• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do this far too often. Don't answer my question, but don't act like you own this thread. "I asked you first". That's something you expect from a five year old.


If you think you are too young to participate, that's fine. You can come back in a year or so when you turn 5. (In forum years you are one month older than I.)

The participants in this thread that I respect have all put in the effort to research the issues and don't run from requests to support their theories or share their evidence.
 
Last edited:
Don't you already have another thread going on this subject - the one discussing 'Who killed MK if we exclude all the evidence against AK & RS and assume it was RG '.

It seems tailor made for this - How is that thread going by the way ?

.


Platonov, that is a lie. The OP in that thread includes the highlighted statement:
For this thread, any discussion of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito being at the scene when the murder occurred is strictly off topic.

The intent of that statement is to separate the threads and has no effect on excluding evidence.

The scenarios laid out in that thread are apparently unassailable. :D
 
That didn't take long, did it.

etc = in this case MK father/family

.

Where's this vitriol that you're claiming? All I've seen is some commentary related to John Kercher's recent article in the Mail. It's true to say that some of the commentary on this subject has contained criticism of John Kercher, and some have even gone so far as to suggest that he might be motivated by a desire to seek monetary damages from Knox (and presumably also Sollecito). By the way, that's an opinion to which I don't subscribe - I have no interest in making suggestions as to why John Kercher wrote this article, and as far as I'm concerned he's completely entitled to express his grief and/or anger in any way he sees fit.

Vitriol, on the other hand, would be defined in this context as bitterly abusive sentiment, usually expressed vehemently and offensively. I'm not seeing any vitriol aimed at the Kercher family on this thread. But for a case study in both vitriol and misplaced emotion, another forum might be worthy of examination:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=288&sid=ec7a2111136859a0e1374136d00d9c79&start=3500

.

.

.
 
Where's this vitriol that you're claiming? All I've seen is some commentary related to John Kercher's recent article in the Mail. It's true to say that some of the commentary on this subject has contained criticism of John Kercher, and some have even gone so far as to suggest that he might be motivated by a desire to seek monetary damages from Knox (and presumably also Sollecito). By the way, that's an opinion to which I don't subscribe - I have no interest in making suggestions as to why John Kercher wrote this article, and as far as I'm concerned he's completely entitled to express his grief and/or anger in any way he sees fit.

Vitriol, on the other hand, would be defined in this context as bitterly abusive sentiment, usually expressed vehemently and offensively. I'm not seeing any vitriol aimed at the Kercher family on this thread. But for a case study in both vitriol and misplaced emotion, another forum might be worthy of examination:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=288&sid=ec7a2111136859a0e1374136d00d9c79&start=3500


This is the JREF thread.

If you want to debate on PMF (or police the whole internet) - sign up over there.

.
 
The level of compassion displayed from some here for the major victims of this whole case (Meredith's family) is a sight to behold. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kercher said:

Yet to my family she is, unequivocally, culpable.

The Kerchers will have their lawyer arguing for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele at the appeal. Any compassion I feel for the loss of their daughter does not extend to the Kercher's fighting to see Amanda and Raffaele remain in jail. The Kercher's are wrong to believe that they are guilty and wrong in their active participation in this injustice.

Mr. Kercher is a journalist and he knows exactly what he was doing in including this comment as well as the one about the lack of sympathy from the Knox family. I have no issue with his comments about the media giving Amanda celebrity status. If that is all he wanted to talk about he would not have included these off topic remarks. On those remarks he gets no compassion from me.
 
This is the JREF thread.

If you want to debate on PMF (or police the whole internet) - sign up over there.

.

This is not the Daily Mail either. Yet we discuss here on JREF what's written there about the case. This is not the Seattle PI either, nor is it "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey, nor "Angel Face" by Barbie Latza Nadeau, nor "Darkness Descending" by Graham Johnson et al. Yet these sources of information and/or debate about the case all seem worthy of analysis on this thread - and rightly so. Explain to me why an internet forum solely dedicated to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher should be off-limits for discussion on another internet forum. I'm all ears.

.

.

.

PS Maybe I will go sign up on PMF and debate the case on there as well. Oh, hang on a minute...... :rolleyes:
 
two comparisons

You do this far too often. Don't answer my question, but don't act like you own this thread. "I asked you first". That's something you expect from a five year old.

lionking,

What about the commenter whom Charlie Wilkes quoted a couple of days ago? The one who said in effect that he/she wished that Edda, Chris, and Curt were rubber chickens who could be strangled, thrown against a wall, and further abused by his or her cat? Is that OK with you?

I believe that Sollecito and Knox are innocent. Yet I see a real possibility that they will spend around 25 years each behind bars, effectively ruining any chance that they had for careers and (for Knox) biological children. That destruction of a normal life is not "miniscule." Even if they were acquitted tomorrow, they would have each lost three precious years behind bars. And there will always be people out there who think that they are guilty, based upon what I have seen in another high-profile case. The whispering and pointing in public places will probably follow them for many years. This tragedy will define their lives, not matter what.*

*this sentence was added as a post script
 
Last edited:
This is not the Daily Mail either. Yet we discuss here on JREF what's written there about the case. This is not the Seattle PI either, nor is it "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey, nor "Angel Face" by Barbie Latza Nadeau, nor "Darkness Descending" by Graham Johnson et al. Yet these sources of information and/or debate about the case all seem worthy of analysis on this thread - and rightly so. Explain to me why an internet forum solely dedicated to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher should be off-limits for discussion on another internet forum. I'm all ears.


PS Maybe I will go sign up on PMF and debate the case on there as well. Oh, hang on a minute...... :rolleyes:


Its obviously not off limits* - you seem to have a strange fixation with it, that's all.

If you cant abide by the MA on other forums that's no reason to drag this thread OT.

* They have seemingly provided much of the accurate data in the form of transcripts translations etc we have on this case.

.
 
Last edited:
This is not the Daily Mail either. Yet we discuss here on JREF what's written there about the case. This is not the Seattle PI either, nor is it "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey, nor "Angel Face" by Barbie Latza Nadeau, nor "Darkness Descending" by Graham Johnson et al. Yet these sources of information and/or debate about the case all seem worthy of analysis on this thread - and rightly so. Explain to me why an internet forum solely dedicated to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher should be off-limits for discussion on another internet forum. I'm all ears..

PS Maybe I will go sign up on PMF and debate the case on there as well. Oh, hang on a minute...... :rolleyes:

I don't see a difference discussing an excellent post by Frank at one website or a post by Michael at another, as long as both were posts regarding the case and neither post contained a comment about a poster here that made them want to puke.
 
My opinion on this is that the Knox family has shown remarkable restraint on this subject. If it were my daughter I would be telling Mr. Kercher exactly where he could stick his sympathy.

I agree. The first impulse would be to become Rambo. The second impulse would be to become Rambo of the verbal insults. It must be very tough to show the restraint the Knox family has.

Why are they restrained? That is a truly great comment because the only logical reason they would have to be restrained is to keep the forum open for logic. Why keep the logical debate going? Because they know they will win if logic and fact prevail.

If the courts embrace logic and fact with no hysteria, the Knox family has a slam dunk case!

If they thought it was hopeless, they could be as nasty as they wanted.
 
* They have seemingly provided much of the accurate data in the form of transcripts translations etc we have on this case.

.

Based on that quote from LJ, they claim to also have some secret evidence never before revealed by police, prosecutors, media, or the court. Wow, can I say just Wow. Can't wait to see it.
 
Its obviously not off limits - you seem to have a strange fixation with it, that's all.

If you cant abide by the MA on other forums that's no reason to drag this thread OT.

.

What would you like to talk about today, Platonov? I am sitting here miserable with a bad cold knowing the Nature Goddess dumped way too many inches of white slop on top of me. All I have to look forward to today is either shoveling it or seeing if I can get the snowblower up and running for the first time this season.

You have mentioned cryptically that we are unaware of something in the appeal docs that pertains to what they will argue about the time of death. Could you elaborate?
 
What would you like to talk about today, Platonov? I am sitting here miserable with a bad cold knowing the Nature Goddess dumped way too many inches of white slop on top of me. All I have to look forward to today is either shoveling it or seeing if I can get the snowblower up and running for the first time this season.

You have mentioned cryptically that we are unaware of something in the appeal docs that pertains to what they will argue about the time of death. Could you elaborate?


Nothing cryptic - read the post again.

LJ has no interest apparently in what the defence appeal docs say - glad to see someone else has.
 
Its obviously not off limits* - you seem to have a strange fixation with it, that's all.

If you cant abide by the MA on other forums that's no reason to drag this thread OT.

* They have seemingly provided much of the accurate data in the form of transcripts translations etc we have on this case.

.

The whole reason why I referred to PMF here was to offer you a distinction between commentary with contains criticism (JREF), and commentary which is routinely vitriolic (PMF). I don't have any kind of fixation with PMF. And I'd fully agree that in some respects it's been a valuable source of information, and that some interesting points of discussion occasionally come through on the message boards there. Oh, and I could (and did) well abide by the MA there - you'd be very interested to see the written reason for my *ahem* invitation to leave given by the co-"moderator": it consisted of one word, and that word was a fairly unpleasant swear word relating to below-the-waist female anatomy....

By the way, have you managed yet to find any decent vitriol or misplaced emotion from among the recent posts on this JREF thread?

.

.

.
 
Nothing cryptic - read the post again.

LJ has no interest apparently in what the defence appeal docs say - glad to see someone else has.

And..... off you go again. You really should learn to stop misrepresenting people. It's misleading at best, and mendacious at worst. Where did I write that I had no interest in what the appeal documents say? Can you show me where?

I thought not.

Here's what I actually said, just to highlight your misrepresentation:

I don't know what the defence documents contain in any kind of detail. I don't have any communication links to any of the direct participants in this process. Nor do I want to have any links. Nor am I part of any homogeneous group - I'm an unaffiliated individual with a purely intellectual interest in this case.

Where in this quote do I represent my interest (or, as you'd like to put it, my lack of interest) in what the appeal documents say?
 
By the way, have you managed yet to find any decent vitriol or misplaced emotion from among the recent posts on this JREF thread?

Scroll up a few. Justianian2 thinks the Knoxs should have pulled a "Rambo" on the Kerchers. Suggesting violence goes way beyond "misplaced emotion", it borders on mental illness. Of course, no one that believes in Amanda's innocence will condem this fool, because he thinks they are innocent too.

Yes, the folks over at PMF can be quite mean but stop with the hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by platonov

Its obviously not off limits* - you seem to have a strange fixation with it, that's all.

If you cant abide by the MA on other forums that's no reason to drag this thread OT.
* They have seemingly provided much of the accurate data in the form of transcripts translations etc we have on this case.




The whole reason why I referred to PMF here was to offer you a distinction between commentary with contains criticism (JREF), and commentary which is routinely vitriolic (PMF). I don't have any kind of fixation with PMF. And I'd fully agree that in some respects it's been a valuable source of information, and that some interesting points of discussion occasionally come through on the message boards there. Oh, and I could (and did) well abide by the MA there - you'd be very interested to see the written reason for my *ahem* invitation to leave given by the co-"moderator": it consisted of one word, and that word was a fairly unpleasant swear word relating to below-the-waist female anatomy....

By the way, have you managed yet to find any decent vitriol or misplaced emotion from among the recent posts on this JREF thread?

.


See above.
 
What would you like to talk about today, Platonov? I am sitting here miserable with a bad cold knowing the Nature Goddess dumped way too many inches of white slop on top of me. All I have to look forward to today is either shoveling it or seeing if I can get the snowblower up and running for the first time this season.

You have mentioned cryptically that we are unaware of something in the appeal docs that pertains to what they will argue about the time of death. Could you elaborate?

One part of the TOD debate I have not seen discussed much here are the calculations regarding TOD based on body temperature. From Raffaele's appeal:

7. T JUDGEMENT erred in its determination 's TIME OF DEATH
The Court, citing data tanatocronologici and assessments related to these made by consultants and experts, showed that:
1. Despite Meredith's body has not been weighed, you have determined the weight of the girl using formulas used to calculate the pesoforma, may not have provided reliable results (p.179 above). Taking account the age of 21 years and height m. 1.64 Indeed, the formulas Lorenz used to calculate the ideal weight showed that Meredith weighed 57 kg, thus placing the time of death at 21:50. If were used formulas Broca, however, would indicate a weighing 60 kg, and then the hour of death would be placed at 20.00;
2. using the same parameters implemented by Dr. Lalli including
body weight of 55 kg, placed the time of death at 22:50 instead of at 23:00 is misplaced because both cases have tolerance rather high close to 95%;
3. the Gaussian curve can be subject to change, if change is
Some of the parameters implemented, as evidenced by Prof. Norelli, the which, on the type of coverage of the corpse showed As the quilt that covered the body of Meredith could have as correction factor 1.2 to 1.3 but not 1.7, used by Dr. Lalli and considered correct by Prof. Introna;

I would love to see a discussion on this by someone conversant with this and explained to me (being not an expert on this matter). The one question that bothers me is the estimate of Meredith's weight. Had she not seen a doctor recently? Every time I go to the doctor they weigh me, check my blood pressure and temperature. What was her weight as of her last doctor's visit?
Was this discussed in any of the reports?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom