Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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!

No, please keep track of the topic. The topic was that Raff, after his initial statements to press and police, made a final statement, 5.11.2007, that he had told them a "crock of ****" about Amanda being with him all evening, specifically between 2045 and 0100 and eight year's later, Bongiorno was still pushing this line. IOW Raff has never once corroborated Amanda's alibi for the murder night since that date.

When put on the spot by a tv interviewer recently he wriggled out of committing to an alibi for her saying he could not vouch for her as he only made oaths about his close family.

My opinion as to whether he was there or not is another topic. All the evidence shows he was, however.

 

[Grinder]

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.

How do you know that it was put together by by rabid pro-Knox supporters with an independent tv company?

What "spin" didn't Hellmann or Marasca accept?

if you go to the 38 second mark you can see that his feet are on the lower sill and hands on the lower sill of the upper window.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

No it's not. If you wish to claim it is, please post your psychological credentials. If not, you have just libeled someone as an arm-chair prognosticator.

"We" were not discussing anyone's personality disorder. You chucked it into the thread, because.... well, just because.

To repeat, for the umpteenth time, the only person ever to raise at trial issues of personality disorder was Mignini - during his closing at the 2009 Massei trial. Raising it in his closing - one would have thought that some clinical testing or evaluation had been done while the person in question was in prison.

No such clinical evaluation was done. No mention of it was made until Mignini's closing. Even in convicting them in 2009, what did Massei do with this? Nothing.

There's no mention at all in the Massei motivations report - and why not. No evidence had been presented, just a last-minute theory by a prosecutor desperate to bolster a crumbling case - which it eventually did.

What we were doing was profiling and it is an objective measure in Hare's Diagnostics of a possible personality disorder.​

LOL! You are applying a diagnostic test to someone you've never met, who is only a figment of your internet imagination!?

Wow. I'm convinced.

Grinder - I'm now on the other side. Will you tell your well-honed FOA connections that I've defected!

 

[Grinder]

No, please keep track of the topic. The topic was that Raff, after his initial statements to press and police, made a final statement, 5.11.2007, that he had told them a "crock of ****" about Amanda being with him all evening, specifically between 2045 and 0100 and eight year's later, Bongiorno was still pushing this line. IOW Raff has never once corroborated Amanda's alibi for the murder night since that date.

When put on the spot by a tv interviewer recently he wriggled out of committing to an alibi for her saying he could not vouch for her as he only made oaths about his close family.

My opinion as to whether he was there or not is another topic. All the evidence shows he was, however.

Okay let's say he refuses to vouch for her. What does that mean actually happened?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Is the picture that **you posted** trick photography? You remember, the one you said showed there were no bars on the lower window?

As noted elsewhere, the PGP unwillingness to acknowledge the blindingly obvious, or admit even minor mistakes, is the reason why few believe you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Okay let's say he refuses to vouch for her. What does that mean actually happened?

............ welcome to the synoptic evaluation of the totality of the trials, both prosecution and defence amalgamated. This is the synpotic scenario Marasca/Bruno constructed to finish their report.

And they said that even if you accept this synoptic view as true, they still are innocent.

But good one, Grinder. You must have got this from your FOA-decoder ring. You obviously have a later model than mine.

 

[Vixen]

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.

There is nothing at all to indicate Mez, Filomena, Laura or Giacomo had a personality disorder, and in any case, were never suspected of being involved in crime. If they were strong suspects, I am sure we would all be looking at their profiles.

I am not prudish at all. True, I don't like tattoos and will never have one, I don't like the male fashion for massive earlobe piercings. However, I don't judge those who do like them.

 

[Vixen]

How do you know that it was put together by by rabid pro-Knox supporters with an independent tv company?

What "spin" didn't Hellmann or Marasca accept?

if you go to the 38 second mark you can see that his feet are on the lower sill and hands on the lower sill of the upper window.

Yes, and then it skips to him lounging on the sill.

It's well known it's a pro-Knox tv doc and very obscure, too. Stuck on C5 which no-one watches at a time when everyone's gone to bed.

 

[Vixen]

No it's not. If you wish to claim it is, please post your psychological credentials. If not, you have just libeled someone as an arm-chair prognosticator.

"We" were not discussing anyone's personality disorder. You chucked it into the thread, because.... well, just because.

To repeat, for the umpteenth time, the only person ever to raise at trial issues of personality disorder was Mignini - during his closing at the 2009 Massei trial. Raising it in his closing - one would have thought that some clinical testing or evaluation had been done while the person in question was in prison.

No such clinical evaluation was done. No mention of it was made until Mignini's closing. Even in convicting them in 2009, what did Massei do with this? Nothing.

There's no mention at all in the Massei motivations report - and why not. No evidence had been presented, just a last-minute theory by a prosecutor desperate to bolster a crumbling case - which it eventually did.

What we were doing was profiling and it is an objective measure in Hare's Diagnostics of a possible personality disorder.​

LOL! You are applying a diagnostic test to someone you've never met, who is only a figment of your internet imagination!?

Wow. I'm convinced.

Grinder - I'm now on the other side. Will you tell your well-honed FOA connections that I've defected!

IMV it's a lot kinder to diagnose a personality disorder than to label someone evil, because that's the alternative. There was clearly something wrong with Amanda: walking out of a dream intern job at the Bundestag and going completely off the rails, leading to the tragic events as discussed here.

I was a member of the British Psychological Society for a few years, then lasped my subscription (minimum entry level: degree in psychology) not that it qualifies me to diagnose people at all.

However, when a heinous crime such as this occurs, people naturally want to understand why and there are almost always clues in the perpetrator's personal history and behaviour.

 

[Vixen]

Okay let's say he refuses to vouch for her. What does that mean actually happened?

I think it's only polite to give "Bill" a chance to produce evidence that Raff has unequivocally supplied Amanda with an alibi, first.

 

[Grinder]

IMV it's a lot kinder to diagnose a personality disorder than to label someone evil, because that's the alternative. There was clearly something wrong with Amanda: walking out of a dream intern job at the Bundestag and going completely off the rails, leading to the tragic events as discussed here.

I was a member of the British Psychological Society for a few years, then lasped my subscription (minimum entry level: degree in psychology) not that it qualifies me to diagnose people at all.

However, when a heinous crime such as this occurs, people naturally want to understand why and there are almost always clues in the perpetrator's personal history and behaviour.

How many women will meet a guy in bar in the next week and have sex that night with him? How many of those women will murder someone in their lifetime? Is it better to meet someone in a bar than on a train?

Did Deanna travel alone in Europe or was she a young child?

How many partners can one have and not be a murderer?

 

[Grinder]

I think it's only polite to give "Bill" a chance to produce evidence that Raff has unequivocally supplied Amanda with an alibi, first.

No I think you should explain what it means to the case if he refuses to corroborate her account for her, for him and for Mignini's and Nencini's theories of the crime.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, and then it skips to him lounging on the sill.

It's well known it's a pro-Knox tv doc and very obscure, too. Stuck on C5 which no-one watches at a time when everyone's gone to bed.

It's well known...

You've got nothing.

The main point is that he can reach the upper window without even using the lower window's bars. It's only 6 1/2 feet. If Rudi were to have walked up the bars he would only be about 3 feet from the sill.

 

[Bill Williams]

IMV it's a lot kinder to diagnose a personality disorder than to label someone evil, because that's the alternative. There was clearly something wrong with Amanda: walking out of a dream intern job at the Bundestag and going completely off the rails, leading to the tragic events as discussed here.

I was a member of the British Psychological Society for a few years, then lasped my subscription (minimum entry level: degree in psychology) not that it qualifies me to diagnose people at all.

However, when a heinous crime such as this occurs, people naturally want to understand why and there are almost always clues in the perpetrator's personal history and behaviour.

So let's get this straight. You're going for kindness over accuracy.

LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

I think it's only polite to give "Bill" a chance to produce evidence that Raff has unequivocally supplied Amanda with an alibi, first.

No I think you should explain what it means to the case if he refuses to corroborate her account for her, for him and for Mignini's and Nencini's theories of the crime.

Let's put it the most simple way. Raffaele has only ever claimed what he has claimed.

Vixen is setting up a strawman. Vixen wants to hear an unequivocal alibi. What Raffaele supplies is the one that LondonJohn outlines.

The strawman is bogus, for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the few remaining guilters don't believe anything Raffaele says - unequivocal or not.

The only evidence to produce - given that the only two people who can corroborate their mutual alibis are the two in question.

Read their books!

It is comforting, though, that Vixen is going for politeness and kindness. It would be better, though, to go for accuracy. Like: did the picture Vixen posted show the lower window with bars on it.

I know it is neither polite or kind to ask - but for the sake of accuracy.... what was her purpose in posting a picture that directly refuted the point she was making?

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's put it the most simple way. Raffaele has only ever claimed what he has claimed.

Vixen is setting up a strawman. Vixen wants to hear an unequivocal alibi. What Raffaele supplies is the one that LondonJohn outlines.

The strawman is bogus, for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the few remaining guilters don't believe anything Raffaele says - unequivocal or not.

The only evidence to produce - given that the only two people who can corroborate their mutual alibis are the two in question.

Read their books!

Vixen's position on this is pathetically inaccurate and unthinking.

Perhaps a comparator will help Vixen to finally understand the tiny level of nuance involved in this issue. Let Vixen imagine that she is sharing her bed with her partner. Let Vixen imagine that she and her partner go to bed at 11pm one night. Let Vixen imagine that she falls asleep, with her partner lying next to her in the bed, at around 11.30pm that night.

OK so far? Now let Vixen imagine that she sleeps through until 7am the following morning. Let Vixen imagine that when she wakes up at 7am the following morning, her partner is lying in the bed next to her, still sleeping.

OK so far? Now, here comes the important part. Imagine if a third party (doesn't matter whether it's the police or anyone else) asks Vixen whether she can state with total certainty that her partner spent all of that night within their accommodation.

Can Vixen now see the crucial point here? The crucial point is that Vixen cannot state with total certainty that her partner did not leave their house/flat/whatever at any point that night. All Vixen can state with total certainty is that a) she herself spent the whole night inside her house/flat/whatever, and that b) her partner was lying in bed next to her when she fell asleep at around 11.30pm, and was lying in bed next to her when she woke up at 7am.

Vixen might certainly be able to tell any third party that a) all the signs and evidence point towards her partner being within their property the entire night, and b) nothing in her partner's behaviour/actions that night or the following morning gave any indication that her partner might have crept out of the property in the middle of the night while Vixen was asleep. But Vixen cannot state with total certainty that her partner remained within their property all night, since Vixen cannot be totally certain of what might or might not have happened while she (Vixen) was asleep.


I wonder if this might make it any easier for Vixen to comprehend Sollecito's position on Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder, and the way in which his various statements support that position. Unfortunately, history suggests that this will fall on deaf ears (for one reason or another - none of them very edifying), but we live in hope......

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, and then it skips to him lounging on the sill.

It's well known it's a pro-Knox tv doc and very obscure, too. Stuck on C5 which no-one watches at a time when everyone's gone to bed.

It was shown in prime time, actually (10pm). And C5, while not in the league of BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 or C4 for average viewing figures, still comes in way ahead of BBC3 - home to that risible Vogt "documentary". In addition, C5 has a broad remit covering everything from reasonable-quality news, current affairs and documentaries through to mass market dross and cheap imports. BBC3, on the other hand, was/is specifically aimed at providing bubble-gum output to the youth (16-25) market - it has no serious news/current affairs chops whatsoever.

All of which makes it extremely curious that the BBC chose to place Vogt's "documentary" on BBC3. Had the commissioning/buying teams at the BBC thought that the Vogt piece was high-quality and of real educational/informational value, they without doubt would have placed it on BBC2 (probably) or even BBC1 (possibly). The very fact that it ended up on BBC3 speaks volumes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen's position on this is pathetically inaccurate and unthinking.

Perhaps a comparator will help Vixen to finally understand the tiny level of nuance involved in this issue. Let Vixen imagine that she is sharing her bed with her partner. Let Vixen imagine that she and her partner go to bed at 11pm one night. Let Vixen imagine that she falls asleep, with her partner lying next to her in the bed, at around 11.30pm that night.

OK so far? Now let Vixen imagine that she sleeps through until 7am the following morning. Let Vixen imagine that when she wakes up at 7am the following morning, her partner is lying in the bed next to her, still sleeping.

OK so far? Now, here comes the important part. Imagine if a third party (doesn't matter whether it's the police or anyone else) asks Vixen whether she can state with total certainty that her partner spent all of that night within their accommodation.

Can Vixen now see the crucial point here? The crucial point is that Vixen cannot state with total certainty that her partner did not leave their house/flat/whatever at any point that night. All Vixen can state with total certainty is that a) she herself spent the whole night inside her house/flat/whatever, and that b) her partner was lying in bed next to her when she fell asleep at around 11.30pm, and was lying in bed next to her when she woke up at 7am.

Vixen might certainly be able to tell any third party that a) all the signs and evidence point towards her partner being within their property the entire night, and b) nothing in her partner's behaviour/actions that night or the following morning gave any indication that her partner might have crept out of the property in the middle of the night while Vixen was asleep. But Vixen cannot state with total certainty that her partner remained within their property all night, since Vixen cannot be totally certain of what might or might not have happened while she (Vixen) was asleep.


I wonder if this might make it any easier for Vixen to comprehend Sollecito's position on Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder, and the way in which his various statements support that position. Unfortunately, history suggests that this will fall on deaf ears (for one reason or another - none of them very edifying), but we live in hope......

Thanks for repeating this. It is astounding that it needs repeating.

Add to this something else. Why didn't Raffaele take the easy way out and cut some sort of deal - like he said was offered!

Indeed, the ever-litigious Giuliano Mignini has sued Raffaele for defamation on this very point: so it seems to be a point all can agree is somewhat crucial.

Was Raffaele offered a deal?

He says he was. He says that he was under considerable pressure from within his family to cut such a deal.

Want to know the reason he didn't? Hint: it had nothing to do with Amanda.

Once he figured out - a thought-experiment of his own while in solitary - he knew she could not have gone out: she did not have a key, and would have had to rung to get back in.

So why didn't he take some alleged deal? Why didn't he just make up a story, anything other than say, "she was with me all night - she had to have been, because no one rang to get back in"?

It's because he'd have to live with himself, while Amanda was 8 years into a 28 year sentence - right at this very moment.

No guilter ever has come up with a plausible guilt-scenario to explain Raffaele NOT throwing her under a bus, even at the risk of his liberty.

Maybe someone can run a test for psychopathology on him as see where he comes out. Readers Digest might have some in print.

 

[andreajo]

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.

Are you using an assumption that AK murdered MK to bolster your hypothesis that AK has a personality disorder, or are you using an assumption that AK has a personality disorder to bolster your hypothesis that AK murdered MK, or both?

 

[Desert Fox]

Raff is known to have had mental issues and Amanda a personality disorder that made her behave recklessly and dangerously (for example sex with a stranger - a convicted cocaine dealer - just met on a train and putting it up on MySpace, with little sister abandonned to do so)

That is something I never heard about. . . .Somebody else want to tell me what Vixen is talking about if there is any truth to it?