Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

I am more interested in why JREF skeptics would accept a statement such as "dead skin cells floating around a room don't have DNA" without question.

Why didn't you question this statement?

Kestrel, having observed your approach to this case, on the matter of 'skeptics' (which you browbeat others that they should be) it has become absolutely clear that you are no more then a 'skeptic of convenience'. You are skeptical only of that which is convenient to your agenda. Maybe becoming skeptical of your own preset conclusions would be a good start for you? Because, unfortunately for those with an agenda people are indeed skeptical...of BS.

When I see a case that requires us to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused by accepting coincidence after coincidence after coincidence combined with multiple far fetched explanations to explain away the evidence. my BS detector starts going off the scale. I am indeed skeptical, skeptical of the relentless BS intellectual gymnastics being offered to excuse, explain or sweep under the carpet all the evidence against the accused and their behaviour. Others can't even be bothered to put the effort into going that far, instead restricting themselves to posting inane one liner 'difficult questions' which they imagine/hope will put a spanner in the works of those they are 'debating' with. But it all amounts to one thing...intellectual dishonesty.

This is done by people who have an agenda. An 'agenda' is anything that is other then the seeking of an honest conclusion...the truth. That agenda varies from person to person. For some, it's that they have some personal or professional investment in the accused. For others, it is that they are arriving at this case with a variety of personal baggage, philosophy or prejudice. For the rest, they are trolls in poster's clothing, arguing the anti simply because they like nothing better then disagreeing and arguing with people for the hell of it a.k.a 'bloody minded opposition' (although the latter is also a technique and often used by 'all' those who have an agenda). I have seen many of all the above types throughout the lifetime of this case.

While the above will share many tactics in common to suit their respective agendas, the tactic that is universal is to never view the case as a whole. Rather, it is to to take one piece of evidence in isolation and then attempt to destroy it or at least cast doubt over it and then imply that somehow this brings down the whole case. Of course, any legitimate case in the World can be brought down in this way. I could demonstrate this by using the exact same technique to undermine the case against Rudy Guede for example.

I am most skeptical of all of the above. Therefore, I suppose that would make me more of a skeptic then you are.

 

[Alt+F4]

I have been reading this thread from the begining, and perhaps I missed it, but something doesn't make sense to me. The prosecution said that the motivation for the murder was a sex game gone bad. To me at least, that doesn't seem like a very strong motive to kill.

Assume AK and RS just snapped and murdered MK, how does that explain them bringing the knife all the way from RS's apartment? Bringing the knife shows premedition which doesn't fit in with the prosecution's theory at all.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have been reading this thread from the begining, and perhaps I missed it, but something doesn't make sense to me. The prosecution said that the motivation for the murder was a sex game gone bad. To me at least, that doesn't seem like a very strong motive to kill.

Assume AK and RS just snapped and murdered MK, how does that explain them bringing the knife all the way from RS's apartment? Bringing the knife shows premedition which doesn't fit in with the prosecution's theory at all.

Indeed, but premeditation of 'what' exactly? Murder is only 'one' of the things that they may have intended when they went to the cottage that night. For example, it may have been a desire for revenge (that required something short of murder), it may have been an intended prank, or it may have been a desire to force Meredith to their will (perhaps sexually). I agree that 'something' was premeditated that night, but as to exactly what that was we can never know unless one of them starts talking and that doesn't look very likely to ever happen.

 

[Symbol]

Murder is only 'one' of the things that they may have intended when they went to the cottage that night. For example, it may have been a desire for revenge (that required something short of murder), it may have been an intended prank, or it may have been a desire to force Meredith to their will (perhaps sexually).

Two words.

Occam's Razor.

 

[quadraginta]

Two words.

Occam's Razor.

The rational exercise of the concepts embodied in those two words is why Sollecito and Knox are behind bars right now.

 

[calebprime]

Won't someone think of clueless idiots executives like me??

How about a summary?

I've looked in on this thread dozens of times, and every time I do, all I see is

dna amanda knife cabinieri bleach arrival times precisely cartwheels panties lust cannabis smoking bra clasp etc.

