Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

Exactly, which was kind of my point. Which Fuji didn't seem to appreciate.

Why "Nita and Biff" anyway? I truly and honestly don't get that.

Rolfe.

You are correct that I don't appreciate it.

I am not The Machine. I am not Peter Quennell. I am not Peggy Ganong.

Though I greatly respect the efforts of all three on behalf of justice for Meredith, I do not agree with all of their assertions or theories. Why should I?

I do not assume that you are Bruce Fisher or Charlie Wilkes - I was posting to you as one person to another. I did not imply any beliefs to you not evident in your writings. I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of the same.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We have debated this before, as you are well aware. You appear to be ignorant of how the real world works. There is no way that the Supreme Court of a G-8 nation, in a world famous case, will simultaneously hold that a crime was committed by one/more-than-one attackers.

If you have any possible examples to illustrate the contrary, please do share.

Other than that you wish to believe this to be true, do you have any actual positive evidence that this is true?

If, for example, the Italian Supreme Court only reviewed cases for legal errors and not for factual errors, or it only reviewed cases for errors specifically brought up by the the lawyers for one side or another and did not go hunting for further errors, then all the earlier Supreme Court ruling would show was that there were no legal errors in the lower court ruling, and/or that no lawyers for either side thought it mattered to contest that particular point of fact.

Positive evidence refuting those two possibilities would be needed for your point to have any weight at all...

 

[LondonJohn]

We have debated this before, as you are well aware. You appear to be ignorant of how the real world works. There is no way that the Supreme Court of a G-8 nation, in a world famous case, will simultaneously hold that a crime was committed by one/more-than-one attackers.

If you have any possible examples to illustrate the contrary, please do share.

Seriously, you really don't know what you're talking about here. I can tell you with total certainty that you're wrong. There is a fundamental element of jurisprudence that would be completely violated if courts in one trial process were able to influence or determine the outcome of a separate trial process. I am telling you with 100% confidence that you are wrong. And you'll soon see that you're wrong.

By the way, hasn't it occurred to you that if you were right, there would be no point in Knox and Sollecito even having an appeal if the Supreme Court had ruled as it has done in Guede's trial process? Wouldn't they be found guilty and convicted automatically, based on the Supreme Court's Guede trial ruling, if you were indeed correct? Or haven't you thought that one through properly?

 

[Fuji]

Fuji, I'd prefer that you and your pals didn't use quite a lot of terms you do use, but hey, we don't always get what we want. "Crazed sex killer" is sort of a meme on the guilter forums, I merely pick up on it.

Now can you not see a reason why, assuming the possibility that Knox might be completely innocent (you do concede that, right?), that her memories and accounts of events might have been confused? Everyone is different, and I'm constantly surprised by how differently people react compared to how I would have imagined that a rational person might react. I don't immediately take this as proof that these people have taken part in a crazed sex killing, when there is no physical evidence to implicate them.

You say you're "reasonably sure" that Knox and Sollecito are killers. Just explain to me how they managed to kill Meredith Kercher in such a way that all her last meal was still semi-digested in her stomach and none had moved into the small intestine.

Rolfe.

Well, as I indicated earlier, I don't agree with the Massei Report in several instances. One of the important ones is ToD. I think it is reasonable to infer that Meredith died closer to 10PM than 11PM. However, even accepting an earlier ToD than Massei does not incline me to believe that the pair are innocent. You really think that ToD trumps all else?

 

[Rolfe]

Depends. The time of death, putting everything together, seems to have been around 9.20. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Show a reasonable narrative that could have led to Knox, Sollecito and Guede indulging in this crazed sex killing at that time and I'm listening.

Failing that, and in view both of the quite startling absence of any reliable physical evidence tying the former two to the crime, and the extreme keeness of the primary court to shift the time of death to an utterly preposterous 11.45, I'll go with innocent.

Rolfe.

 

[Fuji]

Ermmmmm. You are the one who made the assertion that Knox was lying when she alleged she took a shower in the cottage that morning. You based that opinion on your estimation of the temperature inside the cottage that morning coupled with your opinion that "it was not believable to you" that Knox would take a shower in your estimated temperature when Sollecito's apartment was nearby.

So forgive me if I strip things back to basics, but it was you who originally argued that Knox was a liar on this issue, and it's therefore you who has to back up this assertion or accept that your argument has little (or no) merit. I don't need to "show my work" or "prove my opinion" on this issue. I've stated that your conclusion is wrong and unsupportable, and I've stated why I think it's wrong and unsupportable.

Your position on this is equivalent to the famous Bertrand Russell "celestial teapot" analogy. You are the one proposing the existence of the proverbial teapot. Having made that assertion, it's your job to prove it. It's not my job (or that of anyone else) to disprove it in order to dismiss it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Another pathetic exercise in pedantry.

Just so you know - Russell's Teapot refers to unfalsifiable claims. Which differs from your contrary assertion how, exactly?

 

[JREF2010]

As I and many others have grown weary of reminding people, Guede's trial process - as ratified by the Supreme Court, no less! - has determined that Meredith's time of death was some time before 10.30pm. "But what's that?!", I hear people cry. "Massei's court ruled that the ToD of the same person was around 11.45pm! There's a contradiction! Surely the Supreme Court trumps Massei's court!" But of course there's no contradiction. The courts in Guede's trials ruled that the ToD was a certain time, and the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial process ruled that the ToD was a significantly different time. And there's no problem in that disparity (other than that in this particular instance both courts are wrong and the ToD is almost certainly before 9.30pm!).

I didnt know that the Supreme Court has a ToD before 10:30pm.
Thats really interesting then , the Supreme Court has made the earlier ToD credible.

And what did they base this off? Rudys testimony? The cell phone logs?

Is there an English translation of the Judges Report, similar to Massei & Micheli's?

 

[Fuji]

Seriously, you really don't know what you're talking about here. I can tell you with total certainty that you're wrong. There is a fundamental element of jurisprudence that would be completely violated if courts in one trial process were able to influence or determine the outcome of a separate trial process. I am telling you with 100% confidence that you are wrong. And you'll soon see that you're wrong.

Big talk from a big talker. We'll see in a few weeks who actually understands how the real world works. I remain confident that their convictions, if not the precise length of their sentences, will be upheld, both here and in the final appeal to the Supreme Court.

By the way, hasn't it occurred to you that if you were right, there would be no point in Knox and Sollecito even having an appeal if the Supreme Court had ruled as it has done in Guede's trial process? Wouldn't they be found guilty and convicted automatically, based on the Supreme Court's Guede trial ruling, if you were indeed correct? Or haven't you thought that one through properly?

I have thought it through, indeed. Which is why I understand the miserable parade of jailhouse losers the defense presented to the court earlier this summer. The Italian Supreme Court has already determined that more than one attacker was involved; the best the defense can do at this point is to suggest other unknown parties as Guede's partners in crime, when reasonable observers will already tend to conclude that Knox and Sollecito are the other parties.

 

[Rolfe]

You are correct that I don't appreciate it.

I am not The Machine. I am not Peter Quennell. I am not Peggy Ganong.

Though I greatly respect the efforts of all three on behalf of justice for Meredith, I do not agree with all of their assertions or theories. Why should I?

I do not assume that you are Bruce Fisher or Charlie Wilkes - I was posting to you as one person to another. I did not imply any beliefs to you not evident in your writings. I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of the same.

If others whom you respect use such language in all seriousness, and you seem never to have requested them to cease and desist, then I feel entirely within my rights to use the same language with ironic intent. Get over it.

Now will someone answer my question? Why "Nita and Biff"?

Rolfe.

 

[Fuji]

Depends. The time of death, putting everything together, seems to have been around 9.20. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Show a reasonable narrative that could have led to Knox, Sollecito and Guede indulging in this crazed sex killing at that time and I'm listening.

Failing that, and in view both of the quite startling absence of any reliable physical evidence tying the former two to the crime, and the extreme keeness of the primary court to shift the time of death to an utterly preposterous 11.45, I'll go with innocent.

Rolfe.

A "reasonable narrative" for a senseless crime? How the hell should I know? None of the three have solid alibis for, say - between 9:30 and 10:00PM. That, along with all the other evidence, leads me to guilty.

 

[Fuji]

If others whom you respect use such language in all seriousness, and you seem never to have requested them to cease and desist, then I feel entirely within my rights to use the same language with ironic intent. Get over it.

Now will someone answer my question? Why "Nita and Biff"?

Rolfe.

I don't see you objecting to every ludicrous opinion put forth here on behalf of Knox (and occasionally Sollecito). I also suggest that you, get over it.

Why "guilter"? Why "haters"? Why "PMF morons"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Big talk from a big talker. We'll see in a few weeks who actually understands how the real world works. I remain confident that their convictions, if not the precise length of their sentences, will be upheld, both here and in the final appeal to the Supreme Court.



I have thought it through, indeed. Which is why I understand the miserable parade of jailhouse losers the defense presented to the court earlier this summer. The Italian Supreme Court has already determined that more than one attacker was involved; the best the defense can do at this point is to suggest other unknown parties as Guede's partners in crime, when reasonable observers will already tend to conclude that Knox and Sollecito are the other parties.

Ahh: you also don't understand the mechanism whereby the inmates were called to testify in Hellmann's court. Plus you don't appear to understand that it's not even the job of Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams to propose any alternative version of the murder - whether that version is that Guede was the lone killer (which, incidentally, the defence most definitely hasn't abandoned, as per many pro-guilt commentators' erroneous assertions) or that it was a group crime that didn't involve Knox or Sollecito. The job of the defence teams is strictly and exclusively limited to convincing Hellmann's court that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond all doubt (based in human reason) that Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. And it's now abundantly clear that they will easily be able to go far, far beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt in Hellmann's court. Ergo, Knox and Sollecito will be correctly acquitted.

And you still appear unwilling or unable to answer the fundamental paradox related to your belief in the apparent omniscience of the Supreme Court regarding findings of fact: if your opinion is correct, why is Hellmann's court even bothering to conduct the appeal trial?

Anyway, it now appears to be 2am. I've nudged up my solitaire win percentage to the 19% mark, so I think on that point of victory I will call it a night. Regardless of the fact that I completely disagree with most of what you argue (and think that I have strong grounds for a logical and reasonable disagreement), it's still good to see you actually turning up to debate - especially since the reciprocal arrangement isn't possible owing to the partisan nature of moderation of other forums. I sincerely hope that you will be able to come to understand that Knox and Sollecito are about to be acquitted by Hellmann's court, and that this will be the correct and just outcome. Meredith Kercher was almost certainly killed by one person - Rudy Guede - who had planned to burgle the cottage but who was surprised by the return of Meredith at 9pm. It's likely that he then confronted her - probably initially over his inability to open the locked front door - and things soon tragically escalated into a sexual assault and murder. Meredith was dead before 9.30pm, and Guede probably left the cottage shortly after 10pm.

The murder of Meredith Kercher is a horrible event that has cost an apparently kind-hearted and ambitions young lady her life, and has horrifically scarred her family and close friends. But in my opinion it will not be an insult to Meredith's family (or to her memory) when Knox and Sollecito are acquitted and released. My personal view is that the Kercher family might want to more closely examine the behaviour and actions of police, prosecutors and their own lawyer if they want to get to the truth of this sad case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A "reasonable narrative" for a senseless crime? How the hell should I know?

That little voice in your head that tells you when you are papering over a weak point in your own argument is trying to tell you something.

Guilters under pressure tend to retreat into arguing something like "So what if we have no motive? Sometimes there's no motive! So what if there is no evidence of our favoured killers in the murder room? Sometimes murderers leave no evidence! So what is we have no coherent narrative? Sometimes people commit senseless, random crimes!".

However they've made a fundamental error when they do this, because the've just admitted that they've lost the argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is absence of evidence. It's very, very hard to have proof beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty when you have no evidence, no motive and no narrative of how the crime could possibly have happened.

Whereas the Lone Wolf theory has motive, has evidence, has a coherent narrative of the crime and contradicts absolutely none of the hard evidence.

None of the three have solid alibis for, say - between 9:30 and 10:00PM. That, along with all the other evidence, leads me to guilty.

Guilters have to simply ignore outright the computer evidence put forward by the defence showing that there was computer activity all night - if they let that fact into their brains they would have to stop being guilters. However it's certainly worth flagging that the defence have released evidence taken from the log files on Raffaele's computer showing that the computer was in continuous use all night, so they do in fact have a very solid alibi both for the real TOD and the Massei/Christiani TOD.

However even if they didn't have this alibi recorded in ones and zeroes, there's the huge problem for the guilters that they have absolutely no plausible story as to why Knox and Sollecito would leave their nice, warm, private house at 9:30pm at night to go home to Knox's house, armed with a kitchen knife, and pick up Rudy Guede along the way using Knox's poor Italian and Guede's nigh-nonexistent English to join in a four-way orgy or Satanic ritual or "rape prank" or whatever other fantasy the guilters and prosecution are nurturing at the time.

No motive, no evidence, a very strong alibi and no narrative that's not pants-on-head crazy versus a clear motive, clear MO, ample proof Rudy was there at the time the murder happened, when he had no business being there, and a completely straightforward narrative of the crime. That ain't proof beyond reasonable doubt Knox and Sollecito did it. It's much closer to proof beyond reasonable doubt they could not possibly have been involved.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

At about the same time I was reading these posts, someone sent me this from Seattle craigslist. Too good not to share.

http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/spo/2597736393.html

Tears in my eyes Mary!

 

[Rolfe]

I don't see you objecting to every ludicrous opinion put forth here on behalf of Knox (and occasionally Sollecito). I also suggest that you, get over it.

What do I have to get over? You're the one who took exception to my language.

I merely ask "why 'Nita and Biff'?" for information. I don't understand the reference.

Why "guilter"? Why "haters"? Why "PMF morons"?

1. It's a handy label.
2. Possibly because of the high frequency of the use of the word to describe people who believe Knox and Sollecito have suffered a miscarriage of justice. Who these people are supposed to hate is not usually explained.
3. You'll have to ask the people who have used that term, of which I am not one. Nor have I ever used the term "haters", come to that.

Now will somebody please tell me why "Nita and Biff"??

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

A "reasonable narrative" for a senseless crime? How the hell should I know? None of the three have solid alibis for, say - between 9:30 and 10:00PM. That, along with all the other evidence, leads me to guilty.

A reasonable narrative can be constructed even in the absence of a reasonable motive.

You already seem to be implying that alibis exist for 9.20-ish, which is the most probable time of death considering all the rest of the evidence (but not trying to skew the conclusion to fit anybody's alibi).

How do you imagine the evening played out, consistent with the evidence, including the post mortem findings?

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

What do I have to get over? You're the one who took exception to my language.

I merely ask "why 'Nita and Biff'?" for information. I don't understand the reference.

1. It's a handy label.
2. Possibly because of the high frequency of the use of the word to describe people who believe Knox and Sollecito have suffered a miscarriage of justice. Who these people are supposed to hate is not usually explained.
3. You'll have to ask the people who have used that term, of which I am not one. Nor have I ever used the term "haters", come to that.

Now will somebody please tell me why "Nita and Biff"??

Rolfe.

"Biff" suggests a large, stupid, lower-class man. Not sure about Nita. Maybe because it has a Puerto Rican air about it, it is supposed to suggest someone from a trailer park or a tenement.

 

[Dan O.]

It's almost unbelievable to me the extent to which some will go to portray every last single item of evidence in a light favorable to the defendants.

It's called presumption of innocence^WP and is the legal standard in the civilized world.

how do you know if this interior door was closed?

I stated only that the two parts of the house were connected by a single door so there would be no draft. I made no attempt to assert that this door was closed and in fact it seems likely that it was open over night though Amanda may have closed it while she was there for the shower.

Going beyond that, have you performed all the heat transfer equations to demonstrate to the rest of us that, indeed, the ambient temperature within the apartment at around 10AM on the morning of 2 November 2007 was not approximately 10ºC?

I see no need to do that. whether Amanda is innocent or guilty, everyone agrees that she was in that apartment that morning and she claims to have taken a shower at that time. It matters not one bit what the actual temperature was. It only matters that Amanda was comfortable taking that shower or claiming that she took that shower in those conditions. That trumps whatever arbitrary belief you have about it being so cold that she would have preferred to shower at Raffaele's place.

 

[Fine]

If others whom you respect use such language in all seriousness, and you seem never to have requested them to cease and desist, then I feel entirely within my rights to use the same language with ironic intent. Get over it.

Now will someone answer my question? Why "Nita and Biff"?
Rolfe.

__________________-

Rolfe,

I can answer half the question. Long ago Donald Trump posted a pro-innocence statement online, and comments were permitted. A confused pro-innocence commentator added a comment in support of Amanda......but couldn't recall correctly Amanda's name. I think the comment closed with FREE ANITA!!!

"Biff" as a nickname for Raffaele I believe has a similar ancestry. Anyone interested can do a search over on PMF.

Both nicknames are used to mock the ignorance of the pro-innocence side of the debate.

///

 

[Mary_H]

__________________-

Rolfe,

I can answer half the question. Long ago Donald Trump posted a pro-innocence statement online, and comments were permitted. A confused pro-innocence commentator added a comment in support of Amanda......but couldn't recall correctly Amanda's name. I think the comment closed with FREE ANITA!!!

"Biff" as a nickname for Raffaele I believe has a similar ancestry. Anyone interested can do a search over on PMF.

Both nicknames are used to mock the ignorance of the pro-innocence side of the debate.

///

First Chris Mellas was compared to Biff, the "butthead" from Back to the Future. I guess then they thought it was funnier to call Raffaele Biff.