Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[Allusonz]

And who in the world is "RF?" I can't think of anyone in this case who belongs to those initials, and I keep seeing them and it's driving me a teensy bit crazy :crazy:

I should say something here but but...ok I will....methinks you may be in need of a new designer straight jacket :giggle:

 

[Nova]

The only way I know to debate a fact is to prove it. It someone debates a fact, they should just prove the reference for the debate and be done. Oldtimers should suffer newtimers a little and realize that guests are also in here that might benefit because after all, they were once new, too. If everyone can do it, we'll be going along swimmingly.

Fair enough. But in academic writing, for example, at some point certain facts have been cited so many times they are considered "general knowledge" and no longer require a specific citation. Although much about the Perugia case remains highly controversial, I think some elements have attained a similar status among longtime posters.

For example, the excrement in the toilet came from RG. He admits it, DNA tests confirm it. I don't know that I'd spend a lot of time looking for a citation just because somebody new came along with a theory that it had been deposited by Patrick Lumumba.

You don't have to agree and can demand any proof you want, of course.

 

[Malkmus]

Never left, just been lurking b/c I got tired of being part of the merry-go-'round...don't worry, though, our wine is aging in my cellar as we speak, and I've put out an order for designer straight-jackets for all regular posters on this thread, as, although Allusonz and I need ours NOW, I'm pretty sure we're ALL gonna need them eventually, as this case is enough to drive anyone completely INSANE :crazy: :crazy:

Not to be OT, though, I will thank "wasn't me" for answering my question so promptly...LOL, now that will be one little thing that won't drive me crazy Also, I'd like to offer a belated "welcome to the thread" to "wasn't me," too

Also, I agree with Otto on the reduction of RG's sentence, both the math and the reasoning.

And I did have a question perhaps someone can answer for me. About the rent money--am I correct that FR collected the rent monies or did MK? Where exactly was the money and was it indeed missing after the murder and alleged burglary? TIA ya'll

yes, roughly 400 dollars of MK's cash was stolen/missing.

ETA: Rudy had been busted in Milan two weeks earlier squatting in a nursery, presumably because he couldn't afford a hotel. Soon aftre the murder he's on a train to Germany. Rudy's DNA was in MK's purse. Doing the math, seems fair to say he took the cash.

 

[wasnt_me]

Perhaps you will find this entertaining: Italian MP's controversial book about Foxy Knoxy reads like a romance novel and reveals his bizarre dreams about the killer

"He writes: 'In my hand she places her pink iPod, which plays incessantly The Beatles. I hesitate. I look at it. Then I look at her.

She tells me 'This is a gift for you,' looking straight into my eyes.'

Breathlessly Mr Girlanda, 45, an MP with ruling Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's People of Freedom Party, adds: 'The conversation continues, until I wake up...I realise my taxi ride with Amanda was just a dream.

'It is not the first dream in which Amanda appears. It will not be the last.'

Later he writes how Knox asked if she could hug him and perhaps unwisely for an MP, he lets her: 'A hug, a request that I don't expect. I blush. She holds me, I hold her. It's a never ending embrace, without a word.

'If I said I didn't feel any emotion I would be lying. Maybe my face reveals that.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...da-Knox-like-romance-novel.html#ixzz1InO8wtOX

Huh?

Damn, Otto, when you switch gears to a new topic, you are not playing! I came back not two posts later to this one. I was like :waitasec:

I don't even know what we're talking about here, so I'll stay out of it.

 

[wasnt_me]

...Not to be OT, though, I will thank "wasn't me" for answering my question so promptly...LOL, now that will be one little thing that won't drive me crazy Also, I'd like to offer a belated "welcome to the thread" to "wasn't me," too....

....And I did have a question perhaps someone can answer for me. About the rent money--am I correct that FR collected the rent monies or did MK? Where exactly was the money and was it indeed missing after the murder and alleged burglary? TIA ya'll

You're welcome and I'm sure I'll do it again. I type so fast, then I don't read it back until a few minutes later. That's why you always see "Edited" on my posts. It's not necessarily that I keep editing it, but sometimes I catch when my keys have stuck or I've transposed some letters or something. OR when I don't even understand what the heck I was talking about! :maddening:

As far as the money, I hate to say this, but I friggin forgot where I got that from. I have to try to find it. Hopefully, someone else knows and can help. I found something in the motivation:

In this apartment, there were four girls. In addition to herself and Meredith, there was Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti. When she had to pay the rent, she took the money and gave it to Filomena, who made the payment. pag 69

Yea now I can call Laura LM or "ML" LOL

 

[miley]

Isn't it great that Miley did a drive by, threw an old, much discussed topic at the thread, and then disappeared?

an old topic? I was responding to posts written last night.

Originally Posted by otto:
Ample information was discussed and posted on this forum citing Italian law and the difference between a fast track trial and a full trial. Rudy opted for the fast track because he was afraid that AK and RS would blame him entirely for the murder. AK and RS took their chances with the jury.

Conspiracy theorists believe that Rudy was given a reduced sentence because he apologized as it helps paint Amanda as a poor little victim of the mean Italians. The fact is that AK, RS, and RG had legal options ... RG was the only defendant that acknowledge participation in the murder, opted for the fast track, and received the required 1/3 reduction of sentence at the end of all appeals.

Originally Posted by Nova: Uh, dude, I AGREED with you. I was merely pointing out the numerous media accounts that mention an apology. It's understandable if some posters are confused as to the reason for the reduction of RG's sentence.
Thanks

A 1/3 reduction is not an automatic - especially when there is a conviction of murder. Isolation would be considered a stiffer sentence... which Mignini asked to be given to Amanda (and nobody else)

Rudy opted for a fast track hoping for a reduced sentence - Nick Pisa (and other reporters) said it "backfired"

 

[otto]

yes, roughly 400 dollars of MK's cash was stolen/missing.

ETA: Rudy had been busted in Milan two weeks earlier squatting in a nursery, presumably because he couldn't afford a hotel. Soon aftre the murder he's on a train to Germany. Rudy's DNA was in MK's purse. Doing the math, seems fair to say he took the cash.

He was picked up because he was on the train without a ticket ... wasn't he?

Guess he may not have had all that money after all ...

"Instead, he was stopped just after 7am on a suburban train near Mainz for not having a ticket"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...th-suspect-captured-after-sleeping-rough.html

 

[Nova]

Sorry I have to disagree. If an assertion is made such as AK seducing the prison priest and their employees I want the cite whether an individual has been here 1 day or 10 years. Sorry I am still awaiting that cite from Otto as I firmly believe that many that he stated were seduced are simply trying to earn a living

I meant to--and in a later post did--make a distinction between facts which are commonly known and claims which appear to have never been supported.

My point was not to argue that longtime posters should be allowed to make wild- claims without supporting them, only that some claims have been supported often enough to pass without further citation. That doesn't mean they must be believed, mind you, just that we all know the claims were made and it isn't necessary to track down which British tabloid, for example, claimed MK and AK quarreled over shared chores.

 

[wasnt_me]

I read somewhere that Meredith tried to give the rent money to Filomina on Nov 1, but Filomina didn't accept it because she didn't want the money until the day that she paid it. I'm guessing that would have been on Nov 3. Meredith had the money in her drawer in her bedroom. One of Rudy's stories is that Meredith was upset with Amanda because her rent money was missing. The money was missing after the murder.

She remembered that on October 30, she had spoken with Laura, Filomena and Meredith to ask their advice regarding Raffaele, because she had felt a little guilty, since she still had feelings for an ex-boyfriend that she had left in the United States named DJ. She also recalled that they had also talked about the rent payment, and that Meredith had offered to pay immediately but was told instead to wait and pay at the same time that they would all be paying, on the due date. On.... Motivation 72

I thought this "She" was "MK" but since MK is mentioned in the first sentence, and "She" is still the point of view, I think the "She" in the second sentence is AK.

Let me know if I 'm right or wrong about that part but MK apparently offered early rent per AK's statement, if I'm correct.

 

[otto]

Huh?

Damn, Otto, when you switch gears to a new topic, you are not playing! I came back not two posts later to this one. I was like :waitasec:

I don't even know what we're talking about here, so I'll stay out of it.

I mentioned something ages ago about an inappropriate relationship between Amanda and a priest. I haven't yet found the link. Allusonz asked for it today, and since I couldn't find the one about the priest, I thought the one about the politician would amuse her.

 

[Malkmus]

He was picked up because he was on the train without a ticket ... wasn't he?

Guess he may not have had all that money after all ...

"Instead, he was stopped just after 7am on a suburban train near Mainz for not having a ticket"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...th-suspect-captured-after-sleeping-rough.html

You might be right. I don't remember off-hand. But do you really think he rifled through her purse and didn't take anything?

Oh, weird, when I quoted you I guess you'd just edited it to show your citation.... my question stands.

 

[otto]

an old topic? I was responding to posts written last night.


A 1/3 reduction is not an automatic - especially when there is a conviction of murder. Isolation would be considered a stiffer sentence... which Mignini asked to be given to Amanda (and nobody else)

Rudy opted for a fast track hoping for a reduced sentence - Nick Pisa (and other reporters) said it "backfired"

"Fast-track trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding)[24] consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement over him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

 

[otto]

You might be right. I don't remember off-hand. But do you really think he rifled through her purse and didn't take anything?

Oh, weird, when I quoted you I guess you'd just edited it to show your citation.... my question stands.

Three murderers ... maybe they split the money.

 

[wasnt_me]

He was picked up because he was on the train without a ticket ... wasn't he?

Guess he may not have had all that money after all ...

"Instead, he was stopped just after 7am on a suburban train near Mainz for not having a ticket"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...th-suspect-captured-after-sleeping-rough.html

Stealing a ride on a train doesn't mean it was because he didn't have the money. It just means he was a thief. Why pay for the ride when he knew how to get it free? Or he could have spent the money at the club and on whatever he was doing the after the murder.

 

[otto]

Oh look ... Berlusconi is also choosing the fast track option ... and look at that ... it would also give him a one third reduction. He won't even have to apologize to get the one third reduction.

"Berlusconi now has 15 days to choose his next move: he can plead guilty and bargain for a reduced sentence; he can agree to a "quickie" [fast track] trial, which would be held behind closed doors and entitle him to a one-third reduction of his sentence if convicted; or he can settle for a full trial in public."

 

[wasnt_me]

That is the Courts option. Whether they are right or not is a different thing. As for being haematic in nature that could be iron in soil. Did you realize that?

Which actually lends to a barefooted person going outside to get a rock....

I'd unfortunately have to put that one in my doubt file on AK--if it's her footprint.

 

[sherlockh]

Fair enough. But in academic writing, for example, at some point certain facts have been cited so many times they are considered "general knowledge" and no longer require a specific citation. Although much about the Perugia case remains highly controversial, I think some elements have attained a similar status among longtime posters.

For example, the excrement in the toilet came from RG. He admits it, DNA tests confirm it. I don't know that I'd spend a lot of time looking for a citation just because somebody new came along with a theory that it had been deposited by Patrick Lumumba.

You don't have to agree and can demand any proof you want, of course.

RG is a liar. The motivations report says this about the excrement:

"A sample of feces and two pieces of toilet paper were taken from the toilet in the larger bathroom. The paper yielded the profile of Rudy Hermann Guede, both on total DNA testing and on testing for the Y chromosome alone. The feces gave no result either by DNA analysis or by Y chromosome analysis."

"Samples were taken from the toilet paper because this paper, used in wiping, is much likelier to contain epithelial cells, and they did indeed yield the genetic profile of Rudy Guede."

"Further biological traces of Rudy Guede were found on the toilet paper taken from the toilet of the larger bathroom. The faeces present in the toilet of that bathroom did not, however, yield any results, and Dr Stefanoni, the biologist of the Scientific Police, explained that the presence of numerous bacteria easily destroys what DNA might be found in faeces."

This could have very well been somebody else's excrement and RG just being helpful

 

[wasnt_me]

I am truly not sure what the point of this is. If RG thought the rent would be there on the first that would be one reason to breakin. Another would be the fact that his rent was due thus he needed money

Actually, in the theory (my guesswork) that I had come up with before, I'd stated that he probably had till Nov 3rd, or whatever day the holiday ended on to have his rent in as well. I was assuming he'd thought that others might have their rent in cash around the house because of the delay the holiday presented for renters in paying on time. That was my guess, because I was thinking it made no sense to break-in at night when the rent was due that day, Nov 1st. Then I took into account the holiday and it made sense. Less people around, somehow having knowledge that the girls are there. Maybe Daniel told him MK was watching the cat for him. RG knows that little house was like a sitting duck with a range of other students headed out for the holiday--Im totally guessing.

 

[otto]

Stealing a ride on a train doesn't mean it was because he didn't have the money. It just means he was a thief. Why pay for the ride when he knew how to get it free? Or he could have spent the money at the club and on whatever he was doing the after the murder.

Right, and taking a ride on a train doesn't mean he had 300 euros from Meredith.

 

[wasnt_me]

Fair enough. But in academic writing, for example, at some point certain facts have been cited so many times they are considered "general knowledge" and no longer require a specific citation. Although much about the Perugia case remains highly controversial, I think some elements have attained a similar status among longtime posters.

For example, the excrement in the toilet came from RG. He admits it, DNA tests confirm it. I don't know that I'd spend a lot of time looking for a citation just because somebody new came along with a theory that it had been deposited by Patrick Lumumba.

You don't have to agree and can demand any proof you want, of course.

And that's simply why I say if anyone disagreed that the crap belonged to RG, it'd be nice if they'd put a link in there, saying this is where they learned that the crap belonged to someone else. That's much better than saying, "It's not his crap." because that person who asserted it will only come back and say "Yes it is." Eventually, it will come down to a citation.

As far as academia, that's fine. But when people debate it in a forum, I'm pretty sure they whip out their sources to prove themselves right when facts are in dispute. Take the US constitution for instance, people ahve been debating it, citing it, etc for hundreds of years. They quote it, etc to prove their points. The Bible is the same way. If a fact is NOT in dispute, there is no reason to cite it. I won't say more because I really do think we understand each other.