Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Diocletus]

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediatly a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

Oh, I see. You can't be bothered to explain your reasons for this insupportable conclusion because it's "obvious."

"Obviousness" is always the refuge of misplaced reasoning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Fact is that ALL the reporters at the time were writing about it - save perhaps for those who appreciated more than any the power of Italian defamation laws and who gets to lay charges... the Italian press and PMs in that order.

(...)

It's false. Quote these "all" Italian reporters speaking about it. Come on.

With respect, Machiavelli, you may have missed my point. Please reread.

You've already, in effect, called Barbie Nadeau a liar, and even given the motivation for her lie - that she was rushing to finish her book.

Are you also calling John Kercher a liar for reporting the same thing in his book? (This is the second time I've asked. I will keep count.)

 

[Diocletus]

Have you tried holding a rock that weight, though? I'm genuinely curious because for me, it would have been impossible to throw it upwards that far, and feeling how heavy it was changed my mind about how it was thrown. But as I said, I'm not sure how much my pathetic upper body strength factors into that - maybe it really would be quite easy for someone stronger, like your (I assume) big strong self.

ETA: Yes, I think Filomena said she pulled the inner shutters towards the window, but didn't fasten them.

It's like a bag of flour. You could throw it.

 

[Machiavelli]

With all due respect Mach, you are totally distorting Mignini and the court.
The simple fact that Mignini tried to create this non]existent contrast that Meredith was some kind of Madonna and Amanda as some kind of whore proves it. Meredith and Amanda's sexual history is totally irrelevant to this case. Neither are outside the norm of 20 year old women/girls.

Yet Mignini did everything he could to "slut shame" Amanda. Portray her as sexual deviant capable of anything. How many times did Mignini refer to Amanda as a she devil? Countless.

But beyond Mignini, is Italy's obsession that teenage sexual exploration had anything to do with this murder. I can't believe that the ISC decided to resurrect the sex game gone awry theory.

Frankly, many Americans are prudish and puritanical. But then again Americans are also portrayed as wanton. It really depends on where you live in the US. There is a big difference between San Francisco and say somewhere in the buckle of the Bible belt. Italy also has that Yin and Yang with Dolce Vita and the Catholic Church.

If I mistakenly said that you specifically was a prude, please forgive me. But I do believe that Amanda and Raffaele were persecuted by sexual prudishness.

Yes I see it's your belief. But in my opinion your belief stems from prejudice and ey-blink (you have very strong negative prejudicies on the whole justice system as well); and you belief may come to face its emerging contradiction if you get close to look at details, such as the observation made - involuntarily maybe - by Mary H, that sheds light on little things like the actual attitude of Mignini towards Knox's sexual habits.
Then Mary H goes back to cover her lapse with big layers of super-structures and moral equations. But there are obvious clues that the court talks about Knox's sexuality are merely functional to build the accusation scenario, they are perceived as normal by Italians, and by Mignini as well; the prosecution (but also Micheli and Massei presumed a sexual motive by Knox) are not prosecuting Knox out of sexual prudishness, they are talking about sexual behaviors because that is the theme and the context of the crime. The idea that Italy has a specific cultural problem about "teenage sexual exploration", is, in fact, something of your personal guss and inference; certainly might have to do with some prejudice or personal representation that you may have about Catholicism or about Italian society.
In fact, the US and the British societies are - in my opinion - much more concerned about tenage sexual behavior than Italians. A prime minister that goes with underage prostitutes would be unbearable in the UK, but Berlusconi hosted sex-parties with tens of girls in his Roman apartment overtly under the public eyes, for years (the first one known to be underage was 16-years old Noemi Letizia; but that went on for years long after that), but the interest expressed by Italian citizens for the issue was minimal. Interest remained close to zero until one specific event occurred, as judges discovered that one of the minors was a prostitute and she was taken under police protection, Berlusconi corrupted the police tu turn her over (to a prostitute "friend" of hers) and "convinced" them by telling them that she was Mubarak's niece. This triggered an investigation for corruption.

These kind of things are the background of Italian society. The behavior of Amanda is irrelevant and ridiculous in comparison the actual actual average sexual behavior of Italian girls. Knox was sexually clumsy and shy and probably rather inexperienced. She was never portrayed as nothing close to an experienced whore (Noemi Letizia-style).
Amanda Knox's behaviour was described as disliked by Meredith by her roommates' friends, and described as objectively over-the-top, awkward or strange, her sentimental and sexual relations was a main filed of this strangeness. She was described like that, and as annoying, by people of her age, who were not even Italian, not by Mignini.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Really, I think it's just that Americans are less likely to make up perverted murder fantasies.

Maybe the Italians should lay off the boobies for a little while.

Google "Don't Make Me Go Back Mommy" or "Michelle Remembers," which I guess is Canadian, but close enough...

A subset of people in every culture seem to embrace these lurid, implausible narratives, and once they do, they don't let facts spoil their fun.

 

[katy_did]

It's like a bag of flour. You could throw it.

Like a 4kg bag of flour, maybe... Most household bags of flour I've seen are 1kg or 1.5 kg. It's definitely way too heavy for me to throw easily anyway, I just don't know if it's easier for people who aren't weaklings (well I assume it would be easier, I just don't know how much easier).

 

[Bill Williams]

To me, it is absolutely obvious prima facie, from the physical evidence layout at the murder scene, that the crime was committed by multiple perpetrators.
If you don't see this, you'll have immediatly a logical divide that will bring your view apart from mine, and our reasoning will divergs since they are will be based on opposite presumptions.

I acknowledge obvious physical evidence of multiple perpetrators from the very beginnning. I would notice this from minute zero when if I walked in the house. I would also immediately deduce that some of the perpetrators had come back to the scene some time after the murder.

Another obvious aspect is that the crime had a sexual context.

You have been invited many times to present your reconstruction of what happened, mapped to the details shown in the crime scene photos. Show us how these multiple perpetrators were positioned relative to the victim, what their actions were, and the sequence in which everything occurred.

We can do that with the single-perp reconstruction. We have it nailed. But we don't have anything to compare it against, because nobody on your side has ever tried to develop a point-by-point reconstruction that matches the physical evidence. So let's see what you can come up with.

This is the one thing that Machiavelli never does. While protesting that his analysis comes from the physical evidence layout at the scene, the one thing he never does is describe in sequence, "the physical evidence layout at the scene."

The truth is even Massei's court heard evidence that this very well could have been a single attacker. Indeed, in my opinion the ONLY reason Massei himself opted for a multiple attacker scenario was that he'd just convicted them.... not the other way around. He did not convict them on the basis of the necessity (in evidence before him) of a multiple attacker scenario.

Machiavelli will resist tooth and nail putting together a much needed comprehensive timeline of the crime - and has done so for years. In fact, once he tried to weasel his way out of doing this by claiming that a conviction does not rest on the need for such.

Machiavelli says that there will always be a divide in reasoning.... but please note Machiavelli does not have reasoning, he has an assertion.

If he DOES have reasoning, he would provide it. He never has. Just like the transcripts he claims to possess which prove that Mignini never postulated a Satanic Rite theory of the crime.....

And he will defend this by throwing Barbie Nadeau under a bus. The question remains, does he now call John Kercher a liar?

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, I see. You can't be bothered to explain your reasons for this insupportable conclusion because it's "obvious."

"Obviousness" is always the refuge of misplaced reasoning.

Well my purpose now was not to explain the reasons why these assumptions are obvious to me. My purpose is to point out that, if one person assumes this starting point as self-evident, or obvious, the consequence is that the sex-game scenario involving Knox and Sollecito becomes logical.

I want to point out that the reason at the ground of my (and I guess Mignini's and Maresca's) reasoning, the logical premise that leads to develop the sexual scenario as a consequence, and so to include considerations about Knox's private habits on many aspects and personalities observation, is not prudishness; nor a moral opinion about teenage sexual behavior (anyway we are not talking about teenagers, nor about kids; certainly not in the Italian language).
The ground of the reasoning instead is the assumption that the crime was committed by more than one person, based on physical evidence.
And some of these persons came back to the crime scene some time after the crime.

 

[Diocletus]

the actual attitude of Mignini towards Knox's sexual habits.

Personally, I think Mignini lost his marbles when he got a look at Kercher's Brazilian wax.

 

[Diocletus]

Well my purpose now was not to explain the reasons why these assumptions are obvious to me. My purpose is to point out that, if one person assumes this starting point as self-evident, or obvious, the consequence is that the sex-game scenario involving Knox and Sollecito becomes logical.

I want to point out that the reason at the ground of my (and I guess Mignini's and Maresca's) reasoning, the logical premise that leads to develop the sexual scenario as a consequence, and so to include considerations about Knox's private habits on many aspects and personalities observation, is not prudishness; nor a moral opinion about teenage sexual behavior (anyway we are not talking about teenagers, nor about kids; certainly not in the Italian language).
The ground of the reasoning instead is the assumption that the crime was committed by more than one person, based on physical evidence.
And some of these persons came back to the crime scene some time after the crime.

Oh, I think I understand. You're saying that if you assume that there was a sex game, then it is obvious that there were multiple participants. Particularly if you want to prove that Knox was involved--then you have to have multiple attackers, because she doesn't have any semen to leave behind.

This is logico-osmotically obvious.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Just like Mignini is lying about never having advanced a satanic rite as a motive for murder, (...)

You're welcome to prove what you claim.

 

[acbytesla]

Have you tried holding a rock that weight, though? I'm genuinely curious because for me, it would have been impossible to throw it upwards that far, and feeling how heavy it was changed my mind about how it was thrown. But as I said, I'm not sure how much my pathetic upper body strength factors into that - maybe it really would be quite easy for someone stronger, like your (I assume) big strong self.

ETA: Yes, I think Filomena said she pulled the inner shutters towards the window, but didn't fasten them.

Yes, I have. Men's upper body strength is on average a lot stronger than women so don't take it like you are wimpy. You might be average for a woman in that department. Yes it would have been easier from the car park, but I don't think it would have prohibitively difficult for an adult man to throw the rock from below.

 

[Mary_H]

Well my purpose now was not to explain the reasons why these assumptions are obvious to me. My purpose is to point out that, if one person assumes this starting point as self-evident, or obvious, the consequence is that the sex-game scenario involving Knox and Sollecito becomes logical.

Thank you for finally admitting that.

 

[Samson]

I think it doesn't matter. She / publishers had long before announce the release of her book. So the fact alone that it was coming out I think is sufficient for your suspicion there. I have wondered all along about the wiseness of publicizing their books prior to the supreme court decision. What if they had been totally mum about it ? Don't know if it would have been different but easy to speculate.

If it was unwise, and known in advance to be so, then it was exceptionally brave and a robust indicator that they would only relate the truth.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, I think I understand. You're saying that if you assume that there was a sex game, then it is obvious that there were multiple participants. Particularly if you want to prove that Knox was involved--then you have to have multiple attackers, because she doesn't have any semen to leave behind.

(...)

Now reverse it. I'm saying that if there were multiple participants, it's obvious that there was a sex game. And if there was a sex game in that house (and some perpetrator came back to the crime scene) it's obvious that Knox was involved.

However the fact that Amanda Knox lied about her story was so obvious from minute zero, that this would point to her involvement even independently from the first physical evidence.

 

[RoseMontague]

You have been invited many times to present your reconstruction of what happened, mapped to the details shown in the crime scene photos. Show us how these multiple perpetrators were positioned relative to the victim, what their actions were, and the sequence in which everything occurred.

We can do that with the single-perp reconstruction. We have it nailed. But we don't have anything to compare it against, because nobody on your side has ever tried to develop a point-by-point reconstruction that matches the physical evidence. So let's see what you can come up with.

You're welcome to prove what you claim.

When are you going to prove the Hellmann bribe funded by US media people and delivered by the Mason's? Or that there is an organized conspiracy among Amanda supporters to corrupt the Italian justice system? Or that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith? Or that Amanda was talking in secret Mafia code threatening Raffaele? Bill is correct as is Charlie with your latest walk in the door and solved it assertion. You don't prove anything, you make assertions, and nobody here believes you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well my purpose now was not to explain the reasons why these assumptions are obvious to me. My purpose is to point out that, if one person assumes this starting point as self-evident, or obvious, the consequence is that the sex-game scenario involving Knox and Sollecito becomes logical.

Thank you for finally admitting that.

At other sites, he's admitted such long ago. In one such post he said that this was a war, and he was not going to give an advantage to the enemy.

Fair enough. It just seems strange that he'd also claim to have the evidence needed to demonstrate that all this is, "self-evident, or obvious" and not provide the evidence.....

It also makes it strange that he demands evidence from others.... not really, if what he's doing is "collecting information," by why he'd do that at an obscure website from obscure posters is beyond me....

 

[Mary_H]

Yes I see it's your belief. But in my opinion your belief stems from prejudice and ey-blink (you have very strong negative prejudicies on the whole justice system as well); and you belief may come to face its emerging contradiction if you get close to look at details, such as the observation made - involuntarily maybe - by Mary H, that sheds light on little things like the actual attitude of Mignini towards Knox's sexual habits.
Then Mary H goes back to cover her lapse with big layers of super-structures and moral equations.

Enough already with the backhanded compliments about me getting things right accidentally. That's the third one this week. I presume you are about to demonstrate and describe these layers of superstructures and moral equations, too, right?

<snip>In fact, the US and the British societies are - in my opinion - much more concerned about tenage sexual behavior than Italians. A prime minister that goes with underage prostitutes would be unbearable in the UK, but Berlusconi hosted sex-parties with tens of girls in his Roman apartment overtly under the public eyes, for years (the first one known to be underage was 16-years old Noemi Letizia; but that went on for years long after that), but the interest expressed by Italian citizens for the issue was minimal. Interest remained close to zero until one specific event occurred, as judges discovered that one of the minors was a prostitute and she was taken under police protection, Berlusconi corrupted the police tu turn her over (to a prostitute "friend" of hers) and "convinced" them by telling them that she was Mubarak's niece. This triggered an investigation for corruption.

These kind of things are the background of Italian society. The behavior of Amanda is irrelevant and ridiculous in comparison the actual actual average sexual behavior of Italian girls. Knox was sexually clumsy and shy and probably rather inexperienced. She was never portrayed as nothing close to an experienced whore (Noemi Letizia-style).

You have no idea how much you reveal in your posts. This is another example of you being too close to your culture to be able to see what's wrong with it.

Once upon a time, there was no civilization. Anything went. People suffered. Over the millennia, people learned how to mitigate suffering through the formation of civilization, societies and laws. In modern times, some advanced societies use the academy, science and research to reach conclusions about what phenomena are the most protective of human physical being and spirit. These protections have to do with health, not morality, although morality obviously is implied. That, not puritanism, is what leads these societies to their concerns about teenage sexual behavior.

Other societies lag behind in their cultural attitudes as well as their academy and science. Their milieus allow for injustices, particularly against women, that are incomprehensible to more modernized societies.

 

[Mary_H]

At other sites, he's admitted such long ago. In one such post he said that this was a war, and he was not going to give an advantage to the enemy.

Fair enough. It just seems strange that he'd also claim to have the evidence needed to demonstrate that all this is, "self-evident, or obvious" and not provide the evidence.....

It also makes it strange that he demands evidence from others.... not really, if what he's doing is "collecting information," by why he'd do that at an obscure website from obscure posters is beyond me....

His attitudes along with a dearth of facts provide all the evidence we need of confirmation bias.

 

[Bill Williams]

Now reverse it. I'm saying that if there were multiple participants, it's obvious that there was a sex game. And if there was a sex game in that house (and some perpetrator came back to the crime scene) it's obvious that Knox was involved.

However the fact that Amanda Knox lied about her story was so obvious from minute zero, that this would point to her involvement even independently from the first physical evidence.

None of this is obvious at all.

You may be substituting confirmation bias for proof, but then again we'll never know because you say your mission here is to make assertions, and not provide proof.

Even though you also claim that you have proof. Which makes it obvious. Which you won't provide.

This business about "lies" does not even match what they said about Knox at interrogation: "She buckled and told us what we already knew to be true." Note - "what we already knew to be true," was acc. to "Case Closed" on Nov 6, was that Lumumba did it.

What the PLE knew to be "true" was that Lumumba did it. Knox's memorandum does not reveal it, at worst she was coerced to confirm it. She was coerced to change her truthful story, "I was at Raffaele's" to lie, only in the sense that she was coerced to confirm the PLE's lie.

There is nothing about what you claim to be obvious which even conforms to the most basic timeline of events.

Which, of course, explains why you do not attempt one yourself.