JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags Amanda Knox , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 28th November 2012, 06:51 AM   #4401
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Far too long to comment on everything. The only blood that was identified belonging to Amanda was the drop on the tap. No one not even Amanda knows where this came from.
Raises the question: why didn't AK wipe away the spots of blood, particularly if she had the PGP "nose bleed" or "neck cut" or other fight related injury was the source?

PGP need to make up stories of AK wanting to have something to point at for Filomena to stir interest, part of her intricate plan to control the investigation.

While the PGP state that the bathmat spot was totally obvious and she stepped on the bloody mat (if they accept the mat shuffle), they hand wave away the obvious question of why they would leave RS's footprint there. Even if they correctly deduced that no match could come from the stain, why did they not toss it in the shower or dispose of it with the rest of the incriminating material that has never been found?

I repeat my question: How could the police at the interrogation not get an explanation of the "staged" break-in while getting the accusation against PL?
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 07:01 AM   #4402
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Here's one:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/murder-my...2#.ULW9SOTIUuc

I've always thought the DNA on the bra clasp was like the DNA in the car in the Stock case... just what the cops needed, a little too convenient.
It's not unlike the knife. Think of the one thing you need and the two places you want to find the DNA on it. Amanda on the handle, Meredith on the blade. Then think of the one thing you want to place Raffaele at the crime scene up to no good. The bra clasp. How could his DNA have got there innocently? It doesn't fly. Plus, there is even a film of its re-discovery so we know everything was totally regular and above board.
anglolawyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 07:23 AM   #4403
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Source? Do the 96% include cases involving no hand-to-hand or close contact (as with a shooting) or where the perpetrator is easily identified and caught without the need for fancy-Dan forensics? What's the percentage where sexual assault is involved?

Why not answer the point that is being made to you by Grinder? This is not PMF and I am interested in your answer. Why, having left evidence of Rudy all over the place, when they could have removed it, as they supposedly did their own, did Amanda finger Lumumba?
Seriously? I have answered the question but you don't like the answer. If Amanda had named Guede and she had participated, there would be no question of her guilt. Coming up with the name on the phone, someone she knew was innocent was hardly a complete admission. It may have been just a way to deal with the fact Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi There also might be evidence found proving she was at the cottage that night. I know you don't like the word may but none of us know what happened and should interpret evidence being fully aware of that. The SC ruling will be the end of the line for me. I might have personal thoughts on the case but will not need to express them on a forum.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 07:32 AM   #4404
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,213
Originally Posted by Supernaut View Post
I'd be REALLY interested to hear where that little factoid came from.

I assume you want people to believe that of all murder cases in which DNA evidence is sought by investigators, only 4% yield results? Or that only 1 in 20 murderers ever leave their DNA at the murder scene?

No way. I'll make up a statistic of my own; over 90% of murder cases do not require DNA evidence for a conviction because there is other compelling evidence which amply suffices.

In the case we're discussing the (so-called) investigators went to strenuous lengths to find the slightest trace of RS's or AK's DNA in the murder room, and failed.
I too wonder where that statistic came from. In looking at official attempts to collect statistics on DNA collections, it's apparent that accurate data is not available.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 07:51 AM   #4405
Bill Williams
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,153
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Seriously? I have answered the question but you don't like the answer. If Amanda had named Guede and she had participated, there would be no question of her guilt. Coming up with the name on the phone, someone she knew was innocent was hardly a complete admission. It may have been just a way to deal with the fact Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi There also might be evidence found proving she was at the cottage that night. I know you don't like the word may but none of us know what happened and should interpret evidence being fully aware of that. The SC ruling will be the end of the line for me. I might have personal thoughts on the case but will not need to express them on a forum.
Two things - and I realize I am butting in to your conversation with someone else.

One of the more ludicrous assertions about all this is, "Amanda really was directing this investigation." That is what you're saying here, that the reason the cops went so off-track, was that they were being wilfully and successfully misdirected by a 20 year-old who was acting out a plan - a plan she was cooking up on the spot, and successfully communicating in a foreign language, in a legal context which was totally unprecedented for her.

That is simply the most unbelievable aspect of all this. It actually sounds more like the fall-back position of police and prosecutor who, after the case against Lumumba fell apart, then blamed Amanda for being a manipulative, willful liar - and they fell for it!

That dog don't hunt.

