Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

* OK, just one, because they are so much fun Remember Ergon's Briars theory about the reverberating valley walls that boomed her scream back as an echo and thus explained how Nara could hear it? No need for an audio metric text when you have a reverberating valley, eh?

That one was a howler.

We had a TV commercial on our side of the pond for potato chips, you call them crisps. It had as the tag-line, "I bet you can't eat just one. Apparently, neither can you!

Alright, two. Remember the guilters need a theory on premeditation. Whichever they fall they encounter problems. The no-premed theory has to deal with the knife: why did she take the knife. Mach's explanation is brilliant and simple: they went over to her place to cook a fish dinner and took Raffaele's favourite knife along because that's the knife he always used when cooking fish. I'm serious. There is a whole thread at IIP on this theory. I **** you not.

Mach at least recognizes the problem; and tries to claim that the no pre-med theory was what Mignini believed all along. The revolving door of motives, or as Mach calls them, "speculations", nearly all had a pre-meditated scenario....

...... but with an appropriate corrective, where Mach is probably right. However, the no-premed scenario in all those cases still had Amanda and Raffaele having their evenings suddenly freed up (Amanda not having to go to work, and Raffaele not having to take his friend to the station)....

...... and their first thought is to grab a knife, and say, "Let's go over and have some fun with that prude Meredith." Is it not true, that if someone goes over with the intent to visit mayhem on someone, and this mayhem results in death, that then the death is premeditated? In Canada it appears to be, so is that so in Italy?

It's premeditated if it's done:

while committing or attempting to commit sexual assault
while committing or attempting to commit sexual assault with a weapon
while committing criminal harassment
while committing or attempting to commit aggravated sexual assault
while committing intimidation.​

 

[anglolawyer]

That one was a howler.

We had a TV commercial on our side of the pond for potato chips, you call them crisps. It had as the tag-line, "I bet you can't eat just one. Apparently, neither can you!


Mach at least recognizes the problem; and tries to claim that the no pre-med theory was what Mignini believed all along. The revolving door of motives, or as Mach calls them, "speculations", nearly all had a pre-meditated scenario....

...... but with an appropriate corrective, where Mach is probably right. However, the no-premed scenario in all those cases still had Amanda and Raffaele having their evenings suddenly freed up (Amanda not having to go to work, and Raffaele not having to take his friend to the station)....

...... and their first thought is to grab a knife, and say, "Let's go over and have some fun with that prude Meredith." Is it not true, that if someone goes over with the intent to visit mayhem on someone, and this mayhem results in death, that then the death is premeditated? In Canada it appears to be, so is that so in Italy?

To be honest, Bill, I have been round the houses so many times on this darn case that I have now forgotten what's wrong with the premed theory. One thing might be TOD - they premeditatedly went out with knife then, er hung around in the Piazza and stabbed her two and half hours letter (so Nara could hear the reverberating scream). That is exactly the sort of fanciful BS that passes through the guilter brain unscathed every single day, like a bad Indian takeaway. Howver, it may be there is a better reason and, if there is, it will certainly be in Luca Cheli's article the unbearable lightness of guilt.

I would have no trouble with this sort of thing if there was a compelling reason to believe in guilt in the first place. Then I would be forced to arrange everything else to fit with it. Say the bathmat print definitely was Raf's for example. Now you're talking. But the compelling reason always turns out to be 'all the other evidence'.

Remember that bit in 12 Angry Men when Lee J Cobb shouts' but what about the knife!" and the little guy with the high-pitched voice says 'you said we could forget about the knife'. All the guilters have been shown that scene at guilter training camp and told to never let this happen. Never discard any argument or scrap of 'evidence', no matter how insane, because you never know when you'll need it.

 

[Dan O.]

Chris,

I hadn't seen this fact before about blood on the pillow.

There is a photo of this spot from December.

But for the spot of blood on the bathroom tap, was it ever established that this was in fact Amanda's blood? I've seen posts that blood typing was never done.

So to ask it again, how do we know the blood on the tap belongs to Amanda? How do we know any DNA from that sample isn't from the wider area around the blood spot and due to the wide area collection method of using the same swab in multiple spots?

I see Machiavelly is repeating his lies about Amanda's blood in the small bathroom. His contention that Amanda lied about the blood on the tap was clearly refuted years ago. I challenge Machiavelli to outline the location of this blood on one of the photos of that tap to back his contention that the bathroom was visibly clean prior to the murder. Machiavelly cannot do that because actually examining the evidence undermines his case so instead he will obfuscate, weasel and change the subject then in the future reboot and reasert the same contention.

By the way, is that collection method designed to produce an "incriminating" result, but mixing background DNA in with visible blood spots?

As I recall, the blood on the tap showed only Amanda's DNA. It was the other spots in the basin and the bidet where collection in a large swip virtually guaranteed that DNA of all the users would be collected. There were never any negative substrate controls taken to show that the surfaces were DNA free outside of the blood spots so the contention that the DNA came exclusively from the blood and therefore mixed blood is unsupported.

 

[Numbers]

Agreed. He could show up in Coulsdon. There's not a lot anyone could do about it.

But if he were to burglarize/rob, whatever illegal gain he made, at least part would rightfully belong to the Kerchers - is that correct? Or would the new victims have first claim for a return of stolen funds/property? Supposing that he and his funds were somehow known to the authorities.

 

[Bill Williams]

Motive is evidence. As is lack of motive. These are items of circumstantial evidence from which inferences may properly be drawn. And circumstantial evidence should generate a coherent and consistent picture or 'narrative' if you will.

It is very obvious why PGPs like you try to pretend otherwise. First, the case lacks any plausible motive on the part of Knox and Sollecito (not decisive, but not nothing either) and second, because the jumble of so-called circumstantial evidence cannot be organised into a coherent narrative. That is why:

A when asked for one, you laughably said it was 'too soon' (is it still too soon, Mach?), and
B every stupid Italian judge or prosecutor who looks at the case comes up with a new one.

Machiavelli - note the economy of language above. Six lines in my browser, and in my estimation leaves you in flames. This stands in contrast to your long, long convoluted epistles where the claim is that you're trying to explain a simple concept of why, for instance, Mignini never advanced pre-meditation or a ritualistic motive for this murder.

If it was THAT straightforward, you could have used more economical language, and maybe a link or too.

It's my sin as well, so believe me, Mach, I am not judging you for this shortcoming of yours.

But yes, why is it "too soon" to attempt a comprehensive narrative of this crime which involves AK and RS? I guess that's because it has yet to go to trial, and has not received adjudication by an impaneled group of popular/professional judges..... oh wait.

You had also said you did not want to give us, the enemy, any foreknowledge of this secret comprehensive narrative, lest we use it to our advantage.

Wait a minute, though, you are winning. This case is 60 days away from being confirmed by Cassazione, and hopefully you will not keep the comprehensive narrative secret from them - they'll need it to properly assess guilt or innocence. Are they your enemy, too?

Anyway, lest I prove my claim of admiring the economy of language, while failing to deliver myself, I'll stop. There's just so much to respond to.

BTW - do you have any insights into today's defamation hearing brought by Mignini about Honor Bound? I bet you're in there like a dirty shirt - but struggling with what to say (at length!!!) without constructing a logical narrative about it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Machiavelli - note the economy of language above. Six lines in my browser, and in my estimation leaves you in flames. This stands in contrast to your long, long convoluted epistles where the claim is that you're trying to explain a simple concept of why, for instance, Mignini never advanced pre-meditation or a ritualistic motive for this murder.

If it was THAT straightforward, you could have used more economical language, and maybe a link or too.

It's my sin as well, so believe me, Mach, I am not judging you for this shortcoming of yours.

But yes, why is it "too soon" to attempt a comprehensive narrative of this crime which involves AK and RS? I guess that's because it has yet to go to trial, and has not received adjudication by an impaneled group of popular/professional judges..... oh wait.

You had also said you did not want to give us, the enemy, any foreknowledge of this secret comprehensive narrative, lest we use it to our advantage.

Wait a minute, though, you are winning. This case is 60 days away from being confirmed by Cassazione, and hopefully you will not keep the comprehensive narrative secret from them - they'll need it to properly assess guilt or innocence. Are they your enemy, too?

Anyway, lest I prove my claim of admiring the economy of language, while failing to deliver myself, I'll stop. There's just so much to respond to.

BTW - do you have any insights into today's defamation hearing brought by Mignini about Honor Bond? I bet you're in there like a dirty shirt - but struggling with what to say (at length!!!) without constructing a logical narrative about it.

I bet all the money in your pocket that it will turn out that it is now 'too late' to provide such a narrative. Like that fruit or vegetable that is only ripe for about one second and is then immediately off.

 

[Bill Williams]

To be honest, Bill, I have been round the houses so many times on this darn case that I have now forgotten what's wrong with the premed theory. One thing might be TOD - they premeditatedly went out with knife then, er hung around in the Piazza and stabbed her two and half hours letter (so Nara could hear the reverberating scream). That is exactly the sort of fanciful BS that passes through the guilter brain unscathed every single day, like a bad Indian takeaway. Howver, it may be there is a better reason and, if there is, it will certainly be in Luca Cheli's article the unbearable lightness of guilt.

I'm feeling the weight of the attempt to be brief, because truly, Mach and I have the same malady. A phobia of terseness, a style bereft of brevity.

So, cutting out the brilliant link between "12 Angry Men" and "All the other evidence," my bias is this:

Premeditation got locked in with the theory of it being a Satanic rite ritual associated with the day of the dead. Mignini then had to further explain why, if that was true, the murder happened the evening AFTER it should have.

Well, they simply delayed a day, so said Mignini at the time. Now, I am no lawyer. But to my untrained eye, if it is admitted that an action is delayed a day, forgive me (as the moral equivalent to that bespeckled squeaky guy in Henry Fonda's jury) for assuming this means premeditation.

What should have collapsed this case long ago WAS "all the other evidence". In internet-forum discussion, they resemble whack-a-mole, each individual item makes its rounds once every 4 to 6 months here.

In the courtroom, though, the sport is juggling. The more of them, the more balls in the air.

It turns out it is not just the knife. But on that one alone, every convicting judge has reasoned rightly - if the crime is non-premeditated, then some explanation for Knox carrying the knife needs to be invented. Both Massei and Nencini have invented differing rationales for THAT out of whole cloth.

It is true, motive is not important. But why then does Mach's-side of the fence have them by the sack-full. And further, they need to address the knife as the convicting judges knew they had to, too.

It turns out it is not just TOD, either. But as you've said before, does that mean that Rudy is in the toilet because of the kebob for 2 or 3 hours, while Meredith is alone in her room NOT texting/calling her ailing mom?

Sooner or later cooler heads will prevail. Hellmann-like heads will prevail. I am starting to become converted to the notion that perhaps Hellmann should have owned the judicial decision not to test 36I, rather than let Vecchiotti make the de facto decision for him. Yet, whatever kind of judicial sin that is, is the fix for it this?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Borsini-Beladi's blindness

Well, the family of whoever he kills next can thank Mignini and Italy. Is there no end to the misery that that pompous idiot will cause.

I agree, and I would like to emphasize that Mignini is not the only perpetrator of this double miscarriage. From the Borsini-Belardi Report: "Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators."

The only thing "fanciful" is the notion that Rudy tried to staunch the flow of blood. That may be Rudy's version, but there is no good reason to believe him. Quite the contrary. If he wished to save her, he would not have taken her phones; he would have called 112.

 

[Bill Williams]

I bet all the money in your pocket that it will turn out that it is now 'too late' to provide such a narrative. Like that fruit or vegetable that is only ripe for about one second and is then immediately off.

You can't handle all the money in my pocket!! Mainly because there's nothing there!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

First of all, Berti & Barni are difficult to take seriously because they sound like muppets.

Secondly, either you are misreading, or this is a typically Italian screw up. They did not generically identify the biologic substance as "body fluids". There is no test to determine if something is a body "fluid" as opposed to generic, DNA-containing matter.

The should have said biological matter IMO.

 

[Diocletus]

I agree, and I would like to emphasize that Mignini is not the only perpetrator of this double miscarriage. From the Borsini-Belardi Report: "Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators."

Yes, and since the people who this court is stupidly agreeing are the "perpetrators" are identified as Knox and Sollecito, what we have here is a very clear violation of the right to an independent tribunal and a presumption of innocence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I do not like circumstantial cases because I think they often make too much out of little things . . . . .The trouble with this case is that you do not even have circumstantial evidence.

No history of fighting between them and no jealousy issues. Amanda had enough money that money was not an issue. No serious drug use either that involves money to buy drugs.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hilarious aside #3275:

1) Seattle-based stand-up comedian tweets humorously about the "special guests" for his upcoming one-man stand-up night, one of whom is Amanda Knox

2) A certain internet commentator finds this tweet (God knows how, since it's not even hashtagged to Knox - this particular commentator certainly must be extremely (and disturbingly) obsessed with tracking mentions of Knox on the internet......).

3) Said internet commentator broadcasts the "news" as a serious advertisement of Knox appearing on a TV show of some sort in Seattle. Clearly even the most rudimentary research skills are beyond this individual....

4) Other internet commentators react in a mixture of astonishment and disgust at this "news" (which, remember, was nothing more than a very obvious joke from the very start)

5) Some internet commentators even go so far as to identify this "news" as evidence of a "Knox PR campaign" in the run-up to the Italian Supreme Court ruling in March

6) Other internet commentators still seem unsure as to whether it's a genuine interview with Knox or what it actually is: a humorous tweet written in the style of a TV chat show host, to advertise an upcoming one-man stand-up show. They err on the side of vilification


I suppose that vindictiveness, hatred and low levels of common sense are good bedfellows.........................

Update:

The stand-up comedian who posted this joke tweet has - entirely predictably - confirmed that it was a humorous parody of a chat show host announcing the night's guest list. The guy is a one-man stand-up comedian!

It's still baffling me as to how the internet commentator who "found" this tweet and broadcast it in a state of alarm (hehe) ever found it in the first place. As I said before, it's not even hashtagged with Knox's name - it merely includes her name. Am I not the only one to think that this sort of online stalking of any mentions of Knox on Twitter (and on the internet in general) is reaching obsessive (and concerning) levels....?

 

[Desert Fox]

Update:

The stand-up comedian who posted this joke tweet has - entirely predictably - confirmed that it was a humorous parody of a chat show host announcing the night's guest list. The guy is a one-man stand-up comedian!

It's still baffling me as to how the internet commentator who "found" this tweet and broadcast it in a state of alarm (hehe) ever found it in the first place. As I said before, it's not even hashtagged with Knox's name - it merely includes her name. Am I not the only one to think that this sort of online stalking of any mentions of Knox on Twitter (and on the internet in general) is reaching obsessive (and concerning) levels....?

Is our discussing of these issues over and over something akin to stalking as well?

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree, and I would like to emphasize that Mignini is not the only perpetrator of this double miscarriage. From the Borsini-Belardi Report: "Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators."

The only thing "fanciful" is the notion that Rudy tried to staunch the flow of blood. That may be Rudy's version, but there is no good reason to believe him. Quite the contrary. If he wished to save her, he would not have taken her phones; he would have called 112.

And the only reason why Guede "indicated the perpetrators" was in a wholly selfish attempt to transfer the blame! It's astonishing that the court gives him credit for this, when it was nothing more than Guede's feeble (and discredited) attempt to argue innocence of the murder (while being hamstrung by the incontrovertible evidence of his presence in the cottage at the time of the murder): "Oh yeah, I was there your honour, but I 'ad nuffin' to do wiv it you see! It was them two ovvers vat done it, honest! I was minding me own business on veh toilet!"

It's truly hard to have any faith in the Italian criminal justice system where the trials related to the murder of Meredith Kercher are concerned.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is our discussing of these issues over and over something akin to stalking as well?

I don't think so. It's a debate.

On the other hand, scouring the internet constantly for mentions of Knox seems to me to be a wholly different type of behaviour............

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm feeling the weight of the attempt to be brief, because truly, Mach and I have the same malady. A phobia of terseness, a style bereft of brevity.

So, cutting out the brilliant link between "12 Angry Men" and "All the other evidence," my bias is this:

Premeditation got locked in with the theory of it being a Satanic rite ritual associated with the day of the dead. Mignini then had to further explain why, if that was true, the murder happened the evening AFTER it should have.

Well, they simply delayed a day, so said Mignini at the time. Now, I am no lawyer. But to my untrained eye, if it is admitted that an action is delayed a day, forgive me (as the moral equivalent to that bespeckled squeaky guy in Henry Fonda's jury) for assuming this means premeditation.

What should have collapsed this case long ago WAS "all the other evidence". In internet-forum discussion, they resemble whack-a-mole, each individual item makes its rounds once every 4 to 6 months here.

In the courtroom, though, the sport is juggling. The more of them, the more balls in the air.

It turns out it is not just the knife. But on that one alone, every convicting judge has reasoned rightly - if the crime is non-premeditated, then some explanation for Knox carrying the knife needs to be invented. Both Massei and Nencini have invented differing rationales for THAT out of whole cloth.

It is true, motive is not important. But why then does Mach's-side of the fence have them by the sack-full. And further, they need to address the knife as the convicting judges knew they had to, too.

It turns out it is not just TOD, either. But as you've said before, does that mean that Rudy is in the toilet because of the kebob for 2 or 3 hours, while Meredith is alone in her room NOT texting/calling her ailing mom?

Sooner or later cooler heads will prevail. Hellmann-like heads will prevail. I am starting to become converted to the notion that perhaps Hellmann should have owned the judicial decision not to test 36I, rather than let Vecchiotti make the de facto decision for him. Yet, whatever kind of judicial sin that is, is the fix for it this?

I respectfully demur. As a generalisation, motive cannot be said to be unimportant. It may be or may not, according to circumstances. Murder is such an unusual aspect of human behaviour and the consequences of detection so severe that murderers usually have strong reasons (= motive) for committing the crime and I strongly disagree with those who suggest that motive merely guides the investigation but does not form part of the proof itself. This is not merely against common sense, it's also not true. Motive crops up in case after case as an important focus of the trial, not just the investigation. Examples:

Jodi Arias - she had been jilted by the victim
Scott Peterson - he was having an affair and did not want children (allegedly)
David Gilroy - also jilted by the victim
Oscar Pistorius - jealousy
Thomas Gilbert - financial

etc etc.

I already gave the specious reason why Machiavelli takes the contrary (and wrong) view and that is because lack of motive is also evidence. It's strong evidence of innocence because people do not ordinarily kill other people for no reason at all.

You made a point I had not thought of, about premeditation starting the day before, on Halloween. I am unsure about that but coincidentally I was thinking about the satanic stuff just today. I asked myself: what motive did Raffaele and Guede have to kill (as part of a group I mean - Guede acting alone has a motive). All the discussion of motive is always about Amanda with the other two just sort of tagging along. Plainly, that is problematic and I think Mignini fixed it with the satanic thing. In this fantasy, she is some kind of devil woman exerting total control over the two hapless guys who are in her thrall due to Raffaele's predisposition to Manga and knife obsession and Guede's ... er, what .. being black perhaps.

Funny that no one has run the alternatives that Raffaele was the ringleader or that Guede was. Each of those scenarios can be just as plausibly concocted as the devil woman one. There is probably some dark region of Mignini's unconscious that explains why it had to be Amanda, or maybe it was just Napoleone's jealousy of a younger, more attractive woman. See, I'm stuck for a motive.

 

[Bill Williams]

And the only reason why Guede "indicated the perpetrators" was in a wholly selfish attempt to transfer the blame! It's astonishing that the court gives him credit for this, when it was nothing more than Guede's feeble (and discredited) attempt to argue innocence of the murder (while being hamstrung by the incontrovertible evidence of his presence in the cottage at the time of the murder): "Oh yeah, I was there your honour, but I 'ad nuffin' to do wiv it you see! It was them two ovvers vat done it, honest! I was minding me own business on veh toilet!"

It's truly hard to have any faith in the Italian criminal justice system where the trials related to the murder of Meredith Kercher are concerned.

Add to this.....

Nencini entertained, speculated about, or agreed with the motive offered by Guede that this was an argument over rent money.

Rudy Guede is the sole source of that motive, as unimportant as motives are.

Guede told this in a story he'd invented which also included Meredith willingly letting him into the cottage, because they had a date. (So much for needing Amanda Knox's key, but no matter.)

But, acc. to Rudy, that key was used because at one time, the ambiance of just the two of them, Rudy and Meredith, was broken with Rudy hearing an argument between Knox and Meredith about the rent money - all this after, early in Rudy's account, Meredith going into Amanda's room to check to see if the missing money was there secreted into a drawer.

Ignore for a second that Rudy seems to need to account for missing money....

But was this story ever cross-examined? I don't think so - yet one item of it makes it into Nencini's report.

Machiavelli argued a few posts ago that Massei includes AK and RS as co-equals in a sexually fueled attack on the victim; even while Massei writes that Rudy did not need any encouragement to go it alone. And only then, acc. to Massei, did Rudy find willing accomplices who had at the last second made a choice for evil.

Nencini knows nothing about that, because completely inexplicably Nencini regards Rudy as the expert in this crime. It's astonishing that the court gives him credit for this, when it was nothing more than Guede's feeble (and discredited) attempt to argue innocence of the murder (while being hamstrung by the incontrovertible evidence of his presence in the cottage at the time of the murder).****

**** Sue me for plagarism.

 

[Bill Williams]

I respectfully demur. As a generalisation, motive cannot be said to be unimportant. It may be or may not, according to circumstances. Murder is such an unusual aspect of human behaviour and the consequences of detection so severe that murderers usually have strong reasons (= motive) for committing the crime and I strongly disagree with those who suggest that motive merely guides the investigation but does not form part of the proof itself. This is not merely against common sense, it's also not true. Motive crops up in case after case as an important focus of the trial, not just the investigation. Examples:

Jodi Arias - she had been jilted by the victim
Scott Peterson - he was having an affair and did not want children (allegedly)
David Gilroy - also jilted by the victim
Oscar Pistorius - jealousy
Thomas Gilbert - financial

etc etc.

I already gave the specious reason why Machiavelli takes the contrary (and wrong) view and that is because lack of motive is also evidence. It's strong evidence of innocence because people do not ordinarily kill other people for no reason at all.

You made a point I had not thought of, about premeditation starting the day before, on Halloween. I am unsure about that but coincidentally I was thinking about the satanic stuff just today. I asked myself: what motive did Raffaele and Guede have to kill (as part of a group I mean - Guede acting alone has a motive). All the discussion of motive is always about Amanda with the other two just sort of tagging along. Plainly, that is problematic and I think Mignini fixed it with the satanic thing. In this fantasy, she is some kind of devil woman exerting total control over the two hapless guys who are in her thrall due to Raffaele's predisposition to Manga and knife obsession and Guede's ... er, what .. being black perhaps.

Funny that no one has run the alternatives that Raffaele was the ringleader or that Guede was. Each of those scenarios can be just as plausibly concocted as the devil woman one. There is probably some dark region of Mignini's unconscious that explains why it had to be Amanda, or maybe it was just Napoleone's jealousy of a younger, more attractive woman. See, I'm stuck for a motive.

One day I will tell you about the "a'ha" moment I had in relation to Scott Peterson.

But you are a man full of surprises. Just when I cave in to the pressure from the pro-guilt lobby, that there's not always motive, you try to yank be back into the rational world. Curses on you.

In Oct 2013 I was called on the carpet by both the pro-guilt-lobby and further by quirky innocenters from Seattle on the issue of proving Satanic rite. What I came up with was that at least it was in the wind - with Mr. Kercher's book, and with Barbie Nadeau's allegation that Comodi threatened to quit if that became "the motive". Kaosium has also found an early reference from John Follain.....

So letting this go for a second - yes, the issue at one time was that Mignini was speculating about something (Mach allows formal speculating, "Maybe she was out in the hall directing the murder!") - but it was a speculation about a plan meant for one day, that had to be delayed 24 hours due to.....

..... what? That everyone would be at a party? And 24 hours later both Knox and Sollecito thought they'd have commitments.... and when coincidentally, and separately, both those commitments vanished.... the poor victim was dead within the hour.

But, acc. to Mignini (early on at least) they had to communicate with Rudy, while not communicating with him because there is NO communication except for perhaps a nod and a wink at the piazza.... where the message was, "Remember the plan for last night? Well, the plan is ON for tonight!"

Back to the matter at hand. Is this not premeditation?

I think that's why the guilters on-line are so wedded to premeditation, where Machiavelli himself is now fighting tooth or nail to deny that Mignini had EVER postulated it. That seems to be a line in the sand here, at least for Mignini Machiavelli, seven years after all these ugly events.

Machiavelli fights tooth and nail to deny Mignini EVER claimed premeditation, while at the same time claiming it is too early to come up with a comprehensive narrative.

Ok, I'm convinced. How do I sign up for the PMF hate sites?

 

[Dopre]

I have learned long ago that there is a faction of the PGP who most definitely meet the criteria to be considered stalkers. I have often wondered what these people might do should Knox be found innocent and the case settled. It certainly does give one pause. Having observed these people over the years most of them appear to have had mental health and/or social issues before they entered into the fray. They found a community of people who accept them regardless and it is all based on this narrative of internet vigilantism and unrelenting self-justification for their hatred of a stranger.

Grahame Rhodes is one of those whom I view as a personal threat to Knox. His posts grow more and more disturbing as time goes on. It would be reasonable to assume he does so because the response he gets from other PGP and the PIP gives him a high of sorts. However, the escalation in his rhetoric is beyond troublesome. This is the kind of person who inspires others of his bent to do likewise. In turn it elicits a sort of one-upsmanship amongst them. It's something that has always made me a bit uneasy in this debate.