Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

dear gawd is my mat facing the wrong way? how can u tell? oh my.

since amanda moved it to her room maybe she as I don't know which way a mat is to face.

As a matter of interest, Grinder, do you, hand on heart, believe the bathmat shuffle story?

 

[Bill Williams]

M/B spelt it out large that law overrided science.

There's no quote about that in M & B otherwise it would have been provided.

 

[Vixen]

Andrea Vogt Barbara "Barbie" Nadeau Nick Pisa Richard Owen
Oh the glorious irony

(More ironic still is that the originator of the irony will not actually spot or understand the irony )

Richard Owen and Nick Pisa are respectable career qualified journalists. Barbie Nadeau has written some excellent pieces in the DAILY BEAST. Andrea Vogt is an excellent freelance campaigning/investigative journalist (think Paul Foot; John Pilger). OK, so they express informed 'opinion', but they are hardly, 'A cab driver writes', (or should I say, 'A hairdresser writes...'?).

 

[Grinder]

As I said earlier, there have been plenty of successful prosecutions resulting in safe convictions in the area of rape/murder where just one single item of circumstantial evidence (the defendant's semen DNA on/in the victim) has been presented. That's all the more common in so-called "cold case" prosecutions - typically where clothing and/or samples from the victim have been held in sterile storage - sometimes for decades - until advances in DNA testing have allowed DNA to be recovered and matched from the items. In such cases, prosecutors will almost always go before the courts with a solitary piece of evidence - the DNA match (admittedly sometimes accompanied by the defendant's claim to have never met the victim etc).

Likewise, cases have successfully been tried before where there is only the (reliable, credible) confession of the defendant to go on. I agree it's unlikely that there would be many (any?) cases where only a video recording would be offered up as evidence, since there will almost always be other compelling pieces of probative evidence in such cases.

I wonder how many cases actually were won on DNA alone. My guess is there would be other evidence such as records putting the person in the area etc. Perhaps the proverbial fingerprint in the victims blood, but even then other testimony would usually be needed.

Anyway if the footprint was a match for Raf he'd be in deep doodoo. All evidence would point to him and Rudi.

 

[Vixen]

Precision of mathematical engineers? Funny. Try more akin to say "creative accountants"

Innovative is the correct term

 

[Grinder]

As a matter of interest, Grinder, do you, hand on heart, believe the bathmat shuffle story?

Yes. It was given before the luminol testing was done and I can think of no reason she would have made it up.

 

[Vixen]

Liar!!!! He called me an exacting PITA.

Deleted.

 

[Vixen]

And what examples of "violent propensities" have you provided? If you said ditsy, that would be one thing but violent?

IIRC "Bill Williams" was referring to Massei's inferences about Amanda transporting a kitchen knife being 'made up'.

 

[Vixen]

Was she a fish? (It's "Shoah" - and the "H" is three keys away from the "L" on the keyboard.....)

But besides that mild insult to Jewish culture...... Knox was two generations removed from (and a whole continent removed from) the atrocities of WWII. It's to be expected that she was rarely either confronted by or sensitised by what her distant relatives might or might not have done 50 years previously 5,000 miles away. Of course it's possible to judge her remarks as somewhat insensitive, naive and ill-judged. But IMO, objectively, it's a massive (and incorrect and unacceptable) stretch to suppose that Knox was being knowingly malicious, hateful or lacking in empathy. Unless one is vindictive and biassed against Knox, of course...........

Big deal, so there was a typo (corrected before I even read your childish reprimand).

Amanda's mother Edda was born in Germany and had Austrian relatives. I'd find it surprising if, as you claim, "Amanda was too young to know what happened in the war". Especially given, she revelled in the war museum pic wherein she laughs uproarously with a machine gun style cannon.

 

[Vixen]

Uh do you know the real reason why "we have....ignored Bruno-Marasca"? Here goes:

IT'S BECAUSE THE PUBLIC ARE NOT INTERESTED ANY LONGER.

The case is over in the public's minds (the public are only really interested in the murder element). The public have heard that the Italian Supreme Court essentially excoriated the police, prosecutors and previous lower courts for the dreadful, incompetent and unlawful ways in which they'd handled the case. The public's conclusion is that Knox and Sollecito were unfairly pursued by the Italian police and prosecutors, based on fundamentally flawed "evidence" that was the product of gross incompetence, negligence and probable misconduct.

And now the public have moved on.

That's the reason.

It's a logical fallacy to claim that "as the police made mistakes in the investigation = the pair are innocent". One doesn't necessarily have a causal relationship to the other.

 

[acbytesla]

Innovative is the correct term

No. I stand by "creative".

 

[acbytesla]

He called you 'anal'.

Really? Time to go back and read my post. I said "exacting" . Some people might describe that as "anal". But that's not what I wrote.

What's amazing about your posts Vixen is that you will lie about things so easily disproven.

 

[LondonJohn]

Big deal, so there was a typo (corrected before I even read your childish reprimand).

Amanda's mother Edda was born in Germany and had Austrian relatives. I'd find it surprising if, as you claim, "Amanda was too young to know what happened in the war". Especially given, she revelled in the war museum pic wherein she laughs uproarously with a machine gun style cannon.

Childish huh?! And why pretend to have corrected it before reading what I wrote, when you self-evidently corrected it in response to my post? That's really very strange......

As you recognise yourself, Knox's mother was born in Germany. Knox wasn't born in Germany. Knox's mother was already well-established in the USA long before Knox was born. Knox was raised entirely as a US citizen with US parents and step-parents, among other US kids and their families.

And you really ought to stop this curious habit of inventing strawman arguments. I never proposed that "Amanda was too young to know what happened in the war". Why did you pretend - within quotation marks no less! - that this is what I'd written (or even meant)? What I actually said was this:

Knox was two generations removed from (and a whole continent removed from) the atrocities of WWII. It's to be expected that she was rarely either confronted by or sensitised by what her distant relatives might or might not have done 50 years previously 5,000 miles away. Of course it's possible to judge her remarks as somewhat insensitive, naive and ill-judged. But IMO, objectively, it's a massive (and incorrect and unacceptable) stretch to suppose that Knox was being knowingly malicious, hateful or lacking in empathy. Unless one is vindictive and biassed against Knox, of course...........


Now, Vixen, can you spot the difference - in content and in meaning - between what I actually wrote and what you suggested I'd written? I'll give you a little time to figure it out (I realise it might take a little time...), but please get back to me when you've worked it out. Thanks in advance

 

[acbytesla]

It's a logical fallacy to claim that "as the police made mistakes in the investigation = the pair are innocent". One doesn't necessarily have a causal relationship to the other.

True. But THEY ARE INNOCENT. Factually, and now legally.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a logical fallacy to claim that "as the police made mistakes in the investigation = the pair are innocent". One doesn't necessarily have a causal relationship to the other.

Nobody cares about this non sequitor. As said, they are legally innocent; and very few are arguing the details of the case. It's settled. In Italy they've moved on - witness the newspaper stuff posted here.

Is that all that's left, making non sequitor philosophical points?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a logical fallacy to claim that "as the police made mistakes in the investigation = the pair are innocent". One doesn't necessarily have a causal relationship to the other.

It is indeed a logical fallacy to imply such direct causation.

But

a) Who (if anyone) has implied such a logical fallacy, and thus

b) What precisely is your point?


(Hint: in your consideration, you might want to figure out the following:

1) the difference between acquittal and factual innocence;

2) the fact that guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - using reliable, credible evidence - in order to convict;

3) the fact that if the police botch, wreck, mishandle, misinterpret and unlawfully mis-attribute key evidence, what sort of effect do you think this might have on (2) above?

4) the fact that two people against whom there is not a SINGLE piece of reliable, credible evidence, in a case where ALL the reliable, credible evidence is entirely compatible with a different third person, acting alone, should be considered a) innocent in law, and b) almost certainly factually innocent as well;

5) The fact that most objective, reasonable, rational people can see all the above very clearly, and that it's only vindictive, irrational individuals/groups with a seeming "need" to find the first two people factually and legally responsible who blindly carry on their campaign against those two people. So strange.)

 

[Vixen]

Childish huh?! And why pretend to have corrected it before reading what I wrote, when you self-evidently corrected it in response to my post? That's really very strange......

As you recognise yourself, Knox's mother was born in Germany. Knox wasn't born in Germany. Knox's mother was already well-established in the USA long before Knox was born. Knox was raised entirely as a US citizen with US parents and step-parents, among other US kids and their families.

And you really ought to stop this curious habit of inventing strawman arguments. I never proposed that "Amanda was too young to know what happened in the war". Why did you pretend - within quotation marks no less! - that this is what I'd written (or even meant)? What I actually said was this:

Knox was two generations removed from (and a whole continent removed from) the atrocities of WWII. It's to be expected that she was rarely either confronted by or sensitised by what her distant relatives might or might not have done 50 years previously 5,000 miles away. Of course it's possible to judge her remarks as somewhat insensitive, naive and ill-judged. But IMO, objectively, it's a massive (and incorrect and unacceptable) stretch to suppose that Knox was being knowingly malicious, hateful or lacking in empathy. Unless one is vindictive and biassed against Knox, of course...........


Now, Vixen, can you spot the difference - in content and in meaning - between what I actually wrote and what you suggested I'd written? I'll give you a little time to figure it out (I realise it might take a little time...), but please get back to me when you've worked it out. Thanks in advance

Please keep up. I also said, let's give her the benefit of a doubt and call it crass stupidity.

 

[acbytesla]

Please keep up. I also said, let's give her the benefit of a doubt and call it crass stupidity.

That's not exactly the benefit of the doubt. If it was you wouldn't have brought it up. It's really part and parcel of your character assassination campaign.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's not exactly the benefit of the doubt. If it was you wouldn't have brought it up. It's really part and parcel of your character assassination campaign.

Exactly. And I also note the classic "reverse ferret" performed by Vixen on this matter - together with a clumsy attempt to misdirect and deflect when I called her out on her willful misinterpretation of my position.

It was also Vixen who was attaching pejorative and inflammatory terms such as "lack of empathy" and "symptom of psychopathy" to what was almost certainly nothing more than Knox making naive, ill-judged and potentially-insensitive comments.

And on top of all that, even if Knox HAD knowingly and willfully engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour, this would have been of minimal (and IMO zero) relevance to making any reasonable, rational assessment regarding her participation (or not) in the Kercher murder.

So yes, all-in-all I think it's reasonable to suggest that Vixen was attempting to perform a character smear on Knox with the apparent primary reason of trying to convince others (and maybe reinforce her own prejudices) that Knox was/is a nasty sociopath. This suggested inference also fits well with other previous attempts by Vixen to further character-smear Knox on issues such as sexual predation, sexual morals, commitment to her education, relationships with her house mates, reactions in the wake of the discovery of the murder, conversations with her parents while in prison, writings while in prison, writings after her release, and public appearances since her release.

I think it's fairly safe to say that many pro-guilt commentators have a strong need to demonise and vilify Knox, and that they have an accompanying interest in trying to convince other of these character "assessments". And I think I know why this attempted destruction of Knox's character is seemingly so important to such commentators.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

As a matter of interest, Grinder, do you, hand on heart, believe the bathmat shuffle story?

Go to your bathroom, stand on the bathmat, and walk around in such a way that that the mat is carried along under your feet as you go. It's really easy to do, and an entirely plausible solution to the problem of crossing a hallway without getting the floor wet. It does my head in that you lot are so incredulous about such mundanities, given all the other outlandish nonsense that you're so invested in.