Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

What the Americans now call PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, they used to call battle fatigue. General Patton called it cowardice and had the poor bastards shot.

The Brits, in their infinite sense of superiority (!) called it "Lack of Moral Fibre". If an LMF appeared on your service record, you could not get a job once free from service, and had to emigrate to Canada. (No comments, please.)

Ah! I wondered why I had so many cousins in Toronto and Vancouver.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah! I wondered why I had so many cousins in Toronto and Vancouver.

I now like Grinder better than both you and carbonjam72.

 

[Vixen]

I don't belong to four sigma, but do belong to a 99.9 society.

Why is it even relevant? I was asked if I had belonged to a forum before, and I replied, "only Mensa" (which is a 98% society). I wasn't
trying to make out I was better than anyone else.

However, it does frustrate me your belief it is not possible for me to think for myself, or that I must be male.

Please can people desist.

 

[Vixen]

You think? Does any motive for either Amanda who had known Mez for 6 weeks or Raffaele who had known her for a week make sense? Keep in mind that the roommates testified that they got along and that they never saw them argue.

If you recall Massei said it was of "futile motive". A sociopath doesn't really need any deep reason.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't belong to four sigma, but do belong to a 99.9 society.

Why is it even relevant? I was asked if I had belonged to a forum before, and I replied, "only Mensa" (which is a 98% society). I wasn't
trying to make out I was better than anyone else.

However, it does frustrate me your belief it is not possible for me to think for myself, or that I must be male.

Please can people desist.

Excuse me, it was a simple guess, no harm meant. You set the record straight.

Hence Madam, may I ask where's my helping of Hellman gaffes?

 

[Vixen]

Carbo, I will certainly look at it ASAP.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you recall Massei said it was of "futile motive". A sociopath doesn't really need any deep reason.

Massei said the motive was Rudy's, with which AK and RS joined in, in an a "choice for evil", otherwise unexplained.

There you go again.... misrepresenting things. You were trying to slip in psychopathology in through the back door. Massei did not believe Mignini's claims of psychopathology, or he'd have included it in his motivations report, and he wouldn't have written what he wrote about what he DID think was the motive.

Rudy's lust.

 

[carbonjam72]

Carbo, I will certainly look at it ASAP.

Much appreciated. It would make a fascinating comparison to see the issues Hellman was criticized for by Chieffi, as compared with what Hellman wrote.

I think you had made the point that Hellman was shredded by ISC in 2013 Chieffi, so it would be useful to examine that criticism more precisely.

btw, in your experience, do Mensanites (Mensans?) generally have any opinion of the clinical effectiveness of faith healing?

 

[carbonjam72]

Massei said the motive was Rudy's, with which AK and RS joined in, in an a "choice for evil", otherwise unexplained.

There you go again.... misrepresenting things. You were trying to slip in psychopathology in through the back door. Massei did not believe Mignini's claims of psychopathology, or he'd have included it in his motivations report, and he wouldn't have written what he wrote about what he DID think was the motive.

Rudy's lust.

I thought Massei went out of his way to say Amanda and Raf were two normal people who just made a choice for evil? I don't recall him using the phrase sociopath, or implying as you say Bill, psychopathology.

 

[davefoc]

Your second option is the most likely by a lot but I think it overstates the case against the DNA sample on the bra hook.

The most likely explanation for the detection of Sollecito DNA on the hook was that in some way biological material from Sollecito was actually on the bra hook. Sollecito's DNA was detected at a significantly lower concentration than Kercher's but it was significantly higher than the DNA detected from the 2 or 3 other male donors.

It may be the strongest piece of evidence against Sollecito and it can not be determined how it got there. Of course, because the testing was done by the same person that produced the bogus DNA results from the knife the test result is suspect. And the fact that the test couldn't be redone because of actions taken by Stefanoni reduces its credibility as a piece of evidence even further.

And the fact that there isn't a plausble scenario whereby Sollecito could have been in the room when Kercher was murdered where he left absolutely no other trace of himself strongly suggests however the Sollecito DNA ended up on the bra hook it wasn't during Kercher's murder.

My only point here is that it appears to be unknowable how Sollecito DNA came to be on the bra hook. There are many possible ways that the DNA could have come to be on the hook that don't include Sollecito participating in the murder of Kercher. But that particular piece of evidence can not be discounted completely when it is examined by itself. This is different than the rest of the evidence against AK and RS which seems to be falsifiable in isolation because of implausible details associated with that evidence.

There was surprisingly limited DNA of Guede, when you consider the sheer quantity of blood found. Sam Mandez got life without parole on the basis of one fingerprint matched after FOUR years.