These are all fine, wonderful things, but

Um, What Happened?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Won't someone think of clueless idiots executives like me??

How about a summary?

I've looked in on this thread dozens of times, and every time I do, all I see is

dna amanda knife cabinieri bleach arrival times precisely cartwheels panties lust cannabis smoking bra clasp etc.

These are all fine, wonderful things, but

Um, What Happened?

Hmmm...something like THIS and THIS ? I hope that's of help.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Two words.

Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor (a much abused term in this case) will not provide an explanation of 'why' someone did something, especially when we lack all the facts, such as 'what' was going on in their heads at the time or things that may have happened between Meredith and Amanda previously.

 

[calebprime]

Thanks.

Heck, even that made my head spin.

Carry on.

 

[lector]

Sidebar on Kokomani

Indeed. And let's not also forget Kokomani.

Kokomani was the one that made AK laugh in court. I am always intrigued by witnesses like that. He obviously doesn't have it all together. When asked what time he eats dinner he replied "when I'm hungry".

But this is the sauce that any ordinary run-of-the-mill prosecutor faces all over the world. He's portrayed in the Seattle media as a drug-addled clown but he wasn't there for a plea bargain or any such nonsense. He was included because he was a witness and a pretty damning one too. He remembered (no marijuana cloud for him) throwing the olives and the cell phone. Those are details he knew and that's what makes him credible in spite of his other misdemeanours.

I think a lot of people are accustomed to the Perry Mason type of witnesses who are always conveniently located, eloquent, and dapper. In reality, of course, this is rarely the case.

Speaking of Kokomani -

in reading the Google translation of The Micheli Report, I came across the detail that one of the trio (I regret that I didn't take note of which) asked him, during their encounter, whether they might be able to borrow his vehicle in a few days to move some furniture.

That was the first time that the story of the request to use his car made any sense to me. The story is often presented as an attempt to borrow his car then & there, perhaps in an effort to flee the scene; that version seems to have taken on a life of its own. I do not know whether there was subsequent testimony in the AK/RS trial that contradicts what was stated in The Micheli report; if so, I'll revert to being puzzled.

A good case has been made, I think on PMF, that the Kokomani encounter may have occurred during a stretch when they'd left the cottage with Meredith locked in her room, before the murder, perhaps as a part of the game that they were running on her that night.

Whenever it happened, the concept of a request to borrow Kokomani's car in a few days as someone's spur-of-the-moment invention of a reason to justify speaking with him makes much more sense to me than the notion of an immediate attempt to commandeer the car & flee a crime scene.

 

[Kestrel]

Because I find the interminable nitpicking about DNA to be almost completely irrelevant to the totality of the case made against them. Strategies of distraction and misdirection such as this are about the only thing that piqued my curiosity enough to start learning more about the case to begin with.

It's not nitpicking, it's dealing with the real world.

The prosecution expert witness may have been misquoted, but if she actually said "dead skin cells floating around a room don't contain DNA" it raises some troubling questions.

If she actually believes that dead skin cells don't have DNA, it shows she doesn't understand the basic science behind the procedures she is running in the lab.

If she does know that dead skin cells have DNA, it shows she is willing to bend the truth to make the job easier for the prosecution.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Kestrel -

If you have such concerns about it why don't you write to Stefanoni about 'dustgate' and ask her for clarification?

 

[Alt+F4]

Indeed, but premeditation of 'what' exactly? Murder is only 'one' of the things that they may have intended when they went to the cottage that night. For example, it may have been a desire for revenge (that required something short of murder), it may have been an intended prank, or it may have been a desire to force Meredith to their will (perhaps sexually). I agree that 'something' was premeditated that night, but as to exactly what that was we can never know unless one of them starts talking and that doesn't look very likely to ever happen.

It is of my opinion that someone (AK) without a previous history of violence or mental illness won't slash the throat of an acquaintance because they were called a sloppy slut.

 

[quadraginta]

It is of my opinion that someone (AK) without a previous history of violence or mental illness won't slash the throat of an acquaintance because they were called a sloppy slut.

A lot of people felt the same way about a mother of two drowning her children in a car.

 

[Alt+F4]

A lot of people felt the same way about a mother of two drowning her children in a car.

I don't get the connection. Susan Smith had a motivation for murdering her children and had mental issues. Young children are far more likely to be murdered by a family member than by a stranger, it was no suprise when her story fell apart so quickly.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't get the connection. Susan Smith had a motivation for murdering her children and had mental issues. Young children are far more likely to be murdered by a family member than by a stranger, it was no suprise when her story fell apart so quickly.

I don't think it can be stated so blithely that Smith had "mental issues". Certainly a difficult childhood, but no overt signs of dysfunction prior to her crime.

Most murders are committed by someone the victim knows. This statistic is not limited to child murders.

The connection is that you imply some degree of implausiblity about Knox's guilt based solely on your preconceptions, as did many of the people who first heard about Smith's child abduction story. If she had not confessed there would doubtless still be people who believed in her innocence because of those preconceptions, regardless of the fact that other evidence pointed clearly enough to her guilt that LE doubted her story almost from the onset.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is of my opinion that someone (AK) without a previous history of violence or mental illness won't slash the throat of an acquaintance because they were called a sloppy slut.

I think you are trying to over simplify things by looking for specific reasons such as Meredith calling Amanda a 'drugged up tart' as a motive for the crime. There is a reason for the mortal stab to Meredith and for once, the reason for that is quite simple...Meredith screamed. And by that point, they would have all realised that it would have had to have come to that due to the fact they had gone to far to allow their victim to live. What is more complex is how it began and then got to that point. There are numerous possible reasons. It could be that some payback was intended due to harboured resentment. It could have been just for the thrill. It could have been an intended nasty prank that just went too far, or maybe they intended on dragging the victim into a sex game with them or even just an argument that got out of control. How it then moved from that to sadistic torture, sexual assault and murder I don't think can be explained by a 'specific' reason. The reason more lies along the lines of chaos theory. I think the wrong people, got together at the wrong time, perhaps a little spaced on drugs, adrenaline and the thrill and things snowballed out of control in what has been described in the past as a 'perfect storm of dysfunctional complicity'.

And really, I think that's the best explanation you're ever going to get, because the three convicted? They ain't talking and I don't think they ever will.

 

[lector]

Last night I started wondering whether Rudy might have started the final chain of events with the sexual assault. The original consciously intended plan, whatever else may have been churning in their subconscious minds before they arrived at the house, was simply to run a vicious prank on Meredith and scare the bejeezus out of her. At some point during the prank, Rudy took things a step further with the sexual assault, which triggered the cascade of actions that led to the horrific result.

To me, this is one possible explanation of why Rudy isn't talking any more than he already has; he simply can't admit that he precipitated the murder.

This only a variation of an idea that's been spelled out before - the prank spinning out of control as noted above by Fulcanelli. I've read a number of other plausible scenarios. I'm not trying to advance this one over any others, or to assign degrees of individual blame; it's just something I've begun thinking about in trying to understand the dynamics of the group.

 

[Alt+F4]

Last night I started wondering whether Rudy might have started the final chain of events with the sexual assault. The original consciously intended plan, whatever else may have been churning in their subconscious minds before they arrived at the house, was simply to run a vicious prank on Meredith and scare the bejeezus out of her. At some point during the prank, Rudy took things a step further with the sexual assault, which triggered the cascade of actions that led to the horrific result.

Maybe, but it still doesn't explain bringing the knife from RS's apartment. If they were planning on scaring Meredith, why not just use a knife in the cottage?

 

[Jungle Jim]

Maybe, but it still doesn't explain bringing the knife from RS's apartment. If they were planning on scaring Meredith, why not just use a knife in the cottage?

Maybe as part of the plan they brought the knife, rather than rely on finding a suitable weapon once they arrived.