Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL. No. I have heard the name. No, I do not know him or her.

I have deep knowledge because my interest is in why people commit this type of crime. Having taken criminology and psychopathology as a couple of my psychology options I became interested in getting to the bottom of this crime.

It is possible to be independently minded without being a "guilter".

Anyway, why shouldn't someone be a "guilter", as clearly in any case, there will be two sides? Why would anyone care. It doesn't bother me if someone has a different opinion than me. Praise or criticism I treat with equanimity.

A guilter is not someone who simply thinks them guilty, after all I along with many others started with that assumption before delving deeper (including FBI veteran Steve Moore) but someone who will maintain that belief no matter what evidence is presented to them or how unable they are to rationally articulate a theory of the crime that can stand scrutiny.

Note that link was written in 2010 sometime. It sure turned out to be prescient, didn't it? ;)
 
Last edited:
A guilter is not someone who simply thinks them guilty, after all I along with many others started with that assumption before delving deeper (including FBI veteran Steve Moore) but someone who will maintain that belief no matter what evidence is presented to them or how unable they are to rationally articulate a theory of the crime that can stand scrutiny.

As you know I don't like the term as I never thought it aided the debate but you speak truth. It is even greater because they not only wish for conviction but attack one and all that don't agree completely with them. Early on they "outed" people for speaking in favor of not guilty or innocent and organized campaigns to hurt those people in reputation and even once a mistaken secretary's job. They revel in hate.
 
As you know I don't like the term as I never thought it aided the debate but you speak truth. It is even greater because they not only wish for conviction but attack one and all that don't agree completely with them. Early on they "outed" people for speaking in favor of not guilty or innocent and organized campaigns to hurt those people in reputation and even once a mistaken secretary's job. They revel in hate.

I don't like the term either and reserve it only for those who've proven beyond doubt they deserve it--according to the definition at the link. Even then I prefer colpevolesti--except I can never recall how to spell it and I don't think that's right either. So I usually use 'bunnies' as they chose the 'down the rabbit hole' motif themselves and--at the time I coined it--some of their most prolific posters (Bard, Some Alibi, Michael) had bunnies of some sort as their avatar.
 
I don't like the term either and reserve it only for those who've proven beyond doubt they deserve it--according to the definition at the link. Even then I prefer colpevolesti--except I can never recall how to spell it and I don't think that's right either. So I usually use 'bunnies' as they chose the 'down the rabbit hole' motif themselves and--at the time I coined it--some of their most prolific posters (Bard, Some Alibi, Michael) had bunnies of some sort as their avatar.

This case is over, and Italy finally did the right thing.

Before it was over, many on the innocence side said it was over despite Italy's fun and games, and getting stuck in the "judicial truth" trap - that Hellmann effectively ended it and it was "judicial truth only" after that, regardless of what ISC (March 213) and the Nencini court did. By any rational standard, ISC (2013) and the Nencini court simply came to conclusions against the evidence. It's the reason why many on the innocence side were convinced that the March 2015 version would simply continue the grand tradition begun by the 2013 Chieffi section of the ISC.

The Massei court rejected most of the Mignini/Comodi prosecution in 2009, substituting in its motivations report a very different crime than the one Mignini opened with, much less the one he closed with in Dec 2009. As even Vixen conceded it was musical motives, and simply a sideshow.... the only motive that the guilters would not entertain was no motive at all.

Which brings this back..... there never really was a case against AK and RS. Heck, on the night of the first conviction, even Barbie Latza Nadeau said as much, reporting from Perguia to a CNN audience..... "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker. This could very well be overturned at appeal."

The people you name above, Kaosium, are simply resistant to the evidence. That is the only objective way of putting it.

Vixen didn't invent the memes he/she is bringing here... he/she is just repeating them as if they haven't already been long since disproven. Vixen thinks that Conti and Vecchiotti's appointment was.... well, to repeat:

Hellmann's 2011 acquittals was based partly on his appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti, who in yours words were appointed for a "limited exercise". This earned a response from Sept79 which said, "Are you, Vixen, actually saying that Stefanoni's findings should still be the defining scientific evidence in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution?"​

The thing which separates a guilter from someone who believes in guilt, is that the former will say stuff like that: seemingly resistant to logic. There's just a commitment to phrase something in the most guilt-like way possible, hoping to slip it unnoticed under the door.

The thing which separates a guilter from someone who believes in guilt is the constant turning of tables - what properly belongs to the prosecution, in proving their allegations, is always flipped back onto Knox or Sollecito.... "I wonder why Raffaele never complained about police mistreatment..." "I wonder why Knox never laid a charge for her allegation of being hit...." "I wonder why the defence never asked for a test of the semen sample....." "Contamination must be proven or else all DNA convictions since 1986 are at risk....." "The defence was happy with the disclosure from Stefanoni, they never asked for the EDFs....."

