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

[carbonjam72]

best I can do

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.



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.

There was also a trail of blood to the downstairs apt. Those profiles were claimed to be all "cat blood", but there were 5 profiles that came back as human, and were not shared with the defense. So by your account, he cleans up in the small bathroom, uses the larger bathroom without leaving any blood, and you dismiss the blood downstairs as a continuation of the bloody affair upstairs. Obviously fine to disagree, I'm just pointing out a logical consistent through line. Doesn't make sense to place the larger bathroom business anywhere except after the break-in and before the murder as far as I can tell.

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.



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.

Pretty sure I saw a picture of a small glass fragment, very, very tiny, that the defense showed with enhanced photography. Wish I had more of a handle on it, maybe someone else knows more. But this could not be a murder weapon, because it was so, so very small. The outline on the knife on the bed sheet, in combo with the bruising around the knife wound consistent with a single blade hilt, makes speculation about any other murder weapon beyond the single knife, also beyond my ken.

 

[Planigale]

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

A double espresso first thing in the morning makes me run. Perhaps Guede helped himself to a coffee?

 

[Grinder]

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.

For me the only aspect of interest is the evidence of the crime. I don't give a flying f what Massei or Nencini say or assume.

I don't believe that Mignini made the case in court that it was a ritualistic rite but even if he did so what.

The fact that their defense and friends declare no motive is off less than zero interest.

But people here pick out Rudi quotes for the benefit of their assertions so why not the Italian courts?

It is absolutely not the case that a motive must be known to solve a case even this one. The fact that one judge says he think s this is a motive and another says that and yet another says there was no motive proves nothing.

Of course while writing a true crime novel it is nice to have the reason the crime was committed figured out. Of course people (yes most people Cody) like to have things all wrapped up. I gave a quote yesterday about the fear humans have about random violence. We want to understand.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”​

I think was Comodi that said something about random violence or the choice of evil.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Oh really? I think this is the first time I have ever told anyone that I help my neighbor. I get Hobbes contention and in fact thought seriously about his contention before I read his contention

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.
​

It is one of those psychological concepts I have thought about... But maybe it is me conning myself. I like to think that there is true altruism. That the world is not all just about ourselves. But it is truly hard to argue against Hobbes. This is all about existentialism. Kind of like The Matrix and in Richard Bach's book "The Gift of Wings". In "The Gift of Wings" Bach basically wrote that we all live in our own worlds which were totally separate from each other.

It matters not.

I like to think of criminal motive not in terms that someone has and urge to do evil. To me, that is not motive, that is their reason. "Motive" is why they killed a specific individual. Rudy probably had a motive to kill Meredith when he did it..maybe not, maybe it was that urge to kill. Maybe he killed her to avoid going to jail for burglary or sexual assault or maybe it was that crazy urge.

With Rudy, I see both a motive and a reason. With Raffaele and Amanda, I see little of either.

 

[codyjuneau]

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.



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.



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.



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.

.
That is not what I said, and not what I meant.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is absolutely not the case that a motive must be known to solve a case even this one. The fact that one judge says he think s this is a motive and another says that and yet another says there was no motive proves nothing.

Ok. I get it. You'll simply respond by restating what you've said. That's a great, incorrigible argumentative style.

It's strawman, Grinder. You constantly repeat the strawman argument that interests you. Good for you.

My contention is that real, live Italian judges spend a lot of time on this case - you know, the topic of this thread - offering motive after motive after motive.

Can you not at least deal with that? Sheesh.

 

[Grinder]

Oh really? I think this is the first time I have ever told anyone that I help my neighbor. I get Hobbes contention and in fact thought seriously about his contention before I read his contention

One need not mention aloud that it is the right thing in order for Hobbes' theory to be correct. Does it make you feel good to do the right thing or do you think people in general should do the right thing?

Discovery why you do something is a bit like trying to determine motive. Often times the motive may not even be clear to the person doing the act.

I like to think of criminal motive not in terms that someone has and urge to do evil. To me, that is not motive, that is their reason. "Motive" is why they killed a specific individual. Rudy probably had a motive to kill Meredith when he did it..maybe not, maybe it was that urge to kill. Maybe he killed her to avoid going to jail for burglary or sexual assault or maybe it was that crazy urge.

With Rudy, I see both a motive and a reason. With Raffaele and Amanda, I see little of either.

Maybe the definition will help:

mo·tive
ˈmōtiv/Submit
noun
1.
a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.

Damn word meanings can be a bitch.

 

[Grinder]

Ok. I get it. You'll simply respond by restating what you've said. That's a great, incorrigible argumentative style.

It's strawman, Grinder. You constantly repeat the strawman argument that interests you. Good for you.

My contention is that real, live Italian judges spend a lot of time on this case - you know, the topic of this thread - offering motive after motive after motive.

Can you not at least deal with that? Sheesh.

First of all it's straw man you are accusing me of. I don't give a flying fig what the judges on this case say except for guilty or innocent and that only with resistance.

There is no doubt that the kids murdering Meredith doesn't make any sense. The two girls killing their friend that I posted about yesterday makes no sense.

The girl that didn't like Mondays made no sense. (Yes she's nuts)

There are books written about "stone killers" that kill without apparent motive. It happens. if the Italians didn't require a motivation report you wouldn't have this material. Though it can't be proven I'd bet many a conviction here would have many motives if handled like the Italians.

Are you suggesting that if one motive can't be agreed on by the jury that the conviction shouldn't stand?

The motivation reports are nothing but movie scripts or a plot for an opera.

I'm worried about them getting facts of the evidence wrong not their opinions on motive etc.

 

[Bill Williams]

First of all it's straw man you are accusing me of. I don't give a flying fig what the judges on this case say except for guilty or innocent and that only with resistance.

There is no doubt that the kids murdering Meredith doesn't make any sense. The two girls killing their friend that I posted about yesterday makes no sense.

The girl that didn't like Mondays made no sense. (Yes she's nuts)

There are books written about "stone killers" that kill without apparent motive. It happens. if the Italians didn't require a motivation report you wouldn't have this material. Though it can't be proven I'd bet many a conviction here would have many motives if handled like the Italians.

Are you suggesting that if one motive can't be agreed on by the jury that the conviction shouldn't stand?

The motivation reports are nothing but movie scripts or a plot for an opera.

I'm worried about them getting facts of the evidence wrong not their opinions on motive etc.

Y'know, if you came to the 12-step program you can be helped with these worries......

But as for the motivations reports...... BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: Wrong. They contain the "procedural fact" and "judicial truth" that binds later courts to the kinds of facts to be found.

As per the beginning of Nencini's report, where multiple attackers is deemed "fact", not because of evidence, but because Borsini found it as a truth, in a trial-phase-missing fast-track process..... and now it's "procedural fact" binding the ISC to find the two students guilty no matter what.

 

[Grinder]

.
That is not what I said, and not what I meant.
.

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

 

[Grinder]

Y'know, if you came to the 12-step program you can be helped with these worries......

But as for the motivations reports...... BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ: Wrong. They contain the "procedural fact" and "judicial truth" that binds later courts to the kinds of facts to be found.

As per the beginning of Nencini's report, where multiple attackers is deemed "fact", not because of evidence, but because Borsini found it as a truth, in a trial-phase-missing fast-track process..... and now it's "procedural fact" binding the ISC to find the two students guilty no matter what.

I know this is another phrase you've fallen in love with (in situ, fog of nonsense, psychopathy, etc.) but if they didn't have a procedural fact they would make something else up and, it doesn't have anything to do with motive.

The idea that the kids must defend themselves from rulings in other courtroom or that Patrick case was tried alongside the kids is ridiculous.

I don't see where their motives are "procedural facts" but I'm sure you'll let me know.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
That is not what I said, and not what I meant.
.

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

.
I know what I wrote, and I know what I meant, neither of which were what you indicated I wrote or implied I meant.

If you want to make a theoretical argument that motive should not be considered important by judges, juries, and lay people, then fine. But to say it is not important to those same people, is denying reality, IMO.

Cody
.

 

[acbytesla]

One need not mention aloud that it is the right thing in order for Hobbes' theory to be correct. Does it make you feel good to do the right thing or do you think people in general should do the right thing?

Discovery why you do something is a bit like trying to determine motive. Often times the motive may not even be clear to the person doing the act.

I don't think it does Grinder. I was brought up in a particular way. You help women, the infirm and the aged. Actually I believe we are put on this earth to perform service for one another. Many a time I'd rather not do service and still I do it. Maybe I do it so I don't internally criticize myself for not doing the right thing. But we could discuss this subject for ever and not get anywhere. Hobbes had a point. I'd just rather not think that way.

Maybe the definition will help:

mo·tive
ˈmōtiv/Submit
noun
1.
a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.

Damn word meanings can be a bitch.

I know the dictionary definition Grinder.. But there needs to be a word to delineate between urge and a real reason to commit a crime.

Unfortunately there really isn't.

 

[Samson]

Yes. Thanks.
Dammit. Can't even quote a post that has a link in it.

15 posts try it now.

 

[Samson]

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.

Casey Anthony?

 

[Dan O.]

Yes. Thanks.
Dammit. Can't even quote a post that has a link in it.

You won't get anywhere with that negative attitude. You need to think positively, visualize the link showing up in your post and with the calm knowledge that it will happen hit the submit button.

 

[Samson]

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

I am not sure whether humanity is in a better space if

1. Nencini believes it and Italian judges can rise to this position while being supreme morons.
2. Nencini doesn't believe it but he has children to raise and requires the income.

 

[Bill Williams]

I know this is another phrase you've fallen in love with (in situ, fog of nonsense, psychopathy, etc.) but if they didn't have a procedural fact they would make something else up and, it doesn't have anything to do with motive.

The idea that the kids must defend themselves from rulings in other courtroom or that Patrick case was tried alongside the kids is ridiculous.

I don't see where their motives are "procedural facts" but I'm sure you'll let me know.

I have another favourite. Ad hominem. You're all over the map now claiming I've said stuff I haven't. Please provide in situ cites.

Nencini begins his 300+ pages basically saying that multiple attackers is a procedural fact. As for motive, he could have claimed sex-game gone wrong but did not. The man even cherry picks his procedural facts.

 

[acbytesla]

I have another favourite. Ad hominem. You're all over the map now claiming I've said stuff I haven't. Please provide in situ cites.

Nencini begins his 300+ pages basically saying that multiple attackers is a procedural fact. As for motive, he could have claimed sex-game gone wrong but did not. The man even cherry picks his procedural facts.

Bruce Fischer over at IIA just posted that the Massei decision declared that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent of theft and now Nencini is declaring that Amanda had committed a theft. He said the ISC approved that part of the ruling making that a procedural fact and therefore they should reverse Nencini because of it. I'm not sure about this though.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bruce Fischer over at IIA just posted that the Massei decision declared that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent of theft and now Nencini is declaring that Amanda had committed a theft. He said the ISC approved that part of the ruling making that a procedural fact and therefore they should reverse Nencini because of it. I'm not sure about this though.

Nencini is more of a loose cannon than anything else. He declares multiple attackers outside of his courts' purview because (essentially) of the Borsini decision, but then Fisher is absolutely correct. The ISC has signed off on there being now no criminal responsibility assigned to *anyone*, really.

Yet the "motive" Nencini applies is the argument over rent money, and Nencini cherry picks one and only one element out of Rudy's account - that Meredith was talking about missing rent money, and went into Amanda's room looking for it.

............. the story is that Meredith had let Rudy in, that Meredith was sharing with Rudy "sensitive" household issues about Amanda.... to a guy who is a known liar, because Rudy also said in that very same story that Meredith had let him in.

Cassazione is in a tight spot, in my view, although I am sure they could not care less about what a random poster in a random thread thinks.