Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[acbytesla]

Well fine but please give a list of people convicted almost solely on motive. It seems that certain people treat motive as a needed element for the crime of murder, it's not. The two girls that killed their friend didn't have a motive except they didn't like her anymore.

Again, I never said that some people were convicted solely on motive, I said almost.

For those unfamiliar with the story, Skylar Neese was lured out of her room on the night of July 6, 2012 by her 2 best friends. They drove her to this rural area called Eddy Run Road into Pennsylvania about 30 minutes away from their Morgantown, West Virginia homes. Once at their planned grave site for their best friend, upon the count of 3, they stabbed Skylar to death, tossed her body on the side of the road, & when they failed to be able to dig her grave & bury her, just covered her body with branches & left her here.​

yes only one other and they knew each other but no motive.
[/QUOTE]
They knew each other for years, they were high school students and they planned to murder skylar for quite some time. You could also say the same thing about the two boys who shot up Columbine. But of course, again, these are two people that knew each other for years as well. Out of the around 15 to 20 thousand homicides each year in the US, these are the crazy exceptions.

Coincidences? His alibi was that he went to the bay where she washed ashore 4 months later. He admitted to making concrete anchors. He told his girlfriend that this would be his first Christmas without Laci.

So, he made concrete anchors? I've made concrete anchors. That means nothing. So he told his girlfriend that this would be the first Christmas without Laci. Laci was missing...that makes sense. Having his alibi be fishing in the bay where your wife's body washes ashore, that is plain stupid.

The way certain people point to lack of motive as a proactive defense is just foolish. This isn't like the defense pointing out that their client couldn't have pulled the trigger because she has no fingers.

Now the fact that the prosecution can't put the three together before or after the crime either in person or electronically is a defense. Now that we are told that Rudi had a phone it sure would be interesting to see the log.

The murder case I was on the jury panel for could never have pointed out that the killer had no motive (which he didn't) and expected to get him off.

People here seem to have a problem separating issues. I would never convict because the evidence was poor to pure BS. The "witnesses" were not credible and didn't actually see anything relevant except to undermine the kids' alibis. They have no case.

If one wants to add to that, there was no reason or motive, fine. But there plenty of cases where the motive isn't at all clear.

You seem to have a problem recognizing patterns and acknowledging that they matter. There is a reason that many people mention Occam's razor. There is a clear pattern with Rudy and the rest of the evidence fits including motive. As for Amanda and Raffaele, not only is there no motive, there is very little evidence.

I've never said that evidence is not needed, but that that motive surely can count in the scheme of things..

I'm done Grinder.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well fine but please give a list of people convicted almost solely on motive. It seems that certain people treat motive as a needed element for the crime of murder, it's not. The two girls that killed their friend didn't have a motive except they didn't like her anymore.

For those unfamiliar with the story, Skylar Neese was lured out of her room on the night of July 6, 2012 by her 2 best friends. They drove her to this rural area called Eddy Run Road into Pennsylvania about 30 minutes away from their Morgantown, West Virginia homes. Once at their planned grave site for their best friend, upon the count of 3, they stabbed Skylar to death, tossed her body on the side of the road, & when they failed to be able to dig her grave & bury her, just covered her body with branches & left her here.​

yes only one other and they knew each other but no motive.




Coincidences? His alibi was that he went to the bay where she washed ashore 4 months later. He admitted to making concrete anchors. He told his girlfriend that this would be his first Christmas without Laci.

Was your friend's wife murdered? That would be sort of key for him to be a killer.

The way certain people point to lack of motive as a proactive defense is just foolish. This isn't like the defense pointing out that their client couldn't have pulled the trigger because she has no fingers.

Now the fact that the prosecution can't put the three together before or after the crime either in person or electronically is a defense. Now that we are told that Rudi had a phone it sure would be interesting to see the log.

The murder case I was on the jury panel for could never have pointed out that the killer had no motive (which he didn't) and expected to get him off.

People here seem to have a problem separating issues. I would never convict because the evidence was poor to pure BS. The "witnesses" were not credible and didn't actually see anything relevant except to undermine the kids' alibis. They have no case.

If one wants to add to that, there was no reason or motive, fine. But there plenty of cases where the motive isn't at all clear.

Grinder, are you sure you are using the word 'motive' the same way as everybody else? Maybe you understand it to mean something that might make sense to you as a reason for killing somebody. But, to me, it means anything at all, including killing for kicks or because someone looked at your girlfriend in a bar. I think you should go find us a motiveless murder.

Nobody (except maybe Tesla) is arguing motive alone can be proof of murder (I bet we could construct a mind experiment in which it would be most of the case) nor that murder cannot be proved unless you prove a motive. So what? Those are not major points. The big point is that, in addition to all the other problems, as if there weren't enough already, the kids had no motive. That's yet another reason to justify doubt they did it and, beyond that, to look askance at the evidence that says they did.

Are you claiming that if there were clear, reliable evidence of Amanda and Raffaele uttering threats against her life the night before that would make no difference to the case? Come off it. That would be key evidence that would put the whole thing in a completely different light and you know it.

 

[Grinder]

Again, I never said that some people were convicted solely on motive, I said almost.

And that's what I said you said now produce these cases you are familiar with, please. Or admit they don't exist.

They knew each other for years, they were high school students and they planned to murder skylar for quite some time. You could also say the same thing about the two boys who shot up Columbine. But of course, again, these are two people that knew each other for years as well. Out of the around 15 to 20 thousand homicides each year in the US, these are the crazy exceptions.

Motive. What was the motive?

So, he made concrete anchors? I've made concrete anchors. That means nothing. So he told his girlfriend that this would be the first Christmas without Laci. Laci was missing...that makes sense. Having his alibi be fishing in the bay where your wife's body washes ashore, that is plain stupid.

He told her before Laci went missing.

They later said that they were angered not by the affair, but that Peterson had told Frey that he'd "lost" his wife and that he would be spending his first Christmas without his wife — 14 days before Laci disappeared. To the Rochas, this meant that Peterson had already planned to kill Laci long before her disappearance.[7]​

I thought you knew the case. If your wife went missing and was found months later in a lake to had been fishing in and you had made concrete anchors - I think even Anglo would admit the making of anchors would be evidence.

You seem to have a problem recognizing patterns and acknowledging that they matter. There is a reason that many people mention Occam's razor. There is a clear pattern with Rudy and the rest of the evidence fits including motive. As for Amanda and Raffaele, not only is there no motive, there is very little evidence.

Occam's razor - well that's the winning argument. Yes a clear pattern of stabbing women for years, er ah well not that but he had a gold watch and a kitchen knife because he always maybe sometimes carried a knife.

You have it backasswards again. There is not enough evidence to convict them, with or without a motive.

I've never said that evidence is not needed, but that that motive surely can count in the scheme of things..

I'm done Grinder.

Lack of motive is not defense against real evidence. Here we don't have real solid evidence and that's all that matters.

You make sweeping statements about people convicted ALMOST solely on motive and can't back it up. You claim to know the Scott Peterson case but you obviously don't.

A solid motive is the bow on the package, the cherry on the sundae or the ice cream on the cake but one need not be proven nor are there always one that remotely makes sense.

What was the motive for the teenager being killed? Oh, right, it was because her friends had known each other for so long.

 

[Desert Fox]

Are you claiming that if there were clear, reliable evidence of Amanda and Raffaele uttering threats against her life the night before that would make no difference to the case? Come off it. That would be key evidence that would put the whole thing in a completely different light and you know it.

Big item I would argue is that I would look for evidence that Amanda/Raffaele 'hired' Rudy to kill Meredeth. The physical evidence of them being involved directly really is not there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

inferences versus established facts

Grinder,

If you want to talk about the Peterson case, start a thread. If you want to point out to someone that a statement such as "Guede was in the bathroom when Meredith came home" is an inference, as opposed to something of which we can be 100% certain, then please just say so, and things will move along more smoothly IMO.

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder, I already pointed out the Peterson case, I have no desire to go back through the annals of criminal history and provide cites for you to keep this argument going. My contention is that motive doesn't prove guilt, but it can make a difference in how we assess the evidence. I know you disagree and that is fine. I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[Planigale]

I think there is a failing to appreciate negative results are as valid as positive results. This is a normal psychological phenomenon. So the lack of blood / DNA / fibre transmission from MK to AK or RS is a very positive negative. The lack of contact between RG and AK or RS is a very positive negative. Yet these very strong negatives are never seriously addressed.

 

[acbytesla]

I think there is a failing to appreciate negative results are as valid as positive results. This is a normal psychological phenomenon. So the lack of blood / DNA / fibre transmission from MK to AK or RS is a very positive negative. The lack of contact between RG and AK or RS is a very positive negative. Yet these very strong negatives are never seriously addressed.

This is so right. It is often important to understand that something doesn't work. It's like Edison's quote about making the light bulb. He was asked why he kept going when he failed a thousand times. He said he did not fail a thousand times. He just succeeded at finding out a thousand ways how not to make a light bulb.

My other favorite quote of his that I think applies to this case is the following

“Five percent of the people think;
ten percent of the people think they think;
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”

 

[Matthew Best]

I would like those that suggested the nutter would be a good addition here read more of her grand insights, here's one:

The biggest question for the United States is this. What are you going to do about raw materials? The good fortune found in tight oil will avail nothing if the United States doesn’t also dramatically increase the rate at which it can “produce” raw materials, particularly elements of the periodic table. The only way to do this is to create a crewed space flight infrastructure whose purpose is to collect these materials from asteroids, where they appear in amounts astronomically greater than anything found on Earth. If the United States fails to do this, it and Canada will go the way of the rest of Humanity. To explain, it may survive the tight oil period. The problem won’t present until the switch to kerogen is attempted in some 30 or more years. But it would take 30 years to develop such a space flight infrastructure. There is no room for gaps. Because of kerogen’s poor EROEI, it will absolutely depend on higher production rates of raw materials; i.e. increased flow of capital.

Of course, at some point alternative energy will have to be developed and the entire primary mover infrastructure will have to be updated. That is really the end goal. But this is no small task. It will cost trillions and will take decades to convert humanity over to a fully electric infrastructure. That is one of the key requirements for comprehensive conversion to alternative energies. And alack, we do not have the raw materials on Earth to build enough batteries for all of it. Thus, once again, the asteroids loom as our only hope. When and if we achieve an energy infrastructure that does not include fossil fuels we will have taken a key step in our development. At that point, for the first time, humanity will be progressing using the fundamental physical principles common throughout the universe and not specific to Earth. It will be a seminal transition.​

Anyone doubting http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/

Whoever that person is, is also a 9/11 truther. Can we be sure it's the same person that wrote the PDF about this case?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, are you sure you are using the word 'motive' the same way as everybody else? Maybe you understand it to mean something that might make sense to you as a reason for killing somebody. But, to me, it means anything at all, including killing for kicks or because someone looked at your girlfriend in a bar. I think you should go find us a motiveless murder.

yes we quirky Seattleites have such a hard time with your English words..I have written many times here that motive and reason for are about the same. If we allow any reason to be a motive, which I do, then it becomes very hard to say there was no motive. Meredith called Amanda a dumb drugged up tart and Amanda exploded in anger and shoved the "prank" knife into her neck. Too late for the boys to not be involved.

Are you claiming that if there were clear, reliable evidence of Amanda and Raffaele uttering threats against her life the night before that would make no difference to the case? Come off it. That would be key evidence that would put the whole thing in a completely different light and you know it.

I have said and now repeat that a clear motive ADDS to the case for prosecution but the defense doesn't reduce the case against because that clear motive isn't apparent. As Massei said they just chose evil.

Clear motive or prior threat is evidence for the prosecution and I've been saying exactly that - so you come off it

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

If you want to talk about the Peterson case, start a thread. If you want to point out to someone that a statement such as "Guede was in the bathroom when Meredith came home" is an inference, as opposed to something of which we can be 100% certain, then please just say so, and things will move along more smoothly IMO.

Chris it was Tesla that brought up the concept of convictions where the only evidence (almost) was the motive and I believe he used Scott.

I was thinking about the general theory and it crossed my mind that most everyone has Rudi in the bathroom when Meredith came home. Except for the lack of blood in that room I would say it would be more likely he became sick after the killing.

 

[Planigale]

I thought the whole point of JREf was to engage with the woo promoters and bring them to the light of pure skepticism.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Thanks Kwill - she is a nutter that gets the facts wrong from page one. They were in the cottage when Meredith returned at 8:56. It was a prank blah, blah blah.

I don't suggest it but if you read the first two pages of her scenario you will ask why anyone would have linked to it.

She is an exhibitionist that is transferring her mental problems to Amanda.

-

I read a bit of her article, but in the comment's section, one of her first replies was that one of the things glaringly obvious about the innocent camp is that they ALL hate psychology.

In that she is wrong (which makes the rest of her psychological analysis suspect, at least to me anyway), because I am a very good student of psychology and enjoyed studying it in college. You could almost say my Associates degree was a degree in psychology and I got an A in almost everyone of those classes.

The one almost insurmountable psychological problem with the guilt scenario she never discusses is the virtual and improbable ability for three almost virtual strangers to get together by chance and psychologically agree to kill someone.

In reality that is so virtually improbable, it's almost impossible, in my opinion.

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

I thought the whole point of JREf was to engage with the woo promoters and bring them to the light of pure skepticism.

Err, we have had woo promoters visit the SGU forums.
Most tend to argue disingenuously.
Often just repeating the same position over and over.
Had that relatively recently with a holocaust denier.

 

[acbytesla]

Whoever that person is, is also a 9/11 truther. Can we be sure it's the same person that wrote the PDF about this case?

The guy is brilliant and nuts. I read through part of the .pdf and through many of his blog entries and he's arrogantly wrong about so many things, but he is so thorough about being wrong. Kind of hilarious actually.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, I already pointed out the Peterson case, I have no desire to go back through the annals of criminal history and provide cites for you to keep this argument going. My contention is that motive doesn't prove guilt, but it can make a difference in how we assess the evidence. I know you disagree and that is fine. I'm going to leave it at that.

Tesla you claimed you had experienced many cases where motive was just about the only thing they had to convict and I called BS and you can't produce. You made the claim out-of-the-blue. No need to research just give us the ones you were thinking about.

I've seen defendants get convicted essentially on motive alone. Where the defendants had extreme arguments with the victims, even assaulted them in the past. Where they had a significant financial motive

Even in this quote from you that started it, you use as motive a threat or actual assault, neither of which is a motive at all.

Motive - a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.

 

[acbytesla]

I was thinking about the general theory and it crossed my mind that most everyone has Rudi in the bathroom when Meredith came home. Except for the lack of blood in that room I would say it would be more likely he became sick after the killing.

The problem with that is if Rudy went and got sick and took a dump after the murder. Why is the bloody bathmat in Meredith's and Amanda's bathroom?

Also, remember the argument is that the footsteps headed straight out the door.

Nice theory, but the before the murder seems more likely to me.

 

[Grinder]

Whoever that person is, is also a 9/11 truther. Can we be sure it's the same person that wrote the PDF about this case?

Matthew I am not sure. The wording made me think the blog site was responsible for the PDF download and the picture of the girl just below looked similar to the picture of the PDF writer which is at the end of said PDF.

But you are correct to question my assertion which was made in haste but in good faith.

 

[Grinder]

The problem with that is if Rudy went and got sick and took a dump after the murder. Why is the bloody bathmat in Meredith's and Amanda's bathroom?

Also, remember the argument is that the footsteps headed straight out the door.

Nice theory, but the before the murder seems more likely to me.

Dan O has made it clear that he didn't head straight out the door. Even if he did he could have come back to clean up, wash his pants off in the AK/MK bathroom.

Later he could have been stealing cash and cards and covering the body etc. and it made him want to take a dump. He didn't want to back into the first bathroom because of the blood there or just because.

Seems unlikely that he would go straight to the bathroom after the break-in but certainly possible.

 

[acbytesla]

Dan O has made it clear that he didn't head straight out the door. Even if he did he could have come back to clean up, wash his pants off in the AK/MK bathroom.

Later he could have been stealing cash and cards and covering the body etc. and it made him want to take a dump. He didn't want to back into the first bathroom because of the blood there or just because.

Seems unlikely that he would go straight to the bathroom after the break-in but certainly possible.

You may be right...no way to tell for sure. But I think you are comparing Rudy to the most typical type of burglar. Where financial motive is everything as well as minimizing the risk. But I'm convinced that Rudy falls under the category of the "sexual burglar". That this is as much a compulsion as anything else. He breaks in, he eats, he takes a dump, he's invading his victims space and violating them. There is an adrenaline rush and it loosens his bowels and this is his calling card.

We'll never know for sure. But I don't think they found any shoe prints near Filomena's bathroom. Any way it's an idea.