ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics 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 , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 3rd September 2020, 01:10 PM   #3201
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Oh, and care to point out a single change to their story from the moment of discovery of Meredith's body and the start of the interrogation?? Yeah, didn't think so....
That's the point isn't it. What got both AK and RS in trouble with the police was that they **wouldn't** change their story, not until the police leaned on them and, as de Felice put it, "She buckled and told us what we already knew."

Once out of interrogation, what got AK and RS into trouble (particularly Sollecito) is that they quickly reverted to their original account. It stayed that way through 5 trials, it is recounted in both their books, all the way to this day.

What is different is the conduct of the interrogation - being called a liar for sticking to your original story, and being told that you'll leave the interrogation room in a pool of blood.

As it is, to do a timeline, one must decide at what point AK and/or RS were deemed suspects. Mignini's professional association censured him for violating Sollecito's rights at interrogation, so it seems other Italian PM's assume both had been suspects as soon as Sollecito went into the interrogation room.

Anyone remember Machiaveli? He was the lone guilter who tried a timeline from a guilt point of view, one that eventually fell apart.

It fell apart partly because he had to invent a concept, unknown in Italian criminal procedure, as "almost suspect," meaning being interrogated as one, but not so hard as to have rights (as guaranteed by Italian law).

Such is the problem guilters have always faced in constructing even the most basic outline of guilt.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 3rd September 2020, 05:22 PM   #3202
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Get in line! I'm still trying to get her to answer the question regarding how did Amanda clean up the crime scene.
Take a number! I'm still trying to get her to name 1, just 1 forensic-DNA expert who agrees with the original Scientific Police conclusions!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 3rd September 2020, 05:42 PM   #3203
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What is different is the conduct of the interrogation - being called a liar for sticking to your original story, and being told that you'll leave the interrogation room in a pool of blood.

In the cases of Knox and Sollecito (and, I suspect, also in the cases of many other people from whom seasoned PMs and police in Italy have elicited coerced "confessions"over the years), not only is your above description of the psychology of these coercive interrogations correct....

....but also, the police threw in a powerful additional "persuader": they told (= lied to) Knox and Sollecito that they (the police) already had all the physical evidence they needed to prove that a) Knox had met up with the killer (Lumumba, at this stage....) on the night of the murder, and had taken him back to the cottage; and b) Knox was in the cottage when Kercher was killed (by Lumumba, at this stage...).

It hardly takes high-level psychological understanding to deduce that all of these (improper) coercive interrogation techniques taken together, especially when delivered by someone who presents as an impressive and powerful authority figure, easily have the potential ability to cause extreme cognitive dissonance in young people (even when those young people are both practically and emotionally intelligent)

Last edited by LondonJohn; 3rd September 2020 at 05:43 PM.
LondonJohn 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 3rd September 2020, 06:17 PM   #3204
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
In the cases of Knox and Sollecito (and, I suspect, also in the cases of many other people from whom seasoned PMs and police in Italy have elicited coerced "confessions"over the years), not only is your above description of the psychology of these coercive interrogations correct....

....but also, the police threw in a powerful additional "persuader": they told (= lied to) Knox and Sollecito that they (the police) already had all the physical evidence they needed to prove that a) Knox had met up with the killer (Lumumba, at this stage....) on the night of the murder, and had taken him back to the cottage; and b) Knox was in the cottage when Kercher was killed (by Lumumba, at this stage...).

It hardly takes high-level psychological understanding to deduce that all of these (improper) coercive interrogation techniques taken together, especially when delivered by someone who presents as an impressive and powerful authority figure, easily have the potential ability to cause extreme cognitive dissonance in young people (even when those young people are both practically and emotionally intelligent)
Even more so when you've been brought up to believe that the police are 'honest and honorable' people that you would not lie to you or harm you. After all, Raff's sister was a lieutenant in the carabinieri and Amanda had never had any interaction with the police except to be given a ticket for a loud party. She was a white, middle class kid who had been taught to respect the police just as Raffaele had been.
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 03:36 AM   #3205
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,623
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Well it's one thing for the authorities to suggest Amanda had traumatic amnesia, but how could any one think that someone under the same set of circumstances would be suffering from CONFUSION? Especially when you put it in all caps.
Watch Knox' account of the morning she stumbled on the murder scene - see the Behaviour Panel video - and bearing in mind she is recounting the events surrounding a horrible, disgusting murder - it is mind boggling the type of detail she includes.

Oh I went in and everything was normal, Which was strange. I went to the bathroom and there was some blood which confused me and then I went to the other bathroom and saw a load of poop which creeped me out. I thought that's strange, as Laura is such a clean person. She wouldn't leave it like that. I looked in Filomena's room and saw the window was broken. I then opened the door to Laura's room - and it was WONDERFULLY CLEAN - she keeps her room just like a hotel room. I thought this was strange. How come Filomena;s room is ruffled and hers is unruffled? Then I went ot my room which - HAHAHAHAHA! - is not as MEDICINALLY CLEAN as Laura's room. blah blah blah.

What we get from this is:

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN


Everything was so strangely strange and oddly normal.

Chase Hughes gave an example of the patter of someone selling you are house:

' There's a large lounge, extensive gardens , no running water, two garages and a conservatory and patio'.

What jumps out - bearing in mind the subject matter?

THERE IS NO RUNNING WATER.

This is what jumps out when Knox deflects to PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN when talking about how she stumbled across her roommates murder scene. She throws in the fact she was awfully confused and TOOK A MOP around to Raffaele's to tell him of her confusion. 'Tell me, am I CRAZY?' and straight away Raffaele was ALARMED. We hurried with great alacrity back to the house (er, after mopping the floor and spending a further twenty minutes over breakfast).

So what we get from Knox' account - and she wonders why police called her back to clarify - is PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN. The rest of the time, 'I was so confused, I know nothing, don't even ask!'.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen 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 4th September 2020, 03:41 AM   #3206
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,623
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Even more so when you've been brought up to believe that the police are 'honest and honorable' people that you would not lie to you or harm you. After all, Raff's sister was a lieutenant in the carabinieri and Amanda had never had any interaction with the police except to be given a ticket for a loud party. She was a white, middle class kid who had been taught to respect the police just as Raffaele had been.
Hilarious section in the video.

I knocked gently on Meredith's door, then banged harder. I said Raff! What is going on here!? We need to get this door open. So Raffaele kicked it twice but it didn't work. So he rang his sister...



LOL There's a big butch macho Italian guy for you!
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen 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 4th September 2020, 05:30 AM   #3207
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Watch Knox' account of the morning she stumbled on the murder scene - see the Behaviour Panel video - and bearing in mind she is recounting the events surrounding a horrible, disgusting murder - it is mind boggling the type of detail she includes.

Oh I went in and everything was normal, Which was strange. I went to the bathroom and there was some blood which confused me and then I went to the other bathroom and saw a load of poop which creeped me out. I thought that's strange, as Laura is such a clean person. She wouldn't leave it like that. I looked in Filomena's room and saw the window was broken. I then opened the door to Laura's room - and it was WONDERFULLY CLEAN - she keeps her room just like a hotel room. I thought this was strange. How come Filomena;s room is ruffled and hers is unruffled? Then I went ot my room which - HAHAHAHAHA! - is not as MEDICINALLY CLEAN as Laura's room. blah blah blah.

What we get from this is:

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN


Everything was so strangely strange and oddly normal.

Chase Hughes gave an example of the patter of someone selling you are house:

' There's a large lounge, extensive gardens , no running water, two garages and a conservatory and patio'.

What jumps out - bearing in mind the subject matter?

THERE IS NO RUNNING WATER.

This is what jumps out when Knox deflects to PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN when talking about how she stumbled across her roommates murder scene. She throws in the fact she was awfully confused and TOOK A MOP around to Raffaele's to tell him of her confusion. 'Tell me, am I CRAZY?' and straight away Raffaele was ALARMED. We hurried with great alacrity back to the house (er, after mopping the floor and spending a further twenty minutes over breakfast).

So what we get from Knox' account - and she wonders why police called her back to clarify - is PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN. The rest of the time, 'I was so confused, I know nothing, don't even ask!'.
This is it?

The only need for dabbling in this dark art is because you're unsure of the hard forensics. Thanks for admitting that!

It's as if you haven't been asked 100x's: name 1, just 1 forensic-DNA expert who agrees with the original Scientific Police conclusions!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 4th September 2020 at 06:14 AM.
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 4th September 2020, 05:31 AM   #3208
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hilarious section in the video.

I knocked gently on Meredith's door, then banged harder. I said Raff! What is going on here!? We need to get this door open. So Raffaele kicked it twice but it didn't work. So he rang his sister...



LOL There's a big butch macho Italian guy for you!
So?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 4th September 2020, 08:24 AM   #3209
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Watch Knox' account of the morning she stumbled on the murder scene - see the Behaviour Panel video - and bearing in mind she is recounting the events surrounding a horrible, disgusting murder - it is mind boggling the type of detail she includes.

Oh I went in and everything was normal, Which was strange. I went to the bathroom and there was some blood which confused me and then I went to the other bathroom and saw a load of poop which creeped me out. I thought that's strange, as Laura is such a clean person. She wouldn't leave it like that. I looked in Filomena's room and saw the window was broken. I then opened the door to Laura's room - and it was WONDERFULLY CLEAN - she keeps her room just like a hotel room. I thought this was strange. How come Filomena;s room is ruffled and hers is unruffled? Then I went ot my room which - HAHAHAHAHA! - is not as MEDICINALLY CLEAN as Laura's room. blah blah blah.

What we get from this is:

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN


Everything was so strangely strange and oddly normal.

Chase Hughes gave an example of the patter of someone selling you are house:

' There's a large lounge, extensive gardens , no running water, two garages and a conservatory and patio'.

What jumps out - bearing in mind the subject matter?

THERE IS NO RUNNING WATER.

This is what jumps out when Knox deflects to PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN when talking about how she stumbled across her roommates murder scene. She throws in the fact she was awfully confused and TOOK A MOP around to Raffaele's to tell him of her confusion. 'Tell me, am I CRAZY?' and straight away Raffaele was ALARMED. We hurried with great alacrity back to the house (er, after mopping the floor and spending a further twenty minutes over breakfast).

So what we get from Knox' account - and she wonders why police called her back to clarify - is PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN. The rest of the time, 'I was so confused, I know nothing, don't even ask!'.
Thanks for the additional information. I fail to see what is mind-boggling or incriminating about any of this. Do you have a time frame from the BP video where this is discusse?
whoanellie 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 4th September 2020, 10:06 AM   #3210
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hilarious section in the video.

I knocked gently on Meredith's door, then banged harder. I said Raff! What is going on here!? We need to get this door open. So Raffaele kicked it twice but it didn't work. So he rang his sister...



LOL There's a big butch macho Italian guy for you!
I'm going to quote a previous post of mine. Do you have a reasoned response?

Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Vixen,

" He said any real guy would be determined to break down that door and save the lady in distress not give up. " It's easy to second guess someone's behavior under highly unusual circumstances, especially when we know the end of the story - there was a dead body behind that door. I think this line of argument has very little value in general. In my experience different people react very differently under the same circumstances. If you're not sure about that spend a little time in Trump's America.

Let's assume for a moment that this analyst is correct - any real guy would be determined to break down that door. We could conclude that either:

1) RS is not a "real guy" whatever that means.
or
2) RS was trying to delay the discovery of the body.

Someone with a good knowledge of the case would know that RS and AK had called the police and other room mates raising the alarm regarding Meredith. That would tend to go against #2 leaving us with #1. At which point I would say, so what? RS is not a real guy. OK. Does that make him a murderer?
whoanellie 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 4th September 2020, 11:16 AM   #3211
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
I'm going to quote a previous post of mine. Do you have a reasoned response?
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Let's assume for a moment that this analyst is correct - any real guy would be determined to break down that door. We could conclude that either:

1) RS is not a "real guy" whatever that means.
or
2) RS was trying to delay the discovery of the body.

Someone with a good knowledge of the case would know that RS and AK had called the police and other room mates raising the alarm regarding Meredith. That would tend to go against #2 leaving us with #1. At which point I would say, so what? RS is not a real guy. OK. Does that make him a murderer?
Guilters once wrote at length that when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage, that they'd caught AK and RS in the act of cleaning up. And that once surprised like this, AK and RS spent the next minutes trying to delay the discovery of the horrible scene behind the locked door. Their narrative includes that Raffaele must have panicked, sliding off to privately call 112-Carabinieri once the Postals were there to cover his tracks. Part of this unsustainable narrative contained the canard that it was then that Raffaele had called 112 surreptitiously.... something no court believed, but let's not get ahead.

The reality is, that after her shower at the cottage early morning on Nov 2, and after her return to Raffaele's, both of them did nothing but raise the alarm. Filomena would not have returned to the cottage if Knox had not been raising the alarm. Raffaele would not have called 112-Carabinieri if not for a previous call to his Carabinieri sister. Alarm, meet "raised".

It's why ultimately Guilter-narratives and timelines simply either don't work, or fly in the face of facts as we know them. Guilters tried to have us believe that after raising the alarm, once the Postal Police got there (on another matter) that AK and RS did everything they could to delay discovery of the body.

A guilty AK and RS would simply have gone off on their vacation, leaving it for others to find the terrible scene. They did not do that - they spent the morning of Nov 2 RAISING THE ALARM!

Anyway, all of that is more firm reasoning than, "Raffaele must be the killer because he wasn't a real man."
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 4th September 2020 at 11:19 AM.
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 4th September 2020, 11:29 AM   #3212
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Watch Knox' account of the morning she stumbled on the murder scene - see the Behaviour Panel video - and bearing in mind she is recounting the events surrounding a horrible, disgusting murder - it is mind boggling the type of detail she includes.

Oh I went in and everything was normal, Which was strange. I went to the bathroom and there was some blood which confused me and then I went to the other bathroom and saw a load of poop which creeped me out. I thought that's strange, as Laura is such a clean person. She wouldn't leave it like that. I looked in Filomena's room and saw the window was broken. I then opened the door to Laura's room - and it was WONDERFULLY CLEAN - she keeps her room just like a hotel room. I thought this was strange. How come Filomena;s room is ruffled and hers is unruffled? Then I went ot my room which - HAHAHAHAHA! - is not as MEDICINALLY CLEAN as Laura's room. blah blah blah.

What we get from this is:

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN


Everything was so strangely strange and oddly normal.

Chase Hughes gave an example of the patter of someone selling you are house:

' There's a large lounge, extensive gardens , no running water, two garages and a conservatory and patio'.

What jumps out - bearing in mind the subject matter?

THERE IS NO RUNNING WATER.

This is what jumps out when Knox deflects to PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN when talking about how she stumbled across her roommates murder scene. She throws in the fact she was awfully confused and TOOK A MOP around to Raffaele's to tell him of her confusion. 'Tell me, am I CRAZY?' and straight away Raffaele was ALARMED. We hurried with great alacrity back to the house (er, after mopping the floor and spending a further twenty minutes over breakfast).

So what we get from Knox' account - and she wonders why police called her back to clarify - is PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN. The rest of the time, 'I was so confused, I know nothing, don't even ask!'.
May I have some Bleu cheese dressing with this completely bat crap crazy word salad?
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 11:48 AM   #3213
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
May I have some Bleu cheese dressing with this completely bat crap crazy word salad?
Who are you going to believe? John Douglas, the founder of FBI profiling, or some dude on YouTube?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 4th September 2020, 11:58 AM   #3214
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hilarious section in the video.

I knocked gently on Meredith's door, then banged harder. I said Raff! What is going on here!? We need to get this door open. So Raffaele kicked it twice but it didn't work. So he rang his sister...



LOL There's a big butch macho Italian guy for you!
Despite your referring to the "Rocky Balboa" stereotype instead of the Marcello Mastroianni Italian stereotype, what does that have to do with my post which was about how Amanda and Raffaele related to the police at the time?

HINT: Nothing.

Knox': Doubling down yet again on something when repeatedly proven wrong. How very Trumpian of you. I have to wonder why you insist on doing this. I can only think of two possible explanations: to deliberately trigger us or because you just cannot ever admit you're wrong. Either is just weird.
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 12:27 PM   #3215
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
So?

Not to mention that Sollecito already gave an explanation - which seems to be objectively reasonable - that at that point (around midday) and with the information K&S possessed at that point, he didn't want to be going about breaking the door and/or frame. They wanted to see if the door would open with a little physical persuasion.

And at that point, they still had no idea whether, for example, Kercher had either stayed over at her friends' house or had gone out clubbing and ended up somewhere else entirely, and had either left her phones somewhere or was sleeping through the ringtone (of the UK phone - the Italian one was off). It was, after all, around Midday at that point. And - as a point of comparison - Kercher had slept until well into the afternoon the previous day.


