Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Draca]

Supporters on both Right and Left

As for Amanda's supporters, can you name a strong supporter of her's that is actively on the right?

There are lots of supporters from both the political right and left. I think it is great that people with different political views have both come to the same conclusion and are working together to help.

A few of the names from the right - Steve Moore, PhanuelB

 

[RoseMontague]

Then why did the meanies over at PMF release it? It's the same thing with the video of the bra clasp collection. Why release that?

Those nice people at PMF (who did a wonderful job of translation, except for the error recently pointed out) are going to believe Massei no matter what if for nothing else than the time, energy, and faith they had invested in it. I had Google translated the Massei report and read through it 3 times before the translation was released and I had some serous concerns about it. I had anticipated the translation might help to explain the problems I saw inherent in the report. Unfortunately the translation made those errors even more clear.

The bra clasp video was released by someone on the side of innocence, IIRC.

 

[CDHost]

Authoritan submissives! HA! That is funny. BDSM is reality, isn't it?

Well a fondness for bondage correlates with fundamentalist parents which does correlate strongly with RWA. Sexual masochism correlates with narcissistic parents which would likely be uncorrelated or anti-correlated. RWA can emerge out of childhood trauma, similar to sexual masochism. D/S are people who want to be submissive. RWA are people who want to belong.

But yes, RWA:olitics as Bottoming::Sex.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the role of a Lifetime movie

Most of these were counting on the Massei report to make sense out of that view of the evidence. That has backfired, in my opinion.

RoseMontague,

In the run-up to the release of the English translation, one of the commenters there said, "Bruce, Kapow," with reference to Bruce Fisher. I think that they thought this would settle all doubts in the English-speaking countries. In fact, some fast commenters still seem to think highly of it when discussing the upcoming movie: "TJMK whacked Lifetime a few times and it was noted but FAR more important is they read the PMF Massei. Insofar as there is balance PMF played THE role there." What is strange is that I have not seen much reconsideration of the Massei report at the pro-guilt sites, despite their having months to assimilate the criticisms noted here and elsewhere. If the movie takes the report at face value, I will watch it with low expectations.

 

[Alt+F4]

What have we heard about his behavior in the 3+ years he's been in prison so far?

In the U.S. many (but not all) state department of corrections have "inmate searches" on their websites which also state the convicts infractions (at the minimum if they have any).

Here's a link to a particularly egregious offender (in my opinion) in North Carolina doing 60 years:

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi...turl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1

Now my question is, does Italy have a similar system? If not, it's impossible to know what Rudy has been doing behind bars.

 

[Alt+F4]

Sure it does. 24 years for Murder2 minus 1/3rd for quick trial minus a little for expressing remorse. Throw in parole.

How does the parole system work in Italy?

 

[CDHost]

Then why did the meanies over at PMF release it? It's the same thing with the video of the bra clasp collection. Why release that?

The people at PMF seem to believe that Massei is convincing. This comes from group think. I gave a passage where Massei is essentially claiming the ability to do necromancy and read Meredith mind from beyond the grave, about what she was thinking on the night of the murder. And the reaction is I'm obviously ignorant of the facts for pointing out how silly that is.

They encourage people to read it. I had a long discussion with "Doctor Kathy" (who seemed sane) I have no idea what her PMF name is (and don't say it here, that name is tied to her real name and thus will violate outing rules; and while they did it to us we shouldn't reciprocate that sort of evil). She found Massei convincing, but when asked to defend what was convincing about it she went in a big circle. When asked what lethal act did Amanda perform she couldn't answer. So did she really find it convincing or was she told she did it was convincing and accepted a social truth?

As for the video that came out from the other side. Someone in Italy with a conscience.

 

[RoseMontague]

In the U.S. many (but not all) state department of corrections have "inmate searches" on their websites which also state the convicts infractions (at the minimum if they have any).

Here's a link to a particularly egregious offender (in my opinion) in North Carolina doing 60 years:

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi...turl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1

Now my question is, does Italy have a similar system? If not, it's impossible to know what Rudy has been doing behind bars.

Melissa Marvin deserved punishment for driving drunk and causing an accident that killed 4 teenagers. The sentence was 15 years consecutive for each of the second degree murder charges with no eligibility for parole until the 60 years is up. What happened was a tragedy and I have had personal experience with accidents caused by drunk drivers. Still I believe the judge went way too far in his sentencing on this one.

 

[Alt+F4]

Those nice people at PMF (who did a wonderful job of translation, except for the error recently pointed out) are going to believe Massei no matter what if for nothing else than the time, energy, and faith they had invested in it.

Their opinions of it are different than yours. If everyone believed the same set of facts in a criminal case there would be no need for courts, judges, lawyers and juries. It's one thing to disagree with another person's analysis of the facts, it's an entirely different thing to think that someone is right-wing, racist, misogynist and/or in a cult if they disagree with a pro-innocence stance (I don't mean you Rose).

I was hoping that the, "you disagree with me, so you must be evil in someway" way of thinking is something we could have left in the 20th century, I guess I was wrong.

The bra clasp video was released by someone on the side of innocence, IIRC.

Do tell!

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

In the run-up to the release of the English translation, one of the commenters there said, "Bruce, Kapow," with reference to Bruce Fisher. I think that they thought this would settle all doubts in the English-speaking countries. In fact, some fast commenters still seem to think highly of it when discussing the upcoming movie: "TJMK whacked Lifetime a few times and it was noted but FAR more important is they read the PMF Massei. Insofar as there is balance PMF played THE role there." What is strange is that I have not seen much reconsideration of the Massei report at the pro-guilt sites, despite their having months to assimilate the criticisms noted here and elsewhere. If the movie takes the report at face value, I will watch it with low expectations.

Technically they don't criticize the Massei report directly. Some will discuss other theories of motive instead (like the rape prank theory) and also express doubt about some of the witnesses involved like Curatolo and Quintavalle, but they do not relate that directly to the Massei report by saying Massei made a mistake or is not believable. Then they turn around and tell others that doubt to read the Massei report. It is rather bizarre, really.

 

[RoseMontague]

Their opinions of it are different than yours. If everyone believed the same set of facts in a criminal case there would be no need for courts, judges, lawyers and juries. It's one thing to disagree with another person's analysis of the facts, it's an entirely different thing to think that someone is right-wing, racist, misogynist and/or in a cult if they disagree with a pro-innocence stance (I don't mean you Rose).

I was hoping that the, "you disagree with me, so you must be evil in someway" way of thinking is something we could have left in the 20th century, I guess I was wrong.

It may depend on the individual poster. I will return to one of those "evil" places if my totally unjustified banning is ever lifted.

I do agree with one poster that said the other conspiracy theory is that Amanda, Rudy, and Raffaele banded together to murder. Perhaps ours is a conspiracy theory involving Mignini and a few others. Only one of the conspiracies is probably true, in any case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Technically they don't criticize the Massei report directly. Some will discuss other theories of motive instead (like the rape prank theory) and also express doubt about some of the witnesses involved like Curatolo and Quintavalle, but they do not relate that directly to the Massei report by saying Massei made a mistake or is not believable. Then they turn around and tell others that doubt to read the Massei report. It is rather bizarre, really.

My view is that many of the most vocal pro-guilt characters long ago decided that this was an issue on which to "take sides" and stick to the chosen side no matter what. And then they added to that the near-evangelical belief that they were on some sort of "crusade" to "protect" Meredith Kercher's memory, and to somehow act as the "voice of the family". I think some (but not all) of them started to realise the reality of the situation when they realised the Massei report was not the shining beacon of hard logic they had convinced themselves in advance that it was.

But they're on this "crusade", you see, so they feel they have no option but to carry the "fight" through to the bitter end. One need only look at very recent mentions of "trenches", "the enemy" and "doing battle" by many of the main protagonists to understand the underlying mentality. I hope - for their sakes - that they have mentally started to reconcile themselves to the possibility of losing this "fight"......

 

[Justinian2]

Melissa Marvin deserved punishment for driving drunk and causing an accident that killed 4 teenagers. The sentence was 15 years consecutive for each of the second degree murder charges with no eligibility for parole until the 60 years is up. What happened was a tragedy and I have had personal experience with accidents caused by drunk drivers. Still I believe the judge went way too far in his sentencing on this one.

Twenty years ago I gave up drinking, smoking and Republicanism.

For a twenty year stretch, I logged 50,000 miles driving drunk. I never got caught, never had an accident and never got a ticket. I was always super cautious, never weaved in and out of lanes, never drove drunk when children were on the roads and never exceeded the speed limit.

However, I've probably driven a million miles. The last half million miles were without an accident or a guilty finding for a speeding ticket.

Just driving drunk is a victimless crime, in my estimation.

However, driving while seeing double is not good.

The mods are too harsh on what is on/off topic on this thread, but I have to admit this is off topic.

 

[Alt+F4]

Twenty years ago I gave up drinking, smoking and Republicanism.

For a twenty year stretch, I logged 50,000 miles driving drunk. I never got caught, never had an accident and never got a ticket. I was always super cautious, never weaved in and out of lanes, never drove drunk when children were on the roads and never exceeded the speed limit.

However, I've probably driven a million miles. The last half million miles were without an accident or a guilty finding for a speeding ticket.

Just driving drunk is a victimless crime, in my estimation.

However, driving while seeing double is not good.

There was a thread on drunk driving being a victimless crime a few months back. I have seen that you are one of the "newbies" on JREF that does post in other sub-forums. I wish others would as well, they would learn quite a bit about what it means to be a skeptic.

 

[LondonJohn]

Twenty years ago I gave up drinking, smoking and Republicanism.

For a twenty year stretch, I logged 50,000 miles driving drunk. I never got caught, never had an accident and never got a ticket. I was always super cautious, never weaved in and out of lanes, never drove drunk when children were on the roads and never exceeded the speed limit.

However, I've probably driven a million miles. The last half million miles were without an accident or a guilty finding for a speeding ticket.

Just driving drunk is a victimless crime, in my estimation.

However, driving while seeing double is not good.

Woah, you're on VERY shaky ground here. I disagree with you fundamentally. What you're saying is similar to saying something like this: "I think that walking around in an urban area firing a revolver randomly into the air is a victimless crime, unless and until one of my bullets wounds or kills someone." I think your attitude on this is irresponsible and reprehensible, I'm afraid...

 

[Withnail1969]

Woah, you're on VERY shaky ground here. I disagree with you fundamentally. What you're saying is similar to saying something like this: "I think that walking around in an urban area firing a revolver randomly into the air is a victimless crime, unless and until one of my bullets wounds or kills someone." I think your attitude on this is irresponsible and reprehensible, I'm afraid...

It all seems fine until you actually crash, and then it's too late. That's the trouble.

 

[Alt+F4]

Woah, you're on VERY shaky ground here. I disagree with you fundamentally. What you're saying is similar to saying something like this: "I think that walking around in an urban area firing a revolver randomly into the air is a victimless crime, unless and until one of my bullets wounds or kills someone." I think your attitude on this is irresponsible and reprehensible, I'm afraid...

Yeah, that's pretty much what almost everyone said on the "drunk driving is a victimless crime" thread. The poster (not Justianian) had his head handed to him.

 

[LondonJohn]

It all seems fine until you actually crash, and then it's too late. That's the trouble.

Exactly. And it's scientifically demonstrable (as well as totally obvious to anyone who's ever drunk alcohol) that even a couple of beers can adversely affect your reaction time, vision and general judgement. Believe me, I'm no law-and-order hard-liner. But I totally fail to see how anyone can begin to make a cogent argument that putting yourself in control of a potentially lethal machine when knowingly impaired is in any way OK. Incidentally, I'd argue that the same goes for driving when affected by any drugs or medication, or even driving when over-tired (which is why commercial drivers have to scrupulously observe maximum driving hours). And most people have no idea how much kinetic energy is stored up in a family car travelling at even 30mph.

 

[Alt+F4]

Justinian, you're an advocate of drunk driving? I agree with London John, that is irresponsible and reprehensible.

I don't think he is advocating it, I think he doesn't beleive it's a big deal. He is totally wrong.

 

[Justinian2]

Woah, you're on VERY shaky ground here. I disagree with you fundamentally. What you're saying is similar to saying something like this: "I think that walking around in an urban area firing a revolver randomly into the air is a victimless crime, unless and until one of my bullets wounds or kills someone." I think your attitude on this is irresponsible and reprehensible, I'm afraid...

Profiling and psychiatric classifications shouldn't be used against Amanda in a court of law.

Profiling does usually help the police narrow down suspects (except in the case of the Craigslist killer), but it does not belong in a court of law.

Characterizing a drunken driver as an accident about to happen falls under the classification of profiling. I won a putting contest by dropping a tricky 60 foot putt while drunk.

All drunken drivers are not fatalities about to happen. Profiling and psychiatric classifications shouldn't be used against Amanda in a court of law.