Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

...Together with post-modernist talking head Professor Amanda (when she's not posing for pseuds corner photo shots with pretentious photographers called 'Dawndra') and Crime Expert guru and social commentator psychopomp Raff of the Dead.

Oh, you do babble on.

 

[bagels]

Professor Amanda (when she's not posing for pseuds corner photo shots with pretentious photographers called 'Dawndra')

I had to look this up and Lmao. this must really troll all her groupies. BTW I consider guilters/PGP to be AK groupies, they're the ones obsessed with her.

 

[Bill Williams]

...Together with post-modernist talking head Professor Amanda (when she's not posing for pseuds corner photo shots with pretentious photographers called 'Dawndra') and Crime Expert guru and social commentator psychopomp Raff of the Dead.

It's easy to forget that at base you're simply obsessed with this random person you've latched on to. Posts like this are proof. You're now even extending that to what you call "pretentious photographers". Who on earth even cares!?

 

[Desert Fox]

And I should add, it appears that England (nice new little place) seems to be well able to keep innocent people in the community, notwithstanding the absurdity of the hapless Jeremy Bamber.
You are streets ahead of Italy America New Zealand and Canada.

Samson, while I think Bamber is probably innocent, I honestly don't blame either the jury or the judges involved for finding him guilty. There are a few other cases where I think the defendant may be innocent but it is hopeless for them even if they are.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I had to look this up and Lmao. this must really troll all her groupies. BTW I consider guilters/PGP to be AK groupies, they're the ones obsessed with her.

Now that you mention it, it is interesting that the PGP call us the "groupies", yet they are always the ones with the latest breaking Amanda Knox news. You have to google their news references to even keep up with it. That is some strange next level obsession.

 

[Stacyhs]

She is trying desperately to account for her cognitive dissonance. Most people can acknowledge when they are wrong or something they have said doesn't make sense or is inconsistent. Vixen cannot. So the entire series of posts up to now has been repainted and distorted in her mind into her claiming that I am attacking her because I am explicitly pointing out her beliefs regarding "judicial truths" make absolutely no rational sense. So I get accused of discrimination against Wiccans and Vixen gets painted as the poor victim. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Never before have I encountered this depth of crazy. The positive in all this is anyone and everyone who is reading this can see that this is actually how the pro-guilt community thinks.

I've been in Europe for the last few weeks so have had to catch up on the discussion here. What you say above is true. I previously mentioned that Vixen reminds me of another PGP I know. This other PGP cannot EVER admit she might be wrong about anything. She made an allegation concerning the history of the Democrat and Republican parties which I disproved by quoting and citing several academic papers. All clearly disproved her allegation. Her evidence was to provide a few YouTube videos put up by like-minded non-academics who made the same fundamental historical mistake that she did. It made no difference. She insisted she and her fellow YouTube non-historians were right and all the professors of history I presented were wrong. But then again, she has often claimed she knows more about DNA than a man with a Ph.D in biochemistry even though she has no college degree at all. Go figure.

 

[Stacyhs]

Fully concur. There has been a sort of interconnected pathology put on display through PGP commentary on this case that, under the right study conditions, I genuinely believe could produce meaningful sociological results on aberrance.

One subject rests their resoluteness and righteousness on a claimed high IQ and attendant membership in high IQ organizations. Another, on unassailable belief and attendant relentless argumentation on behalf of his inability to be incorrect about any topic, whatsoever. Another puts forth his humble proposition that he is heir to the lineage of Muhammad and Jesus Christ.

One observation I've made over the years I find morbidly fascinating: none of these persons is aware either a) of how nuts their own approach is, any more than b) do they seem aware of how equally nuts each other are. Through their shared belief in Knox's guilt, they triumph over their respective maladies. Such is the main stuff of how cults are formed, I think.

Well said. Their common bias makes them blind to each other's , shall we say, lack of grasp on reality.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's one thing for Trump to say that our trade agreements are not fair to us. It's one thing for Trump to say that uncontrolled immigration poses a threat to the economic well being of many workers. But Trump takes it too far. He makes racist remarks and changes his position every 5 minutes. He is the crudest, rudest, most misogynistic sexist, self centered a-hole ever. He is not thoughtful EVER. The man is a con-man who only thinks about himself. He is no more concerned about the well being of the poor and middle class in the US then he was about the well being of Trump University students.

Why would you trust a man with his track record to be honorable in any way? The man has been sued more than 3500 times. Most for not paying his bills. Trump has employed a nasty tactic dealing with vendors and contractors throughout the years which is refusing to pay the bill unless a vendor agrees to lower the agreed upon price. Extend him Net 15 and he'll take Net 60 and then will insist you lower your bill if you want to be paid at all. And often you have to sue him to get paid at all. He'll then make it all your fault alleging that your work was substandard. Or he'll plead poverty and threaten to declare bankruptcy or declare bankruptcy which he has 4 times. Trump in New York/New Jersey is not only famous, he's notorious.

He has suggested that we act this way as a nation. How long do you think that the US can keep its AAA credit rating when the President is telling the world they have to accept less?

He never thinks about what he says, he just opens it and vomits his unformed rants all over us. He calls everybody "stupid". Who does that? I wouldn't want a friend like that, let alone the President of the United States.

I think I love you.

 

[Stacyhs]

You live in the UK Mike. It's a very different animal politically. Unbeknownst to most people, the President doesn't have much power..unless he has a Congress that supports his policies. Our system is designed for gridlock. If a President has a Congress that is committed to work with him, he can accomplish a lot, if not it's close to impossible to get much done.

And outside of Obama's first 2 years, he's had to deal with a hostile Congress and a right wing court. You also can't comprehend with your health care system over there how big a victory the Affordable Healthcare Act was.

I don't think Obama has got much done in the last 8 years. In fact, it's pathetic. Still I think it's better than George W. Bush and his policies. I also don't blame Obama because I'm a realist. I also think little will get done if HRC is elected and she has to deal with a GOP Congress. Trump on the other hand scares the hell out of me.

Out of curiosity Mike, what do you think of Brexit?

If I weren't already married, I'd ask you to marry me.

 

[acbytesla]

If I weren't already married, I'd ask you to marry me.

I'm intensely flattered Stacy. In fact, I'm blushing.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think I love you.

If I weren't already married, I'd ask you to marry me.

I'm intensely flattered Stacy. In fact, I'm blushing.

Does this mean it's off between us, Stacyhs!?

 

[LondonJohn]

Aaaaaaaand back to the topic of the thread again............

Vecchiotti has just co-authored an academic study that's been published in a major forensic science journal. The essential conclusions of the study are that DNA evidence is not always as incontrovertible and definitive as many courts - and most of the media and general public - believe it to be. Even with a reliable match to a suspect, it doesn't necessarily mean that the suspect was ever present at the site of the deposit - especially when the amount of DNA is minuscule and from an epithelial source. And DNA isn't time-stamped either (except for in certain circumstances where the source of DNA is semen or blood).

The "response" of the pro-guilt community has, so far, been the wearily predictable product of denial, ignorance and blind bias against Knox and Sollecito. And another round of personal attacks on Vecchiotti. To me, it's extraordinarily telling that so many pro-guilt commentators constantly attack Vecchiotti - who is a well-respected and well-published academic in the field of forensic DNA - while simultaneously refusing to accept that Stefanoni did anything less than a world-class job in her work on the evidence in this case. To me, that on its own is sufficient to destroy any credibility and objectivity of the pro-guilt community.

 

[acbytesla]

Aaaaaaaand back to the topic of the thread again............

Vecchiotti has just co-authored an academic study that's been published in a major forensic science journal. The essential conclusions of the study are that DNA evidence is not always as incontrovertible and definitive as many courts - and most of the media and general public - believe it to be. Even with a reliable match to a suspect, it doesn't necessarily mean that the suspect was ever present at the site of the deposit - especially when the amount of DNA is minuscule and from an epithelial source. And DNA isn't time-stamped either (except for in certain circumstances where the source of DNA is semen or blood).

The "response" of the pro-guilt community has, so far, been the wearily predictable product of denial, ignorance and blind bias against Knox and Sollecito. And another round of personal attacks on Vecchiotti. To me, it's extraordinarily telling that so many pro-guilt commentators constantly attack Vecchiotti - who is a well-respected and well-published academic in the field of forensic DNA - while simultaneously refusing to accept that Stefanoni did anything less than a world-class job in her work on the evidence in this case. To me, that on its own is sufficient to destroy any credibility and objectivity of the pro-guilt community.

They lost any credibility a long long time ago......

In a galaxy far far away

 

[LondonJohn]

They lost any credibility a long long time ago......

In a galaxy far far away

Oh I agree. But I was pointing out that even without all the other ways in which the credibility of the pro-guilt community is damaged (and has been damaged cumulatively since Day One), this single example ought to be very obviously a "deal-breaker" in its own right.

 

[Desert Fox]

The "response" of the pro-guilt community has, so far, been the wearily predictable product of denial, ignorance and blind bias against Knox and Sollecito. And another round of personal attacks on Vecchiotti. To me, it's extraordinarily telling that so many pro-guilt commentators constantly attack Vecchiotti - who is a well-respected and well-published academic in the field of forensic DNA - while simultaneously refusing to accept that Stefanoni did anything less than a world-class job in her work on the evidence in this case. To me, that on its own is sufficient to destroy any credibility and objectivity of the pro-guilt community.

That seems to be a common attack generally among the pro guilt side on cases where the defendant is probably innocent - It often seems to devolve into personal attacks against those who defend them.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh I agree. But I was pointing out that even without all the other ways in which the credibility of the pro-guilt community is damaged (and has been damaged cumulatively since Day One), this single example ought to be very obviously a "deal-breaker" in its own right.

I agree. But I can think of countless deal breakers for people without an obsessive need that a 20 year old woman ( now 28) to be a lying she devil and manipulative sex witch with supernatural powers capable of getting strange men to commit murder. Not to mention the ability to float in mid and see and selectively clean DNA and footprints.

 

[Bill Williams]

That seems to be a common attack generally among the pro guilt side on cases where the defendant is probably innocent - It often seems to devolve into personal attacks against those who defend them.

Yet on the other side, there's one here who claims it is a personal attack to ask them if a judicial truth replaces and is superior to a truth-truth. Claims that flawed science can be rescued by having a judge/tribunal sign off on it.....

.... to point that the judicial-truther can claim she is being bullied.

Yes, that must be it.

The good news is that this case is not being followed much these days, compared to its height in Mar-Apr 2015.

It still does not prevent remaining PGP from begging all sorts of questions to get right back to the conclusions they assumed in the first place.

 

[Vixen]

But as your privy council likes to say

the proper basis on which admission of fresh evidence should
be decided is by the application of a sequential series of tests. If
the evidence is not credible, it should not be admitted. If it is
credible, the question then arises whether it is fresh in the sense
that it is evidence which could not have been obtained for the trial
with reasonable diligence. If the evidence is both credible and
fresh, it should generally be admitted unless the court is satisfied
at that stage that, if admitted, it would have no effect on the safety
of the conviction. If the evidence is credible but not fresh, the court
should assess its strength and its potential impact on the safety of
the conviction. If it considers that there is a risk of a miscarriage of justice if the evidence is excluded, it should be admitted, notwithstanding that the evidence is not fresh.”

The Bruno-Marasca acquittal does not fulfil the criterion of 'fresh evidence', that is merely a judicial process. Evidence refers directly to the original crime, not legal opinion.

In any case, the Supreme Court definitively ruled (a) there were multiple attackers, (b) the burglary was staged, and (c) Amanda was definitely there at the scene (and by her own account) and Raff almost certainly.

Where is the 'fresh evidence'?

 

[Vixen]

I'm not sure that matters. The question is, was Rudy involved in Meredith's murder? That the courts were unable to prove that specific other people were involved does not alter the fact that Rudy was involved.

The problem is, Micheli and Massei found that Rudy was not the person who dealt the fatal blow. Micheli had Rudy in a cage for his trial and Massei ruled he was the instigator of the violence, so they were hardly biased towards him - quite the reverse - yet they could not find any evidence he was culpable, other than as a participant and accessory, which of course, in law usually means as technically guilty as the actual murderer.

 

[Vixen]

Samson, while I think Bamber is probably innocent, I honestly don't blame either the jury or the judges involved for finding him guilty. There are a few other cases where I think the defendant may be innocent but it is hopeless for them even if they are.

I wanted to believe Jeremy Bamber was innocent, and read the various crime scene analyses. Unfortunately, I came away convinced of his guilt.