Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Montmorency]

It is my observation, Montmorency, that the men who have addressed this topic with me are struggling only to disagree with me regardless of what I say.



A great many people disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.



Yeah, I'm really worried about insulting Mignini. It is so odd -- the number of who people are quick to jump to defense of a powerful male who does not need their help, meanwhile disparaging a completely powerless young woman.

Mignini's theory of the crime quite openly announced to the entire world that he was pursuing a case against Amanda based on a sexual fantasy. Without any DNA evidence of Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene, he described the positions they were in and the actions they took. He even had an animated film made about it. Please explain to me what these images were if not fantasies?

The same goes for Peter Quenell -- on his site he presents a fantasy world purporting to know the kind of person Meredith was, and spends hours writing articles about his idol (quite literally). It would be perfectly all right if its main purpose weren't to destroy Amanda's life.



"this Amanda Knox woman" -- love it.

The reason I avoided responding to your first post was because it looked to me as if you were going in the direction of talking about the differences between Meredith's and Amanda's physical appearances, something that many people were preoccupied with in the blogs for a long time. That discussion is irrelevant and inappropriate.

Amanda is "rough?" What was that you were saying about insults?

Oh dear. Mary H, you have a lot to learn about the world. It is a nicer place if people can just have a little respect for each other. What I see is something ugly that you can't help spilling out onto other people. We have no idea about the people you write about as having sexual fantasies. Surely Mignini had the animation made to help explain what happened during the crime. He is described as a kind and avuncular man as I have read. He has daughters of his own. Why would he want to pick on this woman for no reason? How does that help his career? He is respected by all accounts. You do not understand the culture of Italy at all it seems.

You see professionalism as perversion. Those policemen looked like they were listening intently, not like they were sexually aroused. Maybe you have not much experience of men. These are professional policemen, their income and reputation is dependent on getting this absolutely right. They were not thinking of sex. You seem to think that this is all a man thinks about, before his professionalism. Men I speak with say Amanda is like a 'girl', like their daughter, not lusting and having disgusting thoughts about her. You have a low opinion of men I think! They have integrity, respect, honour, compassion and professional standards too, in great abundance. Do not flatter yourself that women are the only thing on their minds.

Yes, Amanda is 'rough' as in 'not refined'. Rough as in 'plays hard', a tomboy, likes things rough - takes drugs, plays football, drinks, sleeps around. She is 'hard' not soft. This is what I mean by rough. Not an insult, just the facts. She was very proud of her roughness and boasted about it a great deal. It is her choice, and up to her. But many men would find this not attractive in the slightest - I am sorry to disappoint you. And then when you throw in the murder and sexual assault conviction she starts to look distinctly revolting!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

To my credit, I developed an analysis of how the rock may have gone through the window on the basis of measurements and angles.

Your analysis is limited to drawing a little red arrow to point out what you consider the point of impact, and stating: "You can clearly see the damage caused by the rock on the wood shutter."

Do you have further information than I do concerning the "other side" of the rock?

Let's talk about the window being too high. I did this on paper. I need to put the info on the computer. We have a way to properly measure items in Filomena's room. Use the marker provided in the room and measure the slats on the shutters. This is an item that can be used as a reference to measure the outside wall. Now, look at the high resolution photo from outside. Knowing the measurement of the shutter slats you can make a ruler to measure the outside wall.

If you do this, you will see that Rudy could have easily reached the latch while standing on the top row of the bars on the window below. With his hand facing him so that he could reach under the broken glass, he would have about 8 inches of additional reach. Climbing into the room would have been even easier. I wish I was home to post this information but I am not. I will post it tomorrow or Monday.

 

[stilicho]

If they had no way of knowing what she was lying about then they shouldn't have been acting on her assertions. As I said earlier, they believed what they wanted to believe and discarded the rest. Yet people continue to claim the police were not responsible for the arrest.

Simply jaw-dropping.

AK was a witness to a horrible crime. She explained what happened--Patrick sexually assaulted and murdered her roommate.

But you'd ask the authorities to do nothing.

Simply jaw-dropping.

 

[Mary_H]

What was your query about the footprints? I would be happy to discuss this with you.

Thank you, Bruce. The footprints are not my forte. As Elton John sang, "...and all this science, I don't understand..."

 

[Kermit]

You cannot make the assumtions that you have made by looking at one side of the rock.

At least I analysed it with the information available.

You just looked for the first convenient mark, and said "look that's where the rock hit", without considering from which angle it would have to have come, nor how it may have impacted.

You are also looking at the shutter as if the rock hit the shutter directly. This is not the case. There was glass between the rock and the wood. The area where the force was the greatest allowed the rock to fully penetrate through the glass and damage the wood. Other areas of the shutter would have had glass in between the rock and the wood. You can see glass stuck in the wood if you zoom in. There does not appear to be damage to the wood but glass is stuck in it. This shows that the rock pushed the glass into the wood in certain areas with out making direct contact with the wood.

Be careful about making things up as you go. That got you into trouble in the Dixan and Ciolino incidents.

I "zoomed" in to 100%. Anymore on a digital photo and you just get big pixels.

Here are the closest photos from your site at 100%. I see no glass stuck in the wood of the inside (blackout) shutter.

(Maybe you're hiding the best defence photos for the 3rd level appeal).

 

[Fiona]

Exactly. Why were they holding a man based on an obviously confused statement?

Did you read your links?

If the guilters refuse to abandon the stance that the interrogation did not make Amanda say things she would not otherwise have said, then there is no discussing this issue with them.

Can you cite the evidence which should lead me to abandon my stance: which is that RS destroyed AK's alibi and this led her to make up a lie on the spot. A lie which accused an innocent man of murder.

If they had no way of knowing what she was lying about then they shouldn't have been acting on her assertions. As I said earlier, they believed what they wanted to believe and discarded the rest. Yet people continue to claim the police were not responsible for the arrest.

She accused an innocent man of murder. She said she witnessed it. The murder was particularly brutal and it was entirely possible the killer would kill again or would flee. I do not think many police forces would act differently. I know there have been a couple of cases cited when surveillance was used: I do not think that is usual and IIRC correctly in at least one of those cases they did not have sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect ( I may be wrong about that because I cannot remember the details of those cases). In another case I seem to recall the killer did indeed kill again (and again I may be wrong). On balance, with that evidence, I do not think that what they did was either unreasonable or unexpected. Clearly things are different where you are.

I find it hard to believe you are not aware of that time line. Here are some mentions from the London Times. The first one talks about Romano Mero, one of the customers who was with Patrick in his bar the night of the murder.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2913150.ece
From Times Online
November 13, 2007
Meredith Kercher murder: why the timings are critical

I think you mean this one (or perhaps I clicked in the wrong order).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2864713.ece

I ask again, did you read it? It seems perfectly clear to me that the police had not established Patrick's alibi at that stage: and equally clear that they were working hard to do so in a confused situation

The second one talks about the arrest warrant being issued for Guede, based on the forensic evidence at the crime scene.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2891158.ece
From The Sunday Times
November 18, 2007
Arrest warrant for fourth Meredith Kercher suspect

Yes, it does. And what is your point? Do you suppose that there was no possibility that Guede and Patrick were both involved? Some here are arguing that Guede acted with a pal. So how is that plausible now but not then, when the full picture had not yet emerged? The article makes mention of the fact that it is likely that Patrick will be released through lack of evidence: and so it proved

The third one talks about Patrick's release.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2913150.ece
From Times Online
November 21, 2007
Fourth Meredith Kercher suspect Rudy Hermann Guede in court in Germany

These citations are only to give you the dates; they are not intended to promote any of the information in the articles.

It does: it also says

As Mr Guede was arrested, one of the three original suspects, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, a Congolese bar owner and reggae musician, was released due to lack of evidence.

I do not see any real problem with this timeline. Perhaps you do because you cannot understand why Patrick was under suspicion just because he was accused of murder by someone who said she was there; and cannot see why the confusion about his movements that night would lead to a longer period in custody while that was sorted out. Ok

 

[Kermit]

you will see that Rudy could have easily reached the latch while standing on the top row of the bars on the window below. With his hand facing him so that he could reach under the broken glass, he would have about 8 inches of additional reach. Climbing into the room would have been even easier. I wish I was home to post this information but I am not. I will post it tomorrow or Monday.

.
Are you familiar with the type of latch on the inside of the window?

 

[RWVBWL]

Nobody saw him do any of this. But witnesses did see Amanda (twice) and Raffaele (once) in places they shouldn't have been according to their alibis.

One question: Why would RG take the keys and keep them? You have a mighty odd robber there. He breaks into a house, known by him to contain people who aren't from Perugia and therefore unlikely to be gone home to family for All Saints Day, and he steals keys so he can return. Then what? Murder Amanda next and lock her in her room?

Upon his alleged return, why didn't he flush the toilet and clean up?

Good day Stilicho,
I really do not know why Guede would take the keys, or cell phones. I think I read somewhere that he did not have a cell, so maybe that's why he took that, and also to keep Miss Kercher from dialing out for help. I'm sure you folks have discussed this in depth to death before. Stealing Miss Kercher's cash is easy to understand though. Guede would need cash after murdering Miss Kercher or being involved in her murder with his unknown accomplice that has been mentioned. but the keys, Hmmm, I don't know why. Maybe he just grabbed the keys because they were there by the cell phones?
But interestingly, they were never found, unless I am mistaken.

I do not believe that Guede broke into the apartment, he probably came inside when Miss Kercher came home. I have seen this clip, and read about different theories too:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1734239.ece

You would know better than I if this story above was true, correct?

I don't believe that Guede forgot to flush the toilet when he was there earlier.
I think that if he came back, after the bar's/club's had closed, he did not see a huge police investigation going on. Most people drink at bars+clubs, so he might have been drunk. He might have broke the window to Filomena's room to just see if anyone was home, went inside when he realized it was safe to do so by the front door with the never found keys, checked the different rooms of the house to see if anyone was there, checked to see if Miss Kercher was alive, sexually assaulted Miss Kercher's body, as it lie still, after he moved it and removed her clothing. Afterwards, he might have then went to clean himself up a bit, used the toilet, and might have fallen asleep in the bathroom. He must have been getting tired by then. Didn't the boys downstairs say Guede had previously fallen asleep in the bathroom in their apartment? If he did fall asleep, maybe Amanda awoke him by her movements in her apartment when she came home that morning to shower. And Guede did not flush the toilet so as not to make any noise and have Amanda find him, so he split, fast. If Amanda had found Guede there that morning, who knows, she too might not be alive today.

You might not agree with what I wrote, but do note that the theory I have written about draws on useage of the evidence that both sides, the innocentisti and the colpevolisti, use in their own theories...

RWVBWL
Ps-If any of you folks visit Los Angeles and luv Mexican food, Tito's is a legend!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Kermit Wrote: Your reply to Fiona reminds me of Bruce Fisher's replies to the inaccuracies pointed out on his website (like saying that Preston was hauled in to police headquarters in the middle of the night, or that Raffaele washes his dishes with Dixan, or that Mignini took on the Monster of Florence case). He first of all didn't agree with the exception taken to the errors, then he was loathe to admit and correct his errors (upon realizing his was wrong), then he said that it's foolish to be concerned about these errors because they aren't part of the bigger picture.

You love to continue to bring up useless garbage. The time that Preston was questioned had absolutely no bearing on anything. I made a mistake on the time and I corrected it. The page still presents the exact same message. Nothing changed.

The wording about Mignini was the difference between these two phrases

"he took the case" and "he got involved in the case"

The error you found in those phrases changes nothing. Mignini made a complete fool out of himself. If you want to stand up and defend Mignini then that is your choice but he deserves all the criticism that he receives. Once again, the page still presents the exact same message. Nothing changed.

You continue to say that I was loathe to admit and correct my errors. This is another complete lie.

You photos showing the rock posted today are a complete joke. Your followers will love them but they prove nothing.

Now go measure the wall and try to tell me that it is too high. Let's end this internet argument once and for all.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Are you familiar with the type of latch on the inside of the window?

Absolutely, I have several high resolution close up photos of the latch.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

At least I analysed it with the information available.

You just looked for the first convenient mark, and said "look that's where the rock hit", without considering from which angle it would have to have come, nor how it may have impacted.


Be careful about making things up as you go. That got you into trouble in the Dixan and Ciolino incidents.

I "zoomed" in to 100%. Anymore on a digital photo and you just get big pixels.

Here are the closest photos from your site at 100%. I see no glass stuck in the wood of the inside (blackout) shutter.

(Maybe you're hiding the best defence photos for the 3rd level appeal).

[qimg]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8383/whereistheembeddedglass.png[/qimg]

I do not know what type of monitor you have but there is a piece of glass stuck to the wood right above marker R.

 

[Mary_H]

Oh dear. Mary H, you have a lot to learn about the world. It is a nicer place if people can just have a little respect for each other. What I see is something ugly that you can't help spilling out onto other people. We have no idea about the people you write about as having sexual fantasies. Surely Mignini had the animation made to help explain what happened during the crime. He is described as a kind and avuncular man as I have read. He has daughters of his own. Why would he want to pick on this woman for no reason? How does that help his career? He is respected by all accounts. You do not understand the culture of Italy at all it seems.

You see professionalism as perversion. Those policemen looked like they were listening intently, not like they were sexually aroused. Maybe you have not much experience of men. These are professional policemen, their income and reputation is dependent on getting this absolutely right. They were not thinking of sex. You seem to think that this is all a man thinks about, before his professionalism. Men I speak with say Amanda is like a 'girl', like their daughter, not lusting and having disgusting thoughts about her. You have a low opinion of men I think! They have integrity, respect, honour, compassion and professional standards too, in great abundance. Do not flatter yourself that women are the only thing on their minds.

Yes, Amanda is 'rough' as in 'not refined'. Rough as in 'plays hard', a tomboy, likes things rough - takes drugs, plays football, drinks, sleeps around. She is 'hard' not soft. This is what I mean by rough. Not an insult, just the facts. She was very proud of her roughness and boasted about it a great deal. It is her choice, and up to her. But many men would find this not attractive in the slightest - I am sorry to disappoint you. And then when you throw in the murder and sexual assault conviction she starts to look distinctly revolting!

I-yi-yi. This has gotten out of hand. I hearby give you permission to completely ignore me.

I believe this all started when I posted an entertaining and insightful post by John Winters, when BobTheDonkey and I were discussing the logic of the police's actions. Here is my original post:

Bob wrote: "Correction, the photograph argument hasn't been discussed multiple times. However, I see no real problem with the photograph being hung on the wall - it's not uncommon to see wanted posters in Police offices *shrug* Can you provide evidence that the photograph caused the lab team to fudge their work to provide a guilty verdict?"

[Mary H wrote] Speaking of the photograph (have you seen it?) I got a very big kick out of this descriptive post by John Winters on one of the CBS 48 Hours blogs:

by johnwinters96 April 27, 2010 5:11 AM EDT

"John Harmeyer said:

'''There is hard evidence against her' and then goes on to outline the few rather skeletal, thin, and often inaccurate notions and whims the prosecution team stuck together with cocktail sticks and gum (as if it was actually robust), to then bring to bear as a case against an American girl who was actually going down from the moment the postal police arrived that morning at 7 Via della Pergola and realised what they had. [emphasis Mary H]

"Never mind about Amanda's ''body language'' outside the villa that morning. What about the distinct sense of glee one gets from the grouping of ''detectives'' that surrounded her, pregnant with vulgar and cruel anticipation? (Shudder of horror).

"The funny interviews, confessions, and Mad Hatter Tea party trial that followed were just due process that had to be tiresomely (quite literally as the guests at the tea party authentically fell asleep at odd intervals), gone through before the inevitable axe that all Italy by that time desired fell with a painful (for those of us where science isn't just something you copy the big boys doing by dressing up in funny and ungainly plastic overalls and slouch around the crime scene in for a while), clang......"

This is one man's impression, and I happen to agree with it; that's all. I mistakenly thought other people would enjoy his take and would benefit from seeing his perspective.

You have been freely offering your many impressions of me, e.g., "You see professionalism as perversion." This statement belongs to you and I am happy to leave it that way. I am not going to act like stilicho and say, "Duuuuhhhh, I don't get it.....can you fill me in a little more?"

But then, I am not here to bully and intimidate and try to drive people away.

If you don't like the conversation about sexuality, then stay out of it. There is no need to judge me..

 

[Bruce Fischer]

At least I analysed it with the information available.

You just looked for the first convenient mark, and said "look that's where the rock hit", without considering from which angle it would have to have come, nor how it may have impacted.


Be careful about making things up as you go. That got you into trouble in the Dixan and Ciolino incidents.

I "zoomed" in to 100%. Anymore on a digital photo and you just get big pixels.

Here are the closest photos from your site at 100%. I see no glass stuck in the wood of the inside (blackout) shutter.

(Maybe you're hiding the best defence photos for the 3rd level appeal).

[qimg]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8383/whereistheembeddedglass.png[/qimg]

By the way, your sarcasm doesn't make you stronger, it makes you look foolish. I now you are used people backing down to your BS. That simply will not happen with me.

 

[Fiona]

Good day Stilicho,
I really do not know why Guede would take the keys, or cell phones. I think I read somewhere that he did not have a cell, so maybe that's why he took that, and also to keep Miss Kercher from dialing out for help. I'm sure you folks have discussed this in depth to death before. Stealing Miss Kercher's cash is easy to understand though. Guede would need cash after murdering Miss Kercher or being involved in her murder with his unknown accomplice that has been mentioned. but the keys, Hmmm, I don't know why. Maybe he just grabbed the keys because they were there by the cell phones?
But interestingly, they were never found, unless I am mistaken.

I do not believe that Guede broke into the apartment, he probably came inside when Miss Kercher came home. I have seen this clip, and read about different theories too:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1734239.ece

You would know better than I if this story above was true, correct?

I don't believe that Guede forgot to flush the toilet when he was there earlier.
I think that if he came back, after the bar's/club's had closed, he did not see a huge police investigation going on. Most people drink at bars+clubs, so he might have been drunk. He might have broke the window to Filomena's room to just see if anyone was home, went inside when he realized it was safe to do so by the front door with the never found keys, checked the different rooms of the house to see if anyone was there, checked to see if Miss Kercher was alive, sexually assaulted Miss Kercher's body, as it lie still, after he moved it and removed her clothing. Afterwards, he might have then went to clean himself up a bit, used the toilet, and might have fallen asleep in the bathroom. He must have been getting tired by then. Didn't the boys downstairs say Guede had previously fallen asleep in the bathroom in their apartment? If he did fall asleep, maybe Amanda awoke him by her movements in her apartment when she came home that morning to shower. And Guede did not flush the toilet so as not to make any noise and have Amanda find him, so he split, fast. If Amanda had found Guede there that morning, who knows, she too might not be alive today.

You might not agree with what I wrote, but do note that the theory I have written about draws on useage of the evidence that both sides, the innocentisti and the colpevolisti, use in their own theories...

RWVBWL
Ps-If any of you folks visit Los Angeles and luv Mexican food, Tito's is a legend!

Do you know how common necrophilia is? I believed it to be very rare but I do not have any data so I could easily be wrong

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Are you familiar with the type of latch on the inside of the window?

Are you aware that Rudy standing on his toes on the top row of the bars on the lower level window, Rudy can reach about 8 inches above that latch?

That is with the palm of his hand facing him.

Put your palm of your hand in front of your face then reach up as high as you can. You will notice if you move your hand forward to account for the thickness of the wall and reaching up and under the glass, your natural arm movement would be very favorable for this task.

If you research this window, you will see why this was not a big argument in the courtroom. This is an online argument only.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Okay, I have to run. Won't be back until tomorrow night.

Kermit, this will give you plenty of time to measure the wall.

Make a powerpoint for my website showing how easy it is. That would be great. Leave out the vibrator talk. I don't allow that childish garbage on my site.

 

[Kermit]

At least I analysed it with the information available.

You just looked for the first convenient mark, and said "look that's where the rock hit", without considering from which angle it would have to have come, nor how it may have impacted.


Be careful about making things up as you go. That got you into trouble in the Dixan and Ciolino incidents.

I "zoomed" in to 100%. Anymore on a digital photo and you just get big pixels.

Here are the closest photos from your site at 100%. I see no glass stuck in the wood of the inside (blackout) shutter.

(Maybe you're hiding the best defence photos for the 3rd level appeal).

[qimg]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8383/whereistheembeddedglass.png[/qimg]

I do not know what type of monitor you have but there is a piece of glass stuck to the wood right above marker R .... By the way, your sarcasm doesn't make you stronger, it makes you look foolish. I now you are used people backing down to your BS. That simply will not happen with me.

I honestly and sincerely do not see the glass that you see. If we asked for a show of hands of both the regular posters and the readers here, I'm sure they would say the same.

Please indicate (you obviously know how to mark an image with an arrow) where all those particles of glass are, which were driven hard enough to embed themselves into painted wood, yet where the heavier and bigger rock, with all its momentum, just stood in mid air until the inside shutter was kind enough to open inward, and then complacently dropped into the paper bag below.

 

[RWVBWL]

Do you know how common necrophilia is? I believed it to be very rare but I do not have any data so I could easily be wrong

Hi Fiona,
I would think, that if Guede did assault Miss Kercher's body as she lie dead and motionless, he would not want others to know about it. Hence his "I had a date" bulls**t.
But nontheless, it does happen...
RWVBWL

 

[Montmorency]

I-yi-yi. This has gotten out of hand. I hearby give you permission to completely ignore me.

I believe this all started when I posted an entertaining and insightful post by John Winters, when BobTheDonkey and I were discussing the logic of the police's actions. Here is my original post:

Bob wrote: "Correction, the photograph argument hasn't been discussed multiple times. However, I see no real problem with the photograph being hung on the wall - it's not uncommon to see wanted posters in Police offices *shrug* Can you provide evidence that the photograph caused the lab team to fudge their work to provide a guilty verdict?"

[Mary H wrote] Speaking of the photograph (have you seen it?) I got a very big kick out of this descriptive post by John Winters on one of the CBS 48 Hours blogs:

by johnwinters96 April 27, 2010 5:11 AM EDT

"John Harmeyer said:

'''There is hard evidence against her' and then goes on to outline the few rather skeletal, thin, and often inaccurate notions and whims the prosecution team stuck together with cocktail sticks and gum (as if it was actually robust), to then bring to bear as a case against an American girl who was actually going down from the moment the postal police arrived that morning at 7 Via della Pergola and realised what they had. [emphasis Mary H]

"Never mind about Amanda's ''body language'' outside the villa that morning. What about the distinct sense of glee one gets from the grouping of ''detectives'' that surrounded her, pregnant with vulgar and cruel anticipation? (Shudder of horror).

"The funny interviews, confessions, and Mad Hatter Tea party trial that followed were just due process that had to be tiresomely (quite literally as the guests at the tea party authentically fell asleep at odd intervals), gone through before the inevitable axe that all Italy by that time desired fell with a painful (for those of us where science isn't just something you copy the big boys doing by dressing up in funny and ungainly plastic overalls and slouch around the crime scene in for a while), clang......"

This is one man's impression, and I happen to agree with it; that's all. I mistakenly thought other people would enjoy his take and would benefit from seeing his perspective.

You have been freely offering your many impressions of me, e.g., "You see professionalism as perversion." This statement belongs to you and I am happy to leave it that way. I am not going to act like stilicho and say, "Duuuuhhhh, I don't get it.....can you fill me in a little more?"

But then, I am not here to bully and intimidate and try to drive people away.

If you don't like the conversation about sexuality, then stay out of it. There is no need to judge me..

Tut tut tut Mary H, you try to distract from your own bad words. I was not referring to that at all. I was first struck by you saying these eight policemen were using the 'intuition between their legs' or some such phrase. I see in those photos professionalism. You see perversion (arresting someone for murder because of sexual attraction). Not so hard to make a connection is it? I think you see sexuality everywhere and it has more to do with you than reality. It is not that I don't 'like conversation about sexuality', more that I don't like to see someone denigrating professionals (and making judgments) in the way you did. You call Meredith Kercher a 'dead girl' in the sentence about Peter Quenell and his imagined sexual fantasies. This is not respectful. You denigrate Italian men, and give your impressions of people you don't know all the time. You judge everyone but expect no-one to judge you?!! The world does not work like this dear MaryH. It is not 'getting out of hand', it is someone simply calling you on your insults and you don't like it. You must take responsibility for your words I think.

You don't like my calling you to judgment. Fine. I can see you would be uncomfortable with that. You say you do not want to bully, but your words are bullying to others who are not able to defend themselves. That is both bullying and cowardly.

I will most certainly and happily ignore you. You seem a very strange woman to me. Try to keep the insults about others lives out of this serious debate and I will never bother you again.

 

[Fiona]

Hi Fiona,
I would think, that if Guede did assault Miss Kercher's body as she lie dead and motionless, he would not want others to know about it. Hence his "I had a date" bulls**t.
But nontheless, it does happen...
RWVBWL

I have no doubt it happens: any idea how common it is?

Any idea how how he would have achieved this assault without leaving blood?