Second, this sounds like an admission on your part that the SC will rule to sustain the acquitals. Unless I am reading you wrong, you will not, "have personal thoughts on the case but will not need to express them on a forum," if the SC throws any part of this back to the appeals' level.

Am I correct? Are you going to depart all discussion IF the SC breathes legal life into this?
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:00 AM   #4406
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,609
Kofoed

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Here's one:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/murder-my...2#.ULW9SOTIUuc

I've always thought the DNA on the bra clasp was like the DNA in the car in the Stock case... just what the cops needed, a little too convenient.
And the bra clasp was found very late into the case. With respect to forensic investigator Kofoed, at first I wasn't sure he had planted the evidence in the Stock murder, but he seems to have a track record of finding stuff that others have overlooked.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:03 AM   #4407
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Seriously? I have answered the question but you don't like the answer. If Amanda had named Guede and she had participated, there would be no question of her guilt. Coming up with the name on the phone, someone she knew was innocent was hardly a complete admission. It may have been just a way to deal with the fact Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi There also might be evidence found proving she was at the cottage that night. I know you don't like the word may but none of us know what happened and should interpret evidence being fully aware of that. The SC ruling will be the end of the line for me. I might have personal thoughts on the case but will not need to express them on a forum.
Yes, seriously and, as you suspected, I don't like the answer, as it makes no sense - like so many bad PGP points. Why couldn't she just name Guede but say she was in the kitchen screaming and listening to thuds? That way her presence is explained but she was not involved. Naming Lumumba, she places herself there and brands herself a transparent liar and slanderer too. It's not like she didn't have time to think it through and she is the arch manipulator after all. The 'confession' was not made until a couple of hours after Raffaele supposedly abandoned her.

I don't get the highlighted bit. I assume it's your way of backing out. Your privilege of course but it seems without 'know[ing] what happened' you have reached a pretty clear idea of what did happen which you are not willing/able to defend in reasonable disputation.

As Bill said, you have been civilised. Thank you for that.
anglolawyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:04 AM   #4408
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,213
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
The SC ruling will be the end of the line for me. I might have personal thoughts on the case but will not need to express them on a forum.

The Italian Supreme Court only rules on the application of the law. I don't recall any of your arguments here applying to the application of the law. They've always been about the evidence. The evidence doesn't change when the ISC rules. There just won't be any authoritive backing for the case for guilt for you to back up against.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:32 AM   #4409
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Raises the question: why didn't AK wipe away the spots of blood, particularly if she had the PGP "nose bleed" or "neck cut" or other fight related injury was the source?

PGP need to make up stories of AK wanting to have something to point at for Filomena to stir interest, part of her intricate plan to control the investigation.

While the PGP state that the bathmat spot was totally obvious and she stepped on the bloody mat (if they accept the mat shuffle), they hand wave away the obvious question of why they would leave RS's footprint there. Even if they correctly deduced that no match could come from the stain, why did they not toss it in the shower or dispose of it with the rest of the incriminating material that has never been found?

I repeat my question: How could the police at the interrogation not get an explanation of the "staged" break-in while getting the accusation against PL?
Now I'm butting in to someone else's conversation. Bad habit picked up from Williams.

I believe the need to keep her as a person informed of the facts for as long as possible is why there are so many no-go areas in her 1.45 'confession'. That would be a reason why someone like Mignini might need to be present, to ensure she was steered away from directly inculpating herself when the game would be up. She can plausibly be denied legal assistance this way. Well, 'plausibly' might be a little strong but you get the point.

The confession is also a little light on what happened after the scream and the thuds too. Did Amanda go into the room and faint, did Lumumba run away covered in blood, was he carrying anything, did they leave together, what did she/they do afterwards etc etc? It is utterly bizarre that there is nothing about any of this in her 1.45 effort and not much more in the 5.45, by when she is a suspect but can still make spontaneous declarations fortunately, blurting stuff out while Mignini jots it down as a notary.
anglolawyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 09:50 AM   #4410
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
Briar neither you nor any PGP has ever given even a reasonable explanation as to why they would leave obvious evidence of Rudi?

The same holds true for leaving the blood in the bathroom and even more so for the bathmat particularly if it wasn't made by Rudi. I happen to believe it was made by Rudi but that is another discussion.

The PGP and the ILE have made the break-in a key to solving the crime. Unless you dispute that, can you explain how the police could let Amanda off the hook on it when she gave her 'confession'? Think about it, she gives the detail of the murder night with Patrick that leaves out the scene in Filomena's room. Now if you believe she had this story up her sleeve and told it to throw the police off the Rudi or some other track, how could she skip the broken window? Why didn't she say that Patrick came out, said Meredith was dead and that AK and RS would be suspects so they needed to stage it?

Do you see how her story just didn't fit the scene yet the police accepted it? Why didn't she concoct the fear Patrick instilled and that she felt the need to aid and abet him? She was part of the murder. She was talking to the police. She was using plan B but forgot to explain the burglary?

Also, do you believe that Nara heard three sets of feet running away from the cottage at 10:15? Do you believe that the kids then ran back to the plaza? Do you believe that they stood there bloody for ten, fifteen, twenty minutes and then went back to cottage or did they go to Raf's? Or do believe that Nara was mistaken only in hearing the three sets and they stayed waiting for the tow truck to leave? If so, do you believe that the people in the car and the truck driver missed seeing Rudi sprinting from the cottage? Nara said she heard the most frightening scream of her life (didn't bother calling the police or telling them for months and only after the cub reporter got her to talk) and then the footsteps running right after. Had the perps taken the time to clean-up they wouldn't then have run away together but would have slipped out quietly, agreed?

Take Curatolo and Nara out of the mix because with them the narrative doesn't make sense. Quintavalle coming forward a year later also isn't credible to anybody but those with minds firmly made up. If I were on the PGP team, I'd be angry about how the ILE couldn't find any witnesses on their own and that the ones they pulled out are so weak. Where is the video tapes from stores and traffic cams along the ways the perps would have used?
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 10:51 AM   #4411
Bill Williams
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,153
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It's not unlike the knife. Think of the one thing you need and the two places you want to find the DNA on it. Amanda on the handle, Meredith on the blade. Then think of the one thing you want to place Raffaele at the crime scene up to no good. The bra clasp. How could his DNA have got there innocently? It doesn't fly. Plus, there is even a film of its re-discovery so we know everything was totally regular and above board.
The problem with the film..... is that the film itself shows how laughable the discovery of the bra-clasp is 7 weeks after the fact. The film shows that the bra-clasp is not where it was on Nov 2, where photos show it somewhere else. The film shows the unsanitary condition of the Scientific Police's gloves. The film shows them picking it up, passing it from hand to hand with dirty gloves, then putting it back down to approximately the same place for a photograph of where it was "found".

If the purpose of the film was to buttress their case, when it was in fact simply part of a conspiracy to conveniently find things weeks' later that could not be found previous, it is the most amateurish frame-up in the history of frame-ups.

No wonder the film elicited laughter in the courtroom. The one thing that prevents me from going full bore into believing in a conspiracy by the cops/prosecutor to fully frame Knox and Sollecito, is THAT film. It actually proves contamination, and hardly sustains the cops at all.

THAT film should have gone the way of the interrogation tapes from the 3 infamous Nov 5th/6th interrogations.... none of which, Lumumba's, Knox's nor Sollecito's have seen the light of day. No wonder the prosecution does not want the interrogation-videos to be seen - it's not as if the bra-clasp-video was a brimming success for the prosecution!

These people ARE keystone cops far more than sophisticated conspirators.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:53 PM   #4412
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,298
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Seriously? I have answered the question but you don't like the answer. If Amanda had named Guede and she had participated, there would be no question of her guilt. Coming up with the name on the phone, someone she knew was innocent was hardly a complete admission. It may have been just a way to deal with the fact Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi There also might be evidence found proving she was at the cottage that night. I know you don't like the word may but none of us know what happened and should interpret evidence being fully aware of that. The SC ruling will be the end of the line for me. I might have personal thoughts on the case but will not need to express them on a forum.
I do know what happened. I have spent many hours examining the crime scene photos and videos with the help of experts, and it's very clear what happened.

I have gotten to know Amanda personally. I vaguely understand how she might have seemed a shade too calm and agreeable in the context of a murder investigation, when everyone else was freaking out. I very much understand how she could have been intimidated into signing a false statement, as many other innocent people have done.

Above all I understand why she is so dearly loved that her family and friends turned their lives upside-down to rescue her, and to ensure that she was never alone until she was rescued.

And I have studied the history of countless other cases, throughout the world, where police and prosecutors collaborated to ruin the lives of completely innocent people, because they staked themselves to a false accusation and didn't want to look like fools.

I don't need any puffed-up bureaucrats to tell me what is what in this case.
Charlie Wilkes is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 03:01 PM   #4413
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,559
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
DNA is only found in about 4% of murder scenes.
You've been asked a few times already, but since you've so far ignored everybody else I am going to add to the pile-on and request a citation for this statement. Thanks in advance.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:09 PM   #4414
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
You've been asked a few times already, but since you've so far ignored everybody else I am going to add to the pile-on and request a citation for this statement. Thanks in advance.
What's interesting is not so much the lack of a cite, par for the course, but the fact that Briars won't amend his core belief in guilt even when one of its props is knocked away. He could profitably brush up on Locard's exchange principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locard&...ange_principle

if he wants a cite which is actually relevant to the question whether the two of them could have engaged in a life and death struggle without leaving or acquiring any trace.

Incidentally, at this point, I always ask: where is the fibre analysis? Doesn't Stefanoni do fibres? Not only doesn't she do it but she leaves the victim's clothes all jumbled up in the room for weeks and actually films herself retrieving them from the chaotic mess. You couldn't make it up.
anglolawyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 06:37 AM   #4415
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Raises the question: why didn't AK wipe away the spots of blood, particularly if she had the PGP "nose bleed" or "neck cut" or other fight related injury was the source?

PGP need to make up stories of AK wanting to have something to point at for Filomena to stir interest, part of her intricate plan to control the investigation.

While the PGP state that the bathmat spot was totally obvious and she stepped on the bloody mat (if they accept the mat shuffle), they hand wave away the obvious question of why they would leave RS's footprint there. Even if they correctly deduced that no match could come from the stain, why did they not toss it in the shower or dispose of it with the rest of the incriminating material that has never been found?

I repeat my question: How could the police at the interrogation not get an explanation of the "staged" break-in while getting the accusation against PL?
The blood may have been mixed with spit from her mouth. She might have missed it and never knew she was bleeding. In the morning it could have looked like a drop like the rest of Meredith's in the bathroom. The story she told meeting Patrik at the courts could be almost the truth just substituting Lumumba for Guede. She didn't expect to have to blurt out anything. Why would she then include a break-in? This way she could have just invited Lumumba back and would have no idea how it would turn out. She was just a bystander in the kitchen and claimed to not really understand what was going on in the bedroom. Knowing about the break-in and not doing anything meant she was a full participant. She could not put herself at the cottage in her story and include the break-in.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:02 AM   #4416
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
Well, we've been spending a lot of the recent posts on the time of discovery. I'd like to know what Briars thinks of the crime itself.

How did the three get together? Why didn't anybody, not even Curatolo, see them together that were even credible enough for the ILE? Why wasn't the source for the drugs, most PGP say was the reason Rudi was part of the action, found or even come forward? Why do the PGP mock the memory capability of the kids yet state that AK was doing coke, the proof one tab article stating she had a coke dealer's phone number in her phone?

Did the ILE mess up the drug tests on the kids? Do you believe that the ICSI could do advanced DNA but not a simple test for drug intake?

I still want to know what the kids were doing at the plaza for two hours. I want to know if they all ran out after the scream or did they stay and clean? What exactly did they clean?

I also want to know where they disposed of all the materials involved in the murder and the clean-up.

Why didn't they seek out Rudi to figure out their plan after the murder?


A question to all: What drugs were found at the cottage and at Raf's?
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:11 AM   #4417
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
The blood may have been mixed with spit from her mouth. She might have missed it and never knew she was bleeding. In the morning it could have looked like a drop like the rest of Meredith's in the bathroom. The story she told meeting Patrik at the courts could be almost the truth just substituting Lumumba for Guede. She didn't expect to have to blurt out anything. Why would she then include a break-in? This way she could have just invited Lumumba back and would have no idea how it would turn out. She was just a bystander in the kitchen and claimed to not really understand what was going on in the bedroom. Knowing about the break-in and not doing anything meant she was a full participant. She could not put herself at the cottage in her story and include the break-in.
This wilfully misunderstands the question. Why doesn't her statement say: 'I know nothing of any break-in'?
anglolawyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:31 AM   #4418
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,213
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
The story she told meeting Patrik at the courts could be almost the truth just substituting Lumumba for Guede.

What a load of rubbish. The whole story of the meeting with Patrick came out of the discovery of the text in Amanda's phone. Amanda did not send or receive texts with Rudy that night (or ever). Amanda did not even have Rudy Guede's phone number in her phone. Does Rudy even have a phone?

But that is just what the prosecution did after they discovered that Lumumba had a solid alibi. They crossed out Patrick Lumumba from their wild sex party theory and substituted Rudy Guede in his place. After all, the case was already closed. They just had one of the names wrong.


As for your "She told the story...", where's your proof of that? You have one document, in Italian, typewritten. These are the words of Giuliano Mignini, produced after hours of illegally interrogating a young student, put through torment that caused her screams to be heard in other parts of the station. If that document is to be used as evidence, it is Giuliano Mignini that should be on trial.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:48 AM   #4419
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
In the "we believe only what helps our side" score card add the prosecutor of the Sollecitos for releasing the video. He has charges for something against him, therefore his dropping the charges for the video release is bogus but when Mignini was under indictment that didn't matter at all and was probably caused by Preston or maybe the PR supertanker.

The jacket of AK's book has a picture of her that may have been airbrushed which proves she killed MK -

I'm sure you all have seen it but you may have missed that one of the PGP thinks they are showing too much skin - he/she goes through an analysis of the picture - cover the head - cover the body - one side has a strap that allows a tiny bit of breast to be visible blah, blah, blah -
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 10:06 AM   #4420
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
The blood may have been mixed with spit from her mouth. She might have missed it and never knew she was bleeding. In the morning it could have looked like a drop like the rest of Meredith's in the bathroom. The story she told meeting Patrik at the courts could be almost the truth just substituting Lumumba for Guede. She didn't expect to have to blurt out anything. Why would she then include a break-in? This way she could have just invited Lumumba back and would have no idea how it would turn out. She was just a bystander in the kitchen and claimed to not really understand what was going on in the bedroom. Knowing about the break-in and not doing anything meant she was a full participant. She could not put herself at the cottage in her story and include the break-in.
Yes blood in the mouth that goes unnoticed. But why would they leave the blood if it was Meredith's? Superwitness Curatolo didn't report seeing Rudi. This is more of the convenient witness selectivity program. Remember when the PGP want Curatolo to be the sharp eyed witness everything he remembers a year later is credible but if something doesn't fit it is hand waved away. Why would they meet in public at the plaza instead of the warm cottage?

She would include the break-in because it needed explaining. You and the PGP have her going to the station voluntarily to keep an eye on Raf and her continued control of the investigation, but then you have her forgetting to fill in the detail that she couldn't have missed. She couldn't put herself at the cottage and not include the break-in.

Most of the PGP are sure that she planned the PL accusation in order to make her the evil devil they want her to be. They believe that she was trying to get the police to go after Shaky but when that fell flat she needed another man of color to accuse.

So you don't believe that she planned any of this but suddenly thought that the way out was to name an innocent man and not explain the break-in. Why wouldn't she have just named Rudi and said that he must have done the break-in and then killed MK?
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 10:18 AM   #4421
Bill Williams
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,153
Originally Posted by briars
The blood may have been mixed with spit from her mouth. She might have missed it and never knew she was bleeding. In the morning it could have looked like a drop like the rest of Meredith's in the bathroom. The story she told meeting Patrik at the courts could be almost the truth just substituting Lumumba for Guede. She didn't expect to have to blurt out anything. Why would she then include a break-in? This way she could have just invited Lumumba back and would have no idea how it would turn out. She was just a bystander in the kitchen and claimed to not really understand what was going on in the bedroom. Knowing about the break-in and not doing anything meant she was a full participant. She could not put herself at the cottage in her story and include the break-in.
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
This wilfully misunderstands the question. Why doesn't her statement say: 'I know nothing of any break-in'?
Wow. With all this rock solid evidence Briars has, it's a wonder Hellmann acquitted the two students. Why didn't anyone at trial say that there where things which "could have" happened.

Wait a minute. That's how Massei decided this case. The 39 probablies.

Do they teach "could haves" in Law School?
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 10:45 AM   #4422
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
This wilfully misunderstands the question. Why doesn't her statement say: 'I know nothing of any break-in'?
Wasn't she telling the truth the best she could remember or something like that.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 12:06 PM   #4423
Malkmus
Muse
 
Malkmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 823
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Wasn't she telling the truth the best she could remember or something like that.
The statement she signed starts off with her wanting to provide phone numbers of the men who had visited the cottage. Therefore, we can see that the document is an abbreviated version of the minutes of that interrogation. It's quite likely that ILE either asked her about the break-in and didn't care for her response or they simply didn't bother asking her. But the fact that the start of the statement indicates it is a record of her questioning, then edited to exclude certain parts (i.e. the phone numbers in question), shows that ILE simply left out what didn't suit them.
Malkmus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 12:07 PM   #4424
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
In the "we believe only what helps our side" score card add the prosecutor of the Sollecitos for releasing the video. He has charges for something against him, therefore his dropping the charges for the video release is bogus but when Mignini was under indictment that didn't matter at all and was probably caused by Preston or maybe the PR supertanker.

The jacket of AK's book has a picture of her that may have been airbrushed which proves she killed MK -

I'm sure you all have seen it but you may have missed that one of the PGP thinks they are showing too much skin - he/she goes through an analysis of the picture - cover the head - cover the body - one side has a strap that allows a tiny bit of breast to be visible blah, blah, blah -
Exactly - and let's take this a little further. Compare the picture of AK on the book jacket with the beautiful picture of Meredith standing outside. Who's showing skin? Of course, THAT'S not an issue.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 03:44 PM   #4425
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,369
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
The blood may have been mixed with spit from her mouth. She might have missed it and never knew she was bleeding. In the morning it could have looked like a drop like the rest of Meredith's in the bathroom. The story she told meeting Patrik at the courts could be almost the truth just substituting Lumumba for Guede. She didn't expect to have to blurt out anything. Why would she then include a break-in? This way she could have just invited Lumumba back and would have no idea how it would turn out. She was just a bystander in the kitchen and claimed to not really understand what was going on in the bedroom. Knowing about the break-in and not doing anything meant she was a full participant. She could not put herself at the cottage in her story and include the break-in.
Hmmm. Reads like the Massei motivation report.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 03:53 PM   #4426
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,609
My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the forensic facts

The case of Larry Swearingen in Texas has two or three points that are relevant here. "At the autopsy, with the district attorney and two of his sheriffs in the room, Harris County’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Joye Carter, estimated that she had been dead for around 25 days, which meant she had been killed the day she went missing. When Carter repeated this at the trial, the defense team let it pass unchallenged. Jurors heard that Swearingen had a history of violence towards women, that he had repeatedly lied to police, that hairs forcibly removed from Trotter’s head were recovered from his truck and that the other leg of the pair of tights used to kill her was found in his house. They were not told that the tights appeared during a fourth police visit to the property, after three prior searches had turned up nothing. The DNA under Trotter’s fingernails, belonging to somebody other than Swearingen, was dismissed as a contaminant – perhaps a drop of blood from a cut in a forensic technician’s hand." (highlighting mine) Prosecutors will readily admit that DNA contamination takes place, as long as it helps their case. The finding of the pant leg on the fourth search of Swearingen's house is risible. The date of death is important because Swearingen was in jail for most of the time the victim was missing. According to the defense experts her internal organs were pristine, and she must have still been alive when he was arrested. Why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative?
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 04:21 PM   #4427
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,369
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Wow. With all this rock solid evidence Briars has, it's a wonder Hellmann acquitted the two students. Why didn't anyone at trial say that there where things which "could have" happened.

Wait a minute. That's how Massei decided this case. The 39 probablies.

Do they teach "could haves" in Law School?
OOPs, sorry, Ninja'd by Bill. Glad we both noticed the same thing. Honestly any narrative of the crime that involves AK/RS has to be filled with a bucket full of may haves and could haves, and some of these possibilities are very improvable bordering on virtually impossible.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 04:35 PM   #4428
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Exactly - and let's take this a little further. Compare the picture of AK on the book jacket with the beautiful picture of Meredith standing outside. Who's showing skin? Of course, THAT'S not an issue.
Yes one of the saddest parts of the online discussion has been the demonetization of Amanda while deifying Meredith. Their lives before the murder were not that different. They both had succeeded at school. Amanda seemed to be more into athletics and adventure (rock climbing) and more of a Tomboy, while Meredith was more into glamour, which can be seen in the poses she made for photography and the music video. Amanda seemed more into pot while Meredith was more of a drinker and into clubbing.

I wonder what the PGP would be saying if Amanda had been cited for public intoxication and Meredith had received a noise ticket instead of the other way around.

I really am baffled at the attention some are giving to the picture on her book. One well known PGP actually is speculating on her lips. I could care less what the publisher tweaks about her looks or really anything about her looks. Does anybody actually think that the cover shots on any publication is accurate and not made pretty?

Last edited by LashL; 29th November 2012 at 06:05 PM. Reason: Moderated thread.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 05:26 PM   #4429
Bill Williams
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,153
Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
OOPs, sorry, Ninja'd by Bill. Glad we both noticed the same thing. Honestly any narrative of the crime that involves AK/RS has to be filled with a bucket full of may haves and could haves, and some of these possibilities are very improvable bordering on virtually impossible.
I think it was "moderator's lag" here at JREF.

So let me ask you a question RoseM.... in your time following this, have you EVER seen a detailed, comprehensive narrative of the crime that has AK and/or RS as perps? One that "makes sense", or does NOT rely on might haves, or could haves, or may haves?

I hope this is not seen has picking on Briars here - there are others - but all that remains after 5 years and two fact-finding trials are random, unconnected "probablies" from those who still stubbornly maintain guilt for the two students.

Five years. That is NOT justice for Meredith Kercher, and it is NOT respectful to the Kercher family who deserve a detailed narrative that makes sense. The Kerchers themselves have been very clear that they obviously do not want innocent people going to jail over this.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 05:45 PM   #4430
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Yes blood in the mouth that goes unnoticed. But why would they leave the blood if it was Meredith's? Superwitness Curatolo didn't report seeing Rudi. This is more of the convenient witness selectivity program. Remember when the PGP want Curatolo to be the sharp eyed witness everything he remembers a year later is credible but if something doesn't fit it is hand waved away. Why would they meet in public at the plaza instead of the warm cottage?

She would include the break-in because it needed explaining. You and the PGP have her going to the station voluntarily to keep an eye on Raf and her continued control of the investigation, but then you have her forgetting to fill in the detail that she couldn't have missed. She couldn't put herself at the cottage and not include the break-in.

Most of the PGP are sure that she planned the PL accusation in order to make her the evil devil they want her to be. They believe that she was trying to get the police to go after Shaky but when that fell flat she needed another man of color to accuse.

So you don't believe that she planned any of this but suddenly thought that the way out was to name an innocent man and not explain the break-in. Why wouldn't she have just named Rudi and said that he must have done the break-in and then killed MK?
Why do you have a problem with her changing her story at the station. It was not a planned admission or one thought out. RS had said she had gone out . There might be evidence at the cottage of her being there that night. Why not just admit to the part about being there? The break-in could have and probably did happen later. She didn't even need to see the staging.Remember this story with Lumumba may have been closer to the truth. They ran into each other at the courts and they entered the cottage throught the front door , just substitute Guede.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 05:51 PM   #4431
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
Hmmm. Reads like the Massei motivation report.
I wasn't there Rose and allow for that.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:04 PM   #4432
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Why do you have a problem with her changing her story at the station. It was not a planned admission or one thought out. RS had said she had gone out . There might be evidence at the cottage of her being there that night. Why not just admit to the part about being there? The break-in could have and probably did happen later. She didn't even need to see the staging.Remember this story with Lumumba may have been closer to the truth. They ran into each other at the courts and they entered the cottage throught the front door , just substitute Guede.
Well the standard PGP line is that she did go to the station with the PL story ready.

She had seen the break-in the next day. Why would the police just let this crucial part go untouched?

Of course, there was evidence of her being at the cottage because she lived there.

Why didn't Curatolo see Rudi at the courts?
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:20 PM   #4433
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,609
I don't see how this works

Originally Posted by Briars View Post
The story she told meeting Patrik at the courts could be almost the truth just substituting Lumumba for Guede.
How would she have communicated with Guede?
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:40 PM   #4434
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Well the standard PGP line is that she did go to the station with the PL story ready.

She had seen the break-in the next day. Why would the police just let this crucial part go untouched?

Of course, there was evidence of her being at the cottage because she lived there.

Why didn't Curatolo see Rudi at the courts?
I may be wrong but from what I've read Amanda's statement was spontaneous and unplanned.No one has said she planned to name Lumumba She was telling the story as a bystander. she was also admitting to being there. The discovered break-in with Sollecito maintained she knew nothing of Meredith's whereabouts. The two stories couldn't be combined. The police didn't think the break-in was real , so if she admitted she was there and named someone at that point I'm sure it was enough. Rose and Bill I included the I'm sure just for you. Curatolo may have only remembered the pair because later they were looking over at the cottage and it struck him as unusual.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:09 PM   #4435
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,440
Briar, so let's see if I've got it. Popopic stops by around 8:45 about the same time AK had received PL's text. Also about the time Raf's dad called while he was doing the dishes. Computer records put at least one of them at the flat. It is not likely that they had already eaten but not crucial. AK leaves and goes to the court where she meets Rudi and arranges for some pot. Shortly thereafter Raf joins her and Curatolo comes for his evening of reading and smoking. Rudi was to meet them at the cottage? They wait for him in the plaza because ?? He goes to the cottage or does he meet them in the plaza? Anyhow, they keep coming and going from the plaza for some reason until around 10 when they go to the cottage and kill MK. Rudi is never seen in the plaza. They return after the murder and mill around in the plaza. Or does he not show until just before midnight and they leave to go to the cottage and kill MK?

In the meantime MK has not changed her clothes and has not had the pizza dinner move from the stomach to the intestines.

Or did they go over at 9:15 kill her and then hang out in the plaza. Maybe Rudi showed up after they had killed her and he took advantage of the situation - maybe he broke in through the window and found the scene...oh I can't keep this up.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 11:09 PM   #4436
RandyN
Graduate Poster
 
RandyN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,746
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Look I don't know how to say this any clearer. Sollecito was there when the police selected a knife from his knife drawer at his apartment. The testing showed MK's DNA, he was informed of that result. He concluded that that must have happened while they were cooking when he accidently pricked her. O.k so we can assume he is talking about that knife right?. If it were a knife selected from the cottage drawer and had Mk's blood there would be nothing to conclude Meredith didn't prick herself cooking. So that's why I asked did Sollecito transport his knife to the cottage to cook?
Sorry to be so terribly far behind on this reply but....

No knife blade tested from RS cottage contained any blood. In fact an alleged sample later purported to be the DNA of MK was also found to be "too low" to test and to be a material not from human origin. Add the failure to adhere to any recognized test standards and I think this presents an irrefutable issue for any claims about any knife.
RandyN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 11:31 PM   #4437
RandyN
Graduate Poster
 
RandyN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,746
Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK View Post
No I am correct. There are three trials first, second and third which is generally the last but in all cases the Supreme Court and only the Supreme Court confirm or quash a verdict.

Interesting that a former Supreme Court judge in his appeal disagrees with Hellman findings, using your own simple comparison who is more knowledge a judge who doesn’t normally preside of murder cases or a former Supreme Court judge?
I apologize once more for being so terribly late in this reply but...

I don't think Galati was ever a SC judge. Do you have a citation for this?
RandyN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th November 2012, 12:14 AM   #4438
RWVBWL
Graduate Poster
 
RWVBWL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,370
Old people see + hear really, really well...

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
<snip>

Why didn't Curatolo see Rudi at the courts?
Good point Grinder!
I'v heard his memory his really, really good, even when high on heroin.

I thought his eyesight was really good,
so good that he was able to point out a Harry Potter look-alike in court over a year later. Even though he saw this guy at night, but not from something like less than 5 feet away. Why didn't Curatolo tell the cops that he saw Harry Potter that night , hangin' around? Gosh, that's 1 of the easiest ID's ever...

And why didn't Curatolo tell the cops the next day when asked if he saw or heard anything the previous night mention that he too heard a ""prolonged" scream coming from the viciniy of Miss Kerher's flat?

Nara Capezzali, aged 68 added:
"It made my flesh crawl, it was not a normal scream."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rom-house.html

Nara, in her apartment,
with double panned windows, hears a gnarly scream and yet Antonio,
kickin' it on his park bench, out in the open on a chilly night,
did not hear this same scream piercing the silence of the night?
Nor tell the cops this?

Right...
RWVBWL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th November 2012, 12:49 AM   #4439
RandyN
Graduate Poster
 
RandyN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,746
Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
I'm waiting for the conclusion of this chain of inferences. Sometimes means everytime. They wanted to delay the discovery, that's why they alarmed Filomena and called the police. They didn't want anyone to worry about the locked door, that's why they point it out specifically in their phone calls. To make that logic complete we need to know if she weighs as much as a duck, right?
I apoligize for being so late with this response.... but.... I love the Monty ref...:-)
RandyN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th November 2012, 01:08 AM   #4440
RandyN
Graduate Poster
 
RandyN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,746
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Are you aware of the facts? The front door was open all night.
I apologize for replying so late to this post but....

Do you know if the door was wide open? Or maybe open a little? Or maybe closed but unlocked open? Thanks.
RandyN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.