Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

"Lol". Have you read either Raf's English language book, or his recent Italian language book?

It's all there.

I read Honour Bound. I have seen an excerpt of the Italian book and it comes out with the same old ******** as to what happened on the morning of the 2.11.2007. Followed by one big pity party.

 

[Bill Williams]

I read Honour Bound. I have seen an excerpt of the Italian book and it comes out with the same old ******** as to what happened on the morning of the 2.11.2007. Followed by one big pity party.

Vixen. You said that Raffaele does not sustain their mutual alibi. I said, "read his book".

Could you at least stick to the subject. What does Raffaele say in his book about their mutual alibi?

 

[Bill Williams]

I'll tell you what. I'll help you develop research skills by letting you google it yourself. I have already spoilt Grinder by giving him links every five minutes and then he doesn't make note of their content.

Even if the lower window was barred, the upper window definitely was not, until a later date. Therefore the climber cheated by hauling himself up by the bars.

It's not honest 'evidence'.

Well, it's not an apology.

But did you see what the climber said - WHEN he hoisted himself up without use of the installed bars? Those bars rob the climber of sill-space, and yet the climb is still doable.

Have you even watched the Channel 5 demonstration?

 

[Bill Williams]

Pot is hardly on a par with Class A addictive cocaine. So Mez took the odd toke in company, when offered. So did Bill Clinton. Raff smoked the stuff all day long.

Mez, Laura and Filomena were in proper relationships, fiancés and boyfriends. Surely you know the difference between that and wanton - potentially dangerous - promiscuity?

When did cocaine enter this? You realize that the arrested had a hair test done for drugs, and it was negative? (You still haven't answered when "prostitution" entered this? But no matter. You are intent on flinging the dirt, no matter what.)

Why do you insist on making things up? Mez was in a "proper" relationship? Her boyfriend would not acknowledge her in public. She was watering the pot plants in the basement suite for the boys. Does that qualify her for the shaming you are intent on? No. For heaven's sake, Vixen, by your standards college dorms all over the world would be war zones and dens of iniquity. Where do you dream this stuff up?

Read Raffaele's book about his pot use. It's all there.

 

[Grinder]

I'll tell you what. I'll help you develop research skills by letting you google it yourself. I have already spoilt Grinder by giving him links every five minutes and then he doesn't make note of their content.

Even if the lower window was barred, the upper window definitely was not, until a later date. Therefore the climber cheated by hauling himself up by the bars.

It's not honest 'evidence'.

Oh I've made note of the content and the sources.

The climber doesn't use the bars for any purpose other than grabbing one of the top bars on the lower window and then pulling with his arms and pushing with his leg and grabs the sill of the upper window.

Perhaps you need to make note of the content of the Ch 5 video.

 

[Grinder]

Pot is hardly on a par with Class A addictive cocaine. So Mez took the odd toke in company, when offered. So did Bill Clinton. Raff smoked the stuff all day long.

Mez, Laura and Filomena were in proper relationships, fiancés and boyfriends. Surely you know the difference between that and wanton - potentially dangerous - promiscuity?

Well aren't we the prudish type.

Mez was sleeping with a guy from downstairs (dipping in company ink) with gaping holes in his ears that grew pot and instead of taking his girlfriend home for the holiday as is proper, he left her behind to water his dope plants.

Mez was into a much harder drug than pot, alcohol. According to Barbie she was arrested for public intoxication while under aged.

Her sex life as with Amanda's has nothing to do with the murder.

Did Filomena marry her "fiance".

The two college girls were regular, normal students.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well aren't we the prudish type.

Mez was sleeping with a guy from downstairs (dipping in company ink) with gaping holes in his ears that grew pot and instead of taking his girlfriend home for the holiday as is proper, he left her behind to water his dope plants.

Mez was into a much harder drug than pot, alcohol. According to Barbie she was arrested for public intoxication while under aged.

Her sex life as with Amanda's has nothing to do with the murder.

Did Filomena marry her "fiance".

The two college girls were regular, normal students.

Slut-shamers divide people into black and white categories. All four of the female residents of the cottage had virtually indistinguishable experiences, with the possible exception of Filomena who was the eldest. The three survivors of Rudy's crime tried their best to conceal the pot use in the cottage. The cops - dirty mindedly - translated a small container of vaseline in Meredith's room as indicative of anal sex, thus it had to have been a sex crime in their minds.

Then again, you as an insider's-insider to the FOA would know this. That last part must be true... I read it somewhere!

 

[LondonJohn]

Here we go around this merry-go-round once more.

1) Read Raffaele's book. His "withdrawal of an alibi" on the night of Nov 5/6 2007 was because no one was clarifying for him that he had to distinguish between Oct 31 and Nov 1st, of the week before. So he caved in, himself conflating the two nights.

Indeed. And it's time to clear up once again the issue around Sollecito's current position regarding Knox's whereabouts. Ready Vixen? Here we go: simply put, it is philosophically impossible for Sollecito to swear unequivocally that Knox was next to him all night in his apartment. Why? Because Sollecito himself was dozing and sleeping for significant parts of that night. Therefore, from Sollecito's perspective it's at least feasible that Knox could have left his apartment that night and come back in, without him ever knowing this on account of him dozing/sleeping. HOWEVER, Sollecito is fully prepared to state that in his opinion Knox was inside his apartment (as he was) for the whole of the night of the murder. It's just that he - quite naturally and logically - is not in a position to swear to Knox's whereabouts, since he did not have eyes on her unflinchingly for the whole night.

I don't see why some people find this so very hard to understand. Well, no, actually I do: the sort of people who are either unable or unprepared to approach this case with logic, intelligence and objectivity find it very hard to understand. Either that, or they do understand it but choose to misrepresent it in order to further their own agenda.

2) The Bruno/Marasca report posits a synoptic narrative to close - a synopsis which blends what the defence/prosecution was claiming. Even the defence admits that Amanda "was there" for her shower mid-morning on Nov 2nd, which is within that timeframe, therefore it makes it into the synopsis. (Why is it that no one, other than you, thinks this is such a damning part of the report? In Italy, even Maresca "gets" that this is not placing them at the scene of the crime during the crime.)

I think that the following bears reiterating very strongly here: The Marasca SC panel wanted if at all possible to avoid contradicting any previous findings of fact as confirmed by other, previous SC panels. If one SC panel contradicts, overrules or strikes out any findings of fact from previous, related SC panels, this opens a whole constitutional can of worms.

So therefore the Marasca SC panel wanted to avoid, for example, stating that in its opinion this was a sole-attacker crime (with Guede being that attacker), and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with it. So it performed an artful sleight-of-hand in which it basically said "Look, even if we accept all the findings of fact from related SC rulings, there's still not enough evidence to prove the guilt of Knox or Sollecito". By doing this, Marasca could avoid the awkward, embarrassing and constitutionally-sensitive problems that would have been raised had he contradicted previous SC rulings. In essence, the Marasca Report clearly indicates that it rejects the "reasoning" of previous SC panels (and the lower courts which those previous SC panels affirmed), but performs a neat trick of stopping short of formally adopting this position. Only - as they say - in Italy......

 

[Bill Williams]

Indeed. And it's time to clear up once again the issue around Sollecito's current position regarding Knox's whereabouts. Ready Vixen? Here we go: simply put, it is philosophically impossible for Sollecito to swear unequivocally that Knox was next to him all night in his apartment. Why? Because Sollecito himself was dozing and sleeping for significant parts of that night. Therefore, from Sollecito's perspective it's at least feasible that Knox could have left his apartment that night and come back in, without him ever knowing this on account of him dozing/sleeping. HOWEVER, Sollecito is fully prepared to state that in his opinion Knox was inside his apartment (as he was) for the whole of the night of the murder. It's just that he - quite naturally and logically - is not in a position to swear to Knox's whereabouts, since he did not have eyes on her unflinchingly for the whole night.

I don't see why some people find this so very hard to understand. Well, no, actually I do: the sort of people who are either unable or unprepared to approach this case with logic, intelligence and objectivity find it very hard to understand. Either that, or they do understand it but choose to misrepresent it in order to further their own agenda.

It's explained a little bit differently in his book. While in solitary confinement he had lots of time to think. He finally came to the conclusion that Amanda couldn't have gone out, even if she'd slipped out while he was asleep.

This was no mere armchair thought-experiment on his part. He was convinced enough of the veracity of his logic, that he staked his personal liberty for the next 25 years on it.

Many moons ago, this point was raised. Without a word of a lie, a guilter said, "Well, how did he know Amanda didn't pick the downstairs lock?" At that point, one might have also said, "Why didn't Amanda climb in through the upper window?"

Anyway, that is all foolishness. But the point being - Raffaele figured it out to no one's satisfaction but his own, and from that point onwards felt honour bound not to throw Knox under a bus.

Vixen could read it in Honor Bound if she wants.

I think that the following bears reiterating very strongly here: The Marasca SC panel wanted if at all possible to avoid contradicting any previous findings of fact as confirmed by other, previous SC panels. If one SC panel contradicts, overrules or strikes out any findings of fact from previous, related SC panels, this opens a whole constitutional can of worms.

So therefore the Marasca SC panel wanted to avoid, for example, stating that in its opinion this was a sole-attacker crime (with Guede being that attacker), and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with it. So it performed an artful sleight-of-hand in which it basically said "Look, even if we accept all the findings of fact from related SC rulings, there's still not enough evidence to prove the guilt of Knox or Sollecito". By doing this, Marasca could avoid the awkward, embarrassing and constitutionally-sensitive problems that would have been raised had he contradicted previous SC rulings. In essence, the Marasca Report clearly indicates that it rejects the "reasoning" of previous SC panels (and the lower courts which those previous SC panels affirmed), but performs a neat trick of stopping short of formally adopting this position. Only - as they say - in Italy......

Indeed, if Marasca wanted to outright challenge former rulings, he would probably have needed to refer the case to a United Sections panel. Whereas that would have perhaps cleared all this up, in my opinion it would not have changed the outcome.

I just wish guilters would read Sections 9.2 and 9.3, where is says clerly that what is to come refers to their "alleged" (or "presumed" in the PMF translation yet to come) presence at the cottage.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen. You said that Raffaele does not sustain their mutual alibi. I said, "read his book".

Could you at least stick to the subject. What does Raffaele say in his book about their mutual alibi?

AFAIK his line is, "I cannot say she was with me all evening, but I am sure she is innocent".

Please produce any evidence at all wherein Raff clearly states,"Amanda was with me all evening and all night", to include between 20:45 and 01:00.

You may quote direct from the book you claim is your source. If Honour Bound, please provide the page reference.

You may quote any court transcript or newspaper interview wherein he definitively states the above.

It needs to be post-5.11.2007.

We are all waiting.

 

[Vixen]

Well, it's not an apology.

But did you see what the climber said - WHEN he hoisted himself up without use of the installed bars? Those bars rob the climber of sill-space, and yet the climb is still doable.

Have you even watched the Channel 5 demonstration?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971565615e2e2171.jpg[/qimg]

As I said, it's been fast forwarded and with frames missing, as the climber goes from hopping down the wall straight to perching on the ledge within about four seconds.

 

[Bill Williams]

As I said, it's been fast forwarded and with frames missing, as the climber goes from hopping down the wall straight to perching on the ledge within about four seconds.

Still no apology.

 

[Vixen]

When did cocaine enter this? You realize that the arrested had a hair test done for drugs, and it was negative? (You still haven't answered when "prostitution" entered this? But no matter. You are intent on flinging the dirt, no matter what.)

Why do you insist on making things up? Mez was in a "proper" relationship? Her boyfriend would not acknowledge her in public. She was watering the pot plants in the basement suite for the boys. Does that qualify her for the shaming you are intent on? No. For heaven's sake, Vixen, by your standards college dorms all over the world would be war zones and dens of iniquity. Where do you dream this stuff up?

Read Raffaele's book about his pot use. It's all there.

Please do keep track of the topic. This isn't about morals. We were discussing whether Amanda exhibited symptoms of perrsonality disorder. Wanton promiscuity can be a symptom. No-one cares what people get up to in the privacy of their bedroom. What we were doing was profiling and it is an objective measure in Hare's Diagnostics of a possible personality disorder. OK so Amanda was 20 and in some respects we can put the behaviour down to raging hormones. However, if someone's reckless behaviour results in harm to innocent people, as it did to Mez, it is legitimate to refer to the potential psychopathic symptoms of the suspects.

 

[Grinder]

AFAIK his line is, "I cannot say she was with me all evening, but I am sure she is innocent".

Please produce any evidence at all wherein Raff clearly states,"Amanda was with me all evening and all night", to include between 20:45 and 01:00.

You may quote direct from the book you claim is your source. If Honour Bound, please provide the page reference.

You may quote any court transcript or newspaper interview wherein he definitively states the above.

It needs to be post-5.11.2007.

We are all waiting.

It would seem you are suggesting that Raf either wasn't there and therefore all the convicting courts got it completely wrong or what?

Do you think he drugged Amanda and went up to the cottage to have some fun with Meredith discovered Rudi there and killed Meredith as Rudi described?

But we know he is liar, right? So he must be lying about Amanda not being there, therefore she was there.

Whew!

 

[Bill Williams]

AFAIK his line is, "I cannot say she was with me all evening, but I am sure she is innocent".

Please produce any evidence at all wherein Raff clearly states,"Amanda was with me all evening and all night", to include between 20:45 and 01:00.

You may quote direct from the book you claim is your source. If Honour Bound, please provide the page reference.

You may quote any court transcript or newspaper interview wherein he definitively states the above.

It needs to be post-5.11.2007.

We are all waiting.

"We"? Read the book! His final appeal to Cassazione also covers this. If you (a very thinly populated "we") wish to justify some other narrative, go for it!

It would be good to start with what LondonJohn has set out.

At least pressing on this is a good diversion for posting a pic which you claimed showed no bars on the windows. At the very least you're not slut-shaming.

 

[Grinder]

As I said, it's been fast forwarded and with frames missing, as the climber goes from hopping down the wall straight to perching on the ledge within about four seconds.

There is no break on the way up but regardless there is no video of him grabbing the bars in order to pull himself up, which is what you contended.

 

[Vixen]

Oh I've made note of the content and the sources.

The climber doesn't use the bars for any purpose other than grabbing one of the top bars on the lower window and then pulling with his arms and pushing with his leg and grabs the sill of the upper window.

Perhaps you need to make note of the content of the Ch 5 video.

Are you seriously expecting us to believe the tape wasn't heavily edited? The programme was put together by rabid pro-Knox supporters with an independent tv company, intent on getting the defence clients off the hook. They had a great vested interest in "proving Rudy did it all by himself" yet none of four courts accepted this heavily pushed spin.

 

[Grinder]

Please do keep track of the topic. This isn't about morals. We were discussing whether Amanda exhibited symptoms of perrsonality disorder. Wanton promiscuity can be a symptom. No-one cares what people get up to in the privacy of their bedroom. What we were doing was profiling and it is an objective measure in Hare's Diagnostics of a possible personality disorder. OK so Amanda was 20 and in some respects we can put the behaviour down to raging hormones. However, if someone's reckless behaviour results in harm to innocent people, as it did to Mez, it is legitimate to refer to the potential psychopathic symptoms of the suspects.

Is there a frequency of sex to likelihood of being a murderer chart you can refer us to?

 

[Vixen]

There is no break on the way up but regardless there is no video of him grabbing the bars in order to pull himself up, which is what you contended.

Of course, it was edited out, as two or three heaves on the lower bar and suddenly he's on the sill leaning back.

Come on, it's trick photography.

 

[bagels]

Of course, it was edited out, as two or three heaves on the lower bar and suddenly he's on the sill leaning back.

Come on, it's trick photography.

The desperation and total unwillingness to concede something as simple as the climbability of a window is why the PGP position comes off as delusional and ideologically driven.