XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - June 19, 10

Moderators: Skeptical Bystander, Fly by Night

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby piktor » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:40 pm

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:piktor:
On St. Pat's Day, a riddle: Who is the guilter, who's the creeping falsehood?


hmm.. guilter.. creeping falsehood... guilter

Great painting again! Where is the volcano? and what is the structure infront of it? Is there an airport back there?


It's right outside my window. The structure is a cellphone tower.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=19.02284 ... &t=h&hl=en

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&s ... a&gs_rfai=
User avatar
piktor
 
Posts: 4209
Images: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Macport » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:48 pm

piktor wrote:It's right outside my window. The structure is a cellphone tower.

We live in a beautiful world. Thank you for sharing.
User avatar
Macport
 
Posts: 774
Images: 105
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Western USA

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby SomeAlibi » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:48 pm

stilicho wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:An excellent analysis of motivation and intent, Giglio. Your last paragraph sums the situation up nicely and flies directly in the face of Entourage Repetetive Repulsive Obtuse Rhetoric (ERROR).


I'm not going to post a link but there are several regarding the use and meaning of alibis, too. The gist of it is that there is a qualitative strength of an alibi (from the Latin word "somewhere else" just as the English "alias" is from the Latin word "someone else"). The strength of the alibi becomes essential to establishing the basis for further investigation.

Roughly, the strength of the alibi is based on how connected the person or instrument is to the suspect and the ease in which the evidence may be tampered with.

In the case of AK and RS, and because they had no credible alibi otherwise, they chose each other as their alibi. This is a rookie mistake that most experienced criminals who work in concert rarely make. The alibi is weak to begin with because each person is literally connected intimately with the other. Contrast their alibis with those of Mr Lumumba. His alibi was a combination of a till receipt, the hours of operation of his business, and an acquaintance who was not a blood relative or otherwise personally affected by the suspect's actions.

There's more, too. Once the pair were questioned separately, their weak alibis turned into no alibi. This is part of the purpose of a police interview. The alibi is either strengthened or weakened by investigation.

Again, a contrast with Mr Lumumba is in order. He was questioned and his alibis were noted. They were pursued. The evidence from his business was neither strengthened nor weakened but the unconnected acquaintance was later tracked down and confirmed independently Mr Lumumba's claim of being somewhere else.

RS and AK chose essentially to retract their alibis once inconsistencies began to appear. Hence all the documentation and testimony from their pens or their lips refer only to vague visions or hash-clouded memories. That's one of the reasons I never would have allowed AK to take the stand in her own defence and claim no alibi. I just don't think she knew how bad that comes across. But, as has been argued here, it probably wasn't her lawyers' idea. Another reason to trust your lawyers explicitly before you enter a courtroom.

I could find some *.edu sites that explain alibis thoroughly in case anyone's interested but you can locate them fairly easily just by Googling.



The first rule of alibis is that they should be true which is the essential qualitative difference comes between AK+RS and Patrick :)

Having said that, AK and RS didn't have much option about which story to tell and they were inherently weakened by a number of factors, none of which are new, but when you lay them out one after another, you can see why they were in such trouble on the subject of alibis:

1) The crime wasn't pre-meditated according to the court, so they had no time to set up a well rehearsed story.

2) The murder took place at night in Amanda's own flat so she had nowhere she could "be" in her alibi - she couldn't have "gone for her walk" for all of that time in the winter evening, "gone for a drive" (they couldn't be sure witnesses wouldn't have placed the car still in Perugia) or have been in a public place (because she wasn't). Ergo, the boyfriend's flat is pretty much the only option that's possible.

3) Whatever their pre-existing character defects (and I am consistently amazed at the really quite frequent strong fantastical elements to all 3 of their writings which are just really *odd*), the magnitude of what they did that night would have utterly thrown their logical thought processes. (Anyone who has been involved in a trauma accident / very high stress event / suffering from severe grief / depression may have experienced this). Therefore the quality of their thinking in setting up the alibi at the flat would have been low and ill-thought through, hence the "we can't remember anything at all because we were stoned" - a move of desperation to try and keep the examinable detail level of the alibi low since they knew they wouldn't be able to sustain the story.

4) They were interrupted by the postal police while they had returned to complete the clean-up and hadn't finished rounding off their story making the likelihood of holes larger. We can see the later extensive email home written in the middle of the night / early morning is Amanda trying to get a highly detailed version down to try and cover off all the minutiae that by that time she had started realising she was going to have to provide. The timing of that email shows how worried she is, trying to work away at the alibi in the dead of night before the morning brings the chance of more direct police interrogation.

5) They had been up late cleaning up really quite comprehensively (sorry Donnie) and then got up again at 5.30am on very little to no sleep to start the process again. (Computer activity / bombed out faces in the photos) so they would have been operating with tired brains when starting to relate the alibi. Not tactically a good place to be at.

6) When the police were questioning them outside the apartment, it looks to me like Amanda is "over-explaining" from the photo of her active hands (mirrored interestingly in the More4 documentary a couple of years later by Edda when questioned about the first phonecall by Amanda and can't hold eye contact or keep her hands still). "Over-explaining" is a sure tell to good police and lawyers. People in their situation should have been highly shocked and their explanations would have trailed off in the middle of sentences / would have burst into tears at seemingly random moments / would have got upset or illogically focused on tiny details. She's explaining too much about her and not relating enough about Meredith. From that moment on, the police instincts would have been quivering. I'd put a £100 on the first time one of the police said to another "I think she might have done it" was on the first day.

7) They had no experience and got a proper police questioning where repeated questions blow holes in the consistency of a made up alibi even with experienced criminals. Cross-examination by an unsympathetic female officer who already knew instinctively that Amanda had been involved would have been a very very tough experience psychologically. Almost no-one can withstand it when they are on foundations of sand. The atmosphere in a room where a client's alibi has just given way or been thoroughly shown up is something I've experienced many times. It's almost pheremonal in quality and excruciatingly uncomfortable because the logical conversation continues to be conducted at one level but the animal instincts in the people are communicating non-verbally but very powerfully "I know you are lying and you know I know" and the acknowledgement of the subject is just *there*.

8) They were traumatised by what they had done (AK hands on ears and shaking when shown the knife draw) and recognised they simply had not done enough homework to carry off a convincing explanation. They knew they weren't being convincing hence some of the very early desperation (starting, I believe, with the first "unremembered" phonecall to Edda which Edda now can't speak plainly about whatever happened in it, nor will Amanda recognise it happened - either because she knew she was being taped in jail (probable) and / or that she simply can't 'go there' with her mother because of whatever it was she actually said). No, they knew they were not credible and in a hopeless position, therefore the 'gift' of the written explanation AK, the 'bullshit' stories admitted to by Raffaele, and maybe the 'it's stupid I was there' comment to Edda. Right up until legal counsel stopped them.

9) They then played a little virtual mexican stand-off with each other with some media-reported thinly veiled threats to blow the other up if they didn't continue to support the core alibi. I often wonder now if Chris Mellas is doing the web stuff for Family Raffy on the basis that you keep your friends close but your (potential) enemies closer. The alibis crumbled further in this period.

10) And for a nice round 10), back to the beginning, there wasn't an alibi - there were several and they were inconsistent and mutating. And if the best alibi is the true one, then the worst one is the one that doesn't stand up and you keep on changing.

So even when making my initial posts here (as FOA :P) I'd already chosen my nick precisely because I could see, even with much less knowledge of the case at that point, that they had, to use a bit of London vernacular, totally, comprehensively and permanently stuffed their alibis up already.
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
User avatar
SomeAlibi
 
Posts: 2961
Images: 336
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby SomeAlibi » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:56 pm

After which lengthy splurt (sorry it just came out that way), this Alibi is going to stuff a sock in it ;) . Goodnight!
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
User avatar
SomeAlibi
 
Posts: 2961
Images: 336
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Macport » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:00 pm

Great stuff SomeAlibi. I'm getting that feeling when you stand next to railway tracks and the train is a ways off but the ground under you starts to pulse a little - before the rumble and the roar of the arrival.
User avatar
Macport
 
Posts: 774
Images: 105
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Western USA

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:04 pm

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:piktor:
On St. Pat's Day, a riddle: Who is the guilter, who's the creeping falsehood?


hmm.. guilter.. creeping falsehood... guilter

Great painting again! Where is the volcano? and what is the structure infront of it? Is there an airport back there?



I remain undecided about the creeping falsehood. Totally on the fence.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13446
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby piktor » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:39 pm

Macport wrote:
piktor wrote:It's right outside my window. The structure is a cellphone tower.

We live in a beautiful world. Thank you for sharing.


You are welcome. The photo was taken yesterday, March 16, at dawn.


[center]Image[/center]

Full size: http://s85.photobucket.com/albums/k70/r ... mar17c.jpg
Last edited by piktor on Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
piktor
 
Posts: 4209
Images: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby mortytoad » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:48 am

Thank you, Katsgalore! Happy Saint Patrick's day everyone!
User avatar
mortytoad
 
Posts: 383
Images: 26
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby smacker » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:56 am

SomeAlibi,

That's as interesting a summary of a critical part of the case as I've read. I understand the compelling nature of the evidence against AK and RS and also understood the flaky nature of the alibis too, but to have the Police's thought process added in and how they decided to approach AK and RS and pull the alibis apart is brilliant.
User avatar
smacker
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: The King's Head, SW17

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Yummi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:14 am

Posts by stilicho and SomeAlibi were really valuable.

Also Giglio on motivation and intent.

More about what SomeAlibi said on the defective alibi and early police suspicion,
I think even most our commenters with the best knoledge of the case here still don't know in fact *how* early the police suspicion started. The first element of suspicion was before any alibi and before any knowledge of Amanda, it was felt by the Carabinieri on the first phone call by Raffaele Sollecito. That's why an officer phoned him back in a couple of minutes.
Raffaele Sollecito told the Carabinieri he just found a broken glass in someone else's house, and nothing had been stolen. The officer phoned him back and put the question in a more provocative form: "Tell me what was stolen". Again, Raffaele reassured them than nothing had been stolen.
Raffaele evidently realized the mistake after the end of the phone call, annd he started changing his story in that very moment.

I am saying the first thing not adding up was Sollecito's behaviour, not Amanda's.
As the Postal Police arrived - few minutes later - in fact Sollecito apparently reduced the amount of his previous knowledge of the crime, he declared was convinced that a theft had been committed ad expresses his surprise in discovering - at the presence of the postal police officers - that several valuable items were apparently still there in the room...

The police took note of their lying from the beginning, and the beginner was not Amanda.
But this, the American public will never know....
"Hay derrotas que tienen más dignidad que una victoria"
Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Yummi
 
Posts: 1933
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: by an earthquake epicenter

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Zopi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:29 am

piktor wrote:[center]On St. Pat's Day, a riddle: Who is the guilter, who's the creeping falsehood?[/center]

[center](Picture)[/center]

[center]oil on paper, background: early morning view of volcano[/center]


NICE!! Popocatépetl?
User avatar
Zopi
 
Posts: 481
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Zopi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:32 am

bilko wrote:I take the points regarding the Kecher family, but I reserve the right to object to the tone of some of those attacking those who have a different perspective. Anyway, it St. Patrick's Day and I've got dance tickets to sell!


General, I would normally agree with you, but not for 'undecided', I decided not to try to help when (s)he said that AK did not 'accuse' PL!

Have a nice St. Patrick's Day! :-)
User avatar
Zopi
 
Posts: 481
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby piktor » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:33 am

Zopi wrote:NICE!! Popocatépetl?


Yes!
User avatar
piktor
 
Posts: 4209
Images: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Zopi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:39 am

Yummi wrote:Posts by stilicho and SomeAlibi were really valuable.

Also Giglio on motivation and intent.

More about what SomeAlibi said on the defective alibi and early police suspicion,
I think even most our commenters with the best knoledge of the case here still don't know in fact *how* early the police suspicion started. The first element of suspicion was before any alibi and before any knowledge of Amanda, it was felt by the Carabinieri on the first phone call by Raffaele Sollecito. That's why an officer phoned him back in a couple of minutes.
Raffaele Sollecito told the Carabinieri he just found a broken glass in someone else's house, and nothing had been stolen. The officer phoned him back and put the question in a more provocative form: "Tell me what was stolen". Again, Raffaele reassured them than nothing had been stolen.
Raffaele evidently realized the mistake after the end of the phone call, annd he started changing his story in that very moment.

I am saying the first thing not adding up was Sollecito's behaviour, not Amanda's.
As the Postal Police arrived - few minutes later - in fact Sollecito apparently reduced the amount of his previous knowledge of the crime, he declared was convinced that a theft had been committed ad expresses his surprise in discovering - at the presence of the postal police officers - that several valuable items were apparently still there in the room...

The police took note of their lying from the beginning, and the beginner was not Amanda.
But this, the American public will never know....


Ah! fascinating! yes what an 'acto fallido'!

SomeAlibi, ita, but I think they did not sleep at all that night, I believe the human interaction early in the morning was them coming back from the cottage after cleaning, as they did it at night they needed the lamp probably trying not to turn on the lights of the house, and at night it is difficult to see all the details.
User avatar
Zopi
 
Posts: 481
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Zopi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:43 am

piktor wrote:
Zopi wrote:NICE!! Popocatépetl?


Yes!


Ah! don Goyo y su mujer dormida :-)

gracias por los lindos recuerdos.
User avatar
Zopi
 
Posts: 481
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Zopi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:10 am

Giglio wrote:A - long - comment on MOTIVE and INTENT

Quite a few comments have referred to Amanda and Rafaelles lack of apparent motive as a profound reason to be skeptic towards the possibility of their guilt in the murder of Meredith. Also one of Barbies lates in the Daily Beast touches upon that subject.

‘Motive’ and ‘intent’ are often are mixed up. In criminal law ‘intent’ means if the offender purposefully committed a criminal act, while ‘motive’ is the reason that moves people to induce a crime. So a motive describes the reasons in the accused's background and position in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.

When seeking a motive for the murder of Meredith, it is sometimes mentioned as significant that Amanda and Rafaelle (supposedly) brought a knife from his apartment to the cottage. This is in fact a muddle up of ‘motive’ and ‘intent’: bringing a knife to a meeting can be regarded as an intent to kill (depending upon circumstances), though this has nothing to do with establishing a motive. (I could suggest that the knife was brought by Raffaele to the cottage either as common prop or together with some mushrooms; then in such circumstances the knife would not be evidence of an intent to kill, but demonstrate intent to fix a hallucinogenic meal).

Generally speaking, motive requires the presence of intent. If an individual does not intend to commit a criminal act, then an inquiry into his or her internal motivations for doing so is unnecessary. The reverse is also true: The presence of intent necessarily implies motive. If an individual commits an act with purpose, then there is likely to be an explanation for that purpose. Thus, the question regarding intent is merely one of presence or absence. The study of motive, however, is more nuanced. Motive is a latent variable in that it cannot be directly observed.

For example, motives can be either ‘instrumental’ or ‘expressive’. The former are those that are directed at some goal, including financial gain, political advantage, or the elimination of an adversary. In contrast, expressive motives are those in which the expression of anger or other emotions is paramount. Expressive motives include such things as jealousy, sexual gratification, and revenge. Similarly, motives can also be grouped according to crime type. For example, the types of motive one would expect to find underlying a murder are likely to be very different from the motives one would expect to underlie embezzlement.

Motives can play different roles in a crime. For example, if an individual whose longstanding motive of financial gain guides a premeditated murder, this murder might reveal different crime behaviours and leave different patterns of crime scene evidence, than an individual who, also motivated by financial gain, but kills someone in a heated dispute over a loan. The difference between these two crimes lies not in the specific motives, these are identical, but in the role that the motive plays in the development of the crime. In the first case, the motive appears much earlier in time and guides the offender to plan and execute the crime. In the second case, the motive arises more spontaneously and results in a more impulsive execution of the crime.

A motive is often taken to be the key to solving a crime; it is like a script, it provides insight into the whole scenario of the crime: it reveals relations between persons, not only the victim and the accused, but also the social context of their actions, the culture, the dynamics of the crime (what happened when X did this, the timing of actions, etc.). Likewise motives play an important part in criminal trials in order to make plausible the reasons the accused may have for committing this crime. The motive is like the crux of the narrative whichis construced to reason the crime.

I my perspective it is very important to remember that it is the members of the jury that must make sense of a motive – the crime hase to be plausible for jurymembers. It is not FBI, the prosecutor, the defense nor the judge who finally has to make sense of the crime and to determine if the motive is present and strong enough to reason murder.

To put it otherwise: a motive is something we construct in order to make sense of a crime, with regard to homicide, there is a paradox embedded in the role of motive. Assignment of motive depends upon the framework of the observer, meaning that every single member of the jury must make sense of things in their own terms. Jury members are selected as such because they are ‘fellow human beings’, not members of a particula profesion; they are ‘lay persons’ and by then suspected to bring ‘everyday common sense’ to court. On the other hand, homicide is an extreme act, so ‘common sense’ is far away; homicide is basically beyond your common everyday understanding and understanding requires ability to make sense in another way than captured by everyday reasoning.

Many investigators finds that establishing the motive is the crux of a case, despite proving motive its not being a formal element of a trial. The importance assigned to the motive rests on the assumption that crimes are committed purposefully, which is not always the case; apparent when motives take form as ‘psychopathy’ or ‘depravity’, which is a sort of categories for explaining the unexplainable. And although the presence of intent implies that there is an underlying motive, it is not necessarily so that researchers, interviewers, or even the offender herself, will be able to accurately identify that motive.

Often motives are threaten motives as clear and separate entities, whereas in reality motives may be quite complex and changeable over even short periods of time. Often motives are understood as a mental feature embedded in the person, for example, sexual compulsion, or depravity, but as the above list indicates that often motives is often better understood as situated actions. Clearly this regard motives like team chemistry, gang pressure, and self-defence is situated actions, but so is also misplaced mercy, rivalry, delusions, following order, and most of the rest.

More complicated: an offender can set out to commit one crime and in the course of that crime develops a clear intent to commit a second crime. For example, an offender might decide to break into a home to steal property, and on entering the home, he discovers that there is a woman sleeping in one of the bedrooms. Rather than leave with the property he has acquired, he decides to sexually assault the woman. In this scenario, although the offender arrives at the house to commit one type of offence, he later forms the intent to commit the second crime. Here the offender commits two separate sets of criminal behaviours, which can have two different motives.

Based on the indictment papers (the Micheli report) we can assume that ‘team chemistry’ is regarded by the prosecution as the dominant motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher, and this is echoed in the March 4, 2010, 427p-reasoning. As this is profoundly a situational motive, then testimonies about Amandas and Rafaelles personalities and behaviour in other situations and on different locations does not refute this motive. General knowledge of drugs, youth and group dynamics, counts as arguments for the reasonability of the team cheamstry motive, and is supported by examples of the behaviour of other foreign (US) juveniles, who, when staying in Italy seems to trade upon the lack of proximity of parents and other kinds of institutions inducing social control.

Giglio


Welcome Giglio! a pleasure to read you.
User avatar
Zopi
 
Posts: 481
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby undecided » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:51 am

The Bard wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Terence wrote:Bilko, I agree with you. The old adage of "if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all" applies. If someone posts something that has been rehashed numerous times or if someone sounds like they're from the FOA camp, then they should be ignored. It almost seems like some people have lost the plot during the wait for new info and go about attacking anyone that seems 'different' to keep their 'turf' protected. Kinda defeats the objective...


Hello Terence,

In the normal ongoing here this is certainly sound advice. It can be difficult to look the other way when the Kercher family are specifically targeted as this ploy is clearly crossing the decency line.

Undecided wrote on March at 16 4.45pm
“Until the truth comes out in whichever form that might be,
The Kerchers are the ones suffering. Not to mention the victim.
I think more should be done to find out exactly what happened.”


It is hard to know what more should or in fact could be done in addition to throwing the entire resources of the Italian criminal investigation and judicial systems into solving this crime. And on a purely mercenary note it would be interesting to know just how much this investigation and trial cost the Italian taxpayer?

It is out of order and just downright inappropriate to drag the Kerchers into this and infer that they are still suffering because they are still waiting for the truth to come out. Those who take the trouble to listen to the press conference given by Meredith’s family after the trial verdict will note that the Kerchers expressed their “contentment” (my wording) with the outcome of the Trial; which found involvement by RG, AK & RS in the murder of Meredith. It is unlikely if/when they read the following post that they will draw comfort from this stated position.

Undecided wrote on March 16 at 4.06pm
“In fact I don’t believe Rudy murdered Meredith Kercher…
…I haven’t decided whether or not AK and RS were involved…”


The Kerchers really should be off limits IMO.


Well said Hammerite. I found undecided's posts offensive for the reasons you give above. As a board that is here with the express intention of pursuing justice for Meredith (which in the view of many has been done), the comments post-verdict that you don't think Rudy did it, and are not sure AK and RD did either is a bit lame. Added to: 'There seem to be two positions - guilty and not guilty' and I sense someone making a mockery of this extremely serious case, and I am not surprised people take exception. I think undecided knows exactly what he/she is doing...




I respect your position Hammerite, but I don't have a hidden agenda.
My point was (and is) that although we do have several facts,
and pieces of evidence, we do not have a clear picture of what
really happened on the night of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
All anyone can do is speculate. This (in my opinion), must be difficult
for the Kercher family. The have the right to justice, and to know
what happened to their daughter. Of course they are still suffering.

In finding the truth, I don't intend for you to think I mean, "A.K's" innocence,
or R.S.'s innocence. R.G. was very obviously at the scene. He admits it.
His story is a bit flaky at times, but, he admits it.

Until A.K. or R.S. 'come clean', or until we find additional information,
all we can do is continue to speculate.

Of course, you are free to think whatever you like about me (my posts).
I didn't intend to offend you or anyone else.
This is a discussion board. If you would like to take issue with anything
I have posted, please take it up with me.
User avatar
undecided
 
Posts: 250
Images: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby pataz1 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:55 am

tigerfish wrote:NB. There is also an extremely interesting recent post on truejustice.org by pat az detailing how LCN DNA testing has now been accepted in a US court. This event seriously undermines one of the principal hysterical FOA complaints about third-world standards of trial evidence.


Yep, that was mine. Started with a post here, which led to a longer post on my own blog, then posted there.

Happy St... pat's day! ;)

Pat
pataz1
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:06 am

Undecided wrote:

I respect your position Hammerite, but I don't have a hidden agenda.
My point was (and is) that although we do have several facts,
and pieces of evidence, we do not have a clear picture of what
really happened on the night of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
All anyone can do is speculate. This (in my opinion), must be difficult
for the Kercher family. The have the right to justice, and to know
what happened to their daughter.
Of course they are still suffering.


This has become one of Curt Knox and Edda Mellas's favorite lines. In fact, we will only know exactly how things happened if one or more of the three convicted tells a full and true story. At the same time, the Kerchers have access to 10,000 pages of evidence and a good lawyer. This evidence tells a pretty clear story insofar as it identifies who was present for and hence a participant in the killng of Meredith Kercher. The Kerchers said they were satisfied with the verdict. Don't you believe them?

Maybe it feels terrible for them to have people like Curt Knox and Edda Mellas telling them they have no right to feel satisfied with what they see as a just verdict. That bothers me a lot. I can understand the inability of Curt and Edda to face reality, but I see no reason why they need to even mention the Kerchers in their public statements, especially in the UK.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13446
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Greggy » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:41 am

The Third Man

I agree with the premise most of you have made: The Italian Police immediately suspected that Kissy Amanda was involved in some way with the murder. Perhaps her quirky American behavior stirred their xenophobic suspicions; perhaps what stirred their suspicions was that the wench was guilty as hell with a spaced out non-alibi after huffing too much hash and cleaning fluids. The clean-up of the murder scene, however, does pose a theoretical plight. One of our commentators here recently suggested additional culprits:

How do we know for sure that there wasn't a Third Man involved with the murder? AK47 did a fine clean-up job. Apparently the best DNA samples of her that the Forensic Police could find in her own house were several samples of her DNA mixed with MK's blood and on her bra. The house should have been teeming with AK47's DNA. RS's DNA was only found on a cigarette butt and on MK's bra clasp. Perhaps The Third Man was lucky enough to have had evidence of his presence removed by Ak47's and RS's cleaning efforts. I seem to remember early on in the case that the Police reported at least 5 DNA profiles in the house and didn't identify them all. Maybe The Third Man is still in Paris sitting at a cafe table, thanking the stars for his good fortune, and the continued silence of the three hapless murderers. We will never know until one of them decides that confessing will get them out of jail sooner.

