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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.



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

I take my hat off to you, otto! That discussion was more than 2 months ago and I had completely forgotten it.

Yes, I also questioned at one time whether AK and RS might have eaten more than once. As I'm sure you know, pasta isn't usually the main course in Italy as it is in America (or it wasn't when I was there 30 years ago). So in theory, it's possible that AK and RS had pasta at 8:30 and fish at 11.

One would have to ask them. I wonder if anybody did?

Nonetheless, my question today concerned the testimony of Dr. S. It wasn't a trap to go back and discuss the eating habits of Italians or college kids.

ETA: your post #238 on this page:

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


illustrates my point. You quote the MR as to the dinner times, but when it comes time to talk about Dr. S' testimony, YOU switch to your own voice to claim Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was over. You then continue to quote the MR, but the MR merely says Dr. S claimed RS mentioned a leak and then the MR deduces that dinner was over. I have questioned that deduction; it is an opinion, but far from a fact.
 
I'm sorry, was there somewhere in your post where you gave evidence that cocaine was used the night of the murder?

I think there are several uses of the word "conceivable".
 
I take my hat off to you, otto! That discussion was more than 2 months ago and I had completely forgotten it.

Yes, I also questioned at one time whether AK and RS might have eaten more than once. As I'm sure you know, pasta isn't usually the main course in Italy as it is in America (or it wasn't when I was there 30 years ago). So in theory, it's possible that AK and RS had pasta at 8:30 and fish at 11.

One would have to ask them. I wonder if anybody did?

Nonetheless, my question today concerned the testimony of Dr. S. It wasn't a trap to go back and discuss the eating habits of Italians or college kids.

It's just that we've had this discussion, and debated everything from the time of dinner to why police believe that occurred prior to the water leak. You stand steadfast in the belief that because this detail is implied, and not specified, dinner could have been later in the evening. I stand steadfast in the court's interpretation that dinner occurred prior to the leak. We've both presented our reasoning for our opinions ... and we've walked away standing by our original beliefs. Rehashing the discussion will not result in a different conclusion and therefore I see no reason to re-visit this can of worms.
 
Otto---Since before you had told me to check out the Wikipedia cabal discussion, I wanted you to see what one of the editors has said, aptly (this is from an article I did last week):

All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.”

This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

If a Wikipedia reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.
From, "Some thoughts upon coming back to Wikipedia".
http://www.*********.com/contributed-news/8583113-some-internet-forums-hostile-regarding-wikipedia-founders-review-of-knox-material
 
It's just that we've had this discussion, and debated everything from the time of dinner to why police believe that occurred prior to the water leak. You stand steadfast in the belief that because this detail is implied, and not specified, dinner could have been later in the evening. I stand steadfast in the court's interpretation that dinner occurred prior to the leak. We've both presented our reasoning for our opinions ... and we've walked away standing by our original beliefs. Rehashing the discussion will not result in a different conclusion and therefore I see no reason to re-visit this can of worms.

We can certainly agree to disagree as to what the evidence implies, otto. (FWIW, I readily admit there may be something in the original, untranslated Italian testimony of Dr. S that makes the Court's deduction more probable. For purposes of discussion, however, I can only work with the translations we have.)

But when either of us takes our deduction (or even the Court's deduction) and presents it as actual testimony, we should expect others to object.
 
Otto---Since before you had told me to check out the Wikipedia cabal discussion, I wanted you to see what one of the editors has said, aptly (this is from an article I did last week):

All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.”

This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

If a Wikipedia reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.
From, "Some thoughts upon coming back to Wikipedia".
http://www.*********.com/contributed-news/8583113-some-internet-forums-hostile-regarding-wikipedia-founders-review-of-knox-material

I followed the changes to the wiki article for about a week, and then completely lost interest. Wiki is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, but the Meredith Kercher article has turned into another war of wills where some want every single aspect of the case mentioned and debated on the online encyclopedia. Last I heard, there were something like 45 topics in the article ... they may as well publish another book. The Italian wiki article is still intact, and describes the case in very general terms ... which is what one would expect from an encyclopedia.
 
I followed the changes to the wiki article for about a week, and then completely lost interest. Wiki is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, but the Meredith Kercher article has turned into another war of wills where some want every single aspect of the case mentioned and debated on the online encyclopedia. Last I heard, there were something like 45 topics in the article ... they may as well publish another book. The Italian wiki article is still intact, and describes the case in very general terms ... which is what one would expect from an encyclopedia.
I was asking your opinion on what the good gentleman editor hath said. :(
 
We can certainly agree to disagree as to what the evidence implies, otto. (FWIW, I readily admit there may be something in the original, untranslated Italian testimony of Dr. S that makes the Court's deduction more probable. For purposes of discussion, however, I can only work with the translations we have.)

But when either of us takes our deduction (or even the Court's deduction) and presents it as actual testimony, we should expect others to object.

This is what is included in the Judges summary, and why I believe, as fact, that the pair ate dinner at about 8:30 prior to the water leak:

"She also had to get a mop, because the evening before, Raffaele, after dinner, had spilled water from the sink and was not able to clean it up." (pg 65)

"Raffaele, after having eaten, had washed the dishes, but a break in the pipes had occurred under the sink. And water was leaking, with flooding on the floor. Since they didn’t have a mop, they decided that they would do the cleaning the next day with a mop that she could get from her house." (pg 67)

"They ate dinner, ‚but very late‛ (page 77). They ate fish and salad. Then, while Raffaele was washing the dishes, from the sink, a leak was noticed: ‚water was leaking below and he looked at it; he turned off the water and then looked below the sink, and this pipe had become loose, so the water that was coming from the faucet was leaking out.‛ (page 77)." (pg 69)

"Returning to the episode of the water leaking from the sink of Raffaele’s house, she stated that that (leak) had happened after dinner" (pg 73)

"Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill" (p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink." (pg 78)

"He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor&#8219;, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)." (pg 63)
 
I was asking your opinion on what the good gentleman editor hath said. :(

I don't think the debate about whether the verdicts were just has any place in an encyclopedia at this stage of the game. The court of first instance has declared the three to be guilty. Rudy's appeals are complete. Amanda and Raffaele are in the middle of their appeals. I don't think it's relevant that some people think the verdicts were given in error. After the appeal, we will know whether there were mistakes. At that time, the verdicts could in fact be overturned. The encyclopedia could then include a clause about two people being convicted but new interpretations of the evidence overturned the verdicts. Dragging an encyclopedia article through the debate seems a bit ridiculous to me. I see no reason for the information to be updated hourly or even daily or weekly. The highlights should be covered, not the arguments about whether Barbie Nadeau's book is credible. Candace Dempsey even jumped into the mud and started spouting off all her credentials. The article is a mess ... and it shouldn't be.

Many issues are controversial, but it is not necessary to inject the controversy into the encyclopedia.

ETA: "credentialed experts" in the wiki article refers to people like Hendry ... people that were not there, did not visit the crime scene, did not examine the evidence, and who do not have any type of credentials that can be verified ... that much is pointed out in the debate.
 
I don't think the debate about whether the verdicts were just has any place in an encyclopedia at this stage of the game. The court of first instance has declared the three to be guilty. Rudy's appeals are complete. Amanda and Raffaele are in the middle of their appeals. I don't think it's relevant that some people think the verdicts were given in error. After the appeal, we will know whether there were mistakes. At that time, the verdicts could in fact be overturned. The encyclopedia could then include a clause about two people being convicted but new interpretations of the evidence overturned the verdicts. Dragging an encyclopedia article through the debate seems a bit ridiculous to me. I see no reason for the information to be updated hourly or even daily or weekly. The highlights should be covered, not the arguments about whether Barbie Nadeau's book is credible. Candace Dempsey even jumped into the mud and started spouting off all her credentials. The article is a mess ... and it shouldn't be.

Many issues are controversial, but it is not necessary to inject the controversy into the encyclopedia.

ETA: "credentialed experts" in the wiki article refers to people like Hendry ... people that were not there, did not visit the crime scene, did not examine the evidence, and who do not have any type of credentials that can be verified ... that much is pointed out in the debate.
:mad::mad::mad:
 
This is what is included in the Judges summary, and why I believe, as fact, that the pair ate dinner at about 8:30 prior to the water leak:

"She also had to get a mop, because the evening before, Raffaele, after dinner, had spilled water from the sink and was not able to clean it up." (pg 65)

"Raffaele, after having eaten, had washed the dishes, but a break in the pipes had occurred under the sink. And water was leaking, with flooding on the floor. Since they didn&#8217;t have a mop, they decided that they would do the cleaning the next day with a mop that she could get from her house." (pg 67)

"They ate dinner, &#8218;but very late&#8219; (page 77). They ate fish and salad. Then, while Raffaele was washing the dishes, from the sink, a leak was noticed: &#8218;water was leaking below and he looked at it; he turned off the water and then looked below the sink, and this pipe had become loose, so the water that was coming from the faucet was leaking out.&#8219; (page 77)." (pg 69)

"Returning to the episode of the water leaking from the sink of Raffaele&#8217;s house, she stated that that (leak) had happened after dinner" (pg 73)

"Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill"(p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink." (pg 78)

"He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor&#8219;, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)." (pg 63)

Thank you, otto. But only one of those references specifically mentions the leak with reference to dinner. (The others start with the mention that the leak was noticed while washing dinner and then assume that must have been after dinner.) The bolded reference from page 73 claims "she" testified that they noticed the link "after dinner", so perhaps they did and all eating ended by 8:40 or so. I'm assuming the "she" in question is AK.

I'm not entirely convinced, simply because I don't have a context for what exactly she said, what she thought she was saying, when she said it or why. HOWEVER, I understand why you consider the matter settled and, unless something else comes to light, I'll stop challenging you on the subject.

Thanks for the clarification.
 

What are you trying to say .. that because people that follow the case are divided on the verdict it is important to recognize the controversy, or important to include the controversy in an encyclopedia.
 
Thank you, otto. But only one of those references specifically mentions the leak with reference to dinner. (The others start with the mention that the leak was noticed while washing dinner and then assume that must have been after dinner.) The bolded reference from page 73 claims "she" testified that they noticed the link "after dinner", so perhaps they did and all eating ended by 8:40 or so. I'm assuming the "she" in question is AK.

I'm not entirely convinced, simply because I don't have a context for what exactly she said, what she thought she was saying, when she said it or why. HOWEVER, I understand why you consider the matter settled and, unless something else comes to light, I'll stop challenging you on the subject.

Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, when I read the references I posted, I think all but the a couple mention the leak without mentioning dinner. The courts clearly conclude that dinner was before the leak.

I gave the page references so you are most welcome to read the context ... a context that clearly places the leak after doing the dinner dishes. Here's the document: http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

I know that you don't want to believe this, and have said that you don't put much faith in the Judge's summary ... but that is not a reason to conclude that I am making things up. I am stating documented facts and referencing them. That you do not want to accept or believe those documented, referenced facts is not a reflection of my accuracy, but an indication of your skepticism.
 
What are you trying to say .. that because people that follow the case are divided on the verdict it is important to recognize the controversy, or important to include the controversy in an encyclopedia.
Both. :( and Wikipedia is no ordinary encyclopedia--it is very newsy, trendy, almost tabloid-like. Why should they be surprised at Bruce Fisher's demands. Within their purview, he has rights. I certainly concede his right to have the controversy highlighted. Wikipedia is as many venues a mile wide and an inch deep. Of course the editor spoke rightly. :coffeews::waiting::nono:
 
Both. :( and Wikipedia is no ordinary encyclopedia--it is very newsy, trendy, almost tabloid-like. Why should they be surprised at Bruce Fisher's demands. Within their purview, he has rights. I certainly concede his right to have the controversy highlighted. Wikipedia is as many venues a mile wide and an inch deep. Of course the editor spoke rightly. :coffeews::waiting::nono:

That's an interesting perspective. I would agree insofar that the English language Meredith Kercher wiki article is like a tabloid at this time. Two weeks ago it was a normal condensed overview of the case ... nothing about the uncertain controversy (it is under appeal ... which should suffice for an encyclopedia entry). When researching architectural history, wikipedia functions like a traditional encyclopedia. I think that was the intent with wikipedia ... but the recent fiasco with this murder of a British woman in Italy has made wiki look like a bunch of circus clowns yelling "I'm right!".
 
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.

Dempsey carefully documents the conversations that Amanda initiated with Meredith, and also with Laura and Filomina, about whether she was cheating on DJ. She raised the issue after she was seeing Raffaele (and another guy while she was seeing Raffaele), saying that she felt guilty because of DJ. DJ, on the other hand, said they'd split up. Amanda agreed and knew this ... so why did she repeatedly raise the issue about monogamy in relationships. Meredith did not judge, but was in favor of monogamy ... something that Amanda tried to justify breaking (with reference to DJ). That strikes me as weird. Amanda knew perfectly well that she and DJ were not an item, so why did she talk about feeling guilty with DJ and cheating on her non-boyfriend?

Thinking out loud ...

Meredith disagreed with Amanda's loose and carefree attitude towards men. Amanda was quite comfortable lying to police and accusing an innocent man of murder. She's a bold woman. After scoring hard drugs in the square with Rudy, and the three of them getting loaded while Meredith is settling in for the night ... how do we know that Amanda didn't think it would be a good drugged up idea for Rudy to think that Meredith had the hots for him? How do we know that Rudy didn't wander down the hall to Meredith's bedroom, thinking he would get lucky, while Amanda and Raffaele listened or even snickered in the kitchen. Perhaps, when things went wrong, Amanda and Raffaele went to the bedroom and realized that things were already out of hand with Meredith ... that is, she was not going to let this go.

I don't like Amanda because she is not a very nice person. She's a liar. I don't like people like that ... I find them to be a waste of time and mental energy. She put an innocent man in jail and then remained silent for two weeks, at which time he was freed without a word from her. That makes her a liar of the worst kind. I also don't like her because she takes advantage of people, as we saw with her uncle in Berlin. I see her as an opportunist who thinks she's smarter than everyone else, someone that will exploit people if it suits her.

According to Dempsey, other than ordering pizza, Amanda couldn't speak Italian. Raffaele couldn't speak English.
 
The one where three people who had at most known each other less than a week conspire to kill a girl together out of lust? That's the only conspiracy I see. Otherwise, there's the well-documented incompetence on the part of police that led to what is probably two wrongful convictions, and is much more common in every part of the world. But that's just bad police work, I don't think they were smart enough to conspire against anyone.

Moreso the scenario where Amanda and Raffaele go to the square to score some hard drugs and they meet with Rudy. Perhaps he has to go somewhere else to get what they want, and the lovebirds wait in the basketball court. Perhaps they all go to the cottage to do drugs ... that is where Amanda was quite familiar with drug abuse. Perhaps the lovebirds, moreso Amanda, put Rudy up to a trist with Merdith ... suggesting that she would be up for it.

We are talking about two lovebirds that have nothing in common beyond sex and drugs. Who is to say that they didn't attempt to deepen their affection for each other with better drugs and an evening of fun ... and things got really out of hand.
 
Did Dr. S actually say that, otto? Because my memory is that the Motivation Report holds that Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the spilled water at 8:40ish, and then the Report deduces that dinner was concluded by that time. That was one of the leaps in the MR that made me go, "Huh?"

You are right. The report deduces that dinner occurred prior to the leak.

8:42, Raffaele told his father that the pipe was leaking.
Amanda told police that they ate dinner and the leak occurred while doing dinner dishes.
Deductively, those two pieces of information mean that they had dinner before 8:42.
 
That's an interesting perspective. I would agree insofar that the English language Meredith Kercher wiki article is like a tabloid at this time. Two weeks ago it was a normal condensed overview of the case ... nothing about the uncertain controversy (it is under appeal ... which should suffice for an encyclopedia entry). When researching architectural history, wikipedia functions like a traditional encyclopedia. I think that was the intent with wikipedia ... but the recent fiasco with this murder of a British woman in Italy has made wiki look like a bunch of circus clowns yelling "I'm right!".
that is assuming the controversy has no objective valididty :snooty::snooty::snooty:
 
After scoring hard drugs in the square with Rudy, and the three of them getting loaded while Meredith is settling in for the night ... how do we know that Amanda didn't think it would be a good drugged up idea for Rudy to think that Meredith had the hots for him? How do we know that Rudy didn't wander down the hall to Meredith's bedroom, thinking he would get lucky, while Amanda and Raffaele listened or even snickered in the kitchen. Perhaps, when things went wrong, Amanda and Raffaele went to the bedroom and realized that things were already out of hand with Meredith ... that is, she was not going to let this go.
If Rudy wandered down the hall thinking to score with Meredith, and she protested, it would seem an extreme thing to me to begin threatening her with a knife. And that would then be Rudy's responsibility. Would not really be Amanda and Raffaele in trouble, but Rudy. To join in at that point would be a huge and sudden escalation. I have always had more of an intuition that possibly Amanda and Raffaele had suggested to Rudy that he go rob Meredith because no one was home (I recall Rudy had been saying he needed rent money). They may have just been talking; maybe feeling annoyed with M. Then went to check on things later that night, saw what had occurred, and felt that to call the police now would only bring to light that they had opened the door to all. In reality, if such occurred, far better to come clean and let all point to the actual perpetrator. But imagine trying to explain to authorities and parents that you had suggested to this casual drug acquaintance Rudy that he go in there? And they may have imagined a caught Rudy saying, "Well it began when A and R told me I should go in, because the cottage would be empty." Of course, we don't know that any of this happened. It is only a nagging intuition. That scenario is as far as my mind goes when I try to picture that maybe AK and RS are not completely innocent or ignorant in all of this. I can never see the 3 of them attacking Meredith as real - unless they really were in a horrid, horrid fight with M, and M had been harsh and nasty and cruel and had gotten them enraged. But that does not sound like M, from all accounts I have heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
2,160
Total visitors
2,329

Forum statistics

Threads
589,968
Messages
17,928,464
Members
228,024
Latest member
anniegirl401
Back
Top