However, it's also objectively true that once the Postal Police turned up with Kercher's two phones, together with the knowledge of where the phones had been discovered, the situation immediately shifted at that moment to one where it now appeared more likely than not that some foul play was involved. Plus, of course, members of the police were now on the scene, and were confirming the validity of the concerns as well as giving tacit agreement to the idea of breaking down the door (with no need to give regard to any potential damage to the door/frame).


It's interesting, though, to observe the way that all of this can be misinterpreted - if critical thinking, objectivity and a modicum of intellect are not employed.......
LondonJohn 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 4th September 2020, 12:59 PM   #3216
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Not to mention that Sollecito already gave an explanation - which seems to be objectively reasonable - that at that point (around midday) and with the information K&S possessed at that point, he didn't want to be going about breaking the door and/or frame. They wanted to see if the door would open with a little physical persuasion.

And at that point, they still had no idea whether, for example, Kercher had either stayed over at her friends' house or had gone out clubbing and ended up somewhere else entirely, and had either left her phones somewhere or was sleeping through the ringtone (of the UK phone - the Italian one was off). It was, after all, around Midday at that point. And - as a point of comparison - Kercher had slept until well into the afternoon the previous day.


However, it's also objectively true that once the Postal Police turned up with Kercher's two phones, together with the knowledge of where the phones had been discovered, the situation immediately shifted at that moment to one where it now appeared more likely than not that some foul play was involved. Plus, of course, members of the police were now on the scene, and were confirming the validity of the concerns as well as giving tacit agreement to the idea of breaking down the door (with no need to give regard to any potential damage to the door/frame).


It's interesting, though, to observe the way that all of this can be misinterpreted - if critical thinking, objectivity and a modicum of intellect are not employed.......
Absolutely true. At that point, they did not KNOW that Meredith had been killed and was lying dead behind that door.

Just last night I was watching an episode of Rescue Live. A woman called 911 because she could not reach a diabetic friend on the phone after several tries and she was afraid she was in her apt but unable to call for help. She wanted them to break down the door in case her friend needed medical help. Having a mother who was diabetic and had come dangerously close to slipping into a diabetic coma once I knew what she meant. Just as the firemen were going to break down the door, the friend finally was able to get a hold of the woman. She was fine and out shopping.
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 01:05 PM   #3217
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Not to mention that Sollecito already gave an explanation - which seems to be objectively reasonable - that at that point (around midday) and with the information K&S possessed at that point, he didn't want to be going about breaking the door and/or frame. They wanted to see if the door would open with a little physical persuasion.

And at that point, they still had no idea whether, for example, Kercher had either stayed over at her friends' house or had gone out clubbing and ended up somewhere else entirely, and had either left her phones somewhere or was sleeping through the ringtone (of the UK phone - the Italian one was off). It was, after all, around Midday at that point. And - as a point of comparison - Kercher had slept until well into the afternoon the previous day.


However, it's also objectively true that once the Postal Police turned up with Kercher's two phones, together with the knowledge of where the phones had been discovered, the situation immediately shifted at that moment to one where it now appeared more likely than not that some foul play was involved. Plus, of course, members of the police were now on the scene, and were confirming the validity of the concerns as well as giving tacit agreement to the idea of breaking down the door (with no need to give regard to any potential damage to the door/frame).


It's interesting, though, to observe the way that all of this can be misinterpreted - if critical thinking, objectivity and a modicum of intellect are not employed.......
Isn't also true that the police refused to break down the door themselves?
whoanellie 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 4th September 2020, 01:07 PM   #3218
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Isn't also true that the police refused to break down the door themselves?

Yes - seemingly because they didn't want to get involved with the bureaucracy of paying for the fix etc.....

But I believe it's correct that they gave Marco (IIRC) tacit permission to break it down.
LondonJohn 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 4th September 2020, 01:20 PM   #3219
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes - seemingly because they didn't want to get involved with the bureaucracy of paying for the fix etc.....

But I believe it's correct that they gave Marco (IIRC) tacit permission to break it down.
It was Luca Altieri.
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 01:35 PM   #3220
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It was Luca Altieri.

Danke schön!

(As I was typing Marco, I was thinking "or was it Luca?!". But since it essentially made no difference at all to the point, I didn't take it further)
LondonJohn 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 4th September 2020, 04:04 PM   #3221
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
True, but poor Luca has already been falsely accused of being a perjurer* for lying under oath that he heard the ambulance men and a cop discussing that Kercher's throat had been cut and then telling Raff who then told Amanda on the way to the questura. He should at least get credit for kicking down the door. And all in order to help a stranger he had never met for 'reasons'.

*As has Paola Grande.
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 04:35 PM   #3222
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
True, but poor Luca has already been falsely accused of being a perjurer* for lying under oath that he heard the ambulance men and a cop discussing that Kercher's throat had been cut and then telling Raff who then told Amanda on the way to the questura. He should at least get credit for kicking down the door. And all in order to help a stranger he had never met for 'reasons'.

*As has Paola Grande.

Was he accused of perjory by anyone in Italian law enforcement or judiciary?

(Because I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he might not care too much about being accused of "perjury" by an adherent of a wacky, CT, overzealous internet-only quasi-religion )
LondonJohn 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 4th September 2020, 04:39 PM   #3223
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Was he accused of perjory by anyone in Italian law enforcement or judiciary?

(Because I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he might not care too much about being accused of "perjury" by an adherent of a wacky, CT, overzealous internet-only quasi-religion )
Never mind then!
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 06:21 PM   #3224
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Guilters once wrote at length that when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage, that they'd caught AK and RS in the act of cleaning up. And that once surprised like this, AK and RS spent the next minutes trying to delay the discovery of the horrible scene behind the locked door. Their narrative includes that Raffaele must have panicked, sliding off to privately call 112-Carabinieri once the Postals were there to cover his tracks. Part of this unsustainable narrative contained the canard that it was then that Raffaele had called 112 surreptitiously.... something no court believed, but let's not get ahead.
When I first read the allegation that Sollecito only called 112 after the police had already arrived I started to wonder if maybe the pair were guilty. A little further research and I realized how far the guilters were willing to bend the truth. Bill, my recollection is that

1) The original Corte d'Assise did not buy the prosecution claim that Sollecito only called 112 after the police had already arrived.

2) Hellman analyzed the issue thusly:
[/quote]But on the basis of testimony given by the Police personnel on duty and from the schedules recorded on the printouts, even Court of the Assizes of First Instance reached the conclusion that those telephone calls had been made prior to the arrival of the Police, and with no knowledge of their imminent arrival. And, after all, what makes the issue irrelevant about whether the call [133] to the Carabinieri was made before or after the unexpected arrival of the Police is the fact that, anyway, Amanda Knox had already made a call to Filomena Romanelli, at 12:08 PM, certainly before the unexpected arrival of the Police. So, at that point, she had already had
told an extraneous person (whether it was the Carabinieri or Filomena Romanelli does not matter when viewed from this perspective) that they (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) had entered in the house in via della Pergola, noticing a situation that was a cause for alarm.[/quote]

3) Despite having heard no additional evidence on the issue, the Nencini court decided that indeed Sollecito had only called 112 when he saw the police had already arrived. The Nencini verdict devotes pages to the issue but only seems to be quoting testimony from the 1st trial.
whoanellie 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 4th September 2020, 06:41 PM   #3225
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
The telephone records of Luca Altieri (house landline) and Marco Marzan (mobile phone at home) also proved unequivocally that they could not have arrived at the via della Pergola house before the 112 call to the police. The Nencini reasoning was moronic. One can only suspect its conclusion was a direct consequence of the Chieffi 'directive'.
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 06:50 PM   #3226
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
When I first read the allegation that Sollecito only called 112 after the police had already arrived I started to wonder if maybe the pair were guilty. A little further research and I realized how far the guilters were willing to bend the truth. Bill, my recollection is that

1) The original Corte d'Assise did not buy the prosecution claim that Sollecito only called 112 after the police had already arrived.
This is how Judge Massei had written it up, in his 2010 reasons for convicting the pair in 2009. Massei only **indirectly** disputes the postals' testimony, who said they'd arrived at 12:35 pm....
Quote:
At the moment when the lifeless body Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was
found, in the house at 7 Via della Pergola there were present, as well as the present
accused, Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola Grande and their boyfriends: Marco
Zaroli and Luca Altieri. All had arrived at the house around 1:00 pm on the day of
November 2.

Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia:
Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm.
Massei had put the times of the 112 calls to the Carabinieri as....
Quote:
The phone calls made to the Carabinieri just mentioned were at 12:51 pm and 12:54
pm on November 2, 2007 by Raffaele Sollecito.
Otherwise, Massei left the issue (purposely?) unclear. Where does "a little before 1 pm" fit into the first 112 call happening at 12:51 pm?

Later on, Massei tried to make sense of Raffaele's claim to 112 that nothing had been taken from Filomena's room. Postal Police Fabio Marsi testified that Raffaele had told him that he and Amanda were waiting for the Carabinieri. The way Massei related that mini-narrative, he seems to be agreeing that, in fact, Raffaele had already dealt with the issue of "nothing missing" as he was then having to repeat it the Postals.

That is, as they say, that. Nowhere did Massei explicitly state that after the postals' arrival, that Raffaele slipped off to call 112 to cover for himself. Yet that claim had become a staple of the guilter's hatred towards Raffaele. Even the Showtime movie showed Raffaele slipping away, and thus gave the viewer reason to think that Raffaele had been hiding something.

It's just that Raffaele did not, in fact, call 112 after the postals' arrival.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 4th September 2020 at 06:52 PM.
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 4th September 2020, 10:11 PM   #3227
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The telephone records of Luca Altieri (house landline) and Marco Marzan (mobile phone at home) also proved unequivocally that they could not have arrived at the via della Pergola house before the 112 call to the police. The Nencini reasoning was moronic. One can only suspect its conclusion was a direct consequence of the Chieffi 'directive'.
Oops...Marco Zaroli, not Marzan.
Stacyhs 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 4th September 2020, 11:54 PM   #3228
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
When I first read the allegation that Sollecito only called 112 after the police had already arrived I started to wonder if maybe the pair were guilty. A little further research and I realized how far the guilters were willing to bend the truth. Bill, my recollection is that

1) The original Corte d'Assise did not buy the prosecution claim that Sollecito only called 112 after the police had already arrived.

2) Hellman analyzed the issue thusly:
But on the basis of testimony given by the Police personnel on duty and from the schedules recorded on the printouts, even Court of the Assizes of First Instance reached the conclusion that those telephone calls had been made prior to the arrival of the Police, and with no knowledge of their imminent arrival. And, after all, what makes the issue irrelevant about whether the call [133] to the Carabinieri was made before or after the unexpected arrival of the Police is the fact that, anyway, Amanda Knox had already made a call to Filomena Romanelli, at 12:08 PM, certainly before the unexpected arrival of the Police. So, at that point, she had already had
told an extraneous person (whether it was the Carabinieri or Filomena Romanelli does not matter when viewed from this perspective) that they (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) had entered in the house in via della Pergola, noticing a situation that was a cause for alarm.

3) Despite having heard no additional evidence on the issue, the Nencini court decided that indeed Sollecito had only called 112 when he saw the police had already arrived. The Nencini verdict devotes pages to the issue but only seems to be quoting testimony from the 1st trial.


Funnily enough - and I've talked about this in earlier incarnations of this thread - I had exactly the same experience as you. My introduction to the case was a chance purchase of "Darkness Descending", and that book more or less presented the "Sollecito called 112 only after the Postal Police had arrived" story as fact. And, like you, I just couldn't reconcile that "fact" with anything other than the guilt of Sollecito (and by extension, Knox).

So I started off on my looooong journey into analysing this case (but certainly not as long, nor as in-depth, as many other fine people) with a belief that Knox and Sollecito did indeed participate in Kercher's murder. And this was at a time, remember, when Knox and Sollecito had only recently been found guilty in Massei's court. I did (and do) believe that by and large, courts arrive at the correct verdict - miscarriages of justice are rare. That was of course before I learnt just much Italian lower courts are horribly broken and ripe for prosecutor manipulation.

However, even despite that belief in guilt, I still found what I'd read about Knox's interrogation and her "confession/accusation" involving Lumumba to be troubling. It sounded to me suspiciously like a coerced false confession (despite the fact that my only account of it at that time was from the firmly pro-prosecution "Darkness Descending"). I wondered to myself whether there was any more info online about this aspect of the case, and/or whether there was any kind of online debate about it.

My searching led me pretty quickly to PMF (I'd never even heard of JREF at this point, let alone learnt that it had an active thread about the case). I read through dozens of pages of PMF content, but everything which touched on the Knox interrogation and her "confession/accusation" seemed to me to be entirely blinkered, pro-prosecution, and wholeheartedly endorsing the view that a) the interrogating police had done nothing untoward or dodgy in the way they conducted the interrogation, and b) everything Knox had ultimately "confessed" to was genuine and reliable (good old Stilicho was fond of talking about Knox "blurting out" her story "almost as soon as the chairs had been set out in the interrogation room").

And this unquestioning attitude over the Knox "confession/accusation" on PMF is solely what prompted me to join their community and post my own views and reservations on this issue. I introduced myself by stating that I believed Knox and Sollecito to be guilty, but that at the same time I had questions over the validity and provenance of the Knox "confession/accusation". I was immediately met with a fair degree of hostility along the lines of "Knox and Sollecito are guilty in all aspects, so how can you harbour a belief in guilt yet worry about whether the Knox "confession/accusation" is reliable?"

It was precisely this reaction from almost everyone on PMF which led me to start questioning their objectivity and reasoning; and at the same time, I was learning more about the case from things like contemporaneous media reports during the trial, and other media analysis of the case. As I started to learn more, I found out that much of what I'd read in "Darkness Descending" was not in fact anywhere near as solid and definitive as the way it had been presented in that book (including, of course, the issue of the Sollecito 112 call).

As a result, I began to post on PMF about my doubts. The reaction was to accuse me of being a Trojan horse: that I was some sort of "agent" from the not-guilty camp who'd been sent to infiltrate PMF under the pretence of being a newbie "guilter", with a carefully-constructed strategy of gradually shifting my stance to a belief in non-guilt/innocence. It was (of course) at this point that I realised exactly what kind of nutjob community they had there. My realisation started to inform my posts, and in short order I was summarily banned from the site.

Fortunately, I then came across JREF. And the rest is..........
LondonJohn 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 5th September 2020, 02:04 AM   #3229
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,623
I followed the case virtually from the beginning, from when the murder was revealed on the news and then a few days later all the stuff about 'Foxy Knoxy' My Space page and images of Guede being arrested. A murder of a young person by an alleged group of her peers was always going to attract huge interest in the case as there is often something quite senseless in such killing. Normally, we can say, oh it was an acrimonious marriage, a robbery gone wrong, suicide by police, a nefarious attempt to cash in on a partners' life insurance policy, or simply, because you can. (For example, Harold Shipman, all those mass murderer nurses and carers [we even have a famous one in Finland called 'poisonous Greta' ['Myrky Kerttu'].) And of course, no end of sex crimes.

So when young adults kill other young adults for trivial reason or no reason we can make sense of, there arises a lot of public speculation over the motivations behind those that perpetrated such outrages, especially as many come from what seems to be privileged backgrounds so not even class or race can explain it.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen 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 5th September 2020, 05:56 AM   #3230
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So when young adults kill other young adults for trivial reason or no reason we can make sense of, there arises a lot of public speculation over the motivations behind those that perpetrated such outrages, especially as many come from what seems to be privileged backgrounds so not even class or race can explain it.
Thanks for this.

The trouble I'm having is connecting this to the Kercher murder. In 2015 two of the people who'd been falsely accused were cleared of involvement by Italy's highest court.

I'm wondering - given your views, what do you make of the fact that not a single forensic-DNA expert in the world agrees with the original Scientific Police conclusions on the DNA?

I have not asked you this before. Sorry to spring it on you like this.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 5th September 2020, 07:55 AM   #3231
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Funnily enough - and I've talked about this in earlier incarnations of this thread - I had exactly the same experience as you. My introduction to the case was a chance purchase of "Darkness Descending", and that book more or less presented the "Sollecito called 112 only after the Postal Police had arrived" story as fact. And, like you, I just couldn't reconcile that "fact" with anything other than the guilt of Sollecito (and by extension, Knox).
I saw one ABC special in 2010, watched about 6 or 7 minutes of it, then changed the channel. I thought, "Well, they have the DNA, that settles it." I wouldn't have been able to string together two more sentences about that, even as back then this ABC special seemed to be casting doubt on the 2009 conviction. I thought, "Kids go overseas to sow their wild oats, have to accept the consequences of their actions." That was about it for me, after seeing 6 mins of a mildly innocence-based, American TV program.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
My searching led me pretty quickly to PMF (I'd never even heard of JREF at this point, let alone learnt that it had an active thread about the case). I read through dozens of pages of PMF content, but everything which touched on the Knox interrogation and her "confession/accusation" seemed to me to be entirely blinkered, pro-prosecution, and wholeheartedly endorsing the view that a) the interrogating police had done nothing untoward or dodgy in the way they conducted the interrogation, and b) everything Knox had ultimately "confessed" to was genuine and reliable (good old Stilicho was fond of talking about Knox "blurting out" her story "almost as soon as the chairs had been set out in the interrogation room").
Fast forward to summer 2011. I was overseas killing time in a hotelroom. The city's major newspaper printed a smaller English-language version. On the front page, below the fold was the headline, "DNA evidence collapses against American in Italy."

So with time to kill I did a Google search. Wikipedia's "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and TJMK came up. At the time I'd been the chief editor of perhaps 20 other Wiki-articles, and couldn't believe the mess it was in. TJMK took me to two PowerPoints, both by a guy named "Kermit". One was what was billed as a complete analysis of why the break-in had been faked. The other was "150 questions Knox must answer to prove her innocence." One of the questions was, "What phase was the Moon in, on Nov 1, 2007?" I also found a good sample of the Tabloid excesses, but also found (I think it was) the Rolling Stone pro-innocence-piece.

Back home, I'd not thought a lot about it. I'd periodically check-in with TJMK, found out that a chief contributor to it had been a Canadian astrologer!

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
As a result, I began to post on PMF about my doubts. The reaction was to accuse me of being a Trojan horse: that I was some sort of "agent" from the not-guilty camp who'd been sent to infiltrate PMF under the pretence of being a newbie "guilter", with a carefully-constructed strategy of gradually shifting my stance to a belief in non-guilt/innocence. It was (of course) at this point that I realised exactly what kind of nutjob community they had there. My realisation started to inform my posts, and in short order I was summarily banned from the site.

Fortunately, I then came across JREF. And the rest is..........
Fast forward to the week of the Oct 3, 2011, acquittal. I watched CNN's coverage, including the mob scene outside the court. The only CNN prognosticator who was not surprised at the outcome was legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "All this proves is that you cannot be found guilty for a crime where there's no evidence, not even in Italy."

What!? I returned to TJMK, read copiously at PMF (not realizing that by that time there were two, competing-PMFs!) and tried to delve into some evidence that guilters thought was condemning. Peter Quennell back then seemed to accept that the DNA was now trash, because he'd made a front page posting, "Regardless, there's all the other evidence."

Like a fool, I took up the challenge to find it. I searched for everything to do with "Sex on a train", and got briefly involved with Sharon Feinstein's blog, a blog which crashed because of the attention she'd got. I had a lengthy series of e-mail exchanges with her, including other journalists. I was surprised they'd resond to me, a complete stranger. I showed the PowerPoint about the break-in to a buddy who'd worked as a layperson helping law enforcement at the local courthouse. He basically said, "whoever did this is overthinking it. There's no reason that the thief wouldn't go through that bedroom window, it's not a hard climb." He then told me never to contact him again!

I registered for the discussion threads on TJMK as well as another I'd found, Injustice in Perugia. At the latter site, I found (for the first time) some very articulate people who'd been arguing innocence for months. It also had a small core of guilters who seemed to hold their own, but would never directly answer questions put to them.

Finally I got to post at TJMK. That lasted 7 posts. I wanted to argue the ease of Rudy's climb in through Filomena's window. Seven posts later my password would no longer work. I complained on IIP, and found out that that was standard practise for both TJMK as well as both PMFs. No dissent would be tolerated!

For the next 6 months I argued Knox & Sollecito's innocence, but also argued that Knox had been full value for being convicted of calunnia against Lumumba. I had agreed 100% with Hellmann's 2011 decision. I was a guilter of calunnia.

But people at IIP continued to argue, but not by hurling ad hominem, but by dissecting evidence. As their opponent, I respected that and it forced me to dig deeper.

I then read the English transcript of Mignini's 2010 CNN interview with Drew Griffin, where Mignini all but admits (although he denied it) that Knox had been coerced at interrogation. Mignini admitted to trying to get her to continue talking, even after she'd been an official suspect. Mignini's excuse was that he'd not lead her in questioning (thus, he claimed she didn't need a lawyer). She could talk, and he'd act, "as if a notary."

I then changed my mind about calunnia.

Early on, I made effort to have private PM's with as many guilters who'd respond. They were totally all over the map in things. One guilter was very reasonable, and would drop adherence to item after item once we'd hashed it out. The one factoid he wouldn't abandon was, "Knox is a liar." He wouldn't bend on the inconsistency that he'd agreed that there was no evidence against her, but for some reason her "being a liar" meant she was nonetheless guilty. It's the reason why I searched for, and eventually compiled the "13 lies" guilters claimed that RS & AK had made. None of them passed the smell test, but they were used in aggregate to prove Knox was a liar.

Another was a college instructor who was prolific at PMF, and who once organized his class to recreate the cottage upper-hallway, all to prove that the footswirls outside of Kercher's bedroom proved that it had not been Rudy who'd locked the door.

I never followed that logic. He then pointed me to a long, long posting he'd done at PMF. I then put a link to that posting to IIP, he then accused me of violating our agreed-PM confidentiality. Other guilters became disinclined to accept the offer of private PMs.

Anyway, there is more. I'm somewhat embarrassed I've done this for so long.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 5th September 2020 at 08:03 AM.
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 5th September 2020, 08:09 AM   #3232
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This is how Judge Massei had written it up, in his 2010 reasons for convicting the pair in 2009. Massei only **indirectly** disputes the postals' testimony, who said they'd arrived at 12:35 pm....
Massei had put the times of the 112 calls to the Carabinieri as....
Otherwise, Massei left the issue (purposely?) unclear. Where does "a little before 1 pm" fit into the first 112 call happening at 12:51 pm?

Later on, Massei tried to make sense of Raffaele's claim to 112 that nothing had been taken from Filomena's room. Postal Police Fabio Marsi testified that Raffaele had told him that he and Amanda were waiting for the Carabinieri. The way Massei related that mini-narrative, he seems to be agreeing that, in fact, Raffaele had already dealt with the issue of "nothing missing" as he was then having to repeat it the Postals.

That is, as they say, that. Nowhere did Massei explicitly state that after the postals' arrival, that Raffaele slipped off to call 112 to cover for himself. Yet that claim had become a staple of the guilter's hatred towards Raffaele. Even the Showtime movie showed Raffaele slipping away, and thus gave the viewer reason to think that Raffaele had been hiding something.

It's just that Raffaele did not, in fact, call 112 after the postals' arrival.
Massei also had this to say about the issue:
Quote:
Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen.
and

Quote:
(who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers)
The same passage is quoted in the Nencini report as:

Quote:
(whom we find, following what is claimed by the defense, to have arrived after Raffaele Sollecito called 112 and this if for no other reason than the fact that of these calls to 112 the postal police say nothing, just as they say nothing of those that preceded them, at 12: 40 and at 12:50, and were each time calls of non-short duration which, therefore, could not have been missed by the two policemen)
Nencini is quite clear that he is reversing the decision of the Massei court on this issue:
Quote:
The observation of the first-instance Judges does not appear to this Court to take into account the importance of a series of findings of fact which lead one to conclude, contrary to what has always been claimed by the defendants, that the latter alerted the Carabinieri after the arrival of the police officers and not before; and that therefore, when the police arrived, the two defendants were seated outside the cottage waiting not for the Carabinieri, but [rather] for Filomena Romanelli.
While the It is mind-boggling to me that Nencini decided that the court who had heard the evidence was wrong and ignored the undisputed phone call to Romanelli at 12:08 as discussed by Hellman. So much for 'judicial truth'.
whoanellie 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 5th September 2020, 08:28 AM   #3233
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,888
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Massei also had this to say about the issue:
Thanks for the correction, additions and clarification.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 5th September 2020, 10:23 AM   #3234
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
whoanellie 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 5th September 2020, 11:37 AM   #3235
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,737
Vixen, exactly...or even vaguely...how did Knox 'clean up' the crime scene as you claim she did?

If you cannot back up a claim, then I suggest you not make them in the first place.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 5th September 2020 at 11:38 AM.
Stacyhs 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 6th September 2020, 02:49 AM   #3236
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,623
Mark Bowden on Amanda Knox' theory of PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen 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 6th September 2020, 03:28 AM   #3237
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Mark Bowden on Amanda Knox' theory of PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEAN and PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CLEAN.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

LMAO. Would this be the Mark Bowden who graduated from (the former polytechnic) Middlesex University with a degree in performing arts?


Oh and by the way, it's entirely clear that Knox was purely discussing the relative neatness* of her housemates' rooms because she was explaining how odd she found it that someone might break into their cottage and seemingly leave certain girls' rooms neat and untouched.


* but it's interesting how many people with a certain agenda - including your performing arts graduate - have chosen to wilfully misrepresent "clean" in a way that Knox obviously did not use the word......
LondonJohn 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 6th September 2020, 03:53 AM   #3238
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
And by the way, my own body language analysis of performing arts polytechnic graduate Mark Bowden is as follows:

Bowden's continuous extravagant arm/hand gestures, over-intonated speech, and touching/pushing back of his glasses, clearly indicate to me that he is a bullcrap charlatan who's pulled the wool over credulous people's eyes by appearing convincing and masterful.


(Of course, no such inferences can actually be drawn with any reliability whatsoever from Bowden's body language and speech patterns. And I have no academic grounding whatsoever in anthing to do with psychology - not that conventional psychology ever even teaches that one can derive reliable conclusions about a person's psyche in this way. So, in other words, I'm precisely as qualified and justified as Bowden is in pulling conclusions out of my backside.)
LondonJohn 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 6th September 2020, 04:13 AM   #3239
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 321
I've been looking at the Boninsegna MR again that appears to come out pretty heavily in Amanda's favour. Not only do they highlight the misconduct of the investigators on multiple occasions but they say:

"This Court therefore finds that Amanda Knox had indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator only because, at that moment, it appeared to be the quickest and easiest way to put an end to the situation in which she found herself, her interrogators having insisted on an explanation of the message she sent to him."

Obviously, the calunnia against Lumumba is set in stone, which is why it went to the ECHR but they deal with the same scenario of events. It's got me wondering if Amanda would have been found guilty of slandering Lumumba by Boninsegna's evaluation of the events.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG 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 6th September 2020, 05:18 AM   #3240
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,154
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
I've been looking at the Boninsegna MR again that appears to come out pretty heavily in Amanda's favour. Not only do they highlight the misconduct of the investigators on multiple occasions but they say:

"This Court therefore finds that Amanda Knox had indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator only because, at that moment, it appeared to be the quickest and easiest way to put an end to the situation in which she found herself, her interrogators having insisted on an explanation of the message she sent to him."

Obviously, the calunnia against Lumumba is set in stone, which is why it went to the ECHR but they deal with the same scenario of events. It's got me wondering if Amanda would have been found guilty of slandering Lumumba by Boninsegna's evaluation of the events.

Hoots

It also bears repeating that any and all Italian court reasonings which were written between Knox's first SC affirmation of her conviction for criminal slander in 2011 and the ECHR judgement in 2019 - including this Boninsegna reasoning - were effectively bound by a requirement to incorporate the criminal slander verdict and its reasoning into their own reasonings.

So no court during that period, for example, could possibly have issued a reasoning which either stated or implied that Knox's criminal slander conviction was unsafe in any way.
LondonJohn 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

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

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 06:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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