Amanda: "Mom, I had to make up a phony murder confession story, it was the only way I could get out of prison!"
Greggy
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Southern USA

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Macport » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:15 am

undecided wrote:
we do not have a clear picture of what really happened on the night of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

RS was not in an intimate relationship with Meredith yet his DNA was found on her bra.
RG was not in an intimate relationship with Meredith yet his DNA was found inside of her.
AK and Meredith's blood were mingled within the house.

undecided wrote:
All anyone can do is speculate. This (in my opinion), must be difficult for the Kercher family.

This would imply that all behavior and discussion on this site is speculation and therefore harmful or painful to the Kerchers.
I would argue that the websites created by family members of the convicted perpetrators that attempt to smear the evidence and process by which the three were convicted potentially harm and/or hurt the Kerchers.

undecided wrote:
The (sic) have the right to justice, and to know what happened to their daughter. Of course they are still suffering.

The Kerchers have stated that they feel justice has been served.
The Kerchers were privy to the autopsy report therefore they know what happened to their daughter.
Any parent who has lost a child still suffers. Endlessly.

undecided wrote:
Until A.K. or R.S. 'come clean', or until we find additional information, all we can do is continue to speculate.

Whether AK and RS come clean is only important from the standpoint of a description of events of that night. The validity of evidence that convicted them stands on its own regardless of any future confession, additional information and/or speculation.
User avatar
Macport
 
Posts: 774
Images: 105
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Western USA

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Macport » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am

Greggy I have meant for some time to comment on your Christo The Gates avatar. Wonderful! My good friend was lucky enough to have attend a conference in New York at that time and he took some amazing pictures. Of course nothing like actually being there.

To quote you:
Perhaps her quirky American behavior stirred their xenophobic suspicions

I do not know if you have ever lived in a college town but Perugia arguably is one. Speaking form my experience in a town that was like that I don't know if one has the luxury of developing xenophobic tendencies. I suppose there is that chance but with such a mix of people I don't know that one could develop a strong sense of someone being unknown or different from oneself. But that could be me.

I guess that any house in the world has the DNA of its occupants and anyone who visits it. Therefore any given house may have the DNA of multiple people.

Were it that I was wrongly accused of murder and I know of someone else that was involved and/or committed the murder - would I be quiet about that knowledge? RG refuted a statement of just such a thing.
User avatar
Macport
 
Posts: 774
Images: 105
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Western USA

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby SomeAlibi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:36 am

piktor wrote:[center]On St. Pat's Day, a riddle: Who is the guilter, who's the creeping falsehood?[/center]


Fabulous pic (again) of the Lion of truth against the creeping falsehood. It made me reflect on the words I've pasted below the image that seemed to go with it to me. The words of a young man who realises when the lies have been pinned down and that there is no hope of escape from the consequences.

[center]Image[/center]
[center]There's Mama, there's Jesus; What a crazy world here on earth - what say you Jesus?[/center]
[center]You have been crucified because you have done a lot more than you had to for others[/center]
[center]Well, you know how I think? Better to give a little less but survive...[/center]
[center]Excuse me saying differently seeing that you saved us from sin,[/center]
[center]but sometimes I wonder if it was worth it[/center]
[right]-Raffaele Sollecito, Letter from Prison, 19th Nov 2007[/right]
Last edited by SomeAlibi on Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
User avatar
SomeAlibi
 
Posts: 2961
Images: 336
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby donnie » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:50 am

piktor wrote:'donnie' and 'undecided' mirror the Knox/Mellas approach by ignoring the victim and her family and trying to make light of the events discussed here, as if a juvenile posture will sway anyone. Or bring clarity in any way.


Ignoring the victim? Mirror to Knox/Mellas? This is very unfair and i'm saddened. Nobody stood up for me, so i guess many of you feel the same, right? Some of you know me by now and i really hope that piktor is the only one who can throw that kind of sick allegations and feel good about it. I honestly can't believe that someone said that i'm ignoring the victim here. I have different approach, yes, but it doesn't mean i'm not thinking about Meredith Kercher. This isn't the site where we mourn her in the first place. This is a message boards and we can discuss here the details of this horrible crime, the suspects, their families and friends, at the same time we should keep in mind the young and beautiful Meredith who got killed and show the respect when its due and that's exactly what i'm doing. Piktor think twice before you'll decide to put my name on the stand. So disrespectful.

Thanks Bard for previous comments related to SomeAlibi's post(which of course i'm fine with and i respect his opinion). The tennis crimilogist comment made me laugh.

Ps. what's with the clowns? This is one thing that i'm afraid of!
donnie
------
------
 
Posts: 673
Images: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Jester » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:52 am

How can anyone claim to be undecided on the guilt of the three convicted parties, and state that the truth has not come out?

There has been a trial and verdict. The truth is that the parties have been found guilty in a recognized court of law. The truth is that there is no reason to doubt this verdict. To imply otherwise, or suggest that the truth has not come out, is to doubt the trial and verdict. This constitutes a decision: a decision to doubt the verdict, trial, arrest, and guilt of the convicted murderers; a decision that Amanda is not guilty.

Why would someone sign on a discussion board and claim to be undecided when it is quite obvious that undecided has decided? Why not sign on and say: I have decided and my position is _____ because ...

Between the haiku and limericks ... I suppose we could all write one simple thought per line, if it helps.
Jester
------
------
 
Posts: 1252
Images: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby stilicho » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:06 am

SomeAlibi wrote:The first rule of alibis is that they should be true which is the essential qualitative difference comes between AK+RS and Patrick :)


You had a great deconstruction of their specific alibis but I'd like to address this point you started with. If your alibi is that you were at your Mom's house eating chicken, that's weaker than being on a flight to Rio at the time of the crime. Why? Because, in the first instance, your Mom is a blood relative, and therefore has a stake in covering your story, and discarded chicken bones are easy to fake. A plane ticket and an unrelated flight attendant are not as easy to fake and therefore your alibi is stronger.

I agree absolutely that the best alibi is one that is true but if both of my examples are true, one alibi is still stronger than the other.

It was the breakdown of the alibis that lead to the legal change of status for both RS and AK. Neither of them could cite specifics during their interviews that matched one another or anything verifiable. AK was not so far off the mark when she wrote to Madison Paxton that she "f----d up so bad". All of us know she did too.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9514
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby stilicho » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:26 am

undecided wrote:Until A.K. or R.S. 'come clean', or until we find additional information, all we can do is continue to speculate.


What on earth are you talking about? Are you claiming that no truth may be found in any criminal investigation unless the criminal confesses? This is about as absurd a thing as I have ever heard anywhere from anyone.

Don't you know that, in this case, AK actually did place herself at the scene of the crime and virtually detailed the whole scenario for the police? How much cleaner do you want her to get?

What I've found since coming to the PMF is that the first thing you better do is spend about 100 hours reading their own words and the case as it progressed. I spent 60 hours reading in the first week alone and was late for work at least once because of it. There is a very well-known and objective truth about Meredith's death and this site and TJMK are the best places to start.

All three of those condemned participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9514
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby donnie » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:28 am

A little message attached to a picture.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Please register or log in.
donnie
------
------
 
Posts: 673
Images: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Jester » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:34 am

Prisoner's Paradox

"In its classical form, the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a sentence." (wikipedia ... I know ... not reliable ... but in this case it is)

In this case, the police most likely visited each to suggest the other had given information, or police had enough information to give each the impression they had more information than they did (they were listening to phone calls before the 4.5 hour questioning). In each case, the suspects gave information (cooperated to some degree) that contradicted their joint alibi, and implicated the other. If their joint alibi was solid, this would not have been possible. In this case, contrary to the prisoner's paradox, neither betrayer could go free, as the minute their alibis were irregular, nothing they said about the events of the evening could be trusted. Oddly, they both feigned memory loss when required to completely cooperate. If both had remained silent and maintained their alibis, they may have had a chance to avoid scrutiny, but not likely ... especially in light of their activities in the 48 hours after the murder. They were hooped the minute Amanda mistook the cell phone police for murder investigators, and the minute they oddly hid in Amanda's bedroom to phone police and Edda ... or was it the smooching, the tired looks, the staged break in, the lingerie incident, the lies ...

They were inexperienced murderers who thought they were smart enough to fool the police ... with a staged break in and a clean up. It didn't work.
Jester
------
------
 
Posts: 1252
Images: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Jester » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:45 am

donnie wrote:A little message attached to a picture.


You are working towards acceptance in the Sports Medicine program so you can write a master's degree thesis on murderers, right?
Jester
------
------
 
Posts: 1252
Images: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Yummi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:56 am

I respect your position Hammerite, but I don't have a hidden agenda.
My point was (and is) that although we do have several facts,
and pieces of evidence, we do not have a clear picture of what
really happened on the night of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
All anyone can do is speculate.


What you actually said is:

"I think more should be done to find out exactly what happened"

You didn't say that just we do not have a clear picture.
You also added two diifferent concepts:
"All anyone can do is speculate"
and
"more should be done fo find things out exactly"

*
There is a big difference between the general observation "we don't know exactly" and these latter two statement instead.
These are not implicated by the first.

In fact they are wrong and false.
And there is also limited number of options about the question regarding justice: whether Amanda are guilty of the murder or not. They are either implicated in the murder or not implicated. One of the two conclusions was ascertained beyound reasonable doubt.
The third option non datur. You are not honest if your intent is to promote the existence of a third possibility.
There is no third logical possibility, any third is excluded. If they are not innocent, they are guilty.
"Hay derrotas que tienen más dignidad que una victoria"
Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Yummi
 
Posts: 1933
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: by an earthquake epicenter

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Jester » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:58 am

Regarding the alibi, I think Raffaele blew the alibi wide open when he claimed that Meredith's DNA got on the knife because he pricked her while they were making dinner together. Did he think that Amanda would go along with that lie? Was he thinking this could have happened when they were all at the cottage the afternoon before her murder? Did he overlook the point that the knife was found at his apartment ... so even if he did cut her while they prepared a meal, he had to explain how the knife got to his apartment? Is that where the "changing knives with the outfit" business comes in?
Jester
------
------
 
Posts: 1252
Images: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Jester » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:01 am

Should we all
Write like we
Think in poetry
Even though our words
Are not poetic?
Jester
------
------
 
Posts: 1252
Images: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby SomeAlibi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:01 am

stilicho wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:The first rule of alibis is that they should be true which is the essential qualitative difference comes between AK+RS and Patrick :)


You had a great deconstruction of their specific alibis but I'd like to address this point you started with. If your alibi is that you were at your Mom's house eating chicken, that's weaker than being on a flight to Rio at the time of the crime. Why? Because, in the first instance, your Mom is a blood relative, and therefore has a stake in covering your story, and discarded chicken bones are easy to fake. A plane ticket and an unrelated flight attendant are not as easy to fake and therefore your alibi is stronger.

I agree absolutely that the best alibi is one that is true but if both of my examples are true, one alibi is still stronger than the other.

It was the breakdown of the alibis that lead to the legal change of status for both RS and AK. Neither of them could cite specifics during their interviews that matched one another or anything verifiable. AK was not so far off the mark when she wrote to Madison Paxton that she "f----d up so bad". All of us know she did too.



I agree. I only started with that line as trying to have a bit of a lighter hearted start off to the mail rather than trying to make any big point with it. If you did a composite between my post, yours, many that have preceded it here and then took the highly detailed side-by-side analysis of what they were saying in their alibis at various points on TJMK (which is really a wrecking ball of a detailed analysis whereas mine was just trying to go more to their states of mind and options, or rather lack of options) and wrote it up, you'd have a few pages but it would be devastating in one document.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to do so: that really would be too much like work and then I'd end up doing it a very detailed way for hours rather than my much lighter style of posting here. Fortunately, I don't have any real doubt the convictions are going to stand at this stage so it's unneccessary. It just might give a couple of FOAKERS some serious food for thought though. But then there would still be the vast majority that could still excuse all of it due to coercion, playing Amanda's head like a bongo, a misalignment of the planets, the fact that there was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts, and just generally swearing to god it wasn't her fault.

