1069 users online (221 members and 848 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 91 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1355
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161

    Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    Guys - please settle down and act like grown ups.

    You know the rules. Attack the post - not the poster. Follow the TOS, found here: The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


    Pay particular attention to this thread about dealing with your fellow posters: Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


    Thanks,

    Salem
    Thread 16
    Last edited by KateB; 05-22-2015 at 11:38 PM. Reason: repair url tag.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    27,181
    I believe that the next hearing is Sept 5. At that time, Dr Stefanoni and other witnesses will be heard. The victim's lawyer, Maresca, will also be able to ask the Rome experts questions about the DNA report.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,252
    Hey Salem, thanks for your work here and patience.

    Is it allowed to claim perjury has been committed and forged documents have been presented by the prosecution without proof? Doesn't the statement need to be in the form of an opinion? This is the same thing that started the mop battle- a poster claimed there was no mop outside the cottage and was proven wrong. Then the testiness and insults started.

    Recently I have been called out to link proof on my OPINION, yet bold statements of perjury and forged documents, not to mention planting of evidence... skate right on by with 'thanks' given to the post by their group.
    I don't understand.

    Is it allowed to claim items on RGs person and crimes he supposidly committed without proof? Would not a valid link be necessary? Should it be in the opinion or impression form?

    Why when a poster calls out another as lying about a previous situation, and that poster is proven to be false... both post are deleted? Could not just the snarky violating parts be removed even though more work for you? All of my post was factual proof that could be verified. Almost nothing the other poster was saying was true of what actually happened.

    I felt it was important to protect my position with absolute proof of what went on in the earlier exchanges about the mop. Several of the 'old hands' here definately know what happened, but to the newcomers it probably looks bad if one poster is said to by lying and it is not disproved. Not one word in my rebuttal was false. When it is in the open all can see who has been fudging the truth, taking it to a pm war is not satisfactory IMO.

    True the snide remarks and snarky behavior should be left out... sorry about that and it will not happen again.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952


    For anyone interested in the Kercher murder, I highly recommend Nina Burleigh's "The Fatal Gift of Beauty", (c. 2011, Random House, New York City) which I have been reading.

    Ms. Burleigh is a profound writer, and wrote for the New York Times and the illustrious New Yorker and Elle, among other high-brow publications, and has authored several other books as well.

    It is her text which contains the story of Mrs. Mara Madu Diaz of Via Canerio in Perugia, Italy, and the break-in of her cottage, and her ensuing suspicions of her neighbor, Mr. Rudy Guede. This is delved into in Chapter 9 . (this was NOT some story , as has been suggested, which was "cooked up" on J Randi forums. Ms. Burleigh is an impeccable researcher)

    Also of note in the text is the information that Filomena, in Ms. Burleigh's words, "had 'lawyered up' within an hour of the discovery of the crime"; she also took her laptop out of the crime scene, which she illegally walked through twice, and testified falsely that the laptop had been destroyed by the burglars.

    The interview with Kercher's boyfriend is interesting; as is the chapter on Guliano Mignini, who is treated very sympathetically.
    Last edited by SMK; 08-06-2011 at 04:20 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Hey Salem, thanks for your work here and patience.

    Is it allowed to claim perjury has been committed and forged documents have been presented by the prosecution without proof? Doesn't the statement need to be in the form of an opinion? This is the same thing that started the mop battle- a poster claimed there was no mop outside the cottage and was proven wrong. Then the testiness and insults started.

    Recently I have been called out to link proof on my OPINION, yet bold statements of perjury and forged documents, not to mention planting of evidence... skate right on by with 'thanks' given to the post by their group.
    I don't understand.

    Is it allowed to claim items on RGs person and crimes he supposidly committed without proof? Would not a valid link be necessary? Should it be in the opinion or impression form?

    Why when a poster calls out another as lying about a previous situation, and that poster is proven to be false... both post are deleted? Could not just the snarky violating parts be removed even though more work for you? All of my post was factual proof that could be verified. Almost nothing the other poster was saying was true of what actually happened.

    I felt it was important to protect my position with absolute proof of what went on in the earlier exchanges about the mop. Several of the 'old hands' here definately know what happened, but to the newcomers it probably looks bad if one poster is said to by lying and it is not disproved. Not one word in my rebuttal was false. When it is in the open all can see who has been fudging the truth, taking it to a pm war is not satisfactory IMO.

    True the snide remarks and snarky behavior should be left out... sorry about that and it will not happen again.
    Hi dgfred -

    First - let me say this is the type of post that should be sent to the moderator by pm. And just as an FYI - you may send such a post to any mod, doesn't have to be me.

    Second - posters are allowed to interpret the facts, media reports, etc. ANY way they wish. Accusations against anyone should be linked up with main stream media (MSM) or LE reports. NOT blogs, facebook, social media sites, etc. That info is all considered rumor.

    Posted information that is inferred from the facts as known should be stated as such and worded in such a way that other posters know it is speculation/theory/opinion and not fact.

    Third - I unapprove or snip depending on the amount of time I have for reviewing threads and the contents of the post. When I am short on time, I don't bother to snip - I just unapprove. Of if the post is quoted more than once, I unapprove. It is time consuming to snip all the posts.

    Bottom line is: if you have something important to say - say it without being snarky or engaging another poster, or the post is likely to disappear and all your hard work will be wasted.

    There is NO REASON to call each other liars, talk about other posters like they can't read or aren't here, or to communicate like 3rd graders. There is just no reason for that. You can say what you want to say without being snarky.

    Using the mop discussion as an example -- it would have been sufficient to post the picture of the mop outside the apartment, state your opinion, "I clearly see a mop outside the apartment in this picuture" and be done with the whole thing. If someone comes back and refuses to believe it - so be it. Let go. Roll right on by. There is no reason for further discussion. Asking someone if they can see the picture is fruitless. Another poster may also say the mop was placed outside the apartment after the police arrived. If they state this as fact, they need to have a link. If they state it as their opinion -- they are entitled to it and it is NOT up to anyone else to change their mind. That's what they think and that's okay.

    That is just an example - I don't really know all the info associated with the mop discussion. The key is really to disengage the emotion and state the facts. The best discussion comes from the theories/speculation/ opinions. Keeping in mind that everyone is entitled to come up with whatever they wish - EVEN IF the facts clearly so it is wrong or can be refuted. They are still entitled to their way of looking at things.

    I hope this helps. This is a very interesting case. I see valid points and opinions on both sides of the fence and would find this thread a lot more pleasant to moderate if ya all would stop the

    Salem

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    "By the time he was convicted of the Kercher murder, police knew Guede had been involved in at least 3 break-ins; two in Perugia and one in Milan." TFGB , Burleigh
    Last edited by SMK; 08-06-2011 at 07:06 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    "By the time he was convicted of the Kercher murder, police knew Guede had been involved in at least 3 break-ins; one in Perugia and two in Milan." TFGB , Burleigh
    Hi SMK - interesting information. I do just want to point out that the info in Ms. Burleigh's book would be considered rumor and not fact for the purposes of our website. Not putting down the book or the author - she sounds like she has impeccable credentials. However if we can not review her sources of information, we must consider the info to be rumor and treat it as such. Also, do you know if the book is classified as fiction or nonfiction?

    Thanks,

    Salem

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    Hi SMK - interesting information. I do just want to point out that the info in Ms. Burleigh's book would be considered rumor and not fact for the purposes of our website. Not putting down the book or the author - she sounds like she has impeccable credentials. However if we can not review her sources of information, we must consider the info to be rumor and treat it as such. Also, do you know if the book is classified as fiction or nonfiction?

    Thanks,

    Salem
    I understand that no one ought to take the book as gospel, or as having any more weight than any of the other books out there on the Kercher case. (such as Barbie Nadeau's "Angel Face" or Candace Dempsey's "Murder in Italy.")

    I looked on Amazon but was unable to determine what category the book is listed under. Perhaps true crime stories?

    I would hope that Burleigh was meticulous in her research and fact-checking, which she must have had to engage in when writing for the Times. I do understand for Websleuth's , though, that the material is opinion and rumor.
    Thanks

    This was the Wikipedia write up posted on Amazon:

    Nina Burleigh is an American author and journalist born in Chicago, Illinois. She has written five books, including Unholy Business, about a Biblical archaeological forgery case, and Mirage: Napoleon's Scientists and the Unveiling of Egypt, about the scholars who accompanied Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798.

    The subject of her latest book, The Fatal Gift of Beauty, is American student Amanda Knox, on trial for murder in Italy. Burleigh has been a staff writer at People magazine in New York City, covering human interest stories, and is a contributing editor to Elle. She is an adjunct professor of journalism at Columbia University and an occasional blogger at The Huffington Post. She has contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers, including Time, The New York Times, The New Yorker and The Washington Post, as well as websites such as TomPaine.com, AlterNet and Salon.com.
    Amazon.com: Nina Burleigh: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
    Last edited by KateB; 05-22-2015 at 11:38 PM. Reason: repair url tag.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Also from Nina Burleigh's book:

    Notes on Sources and Methods

    In my research for this book, I interviewed Perugian authorities, defense lawyers, and friends and family of the defendants.

    I engaged in written correspondence with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

    I reviewed the digital archives of the Perugian police and court, including wiretap and audio materials, and crime scene videos. I consulted US and Italian legal experts and experts in the fields of law, forensic science, and psychology.

    I lived in Perugia, attending trial hearings from 2009- 2010.
    The author continues about her journalistic method, her interviewing of subjects directly, and her study of primary and secondary sources.

    She also sought technical assistance and technical advisement from prosecutors, homicide detectives and others.

    Just mentioning a couple of interesting bits from the reading of this text :

    1. Mignini describes to the author Meredith Kercher's mother meeting him, with the British Consulate, at the morgue to identify the body, and Mrs. Kercher asking Mignini meekly, shyly, "May I kiss her?" and Mignini crying. I thought this was very, terribly, sad, and moving.

    2. Another: Mignini viewing Amanda as doing Masonic ritual movements when she hit her own head repeatedly. Him writing that she was a flight risk, and that she had "corrupted the Italian boyfriend, the young Sollecito." Mignini also obsessed over the removal of one shoe during Masonic initiation rites...
    Last edited by SMK; 08-06-2011 at 07:57 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,109
    I'm glad the question of the author's credentials came up, because I was going to dismiss her as someone else writing a short book off MK, AK, and RS. But she sounds like she might have a substaniated viewpoint, so I might download the book after all.

    Thanks, SMK --and Salem for bringing it up.
    "If Jodi's lips are moving...if her pen is moving...then she lie, lie, lies!"


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,109
    Back to the alleged fire story.

    I read about that on JFEF, and I was skeptical because I'd never heard anything about it before. The watch part was intriguing, and the fact that she says the fire was on the 23rd and the watch discovery was on the 26th. If I remember, she was saying she was his neighbor. She means his neighbor where he lived near RS? If so, maybe we can figure out if a fire was reported around there at that time. Sounded like a significant fire if it started on the 3rd floor but the cat got suffocated downstairs, on level one, I assume. And cats are low to the ground, so there must have been significant smoke to float downward. I've never been in a fire, but I thought smoke usually rises, so the fire must have spread for so much smoke to reach the ground level, so much as to get down to the low level of a cat. But again, I have NO idea how fire and smoke spreading works.
    "If Jodi's lips are moving...if her pen is moving...then she lie, lie, lies!"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by wasnt_me View Post
    Back to the alleged fire story.

    I read about that on JFEF, and I was skeptical because I'd never heard anything about it before. The watch part was intriguing, and the fact that she says the fire was on the 23rd and the watch discovery was on the 26th. If I remember, she was saying she was his neighbor. She means his neighbor where he lived near RS? If so, maybe we can figure out if a fire was reported around there at that time. Sounded like a significant fire if it started on the 3rd floor but the cat got suffocated downstairs, on level one, I assume. And cats are low to the ground, so there must have been significant smoke to float downward. I've never been in a fire, but I thought smoke usually rises, so the fire must have spread for so much smoke to reach the ground level, so much as to get down to the low level of a cat. But again, I have NO idea how fire and smoke spreading works.
    The fire story appears in Nina Burleigh's book, Chapter 9. The cat's exit was blocked because the burglar had opened a pantry door, (stealing food) which blocked a hallway. The author points out that in the police reports of the nursery school break and entry, and the law office burglary, foods were cooked and stolen (pasta, frozen spinach, sodas).

    I do recommend buying the text, and although I understand WS theory on authors, I for one certainly do have every educated reason to trust the author's research methodology.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I understand that no one ought to take the book as gospel, or as having any more weight than any of the other books out there on the Kercher case. (such as Barbie Nadeau's "Angel Face" or Candace Dempsey's "Murder in Italy.")

    I looked on Amazon but was unable to determine what category the book is listed under. Perhaps true crime stories?

    I would hope that Burleigh was meticulous in her research and fact-checking, which she must have had to engage in when writing for the Times. I do understand for Websleuth's , though, that the material is opinion and rumor.
    Thanks

    This was the Wikipedia write up posted on Amazon:

    Amazon.com: Nina Burleigh: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
    Professor at the Columbia School of Journalism? If we can't accept Ms. Burleigh as a legitimate source, then I don't know what.

    Granted, she probably isn't infallible and her sources may have lied to her. I don't mean to say her claims can't be questioned. But I don't understand why they are assigned to the derogatory category of "rumor."

    We have countless posts from lawyers in the Casey Anthony thread saying that perjury is committed in every trial, so often in fact that the system can't even begin to prosecute all the cases. Is a court transcript supposed to be hold more authority than Burleigh's book? If so, I don't understand why.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Professor at the Columbia School of Journalism? If we can't accept Ms. Burleigh as a legitimate source, then I don't know what.

    Granted, she probably isn't infallible and her sources may have lied to her. I don't mean to say her claims can't be questioned. But I don't understand why they are assigned to the derogatory category of "rumor."

    We have countless posts from lawyers in the Casey Anthony thread saying that perjury is committed in every trial, so often in fact that the system can't even begin to prosecute all the cases. Is a court transcript supposed to be hold more authority than Burleigh's book? If so, I don't understand why.
    Yes, "rumor" does indeed seem a strong word, as I doubt Columbia University School of Journalism would want a "gossip" teaching their courses on methodology. Nor would Time magazine, The New York Times, or the New Yorker allow any but the highest quality writers to produce material for them......

    I am not asking Websleuth to change, but I certainly trust Ms. Burleigh as much as any news report, and do highly recommend this engrossing, beautifully written text. NOT your trashy crime novel, the book is lovely and eloquent.
    Last edited by SMK; 08-06-2011 at 08:33 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    ...Recently I have been called out to link proof on my OPINION, yet bold statements of perjury and forged documents, not to mention planting of evidence... skate right on by with 'thanks' given to the post by their group. I don't understand....
    fred, you misremember and thereby misstate the issue regarding your being asked to provide proof.

    You issued a very broad opinion on how American jurors treat evidence relative to the way Italian jurors treat evidence. Some of us disagreed with you based on our impressions of both systems and, in my case at least, our experience as American jurors.

    You then demanded that we produce links to prove you wrong.

    I responded that the original assertion was yours and therefore the burden of proof was yours as well.

    This is a basic principle of law, debate and logic, because it is quite easy to construct claims which may be totally false yet cannot be disproven. Example: if I opine that there is sentient life on other planets and then insist my statement is true unless you can prove me wrong... Well, I'm sure you see the problem.

    ***

    I have no idea why this has anything to do with another poster citing a journalist's book or why you compared the two. But I wanted to set the record straight on the discussion to which I was a party.

Page 1 of 91 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1204
    Last Post: 10-03-2011, 11:48 PM
  2. Replies: 1063
    Last Post: 09-16-2011, 12:17 PM
  3. Replies: 1491
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 02:25 PM
  4. Replies: 1847
    Last Post: 07-22-2011, 06:28 PM
  5. Replies: 1093
    Last Post: 06-22-2011, 10:30 PM

Tags for this Thread