Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

A year is a long time, it's time enough to forget many things, many arguments made, many that might have seemed reasonable at the time. A year or so ago the 'PR Campaign' was what convinced you Amanda and Raffaele were guilty! Since I read this less than a year ago, in full last July and in part again last October, it was fresher in my mind than yours perhaps.

You weren't the only one with posts of this nature, I collected a few as I wanted to fill out your whole 'friends network' each with a post, but I stopped when I found yours, as I didn't actually expect to find it! I'll keep the links I was collecting, as there's more, I only entered 'campaign' in the search terms, 'PR' wasn't long enough to register I guess. I wonder what I'd get with 'Marriott?'

One of these is Kermit, 'tattling' on Supernaut to Gogherty-Marriot itself in an 'open letter.' I got a kick out of that one, thus included it even though he was one of them spreading the fantasy rather than succumbing to it. I didn't read on from there, I wonder if I did would I find any of the worthy posters of those halcyon days you so enjoy reminiscing about challenging such an absurd statement? Circa page 260, which you can access from one of the posts down below, you can see where Stilicho goes on his 'canceled check campaign' to try and determine whose being paid to post.

Perhaps you should split hairs, loudly denounce me with precision and petulance, and proceed on the attack.


Yes, there's more....


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5895693&postcount=10429

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5880301&postcount=9057

The open letter is hilarious! I don't think I'd seen that before.

Apart from the laughable content of the letter, I'm also rather amused by the valediction: "Yours sincerely, Kermit"

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The open letter is hilarious! I don't think I'd seen that before.

Apart from the laughable content of the letter, I'm also rather amused by the valediction: "Yours sincerely, Kermit"

Odd my eyes were drawn to the post above the letter.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The open letter is hilarious! I don't think I'd seen that before.

Apart from the laughable content of the letter, I'm also rather amused by the valediction: "Yours sincerely, Kermit"

I think the open letter to lifetime was actually more hilarious. They wrote the open letter and then right after the movie when they realized it might be prejudicial, they were lambasting everyone they could for having the gall to criticize the movie on their message board.

 

[Kaosium]

1) Why would they do that ??
Per chance because they have access to a myriad of details that you do not, and they do not share your personal unsupported descriptions of 'preposterous and ludicrous charges" so they used a perfectly legal wiretap

Perhaps in the end they'll wish they'd thought it through, 'preposterous and ludicrous' is a proper term for accusing two college kids with no history of violence and no gang/cult affiliations of participating in a 'satanic ritual' or 'sex game' whichever it was announced at the time of the murders.

2)"Try to do something" that authorities charge is patently unethical as well as allegedly illegal ??

What did they do? Outside go to the press? I find it frightening that going to the press and complaining to one's elected representatives could be considered 'illegal' in Italy.

3) May I suggest you read the readily available transcripts of exactly what "angry words" they said and the totally unlawful actions they discussed to "try to help them" that even Dr Sollecito himself knew at the time were grounds for indictment and tried to silence his incredibly ignorant Carabinieri Officer Daughter from recounting

I read Jool's article, and I've read the transcript many pages back. As I recall he wanted his representatives to intervene, and Vanessa was willing to break a finger to move to the civilian realm. What did I miss, there were some angry words about a prison break or something? I forget to be honest.

This would enable you to probably easily answer your own questions, and comprehend the fact that those actions you cite would be considered as 'common practice' nearly everywhere.
Contrary to your inference, this is not a spying on enemies wiretap by an ultra secret KGB-like Agency (on a 'kid').
Even the US FBI uses these techniques every hour of every day... to protect us all

Conclusion; this perfectly legal, commonly used wiretap does not bother me one iota, nor should it you.

It's downright absurd to wiretap the family of a college kid being arrested for something as bizarre as this, with obviously no reason to think they were involved.

Finally your subtle emphasis on the tired talking points: 'Baaaaad Italian Authorities', and 'the kid' gets you an noted "atta-boy" from peeps in the PR Palace in Downtown Seattle

'Ad hominem' and 'Appeal to Emotion,' Pilot, we're on the JREF board. I'll let my 'supervisors' know you think I'm doing a good job though!

ETA:
Having just noted LJ's startling numbers that show Italy's wiretaps are 152 times as frequent as in the US; without further research I grant little other than somewhere there is probably a cleverly crafted and cunningly presented statistic that on cursory shallow introspection seems able to 'prove' almost anything.
See several examples here:http://www.econoclass.com/misleadingstats.html

That could also explain why it seems so absurd to me, tapping phones is not commonplace in the US, to tap the phones of the family of a murder suspect you have in custody is absolutely bizarre unless there's reason to think they're involved. Perhaps in Italy this is more likely?

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

How do these possibilities square with Pasquali's results?

I find this link far from convincing.

The only elements examined are the pattern of glass spray in Filomena's room, and the lack of glass fragments on the ground outside. In the first case, Sfarzo ultimately bases his argument upon witness mendacity:

"I should remember that the famous pieces of glass on the clothes are not documented at all, they don't appear in any police picture. So, how do we know were there?
It's just because someone said that. Giobbi and Filomena, indeed, said to have seen pieces of glass on the clothes."

In the second case, he only considers the initial impact in questioning the lack of glass found below. No mention at all is made of the extreme unlikelihood of an intruder leaving most of the sill covered in glass, or the implied likelihood that glass brushed aside should be found below.

 

[Fuji]

Your reasons are all either untrue or of no account:

- Ground undisturbed under the window: of no account;
- No signs of shoe scuff marks on wall: untrue;
- Broken glass all along windowsill: not sure about this, but it doesn't preclude entry through the window;
- Absence of broken glass under window: never verified by investigators;
- Absence of Guede's genetic material from Filomena's room: of no account;
- No signs of dirt from ground below found in Filomena's room: of no account, but whitewash from the wall was found in Filomena's room;
- Unlikelihood as point of entry (or even as only ATTEMPTED point of entry): untrue;
- Broken glass found on top of items in Filomena's room; of no account, since glass shards were found both under and on top of the scattered clothes.

I honestly don't know know what else to say other than if my house was invaded, I'd hope that someone sharing your approach to crime scene analysis would NOT be performing the investigation. Unless, that is, I was attempting insurance fraud, in which case I'd hope you'd be the lead investigator.

This one deserves its own response:

- Nothing of value taken from Filomena's room: of no account, since there is clear evidence that Guede was interrupted during his burglary by Meredith arriving home;

In what room was Guede surprised?

 

[Fuji]

Ahahaha. I pointed it out almost offhand, then you picked up the ball and insisted that my correction was wrong, on the basis that the mighty Nick Pisa had spelled the name in a certain way. I think I know who made the "big deal" out of it.

At least Hellmann might get his name spelled correctly more often now, eh Fiji?

There was nothing "offhand" about your unnecessary correction. You made a two-line post, half of which was devoted to this matter. If you really didn't want to make a big deal about it, you shouldn't have pointed it out in the first place. In a thread with untold hundreds of spelling errors, to single out mine for correction is suggestive of a motivation that has nothing to do with substantively furthering discussion of the case at hand.

 

[Fuji]

Again, I'm afraid that the condescension might be justifiable. If a person actually committed a crime, but cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (following a correctly-applied judicial process) to have committed that crime, then that person has not escaped justice. That person has been submitted to the proper judicial process, and justice has been properly applied.

From Oxford Dictionaries:

justice(just|ice)

Pronunciation:/ˈdʒʌstɪs/
noun

1 [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment:a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people

* the quality of being fair and reasonable:the justice of his case

* the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:a tragic miscarriage of justice

2 a judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the Supreme Court of a country or state.



I was using "justice" in my earlier posts in accordance with the first and second meanings indicated under the primary definition, whereas you appear to have been using the third meaning. Hopefully, with this clarification, you can understand that there is no internal contradiction at all in what I previously stated.

 

[Fuji]

The attack on Meredith Kercher was a resident-surprises-burglar, burglar-rapes-and-robs-resident.

So in your scenario, where was Guede when he was surprised?

Once a burglar is caught in the act, or if he decides that the opportunity of rape has presented itself, the burglary is really over for all intents and purposes. He either flees, or commits the rape and flees. Burglars know that the longer they spend in a location, the greater their chance of being caught.

Agreed. Would that some Knox supporters who think that Guede may have staged the burglary would heed your words.

 

[quadraginta]

A year is a long time, it's time enough to forget many things, many arguments made, many that might have seemed reasonable at the time. A year or so ago the 'PR Campaign' was what convinced you Amanda and Raffaele were guilty! Since I read this less than a year ago, in full last July and in part again last October, it was fresher in my mind than yours perhaps.

This is the conclusion you drew from that post?

Perhaps your standard of "freshness" is less stringent than mine, or perhaps you are untroubled by offering such blatant misrepresentation. More charitably, perhaps you see what you want to see, and this deficiency precludes your ability to read and grasp what was actually written.

I quite clearly stated in that post that it was the PR which prompted my desire to learn about the case in more detail. Quite clearly not that I was "convinced" by it that Knox and Sollecito were guilty.

I am not even yet "convinced", in spite of every effort by so many passionate Knox advocates to shoehorn me into the "other" side.

You weren't the only one with posts of this nature, I collected a few as I wanted to fill out your whole 'friends network' each with a post, but I stopped when I found yours, as I didn't actually expect to find it! I'll keep the links I was collecting, as there's more, I only entered 'campaign' in the search terms, 'PR' wasn't long enough to register I guess. I wonder what I'd get with 'Marriott?'

Good question. Maybe you need need multiple collections, since neither I, nor the gist of the posts I was responding to was concerned with this "Marriott" obsession, but rather with the general tenor of the reporting in the U.S. at the time. Whether or not the "Marriott" effort was responsible for that is, IMO, another topic entirely, and one which holds no particular fascination for me.

One of these is Kermit, 'tattling' on Supernaut to Gogherty-Marriot itself in an 'open letter.' I got a kick out of that one, thus included it even though he was one of them spreading the fantasy rather than succumbing to it. I didn't read on from there, I wonder if I did would I find any of the worthy posters of those halcyon days you so enjoy reminiscing about challenging such an absurd statement? Circa page 260, which you can access from one of the posts down below, you can see where Stilicho goes on his 'canceled check campaign' to try and determine whose being paid to post.

Knock yourself out. You seem to be confusing me with someone who gives a damn about that.

Perhaps you should split hairs, loudly denounce me with precision and petulance, and proceed on the attack.

Preemptive dismissal?

Very clever. You'll wow the kids in the auditorium with your rhetorical wizardry ...

... 'til they grow up, anyway.

Yes, there's more....


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5895693&postcount=10429

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5880301&postcount=9057

Very persuasive.

I'm not sure of what, exactly, but I respect your enthusiasm. Ah, for the boundless energy of youth.

 

[Fuji]

colonelhall,

There is nothing hostile or bullying about anyone's asking you or Fuji to support your views with evidence and/or logical argumentation. Your use of the phrase "more convincing view" above is hardly a model of how to exchange ideas in a civil and cordial manner. The reason I said that you and Fuji have set back the pro-guilt position is that you are not engaging our arguments. Instead you are handwaving them away. Would a previously impartial observer find such arguments convicing? I strongly doubt it. However, should you change your mind and decide to engage your opposition in a dialog in which all views are examined and all commenters are treated with respect, I would welcome your participation.

halides1, I really don't think that's a fair characterization of my participation in this discussion. I post on-line only sporadically, not only at JREF, but at all fora of which I am a member. However, I do generally make a good-faith effort to respond to my interlocutors. Over the past week that I have been actively posting at JREF, I have responded (to the best of my knowledge) to all that have addressed me by name.

 

[Fuji]

I can concur with this as that's exactly where I am. I'm still on the fence about if AK and RS are guilty, though I am leaning towards innocent, mostly because I can't get a straight answer from those that support the guilty side. I keep getting fobbed off to go and read the 45k of posts in these threads, or just ignored. I see other questions I'd really like answers to being asked, and again the answers are never given, or statements are made and never backed up with evidence when challenged. One of the few things I have had answered that I asked of those pushing for guilt, was answered with evidence by an innocent supporter. So yes, the way that posters like Pilot, Fuji, and Alt-F4 have been behaving in this thread (and others in the one in the CT Forum) has started to move me towards innocence almost entirely based on the fact that those pushing for innocence can actually produce a plausable and consistant narritive of what likely happened and I have yet to see the same from those pushing guilt.

I don't think this is a fair characterization, either.

PhantomWolf, in our brief exchanges both in this thread and the CT one, I have responded to you on each occasion; in fact, the last two posts in those respective exchanges were made by me, to which neither has received to date a response from you.

Please be a bit more careful when casting your aspersions in the future.

 

[Fuji]

This is complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, you have little grasp of the "de novo" nature of Italian appeal trials.

To make this claim solely upon the basis of what I have posted here is the height of presumption. Your assertion is incorrect, at any rate, but it is quite rude of you to make it in the first place.

Second, there is absolutely not a causal link between a staged break-in and Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. Even if it were proven that this was a staging (for which, in any case, I believe there is ample doubt), this cannot in and of itself convict Knox and Sollecito of the crime of sexually-aggravated murder. End of.

Really? It can't? So... who else did this staging that you stipulate as proven in your formulation?

 

[LondonJohn]

From Oxford Dictionaries:

justice(just|ice)

Pronunciation:/ˈdʒʌstɪs/
noun

1 [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment:a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people

* the quality of being fair and reasonable:the justice of his case

* the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:a tragic miscarriage of justice

2 a judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the Supreme Court of a country or state.



I was using "justice" in my earlier posts in accordance with the first and second meanings indicated under the primary definition, whereas you appear to have been using the third meaning. Hopefully, with this clarification, you can understand that there is no internal contradiction at all in what I previously stated.

Ummm, do you not think it's just behaviour or treatment, or fair and reasonable that a person should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime before they are convicted (and, in this case, incarcerated for a very long time)?

If not (and it appears from your posts that you believe not), then what standard would you prefer to apply in your concept of "justice"? "We reckon they done it"? "We can't find anyone else who might have done it"?

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

Charlie Wilkes provided a list of ILEs lies back in August (to which malkmus added), and the Harry Potter book was added within a couple of pages of the citation above, IIRC. Do you dispute this list? If so, would you provide citations? If you don't dispute the list, would you explain why you are still throwing your lot in with the liars?

I have seen the list, and even if I accepted it as true in its entirety, it does not obviate a finding of guilt with regard to Knox and Sollecito. Harry Potter books and alleged bleach receipts are not why the pair are in prison.

Your final question is almost charming in its naïvete. By that reasoning, you would chide me for not taking the side of the lowlifes ensnared by that lying liar, Chris Hansen.

 

[Fuji]

I really have to love the double standard here.

No evidence Rudy climbed through the window: "It's impossible for him to have entered this way, and the break-in MUST have been staged!"

No evidence of Amanda and Sollecito in the murder room: "A pair of stoned college kids are able to erase all traces of themselves in a few hours without leaving any sign of a cleanup, and unlike some of the 'experts', they are able to perfectly determine which traces are theirs and which are Rudy's."

It is not a double standard - you are attempting to create a false equivalence.

Nowhere within my framework for understanding why the burglary was likely to have been staged do I make any statements such as those you attribute to me.

First, I would never assert that an absence of Guede's DNA in Filomena's room means that the burglary was definitely staged. It is merely another point of evidence suggestive of such. If there were no other such indicators, I could plausibly accept that Guede might have been wearing clothing that would prevent any genetic evidence of his being left behind.

Second, by the same token, I can also plausibly accept the possibility that Knox and Sollecito were also wearing protective clothing while murdering Meredith. Perhaps you should as well.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

I only have time to discuss a few of your points, but here goes. Rudi needed money for rent (and perhaps for drugs). He also was not good (or not lucky) at fencing stolen items, if his experience with respect to his trip to Milan is any indication. That is why he took money and not other items. As for the absence of DNA, that rests upon several factors, including what Guede was wearing, how much time he spent there, and how much of the room was sampled for DNA. The supposed broken glass on top of items is heavily disputed, as I am sure you are aware. MOO.

The broken glass is heavily disputed by those who don't take Filomena at her word. Having no reason to believe otherwise, I am inclined to believe her testimony.

I agree with you as to the absence of DNA.

As to the lack of stolen items - what room was Guede in when Meredith arrived home?

 

[LondonJohn]

To make this claim solely upon the basis of what I have posted here is the height of presumption. Your assertion is incorrect, at any rate, but it is quite rude of you to make it in the first place.



Really? It can't? So... who else did this staging that you stipulate as proven in your formulation?

In my opinion, nobody did the staging. I believe that it was more likely either a genuine B&E, or (a lesser possibility) that Guede threw the rock through the window to check whether anyone in the cottage would respond.

But my point is that if it were proven to be a staging (which, as I say, I can't find to be a credible position), it's not in itself directly incriminating towards Knox and/or Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher. As I explained in an earlier post, there is a feasible reason why Guede, as a lone assailant, might have had both motive and opportunity to stage a break-in, if he had in fact been let into the cottage by Meredith.

In order to convict Knox and/or Sollecito of the murder, the prosecution/court will need to show evidence which is far more closely correlated to the actual murder itself. Evidence which - it seems - is currently in the process of evaporating into the ether...

 

[pilot padron]

What did I miss, there were some angry words about a prison break or something? I forget to be honest.

It's downright absurd to wiretap the family of a college kid being arrested for something as bizarre as this, with obviously no reason to think they were involved.

'Ad hominem' and 'Appeal to Emotion,' Pilot, we're on the JREF board. I'll let my 'supervisors' know you think I'm doing a good job though!

That could also explain why it seems so absurd to me, tapping phones is not commonplace in the US, to tap the phones of the family of a murder suspect you have in custody is absolutely bizarre unless there's reason to think they're involved. Perhaps in Italy this is more likely?

My feelings, although admittedly not thoroughly researched at this point, are that in the US it would be quite commonplace indeed, and in no way 'bizarre' to obtain a Court ordained wiretap if the Family of a murder suspect publicly stated that their money and/or influential friends could go so far as to "make water run uphill" and intended to use any and all such tactics to distort and/or destroy upcoming judicial proceedings.

Those documented words and threats, would constitute sufficient 'involvement' for any US Judge IMHO to authorize a wiretap in a heartbeat.

And BTW those identical words and threats were sufficient to obtain an indictment of criminal activity...or, if you prefer "involvement".
The trial outcome of which will be the ultimate arbitrator of our argument

Additionally, please accept my assurances that the reference to 'talking points' was in no way intended to be ad hominem.
I'm sure your 'supervisors' are well aware, as am I, that you do an excellent job here arguing your contentions

 

[LondonJohn]

There was nothing "offhand" about your unnecessary correction. You made a two-line post, half of which was devoted to this matter. If you really didn't want to make a big deal about it, you shouldn't have pointed it out in the first place. In a thread with untold hundreds of spelling errors, to single out mine for correction is suggestive of a motivation that has nothing to do with substantively furthering discussion of the case at hand.

In the immortal words of Vic and Bob: "You wouldn't let it lie".

In the final analysis, we've established that the judge's name is Hellmann. But I'll carry on calling you Fiji - if spelling people's names correctly is of no consequence