Oh - sodium pentathol and their ilk - apart from injecting people against their will with drugs for the purposes of interrogation being a breach of lord knows how many principles and conventions of human rights - the stuff is notoriously susceptible to suggestibility and often produces nonsense as has been established from a number of cold war incidents. See use of water-boarding rather than chemicals post-9/11 etc.
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
User avatar
SomeAlibi
 
Posts: 2961
Images: 336
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby donnie » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:13 am

Jester wrote:
donnie wrote:A little message attached to a picture.


You are working towards acceptance in the Sports Medicine program so you can write a master's degree thesis on murderers, right?


Hey Jester. Instead of acting like a complete arrogant, maybe you should try to focus on good things in life - such as being nice to other people. It really helps you know. But that's not gonna change until there's a woman on the electric chair on your avatar. Completely disgusting.

btw, if you wanna pick on me(for whatever reason), please try to do more research. I already explained what the thesis will be about, but you wanted to make your own ignorant comment, doesn't matter if it matches the facts, just to kick Donnie, he's on the floor already.

I hope you have a nice day and just to set the record straight - i will send a fax to you, you will see my university diploma along with the thesis title, grade and other specifics. But you must be prepared. I want you to get the camera and one person to help, then, when you'll be reading Donnie's diploma (with the thesis title and university name) someone must take a picture of you, a million dollar shot.

With lots and lots of respect,
Donnie.

ps. oh and don't forget to post the picture here, on PMF. Such a threat!
donnie
------
------
 
Posts: 673
Images: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby bucketoftea » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:30 am

"Truth serum" is not a goer, but one day we may have fMRI (functional MRI) to call upon. They are a long way from being able to prove someone is lying by brain activity, there is one aspect that already does work....

When you look at something that you recognise, there is a specific area that "lights up" with activity, and it would be impossible to fake. If you had a suspect who claims never to have even been to the crime scene, yet his brain activity shows recognition when shown a photograph of the same (provided the photographs haven't been seen before), you know he was there.

Of course any new method would take yonks to be accepted....
"There is no evidence and what there is is unreliable" Ted Simon
User avatar
bucketoftea
 
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby windfall » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:35 am

fwiw (I'm guessing - not much), I also think Jester's avatar crosses a line. But it's a moderator's call, I suppose.
windfall
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Michael » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:41 am

Donnie, calm down. No more flames please.

If you don't, I'll be forced to lock you in a room full of creepy clowns.
Michael
------
------
 
Posts: 8054
Images: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Salamander » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:43 am

bucketoftea wrote:"Truth serum" is not a goer, but one day we may have fMRI (functional MRI) to call upon. They are a long way from being able to prove someone is lying by brain activity, there is one aspect that already does work....

When you look at something that you recognise, there is a specific area that "lights up" with activity, and it would be impossible to fake. If you had a suspect who claims never to have even been to the crime scene, yet his brain activity shows recognition when shown a photograph of the same (provided the photographs haven't been seen before), you know he was there.

Of course any new method would take yonks to be accepted....

What if the crime scene contains a lamp identical to the one the suspect has at home? Or there's a picture on the wall of a place the suspect's been? Or, or....

I'm always a bit suspicious of any claims that science will be able to tell for certain that someone's lying. I just don't think lying is as clear cut as that.

[For what it's worth, I agree with Donnie and Windfall about Jester's avatar.]
Salamander
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby donnie » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:46 am

Michael wrote:Donnie, calm down. No more flames please.

If you don't, I'll be forced to lock you in a room full of creepy clowns.


You actually scared me and i'm not joking. Clowns are the most scarry creatures on earth! I'll be good.
But put yourself in my place. I'm being judged again and again and i'm trying my best to erase the picture that i myself drew, i'm a different PMF member now.
donnie
------
------
 
Posts: 673
Images: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby The Bard » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:51 am

Hey Donnie. Chill dude. I love the photo. Very funny! I think your degree does sound quite extraordinary in all fairness. I think it's a fascinating combination, and you clearly love the research and crime side of it. Maybe you'll make a detective one day! Personally I think a fear of clowns, which I share, won't hold you back. It is quite a common phobia I believe. They scare the wits out of me. Anyone else wish to disclose their clown fear???
Image
User avatar
The Bard
Gallery Moderator
 
Posts: 4498
Images: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Michael » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:55 am

windfall wrote:fwiw (I'm guessing - not much), I also think Jester's avatar crosses a line. But it's a moderator's call, I suppose.



I'm a little more liberal with what people put in their avatars, then what they post directly into the thread, in part because they are more discreet, being small and detail is hard to make out. And the whole purpose of avatars is personal and self expression. For some, they use an avatar to represent themselves, or something they cherish or an ideal, or to express humour. For others, they use them to make a point they feel to be important. In short, avatars are art and art by it's nature is sometimes provocative and challenging.
Michael
------
------
 
Posts: 8054
Images: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Michael » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:03 am

March 18, 2010 6:27 AM

Amanda Knox Italian Police Bombshell: We Knew She Was Guilty of Murder Without Physical Evidence

CBS 48 HOURS
Michael
------
------
 
Posts: 8054
Images: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby londonpete » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:09 am

Jester wrote:Prisoner's Paradox

"In its classical form, the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a sentence." (wikipedia ... I know ... not reliable ... but in this case it is)

This is an interesting perspective. John Nash (as in A Beautiful Mind) formalised this argument as one of the key planks of Game Theory, a major branch of 20th century mathematics with many scary applications, not least the old US/USSR nuclear deterrent positioning. It blows apart the Adam Smith "invisible hand" argument that if people in a group act in their own best interest, they will always end up operating in the group's best interest. The problem Smith had was that although he believed what he said at a philosophical level (and therefore justified Thatcherite/Reganite free market "trickle" economics), he couldn't prove it mathematically. Before Nash had his well documented problems he proved that Smith was wrong and there was no link between an individual's fortunes and those of the group - this was what he got his Nobel for, not the silly example used in the movie about guys hitting on a bunch of women! The example quoted by Jester is one of the many famous counter examples to Smith, though Nash proved it by means of a concept called the Nash Equlibrium and some brilliant maths.

We need to take this argument seriously because on face value it suggests that one of the 2 should make a full confession to get the best deal, and hang the other person out to dry. The only reasons why they can't do that would be either:-
* They are both completely innocent and have nothing to confess
* They are both so guilty that they know there would be no deal on the table - they would have to confess to murder.
So although this argument doesn't prove their guilt, what it does do very neatly is take away all the middle ground. There are only 2 positions - they are entirely innocent and have nothing to confess, or they are completely guilty.
This is important because many people I think look at the evidence and see that AK and RS HAD to have some involvement, but "hope" it was short of murder. However, Nash gives us the formal argument why what we all instinctively know is true - if they were only a "bit" guilty they would have done a deal by now.
londonpete
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:54 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby bucketoftea » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:24 am

The Bard wrote:Hey Donnie. Chill dude. I love the photo. Very funny! I think your degree does sound quite extraordinary in all fairness. I think it's a fascinating combination, and you clearly love the research and crime side of it. Maybe you'll make a detective one day! Personally I think a fear of clowns, which I share, won't hold you back. It is quite a common phobia I believe. They scare the wits out of me. Anyone else wish to disclose their clown fear???



I fear I don't find them funny. It's magicians I don't like. lol
"There is no evidence and what there is is unreliable" Ted Simon
User avatar
bucketoftea
 
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Michael » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:48 am

londonpete wrote:We need to take this argument seriously because on face value it suggests that one of the 2 should make a full confession to get the best deal, and hang the other person out to dry. The only reasons why they can't do that would be either:-


Hi Pete. Well, the reason why they can't do that is because the Italian system doesn't do deals...there is no plea bargaining system in place. On top of that, they've already received the most generous mitigation they can possibly be given. Therefore, their only chance of getting a further reduction of sentence or to walk is to convince an appeal court they are guilty of one, some or all of the charges on which they've been found guilty.
Michael
------
------
 
Posts: 8054
Images: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby Moss » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:01 pm

The blog posting on the CBS site is as much a bombshell as a sea cucumber is a shark. And it has glaring errors like "guilty conscious".
Why Giobbi thought Amanda is guilty isn't relevant at this point anymore. There is evidence that implicates her and Raffaele. Even if he had decided she was guilty because she used a certain brand of eyeshade the conflicting stories told during their interviews by the police would have made them suspects and as it turns out rightfully so. Trying to peddle stuff from an interview two years ago as a brand new bombshell is funny too...
User avatar
Moss
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby piktor » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:20 pm

SomeAlibi wrote:
piktor wrote:[center]On St. Pat's Day, a riddle: Who is the guilter, who's the creeping falsehood?[/center]


Fabulous pic (again) of the Lion of truth against the creeping falsehood. It made me reflect on the words I've pasted below the image that seemed to go with it to me. The words of a young man who realises when the lies have been pinned down and that there is no hope of escape from the consequences.

[center](picture)[/center]

[center]There's Mama, there's Jesus; What a crazy world here on earth - what say you Jesus?[/center]
[center]You have been crucified because you have done a lot more than you had to for others[/center]
[center]Well, you know how I think? Better to give a little less but survive...[/center]
[center]Excuse me saying differently seeing that you saved us from sin,[/center]
[center]but sometimes I wonder if it was worth it[/center]
[right]-Raffaele Sollecito, Letter from Prison, 19th Nov 2007[/right]


When you put together the lamentations of the defendants, the Knox/Mellas + Entourage Combo, Ted Simon's ( a.k.a. ta-)) International Man Of Law ta-)) ) recent TV interview and the FOAs jeremiads- what it all comes down to is fluff in the face of an outrage that led to homicide.

Fluff versus sexual attack?

Fluff versus torture?

Fluff versus homicide?

Yeah, right!

The defence's fluff is proof their arguments cannot win exoneration. Their fluff is their worst enemy. Their fluff is the prosecution's best friend.

Nothing they say makes sense or is a solid path to liberty or truth or clarity.

Everything they have said on this grave matter explains why the three defendants are in jail.

You would expect a seasoned pro like Ted Simon, m-)) International Man Of Law m-)) would bring hard, convincing, unassailable facts to the table. He instead has no qualms about proclaiming to the world that one Mr. Alessi, child murderer, is the New And Important Exonerating Testimony that proves his client, Ms. Knox, is in the right and that the Bad Prosecutors Of Perugia are in the wrong and have an innocent person in jail.

The efforts of the defendant's associates mirror EXACTLY the defendants' gauzy and lame tales. This case is so strong against the accused, it's not the individual blows that add up.

[center]It is the barrage of irredeemable poppycock from the accused and friends that has them in a spot.[/center]
Last edited by piktor on Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
piktor
 
Posts: 4209
Images: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby londonpete » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:31 pm

Michael wrote:
Hi Pete. Well, the reason why they can't do that is because the Italian system doesn't do deals...there is no plea bargaining system in place. On top of that, they've already received the most generous mitigation they can possibly be given. Therefore, their only chance of getting a further reduction of sentence or to walk is to convince an appeal court they are guilty of one, some or all of the charges on which they've been found guilty.

Michael - is that actually true from experience or just the formal position. As far as I know the same could in theory be said about the English system, but in practice there are deals done all the time up to the point of the case commencing in court. I am talking from personal experience of both me and my friends. As an example, as a young man I got involved in a street fight with some National Front supporters that my friends were objecting to. The fight got out of hand and I am not overly proud that some of the NF ended up in hospital. I was arrested and an offer was made that I would only be charged with threatening behaviour if I were to make a statement and plead guilty, or they would charge me with assault or even ABH if I refused. I did refuse and am pleased to say I was acquited of ABH at trial. As far as I am aware this sort of deal goes on all the time "outside" the official system. Actually, I think in my case the police were being perfectly reasonable in their offer and it is hard to see how they could operate under any system if they didn't have some "carrots" to dangle. In my case I thought the police and the court system worked perfectly - is it really that different in Italy?
londonpete
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:54 am

Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

Postby namwera51 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:42 pm

there is a paper in todays journal Nature on LCN DNA
namwera51
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Older topics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests