If you're going to play word games and say "But he never got convicted, hence he never had a criminal record, hence this is not evidence of an M.O.!" I'm just going to dismiss you as irrational.
And you're saying that people are trying to demonise Amanda and Raffaele while you post news stories that conclude by saying that no charges were laid. We've been through all of this before. Waterbury thinks it's because Rudy was a police informant. We think it's because the news stories are not nearly as solid as you think they are.
Now there's more hearsay about Rudy having murdered a woman with a knife the week before with no charges being laid.
So? I don't see the relevance, except to try to demonise Knox on the basis that sexually active young women are likely to be murderers.
I'm showing you that demonisation works both ways. Rudy did this; Rudy did that. No charges were laid. But he did it. Ooooh-kaaay.
I'm familiar with them. The overwhelming majority of knife owners do not murder people. This too is a dumb attempt to demonise the accused in lieu of proper evidence.
What? You said Rudy carried a knife. I proved he's not the only one. Why is it when Rudy is found with a knife that's his m.o. but when Raffaele carries one it's demonisation?
Further, if you're arguing that Amanda and Raffaele staged the broken window, how did they know about Rudy's M.O. given that they didn't know Rudy at all as far as anyone can show? Isn't it a hell of a lot simpler to just figure that the most likely explanation is that the guy with a history of throwing rocks through windows and robbing houses threw a rock through a window and robbed a house?
I didn't make myself clear. They probably didn't know that Rudy had been alleged to have entered a premises through a broken window. Rudy does not have a history of throwing rocks through windows by the way.
The evidence at the trial proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the window in Filomena's room was not entered from the exterior of the cottage.
Oh for pity's sake, will you give this up? Amanda was involved in a single noise complaint which was and is completely unrelated to rape and murder. Rudy has an extensive history of armed housebreaking with a M.O. that fits the crime scene.
Just for that--no. I'm not going to give up on the noise complaint. It was fair game at her trial and it's fair game here. Amanda has an extensive history--corroborated by evidence, a citation, and her own words--of reckless behaviour not limited to that incident but including abandoning her sister on a train to Perugia so she could **** a complete stranger in the bathroom. She also called in sick several days and finally abandoned a job in Germany that her uncle had worked to get for her so she could drink and hang out in the parks instead.
That's only the tip of the iceberg and it's all right there in her own words. Nothing invented to "demonise" her. She's right there in the same league of irresponsible young adults along with Rudy and Raffaele and now all three of them are in prison.
I really think that this is another point where the Amanda-is-guilty crowd take leave of rational suspicion and have collectively charged off into ridiculous conspiracy-theory groupthink. Demonising Knox strikes me as irrational and unpleasant, but it's kind of understandable that the Amanda-is-guilty crowd go there once they have invested themselves in the belief that she's a callous rapist and murderer. However downplaying Rudy's established history of criminal behaviour in order to make Amanda look worse by comparison takes my breath away. You really do have to have your priorities seriously screwed up to do that.
Downplaying Rudy's behaviour? Absolutely not. He was right there in the cottage with them.
However, the
only reason that Rudy's prior history is brought up is to make it appear--in the face of all contrary evidence--that he alone murdered Meredith. It's as though the trial should have only concerned itself with their backgrounds and not what they did together on the evening of 01 NOV 2007. You said it yourself above. You said that if someone had once thrown a rock through a window then that's evidence he did it to Filomena's window on 01 NOV 2007. Even though the evidence clearly showed that Rudy had nothing at all to do with it.
As I think I said earlier a sign of dysfunctional thinking is the need to make everything evidence that Amanda is guilty as hell and the worst person ever. An even-handed, rational appraisal might come to the conclusion that Amanda is guilty but that there is also a good case for her innocence. I wouldn't agree with that conclusion, but it wouldn't be blatantly irrational. But instead to Stilicho and Bob and Fulcanelli it seems that everything is evidence of her guilt that beats you over the head, and anything that Amanda's defenders say is automatically false and needs to be gainsaid, even if it's something irrelevant to her guilt like Rudy's background.
There is a case for her innocence. The first step (as I indicated many many pages ago) would be for her to recover her memory. That's the minimum she must do to indicate her innocence. You've read her testimony, I assume. If she can change each one of those "don't knows" and "can't remembers" to "this happened at such and such a time" then she would have a clear path to providing at least reasonable doubt.
Would Amanda be less of a murderer if she did do it, but Rudy had a criminal background? Not as I see it. His background would be totally irrelevant in that case. But it's not enough for the Amanda-is-guilty crowd that she be guilty. Nope, if the Amanda-is-innocent crowd say that Rudy has a criminal background then by God the Amanda-is-guilty crowd will argue that Rudy was a great guy and anyone who says different is "spewing twisted hearsay".
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
