Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

You really have to wonder if they actually give any of this any "deep thought"?

There is no doubt that the FOA acted in concert together to achieve a common goal. But that is in fact no different from what they are doing. But nothing the FOA did could be described as a conspiracy. There was nothing secret about it and nothing illegal.

Manipulate is a strange word. Yes, there was a goal to get the press to take a different approach but there were no attempts at deception. The FOA was peddling a different, less sexy and trashy story than the lurid stories that had dominated the press for so long. This was a much harder story to sell,but it did have one thing going for it. It was the truth.

And over time it became clearer and clearer that in the end the people preferred the truth to lies, no matter how much sex the lies offered.

It is a bizarre world, that's for sure.

Ergon has risen to the top of the, "I care for Meredith more than you," world.

Of his description of the world of the haters, it's perhaps not fit for any of us to comment. It is what it is, and who better to lay it out than Ergon. Portraying guilters as "victims", though is a wee bit thick. But he's entitled to an opinion, really.

His portrayal of the "FOA" is surreal. He claims to know things which are pure fantasy. One can only get out the popcorn and try not to choke on the latest wild speculation offered as fact. I'm glad he could offer up Knox's horoscope as calmly as he did.

The link to the webcast should be broadcast far and wide. Maybe let folk like Katie Couric in on who it was carpetbombing her - all the while while it was they claiming an FOA media campaign!

Hoots!

 

[Grinder]

No, I can. In fact I do. But that doesn't mean that Amanda should be accountable.

I shared a house not far from there where we held at least a half a dozen parties that were epic. Where as many as a hundred people showed up and many left intoxicated. The greatest party we held was a Jim Jones party with Kool aid spiked not with cyanide but pure grain alcohol.

The idea that Mignini and the crazies would use that party to suggest that Amanda was violent is absurd.

Tesla - why not just say that a wild party even with a little rock throwing by some of the immature kids there has nothing to do with a murder case in Italy. Why do PIP feel the need to embellish or create facts to somehow diminish the feeble accusations against Amanda?

Why are you now telling of a party from 1978 that was "not far" from her place? I held a series of parties on 10th Ave. East that were epic and at one a girl's purse was stolen and the police came because of noise but no ticket wasw issued. Big deal.

Why would a PIP make up facts about Amanda and Meredith never living away from home before Italy and when shown to be wrong try to claim that West Seattle is around the corner from the UW? When that is shown to be wrong challenge my knowledge of Seattle based on Google saying Edda's house is only 14 minutes from downtown Seattle when of course the UW hasn't been located there for 130 years.

Recently several here said that if it were shown definitively that Amanda was at Quintavalle's store at opening that wouldn't have been a very serious problem for the defense. One person actually said that it would just be the case that she had forgotten that she had gone. I mean really.

Amanda was given a ticket for a loud party and the cop observed rocks in the street and felt he needed to include that information on his incident report and that he warned her about any more rock throwing. That's what happened and no excuses or concocted stories about the neighborhood need be created.

So I'm guessing your HUGE parties were at the Roosevelt address not 11th. Both of those addresses are NOT quiet side streets like 12th at 52nd.

 

[anglolawyer]

Dictionary definition of disgust:-

"1. a feeling of revulsion or strong disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive. "the sight filled her with disgust"
synonyms: revulsion, repugnance, aversion, distaste, abhorrence, loathing, detestation, odium, execration, horror;..."

Last word in the definition is "horror"....

Ok that's sorted that one out, but in fairness as a non-English speaking person you are forgiven.

Next:-

So AK made a few correct interpretations and a few misinterpretations of the frenetic situation after the discovery of the murdered MK....including stating the body was INSIDE a cupboard and that a "foot" was discovered. ....and you want to read anything into this other than frenetic babble.

I rest my case.

I'm glad you mentioned the cupboard. The cupboard is like the *********** lamp. No one can figure out its significance. They took the doors off. They studied it. They scratched their chins and stared at it, like the black plinth in 2001 A Space Oddysey. I never could figure out what was so interesting about that cupboard until someone suggested they thought it must have some significance because of what she said.

Can any of the brilliant PGPs suggest why Amanda said that. Brilliant misdirection! They spent hours looking for the body in that cupboard when it was right there on the floor! Genius!

 

[acbytesla]

It is a bizarre world, that's for sure.

Ergon has risen to the top of the, "I care for Meredith more than you," world.

Of his description of the world of the haters, it's perhaps not fit for any of us to comment. It is what it is, and who better to lay it out than Ergon. Portraying guilters as "victims", though is a wee bit thick. But he's entitled to an opinion, really.

His portrayal of the "FOA" is surreal. He claims to know things which are pure fantasy. One can only get out the popcorn and try not to choke on the latest wild speculation offered as fact. I'm glad he could offer up Knox's horoscope as calmly as he did.

The link to the webcast should be broadcast far and wide. Maybe let folk like Katie Couric in on who it was carpetbombing her - all the while while it was they claiming an FOA media campaign!

Hoots!

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12. Do not make personal remarks about members of ISF.

But day by day fewer and fewer people think he has anything valuable to contribute. As a result, this is a dangerous time for him. He is being marginalized and that is likely to push him off the deep end if hasn't taken that plunge already.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm glad you mentioned the cupboard. The cupboard is like the *********** lamp. No one can figure out its significance. They took the doors off. They studied it. They scratched their chins and stared at it, like the black plinth in 2001 A Space Oddysey. I never could figure out what was so interesting about that cupboard until someone suggested they thought it must have some significance because of what she said.

Can any of the brilliant PGPs suggest why Amanda said that. Brilliant misdirection! They spent hours looking for the body in that cupboard when it was right there on the floor! Genius!

You are making the investigators sound stupid. Stop that!

What is really important is those 150 things Amanda Knox needs to tell us so that we can know what happened that night. You know, the PowerPoint that Kermit got Peter Q. to market for him.

Forget the lamp. Forget the cupboard. Of the 150 most important things..... can Knox tell us the phase of the moon that night!!! Huh? HUH!!!

Take a look at this below for the answer. As you know I have the full set!!



This is crucial to understanding "all the other evidence" Peter Q. promised when the DNA forensics fell apart in 2011. Speaking of strange - Ergon never once referenced the phase of the moon in his webradio thing.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla - why not just say that a wild party even with a little rock throwing by some of the immature kids there has nothing to do with a murder case in Italy. Why do PIP feel the need to embellish or create facts to somehow diminish the feeble accusations against Amanda?

Why are you now telling of a party from 1978 that was "not far" from her place? I held a series of parties on 10th Ave. East that were epic and at one a girl's purse was stolen and the police came because of noise but no ticket wasw issued. Big deal.

Why would a PIP make up facts about Amanda and Meredith never living away from home before Italy and when shown to be wrong try to claim that West Seattle is around the corner from the UW? When that is shown to be wrong challenge my knowledge of Seattle based on Google saying Edda's house is only 14 minutes from downtown Seattle when of course the UW hasn't been located there for 130 years.

Recently several here said that if it were shown definitively that Amanda was at Quintavalle's store at opening that wouldn't have been a very serious problem for the defense. One person actually said that it would just be the case that she had forgotten that she had gone. I mean really.

Amanda was given a ticket for a loud party and the cop observed rocks in the street and felt he needed to include that information on his incident report and that he warned her about any more rock throwing. That's what happened and no excuses or concocted stories about the neighborhood need be created.

So I'm guessing your HUGE parties were at the Roosevelt address not 11th. Both of those addresses are NOT quiet side streets like 12th at 52nd.

Actually it was at a 4th place I forgot to mention. A block off Ravenna and a couple of blocks from Roosevelt. The freeway was right behind the house. And the party was probably closer to 1982 than 78.

As for your other questions, I think it is a mistake to lump everyone together. Few people have perfect knowledge of the case and sometimes unreliable info gets repeated and then false info becomes common knowledge.

I think it's grossly unfair to portray normal college behavior as deviant. But that doesn't mean young people don't cross the line sometimes. I don't imagine Amanda as perfect or her friends and acquaintances. I saw frat boys do some very wild, even dangerous things. But even these guys weren't looking to actually hurt others.

But I still don't think a cop can make a conclusion about some rocks in the street. But it still is more than reasonable under the circumstances to offer a warning.

 

[Dougm]

Tesla - why not just say that a wild party even with a little rock throwing by some of the immature kids there has nothing to do with a murder case in Italy. Why do PIP feel the need to embellish or create facts to somehow diminish the feeble accusations against Amanda?

Why are you now telling of a party from 1978 that was "not far" from her place? I held a series of parties on 10th Ave. East that were epic and at one a girl's purse was stolen and the police came because of noise but no ticket wasw issued. Big deal.

Why would a PIP make up facts about Amanda and Meredith never living away from home before Italy and when shown to be wrong try to claim that West Seattle is around the corner from the UW? When that is shown to be wrong challenge my knowledge of Seattle based on Google saying Edda's house is only 14 minutes from downtown Seattle when of course the UW hasn't been located there for 130 years.

Recently several here said that if it were shown definitively that Amanda was at Quintavalle's store at opening that wouldn't have been a very serious problem for the defense. One person actually said that it would just be the case that she had forgotten that she had gone. I mean really.

Amanda was given a ticket for a loud party and the cop observed rocks in the street and felt he needed to include that information on his incident report and that he warned her about any more rock throwing. That's what happened and no excuses or concocted stories about the neighborhood need be created.

So I'm guessing your HUGE parties were at the Roosevelt address not 11th. Both of those addresses are NOT quiet side streets like 12th at 52nd.

Although I think the time you spend on this issue (PI folk denying any negative about Amanda) far exceeds it's importance, I do understand your point. I once posted (on IA, I think) that, if Meredith's DNA on the knife could be confirmed in a scientifically viable way, that would be a big problem for AK and RS. And I got a series of people asking me WTH I was talking about!

One of the key points of this case is that Amanda and Raff are just regular people who got sucked into a murder they had nothing to do with. By being regular people, they also make mistakes, act stupid sometimes, and do and say things they regret later. Like all of us. I do tend to get angry when PG folk take these everyday things, good, bad, or indifferent, and try to turn them into evil. As far as I can tell, Amanda acted pretty much like a typical 20 year old college girl. But I never thought those two were perfect, and they have never claimed to be.

Somebody could have thrown rocks at that party, but I don't think we know, no one claimed to have been hit by them, and we have no evidence that Amanda was aware of it if it happened. The idea it was in any way related to a murder in Italy is the PG grasping at straws.

 

[Mike1711]

Actually it was at a 4th place I forgot to mention. A block off Ravenna and a couple of blocks from Roosevelt. The freeway was right behind the house. And the party was probably closer to 1982 than 78.

As for your other questions, I think it is a mistake to lump everyone together. Few people have perfect knowledge of the case and sometimes unreliable info gets repeated and then false info becomes common knowledge.

I think it's grossly unfair to portray normal college behavior as deviant. But that doesn't mean young people don't cross the line sometimes. I don't imagine Amanda as perfect or her friends and acquaintances. I saw frat boys do some very wild, even dangerous things. But even these guys weren't looking to actually hurt others.

But I still don't think a cop can make a conclusion about some rocks in the street. But it still is more than reasonable under the circumstances to offer a warning.

It doesn't really matter one way or the other.

I have seen and been party to boisterous and sometimes dangerous things as a student, which at the time just seemed like fun. I knew a few fellows who would throw rocks at street lights at night for fun. Yes, it's wrong, but It should never be raised as evidence in any murder trial years later.

It's cheap shot journalistic claptrap, and that's where it should stay.

 

[LondonJohn]

Guys!! The above posts are not really about Knox/Sollecito. Can I gently turn things back to the subject in hand......?

Having had a deeper look at the SC report, it is clear to me that the court is posing a pure hypothetical when it posits Knox's/Sollecito's presence in the cottage at the time of the murder. What the court has effectively said is this: "OK, even if we accept that Knox committed aggravated criminal slander (a matter on which we are not authorised to pass judgement, importantly), which means that she must have been there in order to know that Lumumba wasn't there (i.e. the "aggravation" part), this in itself is absolutely insufficient to prove a charge of murder against either Knox or Sollecito."

So the suggestion that the SC report has somehow stated that Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito) were in the cottage at the time of the murder is, IMO, completely incorrect. Rather, what the SC has done is nothing more than take into account the previous SC definitive ruling on aggravated criminal slander, and show how its acquittal is actually judicially compatible with this previous SC ruling. I suspect that most (if not all) of the Marasca SC panel believe the previous SC criminal slander ruling was wrong - as evidenced by the heavy hint that the ECHR will demand a remedy. But it would have been judicially and politically extremely awkward for the Marasca SC panel to challenge directly the decision of the previous SC panel on the criminal slander, so this was (IMO) their way of skirting round this problem. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[carbonjam72]

'Aggravation' factor was denied by Marasca

Guys!! The above posts are not really about Knox/Sollecito. Can I gently turn things back to the subject in hand......?

Having had a deeper look at the SC report, it is clear to me that the court is posing a pure hypothetical when it posits Knox's/Sollecito's presence in the cottage at the time of the murder. What the court has effectively said is this: "OK, even if we accept that Knox committed aggravated criminal slander (a matter on which we are not authorised to pass judgement, importantly), which means that she must have been there in order to know that Lumumba wasn't there (i.e. the "aggravation" part), this in itself is absolutely insufficient to prove a charge of murder against either Knox or Sollecito."

So the suggestion that the SC report has somehow stated that Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito) were in the cottage at the time of the murder is, IMO, completely incorrect. Rather, what the SC has done is nothing more than take into account the previous SC definitive ruling on aggravated criminal slander, and show how its acquittal is actually judicially compatible with this previous SC ruling. I suspect that most (if not all) of the Marasca SC panel believe the previous SC criminal slander ruling was wrong - as evidenced by the heavy hint that the ECHR will demand a remedy. But it would have been judicially and politically extremely awkward for the Marasca SC panel to challenge directly the decision of the previous SC panel on the criminal slander, so this was (IMO) their way of skirting round this problem. Nothing more and nothing less.

I agree LJ, and I cited the passage (google translated) above, on page 46 of Marasca's report, where it states the prosecution failed to prove the defendants alibi was false, that they indeed may have spent the entire evening at Raf's apartment.

But I think you've misread it slightly on the issue of aggravated calunnia. This court Marasca, rejected Nencini's finding of 'aggravation' in the calunnia charge, and I think for the very reasons you point out. In order for Amanda to have "known" it was false, she had to have been at the cottage. Marasca, by holding that they may not have been at the cottage, must also hold that Amanda could not have known her statement was false, in the event she wasn't there and her and Raf's alibi are true, and therefore the element of 'aggravation' must be denied as not being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Nencini was guilty on murder, so therefore, guilty on aggravation. Marasca was NO on murder, and therefore NO on aggravation. Hellman has said he wished he had acquitted on calunnia as well, but its spilled milk at this point.

The nasty part of the opinion is that it speculates that they may have been there at the time of the murder, but even if they were, that in itself would not prove participation in murder.

Luca Cheli says it was a compromise verdict. Diocletus has said he thinks they deliberately tee'd up the calunnia case for ECHR by stating Amanda's statements were made under duress. (I agree with both).

 

[bagels]

Are there any neutral translations in the works?

 

[Dougm]

Guys!! The above posts are not really about Knox/Sollecito. Can I gently turn things back to the subject in hand......?

Having had a deeper look at the SC report, it is clear to me that the court is posing a pure hypothetical when it posits Knox's/Sollecito's presence in the cottage at the time of the murder. What the court has effectively said is this: "OK, even if we accept that Knox committed aggravated criminal slander (a matter on which we are not authorised to pass judgement, importantly), which means that she must have been there in order to know that Lumumba wasn't there (i.e. the "aggravation" part), this in itself is absolutely insufficient to prove a charge of murder against either Knox or Sollecito."

So the suggestion that the SC report has somehow stated that Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito) were in the cottage at the time of the murder is, IMO, completely incorrect. Rather, what the SC has done is nothing more than take into account the previous SC definitive ruling on aggravated criminal slander, and show how its acquittal is actually judicially compatible with this previous SC ruling. I suspect that most (if not all) of the Marasca SC panel believe the previous SC criminal slander ruling was wrong - as evidenced by the heavy hint that the ECHR will demand a remedy. But it would have been judicially and politically extremely awkward for the Marasca SC panel to challenge directly the decision of the previous SC panel on the criminal slander, so this was (IMO) their way of skirting round this problem. Nothing more and nothing less.

I've been suspecting that what you say is the case, although I have not commented on it, due to the lack of a "legitimate" (meaning unbiased) translation.

I won't be upset one way or another, because my expectations for this verdict have always been low. It was evident a long time ago that the best that could be hoped for was a face saving acquittal.

But the idea, as some want us to believe, that the court is saying that it is proven that Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage at the time of the murder, but they can't prove they actually DID the murder, doesn't make sense, even based on previous nonsensical Italian ISC verdict history.

• It can make some sense for the court to say, "we are not sure what happened, and even based on (XYZ thing that makes Knox and RS look guilty), we don't have enough to convict.

• It can make some sense for them to say, "It is possible that they were there at the time, but the evidence available does not allow us to confirm it".

• But it doesn't make any sense to say, "We can confirm they were there at the time of the murder, but we can't convict because there is not exact evidence they were in the room at the time". If they agree BARD that they were in the cottage at the time, even in absense of proof they were in the room, I think they would have convicted.

I am quite sure there are numerous nuances that are being missed, either accidentally or on purpose, mostly by the PG community.

 

[carbonjam72]

I've been suspecting that what you say is the case, although I have not commented on it, due to the lack of a "legitimate" (meaning unbiased) translation.

I won't be upset one way or another, because my expectations for this verdict have always been low. It was evident a long time ago that the best that could be hoped for was a face saving acquittal.

But the idea, as some want us to believe, that the court is saying that it is proven that Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage at the time of the murder, but they can't prove they actually DID the murder, doesn't make sense, even based on previous nonsensical Italian ISC verdict history.

• It can make some sense for the court to say, "we are not sure what happened, and even based on (XYZ thing that makes Knox and RS look guilty), we don't have enough to convict.

• It can make some sense for them to say, "It is possible that they were there at the time, but the evidence available does not allow us to confirm it".

• But it doesn't make any sense to say, "We can confirm they were there at the time of the murder, but we can't convict because there is not exact evidence they were in the room at the time". If they agree BARD that they were in the cottage at the time, even in absense of proof they were in the room, I think they would have convicted.

I am quite sure there are numerous nuances that are being missed, either accidentally or on purpose, mostly by the PG community.

I think this is exactly what they did say, based on dropping the report into google translate. I'm bumping up my previous post on this issue, in hopes Mach will chime in:

----------------------

Ok Mach, let's try to handle your misinterpretation of the Marasca report one at a time.

Marasca did not hold that Amanda and/or Raf were in the house at the time of the crime.

------------------

Quote (Mach):
"And yet, as I said, the report also states that Knox's presence at the murder is a proven fact and that it's certain. It states that both before and after the statement about "tranquillizing certainty"; it even explains at length in support of their certainty.
I realize this is crazy and inconsistent. But so is the verdict."

CJ72: Well Mach, I believe you have misread the Marasca report on this point. Let's look at the actual quote on the bottom of page 46:

From Marasca, p.46 -

"Elements of strong suspicion reconnect even, dry inconsistencies and to falsehood in which the accused and incurred in the various statements made, especially in so far as his story appeared contradicted by phone records showing a different origin of SMS; by witness statements by Antonio Curatolo, regarding the presence of the same in the square Grimana Knox, Sollecito in the company of, and Mario Quintavalle, related alia its presence in the supermarket in the morning the day after the murder, perhaps to purchase detergents . Nevertheless, the profiles of intrinsic contradictions and poor reliability of the witnesses, several times as exceptions in the process of merit, not attributing unconditional credit to its versions, is to prove, with certainty tranquilizer, it failed, and then the falsehood, of 'alibi offered by the accused, who claimed to have been in the home of her boyfriend in the late afternoon of 1 November until the morning of the next day. Curatolo (enigmatic character: homeless, drug addict and drug dealer)
47..."

Marasca wrote that while there may be "strong suspicion" that Amanda and Raf were at the house, strong suspicions are not enough to overcome the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Marasca , in the paragraph above, expressly states that the alibi of Amanda and Raf, that they never left Raf's apartment that entire night, may well be entirely true. Their alibi has not been proven to be false. The statements you are pointing to, is the Marasca court making the best argument available in favor of guilt, before showing those arguments to be insufficient on the merits. This is another example of your selective reading, or should we say misreading, of plain straightforward language.

Marasca has said strong suspicions are not enough. Perhaps that's what you really disagree with?

Ok Mach, did you see it there? The prosecution did NOT PROVE the defendants alibi was false, as they must do. That's what Marasca wrote, not your biased misrepresentation.

Do we agree on this point?

 

[acbytesla]

I've been suspecting that what you say is the case, although I have not commented on it, due to the lack of a "legitimate" (meaning unbiased) translation.

I won't be upset one way or another, because my expectations for this verdict have always been low. It was evident a long time ago that the best that could be hoped for was a face saving acquittal.

But the idea, as some want us to believe, that the court is saying that it is proven that Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage at the time of the murder, but they can't prove they actually DID the murder, doesn't make sense, even based on previous nonsensical Italian ISC verdict history.

• It can make some sense for the court to say, "we are not sure what happened, and even based on (XYZ thing that makes Knox and RS look guilty), we don't have enough to convict.

• It can make some sense for them to say, "It is possible that they were there at the time, but the evidence available does not allow us to confirm it".

• But it doesn't make any sense to say, "We can confirm they were there at the time of the murder, but we can't convict because there is not exact evidence they were in the room at the time". If they agree BARD that they were in the cottage at the time, even in absense of proof they were in the room, I think they would have convicted.

I am quite sure there are numerous nuances that are being missed, either accidentally or on purpose, mostly by the PG community.

I don't buy that the court is saying that they were at the cottage at the time of the murder. That it HAS to be said as some kind of conditional clause or hypothetical. That said, I haven't read the motivation because I don't trust Yummi or Google.

 

[sept79]

You could read the comments on Candace's blog for a few years, but eventually the P-I deleted all of them. Yummi was on there as early as 2008, pontificating on the Italian legal system, before he could speak English half as well as he now speaks it (kudos to him on that).

Candace always gave him way too much leeway, I thought. She sincerely believed his agenda was to explain Italian legal culture and procedure objectively, but his attitude was already showing -- he would have a major cow every other day about how stupid people were because they couldn't understand what he meant, just like he does now. Candace was very forgiving (or naive).

Charlie Wilkes probably posted more than anyone else; he was a true voice of reason. A poster by the handle of 'cool mac fin' (or something like that) pretended to be fence sitting but was really a hardened guilter. One must remember that the scientific evidence wasn't know to be crap until well after the middle of 2009.

 

[Grinder]

Although I think the time you spend on this issue (PI folk denying any negative about Amanda) far exceeds it's importance, I do understand your point. I once posted (on IA, I think) that, if Meredith's DNA on the knife could be confirmed in a scientifically viable way, that would be a big problem for AK and RS. And I got a series of people asking me WTH I was talking about!

of course way too much time is spent on this. Way too many rationals are put forward to explain the kids' behavior instead just saying yes they did this or that but it has no relationship to the case nor does it reflect on their character in any meaningful way. Amanda hosted a party and was given a noise ticket in which mention of rock throwing was included. So what? Amanda didn't clean to Laura's standards. So what?

One of the key points of this case is that Amanda and Raff are just regular people who got sucked into a murder they had nothing to do with. By being regular people, they also make mistakes, act stupid sometimes, and do and say things they regret later. Like all of us. I do tend to get angry when PG folk take these everyday things, good, bad, or indifferent, and try to turn them into evil. As far as I can tell, Amanda acted pretty much like a typical 20 year old college girl. But I never thought those two were perfect, and they have never claimed to be.

Sure

Somebody could have thrown rocks at that party, but I don't think we know, no one claimed to have been hit by them, and we have no evidence that Amanda was aware of it if it happened. The idea it was in any way related to a murder in Italy is the PG grasping at straws.

Sure

 

[MichaelB]

Are there any neutral translations in the works?

Yes, it's being translated and will be finished this week hopefully.

 

[Mary_H]

Charlie Wilkes probably posted more than anyone else; he was a true voice of reason. A poster by the handle of 'cool mac fin' (or something like that) pretended to be fence sitting but was really a hardened guilter. One must remember that the scientific evidence wasn't know to be crap until well after the middle of 2009.

Charlie Wilkes is the best writer about this case. I wish he were here right now to correct the impression Ergon gave on his podcast about the FOA. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, FOA's numbers were few. All they did was collect money for Amanda's legal fund. "Quite a few British and other countries, Russia, Poland." Not bloody likely. More like a few parents of Amanda's classmates at Prep, plus Charlie W.

Finn MacCool was and is a hardened guilter who was posting on PMF.org as recently as last February.

 

[Zephyrgeist]

Are there any neutral translations in the works?

Yes

Rudy Herman Guede Killed Meredith Kercher, in the Bedroom, with a Knife

 

[Kauffer]

Yes, it's being translated and will be finished this week hopefully.

I am sure it will lay to rest a few myths in connection with pro guilt claims about its content.