Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Spader case

I just found this link on Steven Spader and the murder of Kimberly Cates. The connections between this case and the Knox/Sollecito case offered by others are specious nonsense at best. I do not intend to kill any more electrons discussing it.

 

[Chris C]

In regard to the break-in at the law office, I do recall this but what was the evidence for it?

As for the murder of Meredith, do you think he broke in through Filomena's window (as some say) or came through the front door (as others say)?

So what do you believe?
1. Meredith let Rudy in and she was murdered while Rudy was sitting on the toilet.
2. Rudy broke in and killed Meredith.
3. Or the prosecutions theory. Knox and Sollecito stand at the basketball court till 1130, enter the apartment and start getting stoned on couch. Then they let rudy in the apartment. Rudy goes and tries to rape Meredith while Knox and Sollecito go get stoned on the couch some more. Knox then decides Meredith is putting up to much of a fight and her and sollecito go help rudy. They do all this in 15 minutes while managing to get stoned twice, letting rudy in and helped rape meredith, then decide to cut meredith's throat. Then while she is slowly bleeding to death, they jump in a time machine and go backwards 20 minutes so Meredith will die exactly at 2330 hrs.

 

[Withnail1969]

ftfy

Sophistry. While technically it is a 'corruption perception index', you don't end up at rank 67, below Rwanda, if your country is squeaky clean.

 

[platonov]

This post bears so little relation to my own, I'm going to assume your hitting of the 'Quote' button was an act of pure random chance.

No I was referring to ..

About Harry Wilkens, I also think he's a spoof of Charlie Wilkes, or that's the impression I've gotten from reading his posts, anyway...

Doesn't seem cryptic - HW is a 'poe'


And also the fascination with newspapers other sites etc.
The court docs / evidence and appeal docs are what's important.

.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

If you use the search feature here you will see that the majority of poster who think Rudy is the lone killer reject the "escalation of violence" senario. Most think that Meredith was attacked almost immediately after she entered the apartment was incapacitated very quickly.

Since there was no violence at the nursery school there was no violence to be escalated there.

Oh dear!

Seems you misunderstood.

Perhaps because you only paid attention to the one line you quoted from my post. I have therefore repeated my post for you below - I am referring to the escalation of violence seen in many offenders when one examines their history. For example, committing a trivial offence can then lead to another more serious offence. Then, another (even more serious) offence. Here's an example:

A boy hurts a small animal, say a Cat. That boy becomes a youth and commits a burglary. That youth becomes a young man and burns a house down, killing the occupants. See the escalation?

P.S. I have also repeated my earlier questions to you, which went unanswered for some reason.

Have you seriously not considered the possibility of an 'escalation of violence' on Rudy's part? Seriously?

I'm sure any local library will contain plenty of information about offenders and the escalation of violence in many cases. I'm sure you have heard about some rapists starting off with minor sexual offences and then escalating. How about some murderers starting off with minor offences (like burglary) and then escalating...

I really, really hope you realise how weak your points were and acknowledge so WITHOUT asking for cites to the above, although I am sure a few hours spent on your part doing some research might prove very informative and enlightening. You might even decide to read back through the thread - ya know, like the previous occasion you and a number of others discussed the very same topic.

...I see you didn't actually answer the original question posed to you?

Why wasn't Rudy Guede arrested for breaking into the school?

I'd like to also ask you what you thought Rudy was doing with the 16'' knife from the kitchen and also, where had the laptop in his possession come from?

No wish to overburden you with questions so that should suffice for now.

Thanks.

 

[katy_did]

No I was referring to ..

Doesn't seem cryptic - HW is a 'poe'

And also the fascination with newspapers other sites etc.
The court docs / evidence and appeal docs are what's important.

I'd thought you were making a point about the disagreement over the 'poe' status of HW, and arguing that this disagreement pointed to a general lack of soundness in pro-innocent arguments (an unsound argument in itself). I pointed out that we had a very similar discussion about an apparently parodic pro-guilt post a while back, and asked whether you therefore believed this to indicate an equal lack of soundness in pro-guilt posts. You replied with something about page 3 girls and tabloids, which is why I became confused.

 

[quadraginta]

Sophistry. While technically it is a 'corruption perception index', you don't end up at rank 67, below Rwanda, if your country is squeaky clean.

It isn't sophistry, Withnail. That is its name.

You called it by a different name than it is called even by the people who created it.

It does not signify what you intended to imply by dishonestly renaming it.

It is not intended to be used in the fashion which you have used it here. The organization which compiles it makes that very clear themselves. This is entirely aside from the many criticisms of its usefulness and validity even for its intended purposes.

That isn't "sophistry". That is fact.

 

[platonov]

And now my faith in my ability to understand randomly cryptic comments is restored, even if they don't explicitly and inexplicably refer to topless page 3 girls. Thanks.

The reference was not inexplicable to me for 2 reasons.

Firstly the sun story was discussed here some days ago [as many press refs to AK are] as if the had any actual bearing on the case.
It was background on precisely what kind of rag it is.

Secondly said rag has [or certainly had] a record of salacious attention to detail in sexual assault cases.
Obviously there is a market for that ! Go figure. ?

.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I thought the Rudy as the lone killer hypothesis involved Meredith being sexually violated after she was dead.

The forensic evidence as I understand it shows that Meredith's bra was cut off by Rudy from behind after she received her fatal neck wound. That seems to be to be very strong evidence that Rudy continued to sexually assault her after stabbing her fatally. The fact that she was rolled on to her back, with a pillow positioned under her pelvis, after her bra was cut off constitutes further evidence that the most likely scenario was that Rudy sexually violated her while she was dying or dead.

But you know, he was never convicted of anything before, and he never stabbed anyone else before, so the fact that his DNA was found in the vagina of a woman who had been fatally stabbed and then raped probably doesn't mean anything. He's just a nice young man that Amanda Knox led astray with sex and drugs in the fifteen minutes or so between the earliest possible time Amanda could have gotten to her house and met him, and the latest plausible time of death for Meredith based on witness testimony, the body temperature evidence and the autopsy evidence.

It's a very good thing she's in jail: If she could turn a nice young man like Rudy into a murderer, rapist and necrophiliac in fifteen minutes imagine what she could do in half an hour!

I'm curious, why do you think a woman has to be young and attractive to be sexually assulted and/or murdered? Also, women are sexually assulted/murdered during the day and at work.

I'm curious, do you think people are robots, operating under simple and absolutely deterministic programs? Do you think that it's true beyond reasonable doubt that if Rudy did not murder and then rape the teacher he confronted earlier, then he could not possibly have murdered and then raped Meredith?

If not, where do you think you are going with this?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Mr. Tedeschi did object. What is "missing" is the deferment decree.

And - since you seem to enjoy questions on hypothetic scenarios - if instead you had found the deferment decree in the file, what would be the difference in practice?

Do you think in a different formal scenario (like: with a signed deferment decree in place of the oral explanation given by Mignini to judge Matteini) Sollecito would have been allowed to take counsel with his lawyer before speaking with the preliminariìy judge?

I also take issue with your implication that the conferring of a lawyer with his client can somehow impede an investigation. Moreover, what Bongiorno objected to was not Mr. Sollecito's answers but the abrogation of Mr. Sollecito's rights. Really, this is civil liberties 101.

Precisely, the abrogation of what right? This seems to me rather Civil Liberties version Halides1.1

Bongiorno's request sounded ridiculous in the courtroom and was tossed out by a court of law after just an hour conferring. Does this tell anything to you?
Bongiorno wanted the transcript to be dismissed on an ex-post pretext, a child in place of the judge would realize it.

 

[tsig]

Could be, false memory seems to be pretty common.

Reading this thread is a lot like Chinese water torture so we could all be suffering from induced, internalized false memories.

 

[platonov]

I'd thought you were making a point about the disagreement over the 'poe' status of HW, and arguing that this disagreement pointed to a general lack of soundness in pro-innocent arguments (an unsound argument in itself). I pointed out that we had a very similar discussion about an apparently parodic pro-guilt post a while back, and asked whether you therefore believed this to indicate an equal lack of soundness in pro-guilt posts. You replied with something about page 3 girls and tabloids, which is why I became confused.

Now this is getting cryptic.

No, I was making a different point.

Is HW a poe or not and as with some/many of the innocentsi arguments how can you tell

 

[tsig]

You claim to be a skeptic, but it seems there are some things about which you have no skepticism at all. In fact for you these possibilities can under no circumstances be considered. Let me enumerate them for you.

1) Any possibility that the Italian justic system could be in any way in error or at fault in the Amanda Knox case, despite Italy's abysmal rank of 67 in the 2010 World Corruption Index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

2) Any possibility that any 'witnesses' in the case could be lying or mistaken, despite proof that they are.

3) Any possibility that the convicted murderer and sex criminal Rudy Guede had any history of crime, despite evidence to the contrary.

4) Any possibility that any discrepancies in Amanda and Raffaele's accounts of events are anything other than malicious lies, even when they do not benefit and in some cases harm their cases.

That's 67 out of 178.

This is interesting.

The Corruption Perceptions Index has drawn increasing criticism in the decade since its launch, leading to calls for the index to be abandoned.[6][7][8] This criticism has been directed at the quality of the Index itself, and the lack of actionable insights created from a simple country ranking.[9][10] Because corruption is willfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used. The CPI uses an eclectic mix of third-party surveys to sample public perceptions of corruption through a variety of questions, ranging from "Do you trust the government?" to "Is corruption a big problem in your country?"

 

[tsig]

Sophistry. While technically it is a 'corruption perception index', you don't end up at rank 67, below Rwanda, if your country is squeaky clean.

How was correcting you on the name of the organization sophistry?

soph·ist·ry
noun \ˈsä-fə-strē\
Definition of SOPHISTRY
1
: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
2
: sophism 1

 

[platonov]

I always thought it was silly of them to take Amanda's word for it when she accused Patrick. It was obviously a fantasy. You are right that they never took her word for being at Raffaele's all night. I figure they were wrong about that one as well.

I think we have been over this many times.

They didn't take her word for it in either case - they acted on her statements, they could hardly ignore them.

AK landed PL in jail - and recd time for this crime.

His alibi was sound and there was no other evidence against him - the converse of her situation

.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are you guys going to get back to presenting arguments and evidence pertaining to your belief in the guilt of Amanda Knox?

Because it seems to me that all you are doing at this stage of the discussion is hiding in the undergrowth looking for any semi-relevant mistake or assertion to snipe at, regardless of whether it has any direct bearing at all on the question this thread is actually about, and not advancing out of the scrub to make any positive claims or arguments of your own whatsoever.

 

[Malkmus]

In regard to the break-in at the law office, I do recall this but what was the evidence for it?

Someone breaks into the second floor window of a law office in Perugia using a large rock. Rudy is caught in Milan with the stolen goods from said law office. Similarity to the cottage break-in is undeniable. Rudy possessing the stolen goods is also undeniably incriminating.

As for the murder of Meredith, do you think he broke in through Filomena's window (as some say) or came through the front door (as others say)?

I think he came in through the window.

Now, I've answered your questions, ALt. It would be nice of you to answer the ones I directed at you a few days ago regarding Amanda's confession.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

questionable actions

And - since you seem to enjoy questions on hypothetic scenarios - if instead you had found the deferment decree in the file, what would be the difference in practice?

Do you think in a different formal scenario (like: with a signed deferment decree in place of the oral explanation given by Mignini to judge Matteini) Sollecito would have been allowed to take counsel with his lawyer before speaking with the preliminariìy judge?



Precisely, the abrogation of what right? This seems to me rather Civil Liberties version Halides1.1

Bongiorno's request sounded ridiculous in the courtroom and was tossed out by a court of law after just an hour conferring. Does this tell anything to you?
Bongiorno wanted the transcript to be dismissed on an ex-post pretext, a child in place of the judge would realize it.

Machiavelli,

The suspect has the general right of immediate contact with a lawyer unless a decree of deferment divieto di colloquio is deposed, as I understand it." If it never turned up, then it was a fantasy, and his lawyer should have been able to see him. Perhaps he would have counseled Sollecito not to speak, or to speak on certain subjects only. Who can say. What the tossing out tells me is that the judge did not start the trial with an open mind. One of the Supreme Court (U.S.) justices once said that the right to counsel must be the right to effective counsel to be meaningful. Meaningful counsel could not be given in this instance.

You and the other members of the pro-guilt community continue to ignore the ways in which Knox and Sollecito were treated exceptionally. They were imprisoned for nearly a year before being formally charged. As weak as the reasons for imprisoning Knox, even those flimsy excuses fail to explain why Sollecito should have been treated in the same way. They were subjected to a prejudicial parade in Perugia. The police leaked false information and put Knox's picture up in Rome next to Bernardo Provenzano, further poisoning public opinion. All of these things happened before the trial even started. Even if one believes the two are guilty, if one is committed to civil liberties, one is obliged to examine these actions.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the line forms to the left

Someone breaks into the second floor window of a law office in Perugia using a large rock. Rudy is caught in Milan with the stolen goods from said law office. Similarity to the cottage break-in is undeniable. Rudy possessing the stolen goods is also undeniably incriminating.




I think he came in through the window.

Now, I've answered your questions, ALt. It would be nice of you to answer the ones I directed at you a few days ago regarding Amanda's confession.

Alt+F4.

After you finish answering Malkmus, I would be grateful if you attempted to answer mine.

 

[Malkmus]

How was correcting you on the name of the organization sophistry?

soph·ist·ry
noun \ˈsä-fə-strē\
Definition of SOPHISTRY
1
: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
2
: sophism 1

Is there a chance we can get to know where you really stand on this case, tsig? I mean you've been in here participating for a while now, but rarely if ever have I heard you discuss or interpret the evidence in the case which is what this thread is about. I'm not asking for a lot. Just maybe a bullet list of the reasons you think the pair are guilty - if that is indeed where you stand, I'm not entirely sure. But I'd like to assume you're actually capable of discussing more relevant issues than the meaning of "gravatas", albino pigeons or describing this thread as water torture. You're in here so frequently that you must have an actual viewpoint on the evidence, but reading your posts makes one wonder if you're even at all familiar with the case beyond the simple fact that Meredith was murdered and Knox was found guilty.