Killer Walks. Eve Not Happy.

[Debillw3]

@Crazyhorse

I see your point, but at the same time when someone does stumble on a thread that way and decide to post in it, they are totally unaware of board etiquette here, or maybe anywhere, and often present their case in a ham-fisted way.

Yes, but when someone who is familiar points out that the etiquette involves not bumping a 14 year old thread, the proper response is generally to appear at least somewhat contrite.

Those who get aggressive about it generally don’t last very long (the person who posted in different colored fonts because the rules didn’t say they couldn’t jumps to mind immediately).

As I mentioned, speaking for me, my response is based on their attitude, not what they did. Heck, I’ve almost accidentally bumped insanely old threads because they came up on Google & I didn’t notice the date until right before I hit “Submit Reply”.

People who react with poor attitudes will generally find all their actions scrutinized to a greater degree than people who don’t. The best analogy that I can come up with off-hand is if two people get pulled over for going 10 miles over the speed limit, but only of them is respectful. The odds are that one of them will get a warning and the other a ticket, despite both doing the exact same thing wrong & disrespect having nothing to do with the action that got them pulled over.

Speaking personally, I find bumping threads (especially past the point where the main members will read them, such as Eve in this case) annoying, but I generally won’t have anything to say on the matter unless (such as in this case) the bumper is a total dick about it. Same annoyance either way, but their attitude, rather than the action itself, determines how I react.

[cochrane]

Right. My question was meant to be snark since the zombie raiser was being all pissy. And since we’re in the Pit, a certain level of snark is allowed and even encouraged. If this were in IMHO, or MPSIS, I would have taken a different attitude.

Also, fuck, and shit.

[Guinastasia]

Goddammit, I thought Eve was back.

[Crazyhorse]

@Debillw3

Yes, but when someone who is familiar points out that the etiquette involves not bumping a 14 year old thread, the proper response is generally to appear at least somewhat contrite.

Those who get aggressive about it generally don’t last very long (the person who posted in different colored fonts because the rules didn’t say they couldn’t jumps to mind immediately).

As I mentioned, speaking for me, my response is based on their attitude, not what they did. Heck, I’ve almost accidentally bumped insanely old threads because they came up on Google & I didn’t notice the date until right before I hit “Submit Reply”.

People who react with poor attitudes will generally find all their actions scrutinized to a greater degree than people who don’t. The best analogy that I can come up with off-hand is if two people get pulled over for going 10 miles over the speed limit, but only of them is respectful. The odds are that one of them will get a warning and the other a ticket, despite both doing the exact same thing wrong & disrespect having nothing to do with the action that got them pulled over.

Speaking personally, I find bumping threads (especially past the point where the main members will read them, such as Eve in this case) annoying, but I generally won’t have anything to say on the matter unless (such as in this case) the bumper is a total dick about it. Same annoyance either way, but their attitude, rather than the action itself, determines how I react.

But the counter to that is that if they don’t know anything about board etiquette they also won’t recognize the reason for the criticism so they will be likely to respond in an even more ham-handed manner to that.

But I have a different opinion of zombie threads than you or cochrane in general I think. I’ve never been offended or bothered by the resurrection of a thread or understood why anyone else is. The subject either initiates new conversation in which case it’s an active, valid thread again, or it doesn’t in which case it drops back off the list in short order.

One other common thing about this type of zombie resurrection is that the poster almost never comes back, so I’ve found it more useful to use that one opportunity to ask for more information instead of trying to educate them about board etiquette or crack zombie jokes.

[Merneith]

@clairobscur

Why? There was a perfectly good explanation for his DNA to be found, if he had sex with her, so there’s no need for some powerful evidence that he was not guilty. A lack of evidence that he was would be enough.

If my Googling is up to task, we’re talking about the murder of Jane Marie Russo, allegedly by one, Louis Poveromo.

We only have the accused’s - Louis Poveromo - word for it though, that Jane Marie Russo liked having rough anal sex and being spit upon. If there was evidence that Russo was frequently involved with violent sex, I can’t seem to find it.

I’ll grant you that it might not be enough to convict him if you’ll grant that every rapist in the world says, “oh, it was consensual”. There’s no reason just to take the accused’s word for it.

Actually I can’t find much of anything about this case. Here’s a contemporary article about the murder -

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/17/nyregion/woman-found-slain-in-brooklyn-apartment.html

@NYT article about Russo's murder

Family members said they had last heard from Ms. Russo at 9:30 p.m. Saturday. She had talked with her mother on the telephone, saying she and a male friend were watching videos and eating pizza, they said. Ms. Russo and the man had met at a club, and he had asked her on a date, family members said. While she had not been interested in dating the man, she had nonetheless invited him over, they said. ‘‘She felt bad to reject somebody, and she still wanted to be friends,’’ said a cousin, who did not give her name.

So apparently Russo wasn’t interested in Proveromo. It seems pretty unlikely that she’d want to let a stranger she didn’t particularly like bite her and spit on her.
And here’s an article about Proveromo’s acquittal -

‘ZITI KILLER’ WALKS FREE AMID TEARS IN COURT

@NYPost article

Poveromo admitted he had been on a date with Russo that night, but had left her just minutes before her estimated time of death. Her apartment had been stripped of its sheets, phone and even a plate of ziti, suggesting someone had removed evidence, law-enforcement sources said.

Here’s another contemporary article -

PASTA PILFER TIED TO KILLING

@NY Post

A bite mark on his arm shortly after the killing is consistent with Russo’s teeth, law-enforcement sources said. An expert is expected to testify to that later on in the trial in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

The victim’s family said yesterday that Poveromo – a pale, thin man with close-cropped hair and sideburns – kept haunting Russo.

“He kept calling. She wasn’t interested,” said Russo’s older sister, Susan Martino. “He’s a savage.”

Poveromo told police that when he went to Russo’s apartment that night, she told him she was involved with an old boyfriend. He then backed out of the relationship, saying he didn’t want any trouble.

So Poveromo harassed Russo until she reluctantly agreed to go out with him. Then Povermo had rough anal sex with Russo, biting and spitting on her, (as per Eve’s friend). Poveromo left and then immediately afterwards, a mysterious stranger broke in, strangled her, stabbed her and stole the sheets and zitti on his way out, leaving no trace of himself behind.

I think we know which way Occam’s razor splits, here.

Anyway, if there’s any evidence about a footprint or friends’ testimony, I can’t find it. Or any reporting on a lawsuit. Perhaps our new friend can bring some cites.

[Debillw3]

@Crazyhorse

But the counter to that is that if they don’t know anything about board etiquette they also won’t recognize the reason for the criticism so they will be likely to respond in an even more ham-handed manner to that.

Generally a bad idea.

Again, the person who posted in different colors jumps to mind.

If someone who stands to know something you don’t on a topic takes you to task for your stance on the topic, it’s generally a good idea to consider where they’re coming from instead of attacking them.

@Crazyhorse

But I have a different opinion of zombie threads than you or cochrane in general I think. I’ve never been offended or bothered by the resurrection of a thread or understood why anyone else is. The subject either initiates new conversation in which case it’s an active, valid thread again, or it doesn’t in which case it drops back off the list in short order.

For me, it’s similar to the rule where Pit threads about members get locked when they’re banned, as they aren’t here to defend themselves.

If you bump a thread at such a time that most of the original posters have moved on (such as 14 years), then it feels, to me, like a sneaky way of getting yourself the last word–especially when, like in this case, you’re contradicting the poster(s).

@Crazyhorse

One other common thing about this type of zombie resurrection is that the poster almost never comes back, so I’ve found it more useful to use that one opportunity to ask for more information instead of trying to educate them about board etiquette or crack zombie jokes.

That’s another problem, honestly. Drive-bys in general are annoying. When you bump an old thread for it, that magnifies the problem in my perspective.

[Crazyhorse]

@Debillw3

For me, it’s similar to the rule where Pit threads about members get locked when they’re banned, as they aren’t here to defend themselves.

If you bump a thread at such a time that most of the original posters have moved on (such as 14 years), then it feels, to me, like a sneaky way of getting yourself the last word–especially when, like in this case, you’re contradicting the poster(s).

But, those of us who remain can and will advocate for the OP if the new poster can be proven wrong. (as it appears Merneith is inspired to do)

In this case though any new factual information that contradicted the sentiments of the OP would probably have been welcomed by the OP because they expressed a lot of frustration about not having more information to help them understand the verdict.

[silenus]

@cochrane

Right. My question was meant to be snark since the zombie raiser was being all pissy. And since we’re in the Pit, a certain level of snark is allowed and even encouraged. If this were in IMHO, or MPSIS, I would have taken a different attitude.

Also, fuck, and shit.

On the up side, because this thread is in The Pit, we can tell the zombie-raiser to go fuck a cactus.

[Lb_smooth]

I googled search his name and this site come up. The point is none of you were involved in the case or know anyone involved in the case. I read Eva’s comments which were not only totally way off base, but were unbelievably inaccurate. I sat in the courtroom everyday, I actually know the facts of the case unlike all of you who are just voicing your opinions on something you know nothing about. Now we are in the process of working on a independent film about the case and Eva comments will be use on how misinformed most people were. Was that coherent enough?

[Debillw3]

I generally make an effort to avoid this, but I’m going to respond backwards to help the flow of my reply.

@Crazyhorse

In this case though any new factual information that contradicted the sentiments of the OP would probably have been welcomed by the OP because they expressed a lot of frustration about not having more information to help them understand the verdict.

Yes, but they aren’t here to see it.

That’s my issue with thread bumping in general.

If it happens at a such a time where everyone is still around, I take no issue with it at all (& have done it myself). After 14 years, though, that’s obviously going to be tough and is, notably, not the case here.

@Crazyhorse

But, those of us who remain can and will advocate for the OP if the new poster can be proven wrong. (as it appears Merneith is inspired to do)

This is why I’d advocate opening a new thread, rather than bumping, at that juncture.

It’d be its own thread with its own participants that would rise & fall on its own merits. More of a spin-off, if you will.

[Lb_smooth]

All you people jumped in. It’s reasonable to think the person who started this thread who jump in to, no?. When googling is name this "message board " is the only one that shows up and is riddled with misinformation. You will be seeing this film in 2018 or 2019 @ the Tribeca film fest

[Lb_smooth]

Sorry the woman who started this thread name was Eve not Eva

[Debillw3]

@Lb_smooth

The point is none of you were involved in the case or know anyone involved in the case.

That’s right, we don’t. If that is literally “the point”, I’ll again refer you to Blogger. It’s free & you can limit your readers to just individuals who meet that bar.

You don’t have that option here, so I highly recommend getting off that horse.

@Lb_smooth

I read Eva’s comments which were not only totally way off base, but were unbelievably inaccurate.

In the interest in sharing board etiquette with you, I’ll point that her name is Eve & that it’s generally a good idea to get names right if you want to be taken seriously–especially when they’re only 3 letters.

If you forget the name when you’re replying, you can simply scroll down and copy/paste it.

I’ll also point out, once again, that she’s not here to defend herself or her views.

@Lb_smooth

I sat in the courtroom everyday, I actually know the facts of the case unlike all of you who are just voicing your opinions on something you know nothing about.

Everyone who voiced their opinion did so based on the information available, not total ignorance as you’re suggesting.

As you were noticeably absent from this board 14 years ago, I’d suggest that the lack of information available falls more on you than anyone here, as Eve shared everything she knew.

@Lb_smooth

Now we are in the process of working on a independent film about the case and Eva comments will be use on how misinformed most people were.

I’d tread very lightly here. Fair use is a fairly narrow window, especially on a for-profit venture, such as an indie movie.

I’ll also again point out that Eve shared everything she knew, and she didn’t know what she didn’t know because nobody took the time to correct her for 14 years–and then did so at a time & in a way that she won’t see it.

If you could find this board today, you could’ve found it sooner. Your lack of looking isn’t anyone else’s fault.

Ignorance is generally excused when those who know the truth refuse to share it.

@Lb_smooth

It’s reasonable to think the person who started this thread who jump in to, no?.

Uh… No… It’s been 14 years.

It’s not the least bit reasonable to assume that just because a person posted on a message board 14 years ago they’d still be there today.

[Little_Nemo]

@Lb_smooth

I googled search his name and this site come up. The point is none of you were involved in the case or know anyone involved in the case. I read Eva’s comments which were not only totally way off base, but were unbelievably inaccurate. I sat in the courtroom everyday, I actually know the facts of the case unlike all of you who are just voicing your opinions on something you know nothing about. Now we are in the process of working on a independent film about the case and Eva comments will be use on how misinformed most people were. Was that coherent enough?

If I may ask, what was the basis of the lawsuit?

[Lb_smooth]

Little Nemo the lawsuit was file to withheld evidence during the trail and miss leading the court to obtain warrants during the investigation, the defendant spent his many years and a lot of money to gather the info that lead to the law suit

[Lb_smooth]

Debillw3 I apologize for getting the woman’s name wrong and corrected myself. You on the other hand continue to throw insult and make snide comments, but I guess that easy to do when speaking on a message board, says a lot about what type of person you are. Again I stumbled on this this shitty site doing some minor research, look for the film to be out within the next year or two. Sorry it’s more a documentary that will be shown @ several film fest across the country

[Debillw3]

@Lb_smooth

…to withheld evidence during the trail…

What does this even mean?

Was he suing to withhold evidence? That ship sailed when the trial ended. Open court = public record

If you’re saying he sued because evidence was withheld, I’d be curious who he sued and what his damages were.

If the prosecution didn’t present the evidence, then the defense was free to. If defense tried and was rebuffed, that’d be on the judge (who would generally have a form of immunity from civil suits related to their rulings).

If prosecution buried the evidence, that’d be an issue in most jurisdictions for an appeal, rather than a civil suit. As he was acquitted, he had no need for an appeal–which then brings me back to my question of damages.

[Roderick_Femm]

@Lb_smooth

All you people jumped in. It’s reasonable to think the person who started this thread who jump in to, no?. When googling is name this "message board " is the only one that shows up and is riddled with misinformation. You will be seeing this film in 2018 or 2019 @ the Tribeca film fest

Time will tell, I suppose. Or perhaps I should say, seeing is believing.

Since I was not on this board 14 years ago, and I was not familiar with the case, I googled the name of the accused/acquitted murderer. I could not find any stories since 2002. So if there were any recent developments, such as the outcome of a lawsuit, oddly it was apparently not covered on the internet. If this is not the case, perhaps you could provide a cite for it?

This thread also came up near the top, possibly because it had already been revived by you. But I suspect that is how you found us. Google is not an unmixed blessing, searchwise.

In any case, if you want anyone here to give a rat’s fart about your opinion on this or anything else, you would be advised to tread more softly when presenting your evidence, and to make that evidence more compelling than what is so far merely hearsay on your part, hearsay which seems to me severely tainted by personal interest.

[Lb_smooth]

The evidence that was withheld, would have lead to the defendant never getting arrested or even going to trail. I sorry I did not know you were a internet lawyer but I guess people can pretend to be whatever they want on the internet.All this will be covered in the film. I will be back on this site when we release it. Hopefully you will buy it

[Debillw3]

@Lb_smooth

Debillw3 I apologize for getting the woman’s name wrong and corrected myself.

“The woman” has a name. Again, in the interest of sharing board etiquette with you, that kind of talk will not endear you to people here.

@Lb_smooth

You on the other hand continue to throw insult and make snide comments, but I guess that easy to do when speaking on a message board, says a lot about what type of person you are.

I didn’t insult you anywhere.

You may have found what I had to say harsh, but that doesn’t make it insulting.

@Lb_smooth

Again I stumbled on this this shitty site…

Again, not going to endear you to people.

I’d suggest rereading my prior comments on this thread about how your attitude influences how people, especially I, will react to you.

You had people coming to your defense on the grounds that you didn’t know board etiquette–this goes beyond that & stands to lose you some of the people who started on your side.

@Lb_smooth

Sorry it’s more a documentary that will be shown @ several film fest across the country

My warning regarding your usage of Eve’s comments stands. Whether you listen or not is up to you.