The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[TruthCalls]

Great. Now I need to order Irony-o-meter number 4. Can I start invoicing you for the ongoing destruction of my machines?

You should know by now you can not use standard Irony-o-meters with Vixen. You should try one of these handy dandy multi-meter Irony-o-meter, which use Krell technology to avoid overloads. It was costly, but it doesn't break. This is the model I'm using;

As you can see, there are 11 meters reacting to a recent Vixen post. Considering the capacity of each meter increases exponentially, it speaks to the degree of irony coming from Vixen and it also explains why you are now purchasing your 4th meter. Consider upgrading.. it will pay for itself in a few weeks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't forget that Knox was simultaneously covering for Guede AND setting him up to take the fall.

Long time ago I was arguing with a guilter-nutter (my bad, reflection on me, not on the guilter-nutter!) about what evidence converges towards. If it converges towards someone, like it does with Guede, then that means they are to be suspected.

The evidence against RS and AK actually diverged. To this nutter, that meant that what were in reality divergent pieces of evidence, were additive - meaning that there was MORE reason to suspect them.

The nutter had argued that Knox had been trying to set up Guede by staging things, like the staged-break-in factoid. "Criminals always turn on each other."

But then the nutter argued that Knox had been trying to protect Guede by accusing Lumumba. "Knox knew there'd be repercussions if she named Guede, so she named someone else."

I'd said that those two factoids, whether true or not (ie. "even if true", which is the language the final Supreme Court used in acquitting!) meant that that nutter was relying on diverging evidence, therefore arguing for a reason NOT to suspect the pair.

Then there's the coup de grâce. I accuse Vixen of recycling old factoids, so let me recycle something a guilter-nutter actually DID write about.

John Follain. A Death in Italy. He "matter of factly" recounts the early case against the pair, often with unprecedented access to the very thoughts of people like Mignini, Napoleoni, Ficarra, and Chiacchiera.

On one page, Follain writes about Mignini, that Mignini knew Knox to be a liar. Not mistaken, stressed, confused, tired, PTSD'ed..... a liar. She'd been a masterful liar, in everything before and up to her accusation about Lumumba.

Next page: why, then, did Mignini arrest Lumumba? "Because Amanda accused him." Some other cop had summarized it even better, "She buckled and told us what we already knew to be true."

Knox had been seen as a shameless, manipulative liar..... all until she suddenly told the truth. That was Mignini's story to John Follain. "What could we do? She'd accused him?" And then two weeks later when the cops discovered Guede..... then all of a sudden Knox had been lying about Lumumba too. Not mistaken, stressed, confused, tired or PTSD'ed. A liar.

Sure.

Back to lurking.

 

[acbytesla]

Are you suggesting Vixen was correct about something?

You know what they say about a broken clock.

 

[Matthew Best]

It should be thrown in the bin?

 

[acbytesla]

It should be thrown in the bin?

That too.

 

[Stacyhs]

You know what they say about a broken clock.

It's wrong 98% of the time.

 

[Vixen]

I really like that Vixen calls Iowa nearby. Only 1559 miles from Seattle to Sioux City which is in the NW corner of Iowa. That's 2508 Kilometers. 700 more kilometers further than it is between London and Rome. I drove it last year.

You're not getting it. You - like many people - just can't fathom that others are not like yourself. As you go about your daily life in Seattle you meet folk who appear to think and act the same way you do. Have manners in the street and whilst out driving etcetera. It's easy to think that because the majority of people one meets empathises with each other, for example, saying 'sorry' if you bump into them that seeing your fellow citizen from Seattle, your impulse is to assume they cannot possibly have committed such a disgusting crime as they look normal and talk the same as me.

People just don't get that psychopathic killers are not wired the same. It is pointless asking the reason 'why would they be motivated to commit such a crime?'

There were two escaped psychopathic killers from New York who just thought nothing about blowing out the brains of a cop for no discernable reason at all.

As a criminal psychologist explained, it is pointless asking why? Just accept these guys are not normal and do not think like you do.

You strongly feel Knox is innocent because she is from Seattle just like you and because you are sceptical anyone like yourself could have done this dreadful crime you start inventing reasons it can't be true.

However, just accept that sometimes where you have a sociopathic killer or killers, there isn't any particular reason they did it. They just did.

Piers Morgan interviewed some guy who had killed his sister when he was a kid. His Mom was out. He sent the baby sitter away. He killed his little sister. He just did.

There is no reason.

 

[bagels]

You strongly feel Knox is innocent because she is from Seattle just like you and because you are sceptical anyone like yourself could have done this dreadful crime you start inventing reasons it can't be true.

Invention is what is required to create a Knox guilty scenario consistent with the evidence. It's why in your 15,000+ posts on this topic you've never succeeded (or attempted) to put together a simple timeline of the events surrounding the murder.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

You're not getting it. You - like many people - just can't fathom that others are not like yourself. As you go about your daily life in Seattle you meet folk who appear to think and act the same way you do. Have manners in the street and whilst out driving etcetera. It's easy to think that because the majority of people one meets empathises with each other, for example, saying 'sorry' if you bump into them that seeing your fellow citizen from Seattle, your impulse is to assume they cannot possibly have committed such a disgusting crime as they look normal and talk the same as me.

People just don't get that psychopathic killers are not wired the same. It is pointless asking the reason 'why would they be motivated to commit such a crime?'

There were two escaped psychopathic killers from New York who just thought nothing about blowing out the brains of a cop for no discernable reason at all.

As a criminal psychologist explained, it is pointless asking why? Just accept these guys are not normal and do not think like you do.

You strongly feel Knox is innocent because she is from Seattle just like you and because you are sceptical anyone like yourself could have done this dreadful crime you start inventing reasons it can't be true.

However, just accept that sometimes where you have a sociopathic killer or killers, there isn't any particular reason they did it. They just did.

Piers Morgan interviewed some guy who had killed his sister when he was a kid. His Mom was out. He sent the baby sitter away. He killed his little sister. He just did.

There is no reason.

Well, as I happened to be browsing and this post appeared;

I fail to see how this rambling bit of cod-psychology is pertinent to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Someone called Rudy Guede was convicted of the crime on the basis of some rather damning direct evidence, in the form of hand and finger prints in her blood and his DNA (not in the form of 'low copy number', sub-microscopic traces but from identifiable cells - epithelial) in multiple places in the room she was killed in, including on and in her body. There isn't the slightest need to resort to BS amateur psychoanalysis to figure out why he killed her to be certain that he did.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm usually mad when I find myself responding to Vixen. That is mad at myself. I know her nonsense doesn't matter and somehow she suckered me down her rabbit hole. I'm still a little curious about Amanda and Raffaele and how it all turns out. I use to worry more about Amanda as she always seemed more vulnerable, but now I worry more about Raffaele.

And here we are talking about money. Imagine how hard this would have been if the two didn't have the resources to fight this injustice? I know if this had happened to me I would have been screwed. It's unfair that the government doesn't reimburse them. The measly amount the ECHR awarded Amanda is nothing in the scheme of things.

Maybe that's where your faulty reasoning lies. You imagine, 'I wouldn't have committed such a terrible crime' and extrapolate from that that Knox is just like you as she is from Seattle and you are from nearby Iowa.
>snipped for irrelevancy)
.

Vixen, could you please point out to me exactly where acbytesla said anything close to 'I wouldn't have committed such a terrible crime' or even mentioned Seattle or Iowa? I'd like to see exactly how your brain works and derives any of that from what acbytesla actually said. I imagine it looks something like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716695d670b120a471.png[/qimg]

You're not getting it. You - like many people - just can't fathom that others are not like yourself. As you go about your daily life in Seattle you meet folk who appear to think and act the same way you do. Have manners in the street and whilst out driving etcetera. It's easy to think that because the majority of people one meets empathises with each other, for example, saying 'sorry' if you bump into them that seeing your fellow citizen from Seattle, your impulse is to assume they cannot possibly have committed such a disgusting crime as they look normal and talk the same as me.

People just don't get that psychopathic killers are not wired the same. It is pointless asking the reason 'why would they be motivated to commit such a crime?'

There were two escaped psychopathic killers from New York who just thought nothing about blowing out the brains of a cop for no discernable reason at all.

As a criminal psychologist explained, it is pointless asking why? Just accept these guys are not normal and do not think like you do.

You strongly feel Knox is innocent because she is from Seattle just like you and because you are sceptical anyone like yourself could have done this dreadful crime you start inventing reasons it can't be true.
However, just accept that sometimes where you have a sociopathic killer or killers, there isn't any particular reason they did it. They just did.

Piers Morgan interviewed some guy who had killed his sister when he was a kid. His Mom was out. He sent the baby sitter away. He killed his little sister. He just did.

There is no reason.

Once again, please point out exactly where in his post acbytesla said anything about his feeling strongly that "Knox is innocent because she is from Seattle just like (him) and because (he is) sceptical anyone like (himself) could have done this dreadful crime." Also please point out where acbytesla starts "inventing reasons it can't be true."

Hint: he didn't.

As for the rest of your irrelevant post, you start out on the wrong premise immediately: Knox and Sollecito are not psychopaths. Well, unless you want to believe 'DR.' Miss Represented of TJMK fame.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, as I happened to be browsing and this post appeared;

I fail to see how this rambling bit of cod-psychology is pertinent to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Someone called Rudy Guede was convicted of the crime on the basis of some rather damning direct evidence, in the form of hand and finger prints in her blood and his DNA (not in the form of 'low copy number', sub-microscopic traces but from identifiable cells - epithelial) in multiple places in the room she was killed in, including on and in her body. There isn't the slightest need to resort to BS amateur psychoanalysis to figure out why he killed her to be certain that he did.

But you don't understand! Vixen is "rarely wrong as (her) assertions are based on well-founded facts and sources!"
As we all know, that Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths is based on well-founded facts and sources. I'm sure Vix will be happy to supply them.

 

[Stacyhs]

By the way, Vix, are we to expect the evidence that David Marriott was paid $2 million by Knox soon? I'm sure you have some well-founded facts and sources to prove it. Right?

Right?

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, as I happened to be browsing and this post appeared;

I fail to see how this rambling bit of cod-psychology is pertinent to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Someone called Rudy Guede was convicted of the crime on the basis of some rather damning direct evidence, in the form of hand and finger prints in her blood and his DNA (not in the form of 'low copy number', sub-microscopic traces but from identifiable cells - epithelial) in multiple places in the room she was killed in, including on and in her body. There isn't the slightest need to resort to BS amateur psychoanalysis to figure out why he killed her to be certain that he did.

But you don't understand! Vixen is "rarely wrong as (her) assertions are based on well-founded facts and sources!"
As we all know, that Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths is based on well-founded facts and sources. I'm sure Vix will be happy to supply them.

Even the first convicting court, the Massei court in 2009, which wrote in 2010 the reasons - even that court did not need to resort to BS psychoanalysis to conclude that the initiator of the crime was Rudy and all Rudy Guede.....

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own
initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms
(the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room
right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda
and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.
It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.​

As for it's own version of pop-psychoanalyzing, the Massei court DID address what it thought spurred on Knox and Sollecito to act totally out of character when he wrote....

Why, then, two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and
cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests, resolved
to participate in an action aimed at forcing the will of Meredith, with whom they
had, especially Amanda, a relationship of regular meetings and cordiality, to the
point of causing her death, falls within the continual exercise of choice among [the
range of] possibilities, and this Court can only register the choice of extreme evil which was put into practice. It can be hypothesised that this choice of evil began with the consumption of drugs which had happened also that evening, as
Amanda testified.​

He then goes on to quote some of the prosecution experts, who all imply that smoking a joint turns people into homicidal maniacs.

Does anyone now wonder why the Italian Supreme Court eventually acquitted the pair? The bolding and underlining are not in the original, but note that Massei concedes that he's only hypothesizing.

He'd condemned two people to prison on a hypothesis, not on evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're not getting it. You - like many people - just can't fathom that others are not like yourself. As you go about your daily life in Seattle you meet folk who appear to think and act the same way you do. Have manners in the street and whilst out driving etcetera. It's easy to think that because the majority of people one meets empathises with each other, for example, saying 'sorry' if you bump into them that seeing your fellow citizen from Seattle, your impulse is to assume they cannot possibly have committed such a disgusting crime as they look normal and talk the same as me.

People just don't get that psychopathic killers are not wired the same. It is pointless asking the reason 'why would they be motivated to commit such a crime?'

There were two escaped psychopathic killers from New York who just thought nothing about blowing out the brains of a cop for no discernable reason at all.

As a criminal psychologist explained, it is pointless asking why? Just accept these guys are not normal and do not think like you do.

You strongly feel Knox is innocent because she is from Seattle just like you and because you are sceptical anyone like yourself could have done this dreadful crime you start inventing reasons it can't be true.

However, just accept that sometimes where you have a sociopathic killer or killers, there isn't any particular reason they did it. They just did.

Piers Morgan interviewed some guy who had killed his sister when he was a kid. His Mom was out. He sent the baby sitter away. He killed his little sister. He just did.

There is no reason.

All that may be true.

But:

a) Knox almost certainly didn't "do it",
b) there's certainly zero (credible, reliable) evidence of Knox's participation in "it", and
c) there's also zero evidence that Knox is a psychopath.

But k'now, apart from that..........

 

[LondonJohn]

Hey, Vixen!!

How're you coming along with that evidence supporting your (asshat) assertion that "David Marriott" was the source of your ludicrously-wrong "$2 million PR Supertanker" bat guano?

I'm waiting. And I'm sure others are too. Because you're almost never wrong, are you? Because your assertions are always based on impeccable facts and sources, aren't they? Because you yourself told us both those things, didn't you?

Hurry along and show me (us) this evidence please, Vixen!!

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, as I happened to be browsing and this post appeared;

I fail to see how this rambling bit of cod-psychology is pertinent to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Someone called Rudy Guede was convicted of the crime on the basis of some rather damning direct evidence, in the form of hand and finger prints in her blood and his DNA (not in the form of 'low copy number', sub-microscopic traces but from identifiable cells - epithelial) in multiple places in the room she was killed in, including on and in her body. There isn't the slightest need to resort to BS amateur psychoanalysis to figure out why he killed her to be certain that he did.

It beggars belief (from people with adequate intellectual horsepower and the ability to perform logical analysis....), doesn't it?

And on top of everything you've said above (all of which is of course correct), there's also these slam-dunk additional points:

1) Not ONE piece of credible, reliable evidence was ever found or produced which linked either Knox or Sollecito to the murder;

2) ALL of the credible, reliable evidence in this case is in fact wholly compatible with Guede as sole perpetrator.


It shamefully took the Italian criminal justice system not far off a decade to figure this out (owing to numerous complex factors and failings). Plenty of us on this forum, and plenty of eminently qualified relevant experts and jurists (outside, naturally, of the small number of "experts" on the prosecution side in Italy who had skin in the game, and the grossly faulty early convicting lower courts.....), had obtained enough access to the evidence years and years ago - together with enough information to enable reasoned analysis of the evidence (and "evidence") - to realise that a) beyond all doubt Knox and Sollecito should never have been found guilty (and should probably never even have been charged), and b) almost certainly neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder, which was committed by Guede acting alone.

Rather pathetically, a tiny cohort of zealots for some reason refuse to give up on their ill-founded, logic-free, evidence-free a priori belief in the factual guilt of Knox and Sollecito. It appears (though only they themselves could say for sure) that at least part of this desperation to cling to that belief is predicated on the twin deceptions that a) they're doing it "all for Meredith", and b) those who argue for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals/innocence are somehow motivated to do so by something more insidious and underhand than simple facts and analysis. So strange.

 

[Stacyhs]

It beggars belief (from people with adequate intellectual horsepower and the ability to perform logical analysis....), doesn't it?

And on top of everything you've said above (all of which is of course correct), there's also these slam-dunk additional points:

1) Not ONE piece of credible, reliable evidence was ever found or produced which linked either Knox or Sollecito to the murder;

2) ALL of the credible, reliable evidence in this case is in fact wholly compatible with Guede as sole perpetrator.


It shamefully took the Italian criminal justice system not far off a decade to figure this out (owing to numerous complex factors and failings). Plenty of us on this forum, and plenty of eminently qualified relevant experts and jurists (outside, naturally, of the small number of "experts" on the prosecution side in Italy who had skin in the game, and the grossly faulty early convicting lower courts.....), had obtained enough access to the evidence years and years ago - together with enough information to enable reasoned analysis of the evidence (and "evidence") - to realise that a) beyond all doubt Knox and Sollecito should never have been found guilty (and should probably never even have been charged), and b) almost certainly neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder, which was committed by Guede acting alone.

Rather pathetically, a tiny cohort of zealots for some reason refuse to give up on their ill-founded, logic-free, evidence-free a priori belief in the factual guilt of Knox and Sollecito. It appears (though only they themselves could say for sure) that at least part of this desperation to cling to that belief is predicated on the twin deceptions that a) they're doing it "all for Meredith", and b) those who argue for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals/innocence are somehow motivated to do so by something more insidious and underhand than simple facts and analysis. So strange.

Despite their numerous allegations that the PIP knowingly support two murderers, I have to wonder if they really believe such a stupid claim. I mean, are they really that far down the rabbit hole that they think we know the two are guilty but just don't care for 'reasons'?

 

[Stacyhs]

Hey, Vixen!!

How're you coming along with that evidence supporting your (asshat) assertion that "David Marriott" was the source of your ludicrously-wrong "$2 million PR Supertanker" bat guano?

I'm waiting. And I'm sure others are too. Because you're almost never wrong, are you? Because your assertions are always based on impeccable facts and sources, aren't they? Because you yourself told us both those things, didn't you?

Hurry along and show me (us) this evidence please, Vixen!!

Yes, please, Vixen. Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[acbytesla]

You're not getting it. You - like many people - just can't fathom that others are not like yourself. As you go about your daily life in Seattle you meet folk who appear to think and act the same way you do. Have manners in the street and whilst out driving etcetera. It's easy to think that because the majority of people one meets empathises with each other, for example, saying 'sorry' if you bump into them that seeing your fellow citizen from Seattle, your impulse is to assume they cannot possibly have committed such a disgusting crime as they look normal and talk the same as me.

People just don't get that psychopathic killers are not wired the same. It is pointless asking the reason 'why would they be motivated to commit such a crime?'

There were two escaped psychopathic killers from New York who just thought nothing about blowing out the brains of a cop for no discernable reason at all.

As a criminal psychologist explained, it is pointless asking why? Just accept these guys are not normal and do not think like you do.

You strongly feel Knox is innocent because she is from Seattle just like you and because you are sceptical anyone like yourself could have done this dreadful crime you start inventing reasons it can't be true.

However, just accept that sometimes where you have a sociopathic killer or killers, there isn't any particular reason they did it. They just did.

Piers Morgan interviewed some guy who had killed his sister when he was a kid. His Mom was out. He sent the baby sitter away. He killed his little sister. He just did.

There is no reason.

WRONG ANSWER. I don't feel Knox is innocent because she comes from Seattle. You know who else comes from Seattle? Gary Ridgeway and Ted Bundy. I could care less where Amanda is from.

I get that people are not all alike.and psychopathic killers are not wired the same. You might have an argument they don't require a motive or reason. But you can't prove that Amanda or Raffaele committed the crime or that either of them are psychopathic. No history of violence or psychotic episodes with either of them. Not in the two decades before the murder or the decade since. That's a damn long time Vixen.

I'm not going to argue the case with you as that is done. They have been exonerated. They are free. They have gone on with their lives. Maybe you should too.

 

[bagels]

Vixen I think you will never make any progress on understanding this case if you don't even understand the PIP position. We don't believe Amanda Knox is innocent because we want to, but because we can't make guilt work. If we start with the assumption that she is a psycho killer who definitely killed Meredith - this doesn't explain anything. It doesn't change the fact that the evidence doesn't fit and the crime scenario is logistically unworkable.

Once you accept that as our actual view (which it is) you are free to believe that we hold that view because we are delusional. But that's an important step to reach. You need to come to the realization that by definition one side (PIP or PGP) must be severely delusional. Then it becomes a question of determining which side. If you can't trust yourself (since it might be you) you can use basic outside clues. For example, which side is more likely to be the delusional one, the one with all court outcomes and esteemed professionals on their side, or the side that believes a mafia conspiracy occurred at the national court level to free two nobodies...You may discover some unsettling truths