• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
You may have missed it bagels, but Mach has provided a wonderfully inventive time line for the actual act of murder itself.

It may take me a while to figure out how to fish it out from these threads, but Mach's version included Amanda and Raf stabbing Meredith, and then immediately running out of the room, so as not to step in any of the blood that spewed forth from her wounds.

Mach made a bold effort to account for data both real and imagined.

Oh alright, i give up; it was completely silly and childish, and made me feel bad for him. I felt guilty repeating it, except its so idiotic I can't resist, and I know its wrong, but I can't help myself.

It's bizarre reading your posts saying that EVERYONE else is dishonest. If the things you wrote weren't so despicable, I'd feel sorry for you. I KNOW...not think that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. And that both of them are VERY GOOD people.

I personally think you are in dire need of counseling and psychological help. You'd do well to do what BR Mull did and that is put this all behind you.

It really doesn't matter how you twist the motivation. It actually doesn't matter what they wrote. The fact is Amanda and Raffaele were declared innocent of any involvement in Meredith's murder and NOTHING can or will change that. Raffaele and Amanda are free and their many friends are thankful for that.

The question I have is what does the future have for you? Can you give up this obsession and find something more productive?
 
It actually doesn't matter what they wrote. The fact is Amanda and Raffaele were declared innocent of any involvement in Meredith's murder and NOTHING can or will change that. Raffaele and Amanda are free and their many friends are thankful for that.

The question I have is what does the future have for you? Can you give up this obsession and find something more productive?

Exactly. What if everything M. says is ironclad true?

Marasca still cleared them definitively. They are getting on with their lives. Why aren't we all?
 
It's bizarre reading your posts saying that EVERYONE else is dishonest. If the things you wrote weren't so despicable, I'd feel sorry for you. I KNOW...not think that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. And that both of them are VERY GOOD people.

I personally think you are in dire need of counseling and psychological help. You'd do well to do what BR Mull did and that is put this all behind you.

It really doesn't matter how you twist the motivation. It actually doesn't matter what they wrote. The fact is Amanda and Raffaele were declared innocent of any involvement in Meredith's murder and NOTHING can or will change that. Raffaele and Amanda are free and their many friends are thankful for that.

The question I have is what does the future have for you? Can you give up this obsession and find something more productive?

This is directed at Mach, not me, right?
 
Exactly. What if everything M. says is ironclad true?

Marasca still cleared them definitively. They are getting on with their lives. Why aren't we all?

I must admit I want to read a human translated version of the motivation. But it doesn't matter. I want to see what the ECHR does etc. But even that doesn't matter.

It's over and we all need to say good night. Good night Bill, Good night Vixen, Good night Mach.Good night John boy.
 
I must admit I want to read a human translated version of the motivation. But it doesn't matter. I want to see what the ECHR does etc. But even that doesn't matter.

It's over and we all need to say good night. Good night Bill, Good night Vixen, Good night Mach.Good night John boy.

There are plenty of other people in prison who are wrongful convicted including a number of women, if that is a particular concern of yours? Just saying that you should not stop being concerned about the general issue.
 
There are plenty of other people in prison who are wrongful convicted including a number of women, if that is a particular concern of yours? Just saying that you should not stop being concerned about the general issue.

Good point, but I think that might be OT for the Knox/Sollecito thread.
 
Why should the narrative be "linear"? Why multiple parallel possibilities are not allowed? The fact that it is non-contradictory should be sufficient, I don't see why it should be "linear".

You could start by indicating how Amanda and Guede contacted each other. You could then go on to explain why there is no evidence of her in Kercher's room ("She ran out the door" doesn't cut it) at least equivalent to the evidence found for Guede. You could also cite, if you can find it, your best evidence that Meredith disapproved of Amanda and Amanda was driven to a murderous rage by her. Perhaps you will also consider the perplexing and far fetched notion that Amanda brought a bread knife to the cottage when the cottage contained plenty of knives and why there is no evidence that she did. Furthermore, you might also explain how Raffaele managed to leave a tiny trace of himself in a mixture on the metal bra clasp yet did not leave any on the bra or elsewhere on Kercher's body nor shoe prints in blood - nothing.
 
How can it ever be non-contradictory? Amanda brings a kitchen knife to a murder she isn't planning. She invites an accomplice she can't know in advance is available. Meredith dies while computer activity engages on Raffaele's computer. Rudy Guede shows up on CCTV without his accomplices. The witness of extraordinary accuracy gives an account which offers an alibi for the duration of the crime. These are just a few of the insurmountable problems with constructing any sort of coherent guilt narrative.

Bagels you can be so funny. Seriously, though...
 
M. I simply disbelieve you that you were shot in 2001.

I am now being forwarded, unsolicited, info on that event. Even people who believe you on other things are trashing you on that claim.

Give it up.
 
<snip>The fact that you question "what" motivates me, actually reveals that you have probably just an utter ignorance about Italy. You fail to see the ideological faction and identify the part of society I belong to.I am not motivated by any of the people you think I "defend".
I am motivated by my enemy. It's my ideology, my feeling of justice and truth what motivates me. The "enemy" is obviously not Amanda Knox, who is a "nobody" (Hannah Arendt); the enemy is a corrupt part of the society I live in, and the aggressive foreign vultures who take advantage of it. I am motivated by what motivates Roberto Saviano, Giulio Cavalli, Giuseppe Fava, Lirio Abbate, Federica Angeli.... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

A very clearly stated prejudice, leading to confirmation bias. Nice to see a PGP finally admit to being motivated by hatred, though.
 
A very clearly stated prejudice, leading to confirmation bias. Nice to see a PGP finally admit to being motivated by hatred, though.

This is quite an idiotic comment.

Inability to understand appears to be adamant. Your prejudice, ignorance and presumption appear to be an airtight system.
I recall when you theorised that the fact that the SC declared some statements not usable, this was a "proof" that they were taken illegally.
Let's always bear in mind that your reasoning functions at such level.
 
Machiavelli said:
I am motivated by my enemy. It's my ideology, my feeling of justice and truth what motivates me. The "enemy" is obviously not Amanda Knox, who is a "nobody" (Hannah Arendt); the enemy is a corrupt part of the society I live in, and the aggressive foreign vultures who take advantage of it. I am motivated by what motivates Roberto Saviano, Giulio Cavalli, Giuseppe Fava, Lirio Abbate, Federica Angeli.... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

Mary_H said:
A very clearly stated prejudice, leading to confirmation bias. Nice to see a PGP finally admit to being motivated by hatred, though.

This is quite an idiotic comment.
Inability to understand appears to be adamant. Your prejudice, ignorance and presumption appear to be an airtight system.
I recall when you theorised that the fact that the SC declared some statements not usable, this was a "proof" that they were taken illegally.
Let's always bear in mind that your reasoning functions at such level.
You say you are motivated by your enemy. You say you are motivated by hatred.

Your enemy is the "corrupt part of society" you believe you live in.

This is a prejudice. This leads to confirmation bias. So one can only agree with Mary H....

Finally, someone from your side of the fence is honest about what is driving your agenda. And.... you call that observation "idiotic"?
 
You could start by indicating how Amanda and Guede contacted each other. You could then go on to explain why there is no evidence of her in Kercher's room ("She ran out the door" doesn't cut it) at least equivalent to the evidence found for Guede. You could also cite, if you can find it, your best evidence that Meredith disapproved of Amanda and Amanda was driven to a murderous rage by her. Perhaps you will also consider the perplexing and far fetched notion that Amanda brought a bread knife to the cottage when the cottage contained plenty of knives and why there is no evidence that she did. Furthermore, you might also explain how Raffaele managed to leave a tiny trace of himself in a mixture on the metal bra clasp yet did not leave any on the bra or elsewhere on Kercher's body nor shoe prints in blood - nothing.

No this is not how a reasoning works.
The reasoning works starting from collecting the evidence, that is collect the findings which contain information.
(does not start with a series of answers to the point that appear blank to you, which you frame subjectively and arbitrarily).
When I say information, I mean that findings need to be considered as for their logical value, which includes always weighing the plausibility and probability of the alternative theory. So that a conclusion may well derive from the absence of plausible alternative.

The assumption that there is no evidence o Knox in the room is also false. The fact that she is a female -to start with - would explain the impossibility to find her DNA on the victim's body or on spots where there is Meredith's blood.
The fact that Guede's DNA evidence is minimal, and of the same magnitude and quality of Sollecito's DNA, should be acknowledged by any honest person.
The fact that there can be murder where no DNA of the stabber is found - especially if there are multiple perpetrators - shold also be acknowledged as normal.
The fact that there is Knox's lamp inside the room is evidence of her on the murder scene, and the fact that her blood is found in suspicious circumstances and her DNA is found on blood spots of the victim and on multiple luminol stains mixed with the victim's DNA, even in areas of the house where Knox was not supposed to leave DNA, is also evidence of Knox on the scene of crime.
The fact that there are luminol stains and footprints linkable to Knox, because of their shape, location, and peculiarities (not in trail), should also be considered, at least potentially, as physical evidence of the presence of Knox on the murder scene.

These are example of things that should be assumed when you start looking objectively and honestly. Stating a condition that "there must be physical evidence of Knox inside that room", is prejudice. It's bias.
 
The assumption that there is no evidence o Knox in the room is also false. The fact that she is a female -to start with - would explain the impossibility to find her DNA on the victim's body or on spots where there is Meredith's blood.
The fact that Guede's DNA evidence is minimal, and of the same magnitude and quality of Sollecito's DNA, should be acknowledged by any honest person.

<....... sinister deletia ........>​

These are example of things that should be assumed when you start looking objectively and honestly. Stating a condition that "there must be physical evidence of Knox inside that room", is prejudice. It's bias.

Sometimes I believe you have really lost it, dude. Do you really believe that because Knox is female means it is impossible to find her DNA on the victim's body? Do you really believe that the evidence against Guede is the same as against Sollecito?

I thought I had heard it all. Now this.
 
Last edited:
You say you are motivated by your enemy. You say you are motivated by hatred.

Your enemy is the "corrupt part of society" you believe you live in.

This is a prejudice. This leads to confirmation bias. So one can only agree with Mary H....

Finally, someone from your side of the fence is honest about what is driving your agenda. And.... you call that observation "idiotic"?

Yes it's plain idiotic.

It's the same of accusing the Palestinians of hating the Israeli Zionists because of an anti-Semitic prejudice.
Indeed the Palestinians hate the Israeli Zionists.

But hatred is the effect of something, not the cause of it.

I guess very easilly that the pro-Knoxes will try to subvert the causal order of things: instead of admitting that someone hates them because they are thugs, they will state that someone sees them as thugs because they hate them.

It's a childish denial.

The reason why I see an enemy, is not because I am prejudiced. On the contrary. It's because I don't share yours.
Prejudice is ignorance. But the hatred of Palestinains does not originate from ignorance about the Zionists, it originate from the knowledge of Zionism.

Mary H just proves to build idiotic reasoning, based on ignorance, also elsewhere, as in the example that I have cited: for example where she states, adamantly, that interrogation must have been illegal because the SC declared them non usable.
This is a patent example of prejudicial thinking. And this is the model of Mary H thinking on this point too.

Mary H (and you) basically call "prejudice" the fact that I have a knowledge of facts from a point of view that you don't have and don't understand, and leads to a view of facts that is irreconciliable with yours.

I could guess you would pick up the word "hatred", this is why I added provocatively the line, saying if you like you can interpret it and call it that way. Because you don't understand the difference of ideology, of contexts and realities. People fail to understand why someone hates them, because they are shielded by their own ignorance they think hatred is a prejudice.
What "motivates" me is certainly more complex than what I expressed in forum lines. What I find curious, and what I note, is that a poster (analemma) was telling about her speculations of what "motivates" me and presented tortuous theories: wondering if I try to defend the "honor of the Judiciary", or if I'm a police officer defending some particular career, etc. That poster was only able to imagine "utilitaristic" motives, some rather disingenuous or cynical motivation.
In fact the object of my interest is narratives. Conflicting narratives, false narratives. Nobody seem to consider that what "motivetes" me (which is what motivates Palestinians, too) may be truth.
The perception and knowledge of truth is a key factor at the origin of my interest in the case.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom