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

[Mary_H]

<snip>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.

christianahannah, this is what we do with Mignini. We say that the fact that Mignini lied (about the civil rights violations involved with the interrogations) was so obvious from minute zero, that this would point to his covering up misbehavior even independently from the physical evidence.

Except that we do have evidence that Mignini lied, whereas Machiavelli has none that Amanda did.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

No. Sorry, I'm not interested in this, I think this is unimportant, because the evidence does not lie in this. Something instead I think is important, is the evidence of their subsequent clen-up activity (and cleaning themselves).
Another thing I think is important is the presence of three towels completely soaked in blood in the murder's room.

We can do that with the single-perp reconstruction. We have it nailed.

No you can't.
This is the problem. There is no single-perpetrator scenario that fits the evidence.
Nor the autopsy report, nor the timings (related to details like the towels), nor the luminol prints, nor the shoeprints from Rudy, nor Knox's lamp, nor the bathmat print (and its actual measurements), etc.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the article I mentioned earlier that Barbie wrote about Italy's poor treatment of women (It appeared in Newseek as well).

http://web.archive.org/web/20120106...ga-nation-berlusconi-s-italy-hurts-women.html

 

[Diocletus]

Here is the article I mentioned earlier that Barbie wrote about Italy's poor treatment of women (It appeared in Newseek as well).

http://web.archive.org/web/20120106...ga-nation-berlusconi-s-italy-hurts-women.html

I don't see how this can be true. They all live with their mommies until they're 47 years old.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

As you may know, I came to all this thinking Judge Hellmann quite correct in convicting Knox of calunnia. I thought the sentence should be perhaps "1 day", but in essence I agreed with Hellmann's reasoning.

What happened in the months to follow was that people demanded that I show an understanding of calunnia, as well as fit it into a reasonable timeline; in this case a timeline of what happened and when to both Raffaele and Amanda at interrogation.

At base, I was convinced at that time that the PLE were not even suspecting Knox or Sollecito of anything until the "See you later" fiasco led to Knox naming Lumumba, as Hellmann said, simply to relieve herself of the pressure of the interrogation.

The "1 day" sentence was meant to reflect that even as I (then) blamed Knox for using Lumumba to end the interrogation, she was not responsible for the PLE rushing over to Lumumba's place and arresting him. I mean, didn't the PLE even entertain for a couple of minutes that Knox could have been mistaken, or even lying? Why rush over....

I was pressed on that point, and still resisted.

As I've said, it was when I read the transcript of Drw Griffin's CNN interview with Mignini himself, and heard Mignini's OWN version of the interrogation, that I realised I was defending the wrong point.

The issue was as many were making the point about - if this is put in the proper timeline of what happened and when, it is clear that Mignini's version is a complete lie. His two major lies are that he could tell (without asking, no verbal exchanges) that Knox needed to continue to make "spontaneous declarations", and that he would therefore, as he said he told her, "act as f only a notary."

That's a bald lie right there. Mignini specifically says he intuited something with no verbal exchange, then he provides the exact verbal exchange meant to entrap Knox around the legal issue of "spontaneous declaration" that she could not have known was important at that time.

Mignini is caught in a lie.

Then there's all the stuff about, "She buckled and told us what we already knew." Raffaele confirms that he'd been given anonymous "heads up" the day before the interrogation, that he needed a lawyer.

But the point - I attempted to put my timeline out there to defend Hellmann's conviction on calunnia, and it fell apart.

No wonder Machiavelli, then, only makes assertions. My remaining query is if Machiavelli will now assert that John Kercher is a liar, for writing that Mignini had once advanced a "controversial" Satanic rite theory. (This is the fourth time I've asked.)

 

[Bill Williams]

No. Sorry, I'm not interested in this, I think this is unimportant, because the evidence does not lie in this. Something instead I think is important, is the evidence of their subsequent clen-up activity (and cleaning themselves).
Another thing I think is important is the presence of three towels completely soaked in blood in the murder's room.



No you can't.
This is the problem. There is no single-perpetrator scenario that fits the evidence.
Nor the autopsy report, nor the timings (related to details like the towels), nor the luminol prints, nor the shoeprints from Rudy, nor Knox's lamp, nor the bathmat print (and its actual measurements), etc.

The only convicting judge, Judge Massei, makes no mention of this as being compelling to consider multiple attackers.

But then again you've already laid out the ground work of your purpose here - you reserve the right to make assertions without the need to prove them.

Good for you.

 

[acbytesla]

No. Sorry, I'm not interested in this, I think this is unimportant, because the evidence does not lie in this. Something instead I think is important, is the evidence of their subsequent clen-up activity (and cleaning themselves).
Another thing I think is important is the presence of three towels completely soaked in blood in the murder's room.



No you can't.
This is the problem. There is no single-perpetrator scenario that fits the evidence.
Nor the autopsy report, nor the timings (related to details like the towels), nor the luminol prints, nor the shoeprints from Rudy, nor Knox's lamp, nor the bathmat print (and its actual measurements), etc.

There is NO evidence of clean up activity. NONE. There aren't streak marks to the blood in Meredith's room or tell tale streaks of bleach from Luminol. Keep making crap up out of who cloth.
The autopsy does not exclude a single perpetrator. Not one piece of evidence. That is just total bull speculation.

 

[Machiavelli]

christianahannah, this is what we do with Mignini. We say that the fact that Mignini lied (about the civil rights violations involved with the interrogations) was so obvious from minute zero, that this would point to his covering up misbehavior even independently from the physical evidence.

Except that we do have evidence that Mignini lied, whereas Machiavelli has none that Amanda did.

Actually, all judges found Mignini was right, and found the defence claims were unfounded.
Moreover, itself the procedure code and jurisprudence - as I explaned already - says Mignini was right.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
But then again you've already laid out the ground work of your purpose here - you reserve the right to make assertions without the need to prove them.
(...)

You don't?

I find this comment rather strange.

 

[js202]

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?



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.

Searingly insightful post. Well expressed.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.
(...)

I'm not talking about what's wrong in my society.
I'm not talking about what's right or wrong at all, actually.
I rather talk just about what is true or false. If I talk about my society or others it's to describe just how it is, in reality, as opposed to how it is not, to projections which are unreal. I'm not discussing whether it is right or wrong, only whether things said by posters like acbytesla are realistic or not.

 

[Bill Williams]

You don't?

I find this comment rather strange.

The comment I have made, for instance, is that Barbie Nadeau and John Kercher both write about Mignini's Satanic Rite theory. Kercher himself calls it "controversial". That claim, that they wrote about it, is verifiable. And it is true. They wrote about it.

It prompted you to call Nadeau a liar.

My question, now asked for the fifth time, is do you similarly call Kercher that?

 

[billyryan]

You're welcome to prove what you claim.

No. Sorry, I'm not interested in this, I think this is unimportant, because the evidence does not lie in this. Something instead I think is important, is the evidence of their subsequent clen-up activity (and cleaning themselves).
Another thing I think is important is the presence of three towels completely soaked in blood in the murder's room.



No you can't.
This is the problem. There is no single-perpetrator scenario that fits the evidence.
Nor the autopsy report, nor the timings (related to details like the towels), nor the luminol prints, nor the shoeprints from Rudy, nor Knox's lamp, nor the bathmat print (and its actual measurements), etc.

My evidence is simple Peter Popham said it in an article in the independent
Barbara Nadeau;said it in her book,she claimed Comodi threatened to leave the case if Mignini did not drop the satanic rite motive
John Kercher;says it in his book
I have three witnesses,who back up what I claim,Why would the prosecution object to an investigation into the clean-up theory to prove their point if it is that obvious
Napoleoni Zugarini and Gubbiotti are charged with crimes,Mignini should source a book on how prosecutors survive in prison yards,he might need it shortly

 

[Samson]

I'm not talking about what's wrong in my society.
I'm not talking about what's right or wrong at all, actually.
I rather talk just about what is true or false. If I talk about my society or others it's to describe just how it is, in reality, as opposed to how it is not, to projections which are unreal. I'm not discussing whether it is right or wrong, only whether things said by posters like acbytesla are realistic or not.

I asked before if you think Guede should testify at the trial, or are you satisfied with the legal form that precludes it. Note that he has said nothing, the others have said plenty. It is formidably hard to keep a narrative of lies going.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, all judges found Mignini was right, and found the defence claims were unfounded.
Moreover, itself the procedure code and jurisprudence - as I explaned already - says Mignini was right.

All judges found Mignini was right? Cough Cough. Hellmann and Zanetti did not... oh, I forgot, the Masons paid them off... apologies. Again, that's an assertion of yours with no proof.

Massei found Mignini right?

Massei found no reason why mulitple attackers was mandatory.
Massei found no strained relations between Meredith and Amanda, despite Mignini calling all the friends to the stand. Meredith's boyfriend call the mutual relations normal.
There was no motive, for Massei, for Amanda and Raffaele to have done this, hence Massei's invention about how the knife got to the cottage. Massei called the motive solely Rudy's about which the two students made a momentary "choice for evil".
Massei did not find for "mixed blood" at the cottage.
Massei did not find any psychopathology in the two.
And so on, and so on.....

Nencini is posed to toss the kitchen knife as the murder weapon. So far there is no evidence it was ever used in a murder, much less this one.

Do ALL judges agree with Mignini?

Once again, assertions and no proof. What about John Kercher? Do you think he's lying about Mignini holding to a Satanic Rite theory...? I've lost count the number of times I've asked

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

I don't expect you to believe me. You already believe to your made-up scenarios, and you intend to be overtly irrational about your beliefs.

Btw I'm actually the person who showed more things on this forum and brought most the attention to reality.

Whenever I call you to look close at some detail of reality, what you are able to write is "lol".

Then you write "go Spezi". What do you know about Spezi, except what he writes about himself? Did you research whether he was caught committing hideous crimes?

I have a different view about reality of this case from people on almost every element. There is a huge number of points of reality where I say the truth and you claim or belive a falsehood, I am certainly not going to demonstrate or discuss each one of these point. Every rational person can understand that it would be just impossible to open a challenge on a hundred discussion topics with a crowd of believers. Everyone understands it except someone. But just, think why should I? Just look at what you are talking about, and look at it from my point of view.
From my point of view, you are a group of people who make a huge number of assertions which are either wacky, unfounded, openly contradicted by reality and false. And none of you actually demonstrates or proves any of these. And you that I do not attempt to prove the claims I make? But do you attempt to prove yours?
Your criticism makes no sense. Given the divide, it is simply obvious that, when you take any point of discussion, you will have to assume that there will still be another hundred points that I will not be discussed.
RoseMontague, you mostly write one-line posts, and half are "lol"; look at yourself.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No. Sorry, I'm not interested in this, I think this is unimportant, because the evidence does not lie in this.

Heh. That's what I figured.

No you can't.
This is the problem. There is no single-perpetrator scenario that fits the evidence.
Nor the autopsy report, nor the timings (related to details like the towels), nor the luminol prints, nor the shoeprints from Rudy, nor Knox's lamp, nor the bathmat print (and its actual measurements), etc.

We have gone over this at length. The autopsy report shows minor bruising in the extremities, fingertip bruises on the right side of the jaw from a left hand covering the victim's face, puncture wounds on the right side of the neck, and a slash wound on the left side of the neck made by plunging a small knife to the hilt and then pulling, up and from left to right. All of this is perfectly explained by a victim struggling against an attacker who was holding her from behind with a knife in his right hand. No other explanation makes sense, so I can fully understand why you don't want to get into the details.

As for the rest, the lamp and the luminol traces are random and have nothing to do with the crime. Guede used the towels to mop up blood, in conjunction with a sexual assault that he committed after cutting Meredith's throat. He left the shoe prints after stepping on a bloody towel, and he admits they are his shoe prints. He left the footprint on the mat when he cleaned up in the bathroom. It's smaller than his reference footprint (just as it is smaller than Raffaele's reference print) because he didn't put his full weight on the step, but the big toe and the instep have the same basic shape.

It all fits together.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

I don't expect you to believe me. You already believe to your made-up scenarios, and you intend to be overtly irrational about your beliefs. Btw I'm actually the person who showed more things on this forum and brought most the attention to reality.
Whenever I call you to look close at some detail of reality, what you are able to write is "lol".

Then you write "go Spezi". What do you know about Spezi, except what he writes about himself? Did you research whether he was caught committing hideous crimes?

I have a different view about reality of this case from people on almost every element. There is a huge number of points of reality where I say the truth and you claim or belive a falsehood, I am certainly not going to demonstrate or discuss each one of these point. Every rational person can understand that it would be just impossible to open a challenge on a hundred discussion topics with a crowd of believers. Everyone understands it except someone. But just, think why should I? Just look at what you are talking about, and look at it from my point of view.
From my point of view, you are a group of people who make a huge number of assertions which are either wacky, unfounded, openly contradicted by reality and false. And none of you actually demonstrates or proves any of these. And you that I do not attempt to prove the claims I make? But do you attempt to prove yours?
Your criticism makes no sense. Given the divide, it is simply obvious that, when you take any point of discussion, you will have to assume that there will still be another hundred points that I will not be discussed.
RoseMontague, you mostly write one-line posts, and half are "lol"; look at yourself.

The point Rose is making, is that you've "shown" nothing. You simply assert.

Rose's "LOL" shows far more than you when you simply assert things like Hellmann receiving a Masonic bribe. (On top of that you claimed that ALL judges believed Mignini!)

"Openly contradicted by reality"!???? You've already said you are here only to assert things.... you don't bother to let us in on your "reality" which is included, I suppose, in transcripts you claim to have but won't post.

So I join with RoseM..... LOL. These posts are getting laughable.

Once again, for the seventh time.... do you assert that John Kercher lied about saying that Mignini asserted a Satanic Rite, as you said Barbie Nadeau lied in asserting the same?

 

[yimyammer]

The prosecution claim I have seen (Mignini IIRC) has Meredith on her knees with Rudy and Raffaele holding her arms to the side and Amanda stabbing her in the throat with the knife. I guess that would put Amanda in the wardrobe or through the wall in this reconstruction. Guess whoever did this gem didn't think much of Mignini's theory.

I can't fathom how three people could have committed this crime and not left multiple shoe (or foot) prints (all different) in that bloody room and if they tried to clean them up, I would expect to see smeared blood everywhere but from what I recall, none of the crime scene photos I've seen show anything of the sort.

It's been a while since I've seen any photos, am I mistaken?

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't expect you to believe me. You already believe to your made-up scenarios, and you intend to be overtly irrational about your beliefs.

Btw I'm actually the person who showed more things on this forum and brought most the attention to reality.

Whenever I call you to look close at some detail of reality, what you are able to write is "lol".

Then you write "go Spezi". What do you know about Spezi, except what he writes about himself? Did you research whether he was caught committing hideous crimes?

I have a different view about reality of this case from people on almost every element. There is a huge number of points of reality where I say the truth and you claim or belive a falsehood, I am certainly not going to demonstrate or discuss each one of these point. Every rational person can understand that it would be just impossible to open a challenge on a hundred discussion topics with a crowd of believers. Everyone understands it except someone. But just, think why should I? Just look at what you are talking about, and look at it from my point of view.
From my point of view, you are a group of people who make a huge number of assertions which are either wacky, unfounded, openly contradicted by reality and false. And none of you actually demonstrates or proves any of these. And you that I do not attempt to prove the claims I make? But do you attempt to prove yours?
Your criticism makes no sense. Given the divide, it is simply obvious that, when you take any point of discussion, you will have to assume that there will still be another hundred points that I will not be discussed.
RoseMontague, you mostly write one-line posts, and half are "lol"; look at yourself.

LOL. Go Spezi.