Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Canada. Beautiful Canada! That, we learned at Machiavelli's expense, is where the girls all smell of maple syrup.

Canada. Descartes called it "a few acres of snow". In 1947 the temperature in Ottawa was colder than a summer day on Mars (-67F). It's northernmost settlement is 817 kms from the North Pole (Alert, Nunavut).

Canada has 4/7th of the world's coastline.... Indonesia comes second with 1/7th of the world's coastline. We have 10% of the world's forests. Canada is by far the largest oil exporter to the USA, outpacing Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined. (It pays for our healthcare!)

And as I have said before, ad nauseam, we have the biggest English population in the world which has never lost a war, and the largest French population never to have surrendered to Germany.

 

[Strozzi]

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

Sociopath? A sociopath doesn't need a deep reason for his behavior?

Would that apply to a prosecutor who falsely accuses innocent defendants and fantasizes their guilt through his extreme interpretations of evidence? As in "I'll show you. You little slut!". Stab, stab.

 

[Vixen]

Can someone please tell me why "psychopathology" is even being discussed in this case?

I know.... it's because Giuliano Mignini ventured into that territory when his "Satanic rite" theory, and then his "sex-hgame gone wrong" theory collapsed in court.

Vixen says it is the courts' job to listen to listen to what the experts have to say on these subjects. Ok: which expert at trial talked about psychopaths, sociopaths, or psychopathology?

That's right: none. No less than Machiavelli summarized for us Mignini's 2009 closing argument, which as far as I know was the first mention of it; the first mention that there might be something psychologically-off about Amanda Knox, some sort of insane jealousy against Meredith.

Did Mignini argue this because an expert, at trial, gave evidence? Was there a prison psychological-evaluation? I mean, they had her in prison for two years up until Mignini's closing....

What? You mean there was none? That's right.... there was none.

Yet posters can come on to obscure webservices like ISF, a full month after AK's and RS's complete exoneration and still talk about it as if it has anything to do with anything.
Why is it even being talked about at this point? For heaven's sake, half the PMF sites are now behind an iron curtain.....

Bill, you yourself said in msg #4587:
q/
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. /uq

 

[Vixen]

Sociopath? A sociopath doesn't need a deep reason for his behavior?

Would that apply to a prosecutor who falsely accuses innocent defendants and fantasizes their guilt through his extreme interpretations of evidence? As in "I'll show you. You little slut!". Stab, stab.

Is it not the prosecutor's job to build up a prosecutor's case. After all, Amanda & Raf were at the scene of the crime and kept changing their stories.

 

[Vixen]

Canada. Descartes called it "a few acres of snow". In 1947 the temperature in Ottawa was colder than a summer day on Mars (-67F). It's northernmost settlement is 817 kms from the North Pole (Alert, Nunavut).

Canada has 4/7th of the world's coastline.... Indonesia comes second with 1/7th of the world's coastline. We have 10% of the world's forests. Canada is by far the largest oil exporter to the USA, outpacing Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined. (It pays for our healthcare!)

And as I have said before, ad nauseam, we have the biggest English population in the world which has never lost a war, and the largest French population never to have surrendered to Germany.

Did they win the Red Indian [sic] & Canadian War ? Against the Red Coats, I believe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, you yourself said in msg #4587:
q/
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. /uq

No, that was what Massei said. His phrase, "choice for evil" is a theological motivation; something anyone, really, could do regardless of psychology.

The question remains unanswered. Like many asked of you which remain unanswered. Why are YOU bringing this up, with no evidence, other than that a lack of evidence suddenly becomes a justification for saying it.... wtf?

 

[Bill Williams]

Did they win the Red Indian [sic] & Canadian War ? Against the Red Coats, I believe.

They weren't Canadians then.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it not the prosecutor's job to build up a prosecutor's case. After all, Amanda & Raf were at the scene of the crime and kept changing their stories.

What exactly do you mean by this? I suspect your language is (worryingly) imprecise here.


1) Is this a statement of opinion or a statement of fact?

2) When you say "at the scene of the crime", do you mean that they were there at the time the crime was committed, or that they were there the following day?

3) When you say "kept changing their stories", could you elaborate? How often did they "change their stories", and under what precise circumstances?

Thanks

 

[Bill Williams]

Is it not the prosecutor's job to build up a prosecutor's case. After all, Amanda & Raf were at the scene of the crime and kept changing their stories.

They were, were they? Why didn't you say so in the first place? Of course there is evidence of their presence..... which you will not list.

ETA - what LondonJohn said!

 

[acbytesla]

Druggies don't need "trusting bonds". [

Wrong, While a single druggie might in a haze kill someone...say with a gun, they are unlikely going to coordinate such a crime and then cover for the other for 4 years.

What about Leopold & Loeb? There are plenty of privileged persons who ended up in prison.

Leopold and Loeb had known each other for years and both of them folded quickly and confessed, but both said that the other had killed Bobby Franks, while the other had drove. Another aspect, is they had planned the murder together for some time.

IIRC Bonnie was a talented manager of her criminal outfit.

You have watched too many movies. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bonnie Parker planned any of the crimes carried out by the Barrow gang. In fact, one of the other members of the Barrow gang testified that he never saw Bonnie fire a gun at anyone.

 

[Vixen]

I am not sure I understand your position any more. Are you arguing that AK/RS are factually guilty but the ISC let them off so we need to accept that?

Are you arguing that AK/RS are factually innocent but sometimes a criminal justice system makes mistakes and for the sake of societal dependence on the rule of law it is necessary to let incorrect verdicts stand?

Are you arguing whether AK/RS are factually guilty or not the ISC made a mistake when it reversed the previous guilty decision because it went outside the legal limits place on it to only consider technical details of the case? If this is your view and the ISC had based its decision on the notion that AK's initial statement should have been excluded from the trial even if it was introduced by civil attorneys you would consider that a legitimate issue for the ISC to consider and therefore they may not have made a mistake? How about the issue that the Guede verdict was used against RS/AK without their attorneys ever being being present during the Guede trial. Was that the kind of thing you think the ISC should have considered? And of course there is the issue that has been mentioned several times that Italian appeals don't seem to be limited in practice or law to technical details.

It was acquitted on one of the bases as a section 530 II. It does not have the jurisdiction to do that. If there was a problem with the evidence, it should have been remitted back to the Second Instance court (appeals). This is an error of law.

But, as Hellmann famously said, "Anything is possible".

Especially, it seems, in Italy.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong, While a single druggie might in a haze kill someone...say with a gun, they are unlikely going to coordinate such a crime and then cover for the other for 4 years.

Leopold and Loeb had known each other for years and both of them folded quickly and confessed, but both said that the other had killed Bobby Franks, while the other had drove. Another aspect, is they had planned the murder together for some time.



You have watched too many movies. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bonnie Parker planned any of the crimes carried out by the Barrow gang. In fact, one of the other members of the Barrow gang testified that he never saw Bonnie fire a gun at anyone.

Well no, she was like Charles Manson: she directed it all.

 

[LondonJohn]

And Vixen, would you be able to post your general theory of what you think actually happened (or most likely happened, if you prefer) in Perugia on the night of 1st November 2007?

e.g:

- Do you think Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the attack and murder on Kercher? If so, why do you think that, and what evidence supports that belief?

- Do you think the break-in was staged or real? If staged, who do you think staged it? If real, who do you think committed it?

- What approximate time do you think Kercher was attacked and killed? Why that time?

- Do you think Knox went to Quintavalle's shop on the early morning after the murder? If you do think so, why?

- What do you think happened in the police interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on 5th/6th November?


This is categorically not a "list of demands". It would merely be interesting to see what sort of views/positions you hold on these sorts of things.

 

[Vixen]

What exactly do you mean by this? I suspect your language is (worryingly) imprecise here.


1) Is this a statement of opinion or a statement of fact?

2) When you say "at the scene of the crime", do you mean that they were there at the time the crime was committed, or that they were there the following day?

3) When you say "kept changing their stories", could you elaborate? How often did they "change their stories", and under what precise circumstances?

Thanks

When the police arrived. This is factual.

 

[acbytesla]

Is it not the prosecutor's job to build up a prosecutor's case. After all, Amanda & Raf were at the scene of the crime and kept changing their stories.

Outside of the interrogations of November 5th/ 6th, when did they EVER change their stories?

 

[Vixen]

They weren't Canadians then.

rofl

 

[acbytesla]

When the police arrived. This is factual.

They called the police. So?

 

[Strozzi]

What have I read? The initial newspaper reports, then virtually all the books on the market, incl WTBH and HB.

Whether I believe Curatolo or Quintaville - or indded any witness - is irrelevant. That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected.

Why? Allow me to point you, for example, to the Shrien Dewani trial, accused of conspiring to murder his new wife in South Africa. Now, on paper, his behaviour looked suspicious, he had clandestine meetings with the taxi driver, whom he gave SAR8K (?) "for a helicopter ride". He then claimed to be mentally ill for three years.

On paper it certainly looked grave for Dewani, especially with SA demanding extradition. Come the trial, we soon saw a very different picture, with the key witnesses showing such unreliable and false testimony at every step, the judge was forced to throw it out.

I don't care what they do in Mexico, but it is unsound to judge someone "on paper."

It is up to the expert witnesses to review the quality of the DNA evidence. Did not the defense cross examine Curatolo and Quintaville?

At the end of a trial, it is all down to what testimony, on balance, the judge/s prefer to accept.

Vixen, this is a discussion board where we can critically discuss the case. You are allowed to have an opinion.

Speaking of Curatolo, here is a question for you -

Are you aware that as soon as the neighborhood journalist who had, for the better part of a year, repeatedly encouraged both Quintavale and Curatolo to remember something juicy about Knox succeeded in inducing Curatolo to recall seeing Knox and Sollecito loiter at the railing for two hours on the cold (Holloween) night, Curatolo disappeared from public view? Do you know where he went? Are you familiar with that?

 

[davefoc]

It was acquitted on one of the bases as a section 530 II. It does not have the jurisdiction to do that. If there was a problem with the evidence, it should have been remitted back to the Second Instance court (appeals). This is an error of law.

...

As somebody uninformed about the intricacies of Italian law I don't have much to say except maybe you're right. It seems like others have disagreed with you in this thread on this point and perhaps I need to understand their view better before I come to any opinion about this.

 

[Vixen]

Outside of the interrogations of November 5th/ 6th, when did they EVER change their stories?

Kate Manley DAILY MIRROR: Raf told her they were at a party on the murder night.

Amanda said she was with Raf when thingy called, but phone reports show she was out.

Said they had dinner before 8:42, after which the pipes burst, and then changed dinner time to eleven pm.

Amanda said she was home with Raf all evening through to 10:00am next day.

Raf himself called a press conference during the current appeal to say he couldn't account for Amanda's wherabouts between 8:45 and 1:00am.

In her email home, Amanda claimed she was frantically worried about Mez to the extent of banging on her door and climbing on a window ledge to look in. Battistelli reported otherwise. Amanda claimed to him, Mez' door was always "closed" implying there was nothing to worry about (when the cops appeared).

etc.