WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

otto · Apr 3, 2011

Nova said:
Of course, "pro-guilt" applies to belief in the guilt of AK and RS, which is why I don't see your problem with the term. Nobody has ever suggested MK was in any way responsible for her own death; nor should they, IMHO.

It's certainly a more precise term than "pro-justice," which applies to everyone, regardless of their opinion on the verdicts. And more precise than "pro-conspiracy" with regards to ILE, since very few posters have argued such a conspiracy transpired.

This is beginning to feel like a shell game: no matter what term any of us use, you will define it literally and narrowly and complain the proper term is something else.

Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

Malkmus · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
Then why doesn't he put arrows on all the smeared blood that could be hand-markings?

Probably because they aren't all hand markings and aspirated blood drops? Maybe you should ask him? I can't believe there's this much discussion over the meaning of a couple arrows pointing at what an author is talking about.

Nova · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
The language barrier prevented them from discussing anything beyond pizza, but they both like sex and drugs. Raffaele was moving to Milan in mid-November and Amanda's one semester study period was ending in Dec. They could have been looking to deepen their communication - which was through a mutual interest in sex and drugs. Raffaele had prior hard drug use. It's conceivable they shut down the phones and decided to score some cocaine or other hard drugs in the square, bumped into Rudy, headed to the cottage and there they found Meredith. It's conceivable that they were getting loaded while Meredith wanted a quiet evening. It's conceivable that Amanda put Rudy up to getting Meredith in on the party, or coming on to her. It's conceivable that things went very wrong.

It's conceivable, but what I don't understand is why AK and RS didn't go directly to the police. In your scenario, they invite a guest to the cottage and encourage him to ask MK to join them, but they have no prior knowledge that RG will rape and kill MK. So maybe they felt guilty on some level, but so guilty they didn't notice that they hadn't caused the murder? So guilty it never occurred to them that in staging a break-in they were only making matters worse? So guilty it never occurred to them that cleaning up was tampering with evidence? I find all that a stretch (ETA particularly since RS had a close relative who worked for the police).

But I have to wonder, why do you hold such enmity toward AK? Is it only that she accused an innocent man (no small sin, I agree)? Because in your scenario, she doesn't really do much to MK but say to a mutual friend, "Let's do some hash and party!"

***

Re the language barrier, I'm glad you're letting AK order pizza now. But the fact is we don't know her precise level of fluency beyond that. We know it fell well short of perfect knowledge of Italian, but how far short we just don't know.

Malkmus · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

otto · Apr 3, 2011

Nova said:
No, you could just answer a simple question. Are you quoting Dr. S or are you deducing a conclusion based on his testimony?

I never argued that they ate 3 times. That was something you invented; quite honesty, I can't remember why, but I assume you believed something I said implied multiple dinners. It did not.

It's a can of worms and you know it as well as I. Dr Sollecito was interviewed, and there were a couple of hundred pages in his testimony. None of his testimony has been translated to English. The courts understood that the lovebirds had dinner, and when they did the after-dinner dishes the water leaked under the sink. That water spill was mentioned to Dr Sollecito during the 8:42 phone call. The lovebirds then left the puddle of water on the kitchen floor until the following day at noon. I know that you want to argue that the court's understanding was incorrect, that the water leak at 8:40 was unrelated to dinner, that they ate dinner some other time corresponding to Amanda's 9:30, 10 and 11 PM dinner times ... splashing around in the puddle while they cooked. Go for it ... we've had this discussion and I know your point of view. I assume you know mine.

Malkmus · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
The language barrier prevented them from discussing anything beyond pizza, but they both like sex and drugs. Raffaele was moving to Milan in mid-November and Amanda's one semester study period was ending in Dec. They could have been looking to deepen their communication - which was through a mutual interest in sex and drugs. Raffaele had prior hard drug use. It's conceivable they shut down the phones and decided to score some cocaine or other hard drugs in the square, bumped into Rudy, headed to the cottage and there they found Meredith. It's conceivable that they were getting loaded while Meredith wanted a quiet evening. It's conceivable that Amanda put Rudy up to getting Meredith in on the party, or coming on to her. It's conceivable that things went very wrong.

Yet, no evidence whatsoever of cocaine being involved in this crime.

otto · Apr 3, 2011

Malkmus said:
Probably because they aren't all hand markings and aspirated blood drops? Maybe you should ask him? I can't believe there's this much discussion over the meaning of a couple arrows pointing at what an author is talking about.

The big black arrows look very official, but they don't correspond to the direction of blood drops, and if they correspond to hand-prints, then I have to ask why the other bloody smudges are not also indicated with big black arrows. They too could be hand-prints. As it stands, the big black arrows have no consistent meaning.

Nova · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

Yes, and we all obliged you by moving on to other terms, terms you now find objectionable as well. This is why I asked you to provide an acceptable vocabulary for all of us.

SMK · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

Oh for god's sake---in this sense pro means "yes"---ok, "the Yes - They-Be -Guilty" or "the No-they-do not be guilty" --that is the terminology i will now use :sick:

otto · Apr 3, 2011

Malkmus said:
I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

Everyone wants to see guilty people prosecuted. Is everyone is "pro-guilt".

Nova · Apr 3, 2011

Malkmus said:
I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

Nor I. In all other threads I've seen, "pro-guilt" is understood to mean one believes in the guilt of the defendant or primary suspect.

otto and I have our differences at times, but nobody here has remotely implied that otto wants anything but justice in this case. If somebody were to do so, I believe there would be a mass uproar from both those who agree with otto and those of us who disagree.

otto · Apr 3, 2011

Malkmus said:
Yet, no evidence whatsoever of cocaine being involved in this crime.

No evidence of any hard drugs of any sort? Isn't cocaine out of the system in a couple of days? When was Knox tested for drugs? After she was arrested ... 5 days later?

SMK · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
Everyone wants to see guilty people prosecuted. Is everyone is "pro-guilt".

oh, this is silly---Pro can mean in this sense "belief in" -okie, you belong to the BIAK&RSG and I am in the BIAK&RSI (believers in their guilt versus believers in their innocence) or you can be in the BIPC versus DBIPC (believers in the prosecution case versus disbelievers in same)

Nova · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
It's a can of worms and you know it as well as I. Dr Sollecito was interviewed, and there were a couple of hundred pages in his testimony. None of his testimony has been translated to English. The courts understood that the lovebirds had dinner, and when they did the after-dinner dishes the water leaked under the sink. That water spill was mentioned to Dr Sollecito during the 8:42 phone call. The lovebirds then left the puddle of water on the kitchen floor until the following day at noon. I know that you want to argue that the court's understanding was incorrect, that the water leak at 8:40 was unrelated to dinner, that they ate dinner some other time corresponding to Amanda's 9:30, 10 and 11 PM dinner times ... splashing around in the puddle while they cooked. Go for it ... we've had this discussion and I know your point of view. I assume you know mine.

Are you confusing me with another poster? 'Cause I don't see the can of worms here.

Either Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was finished around 8:40 OR Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the leak and the Court assumed that meant dinner was finished. As I read the Motivation Report, it seems to be the latter.

There's not much I can do with hundreds of pages of untranslated testimony. I am working from the MR translation, but I find it odd that if Dr. S actually said RS said "dinner is over," the MR doesn't say so. Courts usually prefer direct testimony to circumstantial testimony; there would be no reason not to prevent both.

I have no opinion re the various times AK mentioned for dinner; I never argued for any one of them, much less all three.

But I do think it's important to distinguish between actual testimony and conclusions drawn from that testimony.

Nova · Apr 3, 2011

SMK said:
oh, this is silly---Pro can mean in this sense "belief in" -okie, you belong to the BIAK&RSG and I am in the BIAK&RSI (believers in their guilt versus believers in their innocence) or you can be in the BIPC versus DBIPC (believers in the prosecution case versus disbelievers in same)

I'm beginning to think otto doesn't actually care which terms we use. He merely wants to play word games and object to whatever terms we eventually adopt.

We might as well go back to "pro-guilt" and "pro-innocence." Everyone else seems to understand these terms perfectly well.

Malkmus · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
No evidence of any hard drugs of any sort? Isn't cocaine out of the system in a couple of days? When was Knox tested for drugs? After she was arrested ... 5 days later?

I'm sorry, was there somewhere in your post where you gave evidence that cocaine was used the night of the murder?

otto · Apr 3, 2011

Nova said:
Are you confusing me with another poster? 'Cause I don't see the can of worms here.

Either Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was finished around 8:40 OR Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the leak and the Court assumed that meant dinner was finished. As I read the Motivation Report, it seems to be the latter.

There's not much I can do with hundreds of pages of untranslated testimony. I am working from the MR translation, but I find it odd that if Dr. S actually said RS said "dinner is over," the MR doesn't say so. Courts usually prefer direct testimony to circumstantial testimony; there would be no reason not to prevent both.

I have no opinion re the various times AK mentioned for dinner; I never argued for any one of them, much less all three.

But I do think it's important to distinguish between actual testimony and conclusions drawn from that testimony.

Sure ... anything is possible. It's possible that Amanda and Raffaele poured water all over the kitchen floor, decided to just leave it there, and then they cooked a fish dinner - splashing around in the puddle. Why not. That must mean that they really did eat dinner at 9:30, 10 and again at 11.

Malkmus · Apr 3, 2011

Nova said:
I'm beginning to think otto doesn't actually care which terms we use. He merely wants to play word games and object to whatever terms we eventually adopt.

We might as well go back to "pro-guilt" and "pro-innocence." Everyone else seems to understand these terms perfectly well.

Yes, seems to be a lot of arguing for the sake of it today.

I'll talk to you guys later... Hope everyone had an enjoyable weekend!

Nova · Apr 3, 2011

otto said:
Sure ... anything is possible. It's possible that Amanda and Raffaele poured water all over the kitchen floor, decided to just leave it there, and then they cooked a fish dinner - splashing around in the puddle. Why not. That must mean that they really did eat dinner at 9:30, 10 and again at 11.

So I assume you are conceding that, as far as we know, Dr. S merely said RS spoke of water on the floor, not the actual time of eating.

That may mean that RS and AK ate earlier and discovered the leak after dinner, but it does not necessarily prove they did so, not in my experience.

otto · Apr 3, 2011

The link I provided below is the discussion we had about the dinner, the leak, the dinner time. The discussion follows for many pages. I see no reason whatsover to repeat the discussion.

Nova said:
"m saying I don't know. 3 and a half hours is certainly long enough to have a small meal and then eat again later. (Particularly with college-age people; I find them to have rather irregular eating habits.)

Did RS say to his father, "We have now eaten our entire dinner and will eat no more tonight"? I doubt it. I think it's far more likely RS said they had been cooking pasta and there was a leak. That would be a more believable conversation.

In the Court Report, the judge merely assumes the cooking mentioned at 8:30 pm represented all the cooking for the evening. It doesn't not quote RS or his father as saying so.

Lots of European countries eat dinner later than we do in the states. Dining out at 10 or 11 is not at all uncommon.

So I repeat: why is it assumed that cooking pasta at 8:30 means RS and AK couldn't have cooked and eaten a fish at 11?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125994&highlight=leak&page=10

WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

Verified Expert

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Verified Expert

New Member

Verified Expert

Well-Known Member

New Member

Verified Expert

Well-Known Member

Verified Expert

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Verified Expert

New Member

Well-Known Member

Verified Expert

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics