Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Welshman]

#16 "remembered her peculiar hand-ear gestures" And?

#15 The first statement of Nov 6 was signed at 01:45. The exact time that Amanda started crying and the interview stopped?

#10 & #14 Did Napoleoni enter the room when she cuddled Amanda?

#13 Pure speculation

#12 Really? After what was written in the 01:45 statement?

#9 & #10 "Witness: Detective Lorena Zugarini
Lorena Zugarini:
Yes, there was Monica Napoleoni who every so often came there to see how it was going, and then told us that Raffaele Sollecito was not longer giving the big alibi as far as Amanda Knox was concerned."(from translation of witness statements at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-interrogation/)

#7 & #8 Obviously Amanda wasn't fluent enough in Italian to conduct a police interview.

#5 & #6 If Mignini arrived at 03:00, what pearls of wisdom has he to offer about what happened during the interrogation that led to the signing of the 01:45 statement?

There are numerous questions raised by the interrogation :-
1) If Amanda was well treated during the interrogation and not subject to question, how are the following explained :-
Amanda and Raffaele were clearly being interrogated as suspects. Italian law says that the interrogation of suspects must be taped and suspects be allowed access to lawyers. If Amanda and Raffaele were well treated, why were the interrogations not taped and the police were unwilling to have lawyers present to witness the interrogation. If the police were willing to break the law, the police clearly had something to hide.
Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated during the night which indicates sleep deprivation was used.
Amanda was interrogated by 12 officers. Being interrogated by large numbers of officers can be oppressive.
Why would mistreating suspects during interrogations be out of character for corrupt officers with a history of misconduct?
2) The two statements prepared during the interrogation were in Italian which Amanda barely spoke and used language someone form the United States would not use. If Amanda had named Lumumba, why is it clear the two statements were not Amanda’s words and had been prepared by the police?

3) If Amanda had killed Meredith she would have known Lumumba was not there. Lumumba ran a bar which meant he may have plenty of witnesses from customers and staff. There would be no forensic traces of Lumumba and he would not be on CCTV. Naming Lumumba would not work if the police could quickly establish Lumumba was not at the cottage.

4) If Amanda had named Lumumba, why did the police make no effort to find further information about the crime? Why was Amanda not asked the following questions :-

What happened before the murder? What did discussion did Lumumba have about
How exactly did Lumumba kill Meredith? Did he use a weapon and if so what type of weapon?
What was Lumumba wearing at the time of the murder?
What happened after the murder?
What time did the murder happen?

5) How was naming Lumumba supposed to have helped Amanda? Amanda was not released from custody, was held in detention for a year and found guilty of murder by two courts. It seems that the naming of Lumumba did not help in the slightest.

6) Did the police carry out any investigations to establish if Lumumba had killed Meredith? Did they check CCTV, ask customers and staff if Lumumba was at the bar, check if his home and clothing for blood etc? If the police did not take these steps, how is this explained?

7) When Lumumba was being interrogated, was Lumumba told Amanda had accused him of killing Meredith? If not why not?

8) The knife was taken from Raffaele’s flat and Amanda and Raffaele were said to have stabbed Meredith. Why were Amanda and Raffaele never accused of stabbing Meredith during their interrogations?

9) Why were Amanda and Raffaele not accused of staging the break in during their interrogations?

 

[Desert Fox]

I ahev an interesting thought. . . .Does not really matter because Amanda and Raff are acquitted but still an interesting thought exercises.

They have the ability to take known writings from authors and tell who is the actual author. For example, with a book with multiple authors, if you ran the software, you could tell what parts were written by specific authors.

Take sames of writing from Amanda and the various police and investigators and ran it against the "Memorandum." I wonder whom the authorship would come out to be? I will bet Mignini.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for posting this information. Here are some questions for consideration; some may not have easily available answers.

Does anyone know of any explanation that the police or prosecutor gave for requesting that Raffaele Sollecito come to the police station for questioning on that evening of Nov. 5, 2007?

I don't know what they said and when but at some point I believe they said that his statements previously were in conflict with other information in particular the phone records showed he hadn't received the call from his father. He also had ongoing difficulty remembering many details including his stating they went to party. He told that to Mansey (some believe she got it wrong but clearly he had issues with recounting) and perhaps in one of his interviews. I still haven't seen the transcripts of his interviews before the 5th/6th.

Considering that the prosecutor is in charge of directing the police in an investigation in Italy, the contradiction between Mignini's reported statement (#12) and Giobbi's testimony, in the trial by the Massei court, that Knox and Sollecito were suspected and therefore ordered in for questioning on Nov. 5 is interesting. If Giobbi was truthful, is there a reason for Mignini to be lying in this statement?

My recollection is that Giobbi said he ordered them both in to question at the same time. I doubt he said they were "legal" suspects.

Zugarini's reported statements (#8 and #7) would seem to contradict the testimony of the interpreter (and self-styled mediator) given in the Massei court trial. What would be the motivation for this contradiction?

I agree and wonder if her defense now pointed that out. Obviously they used the interpreter for more than the phone questions.

If Mignini arrived a 3 am, and asked no questions of Amanda Knox, why did she provide a "spontaneous" statement to him at 5:45 am, and why was it called a "spontaneous statement"? Where and when did Amanda learn this Italian legal terminology, which, applied to a truly voluntary statement, gives the statement a special credibility in an Italian trial?

The story line was that she insisted on talking more and Mignini agreed to be her notary. Everyone including the ISC agrees that he shouldn't have let her make any statements.

Do you know when they first allowed an attorney to see her. I thought it was just minutes before the first court hearing.

 

[dropzone]

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.

Very true. I'm just here because I'm interested in people like Vixen who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still obsessively, seemingly in a clinical sense, maintain Knox's guilt. And, I'm afraid, those who continue to argue with her despite her nuttiness. She won't be talked out of her obsession. The board's founding principle is that we should continue the fight for the sake of lurkers who can be swayed, but as you say, nobody else cares about this case anymore.

 

[Bill Williams]

The idea behind switching off the phones is to forestall the question, how come you didn't answer the phone during the time period of the murder? How do you know they not only switched off their phones but also left them behind.

Once again, for the umpteenth time on the umpteen issue, a guilter demonstrates that she does not believe the Massei report - except for its conclusion.

Judge Massei in 2010 wrote that the crime wa unpremeditated. His version of the crime was that Meredith was in her room, AK/RS were in Amanda's room and Rudy was on the toilet. Rudy decided to go molest Meredith.

AK/RS heard the commotion and went into Meredith's room to see what was the matter. As Massei continued, he said they then made an uncharacteristic "choice for evil" siding with Guede in the assualt.

Note - Massei also found that the kitchen knife from Raffaele's was used. He said it was transported for innocent reasons, namely a reason wholey unconnected to the murder. Why? Because the murder was unpremeditated, and initiated by Rudy's lust.

So here's the question - why did AK and RS need to turn off their phones? Was it to, "forestall the question, how come you didn't answer the phone during the time period of the murder"? If you believe Massei about the knife, why do you hold a suspicious view about the phones?

Out of all the silliness of this scattergun approach to commenting on this - ie. just chuck in guilt sounding things - the silliness of never having a coherent narrative is what sinks it.

 

[Grinder]

Once again, for the umpteenth time on the umpteen issue, a guilter demonstrates that she does not believe the Massei report - except for its conclusion.

Judge Massei in 2010 wrote that the crime wa unpremeditated. His version of the crime was that Meredith was in her room, AK/RS were in Amanda's room and Rudy was on the toilet. Rudy decided to go molest Meredith.

AK/RS heard the commotion and went into Meredith's room to see what was the matter. As Massei continued, he said they then made an uncharacteristic "choice for evil" siding with Guede in the assualt.

Note - Massei also found that the kitchen knife from Raffaele's was used. He said it was transported for innocent reasons, namely a reason wholey unconnected to the murder. Why? Because the murder was unpremeditated, and initiated by Rudy's lust.

So here's the question - why did AK and RS need to turn off their phones? Was it to, "forestall the question, how come you didn't answer the phone during the time period of the murder"? If you believe Massei about the knife, why do you hold a suspicious view about the phones?

Out of all the silliness of this scattergun approach to commenting on this - ie. just chuck in guilt sounding things - the silliness of never having a coherent narrative is what sinks it.

Bill I've read PIP post here over and over that the only thing really important about M&B is that they were acquitted. Hellmann was criticized almost universally for upholding the calunnia charge. I also thought his idea of Rudi's shoe flying off was wacky.

There is no verdict in this case that made total sense. M&B made the most sense but couldn't bring themselves to make it a paragraph one acquittal and felt the need to reiterate the various assertions.

In the above issue it more important to remember that it was never established that Raf turned off his phone at all and it is only known that Amanda turned hers off because she said so. Also, clearly leaving them turned on and at Raf's made more sense.

 

[Numbers]

I don't know what they said and when but at some point I believe they said that his statements previously were in conflict with other information in particular the phone records showed he hadn't received the call from his father. He also had ongoing difficulty remembering many details including his stating they went to party. He told that to Mansey (some believe she got it wrong but clearly he had issues with recounting) and perhaps in one of his interviews. I still haven't seen the transcripts of his interviews before the 5th/6th.




My recollection is that Giobbi said he ordered them both in to question at the same time. I doubt he said they were "legal" suspects.

I agree and wonder if her defense now pointed that out. Obviously they used the interpreter for more than the phone questions.



The story line was that she insisted on talking more and Mignini agreed to be her notary. Everyone including the ISC agrees that he shouldn't have let her make any statements.

Do you know when they first allowed an attorney to see her. I thought it was just minutes before the first court hearing.

1. Can you define what, under Italian procedural law, a "legal" suspect is?

As far as I can tell from reading the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), there is no "legal" definition of a suspect; however, there is a legal definition of "accused person", the accused person has certain rights under law, and the suspected person has those same rights. It seems that "suspect" merely means any person "suspected" by the police or prosecutor, in the ordinary sense of the word.

Giobbi states that he suspected Amanda and provides reasons for those suspicions in his testimony. The reasons don't make objective sense, but he states them. Likewise, Giobbi suspected Raffaele because of his relationship with Amanda, and his perception of Raffaele's attitude.

CPP Article 60
1. A suspect becomes an accused person when he is charged with an offense in a request for committal to trial, immediate trial, ....

CPP Article 61
1. The rights and safeguards of the accused person extend to the suspected person.
2. Any other provision concerning the accused extends to the suspect, unless otherwise provided.

CPP Article 63
1. If a person who is not accused or suspected makes statements before the judicial authority or the criminal police that raise suspicion of guilt against him, the proceeding authority shall interrupt the examination, warn him that, following such statements, investigations may be carried out on him, and advise him to appoint a lawyer. Such statements shall not be used against the person who has made them.
2. If the person should have been heard as an accused or a suspect from the beginning, his statements shall not be used.

CPP Article 64
1. The suspected person, even if under precautionary detention or detained for any other reason, participates freely in the questioning....
2. Methods or techniques which can influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the ability to recall and evaluate the facts shall not be used....
3. Prior to the questioning, the person must be warned that:
a) his statements can always be used against him;
b) ...he has the right to silence....
c) {statements about actions of others will make him become a witness (apparently a warning against committing calunnia)}
3-bis. {If the provisions of 3 (a) and (b) are not fulfilled, the statements by the person questioned shall be excluded. If the person is not warned according to 3 (c), he shall not be a witness for those specific facts.}

Note that all of the above legal requirements were ignored by the police and prosecutor in the interrogations of Nov. 5/6.

2. I don't have the specifics, but my understanding is that Amanda and Raffaele first met with their lawyers less than about an hour before the hearing to justify their arrest and detention.

 

[Grinder]

1. Can you define what, under Italian procedural law, a "legal" suspect is?

No, no more than your material below but certainly not everybody the police are suspicious of immediately become an official suspect entitle to all the safeguards.

As far as I can tell from reading the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), there is no "legal" definition of a suspect; however, there is a legal definition of "accused person", the accused person has certain rights under law, and the suspected person has those same rights. It seems that "suspect" merely means any person "suspected" by the police or prosecutor, in the ordinary sense of the word.

If there is no definition of a suspected person, I don't see how there could be equal safeguards.

Giobbi states that he suspected Amanda and provides reasons for those suspicions in his testimony. The reasons don't make objective sense, but he states them. Likewise, Giobbi suspected Raffaele because of his relationship with Amanda, and his perception of Raffaele's attitude.

CPP Article 60
1. A suspect becomes an accused person when he is charged with an offense in a request for committal to trial, immediate trial, ....

But not a suspected person. To me being suspected and being a suspect are different.

2. I don't have the specifics, but my understanding is that Amanda and Raffaele first met with their lawyers less than about an hour before the hearing to justify their arrest and detention.

I brought this up yesterday: Raf writes in his prison diary that he conversed with his lawyer on the 7th unless the dates in the diary are missing.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I've read PIP post here over and over that the only thing really important about M&B is that they were acquitted. Hellmann was criticized almost universally for upholding the calunnia charge. I also thought his idea of Rudi's shoe flying off was wacky.

There is no verdict in this case that made total sense. M&B made the most sense but couldn't bring themselves to make it a paragraph one acquittal and felt the need to reiterate the various assertions.

In the above issue it more important to remember that it was never established that Raf turned off his phone at all and it is only known that Amanda turned hers off because she said so. Also, clearly leaving them turned on and at Raf's made more sense.

The most important thing is always the verdict. The advantage of the Italian system is the mandatory motivations reports. Here, juries are forbidden from discussing why they came to the conclusion they did. Not so judge-alone trials. The average person gets to read for themselves if the "reasons" justify the conclusion.

It's why I used to go on and on about the Massei report - and used to post (ad nauseam) the 11 things guilters believe about the 2009 conviction that Massei himself (in his 2010 motivations) did not sustain. For the PGP the only thing they seemed to agree with was the convictions, and felt a great liberty and freedom in literally inventing reasons why Massei (or Nencini for that matter) convicted, when the motivation report(s) sometimes actually refuted those reasons.

The best way to have believed Massei's conviction was not to read his motivations.

PGP love to tout Nencini - on one issue they tout that Nencini found it as factual that Amanda had left the apartment on the evening of Nov 1st; Nencini uses cell-tower data.

What the PGP leave out is that Nencini is demonstrating that Amanda had left the apartment BEFORE Jovanic (sp?) saw Amanda there, meaning that Nencini believes that Amanda left, then returned to be seen at circa 8:40 pm. Nencini says nothing about "proof" Amanda had left after that, the reason for Nencini mentioning it is to suggest that Amanda had lied about the earlier call, therefore could not be trusted for her word on stuff after 8:40 pm.

Of course, the whole thing is bogus to begin with.

It is true - the only thing really important about M&B is that the kids were definitively acquitted. I have no idea why M&B would write 9.2/9.3 the way they did so as to set up a synoptic hypothetical "even if" in the pages following..... but it seems even the TJMK-English translation is in essential agreement about the meaning of 9.2/9.3.

Why did M&B need to write that "even-if"? I have no clue. The important thing about that, other than the definitive acquittals (that Vixen assures us are not definitive), is that no Italian language outlet since September have covered the story the way the English-language guilters have.

For pete's sake, even Andrea Vogt has moved on, and now blames the guilters for simply extending, needlessly, the Kerchers' pain.

 

[dropzone]

Perhaps for the lurkers we need a locked stickie entitled "Why Amanda Knox and Raffele Sollecito are not guilty." These several threads are too long, with too many irrelevant side trips, for the casual curious to follow.

Then we can start discussing the guilt or innocence of Sam Shepherd. Or, for the fellow with the fixation on the show Columbo over in Conspiracies forum, the guilt or innocence of Richard Kimble.

 

[Numbers]

1. Can you define what, under Italian procedural law, a "legal" suspect is?

As far as I can tell from reading the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), there is no "legal" definition of a suspect; however, there is a legal definition of "accused person", the accused person has certain rights under law, and the suspected person has those same rights. It seems that "suspect" merely means any person "suspected" by the police or prosecutor, in the ordinary sense of the word.

Giobbi states that he suspected Amanda and provides reasons for those suspicions in his testimony. The reasons don't make objective sense, but he states them. Likewise, Giobbi suspected Raffaele because of his relationship with Amanda, and his perception of Raffaele's attitude.

CPP Article 60
1. A suspect becomes an accused person when he is charged with an offense in a request for committal to trial, immediate trial, ....

CPP Article 61
1. The rights and safeguards of the accused person extend to the suspected person.
2. Any other provision concerning the accused extends to the suspect, unless otherwise provided.

CPP Article 63
1. If a person who is not accused or suspected makes statements before the judicial authority or the criminal police that raise suspicion of guilt against him, the proceeding authority shall interrupt the examination, warn him that, following such statements, investigations may be carried out on him, and advise him to appoint a lawyer. Such statements shall not be used against the person who has made them.
2. If the person should have been heard as an accused or a suspect from the beginning, his statements shall not be used.

CPP Article 64
1. The suspected person, even if under precautionary detention or detained for any other reason, participates freely in the questioning....
2. Methods or techniques which can influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the ability to recall and evaluate the facts shall not be used....
3. Prior to the questioning, the person must be warned that:
a) his statements can always be used against him;
b) ...he has the right to silence....
c) {statements about actions of others will make him become a witness (apparently a warning against committing calunnia)}
3-bis. {If the provisions of 3 (a) and (b) are not fulfilled, the statements by the person questioned shall be excluded. If the person is not warned according to 3 (c), he shall not be a witness for those specific facts.}

Note that all of the above legal requirements were ignored by the police and prosecutor in the interrogations of Nov. 5/6.

2. I don't have the specifics, but my understanding is that Amanda and Raffaele first met with their lawyers less than about an hour before the hearing to justify their arrest and detention.

1. No, no more than your material below but certainly not everybody the police are suspicious of immediately become an official suspect entitle to all the safeguards.



2. If there is no definition of a suspected person, I don't see how there could be equal safeguards.



3. But not a suspected person. To me being suspected and being a suspect are different.



4. I brought this up yesterday: Raf writes in his prison diary that he conversed with his lawyer on the 7th unless the dates in the diary are missing.

1. I should modify what I wrote. There is no explicit definition of "suspect" or "suspected person" (these are the same person in the CPP) in the CPP, but there is an implicit partial definition which can be inferred readily.

1.1 Based on CPP Art. 64, a suspect or suspected person is one who, during questioning, is informed by the Italian authority (police or prosecutor) that he is a suspect or suspected person, and his rights (the three warnings) are read to him. My understanding is that the practice is for these warnings to be presented to the person in writing, and he signs and dates to indicate he has been issued the warnings. Again, note that this was not done in the AK - RS case.

1.2.1 Based on CPP Art. 63.1, a suspect or suspected person is one who, during questioning, utters a statement that arouses or raises suspicion of guilt against him. The Italian authority then must issue a warning and advise the person to get a lawyer. My understanding is that the practice is to give a written version of the warning and advice to the new suspect (aka suspected person) and have him sign and date. Again, note that this was not done in the AK - RS case.

1.2.2 Based on CPP Art. 63.2, a situation may arise where the person was a suspect or suspected person (or even an accused) from the beginning of questioning, and thus before making the incriminating statement. In that case, his statement shall not be used. This was the case for Amanda Knox in accordance with CSC judgments for the murder/rape trial, but not for criminal calunnia or for the civil cases. This implies that the CSC acknowledged that Knox was a suspect before the questioning, in agreement with Giobbi's testimony. The ECHR may consider such suspects who are wrongfully questioned as witnesses "de facto" suspects, as in Brusco v. France and Sobko v. Ukraine.

2. The responses above (1 - 1.2.2) should explain this point. There is an implicit definition of suspect and suspected person, and they have the rights given under Italian law to accused persons.

3. Italian law as given in the CPP does not seem to distinguish these terms. You are, of course, free to do so for your own purposes, but that is not the law in Italy according to the CPP.

4. I don't have any further info immediately available on this point. However, note the recent censure of Mignini by the CSM (Supreme Council of the Judiciary) indicates that Mignini violated the CPP by not providing a "reasoned decree" in writing for denying Raffaele Sollecito legal counsel while Sollecito was detained. I don't know whether the length of the period of denial of counsel was given by the CSM.

 

[Desert Fox]

Perhaps for the lurkers we need a locked stickie entitled "Why Amanda Knox and Raffele Sollecito are not guilty." These several threads are too long, with too many irrelevant side trips, for the casual curious to follow.
Then we can start discussing the guilt or innocence of Sam Shepherd. Or, for the fellow with the fixation on the show Columbo over in Conspiracies forum, the guilt or innocence of Richard Kimble.

Often it is hard to not forget about important items of evidence and you end up looking all over for something you previous referenced.

 

[andreajo]

It emphasises Amanda's apparent lack of empathy (Hare diagnostic symptom of psychopathy). I have German friends who converse occasionally about conditions in post-war Germany and they have always been careful to condemn what happened and are mindful that such a comment would be highly offensive to Brits, many Brits killed in WW1 and WW2, as well as Jews.


Maybe there isn't a Jewish population in Seattle of any great size, but in the part of London I grew up, there was a large community. My best friend at school, Barbara, lost two of her grandparents in the Shoah and two were left blind. I can only imagine Amanda was ignorant of Jewish feelings about this or she really was just exhibiting sociopathic traits. Let's give her the benefit of a doubt and put it down to crass stupidity.

Dr. Hare does not approve the use of his diagnostic tools except according to the user manual:

“The Psychopathy Checklist is a complex clinical tool for professional use.1 What follows is a general summary of the key traits and behaviors of psychopaths. Do not use these symptoms to diagnose yourself or others. A diagnosis requires explicit training and access to the formal scoring manual. ”

“the long-distance diagnosis of public figures, even by experienced diagnosticians, can easily become a parody of professional procedure. The result can be a form of glorified gossip, lent credence not by the facts but merely by the expert’s credentials.”

Excerpt From: Robert D. Hare. “Without Conscience.” iBooks.

 

[acbytesla]

Very true. I'm just here because I'm interested in people like Vixen who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still obsessively, seemingly in a clinical sense, maintain Knox's guilt. And, I'm afraid, those who continue to argue with her despite her nuttiness. She won't be talked out of her obsession. The board's founding principle is that we should continue the fight for the sake of lurkers who can be swayed, but as you say, nobody else cares about this case anymore.

Well said drop zone. If Vixen didn't continue her obsession, we would certainly abandon ours. There are only a few things that interest us diehards. The first is what will happen in the ECHR and these nonsense trials for Callunia. And the second is the battle with the absurd. The smart thing to do is to ignore her lies but we cannot stomach them left unrefuted.

 

[Bill Williams]

It emphasises Amanda's apparent lack of empathy (Hare diagnostic symptom of psychopathy). I have German friends who converse occasionally about conditions in post-war Germany and they have always been careful to condemn what happened and are mindful that such a comment would be highly offensive to Brits, many Brits killed in WW1 and WW2, as well as Jews.

Maybe there isn't a Jewish population in Seattle of any great size, but in the part of London I grew up, there was a large community. My best friend at school, Barbara, lost two of her grandparents in the Shoah and two were left blind. I can only imagine Amanda was ignorant of Jewish feelings about this or she really was just exhibiting sociopathic traits. Let's give her the benefit of a doubt and put it down to crass stupidity.

Dr. Hare does not approve the use of his diagnostic tools except according to the user manual:

“The Psychopathy Checklist is a complex clinical tool for professional use.1 What follows is a general summary of the key traits and behaviors of psychopaths. Do not use these symptoms to diagnose yourself or others. A diagnosis requires explicit training and access to the formal scoring manual. ”

“the long-distance diagnosis of public figures, even by experienced diagnosticians, can easily become a parody of professional procedure. The result can be a form of glorified gossip, lent credence not by the facts but merely by the expert’s credentials.”

Excerpt From: Robert D. Hare. “Without Conscience.” iBooks.

Thank you for this. I had not heard of Hare, but every - repeat every - clinician of any reputation north of a kumquat would say the same thing.

This goes for the nutcases on the internet who apply some form of Statement Analysis. No reputable **anyone** would do what Vixen says she's doing. Even the cowardly rhetorical "out", "let's give her the benefit of the doubt," doesn't save someone from the crass, confirmation biased-error they made in making a long-distance diagnosis like this.

 

[dropzone]

Well said drop zone. If Vixen didn't continue her obsession, we would certainly abandon ours. There are only a few things that interest us diehards. The first is what will happen in the ECHR and these nonsense trials for Callunia. And the second is the battle with the absurd. The smart thing to do is to ignore her lies but we cannot stomach them left unrefuted.

I am not suggesting this thread be closed, just that it is an inefficient way to inform the curious and ignorant. Maybe there is an external site that does the job, but does it do it in the dismissive and snarky tone the guilters deserve, the one Randi would use?

ETA: And condescension. Lots of condescension.

 

[acbytesla]

I am not suggesting this thread be closed, just that it is an inefficient way to inform the curious and ignorant. Maybe there is an external site that does the job, but does it do it in the dismissive and snarky tone the guilters deserve, the one Randi would use?

ETA: And condescension. Lots of condescension.

If you go back and look at the thread (not suggesting you actually do this) you'll see that the thread thrives on the conflict. There was almost a 2 week period without a post very recently. It dies on its own. Seriously, if Vixen disappears and no guilter takes her place we'll get bored fast and there won't be much if any activity on the thread.

I know that our opposition fuels Vixen and if we were really smart we would just ignore her and she would quit.

We're just not very smart.

 

[Grinder]

If you go back and look at the thread (not suggesting you actually do this) you'll see that the thread thrives on the conflict. There was almost a 2 week period without a post very recently. It dies on its own. Seriously, if Vixen disappears and no guilter takes her place we'll get bored fast and there won't be much if any activity on the thread.

I know that our opposition fuels Vixen and if we were really smart we would just ignore her and she would quit.

We're just not very smart.

You really should only speak for yourself. Really.

I'm interested in many aspects of this case. I don't believe that it is as well known and defined as some do. I am interested in new documents and translations only now becoming available. Recently I became aware or re-aware (Dan O) that only Amanda's computer was never recovered. Besides the direct interest in the fact I also was interested in how novelists and commenters continued this meme years after the defense expert had produced the report. Why didn't people in the know and with standing correct this meme or factoid?

The ongoing PG sites are also a study and when one comes over and spews it also raises interest for me.

I asked the mostly PIP and FOA members here what the story on Raf saying he had seen an attorney on the 7th was all about. Did he? I have been under the impression that he was held incommunicado until the court hearing.

Much of the stuff may just have missed by me or I didn't read it because of the source. The PGP always made accusation about what the kids told the police and now as more become available the more I see how confused Raf was or at least how poorly he recalled most everything.

In my opinion reading the early docs makes clear why the police were drawn to the kids as suspects.

I even find it interesting when Dropzone posts about how bizarre it is to be posting now

 

[dropzone]

I try to be interesting. Correct or accurate is harder. But, yeah, I see the irony of somebody posting that the thread should die. I'm a mass of contradictions.

 

[acbytesla]

You really should only speak for yourself. Really.

I'm interested in many aspects of this case. I don't believe that it is as well known and defined as some do. I am interested in new documents and translations only now becoming available. Recently I became aware or re-aware (Dan O) that only Amanda's computer was never recovered. Besides the direct interest in the fact I also was interested in how novelists and commenters continued this meme years after the defense expert had produced the report. Why didn't people in the know and with standing correct this meme or factoid?

The ongoing PG sites are also a study and when one comes over and spews it also raises interest for me.

I asked the mostly PIP and FOA members here what the story on Raf saying he had seen an attorney on the 7th was all about. Did he? I have been under the impression that he was held incommunicado until the court hearing.

Much of the stuff may just have missed by me or I didn't read it because of the source. The PGP always made accusation about what the kids told the police and now as more become available the more I see how confused Raf was or at least how poorly he recalled most everything.

In my opinion reading the early docs makes clear why the police were drawn to the kids as suspects.

I even find it interesting when Dropzone posts about how bizarre it is to be posting now

OK Grinder, you're smart. Sorry.