Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
fatal-gift-beauty-trials-amanda-knox-nina-burleigh-hardcover-cover-art.jpg


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.
 
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 :pillowfight:

Salem
 
"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
 
"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
 
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
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
...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.
 
I also think the questioning and sleuthing into RG is very good, as I haven't seen much of it at all since I've been around.

We should critically question everything because the investigators did a very poor job of it.

It could be totally possible that it's not RG's semen on the pillow and someone else killed MK and he did try to help her and got scared and ran. It's possible, (like big foot IMO but still needs to be looked at.)

I'm skeptical of the "informant" theory, but I do believe he was a professional burglar or on his way to it after losing his job and parents' support. People who knew him also catagorized him as a habitual liar. Because of this, I'm very slow to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
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.

In fairness, I suppose we should acknowledge that the NYT has been burned by journalists who invented sources, but on the whole, it sets the bar for standards in journalism. The Columbia School is one of the leading programs in the world.
 
On p 235 Burleigh gives account of the Reid technique of interrogation, which is 3 pronged and which she believes, due to her research with numerous homicide investigators and criminologists, was used on Ms. Knox.

The text also abounds with abundant and rich material on Guede, and several others. I must say, I cannot put it down....I am surprised that there are no court dates until next month??? Hence no new articles, so I read a book instead :( ....
 
I also think the questioning and sleuthing into RG is very good, as I haven't seen much of it at all since I've been around.

We should critically question everything because the investigators did a very poor job of it.

It could be totally possible that it's not RG's semen on the pillow and someone else killed MK and he did try to help her and got scared and ran. It's possible, (like big foot IMO but still needs to be looked at.)

I'm skeptical of the "informant" theory, but I do believe he was a professional burglar or on his way to it after losing his job and parents' support. People who knew him also catagorized him as a habitual liar. Because of this, I'm very slow to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Yes. In his Skype call, he mentioned also seeing MK's boyfriend from downstairs attacking her, so he was obviously trying to deflect from his own presence.

I find the drug informant theory very compelling, perhaps because my brother-in-law, whom I am close to, was for the past 15 years head of Narcotics (and also Homicide and major crimes) for a large NJ county Prosecutor's Office. Drug informants are indeed cut tons of slack, according to his word.
 
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.

I think salem was saying that it's okay to cite certain sources, but with the caveat understood by ALL WHO read that if it's not the "X,Y,Z" type of source, don't take it as fact without sleuthing of your own. I think it's impossible for every post to contain a vetting of every source, as we pull our memories from many sources to compose each and every sentence we type. if we cite things, the readers are welcome to look at the source and evaluate it for themselves. For example, in the political realm in the US, CNN is seen as a partisan joke for new political reporting. If you heard it from Rush Limbaugh, it's doubtful that progressives or democrats will give it much weight. There are people here who think you can't believe anything President Obama says, nor do they believe the Koran or the bible. So you can't please everyone with your source.

I don't think we can dismiss any source out of hand because they might prove some useful information. For example, that TJMK site, I think it's a joke personally, but I believe I wound up getting RG's italian MOT from there. Which brings me to my next point. The majority of our debates are rooted in information that has been translated to us by reporters, bloggers, and well-meaning sleuthers from other websites. So it's almost impossible to say that we even have the correct information or translation of something. I am very grateful that these people made the effort, but I have also heard that the PMF's verision of the MOT report contains some meaningful errors.

I'm not sure what you do in a case like ours, where EVEN THE POLICE leaked false information to the media, where even the forensic investigator withheld and then discounted her own findings (as to bloody footprints). So I think we can just do the best we can, judge sources for ourselves, but it's pointless to debate the sources. Esp since, as I've said, this case has bloggers who have more facts on it than the media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
742
Total visitors
823

Forum statistics

Threads
589,925
Messages
17,927,735
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top