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

[Grinder]

First of all, I conflated them, not confused them. They are intricately related.

Second of all, you do too. I am off to my 12-step program to recover from this sin, and you are welcome to come along.

You may need it. I have not conflated or confused motive and premeditation. I have stated that even without a motive known to the prosecution a guilty verdict can be legitimate and that the defense saying there is no motive isn't a powerful defense. Tainted and weak evidence is a great defense for this crime.

Some poster that will not say uncle regarding cases he knows where people were convicted almost exclusively on motive that he can't produce. Of course, he misses the point that while a strong motive is powerful for prosecution (LIP e.g.) but the lack of motive isn't a powerful defense.

I would like to see a case produced where there is strongish evidence but no motive and the defendant was released.

 

[Bill Williams]

You may need it. I have not conflated or confused motive and premeditation. I have stated that even without a motive known to the prosecution a guilty verdict can be legitimate and that the defense saying there is no motive isn't a powerful defense. Tainted and weak evidence is a great defense for this crime.

Some poster that will not say uncle regarding cases he knows where people were convicted almost exclusively on motive that he can't produce. Of course, he misses the point that while a strong motive is powerful for prosecution (LIP e.g.) but the lack of motive isn't a powerful defense.

I would like to see a case produced where there is strongish evidence but no motive and the defendant was released.

Step one is: admit you have a problem. I guess then I am going alone.

My view is that what you've just done is set up strawman arguments about your "opponents" on this very small point. That's a different 12-step program.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder is incorrigible. The word was actually invented with him in mind. He is occasionally right, however. E.g. that motive is an investigative tool. I know this because I've seen lots of movies where the cops ask, 'do you know of anyone who might have wanted to harm your husband?' but he's wrong in all other respects on this subject as on so many others.

Now you are criticizing HIS hobbies.....

 

[Desert Fox]

I bet. It's a difficult concept to define in such a way as to catch only planned murder.

In the US, you can get some pretty long sentences for second degree murder.
As such, I don't see the point of splitting hairs on premeditation.

 

[codyjuneau]

You're always criticizing my hobbies!

Which is my way of saying....... UNCLE!

Nowif you can just get the same admission from Grinder, I will be a happy, chastised but happy man.

.
It doesn't matter.

In the same way that it is obvious there is reasonable doubt about R&A's guilt, because so many people believe R&A are innocent, it is also obvious that motive is important, because so many people believe it is, regardless of what Grinder thinks.

Cody
.

 

[acbytesla]

You think?

I just talked with a friend that has been involved on both sides of criminal cases, both prosecution as an agent and now as a PI.

His take on motive is that it very useful in the investigative phase and an add-on for trial if it is fairly clear and not knowing isn't powerful for the defense. Tesla that means they look for motive to lead them to suspects just as they use proximity and opportunity.

Bill, perhaps you could be more specific about what I'm supposed to say uncle about.

The fact that you confused premeditation and motive isn't my problem.

You really are amazing Grinder. Do any women tell you that?? Only kidding.

Not sure what the motive discussion has to do with that article..but ok.

 

[acbytesla]

In the US, you can get some pretty long sentences for second degree murder.
As such, I don't see the point of splitting hairs on premeditation.

If in a moment of rage you kill someone. You have a gun in a holster in your jacket and kill someone after he insults your wife. That's probably not going to be considered premeditated. But if the guy insults your wife and you go out to your car and pull the gun out of your glove compartment and come back into the pub and kill the guy...well that would probably be considered premeditated. You had the same motive for both crimes...but the time and the action to go get the weapon would probably be considered premeditated. This can be a very tough call in certain cases. If you absolutely plan a murder...well that is definitely premeditated. It really has nothing to do with motive.

I think there may always be a reason for a murder, but not necessarily a motive. But this is splitting hairs.

 

[acbytesla]

.
It doesn't matter.

In the same way that it is obvious there is reasonable doubt about R&A's guilt, because so many people believe R&A are innocent, it is also obvious that motive is important, because so many people believe it is, regardless of what Grinder thinks.

Cody
.

It is really weird Cody. I respect Grinder and I do understand the point he is trying to make and I do "half way agree with it". If the evidence is marginal, the lack of motive means a lot But if the motive is very strong, that marginal evidence may mean a lot more to people. Maybe it shouldn't, but you know it does.

 

[Grinder]

Dear Anglo,

I'm resisting bringing in the big gun, Jackie but please explain one aspect of motive that I'm wrong about.

Now just as Hobbes approaches altruism one can say there must be a motive (reason) but that doesn't mean it can be discovered even for the killer (in this case).

Hobbes brings up an interesting point about human nature when he discusses why people perform good deeds. According to Hobbes, people perform good deeds not because they are actually trying to help out someone else, but rather because it makes them feel good to do so. From this point of view, altruism does not actually exist. Now, this can be taken in a couple of ways. On the one hand, it coincides with Hobbes cynical point of view about people in general, so it is easy to just dismiss it as Hobbes being overly critical and illogical. However, on the other hand, he could just be saying that it does not happen to be possible for altruism to exist.

 

[anglolawyer]

Dear Anglo,

I'm resisting bringing in the big gun, Jackie but please explain one aspect of motive that I'm wrong about.

See post 7090 for example. Threatening me with Jackie is below the belt.

Now just as Hobbes approaches altruism one can say there must be a motive (reason) but that doesn't mean it can be discovered even for the killer (in this case).

Hobbes brings up an interesting point about human nature when he discusses why people perform good deeds. According to Hobbes, people perform good deeds not because they are actually trying to help out someone else, but rather because it makes them feel good to do so. From this point of view, altruism does not actually exist. Now, this can be taken in a couple of ways. On the one hand, it coincides with Hobbes cynical point of view about people in general, so it is easy to just dismiss it as Hobbes being overly critical and illogical. However, on the other hand, he could just be saying that it does not happen to be possible for altruism to exist.

I question your motive in bringing Hobbes into this but, being passingly familiar with his writings (OK I read some stuff at university about a hundred years ago) I demand a quote from Hobbes himself on altruism. I did not say the motive must always be discernible nor that it's always important nor always essential. These are all straw men.

Motive is always present, usually important, probably never essential although I do agree we could use a case where motive assumed decisive significance. Preferably a modern one since standards in the old days weren't that great. Ah! I have one! Madeleine Smith. Of course!

Smith broke the strict Victorian conventions of the time when, as a young woman in early 1855, she began a secret love affair with Pierre Emile L'Angelier, an apprentice nurseryman who originally came from the Channel Islands.

The two met late at night at Smith's bedroom window and also engaged in voluminous correspondence. During one of their infrequent meetings alone, she lost her virginity to L'Angelier.

Smith's parents, unaware of the affair with L'Angelier (whom Smith had promised to marry) found a suitable fiancé for her within the Glasgow upper-middle class — William Harper Minnoch.

Smith attempted to break her connection with L'Angelier and, in February 1857, asked him to return the letters she had written to him. Instead, L'Angelier threatened to use the letters to expose her and force her to marry him. She was soon observed in a druggist's office, ordering arsenic, and signed in as M.H. Smith.

Early in the morning of 23 March 1857, L'Angelier died from arsenic poisoning. After Smith's numerous letters were found in his lodging house, she was arrested and charged with murder.

Not a modern case but nonetheless. If I had a moustache I would twirl it.

 

[acbytesla]

Dear Anglo,

I'm resisting bringing in the big gun, Jackie but please explain one aspect of motive that I'm wrong about.

Now just as Hobbes approaches altruism one can say there must be a motive (reason) but that doesn't mean it can be discovered even for the killer (in this case).

Hobbes brings up an interesting point about human nature when he discusses why people perform good deeds. According to Hobbes, people perform good deeds not because they are actually trying to help out someone else, but rather because it makes them feel good to do so. From this point of view, altruism does not actually exist. Now, this can be taken in a couple of ways. On the one hand, it coincides with Hobbes cynical point of view about people in general, so it is easy to just dismiss it as Hobbes being overly critical and illogical. However, on the other hand, he could just be saying that it does not happen to be possible for altruism to exist.

I've read Hobbes, but I don't buy it. I can't stand my neighbor. I mean I really dislike her. I can't stand her attitude, I think she's bitchy and nuts and I help her out all the time and usually after, I don't like that I actually helped her. But I think it's the right thing to do..so I do it anyway.

But I'm not sure what Hobbes and altruism has to do with motive.

 

[Bill Williams]

Dear Anglo,

I'm resisting bringing in the big gun, Jackie but please explain one aspect of motive that I'm wrong about.

Now just as Hobbes approaches altruism one can say there must be a motive (reason) but that doesn't mean it can be discovered even for the killer (in this case).

Hobbes brings up an interesting point about human nature when he discusses why people perform good deeds. According to Hobbes, people perform good deeds not because they are actually trying to help out someone else, but rather because it makes them feel good to do so. From this point of view, altruism does not actually exist. Now, this can be taken in a couple of ways. On the one hand, it coincides with Hobbes cynical point of view about people in general, so it is easy to just dismiss it as Hobbes being overly critical and illogical. However, on the other hand, he could just be saying that it does not happen to be possible for altruism to exist.

Let's bring this back to reality, and on-topic to this thread.

The reality is that it is the Mignini/Comodi prosecution, the ISC, the Crini prosecution, and the Nencini motivations' report which ascribes motive to Sollecito and Knox.

The Massei court and the Hellmann court say there is no motive.

The ONLY entity to claim premeditation is the Mignini/Comodi prosecution. Massei rejects premeditation as does Hellmann's court, as does prosecutor Crini, as does Nencini.

The defence as well as everyone who knows the character of Sollecito and Knox says they would have no motive to kill Meredith. Indeed, even Massei is baffled at why they would make a brief "choice for evil", to inexplicably join in with Guede in his own lust-filled motive.

Massei rejects the sex-game gone wrong as well as the ritualistic, premeditated killing Mignini offered, the last of which spoke to premeditation so much, that Mignini even had AK and RS waiting a day to fulfill their premeditation.

When the ISC in March 2013 says that the sex-game gone wrong motive had not been investigated enough (enough to quash acquittals based partly on 'no motive'), the ISC is also criticizing Judge Massei.

Then Crini casts Meredith as a supreme-bitch for complaining about pooh in a toilet that didn't even concern her; and Nencini then corrected Crini by saying that motive can only be known by believing one element of a story told by the only person everyone is agreed is a liar: Rudy Guede.

Is motive necessary to solve this crime? I'd say so. Because everyone seems to be trying to invent one - Nencini invents one from one element of Rudy Guede, when even Nencini rejects all the other elements! Why?

Because most say that Amanda and Raffaele have no motive - certainly Judge Massei said that, and Judge Hellmann said that. Even in Crini's pooh-account and Nencini's "she stole my money" account, there's no real "motive" for Amanda to kill Meredith, other than to silence the bitchiness NO ONE says was in Meredith's character.

So is motive important in this case? Apparently so.

We have got off on a tangent on the theoretical nature of motive perhaps becoming more important, the less the circumstantial evidence exists. Grinder pushes that to its logical absurdity that perhaps motive can then become ALL important when there is NO evidence.

Who cares, really, about that logical absurdity.

For what happened tragically to Meredith Kercher on Nov 1, 2007, there was no motive for doing it, other than what existed for Rudy Guede. Massei thinks it was Rudy's lust and his lust alone, the difference is that those who acquit Knox and Sollecito reflect on this duality:

- there is no motive for AK and RS to have done this
- there is no other evidence that they did.​

What guilters and some Italian judges have is motive, and they have them by the sack full. Many try to fuel motive with non-existent psychopathology. To me, that sure looks like SOMEBODY is trying to make motive important in this case.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy's duty.

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.

Apart from an obligation to tell the truth, Rudy's bathroom hobby I was under the impression that the judges had confirmed he had this "disgusting habit". Must I track this down, only to have you demand more? If you know better, just please say so.

How it's known he did it when first coming in, I see supported by the absence of any blood found in the larger bathroom, so committed before the murder.

Plus, according to his story, he was on the bowl when he heard someone come home. As per Anglo and other's analysis, I buy that he goes over segments as they actually occurred, then excises himself from the bad parts, and calls in the understudy's to take his place.

And the defense I believed had pointed to a small glass fragment by a footprint of Guede in the murder room, suggesting the break-in occurred before the murder as well. (barring of course, fantastical stories of 'clean-ups' and 'stagings' which I can't summon the strength to dignify as being something I need to respond to, because they are not realistic possibilities as far as I can tell).

 

[NancyS]

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.

It's the three people conspiring together that makes the prosecution scenarios so ridiculous. If a murder happened with three people present, it would most likely be the primary responsibility of one of the three - and the other two would most likely have been fairly shocked at the escalation of violence and would definitely have told the police what happened when questioned and it looked like they were going to be found jointly responsible. If it happened as Nencini now believes, what possible explanation can there be for Guede not blaming it all on Amanda from the second he was caught? There is no logical explanation for this, unless you get back to 'she's a witch'

As for the earlier drug talk, opiates make you super constipated - cocaine can give you an uncontrollable urge to poop

 

[Desert Fox]

It's the three people conspiring together that makes the prosecution scenarios so ridiculous. If a murder happened with three people present, it would most likely be the primary responsibility of one of the three - and the other two would most likely have been fairly shocked at the escalation of violence and would definitely have told the police what happened when questioned and it looked like they were going to be found jointly responsible. If it happened as Nencini now believes, what possible explanation can there be for Guede not blaming it all on Amanda from the second he was caught? There is no logical explanation for this, unless you get back to 'she's a witch'

As for the earlier drug talk, opiates make you super constipated - cocaine can give you an uncontrollable urge to poop

From what I have seen, almost always defendants are quite willing to point fingers at each other. I don't think that there are many couples of a week or two that do not turn on each other if they are guilty. They try to minimize their own involvement and blame the other.

 

[Grinder]

Apart from an obligation to tell the truth, Rudy's bathroom hobby I was under the impression that the judges had confirmed he had this "disgusting habit". Must I track this down, only to have you demand more? If you know better, just please say so.

I know of no evidence that Rudi took dumps when he broke into places. i don't know if the lawyers' office's bathroom was used even if we assume that Rudi broke in there and didn't just fence the loot. If he used the bathroom on his overnight at the nursery I'd look at differently since he spent the night there.

How it's known he did it when first coming in, I see supported by the absence of any blood found in the larger bathroom, so committed before the murder.

He left blood on the floor from his shoe. He left a bloody print on the bathmat but I don't know of any other blood outside Meredith's room. After he cleaned up in the little bathroom it is possible he later needed to go and went to the larger room for some unknown motive reason.

Plus, according to his story, he was on the bowl when he heard someone come home. As per Anglo and other's analysis, I buy that he goes over segments as they actually occurred, then excises himself from the bad parts, and calls in the understudy's to take his place.

Here we go again with his story. He said he had a date with Meredith but if even entertain that it could have been true then...

As Cody said since the majority believe that here it must be true. Using Rudi's story for anything is weak including his having a date.

And the defense I believed had pointed to a small glass fragment by a footprint of Guede in the murder room, suggesting the break-in occurred before the murder as well. (barring of course, fantastical stories of 'clean-ups' and 'stagings' which I can't summon the strength to dignify as being something I need to respond to, because they are not realistic possibilities as far as I can tell).

There was an early story of glass and some speculation that the glass was the murder weapon but I don't see how any of that has anything to do with whether he was on the pot when Meredith came in or not.

 

[Grinder]

It's the three people conspiring together that makes the prosecution scenarios so ridiculous. If a murder happened with three people present, it would most likely be the primary responsibility of one of the three - and the other two would most likely have been fairly shocked at the escalation of violence and would definitely have told the police what happened when questioned and it looked like they were going to be found jointly responsible. If it happened as Nencini now believes, what possible explanation can there be for Guede not blaming it all on Amanda from the second he was caught? There is no logical explanation for this, unless you get back to 'she's a witch'

As for the earlier drug talk, opiates make you super constipated - cocaine can give you an uncontrollable urge to poop

From what I have seen, almost always defendants are quite willing to point fingers at each other. I don't think that there are many couples of a week or two that do not turn on each other if they are guilty. They try to minimize their own involvement and blame the other.

Yes Nancy as I said coke and other stimulants (speed) make one poop. It is also the case that coke and speed are cut with Bi Carbonate Soda, which has a laxative effect.

The three "strangers" aspect has been key to the fascination with the case. It is one of the reasons that I believe someone else could have been involved such as Koko or another "gang" member. Rudi could be keeping his mouth shut because it is safer for him to have "the others" be Amanda and Raf.

Why didn't Amanda point the police to Rudi instead of Patrick. After all she left his evidence. Why not remember that she went to the cottage to meet Rudi for some drugs and that she left to go the plaza and met Raf (assuming Curatolo was telling the truth, which I don't) and Rudi must have killed Meredith but she didn't do anything immediately the next day because she couldn't believe it was him.

 

[acbytesla]

It's the three people conspiring together that makes the prosecution scenarios so ridiculous. If a murder happened with three people present, it would most likely be the primary responsibility of one of the three - and the other two would most likely have been fairly shocked at the escalation of violence and would definitely have told the police what happened when questioned and it looked like they were going to be found jointly responsible. If it happened as Nencini now believes, what possible explanation can there be for Guede not blaming it all on Amanda from the second he was caught? There is no logical explanation for this, unless you get back to 'she's a witch'

As for the earlier drug talk, opiates make you super constipated - cocaine can give you an uncontrollable urge to poop

From what I have seen, almost always defendants are quite willing to point fingers at each other. I don't think that there are many couples of a week or two that do not turn on each other if they are guilty. They try to minimize their own involvement and blame the other.

That's hitting it right on the button. Rudy doesn't know Amanda or Raffaele. He knew they were in jail. He'd of blamed it on both of them in a second. That would have been on the first Skype call. Not that we would have believed that. I also don't buy that either Amanda or Raffaele would have covered for each other for a minute. If Raffaele had done it, Amanda would have been on the phone with the cops the first minute she was apart from Raffaele and vice versa with Raffaele.


There are crazy people in the world. And some of them aren't people that you would think are crazy. I could believe that a perfectly normal girl could kill their roommate in a moment of rage or even plan that murder.

But why Amanda with Meredith? Because Meredith asked her to use the toilet brush? Amanda wasn't an only child...she probably had arguments with her sibling over chores etc..she had roommates at the University of Washington, there could always have little issues there as well. So why after a month and embarrassing talk about using the toilet brush would Amanda go totally out of character?

And she had know Raffaele for one week. If she had a screw loose, she isn't going to ask mild mannered Raffaele...aka Harry Potter to help her kill her roommate. And if she was going to kill her roommate she wouldn't have had these two as accomplices.

This is what I mean by motive. This puzzle doesn't fit. It just doesn't happen in real life....but in the minds of nutballs like the Italian judiciary, somehow it does??? The cooking knife going back and forth from Raffaele's to the cottage doesn't happen in real life either. I have to believe incredibly stupid and unlikely scenarios to think they had anything to do with with this crime.

 

[Grinder]

I've read Hobbes, but I don't buy it. I can't stand my neighbor. I mean I really dislike her. I can't stand her attitude, I think she's bitchy and nuts and I help her out all the time and usually after, I don't like that I actually helped her. But I think it's the right thing to do..so I do it anyway.

But I'm not sure what Hobbes and altruism has to do with motive.

Tesla you do it to make yourself fell better because you're nice to a total bitchy person. That's Hobbes' contention. And you confirm it here by proclaiming that you do the RIGHT THING.

The connection is that Anglo has made the point that every act has a motive (reason) which is brilliantly correct. Even Jackie agrees, I'm sure. There is a similarity to Hobbes saying that every act is done out of self-interest.

for Anglo -

CRIME
The source of every crime, is some defect of the understanding; or some error in reasoning; or some sudden force of the passions. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. 1651.​

Thomas Hobbes was a Psychological Egoist and had a way of systematically re-interpreting “altruistic” motives. Two examples:

Charity: Acts of charity are really a demonstration of power. The idea is that by helping others, we show ourselves to be more resourceful than others, because we can take care of ourselves and have plenty to spare.

Pity: We pity others because we imagine ourselves in their place. Helping others out of a sense of pity is really an attempt to assuage our fear of how we might end up and help to ensure that others will help us if and when the time comes.

In no case, according to Hobbes, do we act out of genuine concern for the welfare of others.
​

 

[Planigale]

You are conflating motive with premeditation. If a guy looks at my bird in a bar and I glass him and he bleeds to death I have a motive (to stop people looking at my bird) but no premed.

I am a bit unsure why you would glass your bird just because someone looked at him, but then I suppose one would say your bird is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace.