very far from stragiht-forward and may very well deliver the miscarriage of justice the 'supporters' have been bleating on about - only it will be a travestry of justice and a true inversion of their plantive cries. how sad that it is likely their ugly ugly expressions shall appear to be verified when nothing could be further from the 'actual' version of the truth and the Kerchers shall suffer suffer suffer such injustice.

.

Nice one Rob! Passaparola. It's important. There was a big demonstration in Rome today, maybe what you saw was connected to that. Antonio Di Pietro organised the demonstration. He's the pm who led 'mani pulite' and is now a politician. He had the balls to say what nobody has the balls to say; P2. That's important too.
If the pm's and judges do go on strike, I hope it would be limited to less important cases. I don't think murder trials would be disrupted but you never know. If they were, it would change things radically. I'm now perhaps understanding better the 'vol au vent party' at the British consulate in Florence recently. I hope Mignini and Comodi went and that they enjoyed it.
Your news put a big smile on my face. Cheers.

Minatour, if the defence team's expert medical witnesses disagreed with the prosecution's reports, they would have already submitted their versions and that will be part of the 10,000 page file.

Brian, I can hardly believe that BBC link you put up, incredible. I didn't see that on the national TV news tonight, but they did say that the Panama hat is back in fashion.

damian wrote:

rob wrote:i walked past the italian consulate in belgravia today and saw 'democracy' protestors with their banner oposite. armed with damians info i walked up to them fist clenched in an upheld power salute and said 'striking judges free the power' or something very similar. my dog reared up at another dog and the protestors looked on blankly. i walked away thinking right on damian thanks for keeping me informed and then thought the delay of procedure game and judicial/political trumoil in italy means there is a very big probability of the big a , the boyfriend and probably to a lesser extent the vampire getting out of jail free. on the terrible technicalities brought about by the elite in order to protect themselves and their corrupted cohorts.

the trial(s) i fear will be very very far from stragiht-forward and may very well deliver the miscarriage of justice the 'supporters' have been bleating on about - only it will be a travestry of justice and a true inversion of their plantive cries. how sad that it is likely their ugly ugly expressions shall appear to be verified when nothing could be further from the 'actual' version of the truth and the Kerchers shall suffer suffer suffer such injustice.

.

Nice one Rob! Passaparola. It's important. There was a big demonstration in Rome today, maybe what you saw was connected to that. Antonio Di Pietro organised the demonstration. He's the pm who led 'mani pulite' and is now a politician. He had the balls to say what nobody has the balls to say; P2. That's important too.
If the pm's and judges do go on strike, I hope it would be limited to less important cases. I don't think murder trials would be disrupted but you never know. If they were, it would change things radically. I'm now perhaps understanding better the 'vol au vent party' at the British consulate in Florence recently. I hope Mignini and Comodi went and that they enjoyed it.
Your news put a big smile on my face. Cheers.

Minatour, if the defence team's expert medical witnesses disagreed with the prosecution's reports, they would have already submitted their versions and that will be part of the 10,000 page file.

Brian, I can hardly believe that BBC link you put up, incredible. I didn't see that on the national TV news tonight, but they did say that the Panama hat is back in fashion.

I agree Damian, I don't think that any strike would affect murder cases like this. I am quite confident this case will go to trial, and justice will be made.

Nicki:

I agree Damian, I don't think that any strike would affect murder cases like this. I am quite confident this case will go to trial, and justice will be made.

___________________

I agree.

I was looking it up a bit, statistics, et cetera,
Italy, loose from whatever can be said about it, and the state of its politics, has one of the lowest rates for murder in Europe and in the world.

America, for instance, is right up at the top of the ratings, having the same kind of level as many undeveloped countries.

It seems to be that in Italy, in the case of murder, the case will not be compromised.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Oceania, (and Charlie Wilkes please read) -

On return to the board and catching up on recent discussion, I find myself out of patience. I've plain had enough of you, both as a fellow common poster and as a Moderator.

You are rather similar to a doctor my ex used to work with. My ex always reffered to her as "Crap, with confidence." That is, she was a very poor doctor and didn't know what she was talking about/doing half the time, but thought she was Doctor Kildare and went about it with a manner of supreme arrogance. I see you as similar, since you lecture the membership on matters in which it's clear, that you yourself do not actually understand them or their definition/what they mean or what is acceptable/unacceptable.

Firstly, you've been here for months and you still haven't grasped the fact...this is 'not' a 'blog'. True Crime on Haloscan was a blog, this is not, it is a 'Forum' (it can also be termed as a 'Message Board'). At least now, you know where you are. Also, for the record, because they are completely different entities (in ways I won't go into here), there is a difference both in ethos and practice in how they are Moderated (again, something I won't go further into here, since you are 'not' a Moderator, despite your attempts to be one...see below).

The libel 'issue'. Firstly, as Skep and others have pointed out, you clearly do not understand what libel 'is', nor how and where it applies. For the record, you have 'not' been rebuked or accused of libel, even though you have sailed close to the wind on it on occasion, only one person on the board has and that was not 'you'. That was taken care of via 'Moderator' action, since that is the 'Moderators' ' 'job' (as in, not 'yours'). As others again have mentioned, there has been no evidence of you seeing this as a matter of import on any of the other sites you post. I have to say, I find your raising the matter of libel and lhe 'manner' in which you've done so (laying it on thick and as an 'argument' to 'show', in 'your' view, 'hypocrisy' on the part of other members and Moderators....ie, as a 'WEAPON') to be cynical as well as ignorant. Were it not even the intent, the sowing of a 'climate of fear' amongst the membership is the likely result and using it to beat other members around under the very transparent guise of 'a concern for their well being and online safety' is more then merely cynical, it is the actions of one who sees no trick or action as being too low, but cares only to 'win' at any cost. The subtext of your little stunt seems to be concluding that you should be able to treat/create/manipulate 'facts' and 'truth' however you wish without being called up on it by other members, which is no surprise, as all your little devices seem to conveniently do that. Further, I think all here understand the real reason for your little 'disclaimer', a disclaimer that has no actual use, other then to warn any poster who may not have encountered you before (new members I suppose) in big flashing lights, not to treat your posts as having any sort of validity, since you hold 'accuracy', 'facts' and the 'truth' in contempt. Whilst this, blackly amusing as it may be, was not your intent, it is in fact the 'only' reason I haven't had you remove it. If you wish to, in effect, publicly brand youself a 'liar' well...why should I stop you? Knock yourself out.

Just to complete the matter of 'libel'...REALITY CHECK! Whilst Skep and I encourage posters to police themselves as much as possible, the buck for libel stops with 'us' and it is 'our' job to ensure it doesn't occur and fix it when it does. It is one of the purposes of having 'Moderators'. That is to mean, other then policing yourself, it is not 'yours'. As much as you've tried to be, you are 'not' a forum Moderator. It's for the Moderators to lose sleep over, so that the membership doesn't have to. As a discussion 'theme' in a thread, certainly the main discussion thread, it is 'off topic' for members, even in a 'lull', whilst the theme of 'The Murder of Meredith Kercher' is 'on topic'. You have most successfully made it a 'theme' during the past few days and were it a calculated attempt to subvert the board and usurp the discussion, you could not have done it better. Therefore, I shall now make things very simple. All further board 'discussion' of libel is now 'Oficially Off Topic' and therefore 'out of bounds' (that means it's a 'rule' if you're unsure). If, a member has a 'genuine' concern that a specific post may be libelous, then they can contact either Skep or myself via PM and we'll have a look at it. Likewise, if they are unsure for themselves and require clarification in order to temper their own posting. The libel discussion is now officially 'over'.

Your claims of 'minority' status and 'victim hood' thereof. This does seem to be a common theme amongst those who exist to defend and 'CAMPAIGN' for the 'Perugia Two', on 'all' sites concerned in this matter. AK and RS are 'victims' according to them and by association in their minds, they themselves are therefore also victims...beyond that in fact, 'Martyrs'. 'You' are 'not' a victim, and you especially are not a martyr, so you can just get off your cross! Let me just point something out. There are Candace's blogs...(what number are we up to on those by the way, has she written 9 or 10 now, I've lost count?) which are all overtly sympathetic to the 'Perugia Two': There is Oxy Moron's blog...again, even more 'stridently' supportive of the pair: There have also been the Monica Guzman blogs (4 or 5 now?) again overtly slanted to the pair...or Knox in particular, whilst however the comment discussion is open to both sides since it's not Moderated and the blogger does not participate (Guzman being a 'hit and run' blogger): Then there is are the UW articles/blogs that are again (passively) supportive of the couple with an open comments section for each article they publish, or at least they were until Knox defenders shot themselves in the foot there: Then there is Frank's blog which is 'neutral', although he has been somewhat 'gentle' in his treatment of Knox over recent weeks with a very open comments section which is only 'subtly' Moderated and done without bias in regard to the stance of the posters. You are hardly a minority!: Finally, there is True Crime on Haloscan progressing through to our current incarnation as a Forum, which is again 'neutral' (our theme, or actually 'Purpose', is the 'Truth'' and 'Understanding' of 'The Murder of Meredith Kercher', not 'The Guilt/Innocence of Amanda Knox', or 'The Guilt/Innocence of Sollecito', or 'The Guilt/Innocence of Rudy Guede' . It is neither a 'Trial' nor 'Defence' blog/forum. We are not 'Campaigners', neither are we evangelical (at least, not for anything more then the 'Truth' and the 'memory' of 'Meredith Kercher', that being, that 'Meredith Kercher' and her 'family' are the victims in this case. Should any of the suspects walk free from court absolved from wrongdoing, 'then' perhaps they can claim some degree victimhood. You may not be able to understand the sublty of these differences, but really, that is not my or the membership's problem. But in effect, this makes 'us' the minority, not you.

You are on a forum where the ethos requires that Meredith Kercher is the focul point and if that then leads via reasoned debate and informed consideration of the facts to a member's conclusion that any or all of the suspects are guilty or innocent of wrongdoing in this matter, then so be it. It is not ones' 'beliefs' that concern us here, or their conclusions, that isn't important. What 'is' important is the 'manner' in which those conclusions are arrived at and then prosecuted. This can be summed up in a very simple and short sentence...'That each actively participating member have a genuine desire and respect for the 'Truth' '. This is the 'GOLDEN RULE', that means, it's an 'Absolute'!. If you twist the facts, it breaks the GOLDEN RULE! If you misrepresent others arguments by throwing strawmen, it breaks the GOLDEN RULE! If you use sophistry to 'win' your argument, that breaks the GOLDEN RULE! When you make 'YOURSELF' the central theme rather then the murder of Meredith under the GOLDEN RULE, that by default, breaks the GOLDEN RULE! The murder of Meredith is not about 'YOU'! Whether the suspects transpire to be guilty or innocent...it is not about 'You'! This Forum is not about 'You'! The membership here is not about 'You'! The GOLDEN RULE is what exists here...not any new 'GOLDEN RULE ABOUT 'YOU' ' that you are seeking to surplant it with! Read this paragraph over and over until you understand it, if not, get out! There are no shortage of places where you can post and a free Web also means you can set up your own blog or forum where 'your' GOLDEN RULE, or better put...'agenda', applies. This is a refuge where anyone who wishes to debate and explore this crime under the GOLDEN RULE in the interests of justice for Meredith and her family, can do so, without fear of molestation or persecution, or interference from trolls.

I am tired of struggling to find the time to post something constructive on 'The Case', or answer PM's, or perform general Moderator tasks and finding instead I'm having to put my Moderator hat on in the main thread, my time and effort instead being taken up dealing with 'you' or CW, as a result of some trouble you are causing, some general rule you are breaking, or your general crapping all over the 'GOLDEN RULE' as a matter of course and that's without responding to 90% of the things I could have and in some cases 'should' have, over the past few months. I've had enough of you 'BOTH' and frankly, so has everyone else. Oceania, Charlie Wilkes, you are both still here by the skin of the seat of your pants and you are both on NOTICE...you are both halfway out the door, in fact, it is going to be 'very' difficult for you to remain. You both can consider this warning 'FORMAL' and 'FINAL''. You need us, that is clear since you choose to be here as opposed to any of the other places you could set up home or even create, we do NOT need you. Consider these things each time you post henceforth and if in doubt even for a second, remember the GOLDEN RULE as that will keep you straight, and if you find you still do not understand it, then do not post at all.

This post to you is a 'monologue', it is not intended to form part of a dialogue, debate or facilitate any kind of reply. That means a response, appeal, or protest is niether required, or anything you should even 'consider' and that's now an end to it. The information Skep requires from you, you can post, but do not use doing so as an excuse to carry on the argument further, don't even 'think' it.

Everyone else. Please, now just continue your discussion of the case as you would normally and resist from this point making, or including, 08 or CW as a 'theme'. The main discussion has been lead astray long enough. I meanwhile, shall try to respond to a couple of other posts and some PM's that have been waiting for a while.

Michael (Moderator)[/font]

Michael wrote:

This post to you is a monologue, it is not to form part of a dialogue, debate or facilitate any kind of reply. That means a response, appeal or protest is niether required, or anything you should even 'consider' and that's now an end to it. The information Skep requires from you, you can post.

With that in mind, and in case it has been buried, here is the information I require of you, Oceania, before you post anything else on this board. But first, as a reminder, you wrote:

Yet others can put forward libellous content and insult regularly and this seems accepted and encouraged. I was interested to read of the legal responsiblities resting with Bloggers and Moderators to monitor their blogs in these respects. Yesterday you advised people to put IMHO in front of their opinion which clearly is not enough if what follows is libellous. You also said that anything libellous would be removed although something libellous was blatanly posted and allowed to stand. It's hard keeping up with the double standards. And yes, I agree, let's get back to the case.


And my request is repeated below:


Please help the entire board by hunting down this libelous content and bringing it to our attention, either publicly or privately. I consider this to be your duty as a member at present of this board. If you fail to do so, but claim publicly to have spotted such content, then you are doing a disservice to everyone here and possibly making a false claim. If no such libelous content exists, then you must amend every post in which you have made this false claim. The difference between slander and libel has been explained here, most recently in a post I wrote yesterday. Apparently you (and an "anonymous" person making private threats at just this time) do not know that slander involves the spoken word and what is written on a board is, well, written. Don't post anything else here until you have either retrieved this libelous content or retracted your statement.

This is not some sneaky attempt to discredit you, by the way. As you know, libel is very serious. So if there is libelous content on the board - and you appear to be referring to something in particular - then you must bring it to our attention immediately so we can remove it.

Michael, it's tea time here. I wish I could make you a cup!
You don't have to answer my PM. I was just talkin'.

[font=Times New Roman]Here's an unlikely coincidence. Today, July 9th is the anniversary of my mother's murder. Today is the worst day, worse than birthdays and christmas and even mother's day, because today is the day I involuntarily clock watch and relive the whole thing over again. The coincidence is this:

"Amanda Knox will most likely celebrate her 21st birthday on July 9 in a maximum security prison in Perugia"

I wonder what the odds are of that?? I guess she's lucky to be alive, even if she is behind bars.
I'm sure her parents would rather she spent her whole life in jail than to end up beneath the ground like Meredith. Whatever the outcome of all this is, the guilty will never experience the pain and devastation they inflicted on Meredith. And I know it's uncharitable to think like this, but I can't help wishing they had a taste of what Meredith suffered so they would have some idea of the terror and pain they caused another human being.

And on each and every November 1st, I expect Meredith's family to clock watch just as I do.
Grief is the only thing the murderers have left behind for her family.[/font]

TLC wrote:America, for instance, is right up at the top of the ratings, having the same kind of level as many undeveloped countries.

That's because, in spite of what the French say, we are still an undeveloped country. What happened to Spain when Franco departed will happen to the USA when Bush departs.

Soozie UK,

It goes without saying, that those who have lost a 'love one' in their lives to murder, especially when the murdered victim is young, have nothing but a big, 'gaping hole' in their body and soul. My sincere apologies to you and your family. Respect.

I wasn't looking for this. I just bumped into it and I think the other day someone was asking whether the Sollecito clan had actually made any death threats:

According to Massimo Montebove, the national spokesman for the police union SAP, they have.

Il "Sap" (sindacato autonomo di polizia) sta valutando l'ipotesi di costituirsi parte civile nella vicenda della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher uccisa a Perugia. "Dalle intercettazioni diffuse dai giornali emerge un quadro sempre più inquietante", afferma - in una nota - il portavoce nazionale del Sap, Massimo Montebove. "Qui non si parla solo di pressioni - prosegue - per far trasferire i poliziotti della squadra mobile di Perugia. Ci sono anche esplicite minacce di morte nei confronti di alcuni operatori"....

FondazioneItaliani

I think this guy is who it may involve Brian, he's head of Flying Squaf from Rome.

Giacinto Profazio

TLC wrote:I think this guy is who it may involve Brian, he's head of Flying Squaf from Rome.
Giacinto Profazio

[font=Times New Roman]Sorry TLC, I couldn't resist. Say it out loud and I dare you not to giggle![/font]

Brian S. wrote:I wasn't looking for this. I just bumped into it and I think the other day someone was asking whether the Sollecito clan had actually made any death threats:

According to Massimo Montebove, the national spokesman for the police union SAP, they have.

Il "Sap" (sindacato autonomo di polizia) sta valutando l'ipotesi di costituirsi parte civile nella vicenda della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher uccisa a Perugia. "Dalle intercettazioni diffuse dai giornali emerge un quadro sempre più inquietante", afferma - in una nota - il portavoce nazionale del Sap, Massimo Montebove. "Qui non si parla solo di pressioni - prosegue - per far trasferire i poliziotti della squadra mobile di Perugia. Ci sono anche esplicite minacce di morte nei confronti di alcuni operatori"....

FondazioneItaliani

Hey Brian. Yeah we knew it was reported there were death threats, but Damian and I were wondering the other day what exactly those threats were. The only thing I saw that was close looked more like bravado, "If I see her, I'll run over her." Damian heard something more substantial, but didn't see it printed.

flying squat

said it

yes I has a lisp

how darest you

I thought it was a squab. They fly, right?

Soozie I was gonna edit but I'll leave it now

must be the old Duvel Belgian beer

it says anno 1871 it's very old then

TLC wrote:flying squat

[font=Times New Roman]I'm very thorry!! But did you mean thquaD or thquaT??

Michael, thanks for the post outlining what's what, and I look forward to the new features the update will bring [/font]

Sparrow wrote:I thought it was a squab. They fly, right?

[font=Times New Roman]Isn't that a baby pigeon? And why have I never see one??[/font]

thquad me thinketh


that must be awful if you can't pronounce an r and having to avoid it, in the thylying thquad from Lome.

is it the l Chinese people have difficulties with or the r?

I know Benny Hill used to go on about Flied Lice and you sirry iriot,

must have been the L, wait a sec, no the R must have been the problem after all

It will be a rong time the rawyers will have to study those papers a very rong rong time.

Why does this post make no sense at all any more?

soozie UK wrote:

Sparrow wrote:I thought it was a squab. They fly, right?

[font=Times New Roman]Isn't that a baby pigeon? And why have I never see one??[/font]

Yes Soozie, it's a young pigeon. And look at this:

http://tinyurl.com/6gwho3

We've come full circle.

Har-har.

OT-OT-OT-OTOTOTOTTOTTOTTOOTO!!!!

Sparrow:

thought it was a squab. They fly, right?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

That must be like a flying tortoise is it Sparrow?

Oh yes, you are right at home in the flying department, being a bird on the wing, Ido still wish I had a pair of wings very handy for a cheap holiday just fly very high over France or Italy too otherwise the hunters will shoot you other than that, bon voyage

I'm looking I'm looking Sparrow

are we serious?

just finding out

brb

[font=Times New Roman]Maybe we could have a specific thread for legitimate inane O/T chitchat while we wait for real news. Michael? Skep?

It would stop us being told off [/font]

THE SQUAB SQUAD
PIGEON LOVERS SHOW THEY GIVE A S#!T


ahaha,

duno what to say but that's funny,

my granddad would have been proud he raced pigeons

squab eh what a funny word

Squab squad was the e-mail of the old days, send a pigeon-mail, faster than train!!!

back on topic

A pigeon flew into the local newspaper and delivered the news from the Flying Squad
Case to go to court, chirp

TLC wrote:Squab squad was the e-mail of the old days, send a pigeon-mail, faster than train!!!

back on topic

A pigeon flew into the local newspaper and delivered the news from the Flying Squad
Case to go to court, chirp

Yes, ahem. Gacinto Profazio was of the Perugia Flying Squad when the supposed death threats were made. At the same time there was supposedly talk among the Sollecitos to get some officers transfered. I think Profazio was one such officer. He was recently transfered to Rome. But as Brian mentioned earlier, it seemed a promotion, and his role in MK's case is over.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Soozie -[/font]

Soozie wrote:Maybe we could have a specific thread for legitimate inane O/T chitchat while we wait for real news. Michael? Skep?

[font=Comic Sans MS]Hi Soozie,

Funny you should mention that, but I have been considering doing just over the last week and a half. I know it was originally stated that off topic chat can take place in PM, which of course it still can, but it only allows for chat between two people at any one time. Since we are now truly a 'community', it is only natural that many will want to expand the remit of disussion on occasion and develop their relationships with other members, indeed, genuine friendships have been/are being forged here and where they haven't, there is at least a bond between members which only grows stronger over time.

Indeed, I shall create an off-topic thread. However, I shall leave doing so until the major part of our upgrade to phpBB3 has been completed, I think that's best. Incidentally, for those who are interested, I have recently made a new post on our upgrade status in the 'Forum News' thread.

Sparrow -[/font]

Sparrow wrote:Michael, it's tea time here. I wish I could make you a cup!
You don't have to answer my PM. I was just talkin'.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Hi Sparrow

Ahhh....now your talkin'

In regard to PM, I 'shall' respond...I also have some e-mails to do too, but I'll get there in the end.[/font]

Okay—Good, glad you're all back on track! We’re talking about a death threat here:

Sparrow said:

The only thing I thaw looked more like bravado, "If I thee her, I'll thquath her!" Damian heard thomething more thubththantial, but I didn't thee it printed.

Right Sparrowtje (that's Dutch form of your name and very sweet, it's like saying litltle sparrow but a sparrow is already small as it goes, the Dutch always use this form, on the end of word, a small this a small that.

There was another guy involved in the case in Perugia, a highly trained police person, I think Flying Squad too, he had a lot of experience with fighting organized crime on Sardegna/Sardinia (where sardines come from probably), organized crime meaning mostly mafia of kors.

In Italian (I do try),

veramente un casino,

proprio un casino,

a big mess,

when they try to get rid of the investigators this is just so typical, it seems unbelievable,

what a lot of front those people have.

And they are thick,

such callous behaviour I can hardly imagine it is serious, but it bloody well is,

they should have then been a lot more careful

if they really thought they could act that way,

and get away with it.

Rather careless.
Luckily, careless, good for justice.

Michael wrote:Indeed, I shall create an off-topic thread. However, I shall leave doing so until the major part of our upgrade to phpBB3 has been completed, I think that's best.

[font=Times New Roman]Thanks Michael. So if it's not possible for someone/anyone to create a thread now, we can still chat O/T while we hang around waiting for something to break. [/font]

a2 I see you had a lisp too but got over it,

well, in a few hours, we may be hearing something,
if there is a way to take a shot I imagine the lawyers for Knox and Soll will but Guede,

his team seem to show a different strategy

and are not so keen to use the strategy of: try every single thing, when anyone could have known, all along, it would not work anyway!

the attempts to get house arrest were just going through the motions,

I think the lawyers knew they would never get it

but they had to request it or else the suspects and their families would have been displeased.

Actually there is nothing worse than giving a person false hope, a professional is hard and to the point. Cruel to be kind.
Experience would see a professional cutting the crap.


I may be wrong, because darn, it is hard to work out, but this strategy line, seems to ring a bell, like Biscotti does not go for the cheap and low blows he seems solid, seems to show a certain level of integrity.

After all, a lawyer is not a defendant, accused, or suspect, the lawyer is supposed to be a very able professional and does a job, far from all are brilliant.

Time will show whether there are any brilliant people involved.

Biscotti seems to be very experienced.

Even brilliant people lose cases when they have nothing to bring into a case because of a totality of evidence in diverse forms being too strong against anything they could say.


Off to my nest

chirp

a2 wrote:Okay—Good, glad you're all back on track! We’re talking about a death threat here:

Sparrow said:

The only thing I thaw looked more like bravado, "If I thee her, I'll thquath her!" Damian heard thomething more thubththantial, but I didn't thee it printed.

Laughing out loud, a2!

TLC wrote:Right Sparrowtje (that's Dutch form of your name and very sweet, it's like saying litltle sparrow but a sparrow is already small as it goes, the Dutch always use this form, on the end of word, a small this a small that.

I know this! And I love it! Thank you. It sounds like "sparrowchuh."

Born a note Cheese

Sparrow, so you speak a da Hollandaise eh, ce ce, soi si, buono

I have a too sleep a

Mucho lovea for everyone see you in the manjana

Terry

Hey TLC, one thing about Biscotti, as you were saying... I think it's not only integrity. I think he believes in his client. True we probably haven't heard the whole truth from Rudy yet. But it's true that there isn't any indication that Rudy had a knife that knife. He was involved, but I think Biscotti really believes that Rudy didn't stab MK. So he has some kind of righteous fire, I would think, in addition to a job to do.