text:
The Siberian fir tree is a tall, light in color, conifer tree native to Russia and Canada. Siberian Fir essential oil has a refreshing, woody scent that is known for its calming and relaxing properties. Siberian Fir has a unique chemical composition that is predominately bornyl acetate, which provides a majority of the easing benefits of this essential oil. Siberian Fir can be very soothing to the skin, making it an ideal essential oil to add to a comforting massage. When diffused, Siberian Fir can help promote feelings of easy breathing, while calming the emotions and providing a grounding effect.
- After strenuous activity, massage into skin for soothing comfort.
- When working through difficult circumstances at home, work, or school, diffuse Siberian Fir to help reduce stress.
- Apply topically to skin to help soothe minor skin irritations.
- Inhale deeply and experience the refreshing aroma.
Directions for Use
Diffusion: Use three to four drops in the diffuser of your choice.
Internal use: Dilute one drop in 4 fl. oz. of liquid.
Topical use: Apply one to two drops to desired area. Dilute with a carrier oil to minimise any skin sensitivity. See additional precautions below.
Possible skin sensitivity. Keep out of reach of children. If you are pregnant, nursing, or under a doctor's care, consult your physician. Avoid contact with eyes, inner ears, and sensitive areas.


text:
Learning Management Systems | News
Mississippi Virtual Community College (MSVCC), a joint distance learning effort of the state's 15 community colleges, has adopted a new cloud-based learning management system for its e-learning courses. The institution will begin offering classes through the new platform beginning this summer.
MSVCC is implementing Canvas by Sandy, UT-based Instructure. The institution signed a five-year contract with the company following a review of a number of LMS platforms, according to a statement from Instructure.
The online college expects to lower its IT costs with this migration, said Eric Clark, executive director of the Mississippi Community College Board, in the prepared statement. "We are saving a significant amount of money by moving our learning management system to the cloud," said Clark. "Our community college system strives to be good stewards of Mississippi's tax dollars, and this is a wonderful example of that commitment."
MSVCC enables students to take classes from any community college in Mississippi and receive support services—including advisement, financial aid, and learning assistance—from their local college, known as the host college. The remote institution provides the online instruction. The host college issues credit for the class.
Additional information about MSVCC and Canvas are available online.
About the Author
Kanoe Namahoe is online editor for 1105 Media's Education Group. She can be reached at [email protected].
View More Webcasts
View More Whitepapers

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Self-assembly of nano-rotors
In the nanoworld many things are different. Scientists only recently started unveiling and harnessing the underlying laws and principles. A team associated with Professor Johannes Barth from the Physics Department of the TU Muenchen have now succeeded in capturing rod-shaped molecules in a two-dimensional network in such a way that they autonomously form small rotors that turn in their honeycomb-like cages.
Nature itself provides the role model for such self-organizing systems. This is how proteins bring reactants so close together that reactions can take place – reactions that are possible only in very close proximity. These effects are put to use in catalysts: surface reactants find their way to each other on the surface of these facilitators. However, the coveted dream of using self-organization effects in such a way that nano machines assemble themselves is still a thing of the future.
The rotors developed in Garching are an important step in this direction. First, the physicists built up an extensive nano lattice by allowing cobalt atoms and rod-shaped molecules of sexiphenyl-dicarbonitrile to react with each other on a silver surface. This results in a honeycomb-like lattice of extreme regularity with astonishing stability. Just like graphene, for which its discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize only a few weeks ago, this lattice is exactly one atom thick.
When the researchers added further molecular building blocks, the rods spontaneously gathered, typically in groups of three, in a honeycomb cell while neighboring cells remained empty. The chummy molecules must have had a reason for organizing themselves in threesomes. Under a scanning tunneling microscope the scientists were able to recognize why. The three molecules oriented themselves in such a way that the nitrogen ends each faced a phenyl-ring hydrogen atom. This triple-bladed rotor arrangement is so energetically advantageous that the molecules maintain this structure even when thermal energy drives it to rotation.
Because the honeycomb-cell is not round, but hexagonal, there are two different positions for the rotors that can be distinguished as a result of the interactions between the outer nitrogen atoms and the hydrogen atoms of the cell wall. Furthermore, the three molecules arrange in a clockwise and a counter-clockwise manner. In experiments at various carefully controlled temperatures the physicists were able to "freeze" all four states and examine them closely. They could thus determine the energy of these thresholds from the temperature at which the rotation resumed.
"We hope that in future we will be able to extend these simple mechanical models to optical or electronic switching," says Professor Johannes Barth. "We can set a specific cell size, we can specifically bring in further molecules and study their interaction with the surface and the cell wall. These self-organizing structures hold enormous potential."


text:
Magnetic menu
A few plastic transparent foils linked with magnets that serve as the perfect cover for different types of printed material. Easy to use. Easy to manufacture and maintain. Long-lasting product that saves time, money, raw materials. Environmentally friendly. Easily adaptable for different purposes. Ideal use in restaurants as a cover for menus. When waiter brings you just one page with fruit cocktails, and just one page with cakes for your friend, for example, it's almost like personalized menus made just for you.
Continue reading


text:
Many people spend hours on the internet every week -- but some people can't pull away.
For individuals with internet addiction, there's a type of short-term therapy that can be an effective treatment, according to a small study published Wednesday in medical journal JAMA Psychiatry .
Researchers found that 69.4% of men with internet addiction entered remission if they received short-term cognitive behavioral therapy, compared to 23.9% of men who entered remission while being on a waitlist to receive therapy.
People in remission were 10 times more likely to be part of the short-term cognitive behavioral therapy group than the waitlist control group.
"This indicates a strong treatment effect for subjects suffering from internet addiction or gaming disorder," said Klaus Wölfling, lead author of the study, in a podcast for JAMA Psychiatry. Wölfling is a researcher in the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz in Germany.
Internet addiction, according to the researchers, is excessive use of the internet that negatively affects family, social, work and other aspects of life.
Last year, the World Health Organization recognized internet gaming disorder as a mental health condition. The criteria for gaming disorder in WHO's International Classification of Diseases includes at least 12 months of recurrent patterns of gaming, loss of control, and continued behavior even after causing negative consequences and distress in other aspects of life.
For this study, researchers used a broader definition of internet addiction, to include patients who were addicted to gaming, social networks, pornography, online surfing or general internet use. The prevalence of internet addiction is estimated to be 6% worldwide.
15 weeks of therapy
The study looked at 143 men between the ages of 17 and 55 across four outpatient clinics in Germany and Austria, who met criteria for internet addiction based on scores from the Assessment of Internet and Computer Game Addiction, a standardized survey used in the field.
It is based on 14 criteria that include frequency of internet activity, withdrawal symptoms, preoccupation with the internet and a loss of interest in other life activities. Internet addiction was defined as a score greater than 13, while remission was defined as a score of less than 7.
The short-term cognitive behavioral therapy consisted of 15 weeks of group and individual sessions. The program was divided into three phases: education about the addiction, psychotherapeutic intervention -- such as showing healthy use of the internet -- and "focus on relapse prevention techniques and transition into everyday life," according to Wölfling.
The people who were in the waitlist control group did ultimately receive the cognitive behavioral therapy, but after a 15 week delay to allow the study to be completed.
The study assessed only men because they are the predominant patients for internet addiction in the clinics, according to Wölfling. For behavioral addiction generally, men "represent 90% of patients treated or diagnosed in outpatient clinics," the researchers wrote.
Patients were assessed at the start of treatment, mid-treatment and post-treatment at four months.
Those in the short-term cognitive therapy group also had a follow-up assessment after six months. Researchers looked at self-reports of internet addiction behaviors and symptoms.
At the end of treatment, patients in the therapy group showed lower self-reported addiction symptoms such as withdrawal, preoccupation and time spent online, and better social, work and day-to-day functioning.
Patients showed lower rates of depression overall, without significant differences between the two groups. A small number of people became more depressed and had to be transferred to an inpatient facility, the researchers noted.
This was the first randomized, clinical trial across multiple clinics that looked at the treatment for internet addiction, but the study had several limitations.
The small sample size could have "overestimated" the effect of short-term therapy, the researchers wrote.
Also, the study was limited to men and based on information patients reported on their own condition. Some patients dropped out, with 100 patients completing the study as scheduled.
Future randomized controlled trials should have better patient retention, include women and be longer in duration, according to Wölfling.
"Patients might profit even further if the treatment phase would be prolonged," he said in the JAMA Psychiatry podcast.
"Understanding of the person and history and the development of the pathologic behavior or disorder may be more important for the patient to learn about their own history and own life's development."


text:
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Why I believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent
The molehill of evidence
It is the evidence that is not there that is the prosecution's weakest point, as former FBI agent Steve Moore pointed out. Consider blood spatter, for instance: "t is inconceivable that the person stabbing Meredith was not contaminated by blood spatter. Guede was. Anybody holding Meredith (such as was alleged by the prosecution) would be within the spatter zone. Again; blood on clothes and skin."
There is no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele had any contact with Rudi Guede on the night of the murder. There is no evidence that they took any drugs other than cannabis. There is no DNA of Amanda's in the murder room, and the only evidence of Raffaele's is the highly contested bra clasp. Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry refuted the arguments of the prosecution that the break-in was staged. The difference in the amount of evidence against Guede versus Knox and Sollecito can be likened to a strong versus a weak signal, and only by pretending that the strong evidence is no better than the weak evidence can one come to the conclusion that all three are culpable.
The interrogation on the night of the 5th of November
The police seemed to have prior knowledge of Amanda's text message to Patrick on the night of the murder, and the police may have known that the two of them met on the afternoon of the 5th. We also know from both Amanda's contemporaneous statements and those of others that she was tired and scared in the days leading up to this interrogation (Candace Dempsey, Murder in Italy, Chapters 5-8).
There are many instances of people making a combined false accusation and confession, and this is one of them. The interrogation started around 11 PM and produced two statements, one around 1:45 AM and the other around 5:45 AM. She asked whether she needed a lawyer and was told that would only make things worse. Her statement the next morning shows considerable confusion. Also, if she had been completely rational during the interrogation, she would never have accused Patrick, whether she were innocent or guilty. She believed that he was at the bar that night, which should give him a rock-solid alibi. Again, Steve Moore's comments are extremely useful and thought-provoking: "Why would detectives schedule an interrogation overnight? ...the reason they interrogated Amanda all night was to break her. Not get the truth, not get answers, not make Perugia safer; but to break her so that she would say what they wanted her to say."
An ordinary kitchen knife, not the murder weapon
The large knife from Raffaele's flat did not match at least one and probably not two of the three major wounds. It did not match the bloody outline of a knife in Meredith's bedroom. The DNA on the handle from Amanda was probably deposited when she used it for cooking at Raffaele's flat. Although the arguments are sometimes detailed, Meredith's DNA on the knife is probably due to contamination in the laboratory itself, but it may have been contaminated during its transport.
Shoeprint and footprint evidence
The police tried to insinuate some of the luminol-positive footprints were due to Knox and Sollecito and that all were set in blood. This attempt was intellectually dishonest. All of the shoeprints matched Guede's sneakers. The luminol-positive footprints in the hall do not appear to be Meredith's blood, inasmuch as they did not have Meredith's DNA. The one bloody footprint in the bathroom looks a little bit more like Guede's foot than Sollecito's foot, but attributing it to either person unequivocally is questionable at best.
Cognitive bias and tunnel vision
If they are innocent, then how did they get convicted? Amanda and Raffaele were detained and held without charge before the forensic evidence came back implicating Rudy Guede. The day of their arrest the police paraded them through the old town with lights on and horns blaring. This had only happened one time previously in Perugia, according to the memory of one citizen, when a mafia figure was arrested. By the time Guede was becoming a suspect, a major figure in the Rome police department had put Ms. Knox's picture in the hallway, right next to the arrest of Bernardo Provenzano.
This was not a conspiracy in the sense of a bunch of people sitting around a big table. I think it is a case where the police and public minister (PM) Mignini had made a bold claim about Knox and Sollecito's involvement and could not back down. It may have been a situation where the forensic police (especially) felt, "To get along, go along." In addition, the forensic scientists might have really believed that Knox and Sollecito were guilty and subconsciously tilted their results in that direction. Koppl and Balko wrote, "To the extent that it's possible, evidence should be stripped of all context before being sent to the lab." Given that Knox and Sollecito were already in custody in a high-profile case before some of the evidence was even collected, it is difficult to see how all cognitive bias could have been avoided.
Poor forensics and lack of discovery
The prosecution's misrepresenting which tests were or were not done and their withholding of electronic data files underlying the DNA forensics suggests that they know how weak their case really is. But it is remarkable how much they did wrong or did not do at all, for no reason that I can understand. There is a possible semen stain on Meredith's bed that was never followed up with a confirmatory test. There were three computer hard drives that the police so badly mishandled that recovery of the data has been difficult or not even attempted. The collection of the DNA evidence with dirty gloves that were seldom changed is just plain sloppy. There is evidence of Meredith's blood mixed with Amanda's DNA in certain places in the flat, but the prosecution misleadingly implied that the samples were from Knox's blood. Since Amanda lived at the flat, finding her DNA there is not inculpatory at all.
Exculpatory evidence
Meredith is known to have returned home around 9 PM. Many small pieces of evidence point to an earlier time of death, before 10 PM, than the prosecution indicated, about 11:40 PM. Meredith had left a load of laundry in the washing machine, presumably when she left to visit her friends for dinner. Yet the laundry had not been removed. Meredith was probably still wearing her zippered sweatshirt when she was attacked, the garment she wore when she was walking home on a brisk evening. Meredith unsuccessfully tried to call her ailing mother around 8:56 PM but did not attempt to reach her again. Atypically, Meredith did not send any text messages that evening. There were two calls around 10 PM that the Massei motivation report ascribes dubiously to Meredith playing with her cell phone. These activities may be evidence of her attacker trying to turn the phones off. A different cell tower sent a MMS to her phone at 10:13 PM; this falls short of proof that the cell phone had left her flat by this time, but it is consistent with the phone's being transported at this time.
Meredith's stomach content and the lack of any material in the duodenum are difficult to reconcile with the time of her last meal (of pizza, then apple crumble), which started around 6:30 PM or earlier. Her friends watched a movie after eating pizza, and they stopped to eat apple crumble. Raffaele's appeal argues that Meredith's stomach contents indicate a much earlier time of death, by roughly two hours, to about 9:30 or so. Some argue that TOD cannot be accurately determined by stomach contents alone, but that argument can be taken too far: it is known that Meredith was alive until at least 9 PM. In lieu of a lengthy discussion of physiology, let us take a simple path. Patients are advised not to eat for six to eight hours prior to surgery involving intravenous anesthesia. This avoids the possibility that the patient will vomit and aspirate stomach contents into the lungs. Why would anesthesiology guidelines suggest six hours for a small meal if the stomach remained full after 5 to 5.5 hours?
If her death occurred before 10 PM, then it is somewhere between unlikely and impossible that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. They were known to be acting normally as of about 8:45 PM, when Ms. Popovic came over. Raffaele's appeal argues that there was some computer activity long after this time, and the police who examined his computer may have not been experienced with MacIntosh products enough to know where to look. Even if the undisputed computer activity ended around 9:10 PM, it is extremely difficult to see how the two of them had time to get so messed up that they lost control enough to murder someone before 10 PM.
Final thoughts
The appeals process has begun with an examination of the DNA forensics of the kitchen knife and the bra clasp. If the computer evidence is reexamined and the stomach contents are reevaluated, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have a reasonable chance of exoneration as a result of their appeal.
63 comments:
Outstanding article, Chris.
I am often puzzled by those who object when it is said that 'there's no evidence' against Raffaele and Amanda. I wonder if they are thinking that some of us are pretending that many of the things you list above don't exist? Naturally I know that they were presented in court by the prosecution as 'evidence' of murder, there would be no trial at all if the prosecution didn't haven't anything at all to place before the court.
However, as is the case with every acquittal of murder when it becomes known that the defendant was definitely not guilty, notably ones where the real offender is later, what the prosecution presented in this case was not evidence of murder in my mind.
The footprints inside the cottage outside Meredith's room are an especially good example of that. They may have shown up with luminol, but they were tested for blood and found negative, they could have been made by any of the girls at the cottage, and they don't ascribe to any definitive pattern--in fact they're kinda scattered and isolated.
They are not evidence of murder as I see it, but in a very real sense the fact they were even presented as such suggests how weak the case against Raffaele and Amanda really is. It's not a 'mountain of evidence' to include items of this nature, it's a mountain of crap trying to obscure the fact no real evidence of Raffaele and Amanda's involvement really exists.
It's kinda like pretending at a hypothetical murder scene that every single carpet stain somehow is involved in the crime, when in fact that's just silly. Some of those stains in this imaginary example are no doubt from long ago, perhaps some from a super bowl party where the salsa got spilled and ground into the carpet during a touchdown celebration, and others from later when a partier spewed his guts having tried to drown his sorrows overmuch after a loss. A 'detective' who tried to pretend they must have been involved in a crime would be making a fool of themselves if there was nothing to corroborate those marks as being part of a murder, just because those marks existed.
That's the case with the footprints outside Meredith's door for instance. There's no reason to think they were blood, no reason to think they were Amanda's, no way of connecting them in any way in a reconstruction, and no reason to think they had anything to do with the murder. The only way they'd be used is if in fact the prosecution has no real evidence of murder and they are so desperate they just used every 'stain on the carpet'--like the example above--to pretend they had 'overwhelming evidence.'
All of the physical 'evidence' against Raffaele and Amanda is like that. It doesn't make me suspicious of them in the slightest, it makes me look askance at the prosecution for even presenting it. - January 20, 2011 at 2:20 AM
Just a question for both Chris and Kaosium. If you have one presumptive test that is positive and a second presumptive test that is negative, what would you do?
- January 20, 2011 at 6:22 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
I like your carpet analogy very much.
Rose Montague,
I might run a confirmatory test, anyway. However, some confirmatory tests are less sensitive than the presumptive tests, which is a problem. If I did not run a confirmatory test, I would certainly report the results of both tests and probably say that the result was inconclusive. Not reporting the result of a test is not ethical IMO, but I have seen examples of it.
A history/review article on blood stains that I read indicated one group of authors who felt that if one had several presumptive tests which all gave positive results, that one could conclude the substance was blood, as long as the presumptive tests were subject to different false positives. I don't think that this position is universally held. - January 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM
If you are speaking of a blood test, then it is my understanding that a negative is absolute, it's just positives that need to be confirmed. However, in the case that it was very important, like a murder trial, I'd think repeating the presumptive test would be worthwhile, and even a confirmation test might be in order.
If they tested negative, then I would think it rational to conclude the results were negative. I wouldn't hide the fact a false positive came up though, people should realize that's going to happen, and to conceal one sounds to me like a good way to get yourself into trouble! - January 20, 2011 at 11:58 PM
Many thanks for confirming my suspicion that a third test was done (and not reported). To think she stopped with the TMB test does not make sense to me. - January 21, 2011 at 5:47 AM
That's a *very* good point, Rose, I've never thought about that. Why on earth would she stop at two tests?
Actually I did just think of a potential reason. They became so desperate to compile a 'mountain of evidence' when they had nothing really, they went back and used every little thing they could; including these footprints which they tested negative and didn't actually plan on using until they realized how little they had.
Here's something I just re-learned, I don't think I've come across it since my first foray through the evidence. No wonder I forgot about the 'footprints' revealed with Luminol attributed to Raffaele that Chris linked in his article!
That's absolutely ridiculous! Who could pretend those splotches could be matched with *anything?* No wonder I haven't heard much about them, not even the adamant believer in Amanda and Raffaele's guilt has brought them up in months, and now I see two posts on them, one at JREF and one at Perugia Shock.
I think I might have some fun with this. :P - January 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM
very well written piece.
thats the best summing to date i've read, a overview.
like driving lost, the wrong turn seems to have happened at the interrogation.
i agree fully with your comment of "to get along, an employee goes along". - January 23, 2011 at 4:48 PM
- Marco2006 said...
After examining the various articles about the forensic evidence from afar I cannot believe Amanda and Raffaele were convicted. The court clearly has the real killer in Rudy Guede. As the noted retired FBI profiler has said "behavior reflects personality." There is nothing in Amanda and Raffaele's past that would indicate a sex crazed drug ritual killing.
Why would Amanda and Raffaele bring a knife over to Amanda's apartment to commit a killing then bring it home and put in his kitchen drawer? It is just one of the many incongruities in the prosecutor's case.
What I see is a determined effort to cherry pick dubious evidence by incompetent crime scene & lab technicians, avoid exculpatory evidence, and slime Amanda & Raffaele in the press & in court. That is exactly what happen in Durham and the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.
This case is an example of being "Nifonged in Perugia." - January 23, 2011 at 5:39 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
Marco2006 an anonymous at 4:48 PM,
I believe that the comparison to the Duke lacrosse case is well warranted. I hope that the defense is able to show computer activity during the time in question. If they do, the prosecution's case is holed below the waterline. - January 23, 2011 at 10:49 PM
- Randy said...
It looks like this new judge is more open to examining things from both sides. Whatever these experts find in their 90 day review- at least there is a review...
I thought this was interesting in a story over on the huffingtonpost...
"The two independent experts can either make new analyses on the DNA traces that were found, or, if that isn't possible, review the analyses that had been carried out by previous forensic experts and assess whether they are reliable, according to the mandate of the court.
But they might look to go a bit further. Conti, one of the independent experts, asked if he could open up the handle of the knife, to determine if blood or other traces might have seeped through. This led prosecutors and a lawyer representing the Kercher family to argue that such an analysis would go beyond the boundaries of the experts' mandate."
Maybe there is hope that the computers can be brought to life again. I can't believe this is not possible.
This business with trying to prove the buses going to the discos. Was that not attempted at the initial trial? Is that Ted Simon's influence?
just have to wait and see what happens. - January 24, 2011 at 10:57 PM
Right on Chris!
Not only is there not enough evidence for conviction, it can be argued that there isn't even enough evidence for suspicion.
- - January 27, 2011 at 7:10 PM
Chris, I feel the following is not stressed enough when the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox is being considered:
The misstatement surrendered by Amanda when confronted by 12 interrogators on the night of Nov. 5, 2007 was undeniably a result of coercion. However, this is not to be a factor when determining her guilt or innocence since the Italian supreme court ruled the statement to be inadmissible in the court of first instance.
Amanda's freely given 'gift' was ruled to be admissible, but the written statement is hardly condemning unless one lifts phrases out of context as Judge Massei did in his Motivations Report.
What does all this mean? The guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox is not to be influenced or determined in any way by the Nov. 5, 2007 interrogation.
- - January 28, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Even if this ridiculous case finally is resolved favorably for Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, the ineptitude of the "experts" and the illogical progressions in Perugian thinking will remain an extraordinary blot on the Italian justice system--worse even than the blot that will long define Durham.
Observer - January 30, 2011 at 10:36 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
The fact that the defense did not object to opening the knife but the prosecution did was one of the most telling moments in the whole case. I have long said that not only do I not think that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon, but neither does the Italian law enforcement, or they would have opened it up long ago. I recently found one of Andrea Vogt's articles from the fall of 2009. About Judge Massei's having ruled against having an independent review she wrote, "Immediately after the judge's announcement, Sollecito bowed his head and briefly wept, as lawyers began haggling over court dates for closing arguments." Raffaele is much maligned in some quarters, but he and Amanda have been equally victimized.
Thanks. I recently reread Ms. Knox's memoriale from the following day. She sounds thoroughly confused. One wonders whether one of Judge Massei's ancestors were a cherry picker, since he does it so well. I agree with Steve Moore; Raffaele and Amanda did not deserve a second look as suspects.
Nice to see you back. Ray Turner's blog is called "The ridiculous case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito." In some ways there hasn't been anything to say about the case since he started blogging on it, so perfectly did his title sum it up. - January 30, 2011 at 4:29 PM
I agree especially with your assessment of the 'Gift' statement, in fact it was reading through that which kinda gave me an epiphany on the case. I was sitting there trying to find 'evidence' of it being written by a scheming liar, or by a girl who broke down and confessed and was trying to squirm out of it and what I saw was something completely different.
All that I had read about the interrogations, and the 'Statements' and her e-mail came to me at once and I realized this was the product of a scared, confused girl trying bravely to figure out what happened to her and help the police anyway! The truly sad thing is there is more, and better, investigative technique in that note than the police in Perugia displayed during the entire 'investigation!' - February 1, 2011 at 6:53 AM
- Unknown said...
This is a really good read, with everything that has been said on these posts made by everyone.
I believe the media played a big part in everything and have influence over peoples minds and any slight fault is dug out. I think the only issue was if they had any association with Guede. Further more how the trials were separated and all the attention wasnt on Guede but Raffaele and Knox
the 90 day review, when is this going to be ready for? - February 4, 2011 at 9:52 AM
- Kaosium said...
I too think the media played a huge part in this debacle, Dene. From the very beginning, up through the trial. Amanda Knox was Italy's Woman of the year for 2009! Thankfully it appears the media is undoing some of the damage done to her character and exposing some of the facts of the case. According to the Italian at the Injustice in Perugia site, all news in Italy has been good as of late.
I suspect the prosecution is going to have to try to tie Amanda and Raffaele closer to Rudy. As it stands, the only contact between them was at a party where they were introduced and later on a hash spinello was smoked. Also Amanda testified that she thought she might have seen him come into Le Chic once.
However in the event that the prosecution loses the DNA 'evidence' and Curatolo is discredited as he should have been at the initial trial, there is little to possibly implicate Amanda and Raffaele. It wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution were to petition to add a 'witness' to a closer relationship between Rudy and Amanda and Raffaele, though I am uncertain how that would work at this point as Judge Hellmann has already ruled on additional witnesses at the outset of the appeal. - February 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM
You can write them at , firstname.lastname@example.com
and Amanda at, email@example.com
I found this information on facebook there is a free Amanda and Raffele facebook page. - February 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM
she is guilty - the jury found her guilty - there's much more evidence than the DNA - if you think there as not evidence to convict her i guess you must really think Scott Peterson got a raw deal (very very little evidence against him)
- August 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
The jury also found the Norfolk Four guilty, but it does not make them guilty in fact, only in law. What time do you think that Meredith Kercher died, and what are your reasons?
- August 25, 2011 at 4:33 PM
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- September 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- September 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM
For the sake of this discussion, remove all the DNA evidence and pretend none of it exists.
There still remains the evidence of the phone records and computer records, which contradict their statements of where they were and when. Both amanda and rafaelle give statements implicating themselves - rafaelle contradicts amanda's statement saying she was not at his house, she was at her house until almost one in the morning on the night of the murder; amanda falsely accuses another person and even in that accusation she says she was at her home (not at rafalle's) when the person she accuses killed meredith - she mentions hearing meredith scream. Later on of course both of them change their story and say they were never there, they spent the whole night and most of the next morning at raffaele's place - contradicted once again by phone records, computer records, and witnesses, one of which is rafalle's father. There are also witnesses who saw them in the area that night and then early in the morning of the following day when they said they were at home. Even Rafalle's own father's statement about what time he called Rafalle contradicts what his son said about where he was and when - and of course a father has no reason to try to convict his own son. All of their accounts are filled with lies and contradictions - hardly something an innocent person would do, or would even need to do.
For some reason everyone seems to think that the elimination of the DNA evidence - which is being contested on procedural grounds only - means there is no other evidence. There is lots of other evidence. Even the third party, Rudy, says they were there - he's already convicted, what could he possibly gain from making that up? It's not as though saying such a thing will now get him off the hook.
Okay, back to the DNA evidence we discarded for this discussion - add it in on top of all the other evidence. It correlates with all the other evidence and supports it. The DNA of meredith was found on the blade of a knife which was found in Rafaelle's apartment. Now how did THAT happen? If the DNA evidence showed DNA of people other than the three accused/convicted people, you could certainly question whether they have the right parties - but it does not. None of it does. And excluding the DNA evidence outright does not negate the rest of the evidence either. - September 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
Still Convinced of Guilt,
The DNA evidence is not being contested on procedural grounds; it is being contested because it is unsound. Your statement is close to claiming that Amanda and Raffaele will get off on a technicality, and I completely disagree with that implication. Moreover, the bra clasp suffers from precisely the problem that you mention, namely the presence of DNA from other people.
Let's briefly consider the other evidence. You don't name the witness who puts Amanda and Raffaele elsewhere, so I will: Curatolo. He is a heroin user and a small time drug dealer whom the police have known about since 2003. This is his third trial in which he has testified in a way that is favorable to the prosecution. He has zero credibility as far as I am concerned. You are carefully vague about which phone and computer records you mean. The last undisputed computer interaction is at 9:08 and the last disputed one was at 9:26 in the first trial. However, Raffaele's screensaver log file indicates usage of his computer much later than this. The police inadvertently lost meta-data such as the time at which the Stardust file was accessed, data that might have given Amanda and Raffaele a more complete alibi. Yet even the uncontested information is enough to put the prosecution's case in serious doubt. The combination of Meredith's stomach contents, the lack of phone calls or text messages, and other factors make it likely that Meredith was attacked shortly after she arrived at the flat, when Amanda and Raffaele were still at his place.
Rudi changed his story more often than Elizabeth Taylor changed husbands. Yet his first story, before he was arrested, was that Amanda and Raffaele were not there. He has nothing to lose by sticking with his latest story, but he does have something to gain. There were always be some people who believe that he is innocent and others who believe that he had a subsidiary role in Meredith's murder. - September 8, 2011 at 1:45 PM
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- September 8, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Excellent post, Chris. This is a very effective way to explain this case; a simple point by point explanation of the evidence in plain English. A good follow up piece would be a point by point takedown of the tired old handful of silly-assed, long discredited talking points the Guilters keep falling back on.. and if you do it, dont forget the cartwheel and the thong shopping.. those seem to be at the very core of the colpovisti theory of the crime.
Ciao! ~ Jake Holmes/Seattle - September 8, 2011 at 11:34 PM
I'm curious about Still Convinced of Guilt's posts. Something they said about phone and computer records. What exactly in the phone and computer records shows guilt? As far as being convinced by Rudy's fourth different statement that it could have been or looked like Amanda, LOL. And Curatolo? You are kidding me. One interesting thing we learned at Curatolo's embarrassing visit to the appeal court is the cops asked him the day after if he saw anything and he said he saw nothing! I guess Amanda is guilty of calling her MOM but what exactly is in their conversation that proves guilt of murder? This person obviously is convinced rather easily.
- September 9, 2011 at 5:41 AM
Still convinced is just repeating the prosecution line but obviously hasn't thought about any of it deeply. We have almost forgotten at this point that in April 2010 the defense filed a long, detailed,point-by-point rebuttal of the original sentencing report. The defense filings address every prosecution claim and are,in my view, plausible and convincing. Judge Hellmann read the defense appeals before the second trial began and there is every reason to believe he was influenced by them.
- September 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Paul Smyth is just repeating the defence line but obviously hasn't thought about any of it deeply. Many of you are stating your opinions, but they do not amount to facts. Perhaps you have not reviewed all the material as carefully as I thought. Wishing things to be true does not make them so.
- September 9, 2011 at 7:00 PM
The issue with the phone and comuter records was that Rafaelle and Amanda give the alibi that they were home all night, and didn't even get up until mid-morning of the following day. If you were innocent you would have not reason to make up a story about what times you were at home or what time you got up at - the phone records for example, show that Rafaelle turned on his phone at 6:02 a.m. on the morning after the muder and read a text message - his statement however says they both slept in until mid-morning, but obviously that cannot be true - Amanda, who also says they slept in until mid-morning was found waiting outside the local store at 7:00 am to buy, among other things, bleach - again, this contradicts their alibi's of how they were both asleep at home for most of the morning after the murder.
Amanda's phone records shows she called her mother in Seattle at 12:47 p.m. on Nov 2nd - four minutes before Rafaelle called the local police. In a later intercept by the police, Amanda's mother asks Amanda how she knew about the situation at the time she called her, because nothing had happened yet - in other words why call mom to express your concern about the dire situation, minutes before it was officially learned by the police - and how would you know what the situation was before the body was discovered unless.... I don't doubt that her mother has figured it out for herself, but like any mother, she wants to protect her daughter.
As you might imagine, I can't really cut and paste the whole texts here - and there's a lot of it - but a little research online will find them for you, and explain all the details and why they're important - hope that answered your question. - September 9, 2011 at 7:15 PM
- Unknown said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- September 9, 2011 at 8:02 PM
- Unknown said...
I'm having no end of computer troubles here - I keep trying to post this, it appears as posted and then somehow disappears - so, my apologies, but thinking it may be a size limit thing, I'm going to try breaking it down into 3 parts.
On behalf of Still Convinced of Guilt, reply to Chris Halkides - part 1...
Actually, there was nothing vague, carefully or otherwise - it is a lengthy amount of material, and one would surmise that you already know the details, otherwise how could you discuss them - something borne out by the fact that your knowledge allowed you to name one of the witnesses - Curatolo.
There is no premise to assume that Curatolo's addictions (if that's true) means that he didn't see what he saw. The fact that you subjectively feel he has no credibility is simply an opinion. That's something like saying a prostitute witnessed a murder, but we shouldn't believe her because she's a prostitute. The other witness is the gentleman who owns the store where he saw Amanda waiting outside his shop first thing in the morning, (around 7:00 a.m.?), despite her saying neither she nor Rafaelle left the house until mid-morning. Another witness is Rafaelle's father - part of their alibi is that late in the evening around 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. is when they ate dinner and had the water spill after dinner - R's father said he phoned them about 8:30 pm or so, and that his son told him about the water spill having already occurred at that time - his son therefore mentioned it to him about 2 and half hours before it occurred, according to their statements. This contradicts the stories of Amanda and Rafaelle both. - September 9, 2011 at 8:07 PM
- Unknown said...
On behalf of Still Convinced of Guilt, reply to Chris Halkides - part 2...
Further to your suggestion about being vague regarding phone and computer records, there is more to these records than just the computer - their cell phones record times and dates when they were active - contradicting their statements about being in Rafaelle's home and asleep - It seems unlikely that one can both activate and use a cell phone while asleep. As for the computer, let's say it is proven to have had human interaction at the time of the murder - that might then correlate with one of Rafaelle's statements that he was surfing the net the night of the murder until Amanda came to his place from hers at about one in the morning - accordingly, that may clear Rafaelle but in turn it removes Amanda's alibi about how she was at Rafaelle's all night. You appear to be avoiding these details. This also contradicts your sentence about Amanda and Rafaelle both being at Rafaelle's place at the time of the murder - now here is one of the accused/convicted persons saying that Amanda was not at home with him while the murder was being committed, and that she did not come home until one in the morning.
You mention Rudy changing his story, but you avoid mentioning how many times Amanda and Rafaelle changed theirs. You have said that Rudy has something to gain, but you avoid saying what that is - what does he have to gain? Unless your following sentences about what people might believe is what you think he will gain, which is not any kind of gain at all.
(hang on, only one more...) - September 9, 2011 at 8:08 PM
- Unknown said...
On behalf of Still Convinced of Guilt, reply to Chris Halkides - part 3 - last one!
Speaking of being vague, I noticed you did not address the conflicting information provided by Amanda and Rafaelle - Rafaelle himself saying that Amanda was not at home with him. Then - as you would say - they changed their story more often than Elizabeth Taylor has been married. Innocent people do not need to make up stories, falsely accuse someone else, or keep changing their stories.
I make no implication about a technicality despite whatever inferences you may subjectively draw - I state clearly that many people seem to believe that excluding the DNA evidence means that all the rest of the evidence is of no probative value, and of course that is not true. As for the DNA, it was hashed out in court and collection and examination procedures were described in detail - of course everyone thinks that the DNA for Rudy was just fine, but for Amanda and Rafaelle suddenly it was done wrong.
In a police intercept, even Amanda's own mother questions Amanda about he she knew certain facts and was able to say them to her mother, before the matter was discovered to be a murder. How's that for a witness? - September 9, 2011 at 8:09 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
Still Convinced,
Perhaps you need to split your comments into sections. Curatolo acknowledged using heroin, so I don't think that his habit is in doubt. In addition, he would not be the first witness to attempt to curry favor by giving testimony that the police wanted to hear. But even if these issues were not evident, there would still be his getting the date wrong. - September 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
I don't have a problem with someone's getting up, making a songlist on the computer, then going back to bed and then just provided the time that they got up for good. Taken to its extreme, a demand that someone do otherwise begins to look absurd. Would it be incriminating if Sollecito got up to urinate, went back to sleep, and then neglected to inform the police of this?
I do have a couple of problems with those who point to the alleged lies of Raffaele and Amanda as evidence of guilt. One is that the incidents can often be explained as slips of memory or misunderstandings due to language barriers. The latter is what I think is responsible for the question of how frequently Meredith locked her door. The other problem I have with this argument is that it is applied in an inconsistent manner. By that I mean that we know that the police spoke or leaked false information on the nonexistent bleach receipts, the Harry Potter book and clothing that were right where Amanda said they were, the arrival time of the postal police relative to Raffaele's call to the carabinieri, the CCTV footage, and the amount of DNA on the knife to pick just some examples. If the police have so little regard for the truth that they either carelessly or willfully got these things wrong, why should a reasonable person trust them when they make claims such as the complete lack of contamination over a seven-year period. - September 10, 2011 at 12:17 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
Amanda and Raffaele both have two basic stories, what they said on the night of 5-6 November and what they said both before and after that date. I think that Raffaele either got confused or bullied into substituting Amanda's actions on 31 November (where she did go out) for what her actions were on 1 November. Even if I felt his account were correct, he would still be being consistent in placing himself at his own flat. Therefore, if you believe him, you cannot believe ILE's absurd conspiracy theory of what happened.
Rudy's DNA is between his lawyers and ILE. They may have seen the electropherograms, but I have not. I accept the DNA evidence against him provisionally; if it is as flawed as the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, then his lawyers should have contested it more vigorously. Another important difference between Rudy's DNA and Amanda's DNA is that Rudy had no business being at the cottage. Therefore, any of his DNA being there is incriminating. However, the DNA is not the main evidence agains Rudy; instead, his bloody handprint would be enough to convict him alone. His shoeprints, his fleeing the country, and his own words place him at the crime scene at the time of the murder. In contrast, the bra clasp, the knife, and the mixed DNA, flawed as they are, are the best pieces of evidence against the two.
You will have to be more specific with respect to what you mean regarding Amanda's conversation with her mother. Amanda got the placement of the body wrong in conversations subsequent to the murder. She knew nothing that only the murderer would know. She imagined that Meredith screamed? Well, I imagine that Meredith screamed also. This was a terrible crime, but it was a simple crime. - September 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
Amanda and Raffaele both have two basic stories, what they said on the night of 5-6 November and what they said both before and after that date. I think that Raffaele either got confused or bullied into substituting Amanda's actions on 31 November (where she did go out) for what her actions were on 1 November. Even if I felt his account were correct, he would still be being consistent in placing himself at his own flat. Therefore, if you believe him, you cannot believe ILE's absurd conspiracy theory of what happened.
Rudy's DNA is between his lawyers and ILE. They may have seen the electropherograms, but I have not. I accept the DNA evidence against him provisionally; if it is as flawed as the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, then his lawyers should have contested it more vigorously. Another important difference between Rudy's DNA and Amanda's DNA is that Rudy had no business being at the cottage. Therefore, any of his DNA being there is incriminating. However, the DNA is not the main evidence agains Rudy; instead, his bloody handprint would be enough to convict him alone. His shoeprints, his fleeing the country, and his own words place him at the crime scene at the time of the murder. In contrast, the bra clasp, the knife, and the mixed DNA, flawed as they are, are the best pieces of evidence against the two.
You will have to be more specific with respect to what you mean regarding Amanda's conversation with her mother. Amanda got the placement of the body wrong in conversations subsequent to the murder. She knew nothing that only the murderer would know. She imagined that Meredith screamed? Well, I imagine that Meredith screamed also. This was a terrible crime, but it was a simple crime.
I think that there is confusion with respect to the time at which Raffaele and Amanda ate dinner. IIRC, Raffaele mentioned doing the dishes when his father called, but that does not mean that they were finished with dinner at that time. Perhaps Raffaele needed/wanted to clean the dishes from earlier in the day or from some food preparation that he had just done. Raffaele especially and Amanda to some extent seem to get times wrong on multiple occasions. The pipe had been a problem for Raffaele on more than one occasion, IIUC. - September 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
If there is computer interaction during the time of the murder, then it clears one of them, and this holes the prosecution's case below the waterline. Moreover, if Raffaele really were working on his computer that night, it strikes me as unlikely that he would say otherwise to protect his girlfriend of less than a week. He could have denied her an alibi in front of Judge Matteini and possibly walked, but he did not.
With respect to Rudy's story, he has been given an extraordinarily lenient sentence for murder and sexual assault (he received mitigation in addition to the reduction from the fast track trial). Why should he tell the truth, when lying has served him so well. I am not certain that if he admitted that he took part in the killing and Amanda and Raffaele were not there (which I believe would both be true statements), whether or not he could face legal repercussions, but I think it is conceivable. Moreover, it may be psychologically easier for Rudy to claim innocence than to face the world for what he is. - September 10, 2011 at 12:47 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
With respect to the details of Raffaele's call to his father, I don't have the details. Does anyone have a good source?
- September 10, 2011 at 1:14 PM
I answer a phone or turn on the TV before I get up many times, I still consider the time I got up to be the time I left the bed and started my daily activities. I sleep in sometimes but i am not asleep the entire time. This is just a parsing of words trying to show some sign of guilt and means nothing.
Amanda called her Mom for the same reason Raffaele called his sister, for advice. Much had happened, including the discovery of the real actual HTG break-in committed by that nefarious bumbling window breaking bathroom messing knife carrying, help your selfing to the fridge dude, Rudy Guede. - September 10, 2011 at 2:06 PM
- Unknown said...
At the end of the day, all of us are referencing whatever material we have at hand. None of us knows for sure who said what or who did what. The police have first hand information, so do the room-mates, so do the lawyers, so do the accused for that matter. So did the judge who found their was enough evidence for an arrest warrant and to commit them to trial, so did the judges who actually tried the case, so did the members of the jury. Somehow it is to be believed that they all got it wrong.
Oddly enough, if Amanda's appeal is won, those who wanted to believe her innocent will believe that everyone else got it wrong, but somehow this judge got it right. Those who believe she is guilty will in turn believe that the appeal judge got it wrong. - September 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM
I see the comment about the parsing of words, but that is what all of you are doing as well. Things taken to extreme like urinating in the middle of the night are just that - things taken to extreme. If I say I was surfing the net until one in the morning that's not the same as getting up in the middle of the night for a few moments to use the washroom. If I say we slept in until mid-morning (about 10:30 they said) and didn't leave the house until then, and a shop owner sees me at his front door before 7:00 a.m., that's not the same as sleeping in but not being asleep the entire time. You are offering explanations along the lines of this 'may' be why such and such an event occurred, and refer as well to areas where you think there may be confusion. Hypothesis and opinion. An awful lot of things are being watered down with claims of confusion. (by the way, none of the room-mates are 'confused' about where they were that night, or about whether Meredith usually locked her door - they should all be as traumatized as Amanda about the event, but none of them have falsely accused an innocent person, none of them have given incorrect information, and all of their information has withstood investigation - only Amanda's and Rafaelle's has not.)
'Amanda called her Mom for the same reason Raffaele called his sister, for advice.' How exactly do you know that's why she called her? Of course you don't. Hypotheses and opinion. And even if that is why she called her, her own mother observed that Amanda gave information at that time before she possibly could have known it, saying "But this was before anything happened…" She phoned her mother at 12:47 p.m., the police did not even arrive until 1:00 p.m. – so thirteen minutes before the police arrived, and however many minutes before they discovered the body, Amanda was giving her mother facts she should not have known. From the judges written decision: "However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known."
(Part 2 to follow...) - September 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Part 2
The question of washing dishes you raise about possibly being before dinner is not the issue - the water leak is the issue, however the fact of it being after dinner is made out by amanda and rafaelle themselves in their version of events. Firstly, both Amanda and Rafaelle said the water leak happened after dinner, and in his phone conversation with his father he told him about the water leak - ergo it had to be after dinner, according to their own story. Secondly, they went on to say they didn't bother with cleaning up the leaked water at that time because it was so late at night. (about 11:00 p.m.) This was part of their alibi to show they were still at rafaelle's place when the murder was being committed. Of course his Father's phone call at 8:42 p.m. is almost two and a half hours before their story says it happened - this undermines their alibi of still being at home washing dishes at 11:00 o'clock at night. Amanda waiting outside the shop just before 7:00 a.m. for it to open the next morning is not someone getting up to urinate or turn on the TV or being awake but still in bed - she is dressed and in the public street three and a half hours before she said she left the house - so much for sleeping in until about 10:30 a.m.
The shop keeper is one of the other witnesses I referred to besides curatolo. Is the shop keeper a heroin addict too? Is he also magically 'confused'? He is a business man who opens a shop in the morning, and he has nothing to gain by making up stories about Amanda waiting outside his shop for him to open.
In the totality of the circumstances, no part of the information given by Amanda and Rafaelle holds up under close scrutiny. - September 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM
So now we come back to Curatolo.
Rafaelle's own father gives information that contradicts his son's alibi. As far as we know, he, like the shop keeper, is not a heroin addict either, nor is he 'confused. In fact, the phone records correlate and confirm the time of the phone call and to who it was made.
The previously mentioned shop keeper provides information about Amanda being at his shop early in the morning.
Both of these people contradict the information given the Amanda and Rafaelle.
Curatolo's information is between them both, and his information accurately correlates with other information, including the time of the murder and the timings given by witnesses who heard Meredith scream. We're willing to believe that the before and after information (Rafaelle's father and the shop keeper) is fine, that the witnesses who heard the scream are fine, but the information from Curatolo must be wrong? - September 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM
LOL. Massei is not only biased , he is an idiot. Does he ever say what those circumstances were that Amanda told her Mom? Nope. It sure must have been something that made her guilty though.
Amanda's Mom was perplexed because Amanda forgot about the phone call. She did remember the one later that afternoon. - September 17, 2011 at 8:32 AM
Here is what the Amazing Mignini hisself said about Curatolo:
The prosecutor Giuliano Mignini called the homeless "One of the key points and most important of the evidence. Credible credibilissimo absolute trustworthiness and reliability of ... ... proof, full circle, full stop. "
BWAHAHAHAHA, Too funny.
Maniac Mignininini - September 17, 2011 at 8:37 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
If Judge Hellman's court finds them innocent, it will change my opinion of the average acumen of Italian judges, but it will not change my opinion of the case. At this point there is enough information available to anyone who wants it, to form opinions about the case. Judge Massei's reasoning was flawed, and this can be discerned just by reading his report.
I am not sure whether or not you are an American, so I don't know how much my examples would mean. However, I think that courts got the Mixer murder, the Norfolk Four case, and the Billy Wayne Cope case completely wrong, just to name a few. My recollection is that a total of eleven reviews of the Cameron Todd Willingham case were done over about a ten-year period, and he was still executed, despite what is now seen as a complete lack of evidence of arson. So for me to say that the Massei court got this case wrong is not much of a leap. - September 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Still Convinced,
I think that the pipe was an ongoing problem. If they washed dishes twice that evening, then it probably leaked twice. However, suppose for a moment that it could be conclusively proved that AK and RS had an early dinner that night. I don't see what difference it makes. They said that they were home the whole evening, so the order of events is secondary to that fact.
Tom Rawstorne reported, "He knew Sollecito and Knox by sight and was interviewed by police days after the murder, telling officers they had not been in his shop on the morning after the killing.
Seven months later, he told a newspaper reporter he had, in fact, seen Sollecito and Knox in the shop that morning and recalled them buying two bottles of bleach, which the prosecution alleged had been used as part of the clean-up of the murder scene.
However, another of the shop assistants that day was Marina Chiriboga, who also worked part-time cleaning student apartments.
She was able to refute Quintavalle's new version of events because she was also in the shop on the morning of November 2, 2007, and did not see Sollecito or Knox."
I think Quintavalle has convinced himself that he saw Knox, but I do not believe that he did. We know from the Willingham case that witnesses' memories sometimes change over time, to become more aligned with their beliefs about guilt or innocence. Others may be less charitable in their interpretations of his comments. - September 17, 2011 at 11:37 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Still Convinced,
Do you think that Meredith was killed after 11:30 PM? I don't, and that is why Nara's testimony is irrelevant. - September 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Still Convinced,
If it could be shown conclusively that Quintavalle were wrong, what conclusions would you draw? - September 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Hypothesis and opinion. Still. I find a lot of the comments have "I think" and "If" - we can all think a lot of things, but it's a guess. Your personal opinions of the Judge amount to nothing - but really, name calling now? This is what you're using for your own personal 'evidence'?. That sure helps to illuminate your mind set however.
"I think" that the pipe was an ongoing problem. But you don't know. "If" they washed dishes twice that evening, then it probably leaked twice. "If" it could be shown conclusively that Quintavalle were wrong - but it hasn't been shown.
'I think' and 'If'. Opinion. Hypothesis.
Quoted excerpt: "Raffaele, after having eaten, had washed the dishes, but a break in the pipes had occurred under the sink. And water was leaking, with flooding on the floor. Since they didn't have a mop, they decided that they would do the cleaning the next day with a mop that she could get from her house. She added that they were very tired and that it had to have been quite late at that point: her next memory brought her to the morning of November 2, around 10:00 am, when she woke up and took a plastic bag in which she placed her own dirty clothing to take home."
This is not "I think", it's verbatim.
You could take every single court case from anywhere in the world, at any time in history and dissect it and second-guess it to death.
It's very plain that you simply do not want to hear it. Maybe if Amanda gets off on appeal, she can join up with OJ Simpson (once he gets out), and they can both search for the 'real' murderers. - September 21, 2011 at 1:08 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
Still Convinced,
Would you mind answering my question? - September 21, 2011 at 1:51 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
Still Convinced,
I don't believe that you have read my replies very carefully. Quintavalle's testimony contradicted his own previous account, as well as being at odds with his assistant. As far as I am concerned, his testimony is discredited. The question I asked you was if you came to the same conclusion, what further inferences would you draw?
Nothing I wrote is name-calling with respect to the Italian judges.
The prosecution's timeline ignores basic human physiology. Once you correct for that, there is just not enough time for Knox and Sollecito to get high on drugs, find Rudy and murder Meredith.The issue of the pipe is basically unimportant. It does not matter whether they ate first then watched movies or vice versa, because they were at his flat the whole time.
The real murderer (Guede) is already in prison, but not for as long as he should be. - September 21, 2011 at 5:03 PM
Good post,Chris. I too thought Amanda may be innocent until I really delved into the details of this case. I'm curious, since you wrote this, have you come around to concluding her guilt?
One of many key things that convicted her was her Flatmates testimony.
I think the key to understanding the Kercher murder is realizing that the break-in was staged. This alone is damning, but combined with the cell phone and computer records that destroy Raffaele and Amanda's alibis and you've got your conviction.
And to top it off, we have Raffaele and Amanda's own testimony and attempts to hide the truth that have ultimately sealed their fate.
While DNA collection should be scrutinized closely, in this case there's so much additional evidence to corroborate the findings from the scientific evidence that, let's face it, these convictions will and should stand. - September 26, 2011 at 7:18 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
I think that it is unlikely (but not impossible) that RG would have staged a burglary. Therefore, if the burglary could be conclusively demonstrated to be staged, then that would be strong evidence against AK and RS. However, the evidence for staging is pretty thin gruel. I think that there are two possible reasons why things were not taken from Filomena's room. One, RG needed cash for rent (and he had not had much luck fencing stuff, anyway). Two, I think Meredith came back shortly after his break-in and while he was on the toilet. The claim of glass on the clothes means very little with no photographs. We do know that Filomena inadvertently altered the distribution of glass when she went to retrieve her computer. We also don't know with certainty which of her clothes were in the open before the break-in. Testimony to the effect that she was a tidy person is worth almost nothing.
ILE damaged the hard drives and inadvertently lost some meta-data, such as the time that Stardust was previously accessed. My definition of alibi is that it is one's account of where one was when a crime was committed. Therefore, even if I agreed with you that AK and RS lied about what they did on the morning of 2 November, it would be irrelevant to their alibi. Meredith was dead by 10:00 at the very outside, more likely closer to 9 than to 10. There was an undisputed interaction on Sollecito's computer at 9:08, and the defense argue that there was the opening of the Naruto file at 9:26 or thereabouts. - September 26, 2011 at 7:54 PM
to halides: You think you are smarter than professional CSI investigators? Isn't that rather arrogant attitude to take. You wrote that you don't believe that the shop owner saw Amanda buying two bottles of bleach in the morning after the murder. That makes you a lier, because these eyewitnesses usually testifies in court and they swear their testimony on the Bible. And you have the arrogancy of saying; I don't believe him. It's also stupid to say:if the other person in that shop didn't see Amanda, it MUST mean either the other saw. You must know that is ridiculous. if you go to a shop, and one person sees you, and the other doesn't, what is your conclusion of it: simply that the first person didn't look at you, but you still were there, and other one DID see you, he was paying attention on you. Your way of thinking is very dishonest and unlogigal.A&R lied thousand times to police and investigators, that's all I need to know about this case, since innocent don't lie when you have to swear on Bible and you have nothing to lose.They go back to prison very soon.
- October 15, 2011 at 7:15 AM
Halidas: you also constatly say: I don't believe eyewitnesses are telling the truth. You say: I don't believe Filomena was tidy like everyone are saying...and so on.These eyewitness have nothing to lose by telling the truth, usually people don't lie when it comes to murder investigation, because if they do, they would be part of it in the eyes of God.And they would be later in trouble by law.It's illegal to lie to police, you assume ALL lie, as habit.I find that atttitude dishonest from your part. Normally people don't lie when it comes to something there is no reason to lie.You don't even believe when police say the glass WAS on top of messed clothes, then why do you even bother to read about this case or anything if you automaticly believe that EVERYBODY lies and EVERYBODY in the world are dishonest(newspapers, police, csi,eyewitnesses,neighbourghs, etc)You shouldn't then believe AK or RS either if you don't believe anyone else too, that would be logical.It's hopeless to try to discuss with someone who says sworn testimony is a lie, as if you were there and know better, that's slander by the way, and you are looking for slander charges against you if you keep saying that.
- October 15, 2011 at 7:34 AM
all the phone records are found about this case: "Perugia murder file" web page. Go there to: "timelines", for example.Also page "true justice for Meredith Kercher" has ccell phone activity timelines.
- October 15, 2011 at 8:03 AM
If you want to see images of the crime scene photos you can go to the website www.murderperugiafile.org
You will have to become a member to see all the photos.
Once you see the photos you will be able to tell which stories about this case were created with false information.
There is a lot of scientific information and also information about the DNA test that you seem to think is false. The method has been used and accepted in other cases and they are referenced.
Sorry you don't want to believe that Amanda and Sollecito are somehow involved. The appeal is happening. Her family can waste more money fighting extradition. Sollecito's father is no longer financing his defence. That has to tell you something. Sollecito's book didn't sell, he is asking for donations, he is unemployed. I wonder if he will give up and tell the truth of that night.
Still think they are guilty has laid out some very hard facts in the discussion. I feel sorry for Amanda's grandmother. Do you know she mortgaged her home so Amanda's family could mount a defence? Shouldn't happen like that. America is not a nice place to be old and without a roof over your head. - July 18, 2013 at 7:08 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
If you wish to discuss the DNA evidence, that is fine, but please do it as I do, with appropriate references. The same goes for the luminol-positive areas.
- July 18, 2013 at 9:17 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Former FBI profiler John Douglas and Mark Olshaker wrote, "Moreover, for any well-trained and experienced homicide investigator or an FBI profiler, determining whether a crime scene represents one or multiple offenders is one of the most basic skills. Few scenes are ambiguous on this point, and this was not one of those." Mr. Douglas believes that Rudy Guede is the sole perpetrator. I think that the man whose bloody handprint is under the body is the culprit.
- July 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM
I don't know if you read the comments on your old post or not but wish to point out one little point I've never heard anyone else make. The claim of a staged break-in is supposed to implicate Knox, but to me it could also implicate Guede. Guede could reasonably suspect the cops would look closely at everyone who knew Kercher if there was no break in, and he knew he'd been caught burglarizing a place very shortly before, with a knife yet. So he had strong reason to try to make the cops think it was a random burglary. If it was a random burglary they would not be looking closely at everyone who knew the victim. By the way, either talking his way in because Kercher recognized him, or accosting her at the door, the same principle applies, lead the cops away from people who knew the house. Speculation but considering how much has been put into this staged break in idea -- and by the way, if Guede did it with someone else who knew the house, even more motive to lead the cops astray, and explains the two perpetrator theory.
- December 23, 2013 at 3:29 PM


text:
Hymn 25
From The Christian Science Hymnal, 1932 edition
The words to this hymn were written by Mary Baker Eddy
Download the sheet music of this hymn here.
Click here to play the Hymn:
Blest Christmas morn, though murky clouds
Pursue thy way,
Thy light was born where storm enshrouds
Nor dawn nor day!
Dear Christ, forever here and near,
No cradle song,
No natal hour and mother's tear,
To thee belong.
Thou God-idea, Life-encrowned,
The Bethlehem babe—
Beloved, replete, by flesh embound—
Was but thy shade!
Thou gentle beam of living Love,
And deathless Life!
Truth infinite,—so far above
All mortal strife,
Or cruel creed, or earth-born taint:
Fill us todayWith all thou art—
be thou our saint,
Our stay, alway.


text:
When I started at Buffer, I was given permission to make mistakes, to ask forgiveness rather than permission, to always test everything.
So I'd like to give you all some permission as well.
You have permission to pick and choose your social networks.
In fact, often times it may be best not to be on certain social networks, perhaps because of the time it takes to do social right or because your customer personas don't fit with a particular network. When you're choosing which social networks to be involved with, it's okay to be picky. You have my permission.
The next step is making an educated decision on which social networks to choose. There are a big number of factors that could weigh a decision for you, and I've done my best to collect them here in this post. From demographics to research and a whole lot else in between, here is what I've found to help you choose your social networks.
The most popular social networks, by active users
What the raw data can tell you about choosing a social network
According to data pulled together by Digital Insights, here's the breakdown for the social networks with the most monthly active users. You can check the Digital Insights blog for the overall number of users, too, although active users is likely to be a more meaningful metric when making decisions.
Social networks, ranked by monthly active users:
- Facebook: 1.28 billion
- Google+: 540 million
- Twitter: 255 million
- Instagram: 200 million
- LinkedIn: 187 million
- Pinterest: 40 million
You'll notice that Facebook is far and away the most popular social network, with twice as many monthly active users as the runner-up. You'll notice a Facebook-as-king theme running through much of these stats.
Here is the chart for social network growth, courtesy of a report published at the first of the year by GlobalWebIndex. It acts as a nice counterbalance to the overall active user numbers since it highlights what may be some up-and-coming social networks.
Should you decide which network to join based on its size?
Yes and no. Size matters inasmuch as you'd probably like the network you join to have reached a tipping point of users, popular enough that spending your time there will be time well spent. For that matter, even Pinterest's 40 million users could be enough volume for you, especially if the demographics fit (see below).
At the same time, relying solely on size can be dangerous. First off, consistent social network data is hard to find. The active user stats above show a 215 million user gap between Twitter and Pinterest, yet other stories can claim Pinterest is more popular than Twitter (the difference in reporting comes down to surveys vs. stats, as well as the definition of popularity).
Also, size does not exist in a vacuum. There are scores of other factors that could be just as valuable or more valuable as you decide which networks to join. In some cases, size might be a false indicator of whether or not you should be on a particular network.
- Will more users mean more competition for attention?
- Are your customers on the network?
- Does the network fit your demographic?
- Does your industry have a presence?
Perhaps a better question is: Which social networks can users not live without?
The team at UTA Brand Studio has a tool to measure this social media dependence, and they shared findings earlier this year that showed exactly which social networks we're most attached to.
The results, based on a survey of 2,006 U.S. adults, showed Facebook and Instagram in the top two spots.
These overall numbers are interesting on their own, and it gets even more so when you segment according to gender, age, and household income. Complete results are available in UTA's SlideShare presentation.
For a taste of how things differ from gender and age, here are a couple of quick charts showing the rank of different networks.
There's lots more great demographic data to base your decision on, too.
Where are your customers? Here's how to find out
What demographic data can tell you about choosing a social network
The Pew Research Internet Project has been compiling social media statistics and demographics for the past several years, releasing new information on a regular basis. Their latest demographic survey—a representative sample of 1,801 adults, surveyed in August and September 2013—shows who makes up the user bases for five major social networks.
Here's a spreadsheet of the results. The numbers represent the percentage of online users who use each network. Google+ was not included in the survey.
(Note: Facebook is so far and away larger than the others that it's kind of silly to compare them. I've highlighted the important numbers for everyone but Facebook. I could have highlighted the entire Facebook column.)
That's probably a lot to digest. Here's a quicker look at the social networks that provide the best fit in a number of different categories.
How might these stats impact your decision to choose the right social network?
It's possible that you've created buyer personas for your customers, and you know general information about their age, gender, income level, and so forth. You can line up these insights with the demographic data of a social network and see which networks fit.
(For instance, I once worked at a company with an almost exclusively 65-and-over demographic. Instagram would not have been a major need for us.)
You can also judge the value of a social network based on how well it fits your content and strategy. If you create content that your audience loves, you're likely to find your audience on social networks that love sharing your particular style of content—video, images, long-form, etc.
Here's a helpful way of looking at it, courtesy of Jason DeMers at Search Engine Land. He broke down social networks into seven different types, each with their own characteristics.
- Kitchen-sink networks: Twitter and Facebook
- Image-based networks: Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr
- Video networks: YouTube, Vimeo, Vine
- Business-focused networks: LinkedIn
- SEO and authorship networks: Google+
- Location-based networks: Foursquare, Yelp
- Niche networks: reddit
Important questions to ask when choosing a social network
Tim Grahl at Out:Think has a short and simple list of three of the big questions to ask when choosing a social network.
- Does it make sense for my content? (See the seven types of networks listed above.)
- Do potential fans spend time there? (See the demographic information above.)
- Does it make sense for me?
It's this final piece—your gut—that could make the most telling argument for or against a social network. If you've done your research already and are still on the fence, answering the "gut" question might be the deciding factor.
Does it make sense for me? Is it something I can easily fit into my life? Do I have time to do it? After doing some research and observation, do I "get" how it works?
I find the last part of this question series to be particularly compelling. Many of us feel like we can learn a new network if given enough time. The only problem: When do we have enough time? If you've given it a go and it still doesn't make sense, weigh this when deciding whether or not to press on.
Which social networks should you join? Here're some answers.
Let me start off by saying that you can judge the necessity of your being on a social network by looking at the stats and asking yourself important questions. And then, if it's still just too much to take in and you'd like someone to tell you what to do, here're some answers.
Should you be on Facebook?
Yes, if you don't mind the competition. More than 70 percent of online adults actively use Facebook. It is far and away the most popular social network. If your customers use the Internet, they're very likely to be on Facebook. Consider, though, that with great popularity comes great competition. The News Feed is a crowded place for your business updates.
Should you be on Twitter?
Yes, if you've interested in a younger, tech-savvy crowd. Michelle Manafy of Inc calls many of the users "information junkies," and it can be a wide variety of "information:" technology, news, sports, marketing, journalism, and so on. Topical and timely work great on Twitter. Be aware that a tweet reaches its peak after 18 minutes, so get your next tweet ready fast.
Should you be on LinkedIn?
Yes, if you can play the business game. LinkedIn's audience is full of great insights on work productivity, networking, and job hunting. B2B companies love it. B2C companies are still figuring it out.
Should you be on Google+?
Yes, if you want to impact your SEO. There are other reasons to join Google+, of course. One of the biggest is that its user base is so large and the competition is so low. Each new post comes with SEO juice, too. A word of warning: Things might seem a bit quiet at times.
Should you be on Instagram?
Yes, if photography is your jam. Instagram works great in a pairing with Facebook or Twitter, and business is booming. More and more users join every day, albeit young ones.
Should you be on Pinterest?
Yes, if you have big visuals in your content. There's a great demographic fit, too, for business that cater to women or brands that focus on categories like food or DIY.
Conclusion: How to choose a social network
It's perfectly okay to pick and choose which social networks you join.
Small businesses may not be able to handle a consistent presence on four or more networks, so it's helpful to step back, assess, and choose your best bets. Study the numbers, check for your audience, and ask yourself the important questions.
Which factors are most important to you when choosing a social network?
I'd love to hear about your experience in the comments. Do you try to cover as many social networks as possible? Have you chosen a select few to focus on? Come share your thoughts!
Image credits: UTA Brand Studio, TechCrunch,
Try Buffer for free
140,000+ small businesses like yours use Buffer to build their brand on social media every month
Get started nowRelated Articles
In this article, Nupur Mittal shares insights into four research methods that help her find content ideas and identify unique takeaways.
Facebook marketing in 2019 isn't dead. On the contrary, it's far from it. Now removed from the dim outlook that businesses faced at the beginning of 2018, Facebook has and will remain an essential tool for brands' marketing strategies moving forward. In our big State of Social Media 2019 Report, we found that 93.7 percent of businesses use and are currently active on Facebook — the most among any other social media network. And although we continue to see a dramatic rise in the usage


text:
Today, I am back with another card using the new stamps from Winnie and Walter.
Today's card features stamps from It's a Wonderful Pennant and The Big, The Bold and Seasons. I did the same kind of technique I did on the card from Monday. I inked up the image and the spritzed the stamp with water and then stamped the image. I gave the pennants a ROYGBIV look here. I popped up the stamped card stock on foam tape. I stamped the "celebrate" on a banner and matted it with a sliver of black card stock. I stamped "summer" and then cut it out by hand. I attached it all on the card front and then to finish it off, I used some Frosted Lace Stickles to give it a little sparkle.
So if you saw Monday's post, you know I have a $30 Winnie and Walter Gift Certificate to give away this week. You have 3 chances to win! Comment once on each post and then Saturday, I will announce the winner.
Hope you are having a good week! It's flying by here. It makes me sad that summer is more than half over. We have had really cool weather here and we have really enjoyed being outside. I am headed out there now! Thanks so much for stopping by today!


text: Gati Express movers and packers is providing Movers Packers in Firozpur. We are moving household goods from one location to another location safe and reliable. We offer quality and hassle-free Logistics services in India at affordable prices. We believe in customer satisfaction and give them our best services because of the qualified and experienced team, We had handled many logistics situations successfully.


text:
With 2-Step Verification, also called two-factor authentication, you can add an extra layer of security to your account in case your password is stolen. After you set up 2-Step Verification, you can sign in to your account with:
- Your password
- Your phone
Allow 2-Step Verification
- Open your Google Account.
- In the navigation panel, select Security.
- Under "How you sign in to Google," select 2-Step Verification Get started.
- Follow the on-screen steps.
Tip: If you use an account through your work, school, or other group, these steps might not work. If you can't set up 2-Step Verification, contact your administrator for help.
Verify it's you with a second step
After you turn on 2-Step Verification, you must complete a second step to verify it's you when you sign in. To help protect your account, Google will ask that you complete a specific second step.
Use Google prompts
We recommend you sign in with Google prompts. It's easier to tap a prompt than enter a verification code. Prompts can also help protect against SIM swap and other phone number-based hacks.
Google prompts are push notifications you'll receive on:
- Android phones that are signed in to your Google Account.
- iPhones with the Smart Lock app , the Gmail app , the Google Photos app , the YouTube app , or Google app signed in to your Google Account.
Based on the device and location info in the notification, you can:
- Allow the sign-in if you requested it by tapping Yes.
- Block the sign-in if you didn't request it by tapping No.
For added security, Google may ask you for your PIN or other confirmation.
Use other verification methods
You can set up other verification methods in case you:
- Want increased protection against phishing
- Can't get Google prompts
- Lose your phone
A physical security key is a small device that you can buy to help verify it's you when you sign in. When we need to make sure it's you, you can simply connect the key to your phone, tablet, or computer. Order your security keys.
Tip: When a hacker tries to get you to give them your password or other personal information, security keys help you protect your Google Account from phishing attacks. Learn more about phishing attacks.
When you don't have an internet connection or mobile service, you can set up Google Authenticator or another app that creates one-time verification codes.
To help verify it's you, enter the verification code on the sign-in screen.


text:
Wild Bird Talking Ezine
Wild Bird Talking - Ezine
Click here to get your free subscription and gifts
Wild Bird Talking (ISSN: 1835-6362) is the e-zine from WingedHearts.org with news and articles sent to subscribers. Special Editions are issues quarterly. The News editions is generally issued fortnightly or when there is a timely information to be conveyed. In these issues you can
- Learn more about the amazingly loving, rich and interesting, social and emotional lives of birds that live freely all around the world,
- Share your experiences with others,
- Get tips and techniques on how you too can talk to the birds and communicate with them as friends,
- Find out how to experience the love and joy that talking to the birds brings to your backyards and create a transformation for yourself.
- Receive information on special offers, interviews with experts, site updates and other resources that will help you make a difference easily.
To Subscribe at No Cost Click here or for more details click on the topics below (or scroll down to view all):
- Bonus Gifts for subscribers (subscription is free)
- Enter Details to get your free subscription and gifts
- Wild Bird Talking - View A Previous Issue
- Submit Your Story
Click Here to Get Your free subscription & gifts
Bonus Gifts: Don't miss out on this exciting e-zine - enter your details below to sign-up and you get your bonus gifts now
Bonus gift 1: Five Keys To Friendship With Wild Birds - by Gitie House
A quick start guide describing the essential elements of talking to wild birds in your backyard or neighbourhood and making friends with them.
- Read the benefits of making friends with the birds that live around your home
- Quick steps to getting started, attracting birds and winning their confidence
- How to talk to them, recognise them and develop a rewarding friendship
Click Here to Get Your free subscription and gifts
Bonus gift 2: Free Audio and Transcript (with additional notes):
How to Help Injured or Stunned Birds Recover with Rescue Remedy
- Rescue the injured bird in your garden and let it return to its family and loved ones.
Over 1 million birds are injured every year in the US alone. Now you can use these easy steps to help save an injured bird.
- Especially useful for birds caught by cats, or stunned by flying into glass doors and windows, or struck by cars.
Bonus gift 3: Australian Wild Birds E-Calendar 2014 - The monthly pages can be downloaded individually.
13 pages of full resolution pictures of Aussie Wild Birds. They look fabulous and can be used as a wallpaper on your screen or print it for a wall calendar or slip it into desktop frame. We printed a set in 6 x 8 photo quality paper and it looks so good, we're making more up as gifts for friends.
Enter your e-mail in the opt-in box below and claim your gifts.
(Your details will be kept completely private and will never be sold or traded.)
You will receive an e-mail requesting confirmation of your subscription. On confirmation you will be sent a link to download the bonus gifts. You can unsubscribe any time and the audio and transcript are yours to keep and share with your family and friends. Your email will not be sold, traded or disclosed to others.
Wild Bird Talking Ezine - Sample: Click here to view a past issue.
To submit a story or articles send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com
To subscribe please enter your name and e-mail address in the opt-in box in the left hand menu bar.
The subscription list will only be used to e-mail the ezine and any special announcements that may be of interest to the readers.
For more regular news and discussion about the birds, please subscribe to the Blog in the left hand menu bar.
The ezine subscription list is a double opt-in list and you will receive a message requesting you to confirm your subscription. On confirmation you will receive a unique link which you can use to unsubscibe at any time. The unsubscribing process will also seek a confirmation before removing you from the list. If you lose your unsubscription link, you can also unsubscribe by sending a blank e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com with unsubscribe in the subject line.
If you have any problems subscribing or managing your subscription please send an e-mail to email@example.com
Thank you for your interest.
With Warm wishes,