The True Crime Weblog Message Board

[font=Comic Sans MS]This is the new main Sticky'd thread for discussion as of 5th July 2008. Please post here as of 'Now'. I have de-Sticky'd the old thread but will leave some time before locking it so as to allow members some time to re-orient themselves. I started the new thread since at 150 pages, the former one is now unwieldy in regard to easily tracking backwards and forwards through it to locate old posts. 100 is actually the ideal 'compromise' as it is less wieldy for tracking through then 150, whilst less then 100 would mean members moving location far more often and increase the rate of redundant threads being added to the board.

Michael (Moderator)[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Hey rob, glad to see you back with more regular postings[/font]

Urgent Message: Attention CW & O8 - where are you?!?!? Preston's book peaked short of intended mark, has quickly sunk to #5 (NY Times), and is now poised to drop off everyone's radar entirely. It is imperative that you immediately promote it much more intensively and convincingly than you have thus far. Your livelihood is at stake.

[font=Times New Roman]This is just for Minotaur who appears to dislike pussies with a vengeance. But no matter, as Ollie doesn't much care for you either.

And it's on topic since Ollie is a cat - and a cat was found at the scene of the crime.

[/font]

Oceania8 wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote:Oceania wrote:

BTW It's spelt and not spelled, have a lovely weekend and cheers to you too.

I'm afraid that depends on what spelling system you use. In US spelling, it is "spelled" and not "spelt."

My post was in response to someone who was nitpicking some stupid spelling thing from my post, and they turned out to be incorrect. They are often agressive and angry over these silly inconsequential points, it's quite amusing.

[font=Times New Roman]MORE LIES and exaggeration. nicki was trying to help since she noted you liked to quote in Italian sometimes. The fact you had to deliberately use Google to prove 'a silly inconsequential point' says so much more about your weird personality type than it does about nicki trying to help you. Your problem is you can't bear to be wrong, and you revel in trying to score points.

That's actually quite sad and pitiful. If I cared, I could almost feel sorry for you, but I don't, so I won't. As for your comment that: "it's quite amusing really" - oh please, I'll just bet you were positively seething inside which is why you had to turn to Google to back you up.
You don't just have a chip on your shoulder. You have enough spuds on there to feed the whole of Africa for a month.

And what I think is quite amusing, really - is that when I read your spiteful jabs towards people who have only ever contributed positively to this board, (unlike you), I always picture you hunched over your desk, your lips set together in a thin mean line, typing furiously away with fat sausage-like fingers while you periodically suck lemons trying to figure out who to assault next.

Do enjoy the rest of your weekend, and, oh yes, cheers.

[/font]

Oceania wrote:

My post was in reply to Nicki who was implying you couldn't buy fresh fish in Perugia when you can. In addition to the fish market I mentioned, I googled Pescheria in Perugia and came up with 3 in Perugia itself and many more in the surrounding areas. Who knows if the fish story bears any relevance to anything, I was just advising there are most definitely fresh fish shops in Perugia.

I have been mostly away the past few days dealing with life and death matters (if you love animals, trying to save a six-week old starving runt kitten is life and death), but wanted to say something about the issue of fish, Michael's subsequent rebuke of Oceania and Rob's comments.

The main problem is that Nicki did not ever imply that one could not buy fresh fish in or around Perugia, or that there are no fish sellers in Perugia. In the discussion that began between Minotaur and me, the question was (a) whether or not these shops would have been open on November 1, a national holiday, at 8 pm., (b) how likely it would be that a person would buy a whole fish, ungutted, and (c) the fact that once gutted and frozen, fish do not bleed.

If you look below at this excerpt from Raffaele's diary, and granted that this diary may contain many falsehoods, according to Raffaele he and Amanda left the cottage and presumably walked in and around the town, then went grocery shopping -- although he appears not to remember what they bought, what they ate, what time they ate and so on. He does not remember, in other words, and never once mentions driving anywhere and buying fish. The problem is certainly that, as Minotaur pointed out, in an admissible statement Amanda says she thought the blood on Raffaele's hand (she says that there was blood on his hand) came from THE fish. Raffaele was probably questioned about what they had had for dinner and could not remember. I don't care how stoned you are, if you gutted a fish and had that for dinner you would remember it.

As a moderator, Michael was objecting to the fact that an assertion made by one poster was either misrepresented or misunderstood by another, who then took what wasn't said or implied and ran with it in a direction that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Michael was right to do so; had I been on board, I would certainly have objected as well.

From Raffaele's diary:
Meanwhile Amanda and I remained there until 18:00 approximately and began to smoke cannabis. From this moment come my problems, because I have confused memories. For the first thing Amanda and I had gone downtown from Piazza Grimana to Corso Vannucci passing behind the university for exchange students and ending up in Piazza Morlacchi (we always take that road), then I don't remember but presumably we had to go grocery shopping. We returned to my house around 20:00-20:30 and there I made another pipe and saw that as it was a holiday, to take myself with extreme tranquility, without the smallest intention to go out inasmuch as outside it was cold.

That Raffaele mentions returning to his house at 20-20:30 pm suggests that the grocery shopping was done as part of their rambling around town. Were they on foot or driving? It sounds to me like they were on foot. Incidentally, this is at odds with Amanda's claim that they left the cottage and 5 or 6 pm and went directly to Raffaele's place to watch a movie. In addition, apparently the Polish student who needed a ride to the train station turned up at 20:40 to say she didn't need a ride after all. The fact that in his diary Raffaele mentions going shopping for a nice dinner in implies that this lift to the train station would not have taken more than a few minutes out of his evening.

O.T. They made an arrest in that recent London case in which two young men were repeatedly stabbed over 200 times. Apparently this ‘lets burn the place down and destroy all the evidence’ strategy didn’t work for the killer(s). My guess is that it that the fuel fed fire quickly alerted a lot of potential witnesses, and the forensic teams could still find some evidence of what happened.

DLW wrote:O.T. They made an arrest in that recent London case in which two young men were repeatedly stabbed over 200 times. Apparently this ‘lets burn the place down and destroy all the evidence’ strategy didn’t work for the killer(s). My guess is that it that the fuel fed fire quickly alerted a lot of potential witnesses, and the forensic teams could still find some evidence of what happened.

[font=Times New Roman]DLW, it's been suggested they were tortured for their pin numbers.

Hard to fathom the kind of mind that could carry out an attack of over 200 stab wounds.

He must have been totally mad. [/font]

Just to remind that the London killings could be linked to a theft, like in the case of MK's murder

cinsky77 wrote:

Just to remind that the London killings could be linked to a theft, like in the case of MK's murder

Yes, and the flat where the two students were tortured and killed had been burgled one week before. A laptop was stolen, among other things. Police suspect that a set of keys may have also been taken, as there were no signs of forced entry.
I also read that witnesses identified a man who ran away from the blaze, which led police to the arrest of he suspect mentioned by DLW. The crime is thought to be drug-related.

skeptical bystander wrote:Police suspect that a set of keys may have also been taken, as there were no signs of forced entry.
I also read that witnesses identified a man who ran away from the blaze, which led police to the arrest of he suspect mentioned by DLW. The crime is thought to be drug-related.

[font=Times New Roman]The guy they arrested is 21, and yes, other things were stolen, 2 PSP's and, (I think), a mobile phone.

It's dominating the news at the moment, mainly because the police themselves seem to be shell-shocked at the level of violence used. Now I'll just wait to see if they extract a false confession from him after beating him round the head and depriving him of food and water for 14 hours. I hope he wasn't smoking hash all afternoon, you know how easy it is to forget that you've bound, gagged, and stabbed 2 people 245 times before setting them alight.

Oh, the PSP game consoles and bank cards were allegedly taken on the night of the murder. I just heard that Gabriel Ferez lived somewhere else, and was only visiting his friend for the evening. What a tragic twist of fate to have been visiting on that particular night.
[/font]

The ANM (National Association of Magistrates) have this evening entered into what they call a 'stato di agitazione'. This is in protest to the new 'suspend trials' law, the proposals to limit phone-tapping to crimes which carry a sentence of 10 or more years, the 'drastic' cuts in state funding of the Justice system and the cuts in pay (art. 69). The President of the ANM, Luca Palamara, said that these things "...are taking us towards the destruction of the Justice system." He also said that if article 69 is not revoked, the judges are ready to strike, which could involve the suspension of hearings. They reserve the right to all means of protest.
http://tinyurl.com/5dwln4

Damian wrote:

The ANM (National Association of Magistrates) have this evening entered into what they call a 'stato di agitazione'.

I believe this is the same organization for which Manuela Comodi is the Umbrian regional President (and Claudia Matteini Vice-President).

The Phoenix and the Turtle

Let the bird of loudest lay,
On the sole Arabian tree,
Herald sad and trumpet be,
To whose sound chaste wings obey.


But thou, shrieking harbinger,
Foul pre-currer of the fiend,
Augur of the fever's end,
To this troop come thou not near.


From this session interdict
Every fowl of tyrant wing,
Save the eagle, feather'd king:
Keep the obsequy so strict.


Let the priest in surplice white,
That defunctive music can,
Be the death-divining swan,
Lest the requiem lack his right.


And thou, treble-dated crow,
That thy sable gender mak'st
With the breath thou giv'st and tak'st,
'Mongst our mourners shalt thou go.


Here the anthem doth commence:
Love and constancy is dead;
Phoenix and the turtle fled
In a mutual flame from hence.


So they lov'd, as love in twain
Had the essence but in one;
Two distincts, division none:
Number there in love was slain.


Hearts remote, yet not asunder;
Distance, and no space was seen
'Twixt the turtle and his queen;
But in them it were a wonder.


So between them love did shine,
That the turtle saw his right
Flaming in the phoenix' sight:
Either was the other's mine.


Property was thus appall'd,
That the self was not the same;
Single nature's double name
Neither two nor one was call'd.


Reason, in itself confounded,
Saw division grow together;
To themselves yet either-neither,
Simple were so well compounded


That it cried how true a twain
Seemeth this concordant one!
Love hath reason, reason none
If what parts can so remain.


Whereupon it made this threne
To the phoenix and the dove,
Co-supreme and stars of love;
As chorus to their tragic scene.


THRENOS.

Beauty, truth, and rarity.
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos'd in cinders lie.


Death is now the phoenix' nest;
And the turtle's loyal breast
To eternity doth rest,


Leaving no posterity:--
'Twas not their infirmity,
It was married chastity.


Truth may seem, but cannot be:
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.


To this urn let those repair
That are either true or fair;
For these dead birds sigh a prayer.


Charlie Shakes Spear

Why I don't believe Amanda can rely on any help from Raffaele and why he could end up accusing her:

On his arrest Raffaele withdrew his evidence giving an alibi to Amanda and said he was at home alone all evening. He hasn't said anything of note since that time and has evoked his right to silence.

November 10 Corrire della Sera

November 11Seattle Times

Raffaele: Papa you must believe me. I am innocent. I was at home all evening and I've never been in Meredith's room.

Francesco: I damn the day he met that girl and Raffaele is reviewing his impressions of her.
Raffaele was on his computer and we spoke by phone that evening. The footprint isn't his.


December/January/February

Francesco: Raffaele's kitchen knife isn't the murder weapon and either that's not his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp or if it is Amanda must have borrowed it. Oh OK, since girls don't share bras, it must have been contaminated by those clumsy forensics people. Oh and by the way, if he actually exists, you can tell that crazy Albanian who can't steer straight, that Meredith wasn't killed on Halloween, so what's the point of his evidence.


State of play at the beginning of March:

Both the computer and the phone are gone as alibi's placing Raffaele at home. The footprint, knife/wound compatibility and DNA on Meredith's bra clasp are being hotly disputed.

March 26: Rudy places Raffaele in Meredith's room with "a" knife, not necessarily a kitchen knife.
April 1: Toto places Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana.
Raffaele's Dad freaks out to the media about both of them but has hardly been heard from since.

June 22: Up pops the Albanian. He places Raffaele, Amanda and Rudy in the vicinity of the cottage acting very strangely. He places "a" knife in Raffaele's hand and a big knife similar to a kitchen knife in Amanda's hand. It would appear by this time that no-one, not even the court is placing a knife in Rudy's hand.

I have long believed that if Raffaele could successfully dispute the footprint and the DNA on Meredith's bra strap his fall back position if the clean-up evidence was overwhelming was to deny involvement in the murder but admit to helping his girlfriend with the cleanup. Even if his "at home" alibi had gone, he could not be placed in the cottage at the time of the killing and in that case he could not have seen Amanda or Rudy do it either. He couldn't point a finger but just admit he foolishly helped Amanda. Even failure to dispute the footprint or DNA on Meredith's bra clasp wouldn't totally end this strategy. He could have admitted he left them in the morning before he closed the door on Meredith's body to help Amanda with the cleanup in the corridor and bathroom.

But that scenario has disintegrated since March 26. Francesco/Raffaele have to respond to the court in a few days. As things stand Rudy, the footprint and the DNA on Meredith's bra clasp are placing him in Meredith's room in the cottage. His bare footprints in blood are placing him in the corridor and bathroom. The Albanian is placing him just outside the cottage and Toto is placing him just down the road. His "at home" alibis aren't anymore.

Rudy says he didn't see the killing but he accuses Amanda of hating Meredith.
Meredith's friends and family all say there was no love lost between Amanda and Meredith.
Likely the other flat mates will have made the same observations.
Amanda's DNA is on the kitchen knife.
The Albanian places the kitchen knife in Amanda's hands.

If on reading the 10,000 pages Francesco and the team come to the conclusion that they have a big problem, I think when Raffaele speaks, he could accuse Amanda of the killing.

Hey TLC,

I'm totally ignorant as far as poetry and literature are concerned. Where does that come from? I see how you've signed it below, but am not sure what you mean.

Just recap on the fish business.

One of the suspects, AK claimed that RS may have got blood on his hands from preparing a fish for dinner that night. As a group we were discussing this point. One poster stated that they had:-

“Never seen anybody buying fish that hasn't been gutted, unless one buys it off the fish market from the fishermen in a seaport town-which isn't the case of Perugia-“

This implies that the suspect might be lying.

Another poster replied that in their opinion…..

That this was not correct, there are fresh fish markets in and around Perugia that you can reach by car and foot and many people gut the fish themselves.

This implies that the suspect may not be lying.

In addition RS says they went shopping for food, surely these points would be easy for the investigators to verify,that the food shops (including the Pescheria) were open and they found fish bones in the rubbish. As a group do we accept that it is a possibility RS could have prepared fish and got blood on his hands, or is it a complete impossibility ?

To me, the important thing to come out of the conversation is not all the sllly posts taking things wildly off course BUT the fact that you can buy fresh fish in Perugia and people can and do gut it themselves. OR are we only allowed to believe that people in Italy only ever have fish gutted for them unless they buy them from fishermen in a seaport town ?



But anyway, two things I wanted to know are:-

What are the laws in relation to publicly slandering someone and/or their family whether they are guilty or innocent ?

I understand that in the Spezi case that he (Spezi) was unable to counter sue Mignini for defamation as long as Mignini kept the investigation open. Does anyone know anything more about whether this is in fact the law in Italy relating to these sort of issues? This might bear some relevance to this case and explain why we have not seen AK’s lawyers raise a suit against alleged police brutality.

Oceania, in a quick reply to your post, I would just say that I feel you have ignored most of what I wrote, in any case, so there's no point in responding to you in depth. You continue to misconstrue the issue of the fish, and you completely ignore the crux of the matter, which is whether or not on a major holiday a fresh fish shop would be open, according to Raffaele's diary, late into the evening. This is something that the authorities had no problem verifying in all likelihood. But nobody here ever claimed that there are no fresh fish shops in Perugia or that Italians don't buy fresh fish.
I would bet, however, that most people buy their fish gutted if they buy it whole. That's just based on my observations of life in France and Italy and other parts of Europe over the past 25 years, so it could well be totally off the mark.
The second problem, also major and also covered in my post, is that in an admissible statement Knox makes no mention of going into town or shopping. She went with Sollecito back to his place and watched a movie at 5 pm or so.
Hopefully, the two will have had time to get their stories to dovetail a little better than that.
I'm not sure I understand why you are interested in the issue of slander, however. Generally, opinion is protected. So if someone says I see pure evil when I look in this girl's eyes, they may be wrong but they are not wrong to express their opinion. Preston also expressed his opinion, and was not wrong to do so. My own opinion is that he lost a tremendous amount of credibility in making the statement he made, and that the entire interview from which you quote was an attempt to drum up interest for his book and extend his vendetta against Mignini. That is my opinion. And the fact that the same blog then published a glowing review of the book looks a little bit like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. But that too is just my opinion.
As for the image impairment that Amanda Knox has suffered in the blogosphere, at this point I think it would be very hard to measure the direct effects of what her detractors have said as opposed to the harm done by those who purport to support her. And anyway, we have been through this before -- on Haloscan, before it was shut down by the concerted nonsense of a couple of those supporters. No one here need fear any legal action for expressing their opinion on this case, and if the person who says "I think she is guilty" turns out to be right, then it is a moot point. But if the subject interests you, by all means go out and research it. Then you can share what you learn with us.

I'll not get into the arguement you seem to be having with Michael and others Oceania but:

oceania wrote:On a more serious note, if you are all so worried about getting facts straight, in my opinion, you should all think carefully about the ‘theories’ and character assasinations you put forward that assert the absolute involvement of AK and RS. If they are found innocent your posts could be deemed as highly libellous and a horrendous defamation of character on a public site. I take that same risk by saying Guede did it, but my theory involves DNA and evidence this suspect admits to.

What do you think of my latest theory Oceania. I'm not in the slightest worried about libel because as I always state it's a theory or conjecture or speculation not a statement of fact or direct accusation.

You say "I take that same risk by saying Guede did it" as fact.

I've never said anyone did it, you're welcome to check back but my posts are full of "I thinks", "maybes" and "perhaps".

If you look back over others' previous posts you will find that one of the things people have most complained about is you stating speculation as fact.

eg. When Guede admitted that the footprint "could have" been his, your immediate response was It's confirmed. The footprint is Guedes Those are the words you posted and you were pulled up on it.

Similar has happened so often.

So much so that you resorted to your now famous disclaimer:

This post is my opinion only. Anything referred to as if fact is only done so in relation to a particular theory or topic I may be discussing and should be read as such.

You will notice that my latest speculation appears before your post.

I've set out some indisputable facts and then speculated on what Raffaele COULD do.

What do you think of my latest theory?

soozie UK wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote:Police suspect that a set of keys may have also been taken, as there were no signs of forced entry.
I also read that witnesses identified a man who ran away from the blaze, which led police to the arrest of he suspect mentioned by DLW. The crime is thought to be drug-related.

[font=Times New Roman]The guy they arrested is 21, and yes, other things were stolen, 2 PSP's and, (I think), a mobile phone.

It's dominating the news at the moment, mainly because the police themselves seem to be shell-shocked at the level of violence used. Now I'll just wait to see if they extract a false confession from him after beating him round the head and depriving him of food and water for 14 hours.[/font]

Don't you think that happens in the UK? Have you ever heard of the Birmingham Six? The cops beat the crap out of them until they signed false confessions. They spent more than 15 years behind bars before an appeals court overturned the convictions.

In this case the police will probably nab the right guy fairly quickly, if they haven't already got him. He probably lives near the scene of the crime and is so far gone with mental illness that he will make little effort to get rid of evidence or avoid being caught.

skeptical bystander wrote:Oceania, in a quick reply to your post, I would just say that I feel you have ignored most of what I wrote, in any case, so there's no point in responding to you in depth. You continue to misconstrue the issue of the fish, and you completely ignore the crux of the matter, which is whether or not on a major holiday a fresh fish shop would be open, according to Raffaele's diary, late into the evening. This is something that the authorities had no problem verifying in all likelihood. But nobody here ever claimed that there are no fresh fish shops in Perugia or that Italians don't buy fresh fish.
I would bet, however, that most people buy their fish gutted if they buy it whole. That's just based on my observations of life in France and Italy and other parts of Europe over the past 25 years, so it could well be totally off the mark.

I didn't ignore what you wrote, I understand completely that there had been discussion about whether shops were open on public holidays. The post I replied to contained different information based on their opinion, I gave a different reply based on my opinion. It is absurd that I am penalised and chastised for my reply to this post. You are the one who is continually misconstruing what was said and what I replied to. I accept it as my opinion against the other posters opinion. No need to step and try and defend I feel. If readers want to take away the impression that people only buy gutted fish in Italy and you only get ungutted fish from seaports, then that is their choice.

Fin.

If you'll excuse the pun.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:In this case the police will probably nab the right guy fairly quickly, if they haven't already got him. He probably lives near the scene of the crime and is so far gone with mental illness that he will make little effort to get rid of evidence or avoid being caught.

Despite knowing very little of the facts of this case, and supposedly having a profound distrust of police, "in this case" you don't have a problem with the police and think they'll catch the culprit, who "probably lives near the scene of the crime," "fairly quickly."

Despite knowing very little of the facts of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and supposedly having a profound distrust of the police, you choose to believe hardly any of the findings of the police, and don't believe the suspects, who live "near the scene of the crime", and were caught "fairly quickly" are the true culprits.

Not very interesting.

Brian S. wrote:I'll not get into the arguement you seem to be having with Michael and others Oceania but:

oceania wrote:On a more serious note, if you are all so worried about getting facts straight, in my opinion, you should all think carefully about the ‘theories’ and character assasinations you put forward that assert the absolute involvement of AK and RS. If they are found innocent your posts could be deemed as highly libellous and a horrendous defamation of character on a public site. I take that same risk by saying Guede did it, but my theory involves DNA and evidence this suspect admits to.

What do you think of my latest theory Oceania. I'm not in the slightest worried about libel because as I always state it's a theory or conjecture or speculation not a statement of fact or direct accusation.

You say "I take that same risk by saying Guede did it" as fact.

I've never said anyone did it, you're welcome to check back but my posts are full of "I thinks", "maybes" and "perhaps".

If you look back over others' previous posts you will find that one of the things people have most complained about is you stating speculation as fact.

eg. When Guede admitted that the footprint "could have" been his, your immediate response was It's confirmed. The footprint is Guedes Those are the words you posted and you were pulled up on it.

Similar has happened so often.

So much so that you resorted to your now famous disclaimer:

This post is my opinion only. Anything referred to as if fact is only done so in relation to a particular theory or topic I may be discussing and should be read as such.

You will notice that my latest speculation appears before your post.

I've set out some indisputable facts and then speculated on what Raffaele COULD do.

What do you think of my latest theory?

Hi Brian, I think your last theory is as good as any, in fact a lot of your theories and posts are better than most, but I don't think it will happen the way you suggest. I would be very surprised if either AK and RS came out and accused each other of being involved in any way. I expect to see them both revert to their original alibi's that they spent the night together. I could be wrong on this but I would be very surprised if they did.

RS has said repeatedly in his prison diaries, that AK spent the night with him. He only questioned her being being absent for a very short period of time around the time she found out she had to work, but he even doubted that. His lawyer said in December (according to Frank) that his prison diary was positive and would be used in his defence. As far as I am aware this is the last public document that has been released by RS and this clearly places AK back in his apartment.

Also, as far as I am aware, we don't have anything official about the computer and phone records yet. This is something I am very interested in how his (and AK’s) lawyers will address these issues. As far as things stand at the moment, the phones being switched off and on in unison and the computer information could still be something still swilling around from the original stories like AK and RG having phone contact before and after the murder. That was believed by many until RG lawyers said he didn't have a phone. If Biscotti hadn't come out and said that, everyone here would still believe this figured in the scheme of things. Silence from AK and RS lawyers is no proof of guilt at this stage so I reserve judgement on these points at this stage.

I am expecting the lawyers for AK and RS to seriously reject and counter claim all evidence and theories of their involvement in this crime. I do not think we will see either of them point the finger at each other or say they were part of a clean up only.

In terms of Guede claiming the footprint 'could' be his. Biscotti is no fool, this was a strategic move, I believe they know full well it is Guede's and now the other lawyers have got their hands on the reports, they are eliminating any potential bombshells to their case from the other lawyers or esp. in front of a jury. I feel very confident in saying 'it's official the footprint is Guede's', after Biscotti instructed his client to make a spontaneus statement and it appeared under a newspaper headline that claimed the footprint as definitely Guede’s. Biscotti didn’t seem to have any issues with this headline in the local papers. Like I said there may be some brave souls here that might like to take the issue up with Biscotti , explaining to him that it still 'could' be Sollecito's, but I think he’s moved on from the footprint. Others still refer to it absolutely as Sollecito’s footprint, as you do in your post “ As things stand Rudy, the footprint and the DNA on Meredith's bra clasp are placing him in Meredith's room in the cottage.”

Who is right and who is wrong ? Why is it not okay for one person to state it is Guede’s after he and his lawyer make a statement that it probably is his, yet fine for another to continue to state it is Sollecito’s ? Another example of this is people constantly stating the blood spots found in the girl’s bathroom as ‘mixed’ yet nowhere in the Judges report does it refer to it as ‘mixed’, it says ‘and of both you and Meredith in the bidet’. AK’s blood in this bathroom (even if it is mixed in the bidet) still very much has the possibility to be circumstantial, she lived there and used that bathroom, it does not necessarily connect her to the murder.

Oceania8 wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote:Oceania, in a quick reply to your post, I would just say that I feel you have ignored most of what I wrote, in any case, so there's no point in responding to you in depth. You continue to misconstrue the issue of the fish, and you completely ignore the crux of the matter, which is whether or not on a major holiday a fresh fish shop would be open, according to Raffaele's diary, late into the evening. This is something that the authorities had no problem verifying in all likelihood. But nobody here ever claimed that there are no fresh fish shops in Perugia or that Italians don't buy fresh fish.
I would bet, however, that most people buy their fish gutted if they buy it whole. That's just based on my observations of life in France and Italy and other parts of Europe over the past 25 years, so it could well be totally off the mark.

You are the one who is continually misconstruing what was said and what I replied to. I accept it as my opinion against the other posters opinion. No need to step and try and defend I feel. If readers want to take away the impression that people only buy gutted fish in Italy and you only get ungutted fish from seaports, then that is their choice.

Fin.

If you'll excuse the pun.

1) Stores are places where people get goods in exhange for money, and they are generally closed on holidays in Italy (and France) except for the day of Christmas until noon when people buy their last-moment goodies for their Christmas feast
2) A place where people get the good called "fish"(fresh or frozen) in exchange for money (note:the action is normally referred to as buying) is called a fishmonger or Pescheria. Large supermarkets sometimes have a Pescheria inside.
3) ALL stores are generally closed on national holidays; fishmongers and supermarkets are stores; Therefore for the transitive property it's unlikely to be able to buy fresh or frozen fish on a holiday in Italy (or France)
4) Those places where people buy fish and that are closed on holidays (pescherie) all offer a degutting service which is mostly appreciated by anybody doesn't like to get the kitchen stinking and messed up with blood and fish guts i.e. the majority of people. Open air fish markets normally do not offer such service.
5) Fishmarkets in seaport towns are sometimes opened on holidays during the summer season because of the tourists. Perugia is not a seaport town, and November is not the summer season in this emisphere. Therefore for the above transitive property , it is very unlikely that in Perugia one could buy fish on a holiday (gutted or not gutted)

Feel free to read the above over and over until you finally get it, it's not so difficult after all. You are the only one who WANTS to believe that people only buy gutted fish in Italy and you only get gutted fish in seaport, nobody ever wrote that. And I dare you to write it once again that I ever made such statement.

Hello Sparrow,

It is a poem by Shakespeare.

I don't know if I want to try saying what it is all about because people have been argueing about that for hundreds of years.

How I came across that particular poem was through looking up things about the turtledove.

All of that as regards symbology. The turtledove has represented peace and love in a lot of different places and ways. It's colour, white is used to signify purity in a spiritual sense.
Its nature is to have one partner and if that mate dies then the other remains alone until death. That part represents loyalty and real love.

Sometimes people can be affected that way too, maybe not many, but it does happen, that a person feels so connected to another that if the other dies then the one left behind cannot be with anyone else.

The phoenix is also a bird that flys alone and throws itself in a fire then a new phoenix rises from the ashes.

There are many interpretations of how the dove and the phoenix fly together and what it could mean.

One is the impossibility of ideal or perfect love.

I always think it is best for each person to make an own interpretation.

Nicki I am a trained chef have more than 25 years experience, and even on the fishmarkets they clean the fish for you, to not let them do it, is nuts, as it is a stinking job and not everyone knows how to do it, without ruining the fish.

Of course it happens that a person might want to do it theirself, but that is rare.

In all of the restaurants and institutional kitchens I worked in the fish always came cleaned beforehand, as you said it is a service and those who deal with fish all day are the best at cleaning too.

Some replies:

1. Nicki: Brava! That is exactly the point. It is of course possible that AK or RS bought the fish on 31st October (Wednesday), but didn’t get round to eating it till the night of 1st November (Thursday). Even a gutted spigola or dorada may have bled a little in its plastic bag while waiting in the fridge, but probably not enough to stain a hand when it was rinsed before cooking. Giovinazzo is a seaport, and we may assume that RS was familiar with ungutted fish. I posted the fish question in early May in the “In their own words thread”, but no-one has been concerned to comment until it formed part of my banter with a beloved bossy moderator yesterday. If it was still in the fridge, why didn’t AK and RS eat it at lunch in the cottage on Thursday at the moment when MK was going out without telling them where? Perhaps they forgot it, and it had to wait until c.23.00.

2. Soozie: I am currently mourning a Nimrod, mighty hunter and excellent mouser, whose only transgression was once to have pissed on my bed (and while I was in it).

3. Michael: I assume that your anti-U.S. complaints were directed at me. Perhaps because I use British orthographry my own deep U.S. roots are not apparent to you; but SK, Tara and FBN saw the tongue (or do I mean the turkey?) in my cheek. It even brought Tara out of the closet as a Daughter of the Revolution; and God (or do I mean the Deity?) knows how I’ve suffered from those. Sparrow, who has made her antipathy to me clear on several occasions, is the only American (in all the vast extent of those two continents) to have taken offence publicly on this board. If you are aware of others, please let me know (again publicly, as I not do subscribe to private messages in which participants go behind each others’ backs).

4. Brian: Excellent post, as always! I see it slightly differently:
The prosecutor’s problem is that, as the defence teams well know, he has only circumstantial evidence. To obtain a conviction on circumstantial evidence alone the range of that evidence as well as its quantity or quality is essential. Whatever (and these we do not know) the quality of the scientific investigations of the laboratory in Rome may be; whatever the contradicitions in the suspects’ statements; whatever the staus of their voluntary or involubtary statements: he has to add a further dimension of independent evidence. And preferably from independent witnesses.

The witness-based evidence is crumbling about him: The Albanian is not to be trusted; Totò clearly cannot be trusted; the camera at 20.43 has been ruled to be inconclusive; and Jovanovic (or Ivanovic) now appears to be doubtful..

The defence teams know this, and hence the recent emphasis on the witnesses in the press.

5. Damian, Nicki and Cinsky: Please read the CU’s transcription of Totò’s 2 February verbale (see the previous thread, pages 146-47) and offer an opinion on whether he is referring to night of Hallowe’en or the night of Ognisanti. Ditto whether it was possible to fare la spesa in Perugia on 1st November, let alone buy a wet fish.

Minotaur wrote:Some replies:


2. Soozie: I am currently mourning a Nimrod, mighty warrior and excellent mouser, whose only transgression was once to have pissed on my bed (and while I was in it).

Hmmm a dash of sweetness has been duly noted coming from Minotaur.

Hi Minotaur:

In reference to your comment;

" It even brought Tara out of the closet as a Daughter of the Revolution; and God (or do I mean the Deity?) knows how I’ve suffered from those"

I was never in a closet. I will never be eligible to be a member of the DOR, because I was adopted into the family when I was a baby. I'm sorry you have suffered.

Tara

indie wrote:Hmmm a dash of sweetness has been duly noted coming from Minotaur.

Sorry Indie; forgot that you were the source of that fascinating infomration about the hog dots, or do I mean hogdiggetydogs?

And sorry Tara, I just keep on offending everyone today. Perhaps I'd better shut up.

Minotaur,

Hey, no need to apologize! You had no way of knowing...and I find your posts very interesting when they pertain to the case!

Tara

TLC wrote:Hello Sparrow,

It is a poem by Shakespeare.

I don't know if I want to try saying what it is all about because people have been argueing about that for hundreds of years.

How I came across that particular poem was through looking up things about the turtledove.

All of that as regards symbology. The turtledove has represented peace and love in a lot of different places and ways. It's colour, white is used to signify purity in a spiritual sense.
Its nature is to have one partner and if that mate dies then the other remains alone until death. That part represents loyalty and real love.

Sometimes people can be affected that way too, maybe not many, but it does happen, that a person feels so connected to another that if the other dies then the one left behind cannot be with anyone else.

The phoenix is also a bird that flys alone and throws itself in a fire then a new phoenix rises from the ashes.

There are many interpretations of how the dove and the phoenix fly together and what it could mean.

One is the impossibility of ideal or perfect love.

I always think it is best for each person to make an own interpretation.

Thanks, TLC. I didn't understand a lot of it, but it got me especially on the second to the last stanza. I'll read it over and over again.

Tara wrote:Minotaur,
...and I find your posts very interesting when they pertain to the case!Tara

I repeat Tara's sentiments. Any time I've ever shown "antipathy" for you Minotaur, it's been in response to your disrespect, and sometimes brutal attitude toward your fellow posters. These posters are the ones who have the same goal in mind as you here, to find the truth.

Brian S. wrote: Why I don't believe Amanda can rely on any help from Raffaele and why he could end up accusing her:



If on reading the 10,000 pages Francesco and the team come to the conclusion that they have a big problem, I think when Raffaele speaks, he could accuse Amanda of the killing.

Brian,

Remember too, Amanda's mom always highlights the positive attributes of Raffaele (i.e. love of "nice" music, comforting to her daughter) in TV interviews. Meanwhile Raffaele's dad has made less than kind statements about "Foxy Knoxy". If any defense team unequivocally knows their client did not make the fatal stab than it is in their best interest to not make any deals with another defense team and instead tell the truth, hoping the court will appreciate the real story which should consequently be backed up with the crime scene evidence. At least that is the way I see it especially if this was NOT a premeditated murder plot. I hope the courts could find a small way to make it beneficial to tell the truth.

Oceania wrote:

You are the one who is continually misconstruing what was said and what I replied to. I accept it as my opinion against the other posters opinion. No need to step and try and defend I feel. If readers want to take away the impression that people only buy gutted fish in Italy and you only get ungutted fish from seaports, then that is their choice.

You're right, Oceania. Let the reader decide who said what and why. However, on the matter in question, this is not opinion-based. It is a factual matter. Let the reader decide on that as well. However, I would be surprised if anyone came away from the discussion with the impression that people only buy gutted fish in Italy and the rest of what you have written above because nobody said or implied any such thing.

But the bottom line is that this is not much of an issue, except for AK's statement that RS had blood on his hands. You assert elsewhere that RS's diary is admissible as evidence. Perhaps it is; we had some discussion here about that because it was sold to the highest bidder for publication quite some time ago, and we don't know if it was handwritten or typed and, if the latter, whether or not it was signed. Damian has said that it is only admissible if it is typewritten if it is hand signed by RS as being his own words. Be that as it may. Let's assume it is admissible.

In it, RS says that he and AK went shopping for dinner after wandering around town and returned to his place at 8-8:30 pm. In her admissible statement, AK says they went back to RS's flat around 5 pm and watched a movie. And RS says, after making a deposition at the police station to the contrary, that after all AK was probably with him all evening, but he doesn't really remember because of the devil weed in that pipe of his. So we'll leave it to his lawyers to sort out and present which version of the truth is the right one. But in my mind it is at least established that RS seems to be perfectly capable of adjusting his statements to suit the occasion. Therefore, he may have a slight credibility problem.

Speaking of credibility, I just want to return briefly to one issue that has resurfaced, since I have had a couple of anxious queries since O8 raised the issue of defamation. Some may recall that this issue came up in the form of a threat as Haloscan was winding down to an end. Below, I have reposted what I wrote at the time, in response to the threat.

But note, as Brian pointed out above, that if you express your opinion as opinion, then you have nothing to worry about. It is one reason, Oceania, that I have no tolerance for attempts to pass off as fact what has not been established or what is in fact opinion. If you feel unfairly singled out in this regard, then I suggest that you get rid of the disclaimer and revise your posts before hitting submit to make sure you are not presenting as fact what is not fact. Indeed, in the particular case we are discussing, only Biscotti, Rudy’s lawyer, has taken legal steps against someone proclaiming Rudy’s guilt before he has had his day in court. That may be something to keep in mind. It is as easy as tacking "IMHO" or "IMO" on your statements!

I apologize if you feel I was wrong to state that you misconstrued or misunderstood the issue we were discussing. But in this case, I don’t think I was wrong to point out that you understood somebody to be asserting something they were not in fact asserting. So let's just let it stand, and people will make up their own minds.

It's just his opinion Skep. Joe T represents nobody in this case so he is just making his opinion known just as you have over on the crime blog. So you better be careful or you might get sued for making your opinions known.
An Old Friend
March 13, 2008 6:04 PM

Here's an anonymous post from Frank's blog, where I am being "warned" about making my opinions known. In case anyone is interested, or worried, it is difficult to make a libel charge stick if it is clear that you are expressing your opinion as opposed to stating something to be fact. If you state it as fact, which would be silly in a situation where people are debating hypotheses, it had better be true. That was one reason I suggested earlier that people take the time to verify before posting about Rudy's criminal record. Take the time to verify that what you state as fact is fact, and take the time to signal as such remarks that reflect your opinion only. After all, Rudy's lawyer has already filed suit against Joe Tacopina.

Having said that, it is interesting to note that suing for libel is far more difficult in America than in many other jurisdictions because we place such a high value on free speech. Finally, the burden of proof rests with the accuser, who must demonstrate the extent of the harm stemming from a particular statement that is alleged to be libelous and proven to be true.

I don't know how easy it is in practice to seize people's IP addresses for the purpose of suing them for libel, but I do know that so far, libel cases against individuals posting their opinions on blogs as writers or commenters have not met with great success, to say the least.
It's probably a good idea for everyone to think before they post. In particular, those who make explicit threats should be very, very careful. Harassment is also a serious crime, and if you leave a written trace you are just asking for trouble. I would be especially careful about wishing physical harm or distress to any particular individual, especially for expressing an opinion.
Skeptical Bystander | 04.28.08 - 12:05 am | #


Skep's priviledged "source" in Frank. (IE, she may a source there -do you, Skep? - but you perhaps have your sources too).
Now it seems that you're accusing Skep of having a priviledged source in Steve Huff.
-
Kermit | 04.28.08 - 4:23 am | #

For the record, in case anybody missed it, I send Frank emails when I have questions and share the information here. I always indicate that Frank is the source, so it isn't a secret.
Steve Huff is not a privileged source for me. I have no idea what anyone's IP address is and don't care to know. Steve asked me to moderate the message board when I contacted him following his unpaid co-blogging job offer. This is why my moniker now appears on the home page and I have the beginnings of a profile. Those who consult it will be disappointed because I have not had time to fill it in, nor have I had time to do any serious composition.
In reply to the earlier threat of libel addressed to one poster in particular but applicable to all, I made a short post because I have studied the question of libel in this particular context. My goal was to reassure people who may have felt threatened by the post, and also to remind everyone that the best defense against libel is to be very clear when you are stating your opinion and be very cautious with your facts. Rudy is of particular concern because his lawyer has already filed suit against Joe Tacopina; however, it is important to label speculation as such and provide sources for your factual claims. That way no one can come after you and take your life savings away.Skeptical Bystander | 04.28.08 - 4:57 am | #
________________________________________

‘Nicki I am a trained chef have more than 25 years experience, and even on the fishmarkets they clean the fish for you, to not let them do it, is nuts, as it is a stinking job and not everyone knows how to do it, without ruining the fish.
Of course it happens that a person might want to do it theirself, but that is rare‘…TLC


This may be one of those rare cases. Most people wouldn’t want to do this, but Raf is different. I think Raf would just take out one of his Colt 45 fish special knives. He would then gut the fish, and then start cutting & slicing away just like they do on TV. Meanwhile his little heart would be pounding away faster & faster while Amanda inches her way closer. Kind of like a bonding experience. Now you would think that Raf would remember this, instead he can’t recall what he ate that night. I think this was a missed opportunity on Raf’s part. He could of told the investigators that he was home at the time of the murder cutting up a fish with a knife, and not at the flat doing whatever Rudy said he was doing to Meredith. Amanda could then back up his story. Meanwhile the defense teams will be blowing holes in that 10,000+ page prosecution document including all the videotapes & recordings. Now I haven’t decided if this story was true, or just a cleaver way in which Amanda throws the blame back on her lying double-crossing former bf.
Just speculating.

Oceania wrote:I would be very surprised if either AK and RS came out and accused each other of being involved in any way. I expect to see them both revert to their original alibi's that they spent the night together. I could be wrong on this but I would be very surprised if they did.

RS has said repeatedly in his prison diaries, that AK spent the night with him. He only questioned her being being absent for a very short period of time around the time she found out she had to work, but he even doubted that. His lawyer said in December (according to Frank) that his prison diary was positive and would be used in his defence. As far as I am aware this is the last public document that has been released by RS and this clearly places AK back in his apartment....

Do you really think so Oceania.

I can't see how.

They're really going to have to make their descriptions of the evening fit together. I don't remember won't wash under examination. If they couldn't maintain a common version of how they spent the night in the days following the crime, how do you expect them to do so in future for the court.

Just saying they spent the evning together and invoking the right to silence when asked questions about that evening won't stand up well even against Toto, if he maintains his version in court. Who are the judges to believe, someone who won't talk or someone who will.

Oceania wrote:

Who is right and who is wrong ? Why is it not okay for one person to state it is Guede’s after he and his lawyer make a statement that it probably is his, yet fine for another to continue to state it is Sollecito’s ?

I would say it is fine for both to state that Rudy's lawyer recently said it could be his, and the Supreme Court stated on April 1 that it had not ruled out that the shoeprint could be Sollecito's. As such, until the evidence is presented and debated, someone who maintains that it could be Sollecito's is not wrong. I wouldn't personally hang my hat on that one, but as long as the word "could" is used, the statement is factual.

The shoeprint could be Rudy's, that's for sure. But to say Rudy has admitted it is his is going too far, unless his defense team says we have measured the shoeprint and it belongs to Rudy.

It is more interesting to think about why this statement of possibility was made. It may be a way of suggesting that Rudy did not take his shoes off (hence perhaps no bare footprints belonging to Rudy were identified) and did not participate in any clean-up.

In any case, if it turns out that Rudy was the man who almost knocked over the witness at around 10:30 pm, then it is unlikely he took part in any extensive clean-up.

These are just some of the issues that will be of interest going forward.

"You ridicule Preston for saying “I took one look at Sollecito and knew he was innocent’ yet merrily post about covering the face of Knox and looking at her eyes and seeing pure cold evil, or words to that effect."---Oceania

WHO are you talking to when you say "YOU," Oceania? I was the one who made a post about Amanda's eyes in one photo. I didn't do so "MERRILY." And I didn't say I saw "pure cold evil." This is exactly what I said, "I see the same emptiness found in her words." STOP LYING, OCEANIA.

I have never ridiculed Preston for his comments on Sollecito. So, WHO do you mean when you say "YOU?"

"Why is it not okay for one person to state it is Guede’s after he and his lawyer make a statement that it probably is his, yet fine for another to continue to state it is Sollecito’s ?"---OCEANIA

They didn't say it was probably his.

Rudy said it could be his.

STOP LYING, OCEANIA.

DLW wrote:

This may be one of those rare cases. Most people wouldn’t want to do this, but Raf is different. I think Raf would just take out one of his Colt 45 fish special knives. He would then gut the fish, and then start cutting & slicing away just like they do on TV.

I think you are right - if anyone would get a kick out of gutting a fish, it would be somebody like Raffaele. He probably has a knife for every occasion and certainly never enough opportunities to use one.

And stoned or not, I would think that this thrilling opportunity to whip out just the right knife and expertly gut a fish would impress a new girlfriend and not fade totally from memory.

That's what I saw too DLW

Sollecito put the plug in the shower and let it fill up with water.
At 6 he was in the kitchen doing Knox's nails for her with one of his 10 centimetre long couteau économe special knives dad had bought him when they noticed they were floating raft-like round the kitchen.
Gosh said Sollecito, did you pull the chain again too many times, your sense of hygiene is overpowering, where is all of that water coming from?

They'd smoked so much that he forgot that he was running the shower for his fish dinner.

Oh no, where's our dinner gone? they've escaped out of the bucket, turn the shower off.

I can't swim, I can't swim, shouted Knox.
Finally at 5 in the morning they finished mopping up and had dinner but not before catching the fish which bit them causing them to bleed.

Bleeding hell exclaimed Knox your dinner fooking bit me now, stupid Italian guy, why didn't you just buy the fish cleaned you psycho?

Though it was 4.30 in the morning or was it 4 or was it 6? Sollecito continued to whistle like he was real clever and oblivious to the complaints, tra li da, la di da, whistle whistle, he grabbed the last half a dozen sardines and threw them into the shower.

With a 30 centimetre chef's knife he thrashed at the shower curtain and blood spurted up the walls because fish have lots of blood in 'em, all this toime his Master's Voice Long Playing Record with Hitchcock's music from the film Psycho was playing softly and romantically in the background!

Whereas, anyone who knows anything about fish would know that when gutting them it is exactly around that area there in the digestive tract that nearly all of the blood is, and it is not a lot is it, eh, silly billy or stupid bollocks

it isn't like cutting up a cow at home instead of buying a couple of steaks,

but it has been said Psycho Soll did do that sometimes too, also in his shower, come 'ere Nellie


moooooooo


and that's why his last girlfriend pissed off,

not just because he was too keen on the missionary position.

Sparrow,

I believe that if the lawyers for the three suspects in custody do not successfully challenge the Courts recent findings on the murder of Meredith Kercher, then the charges of voluntary homicide will stand and Justice will be one step closer for Meredith and her family.

No matter what we say here about the evidence, either known or unknown to us, these three suspects will be charged.

Kermit has very clearly pointed out, that since none of the these three suspects will voluntarily talk about what they did or where they were, all three will be charged with her murder. And even though it is entirely possible that one or more of these three were only peripherally involved, since they are not talking , they are 'accessories after the fact' and therefore responsible for the murder.

Rudy Guede has admitted he was there, and his DNA places him there. It must follow that since neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollectio have alibis, and their DNA is in the cottage, that both of them were there as well. We may never learn which of these two persons inflicted the fatal wound. And it may be that Rudy Guede truly was in the bathroom and upon exiting because of the screams, only saw Raffaele Sollecito with a knife.

Nonetheless, in a short period of time, all three with be officially charged. The lawyers for both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will have failed to convince the Court that their clients are innocent. These multiple charges makes it that much more difficult for these two persons to escape their involvement. At their trial then, we shall see the evidence unfold. And based on all that I have read, the evidence that I have seen, and the witnesses that we have heard from, in spite of there being ridiculed, all three suspects in custody played a role in Meredith's murder.

Michael recently pointed out in a post that 'some form of premeditation,' to this effect, is almost inescapable when you consider some of the 'at large' issues of this case. None of the three are talking; therefore, all three will go down together.

[font=Times New Roman]Sparrow, O8 doesn't care about accuracy, as we've seen from the start. So I guess that means we now have carte blanche to quote stuff SHE hasn't said either, so long as we're mindful to put: "words to that effect" directly afterwards.[/font]

Hi Sparrow,

Some people say rubbish like 'oh I'd better shut up now because I've upset too many people today'

but

they say that


when nobody has complained to them, nobody reacted

so isn't it obvious their that their mission is to project their own hang-ups and anger onto others by inflaming the board, meaning their intention is to get a certain response from people, to upset other people?

People who say 'I have upset enough people today' do not need to be told sorry or excuse me, when they pretend to not know what it is they are doing

their whole intention is to be overbearing and to disrupt this place.
Trying to make others feel small if they get the chance to do that is something, a practice, that temporarily makes them feel big.

I found this article to be interesting. I didn't realize the Corriere Della Sera had an English version?

Perugia Murder – Amanda’s Version
She was with Patrick yesterday and she was screaming. I was scared and covered my ears”
PERUGIA – “Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith’s bedroom while I must have stayed in the kitchen. I can’t remember how long they were together in the bedroom but the only thing I can say is that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming. I was scared and put my hands over my ears. I can’t remember anything else. I’m so confused. I can’t remember if Meredith was screaming or if I heard any thuds because I was in shock but I could imagine what was going on”.

It was early yesterday morning when Amanda Knox, Meredith’s American friend and flatmate, revealed that she had been present at the murder. She broke down after police officers accused her of lying when she claimed to have left the flat at 5 pm on 1 November and come back the following morning, when Meredith’s brutally murdered body was found. Amanda’s boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, had been interviewed a few hours earlier. He admitted that the alibi was false while denying he had taken part in the crime. Amanda realised she had no way out but she claimed her role was marginal, accusing Patrick Lumumba Diya of being the murderer. Nevertheless, her story was confused and it was clear she was not telling the whole truth. It was enough for the public prosecutor, however, who signed warrants for the arrest of the two men.

“I CAN’T REMEMBER” – Amanda Knox’s story begins at 5.45 am yesterday morning. “I want to tell you what happened because it’s left me really shocked and I’m terrified of Patrick, the African boy who owns the Le Chic pub where I work sometimes. I saw him on the evening of 1 November after I replied ‘see you’ to his text message. We met at about 9 pm on the basketball court in Piazza Grimana and went to my place. I can’t remember if Meredith was already there or if she turned up later. What I can say is that they went into the bedroom”. Amanda goes into detail and describes the assault. Then she adds, “I met Patrick this morning [5 November – Ed.] outside the University for Foreigners and he asked me questions. He wanted to know what questions the police had asked me. I think he also asked me if I wanted to speak to journalists, perhaps because he was trying to find out if I knew anything about Meredith’s death”.

Amanda then talks about her boyfriend: “I’m not sure if Raffaele was there that evening but I clearly remember waking up at his place, in his bed. I went back home in the morning and found the door open”. Officers from the flying squad and special operational centre (SCO) say that after making her statement, Amanda put her hands on her head and shook it several times. In the warrant, the public prosecutor writes: “The sexual intercourse involving Meredith and Patrick must be regarded as violent, given the particularly threatening context in which it took place, and to which Ms Knox must have contributed with Diya”.

BOYFRIEND’S LIES – The printouts of telephone calls examined by the post office police proved crucial to establishing the movements of those involved. They were also incompatible with earlier statements. The first to admit to talking “a whole lot of rubbish” was Raffaele Sollecito. He was questioned at the police station at 10.40 pm on 5 November, two days ago. He had already been interviewed after Meredith’s body was discovered but claimed he did not know what had happened. “I was out with Amanda”, he had said. Then he realised that the situation had changed and decided to change his version of events.

Raffaele Sollecito’s statement begins at 10.40 pm on Tuesday. “I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose. I can’t remember what she was wearing or if she was wearing the same clothes she had on when she said goodbye before dinner. I can’t remember if we had sex that night. The following morning, we got up at about 10 am and she told me she wanted to go home, have a shower and change. She left at around 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda left, she took an empty carrier bag, saying she needed it for her dirty washing. She came back about 11.30 and I remember she had changed her clothes. She had her usual bag with her”.

According to Sollecito, this was when Amanda told him she was worried. “She told me that when she got home, she found the door wide open and blood stains in the small bathroom. She asked me whether I thought it was strange. I said I did and advised her to phone her friends. She told me she’d phoned Filomena [another woman living in the murder house – Ed.] and that Meredith wasn’t answering”.

GOING HOME – The pair went back to the flat together. This is Raffaele Sollecito’s version of next few moments: “She unlocked the door and I went in. I noticed that Filomena’s door was open. There was glass on the floor and the room was a mess. Amanda’s door was open but the room was tidy. Then I went to Meredith’s door and saw it was locked. First, I checked to see if what Amanda had told me about the blood in the bathroom was true. I noticed there were drops of blood in the sink and there was something strange on the bathmat, a mixture of blood and water, while the rest of the bathroom was clean. Nothing else was out of place. Just then, Amanda went into the big bathroom and came out looking scared. She clung to me and said that when she was showering earlier, there had been stools in the lavatory bowl but now it was clean. I wondered what was going on and went out to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window. I tried to force the door but I couldn’t open it. Then I decided to call my sister for advice because she’s a lieutenant in the carabinieri. She told me to call 112 but by this time the postal police had arrived. In my earlier statement, I told you a whole lot of rubbish because Amanda convinced me about her version and I didn’t think about the contradictions”.


Fiorenza Sarzanini

English translation by Giles Watson
www.watson.it



07 novembre 2007

http://www.corriere.it/english/articoli ... rder.shtml

bpcl wrote:Sparrow,

I believe that if the lawyers for the three suspects in custody do not successfully challenge the Courts recent findings on the murder of Meredith Kercher, then the charges of voluntary homicide will stand and Justice will be one step closer for Meredith and her family.

No matter what we say here about the evidence, either known or unknown to us, these three suspects will be charged.

You're right, Beep. Thanks.
Soozie and TLC, thank you too.

Hey Tara,

The last sentence is interesting, isn't it? Especially the last part:

"I told you a whole lot of rubbish because Amanda convinced me about her version and I didn’t think about the contradictions”.

It's as if he would only ever have to choose a "version" to tell, as if there is no real truth.

Sparrow,

This is what I believe Mr. Raffaele Sollecito wanted to say,

"I told you a whole lot of rubbish because Amanda convinced me about her version and I didn’t think about the [ramifications for me] contradictions”

Sparrow wrote:

Tara wrote:Minotaur,
...and I find your posts very interesting when they pertain to the case!Tara

I repeat Tara's sentiments. Any time I've ever shown "antipathy" for you Minotaur, it's been in response to your disrespect, and sometimes brutal attitude toward your fellow posters. These posters are the ones who have the same goal in mind as you here, to find the truth.

[font=Times New Roman]
Minotaur, rather than type your little: "See previous postings" in response to a question, why not type nothing at all? You occasionally need clarification yourself, and people are always willing to help. Is it really so hard to return the favour? The other day you asked how to upload images and I spent some time giving you tips, but you didn't even acknowledge them. You made snide comments about cat photos instead.
I think it's rude, that's all.

Anyway, that aside, I'd just like to say I'm sorry you lost your cat. I can't imagine being without mine, although I know I will be one day. Perhaps in the future, when the time is right, you might like to get another one. They always need loving homes and beds to piss in, particularly if the owner is still in it...
[/font]

It's a big week this week for the suspects and their defense teams:

1-Notification of the conclusion of the investigation was filed last Wednesday (June 18, which means that the term for pre-trial incarceration can be extended for another year). The notification means only that the prosecutor thinks he cannot "archive" (dismiss) the position of the three and is awaiting their response before deciding to ask for a trial or not.
During this 20-day period, the parties can withdraw the material produced by the prosecutor. Each document has a cost, for an estimated total of nearly €50,000. Within 20 days, the various defense teams will present their defensive memos and ask for another audience with the prosecutors.

Perugia-Shock



The 20 days are up on Tuesday.

I wonder, will there be any leaks or will anyone be making any statements in the next few days?

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

Sparrow wrote:"You ridicule Preston for saying “I took one look at Sollecito and knew he was innocent’ yet merrily post about covering the face of Knox and looking at her eyes and seeing pure cold evil, or words to that effect."---Oceania

WHO are you talking to when you say "YOU," Oceania? I was the one who made a post about Amanda's eyes in one photo. I didn't do so "MERRILY." And I didn't say I saw "pure cold evil." This is exactly what I said, "I see the same emptiness found in her words." STOP LYING, OCEANIA.

I have never ridiculed Preston for his comments on Sollecito. So, WHO do you mean when you say "YOU?"

Well Sparrow, this is O8 strike no.2 today I guess. Just one more lie to go...

Brian S.,

"I wonder, will there be any leaks or will anyone be making any statements in the next few days?"

I highly doubt it. People are convicted in Courts by a "Jury of their Peers" on a small amount of DNA. There is so much evidence against these three suspects, physical, alibi oriented and witness testimony, that I find it highly unlikely that the lawyers of any of the three will file anything. In fact, I am willing to propose that the lawyers for the three suspects do not know how to proceed. They will not be able to overcome this evidence, even if the Court cannot put forward a viable motive that will stick.

I am willing to bet that the lawyers will be discussing with their clients about how best to proceed; because it is after all, a question of their money. Just how much money are the families of each of these three suspects willing to put out? Rudy Guede certainly cannot put forward any effort because he has no money. The Amanda Knox family has passion and desire but clearly, they cannot put out the kind of money that might be necessary to fight this case until the bitter end. And I cannot speak for the elder Sollecito. He too will have to decide.

It would be nice if the lawyers for the three suspects would punt, however, based on their previous history, I highly doubt it. In fact, it is only the families that are speaking out now, not their lawyers; that would cost some kind of money. I suspect that the families will fight here and there, chasing each piece of evidence, citing it as bogus, and then moving on to the next.

What they have failed to realize up to now, is that they have no case. It would take an army of good lawyers, and a lot of money to put forward a defense that could successfully cast doubt on each piece of evidence. I highly doubt it. So in the end, some defense will be put forward, but it will fail based on the evidence, and most likely, all three will be put in prison for an extended period of time for their crime.

In a perfect world, each of them would search their conscience, tell the truth, serve their prison time, and move on with their lives; alas, that shall not be the case.

Brian S. wrote:It's a big week this week for the suspects and their defense teams:

1-Notification of the conclusion of the investigation was filed last Wednesday (June 18, which means that the term for pre-trial incarceration can be extended for another year). The notification means only that the prosecutor thinks he cannot "archive" (dismiss) the position of the three and is awaiting their response before deciding to ask for a trial or not.
During this 20-day period, the parties can withdraw the material produced by the prosecutor. Each document has a cost, for an estimated total of nearly €50,000. Within 20 days, the various defense teams will present their defensive memos and ask for another audience with the prosecutors.

Perugia-Shock



The 20 days are up on Tuesday.

I wonder, will there be any leaks or will anyone be making any statements in the next few days?

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

Hi Brian, I may be wrong, but unless the defense comes up with some breaking news eg a new witness providing a sound alibi for any of them- which I seriously doubt-, I think it's unlikely that the prosecutor will dismiss the case. If the DNA on the knife, bra, footprints etc have been accepted as evidence, there is little they can do right now except arguing against it in court. To me, the question mark at this point is if any of them (or all ) will be granted house arrest.

Charlie Wilkes - from the last thread wrote:

DLW wrote:‘I haven't drawn a connection between Preston and the physical evidence in this case. But as for the footprint, how do you know it is too small to belong to Guede? Because the authorities say so?’ …..Charlie

Well first of all Rudy was upfront about saying that shoeprint in the murder scene could be his. That maybe Rudy’s way of saying that none of those bare footprints are mine? Also don’t you think the 3 ½ difference in foot size would be obvious.

It ought to be very obvious. So why all the ambiguity, for months, about this shoe print?...

Raffaele:
None of my biological material was found at the crime scene.


Supreme Court:
The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant. Moreover, there is a Nike shoe print compatible with the shoes you were wearing at the time of your arrest. It is true that the identification with your own pair of Nikes is still uncertain, as the Court itself admits, but the size of the print left in the victim's blood excludes the possibility of its being attributable to Rudy Guede, since he has a much bigger shoe size. However, the real value of the print resides in the fact that just a few people may be involved in the crime and not even Knox --who admitted her presence in the house -- has excluded your presence at the crime scene. And since you said you never entered the room we have no reason to believe that the print was left the following day.

Perugia-Shock

The prosecution and the court have no doubt that the footprint doesn't belong to Rudy Guede.

The only people who seem to have a problem understanding that the print is too small to belong to Rudy Guede is yourself, Oceania and Raffaele's defense team.

That point, at least, is unambiguous.

And if it isn't Rudy Guede's, then whose is it? Have we a third person in the cottage who just happens to go in for the same style of Nikes as Raffaele and Rudy?

And whilst I'm on the subject, when read in the context in which it was spoken, Rudy hasn't confused the issue when he said that the footprint could be his.

He was obviously asked about his Nikes back in May.

He said he disposed of them in a waste skip when he was in Germany. He said the reason for doing this, was because when he found out about the Nike footprint in Meredith's room,
he thought the footprint could be his. I guess no one from the ILE had been in touch with him at that stage back in November to tell him it would be a waste of a good pair of shoes to put them in the bin because the footprint found in Meredith's room was just to small to belong to him.

Brian S.,

"And if it isn't Rudy Guede's, then whose is it? Have we a third person in the cottage who just happens to go in for the same style of Nikes as Raffaele and Rudy?"

The reason why this shoe print size cannot be accepted is that it flies in the face of the "Lone Wolf" theory. Under this theory, this shoe print must belong to Rudy Guede. However, as you pointed out, the Court has clearly stated that the shoe print does not belong to Rudy Guede.

Evidence cannot be willed away just because it does not fit a theory. I have continually asked this question to those presenting the "Lone Wolf" theory, but have never, ever received an answer that would change this case around. The problem quite simply is, the shoe print not being Rudy Guede's size destroys the theory. I have often posted this quote from A. Conan Doyle,

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. "

A. Conan Doyle has also given us another worthy quote that applies to this case,

"The most difficult crime to track is the one which is purposeless."

Minotaur wrote:Some replies:


5. Damian, Nicki and Cinsky: Please read the CU’s transcription of Totò’s 2 February verbale (see the previous thread, pages 146-47) and offer an opinion on whether he is referring to night of Hallowe’en or the night of Ognisanti. Ditto whether it was possible to fare la spesa in Perugia on 1st November, let alone buy a wet fish.

I remember that there were students taking the buses that stopped at the entrance at the entrance to via Batttisti or at the bus-stop at the Etruscan arch. These buses take the jeunesse to various discos on Saturday nights or on other days preceding holidays. That night there were two buses, one of which may have been grey.

Hi Minotaur

Toto says that that those buses go to the discoes on Saturdays or on other days preceding holidays , so that could have happened on Oct 31st as well as Nov 1st, since Nov 2 is a holiday as well. But he also said that the students were masked so one would assume that he was watching the Halloween crowd on Oct 31. To me the only chance that it could have happened on Nov 1st is that due to the long weekend the parties were extended to the weekend. It is true than many students went home to their families because of the long weekend but those are the "fuori sede", that is those students who have moved to Perugia to attend college. Perugia has also resident students/youngsters who like to party and whose families live there, so they might continue the celebrations over the weekend. In the recent years, Halloween has become quite a popular festivity also in Italy, so it wouldn't surprise me too much.

In short, it's difficult to be sure about what night Toto is talking about, I think it is more likely to be Oct 31st, but Nov 1st cannot be ruled out either. I think Frank of PS should know if such a possibility exists. As for shopping on Nov 1st, I have looked up the opening dates for any kind of store and supermarket in Perugia on Nov 1st 2007 and 2008 at:
http://www.apertodomenica.com/ricerca.asp?t=2
and search results indicate that no store will be open on Nov 1 2008. nor was opened on the same date in 2007 . According to this, unless someone had gone fishing, it seems that getting fish in Perugia wasn't possible on November 1st 2007.

BEEP:

highly doubt it. People are convicted in Courts by a "Jury of their Peers" on a small amount of DNA. There is so much evidence against these three suspects, physical, alibi oriented and witness testimony, that I find it highly unlikely that the lawyers of any of the three will file anything. In fact, I am willing to propose that the lawyers for the three suspects do not know how to proceed. They will not be able to overcome this evidence, even if the Court cannot put forward a viable motive that will stick.

__________________

You do understand that in Italy there are no juries don't you?

It is confusing because there are very bad transaltions of these things, even on the Italian Ministry of Justice website there are poor translations.

Frank Shock also has incorrect information on his site.

In Italy the lay-judges sat next to the career judges on the bench or panel are not a jury, that is misleading.

In English a jury in the judicial sense is separate from the judges.

The jury decides who is guilty or innocent, not the judge.

In Italy these people who Frank Shock has down as the jury do not decide independently of the judge who is guilty or innocent.

They act along with the professional or career judges and they together, lay-judges and career judges, decide who is guilty or innocent.

In the British and American systems the judge may believe the accused to be guilty but if the jury decides otherwise then the judge is powerless, the accused goes free.

What system is better at protecting justice?


I think the judge doing the decision making is the superior system.



They do get legal aid in Italy too Beep, so I am not sure about your ideas of how the money works.

It would not surprise me if the Knox base has private sponsorship from some undisclosed/undisclosable source.

Sollecito Sr. is pretty much loaded.

Guede's lawyers get paid not by Guede's family but through the state, the others could get aid too if they had no money.

I do not know about Knox, maybe she is taking legal aid, it is law that the state must provide legal aid, it is not Burma.

Hi Beep and Nicki

Last post before I wind my way up the stairs.

There is at least one unknown element in the documentation and the lawyerly calculations which we don't know about and could have a bearing on the best way forward for all the suspects, although it may affect each of them differently.

There is a perception, at least in the Italian press that Rudy may well go for the shortened trial. If this is Biscuit's "strategy" it will have played a large part in the evidence which Rudy gave to the prosecution on March 26 and was added to later after Rudy's request to speak to them again on May 14.

Apart from the snippet about Rudy and the footprint which "someone" leaked the other day, Rudy's evidence has been kept well under wraps. Indeed the very existence of his testimony given in May was never publicised. As far as I can tell, Mignini sat on Rudy's statements until he released them to the other defense teams as part of the 10,000 pages.

I'm intrigued by the possibilty of what a relatively truthfull Rudy, in mitigation of his guilt (of what??)at a short trail, has said or could say, would mean for the defensive strategies of Amanda and Raffaele.

TLC,

I know their are no juries. A trial that is adjudicated by any Court people, be they judges, lawyers et al., is still to me a "Jury by their peers." That being said, maybe it was a bad choice of words.

Secondly, when it costs 50,000 euros to get access to Court information as in this case, why that is big money to me. You still need big money to hire your own experts, your own court filers etc. Europe today is not a cheap place to live by any means, and that includes Italy. In the States, you can get a court appointed lawyer too, but what good is that when the stakes are very high.

nicki wrote:

Minotaur wrote:Some replies:


5. Damian, Nicki and Cinsky: Please read the CU’s transcription of Totò’s 2 February verbale (see the previous thread, pages 146-47) and offer an opinion on whether he is referring to night of Hallowe’en or the night of Ognisanti. Ditto whether it was possible to fare la spesa in Perugia on 1st November, let alone buy a wet fish.

I remember that there were students taking the buses that stopped at the entrance at the entrance to via Batttisti or at the bus-stop at the Etruscan arch. These buses take the jeunesse to various discos on Saturday nights or on other days preceding holidays. That night there were two buses, one of which may have been grey.

Hi Minotaur

Toto says that that those buses go to the discoes on Saturdays or on other days preceding holidays....

Nicki,

There's always one more last post

If I can add a bit of context to this:

I've checked up on The Red Zone. Their "BIG NIGHTS" are usually on a Saturday, sometimes a Friday and one or two odd days in the year which probably correspond to Italian holidays I don't recognise.

I suggested to Minotaur that they could have combined a Halloween night with a BIG Friday nighter which would require the buses. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find out the date of the "BIG" night that particular week. Perhaps a phone call to the club????

They DID HAVE ONE and it went on all night, I just don't know the day.

Coming back from the Red Zone (in broad daylight) - Holloween 2007 Posted 2nd November U-Tube

Brian S.,

Very nicely put. IMHO, the evidence against both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, both pre and post crime, is enormous. In life as you know, we all make choices, some good, some bad. Up until this time, both of these people have made some very bad choices, to the detriment of their personal lives and to their relationships with their family members and friends.

I am hoping they will come to their senses and speak the 'truth' about what happened on the night of November 1st, 2008. The 'Truth' is when the healing starts. To be sure, the healing is painful, like a scar, but eventually, even a scar will heal. There is still the tissue that will show evidence of it, but nonetheless, it is still scar tissue, i.e., the memory of a lost daughter, sister, mother and potential grandmother.

The 'Truth' hurts, but is better than falsehood. Falsehood means that healing can never be achieved.

God, hope I don't get sued for believing, oh bring it on, stating the following: Rudy Guede is a scary thieving follower type perv who I hope gave the goods to Mean Mignini. Rafaele Sollecito is loser pill-poppin (IMO ) knife loving' prolly sportin some serious fucking issues Daddy's Boy who can't get it up hence the ear washing shower technique (!) and thus couldn't get a chick until he found a willing disfunctional participant in the ever-so-glamorous and literary Amanda Knox, who can't keep her legs closed for more than five seconds if it means not getting enough attention. By the way, would love to hear the real deal on the ALLEGED ON ANOTHER BLOG STORY ABOUT HER SCARING PEOPLE WITH MASKS BACK IN BEAUTIFUL SEATTLE. Perhaps "people in the know" have scared the bejesus out of anyone fearing libelous lawsuits. Me? I don't fucking care. In addition I would like to add that Angelina Jolie is a God damn homewrecking baby collecting whore, Tom Cruise is a fucking loonie toon and his wife KatE is a robot, and I am totally worried about TLC googling info on turtledoves. (TLC~ just a joke. I kind of really think that is nice and am very hopeful you might post a picture of a turtledove.)

On another note, I have just spent $154,643 on gas this past weekend. If what Oceania states is true and that there are people reading this who know who I am, then I would like to offer those types a deal. I'll sell my soul and retract the above statements for a pre-paid gas card in a substantial amount. Give me an argument and I'll pick and choose each and every fricken piece of evidence, no matter how obvious, with benefit to the highest bidder. It's not about the death of Meredith Kercher anymore. We're in a recession.

Please contact Jumpy as time is awastin'

BEEP:
A trial that is adjudicated by any Court people, be they judges, lawyers et al., is still to me a "Jury by their peers."

_______________

Sorry, but this is not right.

Lawyers do not judge.

You may as well say that a judge is there to act as lawyer and as part of the jury.

In this way a little old tea lady might pop by dusting as she goes, and then also announce a verdict taken from under her wooly cardigan and continue dusting and sweeping. What I mean is it may mean that to you but it is not what it is.

Lawyers are in no way part of a jury of peers, come off it. To just interchange these roles is all wrong.

Got to get straight about the concepts that are the building blocks otherwise none of this can ever make sense.

The judge that presides over the entire court is the head judge, in the different types of courts in Italy there are varying amounts of these career judges, in this first court the suspects will go to, the two career judges will be accompanied by six lay-judges and they are not a jury of peers.

To call them a jury when talking about law completely confuses their role, and people then imagine things to be like in the States and Britain but they are not.

Those lay-judges are advised by the career judges as to what is going on and the lay-judges make decisions together with the career judges, so they do not make decisions on their own, they are definitely influenced by the career judges.

About the money, yes, 50,000 seems like an obscene amount of money, if it is a fact that the defence cannot get hold of all of the paperwork it wants or feels it needs all because of money then I say or think this is wrong but I cannot imagine they are limited by the money question, maybe someone knows the facts on this point because I do not.

Hiring experts, I think you may be right on that.
Sollecito will not have a problem about the money.
Guede would be the one most severely crippled by such a system if it is all about the money.

I think though that the state has to pay a certain amount, within reason.
I would imagine calling in an expert gets invoiced as costs made for defence and the state has to pay it.

BEEP:

In the States, you can get a court appointed lawyer too, but what good is that when the stakes are very high

______

I don't know about the States but in Britain, first you get a lawyer then for the Crown Court, you need a barrister, lots of those are Oxford educated, or at least what I mean is, they are all the real thing, you get damned good lawyers on legal aid too.
Maybe America is discriminatory in these things, I do not know.

JUMPY:
I'm worried not about the Singing Detective or The English Patient I am worried about Cookers who close their Detective restaurants in the weekend when the best business is to be had, what are they afraid of?

Senor, senor, you know their hearts is as hard as leather.
Well, give me a minute, let me get it together.
I just gotta pick myself up off the floor.
I'm ready when you are, senor.

BD

It may be that Old Charlie boy is like a raving loony with his non method of reasoning:

the footballer kicked the goalkeeper in the leg on purpose therefore all footballers are dirty foulers

yep Charlie you are right on boy!

the teacher shouted at the boy and locked him in a cupboard therefore all teachers abuse children.

yep Charles, you sure are right on the ball with your advertising books on this board.

Evening News: Charlie a bookseller from the Isle of Jura continued to force his will onto other people trying to make them accept his views by the use of force therefore all people called Charlie are megalomaniacs like Charlie bookselling Wilkes.

TLC,

I was happy in the haze of a drunken hour
But heaven knows I'm miserable now

And I am on lyrical theme...

Oh, who said I'd lied because I never ? I never !
Who said I'd lied because I never ?
I was detained, I was restrained
And broke my spleen
And broke my knee
(and then he really laced into me)
Friday night in Out-patients
Who said I'd lied to her ?

Oh, who said I'd lied ? - because I never, I never
Who said I'd lied ? - because I never

Oh, so I drank one
It became four
And when I fell on the floor ...
...I drank more

Stop me, oh, stop me
Stop me if you think that you've
Heard this one before
Stop me, oh, stop me
Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before

drink is good Jumpy as long as you don't drink so much that your liver dissolves


‘You Are Old, Father William’ by Lewis Carroll

“You are old, Father William,” the young man said,
“And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head –
Do you think, at your age, it is right?”

“In my youth,” Father William replied to his son,
“I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I’m perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again.”

“You are old,” said the youth, “as I mentioned before,
And you have grown most uncommonly fat;
Yet you turned a back-somersault in at the door –
Pray what is the reason for that?”

“In my youth,” said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
“I kept all my limbs very supple
By the use of this ointment — one shilling a box –
Allow me to sell you a couple?”

“You are old,” said the youth, “and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak –
Pray, how did you manage to do it?”

“In my youth,” said his father, “I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life.”

“You are old,” said the youth, “one would hardly suppose
That your eye was as steady as every;
Yet you balanced an eel on the end of your nose –
What made you so awfully clever?”

“I have answered three questions, and that is enough,”
Said his father. “Don’t give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I’ll kick you down stairs!”



look Charlie,

kicked

stairs

call the police

o no I forgot

they are all crooks

absolutely none of us knew anything about such things until you came along, you hero you, you have saved the entire human race, cops are crooks end of story,

Charlie says all of em, Charlie is right, I'm convinced now, if only to shut him and his cakehole up.

I'm so pleased that I'm enlightened,

the verse about arguing with the trouble and strife, Lewis was inspired if you can call it that when he met up with Oceania's ancestors, that's when he took to opium,

Hey! TLC,
I wasn't talking about my drinking...not disclosed! I was only making reference to the pot smoking and not remembering incident. Cheers tho and always happy to infiltrate your mind via song.

When the good ship Halo went down, as SB recently reminded us, there were some issues that arose to do with libel and defamation etc. I jokingly commented at the time something like....I can see Biscotti preparing his statement right now.."Oceania I sue you!". But actually a while after that, I talked with a very good friend of mine who is a legal advisor for the film industry (she's American but lives in NZ) about the issues of posting on public blogs. I gave her an overview of this blog and she advised me to add the disclaimer to my posts. Some of you have knocked this disclaimer but I would seriously advise each and every one of you to add something similar to your posts. It has concerned me the malicous things that have been said about some of the suspects and their families (and some of us posters) because a. I don't like seeing those sort of things said about anybody and b. because there are risks you take when you make comments like those in public.



I found some interesting information on this topic.


Like it or not, millions of Americans have unwittingly become amateur journalists, without the benefit of understanding the important laws regarding publishing of information that might hurt someone else. Let's take a closer look and explore these issues:
• Internet law and personal liability
• False light, invasion of privacy and defamation
• Sure-fire ways to wind-up in court
In the past, many people felt that nobody would undertake the expensive and time-consuming efforts to uncover internet offenders.
Courts are supporting web-based claims
A close friend of mine was recently forced into taking action against a group of foreigners who were defaming her reputation over the web. They published horrendous lies about her, hijacked web content, and violated her privacy. As part of my research for the book “Web Stalkers”, I helped her with the paperwork and I was surprised to find out they way that the law has evolved regarding web publishing, especially forums and blogs:
• There are limits to the First Amendment – The old adage “free speech doesn’t mean that you can shout “fire” in a crowded theater” applies here. You cannot just preface a libel with “in my opinion” (i.e. IMHO, John murdered three people). The most common defense in a false light action is to claim First Amendment freedom of speech, but the courts are quite clear about offering no protection for false speech:
"false speech, even political speech, does not merit constitutional protection if the speaker knows of the falsehood or recklessly disregards the truth."
• Defamation is seriously punished – In Wagner v. Miskin (2003 ND 69), the court accepted local jurisdiction against an out-of-state web site owner. The defendant as changed with complaint sought damages for libel, slander, and for damages from reproducing her privileged communications (e-mails). The court judged against the libeler, granting extensive punitive damages to the tune of $3,000,000.00.

• Anonymity is an illusion – With a “John Doe” subpoena you can quickly get the real identity of anonymous publishers, even on Google-based portals such as “Google Groups” and www.blogspot.com. All you need is the date-time stamp and the IP address. The courts are now very willing to force ISP’s to reveal the identity behind an IP address, even on non-criminal civil complaints.

• You are responsible for your own words – Whenever you enter a message board, chat room or blog, you become a worldwide publisher and are subjected to the same laws as any other international journalist. You might also be responsible for the words of others. Under certain circumstances you can be held responsible for re-publishing a defamatory work and inciting defamation:

• Linking to a Libelous article – That’s right; all it takes is non-verified hyperlink. Recent court cases in the UK and Australia have upheld that those who republish a libel as committing a libel. It also applies to cases where a blogger links to “juicy gossip” that turns-out to be false.

• Using comment areas in blogs – Some court-cases have held that you cannot be held responsible for comments placed in you blog comment area. However, some jurisdictions agree that the blog owner could be held responsible if they “incited” the defamatory remarks or if they selectively edit or delete the comments. Here is a libel accusation against a blogger who published that an author was “a fraud”, because he possessed a less prestigious doctorate degree.

• Jurisdiction is becoming less important – Libel and defamation laws vary widely by State and Nation. Because participation in chat rooms and blogs makes you an international publisher, you are expected to understand the laws in every jurisdiction where your document will be distributed, in the web case, over 190 Countries. To prevent “forum shopping” most jurisdictions seem favorable to local plaintiffs, allowing them to hail offenders into their local court from anywhere around the globe.

• Employers can be implicated – If someone is using your company resources (company web access) or harassing someone while “on the clock”, then your company could be implicated. For these reasons, many company’s prohibit anonymous web communication at he workplace, and whenever they are “at work” even if the are in a hotel room or working at-home. Bottom line, you might be held partially responsible for the actions of your employees when they are using your company resources in commission of an unlawful act.

• Identity Theft is very serious offense – Many identity theft cases are prosecuted as a felony offense. If you discover that someone is impersonating you in a forum or blog, you should consult an attorney immediately to get injunctions to stop further damage. Many resources for victims of identity theft are available on their website at www.idtheftcenter.org.
Now, you might be tempted to say "baloney", that nobody is ever going to take me to-task for insulting someone anonymously on a message board.
Are anonymous blog comments always opinion?
However, it's important to note that a Delaware court has ruled that, when defaming a public figure, opinion cannot be defamatory and that a prima facie case for defamation must be proven before the courts will disclose the identify of an anonymous blogger (emphasis added).
"In this case, this Court is called upon to adopt a standard for trial courts to apply when faced with a public figure plaintiff’s discovery request that seeks to unmask the identity of an anonymous defendant who has posted allegedly defamatory material on the internet."
If upheld in other jurisdictions, these types of anonymous blog publications would be considered "opinions" and be considered protected free speech. In the Delaware case we see this anonymous comment about an elected public official, which as held as protected:
"Anyone who has spent any amount of time with Cahill would be keenly aware of such character flaws, not to mention an obvious mental deterioration."
This could start a free-for-all of defamation against public figures as shown by these hypothetical examples:
• "I had homosexual sex with John Q Senator last week and I received HIV and Herpes."

• "I saw John Q. Mayor steal $50,000 from the church collection box last week."
The Delaware case clearly notes that this "John Doe warrant" was against a public figure, but remains silent about the rights of private individuals:
"It also is clear that the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech. [I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.”


http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_news/2 ... mments.htm

Thanks Oceania, for the big lesson on libel. I am totally retarded and don't know how to google these things myself. And I really appreciate your looking out for my best interests. If I didn't know better I would think you were just trying intimidate me into believing that Amanda and Raffy are the best people in the world and that Big Bad Rudy is the only killer, even though it sure looks like the investigators, and the judges, and prosecution, oh and pretty much anybody with any sort of sense is figuring out how Meredith Kercher, the victim, died on November 1st, at the hands of the three in custody. But what do they know?

This sort of reminds me of something a two year old might do when he can't get what he wants. He hits.

Oceania stated:

Most posters here are excellent and will have nothing to worry about, others might like to think a bit more carefully in future about who they attack and insult and the words they choose to use on a public forum.

Well O8, what category are you in "the nothing to worry about" or the "think a bit more carefully"? I am asking because to this day it bothers me you posted the full name of your son's friend, Victoria and discussed personal thoughts she shared with your son. That disgusts me. You invaded your very own son's privacy. Maybe he doesn't mind a bunch of crime cyber sleuths looking at his online photo albums but I sure wouldn't have thrown my own son into this case discussion in such a personal way.

Oceania8 wrote:I talked with a very good friend of mine who is a legal advisor. I gave her an overview of this blog
and she advised me to add the disclaimer to my posts. Some of you have knocked this disclaimer but I would seriously advise each and every one of you to add something similar to your posts.

[font=Times New Roman]That's funny, and also yet another lie. You added it after being warned for the zillionth time about stating your own opinion as fact.

The disclaimer was your feeble attempt of permitting yourself to continue to state your opinion as fact, without having to account for any inaccuracies you posted. Did your, ahem... 'legal advisor' comment on your motive?

Did you tell her how you post under multiple user names to viciously attack people anonymously? What did she make of that?

Did you ask if a disclaimer takes care of that too?

Anyway, I don't care tuppence for your advice. I take full responsibilty for my posts and am certainly not shaking in my boots fretting about libel charges. If I was Knox however, I would be. But only because she helpfully named an innocent man as the murderer of Meredith Kercher, and then let him stew in jail while she whinged about her fading tan. Hmmm, he'd probably still be locked up now if his alibis hadn't panned out. So anyone can form an opinion about that type of person without having to add a worthless disclaimer to their posts. But, out of my overwhelming respect for you... I'll give it a bash.

IN MY OPINION: Knox is a selfish, cunning, scheming, manipulative little trollop who plotted to harm Meredith out of jealousy, spite and anger. And her family, particularly "CMellas" has unwittingly given us an ugly insight into why she developed without morals, scruples or conscience.

Save your breath Oceania. There are other blogs for Knox supporters like you who have no interest in the truth.

Go hawk your wares over there. This board's not buying.


[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]jumpy - you left Madonna out of your rant. Nothing?? There must be something [/font]

oc8 it is clear that, in the absence of 'official' news arising from the progress of the prosecutions cases against the suspects, many posters on this blog have turned on others that post in order to post something at all. i like cats (acknowledging soozies is a fine fine creature) and lyrics but do wonder at the recent posts. oc8 i dont agree with what i see as your limited line of reasoning but also know that you have emotional ties that are very strong in this case and understand your posts with that in mind. many posters here have shared their stories of the terrible losses of loved ones they have suffered and i try to empathise with their emotional ties to this case of Meredith being killed. i believe any neutral reader of this messageboard would see a few patterns of personal attack, and most recently, inappropriate comments to you from a moderator. these attacks are unacceptable. this unacceptability must be understood though with an acceptance of the fact that some posters refuse to engage or respond when others ask reasonable questions of them (such as charlie and kermits questions regarding relevance) and some leave antagoinising messages along with misinformation and spin (such as your claims and 'choice' words about the vampire and nike prints and the recent eyes of the big a). you cannot have it both ways, if you do not gain anything from the communication here then i ask why do you bother to come? i am prepared to forgo the communication here now in light of the fact nothing of real 'evidential' value is being exchanged. i must say though that i am proud to have shouted Patrik's innocence from the outset at a time when unfortunately i was a 'lone voice'. i have enjoyed exchanging ideas on steves forums with others from all over the world and am glad to say i have learnt many new things. i hope i in turn have exposed others here to some of the particular knowledge i have acquired in my life however limited what i have to share is.

in closing shame on you for attempting to spread fear amongst posters sharing communications between themselves. really the interweb is like tv if you do not like it then turn it off or go to another page. the poster that posted as cmellas calling me a retard and avowing that he wants to rub shit in my face perhaps is what you would call a model poster expressing his free opinion. i think he is a repressed homosexual with very very serious anger management issues, just my opinion for what it is worth...and oc8 shame on you for trying to spread fear. inflicting fear on Meredith was THE primary motivation of her killer(s) and i really doubt you wish, on second thought, to be participating in such despicable action.

.

Oceania wrote:

Many identity theft cases are prosecuted as a felony offense. If you discover that someone is impersonating you in a forum or blog, you should consult an attorney immediately to get injunctions to stop further damage.

If you don't have the time or the money to consult an attorney, there is a much simpler and healthier way to deal with the problem. I discovered a post on the UW Daily comments page that was supposedly "written" by me. It contained racist, sexist and homophobic remarks. I contacted the editor, the publisher and the new media manager of the paper and asked that the comment be removed. Not only was it removed, but the decision was made to require sign-in via facebook for anyone wishing to post a comment. That is now UW policy. You can check it out by visiting the online version of the campus paper. The reason for the new policy is given as well.

People, don't be afraid of somebody coming after you or your assets because you express your opinion on this or any other forum. It is very difficult to subpoena IP addresses. The main reason I have raised the issue and advised people to make it clear that they are expressing their opinion is that O8, who has so kindly provided us with this quick copy and paste from the internet, has repeatedly stated as fact what is not. Indeed, one of the worst breaches of ethics if not law that I have seen occurred when she gave us the first and last name of one of Rudy's girlfriends, which was not in the public domain. I don't understand why she then denied having done so, since the post was made in writing and had not been erased.

We have just had a lesson in free speech in the internet age. Anyone interested in a quick lesson in cyber-harassment? Just before the last haloscan thread was shut down by trolls, this same threat of defamation was raised. Anyone who is interested in that or in online harassment can review the final days of haloscan.

[font=Times New Roman]rob, excellent post. I was about to suggest that O8 advise "CMellas" to add a disclaimer to his posts so he can call people retards, assholes etc without fear of being sued for libel.

On the 'pictures and lyrics' side, yes, they have no meaning to the case whatsoever! But when we're going through a lull, I think it's okay to post unconnected things since it's just a way of chatting while we're waiting for the next step. Once we get some 'new' news, we'll revert back to normal. Don't you agree[/font]?

skep 'the final days of haloscan' sounds like a cheapo afternoon movie! haha! hope the kitten is thriving.

seriously though oc8s fear mongering really is beyond the pale. i support you mods in anything you do to deflect all future proto-fascist 'messages' being 'delivered'.

.

Rob wrote:

skep 'the final days of haloscan' sounds like a cheapo afternoon movie! haha! hope the kitten is thriving.

seriously though oc8s fear mongering really is beyond the pale. i support you mods in anything you do to deflect all future proto-fascist 'messages' being 'delivered'.

Thanks, Rob. The kitten is thriving. We brought in one of her siblings (ominously named BB or Big Brother ) to give her some fellow creature care and that seems to be working.

I also liked your comment about the use of fear, and how it relates to Meredith Kercher. It may be why many people here respond the way they do to perceived bullying and fear mongering.

There are some better web resources on the issue of libel in the internet age than what O8 has provided. If anyone is interested or just wants reassurance, I recommend www.cyberlibel.com/liabilit.html for a succinct and yet complete discussion of the subject.

Otherwise, and again to reassure people, here is the American definition of libel. It is similar to the definition in other countries with the same legal tradition. It is from www.law.buffalo.edu (Libel on the Internet: an International Problem). The emphasis is mine.

WHAT IS LIBEL? (The American definition)

When an injurious false statement is made about an individual, the individual is *defamed*. Defamation can occur in two forms: libel or slander. Libel occurs when there is a written statement injuring an individual, and slander occurs when there is an oral statement that injures an individual. Since on-line is considered to be written material, on-line defamation is considered to be libel.

Libel occurs when a false statement is written which injures an individual by disgracing him. The statement must be about an individual and the readers must be aware that the individual is the subject of the false statement. Furthermore, the defamatory statement must not be an opinion, but rather one of fact. *This is true because . . . only false statements are actionable, and the Supreme Court has held, under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas.* (Internet and the Law, p. 162-163.)

An individual considered to be a public figure must prove that the libeler knew the statement was false, or had serious questions regarding the truth of the statement. When the individual that was libeled is not a public figure, the threshold to recover damages is lower and requires proving negligence on the part of the libeler. (Internet and the Law, p. 163). There have been some proposals during recent case litigation that individuals libeled on the Internet should be regarded as a public figure, thus requiring the higher threshold level to recover for damages. (See libel treatment in the United States, infra.)

soozie thanks. i know we here form some kind of 'orchestra' and did not mean to be churlish over the recent lighthearted posts that are just sharing in the same way we have all shared over the truth of strong Meredith and her weak assailants. i am concerned though that in a vacuum of procedural development both the good and the bad have been able to flourish in our 'score'. charlie and oc8 must own up to their monotonous stubbornness and baiting but also we who do not share their steadfast (retarded if you like) repetitive adherence to a particular stanza of percussion whilst the corps of the orchestra are reading ahead in the score because we acknowledge time has moved on and the page has turned. i am the only voice in the orchestra chiming the 'occult' but i reckon by the end of the performance the timbre of my part will be understood by all who have listened.

cats are familiars as i am sure you know and the cat from down stairs plays a significant part in understanding the events of that terrible night, whether bleeding or bloodied of little consequence.

.

some of my last post was garbled expression. i know nobody wants to echo my occult riff but in contrast to the 'lone wolvers' i do not bang on about it endlessly and try to rationalise every new bit of 'discovery' to support or not destroy my position. i dont try to join in and stir conflict when others are hypothesising how things actually may have occurred. it will all resolve in the end and i trust the italians to take the killing of Meredith and prosecution of her killers seriously and conduct themselves with great professionalism and sense of balanced duty. believe it or not, for all the frivolity they appear to display, the italians take a great pride in their culture and the refinements they have gifted the world. and all of you (i can say us) americans remember the land mass is named after an italian. so next time you want to bleat on about being an 'american' remember you are really bleating on about being an italian, how apt for the pacific northwest woodsmen.

.

Oceania wrote:

Some of you have knocked this disclaimer but I would seriously advise each and every one of you to add something similar to your posts. It has concerned me the malicous things that have been said about some of the suspects and their families (and some of us posters) because a. I don't like seeing those sort of things said about anybody and b. because there are risks you take when you make comments like those in public.

One last comment: It is not clear from reading Oceania's post that she understands the distinction between fact and opinion or realizes that there is one. In fact, this has been the source of one of my ongoing disputes with her. I feel that, on a number of occasions, she has presented her opinion or an unsubstantiated statement as fact, and I have told her that this is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for two reasons: One, if it happens repeatedly rather than just being a one-off error, it begins to look like a form of intellectual dishonesty. Two, it is the very act of presenting something as fact that is not true that exposes the speaker to the charge of slander and the writer to the charge of libel.

As the old saying goes, opinions are like *ssholes. Everyone has one. I don't think they all stink, but as long as it is clear to anyone reading that you are expressing your opinion, you have nothing to worry about. As for linking to libellous articles and being held liable for it, does anyone (except perhaps Oceania) imagine for one second that if you link to an article which some years down the road is judged in a court of law to be libellous that you can be sued for having linked to it before that was the case?

That said, this is a good opportunity to bring up the case of the tabloids. I think on the whole we do a good job here of not putting too much faith in them, and of not using them to drive our analysis of this case. I hope we continue to do so, but not because we fear that in some distant future someone will sue them and we will get in trouble.

.DLW - can't you just see raf doing his fish gutting thing and cooking the rest of the dinner and eating with his bloody fishy hands - oc8 can see it - next she will be saying the blood on "the knife" is no ak's it is fish blood - ya gotta just luv it -

pdx79 wrote:DLW - can't you just see raf doing his fish gutting thing and cooking the rest of the dinner and eating with his bloody fishy hands - oc8 can see it - next she will be saying the blood on "the knife" is no ak's it is fish blood - ya gotta just luv it -

Coming up with random excuses (that is, making an assumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) gets us nowhere. We are here to discuss who murdered Meredith and as evidence reveals itself our thinking should follow in the directions indicated. If a suspect cannot be ruled out, they remain a suspect regardless of any random excuse offered in their defense.

I would just like to say that everything I have ever posted is my own opinion...well, whose else would it be? And every one of my multiple personalities agrees!

Howdy, all. I managed to avoid any and all fireworks, except for the ones set off by neighbors that scared the dog and sent the cats to jump in the bathtub to hide. I will admit that it was nice to have a day off and get some housework done. Oh no. Now I've gone off topic. Someone please chastise me immediately before I do it again...

xo

Brian S. wrote:

nicki wrote:

Minotaur wrote:Some replies:


5. Damian, Nicki and Cinsky: Please read the CU’s transcription of Totò’s 2 February verbale (see the previous thread, pages 146-47) and offer an opinion on whether he is referring to night of Hallowe’en or the night of Ognisanti. Ditto whether it was possible to fare la spesa in Perugia on 1st November, let alone buy a wet fish.

I remember that there were students taking the buses that stopped at the entrance at the entrance to via Batttisti or at the bus-stop at the Etruscan arch. These buses take the jeunesse to various discos on Saturday nights or on other days preceding holidays. That night there were two buses, one of which may have been grey.

Hi Minotaur

Toto says that that those buses go to the discoes on Saturdays or on other days preceding holidays....

Nicki,

There's always one more last post

If I can add a bit of context to this:

I've checked up on The Red Zone. Their "BIG NIGHTS" are usually on a Saturday, sometimes a Friday and one or two odd days in the year which probably correspond to Italian holidays I don't recognise.

I suggested to Minotaur that they could have combined a Halloween night with a BIG Friday nighter which would require the buses. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find out the date of the "BIG" night that particular week. Perhaps a phone call to the club????

They DID HAVE ONE and it went on all night, I just don't know the day.

Coming back from the Red Zone (in broad daylight) - Holloween 2007 Posted 2nd November U-Tube

Brian,
About Toto claims: Look up http://andreapantani.spaces.live.com/ph ... C280!1138/
This kid posted the pics of the Red Zone party on Nov 3. Look at the first 3 pics, they are not masked.
But: do we know the happy couple whereabouts on October 31st? The Albanian witness first (leaked) version was that the encounter took place on Oct 31, and Toto claims point at that date as well.Then we have the Albanian corrected version, supported by weather forecasts, placing them plus Guede near the cottage on Nov 1st. And I remember the newspapers lines after both Toto's and the Albanian's revelations (I just don't seem to be able to remember how to spell his name): "they were rehearsing before the crime!". What about if they were indeed rehearsing/ or had originally planned the "event" for Halloween and later had to change plans for whatever reasons, moving it to the following night? These are just wild speculations on my side, but I'm just trying to make sense of all of this.

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.

SOOZE UK: "IN MY OPINION: Knox is a selfish, cunning, scheming, manipulative little trollop who plotted to harm Meredith out of jealousy, spite and anger. And her family, particularly "CMellas" has unwittingly given us an ugly insight into why she developed without morals, scruples or conscience.

Save your breath Oceania. There are other blogs for Knox supporters like you who have no interest in the truth.
Go hawk your wares over there. This board's not buying."




Well said, couldnt agree with you more!

hawkers canvassers peddlers sellers tinkers merchants tradesmen traffickers dealers con artists mongers forbidden

booksellers please go to amazon.com

pdx79
In my opinion Raf is a hands on type of person when it comes to cutting. I don’t think he would let a fishmonger gut a fish when he is more than capable of doing it himself, and he certainly has the tools to do it. It’s also the manly thing to do, and I would think that any normal college coed like Amanda would be thrilled with a live demonstration. However Amanda had developed a sudden unexplained memory lapse on Nov. 1, so it probably happened on another evening when the fish markets were open and her memory was better.
ps: The blood from the fish wouldn’t be a problem. Two gallons of bleach would probably be enough.

DLW wrote:pdx79

ps: The blood from the fish wouldn’t be a problem. Two gallons of bleach would probably be enough.

DLW,
In case two gallons weren't enough, the stores reopened on Nov.2 anyway so it wouldn't be a problem to get extra bleach if needed.

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.

Damian wrote:

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.

When you say he must have, do you mean because it was his prerogative or is there some other reason? Did he need more time? What would a six-month extension have done besides possibly extend the various deadlines and keep the suspects automatically (or almost) in jail? I feel I'm missing some nuance here!

skeptical bystander wrote:Damian wrote:

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.

When you say he must have, do you mean because it was his prerogative or is there some other reason? Did he need more time? What would a six-month extension have done besides possibly extend the various deadlines and keep the suspects automatically (or almost) in jail? I feel I'm missing some nuance here!

Hi Skep, the preliminary investigation lasts 6 months. The pm can ask for an extension, which they often do, and if this request is granted, it is extended for another 6 months. Obviously, the pm can wrap up the investigation whenever they want, within these limits. Since the preliminary investigation in this case lasted more than 6 months, Mignini must have asked for the extension. This request does not affect the 'scadenze dei termini'.

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.

rob wrote:oc8 it is clear that, in the absence of 'official' news arising from the progress of the prosecutions cases against the suspects, many posters on this blog have turned on others that post in order to post something at all. i like cats (acknowledging soozies is a fine fine creature) and lyrics but do wonder at the recent posts. oc8 i dont agree with what i see as your limited line of reasoning but also know that you have emotional ties that are very strong in this case and understand your posts with that in mind. many posters here have shared their stories of the terrible losses of loved ones they have suffered and i try to empathise with their emotional ties to this case of Meredith being killed. i believe any neutral reader of this messageboard would see a few patterns of personal attack, and most recently, inappropriate comments to you from a moderator. these attacks are unacceptable. this unacceptability must be understood though with an acceptance of the fact that some posters refuse to engage or respond when others ask reasonable questions of them (such as charlie and kermits questions regarding relevance) and some leave antagoinising messages along with misinformation and spin (such as your claims and 'choice' words about the vampire and nike prints and the recent eyes of the big a). you cannot have it both ways, if you do not gain anything from the communication here then i ask why do you bother to come? i am prepared to forgo the communication here now in light of the fact nothing of real 'evidential' value is being exchanged. i must say though that i am proud to have shouted Patrik's innocence from the outset at a time when unfortunately i was a 'lone voice'. i have enjoyed exchanging ideas on steves forums with others from all over the world and am glad to say i have learnt many new things. i hope i in turn have exposed others here to some of the particular knowledge i have acquired in my life however limited what i have to share is.

in closing shame on you for attempting to spread fear amongst posters sharing communications between themselves. really the interweb is like tv if you do not like it then turn it off or go to another page. the poster that posted as cmellas calling me a retard and avowing that he wants to rub shit in my face perhaps is what you would call a model poster expressing his free opinion. i think he is a repressed homosexual with very very serious anger management issues, just my opinion for what it is worth...and oc8 shame on you for trying to spread fear. inflicting fear on Meredith was THE primary motivation of her killer(s) and i really doubt you wish, on second thought, to be participating in such despicable action.

.

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. No threats were made to anyone just the sharing of information. Posting on a public forum is not like watching TV, on a forum you can be sued for what you say if it is libellous, you can't be sued for switching the TV off.

As you say neutral readers, and there are many, see the obvious and relentless patterns of personal attack and despite the fact that they share a different opinion are reasonable enough adults not to condone this behaviour.

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.

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.

indie wrote:Oceania stated:

Most posters here are excellent and will have nothing to worry about, others might like to think a bit more carefully in future about who they attack and insult and the words they choose to use on a public forum.

Well O8, what category are you in "the nothing to worry about" or the "think a bit more carefully"? I am asking because to this day it bothers me you posted the full name of your son's friend, Victoria and discussed personal thoughts she shared with your son. That disgusts me. You invaded your very own son's privacy. Maybe he doesn't mind a bunch of crime cyber sleuths looking at his online photo albums but I sure wouldn't have thrown my own son into this case discussion in such a personal way.

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.