Guilters act as if the prosecutions were simply a blank slate, not really an actor in this tragedy begun with a horrid murder.

It's got to do with arguing in good faith. You know, things like when shown the evidence which refutes a guilter claim, the guilter does not get to return to the same factoid three Continuations later as if nothing was shown!
 
Last edited:
This case is over, and Italy finally did the right thing.

Before it was over, many on the innocence side said it was over despite Italy's fun and games, and getting stuck in the "judicial truth" trap - that Hellmann effectively ended it and it was "judicial truth only" after that, regardless of what ISC (March 213) and the Nencini court did. By any rational standard, ISC (2013) and the Nencini court simply came to conclusions against the evidence. It's the reason why many on the innocence side were convinced that the March 2015 version would simply continue the grand tradition begun by the 2013 Chieffi section of the ISC.

The Massei court rejected most of the Mignini/Comodi prosecution in 2009, substituting in its motivations report a very different crime than the one Mignini opened with, much less the one he closed with in Dec 2009. As even Vixen conceded it was musical motives, and simply a sideshow.... the only motive that the guilters would not entertain was no motive at all.

Which brings this back..... there never really was a case against AK and RS. Heck, on the night of the first conviction, even Barbie Latza Nadeau said as much, reporting from Perguia to a CNN audience..... "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker. This could very well be overturned at appeal."

The people you name above, Kaosium, are simply resistant to the evidence. That is the only objective way of putting it.

Vixen didn't invent the memes he/she is bringing here... he/she is just repeating them as if they haven't already been long since disproven. Vixen thinks that Conti and Vecchiotti's appointment was.... well, to repeat:


The thing which separates a guilter from someone who believes in guilt, is that the former will say stuff like that: seemingly resistant to logic. There's just a commitment to phrase something in the most guilt-like way possible, hoping to slip it unnoticed under the door.

The thing which separates a guilter from someone who believes in guilt is the constant turning of tables - what properly belongs to the prosecution, in proving their allegations, is always flipped back onto Knox or Sollecito.... "I wonder why Raffaele never complained about police mistreatment..." "I wonder why Knox never laid a charge for her allegation of being hit...." "I wonder why the defence never asked for a test of the semen sample....." "Contamination must be proven or else all DNA convictions since 1986 are at risk....."

Guilters act as if the prosecutions were simply a blank slate, not really an actor in this tragedy begun with a horrid murder.

It's got to do with arguing in good faith. You know, things like when shown the evidence which refutes a guilter claim, the guilter does not get to return to the same factoid three Continuations later as if nothing was shown!

Good post Bill but the PGP do have a motive actually a combo. They say that Amanda was jealous because Meredith was everything she wasn't and losing the job to Meredith was the final straw. This is on top of the fact that she was obsessed with rape and violence as demonstrated at the wild party she threw (must have been more we just don't know) and the short story she wrote. Meredith was an Erasmus student while the lowly Amanda worked three jobs and just went her own, so American of her. And Mez was studious and didn't live to party like Amanda did. Mez didn't cheat on anyone she had just ended her relationship in England before going to Italy and had no feelings for her former lover while Amanda hadn't ended her relationship and was still in contact with her erstwhile boyfriend. Amanda was also a avowed racist and wanted to be German and kill a minority. And Mez had done a course in karate while Amanda only played soccer, rock climbed and played multiple musical instruments. And Mez hardly ever smoked pot but Amanda did, no matter that Mez' boyfriend grew it and she cared for it. It would appear that Amanda wasn't as good at drinking either.

There you have it. Amanda was inferior and plotted with Raf to murder Mez the day they met.
 
Good post Bill but the PGP do have a motive actually a combo. They say that Amanda was jealous because Meredith was everything she wasn't and losing the job to Meredith was the final straw. This is on top of the fact that she was obsessed with rape and violence as demonstrated at the wild party she threw (must have been more we just don't know) and the short story she wrote. Meredith was an Erasmus student while the lowly Amanda worked three jobs and just went her own, so American of her. And Mez was studious and didn't live to party like Amanda did. Mez didn't cheat on anyone she had just ended her relationship in England before going to Italy and had no feelings for her former lover while Amanda hadn't ended her relationship and was still in contact with her erstwhile boyfriend. Amanda was also a avowed racist and wanted to be German and kill a minority. And Mez had done a course in karate while Amanda only played soccer, rock climbed and played multiple musical instruments. And Mez hardly ever smoked pot but Amanda did, no matter that Mez' boyfriend grew it and she cared for it. It would appear that Amanda wasn't as good at drinking either.

There you have it. Amanda was inferior and plotted with Raf to murder Mez the day they met.

You have it all wrong. She plotted the crime well before leaving Seattle....
 
A guilter is not someone who simply thinks them guilty, after all I along with many others started with that assumption before delving deeper (including FBI veteran Steve Moore) but someone who will maintain that belief no matter what evidence is presented to them or how unable they are to rationally articulate a theory of the crime that can stand scrutiny.

Note that link was written in 2010 sometime. It sure turned out to be prescient, didn't it? ;)

The absence of evidence of anyone other than Guede in Kercher's bedroom is a useful starting point. Pro guilt people stay out of the room and try to implicate Amanda from evidence of her presence in other areas of the apartment - unless they lie and adduce false evidence such as non existent shoe prints. It's a fatal flaw in their reasoning.

They argue that she deposited Kercher's blood which they must maintain she picked up in Kercher's room. But if this were possibly true, even though there is no evidence of blood deposited by Amanda, we would see evidence of the transfer of blood to Amanda in the room. There is no such evidence either in the form of prints or samples in the room or samples on Amanda's clothes or at Raffaele's apartment.

They also hypothesise that Amanda was injured by Kercher in a violent struggle in the room. Yet, again, there would be evidence of such a struggle. But there is nothing.

There is only Guede.
 
Yes, I agree, though I do like that by acquitting rather than remanding they essentially admitted that Hellmann never should have been quashed in the first place. In my opinion amongst the major villains in this case was that Cassation court that quashed Hellmann

The March 2013 SC ruling was without doubt the biggest single scandal of the whole shameful saga.
 
I have no idea what a PG poster is. Did you not see my earlier disclaimer?

"PG" = "pro-guilt".
No, I b'aint be one of them ooargh guilters and nor be I a troll.

Is this form of language some kind of reference to me posting from England? As for being or not being a guilter or a troll - others will form a view about that, depending on your readiness to address the discussion seriously.
 
Last edited:
You know as well as I do that simply refuting a claim is not the same as "being right".

That's exactly what it is, in fact.

The meaning of the term "refuted" is "shown to be wrong". If a claim has been refuted then that claim is wrong, because a claim that is true cannot be refuted any more than a claim which is false can be proven.

People frequently misuse "refuted" to mean "I made some flimsy attempt at a refutation which nobody believed for a minute", so you might have picked up the idea that "refuted" just means "was argued against", but that is not what the word is supposed to mean.
 
That's exactly what it is, in fact.

The meaning of the term "refuted" is "shown to be wrong". If a claim has been refuted then that claim is wrong, because a claim that is true cannot be refuted any more than a claim which is false can be proven.

People frequently misuse "refuted" to mean "I made some flimsy attempt at a refutation which nobody believed for a minute", so you might have picked up the idea that "refuted" just means "was argued against", but that is not what the word is supposed to mean.

I believe our british friend was trying to say that just because his point is wrong doesn't make your point "right". So if I say Koko was Rudi's accomplice and someone refutes that it doesn't mean his idea that the kids did it is correct or right. But, my Mensa membership is lost in the mail so I might be wrong.
 
I believe our british friend was trying to say that just because his point is wrong doesn't make your point "right". So if I say Koko was Rudi's accomplice and someone refutes that it doesn't mean his idea that the kids did it is correct or right. But, my Mensa membership is lost in the mail so I might be wrong.

What makes you think Vixen is British? His/her latest post was at 2:41am our time.
 
What makes you think Vixen is British? His/her latest post was at 2:41am our time.

From her - Did the police coerce her statements? They may well have cut corners. Police are nasty, especially in nasty crimes. If they are convinced they have the perpetrator they might well bend over backwards to nail that person. However, there are safeguards and procedures in place. Whilst some cops might breach protocol, we would hope that somewhere along the line is a safeguard or controls that a bad cop cannot succeed in the long term.
 
From her - Did the police coerce her statements? They may well have cut corners. Police are nasty, especially in nasty crimes. If they are convinced they have the perpetrator they might well bend over backwards to nail that person. However, there are safeguards and procedures in place. Whilst some cops might breach protocol, we would hope that somewhere along the line is a safeguard or controls that a bad cop cannot succeed in the long term.

...

I am beginning to realise that in Italy, anything goes. What we expect as rigorous reasoning in the higher courts of England & Wales doesn't apply as a model in Italy.

...

I see you are right. "Realise" spelt the correct way. I didn't know that "whilst" was alien to the US.
 
Last edited:
I see you are right. "Realise" spelt the correct way. I didn't know that "whilst" was alien to the US.

It is. I refute the use of another mangled word (whilst) by pure English language speakers of the USA! :p

We use the correct while.
 
Vixen posted at 2:41am (Sunday, London time). I think she was out late Saturday night and just got home from the club library. :p

Right, Jackie?

Yes it could her or SA. But SA was coming around a bit to the truth or at least the ruling before .org went dark.
 
Unbeknownst to you, nobody here uses 'whilst' :D

Whilst I wait for you cretins to sort it out..... can we get back to Vixen's implied claim that Stefanoni's DNA forensics is still the gold standard for the Kercher murder case?

Or Vixen's implied claim that the March 2015 ISC overturned the convictions on the slimmest of technicalities?

..... whilst none of that is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom