Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

Gutted!!! I found out today Dave Swarbrick died yesterday. One of the true greats.

Your heroine is the author of her own sorry charade. What's disgusting is this person touting herself as a 'friend' of Mez. Urgh.

She isn't "my heroine". She's just someone (one of many round the world) who became a victim of out-of-control police and judiciary, who settled on an easy target because they needed to "solve" a crime without doing a proper investigation. That was obvious right from the beginning.

Your, and others', continuing attacks on her are just deranged and sick.

 

[Desert Fox]

Reading Stillcho's little article about conspiracy theorists is humorous as hell. I have to wonder if he sees any irony in the other controversies he compares the Kercher murder to? I do because Knox and Sollecito's involvement is the crazy conspiracy theory that contradicts history, not the other way around.

Like the Warren and 911 commissions the institutional memory (Bruno Marasca) not only doesn't support his premise but directly contradicts it Only the guilter nutters aka Conspiracy theorists supports his thinking, the general population does not.

Nice try Stillcho. As Paul Simon use to sing, "still crazy, after all these years".

It does make one wonder however if I am not the one in the wrong. . . . .I think it should and make one be cautious of labeling teh other side.

I don't think I am wrong however and I continue to hold the strong provision position that Amanda and Raff are completely innocent of murder.

 

[acbytesla]

It does make one wonder however if I am not the one in the wrong. . . . .I think it should and make one be cautious of labeling teh other side.

I don't think I am wrong however and I continue to hold the strong provision position that Amanda and Raff are completely innocent of murder.

I may be the choir you're preaching to DF, but you're not wrong. I'm cautious about a lot of things. Absolutely hate to gamble. Not a fan of ever losing and that happens too often when gambling. But I am a believer of making calculated risks. Educating yourself as much as possible and making a choice. That's what you did in this case. You evaluated the overwhelming evidence or should we say lack of evidence and calculated the odds. That's why you're confident and I'm downright arrogant about this case. It also leads me to think that thec other side is not just wrong but logically impaired as well as a bit mental.

 

[bagels]

It does make one wonder however if I am not the one in the wrong. . . . .I think it should and make one be cautious of labeling teh other side.

I don't think I am wrong however and I continue to hold the strong provision position that Amanda and Raff are completely innocent of murder.

A clue that we're right is no PGP, or devil's advocate PIP for that matter, in the history of the case, has put together a working theory that is coherent and doesn't routinely contradict itself.

Just in the article we're discussing the contradictions begin right away. AK RS and RG (whom they don't know) are partying with drugs (that were never detected in their systems) and things escalate into violence. Except the murder weapon is alleged to be a giant kitchen knife (that doesn't match the wounds) which was the property of Raffaele's apartment. Did their drugged out state allow them to teleport the knife across town?

Unbiased views don't rely on teleportation or missing evidence or significant improbable assumptions. I mean taking apart a PGP theory (if they bother to have one, most are happy just with their faith she's guilty) is shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Desert Fox]

I may be the choir you're preaching to DF, but you're not wrong. I'm cautious about a lot of things. Absolutely hate to gamble. Not a fan of ever losing and that happens too often when gambling. But I am a believer of making calculated risks. Educating yourself as much as possible and making a choice. That's what you did in this case. You evaluated the overwhelming evidence or should we say lack of evidence and calculated the odds. That's why you're confident and I'm downright arrogant about this case. It also leads me to think that thec other side is not just wrong but logically impaired as well as a bit mental.

I was also in part targeting Not Even Wrong with his/her posting of Stilicho.

I am not urging anybody to abandon a position just because somebody calls you a conspiracy believer.

To be honest, one of my arguments is that prosecutions are willing to just throw people in prison for crimes when there is shockingly little evidence of the crime. In many cases I am sure they convince themselves the person is guilty but I am scared that they many not really care and are just closing the books.

It sure looks like I am advocating a conspiracy but I think the evidence supports it.

 

[Vixen]

I may be the choir you're preaching to DF, but you're not wrong. I'm cautious about a lot of things. Absolutely hate to gamble. Not a fan of ever losing and that happens too often when gambling. But I am a believer of making calculated risks. Educating yourself as much as possible and making a choice. That's what you did in this case. You evaluated the overwhelming evidence or should we say lack of evidence and calculated the odds. That's why you're confident and I'm downright arrogant about this case. It also leads me to think that thec other side is not just wrong but logically impaired as well as a bit mental.

I see. So for you, it's all just a face saving exercise. One of those people who tries to get 'glory' by supporting the 'winning team', as though it reflects on you personally.

 

[acbytesla]

I was also in part targeting Not Even Wrong with his/her posting of Stilicho.

I am not urging anybody to abandon a position just because somebody calls you a conspiracy believer.

To be honest, one of my arguments is that prosecutions are willing to just throw people in prison for crimes when there is shockingly little evidence of the crime. In many cases I am sure they convince themselves the person is guilty but I am scared that they many not really care and are just closing the books.

It sure looks like I am advocating a conspiracy but I think the evidence supports it.

I don't think so either. If the other side could present a coherent argument for guilt backed by the evidence I would support it. I find it amusing that Stillcho labels us crazy conspiracy theorists because we support guilt. But not every conspiracy is crazy. There were a conspiracy plots to assassinate Lincoln, Hitler and Ceasar.

But I don't believe there was a planned conspiracy to act corruptly. I do however believe that in a spoken zeal to get Amanda different people committed acts of corruption which only led to other acts. Maybe that doesn't make sense. Whereas, they probably had a consensus to get the murdering bitch, none would dare suggest that any of them plant or hide evidence which I do think was done.

 

[acbytesla]

I see. So for you, it's all just a face saving exercise. One of those people who tries to get 'glory' by supporting the 'winning team', as though it reflects on you personally.

You have a bizarre interpretation. It has nothing really to do with me. It's all about learning. Knowing that if you follow the evidence the destination will provide you with the answer. There is no unbroken honest path to guilt only innocence.

 

[toto]

I see. So for you, it's all just a face saving exercise. One of those people who tries to get 'glory' by supporting the 'winning team', as though it reflects on you personally.

I did not see that reflected at all. The poster wrote that he or she educated him or herself as much as possible regarding the case and evaluated the overwhelming evidence. I think he or she was saying that s/he then was able to make a calculated choice, whereas you just gambled madly.

 

[Bill Williams]

I see. So for you, it's all just a face saving exercise. One of those people who tries to get 'glory' by supporting the 'winning team', as though it reflects on you personally.

I did not see that reflected at all. The poster wrote that he or she educated him or herself as much as possible regarding the case and evaluated the overwhelming evidence. I think he or she was saying that s/he then was able to make a calculated choice, whereas you just gambled madly.

You have a bizarre interpretation. It has nothing really to do with me. It's all about learning. Knowing that if you follow the evidence the destination will provide you with the answer. There is no unbroken honest path to guilt only innocence.

I know all of throw are barbs to each other, "can't you read?"

So with acknowledgment that few of us are perfect in this regard - meaning: able to post with clarity 100% of the time........

Can't Vixen read?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It does make one wonder however if I am not the one in the wrong. . . . .I think it should and make one be cautious of labeling teh other side.

I don't think I am wrong however and I continue to hold the strong provision position that Amanda and Raff are completely innocent of murder.

I was also in part targeting Not Even Wrong with his/her posting of Stilicho.

I am not labeling the "other side" because they are wrong. I didn't even label Stilicho, nor his article. I simply posted it, because it is hilarious.

I do, however, label guilters "crazy" because they are crazy sociopaths by any objective measure. And by "guilters" I do not mean those who are/were misinformed or just aren't smart enough to understand the proper way to evaluate evidence. I mean the ones who go beyond simply being dumb and resort to things like this:

An interesting point about psychopaths causing chaos and disruption wherever they go. Let's see:

-- Writing letters to Pepperdine in an attempt to get Steve Moore fired because he publicly spoke out in support of Amanda Knox's innocence.

-- Creating a fake wikipedia page filled with lies and false and misleading information.

-- Attempts to take over and control the real wikipedia page on Meredith's murder.

-- Attempts to disrupt legitimate discussion on every forum through spreading rumor and innuendo about Amanda, Raffaele, and their supporters.

-- Making up factoids and criticizing the top forensic geneticists in the world because they dare speak out in favor of Amanda by categorically showing why the DNA evidence was false and fraudulent.

-- Attempts to take over major internet forums that are discussing this case by repeatedly trying to manipulate the moderators into banning anyone who supports Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

-- Accusations via rumor and innuendo of the judges (including the Italian Supreme Court) who acquitted Amanda and Raffaele of being corrupt. Vague accusations of bribes and connections to the mafia. Or Illuminati. Or the Freemasons. Or the Knights Templar. It's hard to keep track, honestly.

And then come onto internet forums after they have been proven historically wrong and call Amanda a demonic psychopath worse than Hitler. These people desperately need help. I would be more sympathetic to their mental illnesses if they weren't such vile humans who attack anyone who dares be rational about this case and tries to protect innocent people and the truth.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not labeling the "other side" because they are wrong. I didn't even label Stilicho, nor his article. I simply posted it, because it is hilarious.

I do, however, label guilters "crazy" because they are crazy sociopaths by any objective measure. And by "guilters" I do not mean those who are/were misinformed or just aren't smart enough to understand the proper way to evaluate evidence. I mean the ones who go beyond simply being dumb and resort to things like this:



And then come onto internet forums after they have been proven historically wrong and call Amanda a demonic psychopath worse than Hitler. These people desperately need help. I would be more sympathetic to their mental illnesses if they weren't such vile humans who attack anyone who dares be rational about this case and tries to protect innocent people and the truth.

It perhaps will never end. Two months ago someone anonymously tried to take over the Wikipedia page by complaining that the PR machine was now in firm control of the entries.

Proof? Guilter edits were being reversed. Chief among those edits was that M/B had ruled "not proven", even though no such verdict exists in Italy and other judges are saying M/B "exonerated" the pair.

Also that Bruce Fischer is on Chris Mellas's payroll. That Mellas actively runs the PR campaign, even though he knows his stepdaughter is guilty.

Of course as always, no proof is offered.

How long do we wait before we all walk away satisfied that the giilters who remain are quite crazy?

 

[Kauffer]

It perhaps will never end. Two months ago someone anonymously tried to take over the Wikipedia page by complaining that the PR machine was now in firm control of the entries.

Proof? Guilter edits were being reversed. Chief among those edits was that M/B had ruled "not proven", even though no such verdict exists in Italy and other judges are saying M/B "exonerated" the pair.

Also that Bruce Fischer is on Chris Mellas's payroll. That Mellas actively runs the PR campaign, even though he knows his stepdaughter is guilty.

Of course as always, no proof is offered.

How long do we wait before we all walk away satisfied that the giilters who remain are quite crazy?

The PG have lost everything. Years of deluded obsession with the notion of guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No evidence of Knox in Kercher's room, a bread knife and a dirty bra clasp both tests unrepeatable and essential control information denied to the defence. Utter nonsense of a case. All they have left is a strategy of outright lying in order to salvage something from the wreckage.

 

[Bill Williams]

The PG have lost everything. Years of deluded obsession with the notion of guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No evidence of Knox in Kercher's room, a bread knife and a dirty bra clasp both tests unrepeatable and essential control information denied to the defence. Utter nonsense of a case. All they have left is a strategy of outright lying in order to salvage something from the wreckage.

The ad hominem really starts when one simply reposts the evidence.... like this:

​

For some reason, reposting evidence is supposed to be a sign of delusion. Well - is that glove dirty or isn't it? Is the bra-clasp dirty, or did Meredith wear it that way? Be that as it may, it is better than just reposting the slur or defamation against people like Knox, that she's more evil than Hitler or that Bruce Fischer is on the Mellas payroll, and that those on that payroll all know that Knox is guilty....

...... but who never once buttress those claims with evidence.

Which is worse, reposting the obvious evidence..... actual evidence, or simply reposting the slur with no evidence ever?

 

[Vixen]

I am not labeling the "other side" because they are wrong. I didn't even label Stilicho, nor his article. I simply posted it, because it is hilarious.

I do, however, label guilters "crazy" because they are crazy sociopaths by any objective measure. And by "guilters" I do not mean those who are/were misinformed or just aren't smart enough to understand the proper way to evaluate evidence. I mean the ones who go beyond simply being dumb and resort to things like this:



And then come onto internet forums after they have been proven historically wrong and call Amanda a demonic psychopath worse than Hitler. These people desperately need help. I would be more sympathetic to their mental illnesses if they weren't such vile humans who attack anyone who dares be rational about this case and tries to protect innocent people and the truth.

It's you who suggested Amanda was a 'demon' and a 'witch'. I just played along with you. It was Bill who invoked Godwin's Law by citing Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mengeles (sp_?).

It goes to show, comparisons are odious.

I note your sole form of debate is personal attack.

Nice.

 

[acbytesla]

The PG have lost everything. Years of deluded obsession with the notion of guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No evidence of Knox in Kercher's room, a bread knife and a dirty bra clasp both tests unrepeatable and essential control information denied to the defence. Utter nonsense of a case. All they have left is a strategy of outright lying in order to salvage something from the wreckage.

I would argue that they have lost nothing. None of them spent years in prison for things they did not do. They never faced the fear of maybe not being free again until they were 50. They never lost their early twenties which for many of us were are best years.

So many of them said they were in it for "true justice" for Meredith Kercher but if that had really been true they would be satisfied. This was never about that. No it was always about a sickness inside them. A hatred of women and their sexuality. A combination of misogynistic men and prudish women ashamed of their bodies and desires. Amanda epitomized a young beautiful girl becoming a woman who was experiencing a freedom that they may never have had. And they hated her for that.

There was absolutely no evidence that Amanda had ever set foot in that bedroom yet Amanda is the one they unleashed their soul rotting hatred on. The men were afterthoughts, barely footnotes for these sad misguided morons. The slut shaming and portrayal of Knox as dirty reached epic proportions. The focus on the toilet and cleaning habits, the lies about Amanda being a man eater femme fatale were absurd. Machiavelli turned her into a prostitute trading sexual favors for drugs despite zero evidence. Dr. Br Mull almost let this case destroy him and his career. Grahame Rhodes made death threats against Knox and even me. These myopic morons trolled the Internet and bullied many people including Steve Moore and Dr. Greg Hampikian railing against them to their employers. Many of us have stories how these full blown nutjobs went way over the line.

But the case is OVER. Knox and Sollecito have been EXONERATED despite feeble claims to the contrary. All that is left is the ECHR ruling of the human rights violation and the inevitable annulment of the callunia charge and the restitution.

That is when they will have lost it all. By that I don't mean anything tangible. Just their minds.

 

[Kauffer]

I would argue that they have lost nothing. None of them spent years in prison for things they did not do. They never faced the fear of maybe not being free again until they were 50. They never lost their early twenties which for many of us were are best years.

So many of them said they were in it for "true justice" for Meredith Kercher but if that had really been true they would be satisfied. This was never about that. No it was always about a sickness inside them. A hatred of women and their sexuality. A combination of misogynistic men and prudish women ashamed of their bodies and desires. Amanda epitomized a young beautiful girl becoming a woman who was experiencing a freedom that they may never have had. And they hated her for that.

There was absolutely no evidence that Amanda had ever set foot in that bedroom yet Amanda is the one they unleashed their soul rotting hatred on. The men were afterthoughts, barely footnotes for these sad misguided morons. The slut shaming and portrayal of Knox as dirty reached epic proportions. The focus on the toilet and cleaning habits, the lies about Amanda being a man eater femme fatale were absurd. Machiavelli turned her into a prostitute trading sexual favors for drugs despite zero evidence. Dr. Br Mull almost let this case destroy him and his career. Grahame Rhodes made death threats against Knox and even me. These myopic morons trolled the Internet and bullied many people including Steve Moore and Dr. Greg Hampikian railing against them to their employers. Many of us have stories how these full blown nutjobs went way over the line.

But the case is OVER. Knox and Sollecito have been EXONERATED despite feeble claims to the contrary. All that is left is the ECHR ruling of the human rights violation and the inevitable annulment of the callunia charge and the restitution.

That is when they will have lost it all. By that I don't mean anything tangible. Just their minds.

Yes. Your sense of it is my sense of it, ostensibly.

On Macchiavelli, look at this stuff I re-found:

Just before the Exoneration:

"There is no hope for AK in my opinion, the case against her is airtight, the evidence against her is too heavy, and her defence in Cassazione was too weak, in complete disarray. Her attorneys were desperate of making points in defence of their client and they ranted against the whole judicial state instead. She is definitively convicted of calunnia and my opinion she is indefensible."

Just after:

"But there is one thing I want to tell you: Vecchiotti and Hellmann are not off, we will go and get them.

I believe we will expose the whole thing in the end

And something else will happen - this is something I expect - that an investigation for corruption will start on Vecchiotti, Conti and Hellmann.
I'm pretty sure this will happen."

According to him, he gets nothing wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes. Your sense of it is my sense of it, ostensibly.

On Macchiavelli, look at this stuff I re-found:

Just before the Exoneration:

"There is no hope for AK in my opinion, the case against her is airtight, the evidence against her is too heavy, and her defence in Cassazione was too weak, in complete disarray. Her attorneys were desperate of making points in defence of their client and they ranted against the whole judicial state instead. She is definitively convicted of calunnia and my opinion she is indefensible."

Just after:

"But there is one thing I want to tell you: Vecchiotti and Hellmann are not off, we will go and get them.

I believe we will expose the whole thing in the end

And something else will happen - this is something I expect - that an investigation for corruption will start on Vecchiotti, Conti and Hellmann.
I'm pretty sure this will happen."

According to him, he gets nothing wrong.

Priceless Kauffer. I wonder what good old Machiavelli had to say about the police callunia trial, the verdict and the Boninsegna motivation. I bet he had an aneurysm.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It's you who suggested Amanda was a 'demon' and a 'witch'.

Vixen, just to warn you, it appears a crazy nutjob has hacked into your account and posed as you!! You will notice here:

Quite frankly, the antics of Amanda give cause for one to believe she is indeed a demon.

Possibly one of the most evil in living memory.

that it was actually this crazy nutjob who called Amanda a demon. And they have the same screen name as you!!! And since we know you aren't the craziest person alive, and clearly would not deny saying something we have proof of you saying not two days ago (while at the same time claiming that *I* said it), it must have been a hacker. I wonder if they are a member of the Illuminati? Maybe Amanda is paying the PR supertanker to smear your pristine reputation and good name lol?

It was Bill who invoked Godwin's Law by citing Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mengeles (sp_?).

Well, actually Vixen, it would be you who invoked Godwin's law by calling Amanda one of the most vile demons in "living memory". I think Bill was just trying to get a handle on your level of crazy by trying to see where Amanda fell in this "most evil list". Before or after Hitler Vixen? Remember you said something like they at least can fall back on politics as an excuse (I can quote it if you want, assuming you don't want to lie and distort reality). So I'm guessing Amanda is at least a little worse than Hitler in your mind, right?

I note your sole form of debate is personal attack.

Nice.

Well, technically, my form of debate involves explaining scientific principles and laws of probability and mathematics to prove why Amanda is in fact probably not a pagan sex demon. When certain posters (ahem) fail to understand logic and start invoking the Freemasons, demonology, and pagan witchcraft, logic and science tends to go out the door. My opponents then do in fact get labeled crazy at that point, yes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes. Your sense of it is my sense of it, ostensibly.

On Macchiavelli, look at this stuff I re-found:

Just before the Exoneration:

"There is no hope for AK in my opinion, the case against her is airtight, the evidence against her is too heavy, and her defence in Cassazione was too weak, in complete disarray. Her attorneys were desperate of making points in defence of their client and they ranted against the whole judicial state instead. She is definitively convicted of calunnia and my opinion she is indefensible."

Just after:

"But there is one thing I want to tell you: Vecchiotti and Hellmann are not off, we will go and get them.

I believe we will expose the whole thing in the end

And something else will happen - this is something I expect - that an investigation for corruption will start on Vecchiotti, Conti and Hellmann.
I'm pretty sure this will happen."

According to him, he gets nothing wrong.

Machiavelli gets nothing wrong,mainly because he denies contradicting himself.

In the face of my claim that Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report rejects any notion of psychological malady for AK and/or RS, Machiavelli claimed it would be "amateurish" for anyone on the prosecution side to bring such "evidence" into court to be considered:

Sorry, one problem is you appear to be ignorant about the ABC of procedure.

But first, between us just consider that the prosecution are not psychologists or psychiatrists, they would be really amateurish if they pursued evidence of that kind, they don't have the competence to elaborate on such scenarios. They are not able even to see it, and they don't search for that.
About procedure you completely ignore fundamental principles, for example something that is expressed by Art. 220 paragraph 2.

"Except for what concerns the execution of the sentence or to assess acutionary measures, expert reports meant to establish: the habit or professionality of the crime, the tendency to commit crimes, the charachter and the personality of the defendant and in general psychological qualities independant from patological causes, are not admitted".

Then, right on cue, Machiavelli quotes from what is perhaps a formerly untranslated bit from Mignini's closing at the Massei trial:

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.
First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":

The pop-psychologizing that Mignini takes to trial, by Machiavelli's own translation, talks of a feeling of a wounded-self, playing into some sexual conflict between Meredith and Amanda - all this as a trigger for the crime (in Mignini's mind).

All of this Massei rejects, in the sense that in his motivations report (even in convicting the pair) none of that is to be seen.

Am I mistaken, or did Machiavelli a year ago imply that it was Mignini who was amateurish? As you know Machiavelli is never wrong.

It was amazing watching these people turn on their defense of the Italian judiciary, then switch to a critique of it ("Boninsegn is a lick-spittle") all depending on what one particular court said in relation to the guilter's confirmation bias.