XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25 - JUNE 18, 2013

Main Discussion Forum

Moderators: Skeptical Bystander, Fly by Night

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Tara » Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:52 pm

Some will recall that the "Ron & Don" show was on the side of innocence in the past - they're in Seattle and have a show on KIRO Radio which is popular in the area. They do nice things for the community and are pretty well known.

Here they are on Rachel Belle's show dissing Amanda Knox. They aren't saying she's full on guilty, however all of them admit that she must know something.

Marriott's lost the grasp, it appears.

It's nice to see people thinking, and using logic rather than drinking groupie spiked koolaid to form their opinions about Meredith Kercher's murder.

http://kiroradio.com/listen/9955478/



About the book - What's up with her now remembering the first phone call to her mother? Did I read that right? It's going to take awhile for me to get through this mess of a read. As someone (Skep?) mentioned earlier, the manner in which Knox describes she and Meredith's growing friendship is so over the top, including specific instances of photo and video ops - it's tough to get through. Give me a break... She can remember those BFF moments lies, but nothing about the night Meredith was murdered because she was too high?
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
*SAVE ALL CHINCHILLAS* Image
User avatar
Tara
 
Posts: 1504
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby smacker » Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:56 pm

marycontrary1 wrote:
smacker wrote:
marycontrary1 wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
rxflg wrote:@Fast Pete: just to make sure I'm clear: CDV on day of SC decision said Knox would not have to return to Italy. So this then was in reference to now or during the review process (not sure of proper terminology) while the Court's opinion is being written. Once the Appeal begins Knox will then be in contempt of court if she no shows. Please correct any misinterpretations - thanks!


Hi. rxflg

Yes thats correct. She will be given a deadline to return after Cassation reports (due any day now) but she must expect an arrest warrant to be issued if she doesnt.

Sollecito seems to have been properly advised of all this, and has more or less said he "wants" to be there. I suspect her natural inclination is to return; Italy was actually good to her and for her.

Lets hope this time court is not just every second saturday so the Kerchers can afford to be there.


This makes a lot more sense. It doesn't seem like ANY news outlet is reporting this.... So AK can be free waiting for the report (i.e. right now), then once the Court issues its report, she has to report back to Italy ASAP? Does this happen only if the court specifically orders her back in the report or is it automatic? Or would she have to report back once the appeal begins? I am curious because NO media is reporting anything but: "she doesn't have to go back until another conviction and it is affirmed by Cassation." Wish some Italian lawyer would explain clearly when and under what circumstances she would have to report back and when a warrant would be issued, etc.


Is this a new development or has this been hanging over her for some time? I hadn't heard of this, but that might be because I'm either deaf, can't read, stupid or have too much else to think about.


I think there is a lot of confusion about this. For example, USA Today quoted an Italian Lawyer: "The new trial 'needs to be done from scratch,' says Mattia Colonnelli de Gasperis, an Italian lawyer who has followed the Knox case. Knox isn't required to be present, and any lawyer would urge her to stay away, the Milan-based attorney says: 'If you come to Italy and then there is a final judgment against you, you could be conducted to the jail.'" (http://www.lohud.com/usatoday/article/2121873)

So that lawyer at least thinks she wouldn't have to go back for the trial. Maybe it all depends on what Cassation says specifically?


There is no shortage of lawyers trying to stick their noses into this case, and no shortage of American (and British) newspapers ready to misreport.
User avatar
smacker
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: The King's Head, SW17

Re: "I Confess!" (Fathers' Faith--From FOXY to FILMS)

Postby Fiona » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:01 pm

The 411 wrote:
Fiona wrote:I am not sure how on topic this is but I have a question. I read that Ms Knox says in her book that the prison chaplain told her that his priesthood bound him to keep in confidence anything she told him. Can that be right? I understand that there is a seal on confession but Ms Knox is not a catholic and I find it hard to believe that someone in his position could, for example, receive information about a crime, or an admission of guilt from prisoner on remand or that kind of thing without being required to report that to the police or the prison authorities. Does anyone know?


Fiona:

You know, this was the theme of a Hitchcock movie--made in CANADA (Quebec)-- entitled "I Confess..."

"Three people caught in the tangled web of murder!"

Ya gotta bear in mind that this movie was made way back in 1953--DECADES before DNA was discovered.
So, AFAIK, at that time, guilty people couldn't actually be convicted for crimes like murder. :dork:

"I Confess" plot basics--FROM WIKI:

"Very late one evening Keller asks if Father Logan will hear his confession. In the confessional, Keller confesses that he went to try to steal money from a person he gardens for, a rich lawyer called Villette, and in the process he killed him. Because of the binding nature of the secrecy of the confessional, Father Logan cannot tell the police anything he now knows about this crime..and suspicion falls on Father Logan."


Here's the melodramatic trailer for the film: (includes discussions about T.O.D. and other familiar themes to people following this case....}

Um...I guess you weren't really looking for a"Hollywood answer" to this question, were you? :curtain:



Any answer you choose to give suits me, The 411. You always make me smile :D
Off topic discussion forum: Those Big Words
User avatar
Fiona
 
Posts: 2556
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby hugo » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:28 pm

And note how the co-authors always make M speak in American dialect -- right from the off, when she uses 'gotten' in a way that British people never, ever do, and it just carries on like that, to the most amazingly lame degree of implausibility. And one thing about travelling abroad, especially when young, is that you notice how differently different people speak, and it kind of fixes itself in your memory.

Unless there are things you don't want to remember, because it doesn't suit you, because you're lying.
hugo
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:37 pm

hugo wrote:And note how the co-authors always make M speak in American dialect -- right from the off, when she uses 'gotten' in a way that British people never, ever do, and it just carries on like that, to the most amazingly lame degree of implausibility. And one thing about travelling abroad, especially when young, is that you notice how differently different people speak, and it kind of fixes itself in your memory.

Unless there are things you don't want to remember, because it doesn't suit you, because you're lying.



Here is how Knox describes Meredith and her British friends:

It hadn’t dawned on me that the same quirks my friends at home found endearing could actually offend people who were less accepting of differences.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13335
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby DLW » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:38 pm

‘Meredith Kercher's family has 'no interest' in Amanda Knox book’ The Telegraph

'Stephanie Kercher, the sister of the victim, released a statement in Italian through the family's lawyers Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna in Italy late on Tuesday after excerpts of Miss Knox's first US TV interview were released to publicise the release of her book, Waiting to Be Heard.'
"We are not interested in this book just like so many others about the case and we will not read it," Stephanie Kercher said. She also stressed that Miss Knox could be found guilty by a fresh trial due to begin in Florence later this year.
"The Italian legal system still has an appeal procedure under way and so the case is returning to a new court hearing. The sentence can still be overturned," Stephanie Kercher said.
"I have no doubts that on the other side there is a story of pain and loss and enormous mistrust but in the end it is also one of hope and the opportunity to live life.
“Something Meredith will never have and something we can never share with her. Meredith is the victim in this tragic case."
DLW
 
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:46 pm

DLW wrote:‘Meredith Kercher's family has 'no interest' in Amanda Knox book’ The Telegraph

'Stephanie Kercher, the sister of the victim, released a statement in Italian through the family's lawyers Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna in Italy late on Tuesday after excerpts of Miss Knox's first US TV interview were released to publicise the release of her book, Waiting to Be Heard.'
"We are not interested in this book just like so many others about the case and we will not read it," Stephanie Kercher said. She also stressed that Miss Knox could be found guilty by a fresh trial due to begin in Florence later this year.
"The Italian legal system still has an appeal procedure under way and so the case is returning to a new court hearing. The sentence can still be overturned," Stephanie Kercher said.
"I have no doubts that on the other side there is a story of pain and loss and enormous mistrust but in the end it is also one of hope and the opportunity to live life.
“Something Meredith will never have and something we can never share with her. Meredith is the victim in this tragic case."


Yes, but Amanda Knox needs "closure", or so she has said. Isn't that more important than anyone else's pain or feelings?
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13335
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby smacker » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:46 pm

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
hugo wrote:And note how the co-authors always make M speak in American dialect -- right from the off, when she uses 'gotten' in a way that British people never, ever do, and it just carries on like that, to the most amazingly lame degree of implausibility. And one thing about travelling abroad, especially when young, is that you notice how differently different people speak, and it kind of fixes itself in your memory.

Unless there are things you don't want to remember, because it doesn't suit you, because you're lying.



Here is how Knox describes Meredith and her British friends:

It hadn’t dawned on me that the same quirks my friends at home found endearing could actually offend people who were less accepting of differences.


Probably wise to check first before you break out into song during the middle of dinner. Apparently only the English find that quirky.
User avatar
smacker
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: The King's Head, SW17

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Tara » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:50 pm

Don Saulo and the prisoners of Capanne, who appreciated me for who I am,
supported me through many a moment of crisis, and taught me so much about
humanity.
Rocco Girlanda and Corrado Daclon, for visiting, for supplying the books and music to
keep my mind active during imprisonment, and for the help they provided getting me
home from Italy.
Dr. Greg Hampikian, Dr. Saul Kassin, and Steve Moore for their advocacy, their
expertise, and their friendship.
David Marriott and Theodore Simon, for their guidance and generosity.
Professor Giuseppe Leporace and the Seattle Prep community, for their dedication as
educators to my mind and heart, despite the criticism.
My family and friends, for coming together in my time of need, for overcoming the
unknown, for saving my sanity and my life.
And finally, Luciano Ghirga, Carlo Dalla Vedova, and Maria Del Grosso, for defending
and caring about me as if I were one of their own.



Not a crumb for her main groupies. Not even a "holla" for Attorney Anne Bremner and her brave assistant, Joan Hatfield Stapleton (who sadly passed away a couple of years ago.) for initiating the "Friends of Amanda". No "howdy" to Charlie Wilkes and Tweaker the cat? Oh, and not even a morsel for the caustic, error prone wannabe journo, Karen Pruett. Lastly, nothing to be had for Bruce "Furlovin'" Fischer or his silly little website.

What a slap in their faces - they have given so much for this 'kid'. I guess it's just "Amanda being Amanda" and it's all about me, me, and more me.
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
*SAVE ALL CHINCHILLAS* Image
User avatar
Tara
 
Posts: 1504
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:01 pm

smacker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
hugo wrote:And note how the co-authors always make M speak in American dialect -- right from the off, when she uses 'gotten' in a way that British people never, ever do, and it just carries on like that, to the most amazingly lame degree of implausibility. And one thing about travelling abroad, especially when young, is that you notice how differently different people speak, and it kind of fixes itself in your memory.

Unless there are things you don't want to remember, because it doesn't suit you, because you're lying.



Here is how Knox describes Meredith and her British friends:

It hadn’t dawned on me that the same quirks my friends at home found endearing could actually offend people who were less accepting of differences.


Probably wise to check first before you break out into song during the middle of dinner. Apparently only the English find that quirky.



She is basically calling Meredith and her friends narrow, provincial and intolerant but in a way that allows her to deny having done so if called out for it. I think this is the key to her personality and it comes out in the egocentric narration. Her statement about wanting the Kerchers to take her to Meredith's grave so that she can get closure is also telling. Her need for closure and her need to call attention to this need trump every other consideration.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13335
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:10 pm

hugo wrote:And note how the co-authors always make M speak in American dialect -- right from the off, when she uses 'gotten' in a way that British people never, ever do, and it just carries on like that, to the most amazingly lame degree of implausibility. And one thing about travelling abroad, especially when young, is that you notice how differently different people speak, and it kind of fixes itself in your memory.

Unless there are things you don't want to remember, because it doesn't suit you, because you're lying.



I see what you mean:

“These clothes are definitely more offbeat than I’m used to,” Meredith said, “but
they’re awesome.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13335
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby DLW » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:11 pm

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Yes, but Amanda Knox needs "closure", or so she has said. Isn't that more important than anyone else's pain or feelings?


Yes I agree, in part. Amanda needs ‘closure‘. Raff needs it also. They’ve had 4 years of it. MY guess is that the Supreme Court doesn’t think that’s enough.
DLW
 
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Jackie » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:11 pm

WantsJustice wrote:...
Thank you for the explanation, Jackie. It's very helpful. I want to clarify that I really don't care about convincing Clive. I just want to understand the issue better, and you have helped me do that.


I'm with you, WJ. I'm not interested in convincing "Clive" of anything either and I'm not sure that he will manage to convince anyone other than the odd semi-senile swiller of screech.

In Victor v. Nebraska (92-8894), 511 U.S. 1 (1994), the Supreme Court of the United States endorsed a jury instruction on the nature of the BARD standard that reads in part:

"... You should not indulge in speculation, conjectures, or inferences not supported by the evidence."

I think that is EXACTLY what "Clive" has done with his groundreport article.

He ignores Knox's testimony (which IS "evidence") and cites NO evidence whatsoever re the capacities of the phones that AK & PL were using, the number of text messages each of them received from Nov. 1 to the point that the police seized their respective phones, or the issues we've touched on re servers, internal memory, SIM cards, deletion, overwriting & recovery.

If his object was to raise an UNreasonable/ imaginative/ speculative doubt, he's succeeded.

If, however, his object was to raise a reasonable doubt, he's failed miserably.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby smacker » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:19 pm

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
smacker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
hugo wrote:And note how the co-authors always make M speak in American dialect -- right from the off, when she uses 'gotten' in a way that British people never, ever do, and it just carries on like that, to the most amazingly lame degree of implausibility. And one thing about travelling abroad, especially when young, is that you notice how differently different people speak, and it kind of fixes itself in your memory.

Unless there are things you don't want to remember, because it doesn't suit you, because you're lying.



Here is how Knox describes Meredith and her British friends:

It hadn’t dawned on me that the same quirks my friends at home found endearing could actually offend people who were less accepting of differences.


Probably wise to check first before you break out into song during the middle of dinner. Apparently only the English find that quirky.



She is basically calling Meredith and her friends narrow, provincial and intolerant but in a way that allows her to deny having done so if called out for it. I think this is the key to her personality and it comes out in the egocentric narration. Her statement about wanting the Kerchers to take her to Meredith's grave so that she can get closure is also telling. Her need for closure and her need to call attention to this need trump every other consideration.


If AK actually got (gotten?) through Heathrow immigration and arrived at the Kercher household expecting to be transported to MK's grave, I suspect words using sex and travel would be used quite rapidly.
User avatar
smacker
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: The King's Head, SW17

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Fast Pete » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:22 pm

marycontrary1 wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
rxflg wrote:@Fast Pete: just to make sure I'm clear: CDV on day of SC decision said Knox would not have to return to Italy. So this then was in reference to now or during the review process (not sure of proper terminology) while the Court's opinion is being written. Once the Appeal begins Knox will then be in contempt of court if she no shows. Please correct any misinterpretations - thanks!


Hi. rxflg

Yes thats correct. She will be given a deadline to return after Cassation reports (due any day now) but she must expect an arrest warrant to be issued if she doesnt.

Sollecito seems to have been properly advised of all this, and has more or less said he "wants" to be there. I suspect her natural inclination is to return; Italy was actually good to her and for her.

Lets hope this time court is not just every second saturday so the Kerchers can afford to be there.


This makes a lot more sense. It doesn't seem like ANY news outlet is reporting this.... So AK can be free waiting for the report (i.e. right now), then once the Court issues its report, she has to report back to Italy ASAP? Does this happen only if the court specifically orders her back in the report or is it automatic? Or would she have to report back once the appeal begins? I am curious because NO media is reporting anything but: "she doesn't have to go back until another conviction and it is affirmed by Cassation." Wish some Italian lawyer would explain clearly when and under what circumstances she would have to report back and when a warrant would be issued, etc.


Actually that IS Italian lawyers talking. We all have to wait and see. This is not a question of what the law says, it is a question of what Cassation says, and then what the chief prosecutor says.

So far Knox and Sollecito have been playing chicken with the courts. Those days are over. They MUST be in court for the appeal and if they choose to arrive voluntarily arrest warrants might be postponed.

Sollecito in particular was thumping his chest, waltzing around America and publishing a disastrous book. Now its maybe all hit home and he has shut up and was trying the bizarre move to Italy which his father aint keen on.

Now Knox is strutting her stuff and the more the book is taken apart (we plan a lot of that) the more the gloom will set in. Whatever her advance was it wont last long with past fees and new fees and taxes. She'll be there.
Fast Pete
 
Posts: 1615
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: New York

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Fast Pete » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:46 pm

marycontrary1 wrote:I think there is a lot of confusion about this. For example, USA Today quoted an Italian Lawyer: "The new trial 'needs to be done from scratch,' says Mattia Colonnelli de Gasperis, an Italian lawyer who has followed the Knox case. Knox isn't required to be present, and any lawyer would urge her to stay away, the Milan-based attorney says: 'If you come to Italy and then there is a final judgment against you, you could be conducted to the jail.'" (http://www.lohud.com/usatoday/article/2121873)

So that lawyer at least thinks she wouldn't have to go back for the trial. Maybe it all depends on what Cassation says specifically?


There's no confusion - if one reads the right people. Read the extensive report by Yummi on TJMK about the Cassation outcome.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... urt_rulin/

That is the state of play until Cassation's own report supercedes it in a day or two. They will guide the Florence chief prosecutor to respond with what they want.

There will be NO NEW TRIAL regardless of what de Gasperis thinks or wants or USA Today wrongly reports.

If de Gasperis had actually understood Galati or Piera Caprioglio or Luigi Riello (which he obviously didnt) he would know that a main problem of the Hellmann appeal was that it was an illegal attempt at A NEW TRIAL!

Cassation has counted IN that three perps did the crime and Knox fingered Patrick in pursuit of another crime. They are now givens. Plus Massei got the evidence and the law right.

So there is really almost nothing to argue about. A few days of appeal court at most. Just going through the motions.
Fast Pete
 
Posts: 1615
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: New York

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Machine » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:54 pm

Surprisingly, The Guardian has an objective and balanced article about the case and Amanda Knox's book:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ap ... ting-heard

This kind of reporting should be the norm.
Real power can't be given. It must be taken.
The Machine
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby marycontrary1 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:58 pm

Thanks, Fast Pete for the quick replies and analysis. I just read the the report by Yummi on TJMK about the Cassation outcome. Two follow-up questions:

Fast Pete wrote: They MUST be in court for the appeal and if they choose to arrive voluntarily arrest warrants might be postponed.


When you say must, is that Italian Law? Or is that what the prosecutor will ask for and the court will grant? It just seems crazy that no media is reporting that - but maybe I shouldn't be surprised anymore! What or who exactly will require that she be there?

When does the Cassation report come out? This week? I thought they had until mid to late June?
marycontrary1
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:12 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Fly by Night » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:01 pm

Fast Pete wrote:...Knox is strutting her stuff and the more the book is taken apart (we plan a lot of that) the more the gloom will set in. Whatever her advance was it wont last long with past fees and new fees and taxes.


The Diane Sawyer interview has not yet aired but it is entirely possible that Knox book sales have already peaked due to the mad scramble to keep Knox in the headlines this past week. :uahaha:
User avatar
Fly by Night
******
******
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby jaybee51 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:10 pm

Fast Pete wrote: They MUST be in court for the appeal and if they choose to arrive voluntarily arrest warrants might be postponed.


:thinking: Are you sure, Pete?

Everyone, apart from you, says that the appeal can take place without her presence - trial in absentia. Only when a conviction is confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court will a request for extradition be filed. Until then, Amanda is legally able to stay in the US.
jaybee51
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:23 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby DLW » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:17 pm

'Revealed: The Softer Side of Amanda Knox', by Barbie Latza Nadeau (The Daily Beast)

‘Amanda Knox’s new memoir doesn’t offer any new confessions or clues to her rommate’s murder. But it does show a gentler, more sympathetic side to the ‘she-devil’ seen in the tabloids.’

Barbie plays the middle.
DLW
 
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Machine » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:21 pm

DLW wrote:'Revealed: The Softer Side of Amanda Knox', by Barbie Latza Nadeau (The Daily Beast)

‘Amanda Knox’s new memoir doesn’t offer any new confessions or clues to her rommate’s murder. But it does show a gentler, more sympathetic side to the ‘she-devil’ seen in the tabloids.’

Barbie plays the middle.


I was surprised by some of Barbie's comments. It's a self-evident truth that killers tell lies and feign emotions. There was a BBC article about killers who have cried crocodile tears:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7288543.stm

Andrea Vogt's comments about the book are pitch perfect:

"Mostly it seems like just more sanitized spin, although a few passages about coping in prison did reflect a more introspective side than most have seen," said Andrea Vogt, an Italy-based journalist who covered the trials for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

"I think some of her prison allegations warrant further investigation by authorities, but on the hard case facts, there were some discrepancies that contradict the existing case records," Vogt added."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... s/2124693/
Real power can't be given. It must be taken.
The Machine
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby hugo » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:27 pm

Nother thing that struck me is that, as soon as Knox meets M, and realises M is at the proper University of Perugia, while Knox is at the U per Stranieri, and this isn't as classy, and Knox would have known better if she'd only spent more time with Google, she registers a distinct 'She's one-up and I'm one-down.'

Even in a text deliberately contrived to give nothing away, this is a bit of a giveaway. I don't know if you've spent much time around narcissistic psychopaths, but that passage carries a massive 'Uh-oh'.
hugo
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Fast Pete » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:48 pm

jaybee51 wrote:
Fast Pete wrote: They MUST be in court for the appeal and if they choose to arrive voluntarily arrest warrants might be postponed.


:thinking: Are you sure, Pete?

Everyone, apart from you, says that the appeal can take place without her presence - trial in absentia. Only when a conviction is confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court will a request for extradition be filed. Until then, Amanda is legally able to stay in the US.


Yes. Perhaps the "everyone" you quote is (as usual) not talking to anyone in Italy who actually understands this.

Not being in court for the first session is in itself a form of contempt of court. Skip that and arrest warrants can be issued at any time. My guess is they will both turn up without drama at the insistence of their lawyers.

Peter Quennell

*********

Added: It might help you to stop reading only "everyone" and instead understand that this is a very, very clever prosecution which did a great job at trial and if the appeal hadnt been bent (dont ask, you'll find out) the 2011 appeal would have been the end of it.

As it is, they are inclined to sit back and watch the defenses and their clients dig in deeper. They dont always telegraph their actions in advance. They dont talk much. They just act.

Sollecito already walked into one of their traps. So now has Knox. Not showing for the appeal is another trap, and it will make both of them and their lawyers look very bad if their lawyers (yet again) are asleep at the switch.

Probably only after that will the arrest warrants go out if they need to. AK and RS frogmarched into court? Every prosecutors dream. All the defense lawyers are making mistake after mistake. Dalla Vedova is so bad he is unbelievable.
Last edited by Fast Pete on Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Fast Pete
 
Posts: 1615
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: New York

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Fast Pete » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:54 pm

Fly by Night wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:...Knox is strutting her stuff and the more the book is taken apart (we plan a lot of that) the more the gloom will set in. Whatever her advance was it wont last long with past fees and new fees and taxes.


The Diane Sawyer interview has not yet aired but it is entirely possible that Knox book sales have already peaked due to the mad scramble to keep Knox in the headlines this past week. :uahaha:


Thanks a lot FBN. It jumped a bit on Amazon today though still only to #18. A heavy price drop though. $16.96 down from $28.00.
Fast Pete
 
Posts: 1615
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: New York

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Bard » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:20 pm

Ok, been out all day. But as I exited Liverpool Street Station I was confronted with Amanda Knox, and the headline 'I want to visit Meredith's grave'. I felt sick. Now going to read today's posts. But that genuinely made me cold to my bones. I actually have no words for what it made me feel. I hope to God the Kerchers didn't see it, and were pre-warned about the content of that filthy book.
Image
User avatar
The Bard
Gallery Moderator
 
Posts: 4483
Images: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: UK

Revelations from Rocco about AK

Postby The 411 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:21 pm

Amanda Knox, her book comes out today: "I never danced in front of Meredith's corpse."
The American student denies having written those words in her memoir, which is being released in the United States and can also be purchased on Amazon.

She is acting quite mysterious about her return to Italy for the new Appeal Trial.




Perugia--Waiting to be Heard Today Amanda Knox's memoir comes out. In her book, there are no passages regarding a "dance" that the young woman from Seattle would have performed to "alleviate the tension" while the forensic police were inspecting the cottage on Via Pergola.

These are words that Amanda told Rocco Girlanda, the former President of the Italy-USA Association (and in that capacity, author of the book "Io vengo con te" guest this morning of the tv show Mattino5..."


:thinking: Hmmmm...Is today's Mattino5 (Rocco interview) video available for online for viewing? Anyone?

http://perugia.ogginotizie.it/238396-am ... YBNzkrNlac
Last edited by The 411 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."
--Gandhi
User avatar
The 411
 
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:21 pm

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
smacker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:....

Here is how Knox describes Meredith and her British friends:

It hadn’t dawned on me that the same quirks my friends at home found endearing could actually offend people who were less accepting of differences.


Probably wise to check first before you break out into song during the middle of dinner. Apparently only the English find that quirky.



She is basically calling Meredith and her friends narrow, provincial and intolerant but in a way that allows her to deny having done so if called out for it. I think this is the key to her personality and it comes out in the egocentric narration. Her statement about wanting the Kerchers to take her to Meredith's grave so that she can get closure is also telling. Her need for closure and her need to call attention to this need trump every other consideration.


It's really enough to make me shiver or cry and I don't know which. We have known for ages the depth of Knox's callous disregard for anyone or anything other than herself. Dragging other people into her stupid little world is beyond offensive. The book contains nothing illuminating, nothing interesting, and nothing reflective. Everything is somebody else's fault. Her supporters must know by now that this woman is not going to forge a career "helping" people but she needs serious medical help herself before she kills someone else.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9456
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:32 pm

Fast Pete wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:...Knox is strutting her stuff and the more the book is taken apart (we plan a lot of that) the more the gloom will set in. Whatever her advance was it wont last long with past fees and new fees and taxes.


The Diane Sawyer interview has not yet aired but it is entirely possible that Knox book sales have already peaked due to the mad scramble to keep Knox in the headlines this past week. :uahaha:


Thanks a lot FBN. It jumped a bit on Amazon today though still only to #18. A heavy price drop though. $16.96 down from $28.00.


I wonder if the copies they resell are netted out of the rankings. There are already 27 new copies available under $16 and th enumber is growing consistently. Even if the clunker makes it to #1 it won't remain there long enough to earn back even part of the promotional expense.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9456
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby malvern » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:33 pm

Amanda writes she wants to be 'reconsidered as a person'. What innocent person says that? It sounds like she wants whatever she's done to be behind her, forgiven if not forgotten. I'll be looking for signs of lying in tonight's interview. Raising the brows and wrinkling the forehead is a good one. Sollecito can be caught on Porto Grado raising his brows when he lies about his drug use and only admits to an occasional joint.
malvern
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:47 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Iodine » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:35 pm

Tara wrote:
Don Saulo and the prisoners of Capanne, who appreciated me for who I am,
supported me through many a moment of crisis, and taught me so much about
humanity.
Rocco Girlanda and Corrado Daclon, for visiting, for supplying the books and music to
keep my mind active during imprisonment, and for the help they provided getting me
home from Italy.
Dr. Greg Hampikian, Dr. Saul Kassin, and Steve Moore for their advocacy, their
expertise, and their friendship.
David Marriott and Theodore Simon, for their guidance and generosity.
Professor Giuseppe Leporace and the Seattle Prep community, for their dedication as
educators to my mind and heart, despite the criticism.
My family and friends, for coming together in my time of need, for overcoming the
unknown, for saving my sanity and my life.
And finally, Luciano Ghirga, Carlo Dalla Vedova, and Maria Del Grosso, for defending
and caring about me as if I were one of their own.



Not a crumb for her main groupies. Not even a "holla" for Attorney Anne Bremner and her brave assistant, Joan Hatfield Stapleton (who sadly passed away a couple of years ago.) for initiating the "Friends of Amanda". No "howdy" to Charlie Wilkes and Tweaker the cat? Oh, and not even a morsel for the caustic, error prone wannabe journo, Karen Pruett. Lastly, nothing to be had for Bruce "Furlovin'" Fischer or his silly little website.

What a slap in their faces - they have given so much for this 'kid'. I guess it's just "Amanda being Amanda" and it's all about me, me, and more me.


I notice all have been acknowledged not for their personal qualities but instead for whatever way they benefited her. Chris Halkides is missing as well. Doug Preston. I don't know how one properly credits their internet horde, but considering the effort they've made for I-A and the Wikipedia page over the years it is a surprise she didn't. It's clear there is a distinction between the group that made a material difference in her situation and... the others.

I wonder if they got free copies, at least. Maybe inscribed with something like "Keep up the good work! xoxo"
User avatar
Iodine
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:21 pm

Re: Amazon reviews

Postby The Bard » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:41 pm

Carlos wrote:Hi guys,

I just saw a great review (one star) for "the book" on Amazon and tried to give the review a positive feedback "helpful" ranking. It did not show up. I tried again. Same thing.

So I called my mom and asked her to. She did the same. Same thing.

But at the same time, the total number of reactions was going up but the "helpful" number was not. (Meaning Amazon was recording negative responses.)

I'm not imagining this.

A week or so ago I tried to do the same on the Math On Trial reviews. I strongly suspected my endorsement of several reviews was not registerring. I thought it was just me but now that my mom tried I am very suspicious. Anyone else find this happening?

By the way, Math On Trial is a wonderful book. I have finished it and left it in the living room where my 11 year old picked it up (he loves math) and has begun reading bits. Kudos to the authors!


This is really sinister...
Image
User avatar
The Bard
Gallery Moderator
 
Posts: 4483
Images: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Jools » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:49 pm

The convicted liar's excuse for not attending the vigil for her murdered "friend".

"That afternoon at Raffaele's, I got a text from one of Meredith's friends ​a student from Poland ​telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn't decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me​Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn't have considered going alone. It didn't occur to me that ​people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt."
User avatar
Jools
 
Posts: 4041
Images: 196
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Location: Spain

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby nashumn » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:50 pm

@earthling

Yes, it's good, isn't it? I like the way it uses AK's own words by themselves!

@xarta

No, it came up today in my Google Alerts and I finally registered on pmf.net and .org just to share this one video... :D
nashumn
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:16 am

Re: Amazon reviews

Postby Fast Pete » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:55 pm

The Bard wrote:
Carlos wrote:Hi guys,

I just saw a great review (one star) for "the book" on Amazon and tried to give the review a positive feedback "helpful" ranking. It did not show up. I tried again. Same thing.

So I called my mom and asked her to. She did the same. Same thing.

But at the same time, the total number of reactions was going up but the "helpful" number was not. (Meaning Amazon was recording negative responses.)

I'm not imagining this.

A week or so ago I tried to do the same on the Math On Trial reviews. I strongly suspected my endorsement of several reviews was not registerring. I thought it was just me but now that my mom tried I am very suspicious. Anyone else find this happening?

By the way, Math On Trial is a wonderful book. I have finished it and left it in the living room where my 11 year old picked it up (he loves math) and has begun reading bits. Kudos to the authors!


This is really sinister...


No I dont think it is. They have software in place to stop gaming. The system checks to make sure every IP address gets only one vote. It often lags because theres a heavy checking load.

I rate books on Amazon and movie reviews on IMDB a lot and the rating I give them never show instantly. On IMDB it actually says my rating will show in a few hours.
Fast Pete
 
Posts: 1615
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: New York

Re: THE BILE KEEPS RISING ...

Postby The Bard » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:55 pm

Kermit wrote:
Amanda Knox, a convicted criminal wrote:"On the day I was leaving—in a rush to get to the airport and without a single thought — I tossed Brett’s pink bunny vibrator into my clear plastic toiletry bag.

This turned out to be a very bad idea."

No, you idiot: taking a vibrator on a trip isn't a bad idea. Being in a murder trial and on the first occasion you have to address the court (and perhaps address the family of the victim), you instead decide to describe the dimensions of your vibrator is a bad idea.


Precisely. This has always struck me as one of the most bizarre moments in the entire trial. If it was that unimportant, why even refer to the bloody thing? It's just beyond weird.
Image
User avatar
The Bard
Gallery Moderator
 
Posts: 4483
Images: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Bard » Wed May 01, 2013 12:03 am

Jools wrote:The convicted liar's excuse for not attending the vigil for her murdered "friend".

"That afternoon at Raffaele's, I got a text from one of Meredith's friends ​a student from Poland ​telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn't decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me​Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn't have considered going alone. It didn't occur to me that ​people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt."


Excuse? It seems a totally bizarre explanation. 'Such a public event'? And? People would ask her about the murder? And? I really don't understand this explanation at all. Why would she not go alone? Why would she need Raffelle to be with her? Whilst I can see that she might not have considered this as indicating guilt, her explanation is just no explanation at all. All those who knew Meredith, who had known her for as long as AK had, were there. They had grown to love her in the short time they had known her. Those who did not know her attended, as a show of support and a way of expressing their grief at the loss of a fellow student - a bright star amongst them - who had suffered a terrible death. Why then, would someone who shared a house with her and was supposedly a 'friend' of hers stay away? I just don't understand. Why would it not be 'best' for Amanda? Why is she even thinking about HERSELF at a time like that?

She's seeming odder by the minute...
Image
User avatar
The Bard
Gallery Moderator
 
Posts: 4483
Images: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby DavidBerlin » Wed May 01, 2013 12:12 am

Looking at the preview of the Sawyer interview...they have done the makeover physically but did no one think of the voice? The late Margaret Thatcher had a massive make over to make her more voter friendly. Chief among the changes was the voice, to make her less strident and more gentle.

Knox's voice is unpleasant, rasping and grating. Nothing soft about that voice. Then combine that with the makeup etc; add the sense of someone tutored going through the motions; then top it with that voice. One way or another, she comes across as a horror.
DavidBerlin
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:14 pm
Location: Derry, Ireland

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Wed May 01, 2013 12:17 am

Jools wrote:The convicted liar's excuse for not attending the vigil for her murdered "friend".

"That afternoon at Raffaele's, I got a text from one of Meredith's friends ​a student from Poland ​telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn't decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me​Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn't have considered going alone. It didn't occur to me that ​people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt."


If Knox didn't want to talk to anyone about the murder then why did she send a long email back to her Seattle contacts two days before the memorial service? And here's what she says about that:

Knox wrote:Then I wrote a long e-mail, which I sent to everyone at home, explaining what had happened since I’d gone back to the villa on Friday morning. I wrote it quickly, without a lot of thought, and sent it at 3:45 A.M. It was another night of fretful sleep.


Wait, what? Why was Knox experiencing fretful sleep if she was unconcerned about being a suspect? Why does she continue to pretend everyone around her is a blithering idiot?

In the same chapter she argues that she was already formulating a hypothesis of the murder along with Laura and Filomena. She theorised (allegedly) that the burglar came in through Filomena's window, murdered Meredith, then stole her key and left by the front door. This is her own scenario yet she already argued that the burglar had used the big bathroom and that Laura's room (on the way to the big bathroom) was unscathed. She omits the turd in the toilet and Meredith's locked door from her own scenario.

Why? Well, it should be obvious. Neither of those two events had anything to do with the murder. They're incongruous with the Lone Wolf so she just ignores them, hoping that nobody will notice.

This woman really thinks everyone in the vicinity is stupid.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9456
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Wed May 01, 2013 12:18 am

The Bard wrote:
Jools wrote:The convicted liar's excuse for not attending the vigil for her murdered "friend".

"That afternoon at Raffaele's, I got a text from one of Meredith's friends ​a student from Poland ​telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn't decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me​Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn't have considered going alone. It didn't occur to me that ​people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt."


Excuse? It seems a totally bizarre explanation. 'Such a public event'? And? People would ask her about the murder? And? I really don't understand this explanation at all. Why would she not go alone? Why would she need Raffelle to be with her? Whilst I can see that she might not have considered this as indicating guilt, her explanation is just no explanation at all. All those who knew Meredith, who had known her for as long as AK had, were there. They had grown to love her in the short time they had known her. Those who did not know her attended, as a show of support and a way of expressing their grief at the loss of a fellow student - a bright star amongst them - who had suffered a terrible death. Why then, would someone who shared a house with her and was supposedly a 'friend' of hers stay away? I just don't understand. Why would it not be 'best' for Amanda? Why is she even thinking about HERSELF at a time like that?

She's seeming odder by the minute...


The problem is that this was not perceived as proof of guilt, only as proof of absolute solipsism and total lack of interest in anything other than herself. It would be more honest to simply say "I did not feel like going and so I simply did not go". I remember when Lady Diana died. I was living in Paris at the time. The British Embassy made a book of condolences available to the shellshocked Brits in Paris. A British friend called me in tears and said she wanted to go to the Embassy and pay her respects. I offered to go with her and did go. It was cathartic for her and the many others who lined up to get in. I had never thought one way or another about Lady Di before her tragic death, but it was very moving and positive to take part in this public ceremony of sorts.

And today, Knox is complaining about not having "closure" and saying she wants the Kerchers to give it to her by going with her to Meredith's grave. It really boggles the mind. She might have gotten a little closure years ago, without troubling the Kerchers, by just putting on her big girl pants and going to the vigil.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13335
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Yummi » Wed May 01, 2013 12:27 am

jaybee51 wrote:
Fast Pete wrote: They MUST be in court for the appeal and if they choose to arrive voluntarily arrest warrants might be postponed.


:thinking: Are you sure, Pete?

Everyone, apart from you, says that the appeal can take place without her presence - trial in absentia. Only when a conviction is confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court will a request for extradition be filed. Until then, Amanda is legally able to stay in the US.


Yes, they are not required to be there for the trial. Technically, this is their right.
However, not being there at all at least to maka a statement after the publishing of their books, it doesn't look necessarily good; bear in mind that they had 25 years instead of life only because they got generic mitigation. Moreover if they are summoned to testify - which could well be, considering what they have written in their books - and they don't come, that won't look good at all.
They can go wherever they want bu they don't look as "behaving well" in the trial and this is not good to them. Think about that a 25 years prison term is factually only 12 years or less - maybe eight years plus four years of work outside. It's not a good idea to risk a life prison term. In my opinion. However, their lawyers might have a different idea.
"Hay derrotas que tienen más dignidad que una victoria"
Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Yummi
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: by an earthquake epicenter

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby marycontrary1 » Wed May 01, 2013 12:36 am

Yummi wrote:
jaybee51 wrote:
Fast Pete wrote: They MUST be in court for the appeal and if they choose to arrive voluntarily arrest warrants might be postponed.


:thinking: Are you sure, Pete?

Everyone, apart from you, says that the appeal can take place without her presence - trial in absentia. Only when a conviction is confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court will a request for extradition be filed. Until then, Amanda is legally able to stay in the US.


Yes, they are not required to be there for the trial. Technically, this is their right.
However, not being there at all at least to maka a statement after the publishing of their books, it doesn't look necessarily good; bear in mind that they had 25 years instead of life only because they got generic mitigation. Moreover if they are summoned to testify - which could well be, considering what they have written in their books - and they don't come, that won't look good at all.
They can go wherever they want bu they don't look as "behaving well" in the trial and this is not good to them. Think about that a 25 years prison term is factually only 12 years or less - maybe eight years plus four years of work outside. It's not a good idea to risk a life prison term. In my opinion. However, their lawyers might have a different idea.


Yummi, assuming that her original 2009 trial conviction is affirmed on this second appeal, when is the soonest she would have to legally return to Italy? After the appeals court affirms or after Cassation affirms?
marycontrary1
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:12 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Bard » Wed May 01, 2013 12:36 am

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Jools wrote:The convicted liar's excuse for not attending the vigil for her murdered "friend".

"That afternoon at Raffaele's, I got a text from one of Meredith's friends ​a student from Poland ​telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn't decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me​Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn't have considered going alone. It didn't occur to me that ​people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt."


Excuse? It seems a totally bizarre explanation. 'Such a public event'? And? People would ask her about the murder? And? I really don't understand this explanation at all. Why would she not go alone? Why would she need Raffelle to be with her? Whilst I can see that she might not have considered this as indicating guilt, her explanation is just no explanation at all. All those who knew Meredith, who had known her for as long as AK had, were there. They had grown to love her in the short time they had known her. Those who did not know her attended, as a show of support and a way of expressing their grief at the loss of a fellow student - a bright star amongst them - who had suffered a terrible death. Why then, would someone who shared a house with her and was supposedly a 'friend' of hers stay away? I just don't understand. Why would it not be 'best' for Amanda? Why is she even thinking about HERSELF at a time like that?

She's seeming odder by the minute...


The problem is that this was not perceived as proof of guilt, only as proof of absolute solipsism and total lack of interest in anything other than herself. It would be more honest to simply say "I did not feel like going and so I simply did not go". I remember when Lady Diana died. I was living in Paris at the time. The British Embassy made a book of condolences available to the shellshocked Brits in Paris. A British friend called me in tears and said she wanted to go to the Embassy and pay her respects. I offered to go with her and did go. It was cathartic for her and the many others who lined up to get in. I had never thought one way or another about Lady Di before her tragic death, but it was very moving and positive to take part in this public ceremony of sorts.

And today, Knox is complaining about not having "closure" and saying she wants the Kerchers to give it to her by going with her to Meredith's grave. It really boggles the mind. She might have gotten a little closure years ago, without troubling the Kerchers, by just putting on her big girl pants and going to the vigil.


'Big girl pants' don't feature for Amanda, Skep. Only skimpy post-murder skimpy pants are in her vocabulary. Big girl pants require you to act like an adult, rather than a sexual child-woman who doesn't have to take any responsibility for their actions, because they aren't actually wearing any knickers at all, which works with detectives if they're men, right? Ta-dah! Amanda doesn't have big girl pants. They're for losers. She chooses not to align herself with women full stop. Women don't like her, and she doesn't like women, because she can't manipulate them, unless they are Madison.
Image
User avatar
The Bard
Gallery Moderator
 
Posts: 4483
Images: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Bard » Wed May 01, 2013 12:37 am

Ode to poor old Madison anyone?
Image
User avatar
The Bard
Gallery Moderator
 
Posts: 4483
Images: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Wed May 01, 2013 12:43 am

The Bard wrote:Ode to poor old Madison anyone?



A poignant scene from Amanda Knox's young adult novel Waiting to be Heard:

Sitting beside me in the visitors’ room at Capanne, my friend Madison reached over and brushed my cheek. I flinched.
“Baby, don’t worry. It’s just an eyelash,” she said.
My skittishness horrified me. “I guess I’m just not used to people touching me anymore.”
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13335
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Yummi » Wed May 01, 2013 12:44 am

malvern wrote:Amanda writes she wants to be 'reconsidered as a person'. What innocent person says that? It sounds like she wants whatever she's done to be behind her, forgiven if not forgotten. I'll be looking for signs of lying in tonight's interview. Raising the brows and wrinkling the forehead is a good one. Sollecito can be caught on Porto Grado raising his brows when he lies about his drug use and only admits to an occasional joint.


This is normally what guilty people want. They say "I made a mistake, but now I want to be reconsidered as a person".
"Hay derrotas que tienen más dignidad que una victoria"
Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Yummi
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: by an earthquake epicenter

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Yummi » Wed May 01, 2013 12:52 am

marycontrary1 wrote:
Yummi, assuming that her original 2009 trial conviction is affirmed on this second appeal, when is the soonest she would have to legally return to Italy? After the appeals court affirms or after Cassation affirms?


It's up to the judges. In fact, actually the main question is not when she would be legally required to go to Italy, but when she could be arrested. Theoretically they could issue an order of arrest even before they finish the second appeal, even long before she is required to be in Italy. If she is summoned and doesn't come, an order of arrest would be an almost granted consequence on security issues. The order would be forwarded to the Washington State police, who - I bet - would carry it on (they may be informed she is a murder suspect who is willing to flee court summonings, and US police might be not necessarily that sentimental towards Knox just because she's from Seattle). You understand that in a situation like that it might be important to show that you are not willing to escape, besides being there to try obtain mitigation.
"Hay derrotas que tienen más dignidad que una victoria"
Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Yummi
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: by an earthquake epicenter

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby pataz1 » Wed May 01, 2013 1:05 am

Nov 1:
"Sometime between 4pm and 5pm, we left to go to his place. We wanted a quiet, cozy night in."

...11 sentences later....

"Around 8:30 pm, I suddenly remembered that it was Thursday, one of my regular workdays. Quickly checking my phone, I saw that Patrick had sent me a text telling me I didn't have to come in."

....4 sentences later...

"I was so excited to have the night off that I jumped on top of Raffaele...."

Um... for four and a half hours, between 4pm and 8:30 pm, you thought you had the night off.... for all of ten seconds you thought you had to go to work.....how excited could you get after ten seconds of thinking you had to go to work?

Damn.. i guess that's the type of high-pressure questions she was asked in her "interrogation"!
pataz1
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

The Voice

Postby The 411 » Wed May 01, 2013 1:07 am

DavidBerlin wrote:Looking at the preview of the Sawyer interview...they have done the makeover physically but did no one think of the voice? The late Margaret Thatcher had a massive make over to make her more voter friendly. Chief among the changes was the voice, to make her less strident and more gentle.

Knox's voice is unpleasant, rasping and grating. Nothing soft about that voice. Then combine that with the makeup etc; add the sense of someone tutored going through the motions; then top it with that voice. One way or another, she comes across as a horror.


David:

YES! I completely agree! When I first heard AK's voice on the promo...I literally thought I was hearing... EDDA MELLAS speaking!

There has definitely been a change in her voice since she's returned to Seattle, and it is NOT a change for the better. n-((
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."
--Gandhi
User avatar
The 411
 
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Re: "I Confess!" (Fathers' Faith--From FOXY to FILMS)

Postby Hammerite » Wed May 01, 2013 1:22 am

Fiona wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Fiona wrote:I am not sure how on topic this is but I have a question. I read that Ms Knox says in her book that the prison chaplain told her that his priesthood bound him to keep in confidence anything she told him. Can that be right? I understand that there is a seal on confession but Ms Knox is not a catholic and I find it hard to believe that someone in his position could, for example, receive information about a crime, or an admission of guilt from prisoner on remand or that kind of thing without being required to report that to the police or the prison authorities. Does anyone know?


Fiona:

You know, this was the theme of a Hitchcock movie--made in CANADA (Quebec)-- entitled "I Confess..."

"Three people caught in the tangled web of murder!"

Ya gotta bear in mind that this movie was made way back in 1953--DECADES before DNA was discovered.
So, AFAIK, at that time, guilty people couldn't actually be convicted for crimes like murder. :dork:

"I Confess" plot basics--FROM WIKI:

"Very late one evening Keller asks if Father Logan will hear his confession. In the confessional, Keller confesses that he went to try to steal money from a person he gardens for, a rich lawyer called Villette, and in the process he killed him. Because of the binding nature of the secrecy of the confessional, Father Logan cannot tell the police anything he now knows about this crime..and suspicion falls on Father Logan."


Here's the melodramatic trailer for the film: (includes discussions about T.O.D. and other familiar themes to people following this case....}

Um...I guess you weren't really looking for a"Hollywood answer" to this question, were you? :curtain:



Any answer you choose to give suits me, The 411. You always make me smile :D



Hi The 411, you are a howl. :uahaha:

Now Fiona, this could be a bit rusty but here goes from recollection?

General conversations with a Roman Catholic Priest (RCP) are not subject to confidentiality in the same was as in client confidentiality is when talking to your solicitor/attorney. If you are sitting together with a RCP on a bus ride chatting away and disclose that you committed a crime then you cannot expect him to stay silent.

On the other hand making a “Confession” is entirely different. It is the act of partaking in the “Sacrament of Penance” where a member of the faith seeks absolution for their sins from a RCP. The sinner must 1) confess their sins (confession), 2) be sorry for them (have contrition) and 3) do penance (satisfaction) as prescribed by the priest. When the sinner has achieved these three elements the priest grants forgiveness (absolution) effectively wiping the slate clean.

In cannon law the seal of confession is absolute and the priest cannot disclose anything that was told during the “sacrament of confession”…no exceptions whatsoever. Cannon law trumps state law in the eyes of the RC church in this matter.

So to address your query…it really depends on the formal context of AK’s exchanges with the Prison Chaplain (PC). If the PC was administering the “sacrament of confession” then yes, his role as a priest would forbid him from ever disclosing anything revealed in this exchange. Otherwise no, he is not bound by his role as a priest by confidentiality unless he is formally engaged in the confidential role of pastoral counselling to members of the faithful. Is it known if AK is a Roman Catholic?

He may on ethical grounds regard ALL exchanges with prisoners as confidential and understandably so in view of his role as PC in a prison environment regardless of their religious beliefs.

Hope this helps.

H
Last edited by Hammerite on Wed May 01, 2013 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hammerite
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Murder of Meredith Kercher



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bedelia, bucketoftea, CommonCrawl [Bot], ConnieS, dgfred, FinnMacCool, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 31 guests