Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Michael seems desperate to convince himself and his cohort with the idea that "We know the truth. No court in the world can touch that." (The "truth" being that Knox and Sollecito really did participate in the murder, and that this "truth" survives the SC verdict).

And this is the rationalisation of ignorance, intellectual stunting, self-preservation and a dreadful unwillingness to look at things in a rational, impartial way.

I suspect that people such as Michael will never gain the foresight, objectivity or emotional detachment to realise that what they've been campaigning for so vehemently for all these years was just plain wrong. Just as the nutters claiming the World will end on a given date will always find an excuse and a reason when it gets to the day after that particular date.

Fortunately for us and for pretty much everybody, the views and prejudices of people such as Michael will be almost entirely ignored within days from now, once the discussion spike following the acquittals has gone down. And as I said before, it can only be hoped that he and those like him might perhaps stop and ask themselves some questions. I have my doubts that this will happen in most cases, unfortunately - I think these people have already demonstrated that they do not have, and will probably never have, the self-awareness and critical thinking abilities to figure out the situation properly.

Yummi has now said that the USA bought the verdict! Incredible.

 

[Kaosium]

Is that Pyrrhus?

Not quite, Elric/Hawkmoon/Corum/etc from a British author (whose politics Anglo would approve of!) and an American band that got started in upstate New York where my dad's family is from. It was also on vacation out there that I came across this case at the crappy motel we were staying at somewhere between Buffalo and Rochester on July, 3, 2010.

 

[Strawberry]

Yummi has now said that the USA bought the verdict! Incredible.

Entirely predictable. People like that won't admit they were wrong in a million years. When the motivation report is released they will pour over it to find any little detail or turn of phrase they can nit pick about.

 

[Samson]

They didn't need the digestion point. There was no evidence of guilt in the first place. The digestion thing was just the point that made me absolutely certain they couldn't possibly have done it, as opposed to there simply being no reason at all to believe that they were.

The late discovery of a minute amount of dna and a time of death precluded by the digestive evidence is matched precisely in the Lundy case. The defence have nailed it and justice France will instruct to acquit on monday. I have met no one including doctors and lawyers in New Zealand who believe he is innocent except for posters on ISF.

 

[davefoc]

While I don't think the Kerchers have behaved honourably throughout this (and their "dignified silence" is a joke), I think we have to consider that the confirmation bias ordinary guilters suffer from is nothing compared to that of the Kerchers'.

Apart from the natural trust they'd have put in the Italian authorities and their lawyer, we've no reason to think they've studied this case as we or the guilters have. They may just want to close their minds to everything except what their lawyer tells them, because it's all too traumatic to delve into. I can understand that.

There were various biases driving John Kercher I think. Self interest bias: money from his book and potentially money from Knox and Sollecito, Self justification bias: I believe he was something a tabloid style journalist and he may have seen the role that tabloids played in this case early on as a kind of vindication for tabloid journalism in general and thus a kind of validation of his career. Acknowledging the unsavory nature of tabloid journalism that contributed so much to the persecution of Knox and Sollecito is something he would not have like to do. Group bias: He came to identify with the prosecution and his lawyer. He saw himself as part of their group and subconsciously at least came to see deviation from the group think view as disloyal. Confirmation bias: For a lot of the guilters this may have been the strongest driver but I suspect it was just one of several other important drivers for Kercher.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yummi has now said that the USA bought the verdict! Incredible.

He is correct. As a dyed-in-the-wool contrarian, I am now transiting over to the dark side. It's clear and obvious that this outrage can only be the result of hanky panky at the highest level. NATO, the IMF, Starbucks and McDonalds are behind it. Truth will out.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yummi has now said that the USA bought the verdict! Incredible.

You know one thing that is absolutely striking about the pro-guilt reaction to the verdict?

Not one pro-guilt commentator - NOT ONE - has said anything with even the smallest allusion to them having perhaps been wrong.

Even if they said they might have been wrong about being able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone being wrong about Knox or Sollecito ever having been factually involved at all.

That, to me, speaks volumes and volumes about the personalities of the vast bulk of the pro-guilt community. They are all busy still trying to convince themselves that they're totally correct really, but that one thing or another (high-level political conspiracies, corrupt or incompetent judges, even things they cannot begin to explain....) has been responsible for the "wrong" outcome. Mental pygmies all, and rather nasty ones at that.

 

[Dan O.]

Rudy Guede was adopted by family who loved him. He can't be all bad. I hope he finds the decency to tell the truth, and give the Kerchers the solace they need to accept that Amanda and Raffaele are truly innocent.

There can be no further benefit for Rudy to withhold the truth. And keeping silent now may be a significant liability. The question that remains: After living a lie for so long, does Rudy still remember the truth?

 

[anglolawyer]

There can be no further benefit for Rudy to withhold the truth. And keeping silent now may be a significant liability. The question that remains: After living a lie for so long, does Rudy still remember the truth?

Love the new sig, Dan

 

[lonepinealex]

There can be no further benefit for Rudy to withhold the truth. And keeping silent now may be a significant liability. The question that remains: After living a lie for so long, does Rudy still remember the truth?

Did Guede ever explicitly name Amanda and Raff though? If not, he has an incentive to stay quiet, as the co-perpetrator theory is still a judicial "truth".

 

[moije2]

Yummi has now said that the USA bought the verdict! Incredible.

And to think of all the times he spewed when writing the word conspiracy!

 

[Dan O.]

Many here seem to be giving Mach slack. I happen to remember all of the foul things he said about Amanda.

He is probably closer to this case than any of us imagine and these last days he appeared to be in a melt down state trying to find any argument that still had teeth.

 

[LondonJohn]

There can be no further benefit for Rudy to withhold the truth. And keeping silent now may be a significant liability. The question that remains: After living a lie for so long, does Rudy still remember the truth?

My assessment of Guede is that he is likely an inveterate liar and a sociopath/psychopath. I don't think he has any emotional need to "tell the truth" - I think he will do/say only whatever he thinks serves his own narrow self-interest the best.

I truly think that Guede has convinced himself by now that he played no active part in the murder, and that's certainly the story he has persisted in hawking. I see zero value to Guede in now saying (assuming for a moment that this is the factual truth) that he was alone when he attacked and killed Meredith Kercher. I think he is perfectly happy to believe that at least some people buy his story about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So I think that if Guede does say anything about the murder at any time after his release, it will always be along the same lines - that others actually conducted the attack and murder, and he just got caught up in the aftermath. I think he'll probably be careful not to name Sollecito or Knox though. But if he were to say exactly this, I wouldn't place any value upon it in terms of Guede telling the truth - I think it will be a predictable manifestation of Guede's lying self-preservation.

 

[Diocletus]

It's Pappy Hour!

 

[LondonJohn]

He is probably closer to this case than any of us imagine and these last days he appeared to be in a melt down state trying to find any argument that still had teeth.

And, frankly, it was increasingly unedifying. I respect his decision to post here (though in truth, all pro-guilt commentators could have debated the case here in a decent moderation environment, in a way that pro-acquittal posters could never do on the pro-guilt "home" forums). But I'm afraid I cannot respect his arguments, nor his style of argument, to any great degree.

 

[js202]

It's Pappy Hour!

Now that's a serious celebration.

 

[carbonjam72]

My assessment of Guede is that he is likely an inveterate liar and a sociopath/psychopath. I don't think he has any emotional need to "tell the truth" - I think he will do/say only whatever he thinks serves his own narrow self-interest the best.

I truly think that Guede has convinced himself by now that he played no active part in the murder, and that's certainly the story he has persisted in hawking. I see zero value to Guede in now saying (assuming for a moment that this is the factual truth) that he was alone when he attacked and killed Meredith Kercher. I think he is perfectly happy to believe that at least some people buy his story about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So I think that if Guede does say anything about the murder at any time after his release, it will always be along the same lines - that others actually conducted the attack and murder, and he just got caught up in the aftermath. I think he'll probably be careful not to name Sollecito or Knox though. But if he were to say exactly this, I wouldn't place any value upon it in terms of Guede telling the truth - I think it will be a predictable manifestation of Guede's lying self-preservation.

I agree about Guede's character. But he is kind of on the hook for a calunnia claim by Amanda and Raf. And he is holding some cards he could use to barter away further charges.

For example, he knows what he did with the murder weapon. He could probably show where he tossed it, and I'll bet there's a reasonable chance its still there. He also probably knows what he did with his bloody clothes, but I'm guessing those are more perishable.

And, Rudy could tell us if he went downstairs, and what he did there. MAybe his giving the true story would help encourage Stefanoni and the prosecution to turn over the hidden DNA data?

I don't think this case is over by a long shot.

 

[lonepinealex]

Frank Sfarzo called it again. He really knows how the Italian justice system works, even though it seems impenetrable to everyone else!

 

[Numbers]

They can still go to the ECHR with this case - there are still human rights issues which probably won't be resolved - length of trial, for one.

In bringing the case to ECHR for length of trial, can the other abuses, such as denial of discovery, be brought forward as well? Perhaps it will depend on how the acquittal motivation report deals with those issues. What do you think?

 

[LondonJohn]

Acually, I'm increasingly hoping that "Yummi" doesn't come back in this direction. Here's his latest nasty (and, frankly, ridiculous) screed:

And something else will happen - this is something I expect - that an investigation for corruption will start on Vecchiotti, Conti and Hellmann.
I'm pretty sure this will happen.

However, any faith I could have in the efficiancy of the justice system is pretty shocked, and basically I don't think a main part of justice on this case could come from further criminal trials. It may come from civil trials, but it's not going to happen soon.
It may come from media action.
It may be possible to publish books, reports, intrviews and shoot videos that expose the truth.
The "truth" is unfortunately now much nastier and bigger than the evidence agsinst Knox and Sollecito, it will be evidence aimed at telling a big story of corruption and media lies.

I'm not really sure I fancy trying to engage in an honest debate with someone who's spouting this sort of fallacious nonsensical invective. Shame.