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

[Chris_Halkides]

urgent need to defecate

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

Grinder,

He may have rummaged a little first. One possibility I meant to look into was whether there are any street drugs that increase the urge defecate. I did a bit of desultory research a little one day, but I did not find much and let it go.

 

[platonov]

Context

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.

A word to the wise, old chap.

You're not allowed to mention Holocaust deniers on 'other sites' on this thread !!


I cant imagine what thats like – frustrating no doubt.
But here's the trick – dont take them seriously.
Let them talk themselves out – dip in & out now and again.

Of course if they are complete nutters – well.
The show must go on.

 

[Bill Williams]

A word to the wise, old chap.

You're not allowed to mention Holocaust deniers on 'other sites' on this thread !!


I cant imagine what thats like – frustrating no doubt.
But here's the trick – dont take them seriously.
Let them talk themselves out – dip in & out now and again.

Of course if they are complete nutters – well.
The show must go on.

Hi Platonov. While you're here - do you have an opinion on Judge Nencini writing that women have y-genetic material?

 

[Desert Fox]

Perhaps platonov might link to the rule I violated?
A long discussion would be an off topic discussion, I agree would be a violation of H1

 

[Desert Fox]

Hi Platonov. While you're here - do you have an opinion on Judge Nencini writing that women have y-genetic material?

A convention of women with Swyer Syndrome?

Want to note this though:
Swyer syndrome has been estimated to occur in approximately 1 in 30,000 people.

 

[carbonjam72]

Reflexive def

Grinder,

He may have rummaged a little first. One possibility I meant to look into was whether there are any street drugs that increase the urge defecate. I did a bit of desultory research a little one day, but I did not find much and let it go.

I heard Jim Clemente discuss this on LipTV with Alison Hope-Weiner and Steve Moore, and they discussed this issue of Guede and the toilet.

Clemente says its apparently a 'fight or flight' reflex, where criminals will unconsciously need to, physiologically, lighten the load.

Clemente says it happens not uncommonly with murderers and even plain old thieves. Just breaking into a place can cause high anxiety. The fact that Guede has done this in other places perhaps shows he has susceptibility in this regard.

So it's not necessarily even predictable when the need becomes manifest, it can happen anywhere along the way. When they break-in, in the middle, after the crime, just no telling.

(It's also represented in an episode of the Sopranos, where one of two low level burglars trying to impress Chris Moltesante is admonished by his colleague during a robbery for the practice, but a more experienced mobster explains it happens to some guys.)

Maybe more than anyone wanted to know, but apparently its actually not un-par for the course.

So, no need to hypothesize additional drugs, etc. Or, maybe a bad kabob might do it after all?

 

[acbytesla]

I heard Jim Clemente discuss this on LipTV with Alison Hope-Weiner and Steve Moore, and they discussed this issue of Guede and the toilet.

Clemente says its apparently a 'fight or flight' reflex, where criminals will unconsciously need to, physiologically, lighten the load.

Clemente says it happens not uncommonly with murderers and even plain old thieves. Just breaking into a place can cause high anxiety. The fact that Guede has done this in other places perhaps shows he has susceptibility in this regard.

So it's not necessarily even predictable when the need becomes manifest, it can happen anywhere along the way. When they break-in, in the middle, after the crime, just no telling.

(It's also represented in an episode of the Sopranos, where one of two low level burglars trying to impress Chris Moltesante is admonished by his colleague during a robbery for the practice, but a more experienced mobster explains it happens to some guys.)

Maybe more than anyone wanted to know, but apparently its actually not un-par for the course.

So, no need to hypothesize additional drugs, etc. Or, maybe a bad kabob might do it after all?

Pretty much all opiates have a tendency to make the subject become irregular. I know when I was prescribed Oxycodone after a surgery they also prescribed a laxative and that didn't seem to work. I have no idea about cocaine or cannabis.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

epinephrine

carbonjam72,

If it is the fight-or-flight response, then epinephrine (adrenaline) is probably involved. I remember doing a Medline search on this, but I don't think I pulled up anything conclusive.

 

[Desert Fox]

DesertFox,

If it is the fight-or-flight response, then epinephrine (adrenaline) is probably involved. I remember doing a Medline search on this, but I don't think I pulled up anything conclusive.

What is this in relation to?
My last post is that some women can have an XY chromosome while having female sex organs. They have non functioning streak gonads however.


Swyer syndrome is a condition in which individuals with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell, the pattern normally found in males, have a female appearance. People with this disorder have female external genitalia and a normal uterus and Fallopian tubes. However, they do not have functional gonads (ovaries or testes). Instead, they have undeveloped clumps of tissue called streak gonads. These abnormal gonads often become cancerous, so they are usually removed surgically early in life.

People with Swyer syndrome are typically raised as females and have a female gender identity. Affected individuals usually begin hormone replacement therapy during adolescence to induce menstruation and development of female secondary sex characteristics such as breast enlargement and body hair. Hormone replacement therapy also helps prevent reduced bone density (osteopenia). Women with this disorder do not produce eggs, but may be able to become pregnant with a donated egg or embryo.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up. But you have kind of twisted things a bit there. Now you are saying that since any trivial little thing can be a motive, the issue of motive itself is also a trivial little thing such that we can toss in any fanciful nonsense we want, put a tick in the motive box and move onto discuss the blood. What would be nice though, what with it being a murder case and thus quite a serious one, would be a credible motive. Please turn your mind to that and be warned - any more of this and I will unleash Bill's lack of psychopathology onto you (funnily enough - this is precisely where that becomes relevant). Is it credible that after six weeks living together Amanda would unbottle the pent-up rage generated by being asked to clean the toilet properly, a rage she had kept entirely to herself, and stab her roommate in the neck? And is it credible that her geeky BF would fall in with her and that the random black guy they did not/barely knew would too? Can we have motives for them too please?

Also, if you are going to be this casual about motive to murder, why can't we apply the same rule to all the other evidence? Why is not credible that they would want to spend 2-3 hours standing around in the Piazza? People stand in piazzas for all kinds of reasons. Maybe they wanted fresh air. And the police too. We can be just as ridiculous in interpreting their actions. Maybe they all wanted to be at the questura that night because a colleague was leaving and they wanted to say goodbye. Etcetera.

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

Thanks for clearing that up too. However, it seems to me that you still don't go far enough. Lack of evidence of a credible motive (or lack of credible evidence of a motive) is a serious problem for the prosecution. If they had you at pre-trial conferences saying 'hey, don't worry about it, it doesn't matter as it's only a point for the defence' they would have given you strange looks. In real life, motive is very important and this case kind of proves it given all the wacko theories advanced so far - Crini's crap theory (sic) being the best of a bad bunch so far.

ETA this is my wheelhouse btw. Just wanted to mention that.

 

[Samson]

Thanks for clearing that up. But you have kind of twisted things a bit there. Now you are saying that since any trivial little thing can be a motive, the issue of motive itself is also a trivial little thing such that we can toss in any fanciful nonsense we want, put a tick in the motive box and move onto discuss the blood. What would be nice though, what with it being a murder case and thus quite a serious one, would be a credible motive. Please turn your mind to that and be warned - any more of this and I will unleash Bill's lack of psychopathology onto you (funnily enough - this is precisely where that becomes relevant). Is it credible that after six weeks living together Amanda would unbottle the pent-up rage generated by being asked to clean the toilet properly, a rage she had kept entirely to herself, and stab her roommate in the neck? And is it credible that her geeky BF would fall in with her and that the random black guy they did not/barely knew would too? Can we have motives for them too please?

Also, if you are going to be this casual about motive to murder, why can't we apply the same rule to all the other evidence? Why is not credible that they would want to spend 2-3 hours standing around in the Piazza? People stand in piazzas for all kinds of reasons. Maybe they wanted fresh air. And the police too. We can be just as ridiculous in interpreting their actions. Maybe they all wanted to be at the questura that night because a colleague was leaving and they wanted to say goodbye. Etcetera.



Thanks for clearing that up too. However, it seems to me that you still don't go far enough. Lack of evidence of a credible motive (or lack of credible evidence of a motive) is a serious problem for the prosecution. If they had you at pre-trial conferences saying 'hey, don't worry about it, it doesn't matter as it's only a point for the defence' they would have given you strange looks. In real life, motive is very important and this case kind of proves it given all the wacko theories advanced so far - Crini's crap theory (sic) being the best of a bad bunch so far.

ETA this is my wheelhouse btw. Just wanted to mention that.

Frankly this case would have failed the smell test to any jury of twelve lay people anywhere in the world, even Italy. Hung after hung until everyone gives up. Actually not guilty beyond reasonable doubt after 20 minutes. Come on, do even the participants in the three web sites not comprehend this?

Jar, you sound like a retired lawyer. You could help out here.

 

[Desert Fox]

Thanks for clearing that up. But you have kind of twisted things a bit there. Now you are saying that since any trivial little thing can be a motive, the issue of motive itself is also a trivial little thing such that we can toss in any fanciful nonsense we want, put a tick in the motive box and move onto discuss the blood. What would be nice though, what with it being a murder case and thus quite a serious one, would be a credible motive. Please turn your mind to that and be warned - any more of this and I will unleash Bill's lack of psychopathology onto you (funnily enough - this is precisely where that becomes relevant). Is it credible that after six weeks living together Amanda would unbottle the pent-up rage generated by being asked to clean the toilet properly, a rage she had kept entirely to herself, and stab her roommate in the neck? And is it credible that her geeky BF would fall in with her and that the random black guy they did not/barely knew would too? Can we have motives for them too please?

Also, if you are going to be this casual about motive to murder, why can't we apply the same rule to all the other evidence? Why is not credible that they would want to spend 2-3 hours standing around in the Piazza? People stand in piazzas for all kinds of reasons. Maybe they wanted fresh air. And the police too. We can be just as ridiculous in interpreting their actions. Maybe they all wanted to be at the questura that night because a colleague was leaving and they wanted to say goodbye. Etcetera.

From what I have seen with watching couples that kill that almost all have a solid history (not maybe throwing a couple rocks) of anti-social behavior. The others seem to have been suck into it over time.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks for clearing that up. But you have kind of twisted things a bit there. Now you are saying that since any trivial little thing can be a motive, the issue of motive itself is also a trivial little thing such that we can toss in any fanciful nonsense we want, put a tick in the motive box and move onto discuss the blood. What would be nice though, what with it being a murder case and thus quite a serious one, would be a credible motive. Please turn your mind to that and be warned - any more of this and I will unleash Bill's lack of psychopathology onto you (funnily enough - this is precisely where that becomes relevant). Is it credible that after six weeks living together Amanda would unbottle the pent-up rage generated by being asked to clean the toilet properly, a rage she had kept entirely to herself, and stab her roommate in the neck? And is it credible that her geeky BF would fall in with her and that the random black guy they did not/barely knew would too? Can we have motives for them too please?

Also, if you are going to be this casual about motive to murder, why can't we apply the same rule to all the other evidence? Why is not credible that they would want to spend 2-3 hours standing around in the Piazza? People stand in piazzas for all kinds of reasons. Maybe they wanted fresh air. And the police too. We can be just as ridiculous in interpreting their actions. Maybe they all wanted to be at the questura that night because a colleague was leaving and they wanted to say goodbye. Etcetera.



Thanks for clearing that up too. However, it seems to me that you still don't go far enough. Lack of evidence of a credible motive (or lack of credible evidence of a motive) is a serious problem for the prosecution. If they had you at pre-trial conferences saying 'hey, don't worry about it, it doesn't matter as it's only a point for the defence' they would have given you strange looks. In real life, motive is very important and this case kind of proves it given all the wacko theories advanced so far - Crini's crap theory (sic) being the best of a bad bunch so far.

ETA this is my wheelhouse btw. Just wanted to mention that.

I'm with Anglo on this Grinder. Maybe you can find one crazy person out of twenty thousand killers who at the spurt of the moment kills somebody, but not likely two and certainly not three.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm with Anglo on this Grinder. Maybe you can find one crazy person out of twenty thousand killers who at the spurt of the moment kills somebody, but not likely two and certainly not three.

If AK/RS had a history of threatening / violence, I think I would consider the issue differently but I still think that I would want some better evidence in this case than what we have.

 

[whoanellie]

Interesting article about the Billy Wayne Cope case involving:
1) apparently false confessions from one suspect + 2) a second individual who seems to be unquestionably guilty = 3) the need to create a bizarre conspiracy unsupported by any evidence.

Dammit I can't post links but there is an article in the NY Times about the case.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

He may have rummaged a little first. One possibility I meant to look into was whether there are any street drugs that increase the urge defecate. I did a bit of desultory research a little one day, but I did not find much and let it go.

Cocaine. Drugs that speed up the system. Heroin does the opposite.

 

[Grinder]

. The fact that Guede has done this in other places perhaps shows he has susceptibility in this regard.

Do you have an example of Rudi breaking into a place and taking a dump first thing?

It's well known that he once fell asleep on the boys' downstairs' toilet.

Btw, I'm only querying about how it is known that he did it when he first arrived.

 

[Bill Williams]

If AK/RS had a history of threatening / violence, I think I would consider the issue differently but I still think that I would want some better evidence in this case than what we have.

Judge Nencini has done the impossible.... he's single-handedly diverted attention from the original Mignini/Comodi prosecution, which was solely based on creating Foxy Knoxy, as a substitute for what you mention above.

The lurid sex-game was all they had back then, and even that one had to be flown because not even Judge Massei was buying the ritualistic killing because of Hallowe'en.

But the basis of Foxy Knoxy was the psychopathologizing of Knox, with Sollecito being completely ignored, really. It's why to this day guilters are stuck on three things:

- the noise ticket
- the April Fools prank
- the garage video​

There needs to be *something* that speaks not just to "odd behaviour", but some sort of pathology. So the noise ticket is always embellished to be some sort of Baghdad street fight between US Marines and Al Qaeda, the April Fools prank is embellished to look like a precursor to crime-staging, and the garage video is supposed to show what a pathological liar Knox was.

All memes necessary to the Mignini/Comodi prosecution.

None of which figure in even Nencini's nonsense.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for clearing that up. But you have kind of twisted things a bit there. Now you are saying that since any trivial little thing can be a motive, the issue of motive itself is also a trivial little thing such that we can toss in any fanciful nonsense we want, put a tick in the motive box and move onto discuss the blood. What would be nice though, what with it being a murder case and thus quite a serious one, would be a credible motive. Please turn your mind to that and be warned - any more of this and I will unleash Bill's lack of psychopathology onto you (funnily enough - this is precisely where that becomes relevant). Is it credible that after six weeks living together Amanda would unbottle the pent-up rage generated by being asked to clean the toilet properly, a rage she had kept entirely to herself, and stab her roommate in the neck? And is it credible that her geeky BF would fall in with her and that the random black guy they did not/barely knew would too? Can we have motives for them too please?

Also, if you are going to be this casual about motive to murder, why can't we apply the same rule to all the other evidence? Why is not credible that they would want to spend 2-3 hours standing around in the Piazza? People stand in piazzas for all kinds of reasons. Maybe they wanted fresh air. And the police too. We can be just as ridiculous in interpreting their actions. Maybe they all wanted to be at the questura that night because a colleague was leaving and they wanted to say goodbye. Etcetera.



Thanks for clearing that up too. However, it seems to me that you still don't go far enough. Lack of evidence of a credible motive (or lack of credible evidence of a motive) is a serious problem for the prosecution. If they had you at pre-trial conferences saying 'hey, don't worry about it, it doesn't matter as it's only a point for the defence' they would have given you strange looks. In real life, motive is very important and this case kind of proves it given all the wacko theories advanced so far - Crini's crap theory (sic) being the best of a bad bunch so far.

ETA this is my wheelhouse btw. Just wanted to mention that.

16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children in a school playground at Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California on 29 January 1979, killing two adults and injuring eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day".​

Doubt you even know where the wheelhouse term comes from

Personally, if the girls argued all the time it wouldn't add the likelihood of guilt of Amanda. Now if AK had threatened to kill her, that would change things but of course that isn't a motive.

ETA of course Brenda was nuts.

 

[Bill Williams]

A John Douglas poster....