First a little background on me here. My knowledge of this case is a small fraction of many of the other posters in this thread. Secondly, the DNA on the bra clasp was of particular interest to me because it is the only piece of evidence that I have noticed that can't easily be dismissed. I think it can be dismissed in the context of the overall evidence, but I don't think that any of the common non-guilt explanations for it are convincing although since I don't think that Sollecito is guilty, I think at least one of the non-guilt explanations is correct.

I don't agree with your idea that there was surprisingly little DNA of Guede when you consider the sheer quantity of blood found. It was Kercher whose throat was cut and was the source of the blood. I wouldn't expect that Guede's DNA would be found in any of it. Guede's DNA was found where one would expect to find Guede's DNA at concentration levels that the test results were uncontroversial. In addition, Guede's foot prints at the scene were damning so even without DNA there can be no question of Guede's guilt.

I guess your point here was that the almost complete lack of evidence for Sollecito in Kercher's bedroom shouldn't be considered conclusive as to Sollecito's innocence because the police might have missed it. That idea pushes the envelope on what can be known to a certainty. Absolutely no evidence of Solecito's presence in the room is unexplainable if he was there. There are no footprints attributable to Sollecito in the murder room. There was no DNA of Sollecito detected on the bra strap the way Guede's was. There was no DNA detected in the feces in the toilet the way Guede's was. And of course there is no evidence of Sollecito DNA in Kercher's vagina the way there was of Guede.

The only DNA detected of Sollecito was on the bra clasp that was found a long time after the initial evidence was collected. One of the important things I have come to understand about DNA evidence is the difference between DNA evidence where the nature of the source can be identified and DNA trace evidence where the amount is so tiny that the source can't be identified. The DNA detected of Sollecito falls into the latter class. That is no blood, skin cells, semen or any other biological material identified as the source. That is very different if DNA from Sollecito's blood or semen had been found. The existence of those kinds of biological material would be strongly suggestive of Sollecito guilt. That isn't what is reported to be the case here. The DNA was a trace result that has many possible innocent explanations and some explanations that involve active fraud on the part of the police (which is suggested by the nature and timing of the finding of the bra clasp). The lack of Sollecito's DNA on the bra straps strongly suggests that Sollecito's DNA did not end up on the bra clasp during the crime. How was it that Sollecito's DNA ended up on the bra clasp without any being found on the strap? When Guede ripped the bra off Kercher his DNA was found on the strap but somehow Sollecito's DNA isn't where it is most likely to be if he had participated in this murder and it is only found on the bra clasp?

Where do you draw the line as to permissable [I took this to mean admissible] evidence?

That is an interesting question and I don't have any particular expertise on the issue. A great deal of what Mignini presented as evidence was of such a low quality I am not sure I would have allowed it if I had been a judge. Mignini applied the throw a lot of spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks theory of prosecution. If I had been on the jury, I would have found that approach difficult to deal with. I would attempt to remain objective in the face of an over the top prosecution which is presenting completely implausible evidence. Are they doing that because their whole case is bogus or buried somewhere in the evidence that is being presented is there a plausible case for guilt?

ETA: I also think this case demonstrates strongly what a bad idea it is that Italy allows the simultaneous prosecution of a civil and criminal case. Evidence that was specifically excluded for the criminal trial makes its way into the criminal trial via the simultaneous civil trial. That seems like a really bad idea, but what made it even worse was the tag team nature of the prosecution as the Kercher family attorney and Lumumba's attorney were allowed great leeway to malign the defendants based on what was likely to have been their self interest in the collection of contingency fees in the event of a guilty verdict.

 

[acbytesla]

If you recall Massei said it was of "futile motive". A sociopath doesn't really need any deep reason.

I read what Massei said, but he proved that he was stupid. This would require not 1, not 2, but 3 sociopaths who barely knew each other. Sociopaths are self centered, they are not stupid. Even if they were all crazy and there is no evidence of that, at least two of them are of above average intelligence.

But where is there proof that Amanda or Raffaele ever demonstrated sociopathic behavior...before or after the crime?

 

[Kauffer]

Carbo, I will certainly look at it ASAP.

It's Mr Carbo to you.

 

[Vixen]

I agree with you about the media entirely. You say you have a good idea what happened based on your own perceptions. I'm curious, what do you believe happened and what information are you basing that idea?

That's for you to ask and for me to tell.

 

[acbytesla]

That's for you to ask and for me to tell.

Didn't I just do that?

 

[Vixen]

I read what Massei said, but he proved that he was stupid. This would require not 1, not 2, but 3 sociopaths who barely knew each other. Sociopaths are self centered, they are not stupid. Even if they were all crazy and there is no evidence of that, at least two of them are of above average intelligence.

But where is there proof that Amanda or Raffaele ever demonstrated sociopathic behavior...before or after the crime?

Many, many psychopaths have a high IQ, as you state. Rudy is one damaged character. Sociopaths engage in reckless behaviour, they are glib and shallow. They make good con artists because they are good at mimicking emotions. However, they lack genuine empathy due to an inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Because of this deficiency, they can be ruthless and show a strange lack of remorse or compassion. They are users. Their only genuine emotion is rage.

Symptoms of sociopathy are casual lying, using people, and recklessness. They will often show asocial behaviour, crime, drug-taking and casual sex. They are master manipulators, who cause chaos wherever they go.

Avoid them like the plague, or they will bring you to your knees.

Sociopaths often show symptoms at an early age. For example, cruelty to animals.

As it is a personality disorder and not a mental illness, thus, there is little motivation for them to change their behaviour.

Bring one or two sociopaths together, or more (think Charles Manson, or Bonnie & Clyde) and the result can be particularly tragic.

Not all sociopaths are criminals, of course. There are many in business. When I come across one, I avoid them like the plague. These are the ppl who manipulate others to their detriment.

 

[Vixen]

Massei said the motive was Rudy's, with which AK and RS joined in, in an a "choice for evil", otherwise unexplained.

There you go again.... misrepresenting things. You were trying to slip in psychopathology in through the back door. Massei did not believe Mignini's claims of psychopathology, or he'd have included it in his motivations report, and he wouldn't have written what he wrote about what he DID think was the motive.

Rudy's lust.

Massei would not need to attribute psychological motive. It does not mean there is no psychopathology. All the criminal service is interested in is securing a criminal conviction. It is up to the defense to plead psychological mitigation. They do not, of course, as it gets scant sympathy from the courts.

 

[Vixen]

Much appreciated. It would make a fascinating comparison to see the issues Hellman was criticized for by Chieffi, as compared with what Hellman wrote.

I think you had made the point that Hellman was shredded by ISC in 2013 Chieffi, so it would be useful to examine that criticism more precisely.

btw, in your experience, do Mensanites (Mensans?) generally have any opinion of the clinical effectiveness of faith healing?

Most mensans I know are staunch atheists and thus would likely scoff at the idea.

 

[Kauffer]

Many, many psychopaths have a high IQ, as you state. Rudy is one damaged character. Sociopaths engage in reckless behaviour, they are glib and shallow. They make good con artists because they are good at mimicking emotions. However, they lack genuine empathy due to an inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Because of this deficiency, they can be ruthless and show a strange lack of remorse or compassion. They are users. Their only genuine emotion is rage.

Symptoms of sociopathy are casual lying, using people, and recklessness. They will often show asocial behaviour, crime, drug-taking and casual sex. They are master manipulators, who cause chaos wherever they go.

Avoid them like the plague, or they will bring you to your knees.

Sociopaths often show symptoms at an early age. For example, cruelty to animals.

As it is a personality disorder and not a mental illness, thus, there is little motivation for them to change their behaviour.

Bring one or two sociopaths together, or more (think Charles Manson, or Bonnie & Clyde) and the result can be particularly tragic.

Not all sociopaths are criminals, of course. There are many in business. When I come across one, I avoid them like the plague. These are the ppl who manipulate others to their detriment.

What does any of this have to do with the case?

 

[js202]

Not all sociopaths are criminals, of course. There are many in business.

Correction: Many sociopaths in business are white collar criminals. And it's not out of the question that Giuliano Mignini is one in a black robe.

 

[Kaosium]

Many, many psychopaths have a high IQ, as you state. Rudy is one damaged character. Sociopaths engage in reckless behaviour, they are glib and shallow. They make good con artists because they are good at mimicking emotions. However, they lack genuine empathy due to an inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Because of this deficiency, they can be ruthless and show a strange lack of remorse or compassion. They are users. Their only genuine emotion is rage.

Symptoms of sociopathy are casual lying, using people, and recklessness. They will often show asocial behaviour, crime, drug-taking and casual sex. They are master manipulators, who cause chaos wherever they go.

Avoid them like the plague, or they will bring you to your knees.

Sociopaths often show symptoms at an early age. For example, cruelty to animals.

As it is a personality disorder and not a mental illness, thus, there is little motivation for them to change their behaviour.

Bring one or two sociopaths together, or more (think Charles Manson, or Bonnie & Clyde) and the result can be particularly tragic.

Not all sociopaths are criminals, of course. There are many in business. When I come across one, I avoid them like the plague. These are the ppl who manipulate others to their detriment.

Ironically enough that's an excellent description of (a significant portion of) the ones who generated the mis/disinformation you're relying upon. I wish I could take credit for that, but it was observed before my time by a psych professor from one of the top universities on this side of the pond that used to post in these threads. It explains a lot when you think on it.