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

[Mary_H]

<snip>My attitude contains an element of provocation that stems from a sense of outrage, actually kind of hostility which you direct against political or religious opponents, to expose the weakness of a dangerous propaganda, rather than acting as a defense attorney. The "defense attorney" comparison tends to imply it's like addressing an impartial jury, but in fact I almost never feel as if I am addressing a panel of unbiased or intellectually honest people. I am mostly opposing enemies, or people who are simple believers "manipulated" by enemy propaganda. Not open listeners, but people how already "believe" their religion and won't believe the opponent - some are people with a vested and invested interest in 'saving' the defendants - maybe unless completely cornered and crushed by mathematical proof.

I wonder if there is anyone, aside from those who knew Amanda and Raffaele before the crime, who came to this discussion believing in innocence. None of the initial media reports in any country questioned the prosecution's claims. None.

A few people might have started out with suspicions -- people like Charlie and Chris Halkides, because they had seen and worked on other cases of wrongful accusations and imprisonment. I, personally, was somewhat doubtful that someone from Amanda's high school could have done what she was accused of doing, but I was certainly open to the possibility.

The pro-innocence group now have a lot of knowledge about the case, as should be obvious from the discussion of evidence that has gone on here for almost four years. They didn't gain their knowledge by reading propaganda, they gained it by having access to court documentation. The continuous threats from people like Peter Quennell that we haven't seen half the evidence and "just you wait" have never panned out.

When I read the various forums, I often see people stating they came to the case convinced of guilt but then changed their minds. I never see anyone say, "I used to believe they were innocent, but now I know they are guilty!" Well, I do know one person who did that, but intellect had nothing to do with it.

There is no way to corner and crush the case for innocence with mathematical proof. If there were, it would have happened by now. You insult thinking people again and again by calling them ignorant.

At least we have tried to understand your culture. You and Mignini's ilk have complete tunnel vision when it comes to trying to understand ours. You are ideologues who refuse to believe there can be a version of reality different from your own.

 

[Kaosium]

And the nib of the argument about the Satanic Rite claim, you say it "would not be right" to produce evidence I am wrong? It's hard to know how to respond to such a bizarre statement.

Oh..I'm pretty sure I know why. It 'wouldn't help their case.' There's something there innocentisti would have too much fun with.

Perhaps it's the context which may suggest something not literally Satanic, but that describes something very similar, or something just as embarrassing.

Now I'm starting to see why you're so interested in this, there may be something very intriguing in there. Perhaps Hans at IIP could find it? He's like a wizard or something with these documents.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yikes... Machiavelli - wouldn't it just be easier to call Nadeau a "liar"? You make her sound far, far worse. You DO know don't you that Nadeau has monetized this tragedy, and continues to do so by selling the film rights to "Angel Face"?

A liar is a person who consciousously deceives, knowing what he says is false, and knowing the difference between false and truth, and does that for a purpose (lies on one side not on the other). This is how I would use the term.
If a person doesn't know the details, such as Nadeau, and gets things wrong randomly, she is only an approximate reporter.

And the nib of the argument about the Satanic Rite claim, you say it "would not be right" to produce evidence I am wrong? It's hard to know how to respond to such a bizarre statement.

Let's say, that what I guess, is that reporters got their wrong information and inference from sources like this one:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/08_ottobre_20/perugia_amanda_meredith_b7ef75e0-9e8e-11dd-b7ca-00144f02aabc.shtml

What is most remarkable is the title. If you read the title it would seem that Meredith was killed in a ritual.

However, when you read the article you discover, in fact, that the reporters were not in the courtroom. What you have is reports by the parties (you have Maresca's audio report about his own requests).
Then you have the explanation of "rito" which is described as something rather similar to a sexual game, and in fact the paper calles it "rito sessuale":

IL RITO SESSUALE - Nella ricostruzione della Procura l’omicidio di Meredith fu premeditato e avrebbe dovuto essere addirittura un «rito» da celebrare in occasione della notte di Halloween. Un rito sessuale e sacrificale di per sè, che si potrebbe definire «casalingo», senza uno sfondo vero riconducibile all’esoterismo né tantomeno al satanismo. Per il Pm Mignini il rito, nelle intenzioni degli «organizzatori» sarebbe dovuto avvenire 24 ore prima di quando fu effettivamente compiuto l’omicidio. Ma, complice una cena nella casa degli orrori, organizzata dalle ragazze italiane coinquiline di Meredith e Amanda, sarebbe slittato al giorno dopo.

However the "rito" is always between inverted commas, and it is coupled with the word "casalingo" (which suggest sthe contrary of a ritual).
Moreover, the newspaper goes on explaining that the "ritual" in fact "had no real background", and so - it says this expliticly - has nothing to do with esoterism nor satanism.
So the same source who tends to describe the prosecution as drawing a "ritual" scenario, also expliticly states that the prosecution says there's no link with any cult-like activity/content, nothing esoteric and nothing satanic.
This is what this source states.
There is an explicit assertion of the opposite, there is apparently an explicit "no satanism" and "no esoterism" claim by the prosecution.

However, this is not all we can say. In fact, given also that we know that this source was probably not in the courtroom, it's anyway better to check the documents directly, so we understand what Mignini meant.
And when we read what the prosecution actually said, we find out that there is not even a "sexual rite". There is actually no sex-rite in the prosecution scenario, but rather a sex party. The word used is "festino", not "rito". Obviously there is no esoterism nor satanism.
The "riti" which are mentioned are Halloween and the Celtic last night of the year. But they are entirely marginal, basically they are dates; there isn't a sexual rite and there isn't a sacrifice. There are manga comics, there is drug mentioned, other stuff, but not rituals.

So the journalist is reporting something incorrectly or imprecisely, maybe out of fragmentary and indirect information or simply putting togehter an incomplete summary. It's understandable. (even more understandable if some journalists are Spezi's friends). It is also understandable that some foreign language reporters who were fed by the same source or misunderstood something more, even jumped to the "satanic" scenario (which the Corriere explicitely denies).
But as Mignini, who once was questioned on the point, denied he ever put forward any esoteric or ritual scenario, why people think he did is not completely understandable.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I am also saying that this scenario was basically unchanged, I mean: Mignini and Comodi never "changed" scenario. In the way in which it is described, the psychological details or other details they chose to mention, might sound like a different style from 2008 and 2009, but as you read it, in fact it isn't. Possible argument about money, drugs, a sexual context, clutches between Knox and Maredith over their house habits, personalities of the three perpetrators: these are the ingredients, they are identical and the story is the same.<snip>

Didn't Mignini recently say he was willing to concede that Amanda may not even have been in the room, but may have been directing the action from outside the door?

My intent (on the satanic/ritual topic) is precisely to expose the fact that, if there are "wide spread assumptions at the time that Mignini was behind salacious theories", those wide spread assumptions are an example of irrational and unfounded claims spread by media campaigns. (Btw, ritual murder and salacious are already two different concepts, there is already a shifting both in meaning and implications). The wide spread false beliefs about what Mignini said may have a complex origin (more than one cause) yet they are unfounded, I may say they are obviously unfounded; the fact that their belivers lack any source, actually they have both Italian press sources against them and factual documentation disproving them, is something very glaring. The believers nonetheless tend to resist a re-formulation based on the actual information, or to consider a re-framing of their incomplete information from another point of view.<snip>

Even without Satanic rituals, a multi-person sex game one has zero evidence for is pretty salacious.

Trust me, I've been reformulating and reframing quite a bit since you told us about the psychological file on Amanda's desire for Meredith. I think Mignini should go public with that theory and see what happens.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm confused, Machiavelli - you say it "would be wrong" to try to prove me wrong by using documents in your possession.... yet this is exactly what you are doing in the post... are you serious?

A liar is a person who consciousously deceives, knowing what he says is false, and knowing the difference between false and truth, and does that for a purpose (lies on one side not on the other). This is how I would use the term.
If a person doesn't know the details, such as Nadeau, and gets things wrong randomly, she is only an approximate reporter.

I've heard euphemisms before but, "approximate reporter" takes the cake.

Still, is it a good guess that Ms. Nadeau will not be sending you a Christmas card this year?

My final issue is - why bother even trying to deal with this in 2013?

Why 2013?

My suspicion, and it is only that, is as I've stated. Mignini relied on a psychic for the Monster of Florence case, and reportedly relied on the same psychic to guide him in the Kercher murder trials.

This is the only reason why I can fathom that both you and he would even respond to nutcases like me.....

..... unless there was danger of this "Satanic Rite" thing doing real harm to him in either the Spezi issues to come or in the outcome of the Kercher murder trials or both.

I admit that this is speculation. But it seems reasonable given that you give me the time of day on this.... why even give some random poster the time of day?

 

[charlatan]

The "riti" which are mentioned are Halloween and the Celtic last night of the year. But they are entirely marginal, basically they are dates; there isn't a sexual rite and there isn't a sacrifice. There are manga comics, there is drug mentioned, other stuff, but not rituals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh..I'm pretty sure I know why. It 'wouldn't help their case.' There's something there innocentisti would have too much fun with.

Perhaps it's the context which may suggest something not literally Satanic, but that describes something very similar, or something just as embarrassing.

Now I'm starting to see why you're so interested in this, there may be something very intriguing in there. Perhaps Hans at IIP could find it? He's like a wizard or something with these documents.

Certainly Grinder thinks I'm a nutcase for pursuing this with Machiavelli so forcefully....

.... it's also that Machiavelli makes some very side-issue bizarre statements.... now he backs off calling Barbie Nadeau a liar, now he calls her euphemistically, "an approximate reporter". And let be remind all what's at stake here... Nadeau thinks Mignini had the Satanic rite as a working theory, and further writes that Comodi had to threaten to quit if Mignini took it to trial to get him to back off.

I now get a better sense as to why Machiavelli fights this tooth and nail.... because this COULD be potentially as dangerous when Spezi's stuff is dealt with, as well as potentially some fall out for Mignini after the ISC signs off on the Kercher Murder Trials.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Let's say, that what I guess, is that reporters got their wrong information and inference from sources like this one:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/08_ottobre_20/perugia_amanda_meredith_b7ef75e0-9e8e-11dd-b7ca-00144f02aabc.shtml

What is most remarkable is the title. If you read the title it would seem that Meredith was killed in a ritual.

How many people do you think read beyond the title?

However, when you read the article you discover, in fact, that the reporters were not in the courtroom. What you have is reports by the parties (you have Maresca's audio report about his own requests).
Then you have the explanation of "rito" which is described as something rather similar to a sexual game, and in fact the paper calles it "rito sessuale":

However the "rito" is always between inverted commas, and it is coupled with the word "casalingo" (which suggest sthe contrary of a ritual).

(As an aside -- we don't call them inverted commas, we call them quotation marks.)

Moreover, the newspaper goes on explaining that the "ritual" in fact "had no real background", and so - it says this expliticly - has nothing to do with esoterism nor satanism.
So the same source who tends to describe the prosecution as drawing a "ritual" scenario, also expliticly states that the prosecution says there's no link with any cult-like activity/content, nothing esoteric and nothing satanic.
This is what this source states.
There is an explicit assertion of the opposite, there is apparently an explicit "no satanism" and "no esoterism" claim by the prosecution.

However, this is not all we can say. In fact, given also that we know that this source was probably not in the courtroom, it's anyway better to check the documents directly, so we understand what Mignini meant.
And when we read what the prosecution actually said, we find out that there is not even a "sexual rite". There is actually no sex-rite in the prosecution scenario, but rather a sex party. The word used is "festino", not "rito". Obviously there is no esoterism nor satanism.
The "riti" which are mentioned are Halloween and the Celtic last night of the year. But they are entirely marginal, basically they are dates; there isn't a sexual rite and there isn't a sacrifice. There are manga comics, there is drug mentioned, other stuff, but not rituals.

So the journalist is reporting something incorrectly or imprecisely, maybe out of fragmentary and indirect information or simply putting togehter an incomplete summary. It's understandable. (even more understandable if some journalists are Spezi's friends). It is also understandable that some foreign language reporters who were fed by the same source or misunderstood something more, even jumped to the "satanic" scenario (which the Corriere explicitely denies).
But as Mignini, who once was questioned on the point, denied he ever put forward any esoteric or ritual scenario, why people think he did is not completely understandable.

Again, it is a puzzle why Mignini allowed these misunderstandings to continue. It's almost as if it served his purposes to have the papers report something different from what was going on in the courtroom.

 

[Kaosium]

The print is compatible just ask Bill cause Massei says so

They have to do better than that, that middle toe just doesn't fit, it's not even close.

Well we don't know that as Amanda has never made that clear. Rudy would have done more than just winked at her at LeChic. I will bet a yacht and a half that he talked to her at the club.

Amanda testified she didn't think she'd served him, she just remembered him coming in once.

If CD was crossing her fingers behind her back cause met has a special meaning in this context, then I still think it is misleading and she knows it.

Like I said, if you're going to use your definition then it amounts to a hundred or more people she 'met' more often. Simply being in the same vicinity of someone without interacting has absolutely no value in establishing a relationship, and the reasons Rudy was ever around her weren't because of anything she did, or for that matter even him seeking her out, it involved the boys downstairs and him coming into Le Chic.

You live in Pullman.

No, I don't. I live in Madison, WI.

 

[David Sugar]

I wonder if there is anyone, aside from those who knew Amanda and Raffaele before the crime, who came to this discussion believing in innocence. None of the initial media reports in any country questioned the prosecution's claims. None.

A few people might have started out with suspicions -- people like Charlie and Chris Halkides, because they had seen and worked on other cases of wrongful accusations and imprisonment. I, personally, was somewhat doubtful that someone from Amanda's high school could have done what she was accused of doing, but I was certainly open to the possibility.

I only became interested in this case this year. I have heard of "the Amanda Knox murder" but did not know anything about it. Then, in March of this year, there was a news report about Amanda, how she was first convicted, then aquitted on appeal, and then now had the aquittal overturned. This got me somewhat interested.

I had no opinion about whether she was guilty. I expected that after researching this that I would most likely decide either that she is probably guilty but maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt---or maybe that she is guilty and should have been convicted but got off due to a good defense---or maybe that there is some real doubt about her guilt. Before looking into this case I would have thought the least likely possible conclusion I would reach is that I would become certain of her innocence.

But that is what happened. I looked at both pro and con innocence articles and websites, read the English translations of the court documents, read many forums about the case, and have concluded that there is absolutely no real evidence against Amanda and Raffaele--NONE WHATSOEVER. It is incredible to me that they were arrested--let alone charged or convicted.

I am now convinced that there is some corruption in the Perugia justice system--if not all of Italy. Now, there is no doubt to me that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded.

 

[Bill Williams]

Again, it is a puzzle why Mignini allowed these misunderstandings to continue. It's almost as if it served his purposes to have the papers report something different from what was going on in the courtroom.

Which is part of the puzzle isn't it.

It's why it'd be informative when Mignini started claiming about being accused of theorizing about a Satanic Rite.

And once again why Machiavelli and Mignini see a need for, in 2013, a full bore defence on this point?

I'm going with the "Mignini consulted a psychic" theory for now.... maybe Machiavelli will tell us what it is about Italian law where that's frowned upon.

 

[Bill Williams]

I only became interested in this case this year. I have heard of "the Amanda Knox murder" but did not know anything about it. Then, in March of this year, there was a news report about Amanda, how she was first convicted, then aquitted on appeal, and then now had the aquittal overturned. This got me somewhat interested.

I had no opinion about whether she was guilty. I expected that after researching this that I would most likely decide either that she is probably guilty but maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt---or maybe that she is guilty and should have been convicted but got off due to a good defense---or maybe that there is some real doubt about her guilt. Before looking into this case I would have thought the least likely possible conclusion I would reach is that I would become certain of her innocence.

But that is what happened. I looked at both pro and con innocence articles and websites, read the English translations of the court documents, read many forums about the case, and have concluded that there is absolutely no real evidence against Amanda and Raffaele--NONE WHATSOEVER. It is incredible to me that they were arrested--let alone charged or convicted.

I am now convinced that there is some corruption in the Perugia justice system--if not all of Italy. Now, there is no doubt to me that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded.

..... and of course, for this you get a warm welcome here!

 

[Kaosium]

*no argument on snips*

What did Peter Q. say about the bra-clasp, when he was trying to pin the blame on the defence lawyers for blocking the collection of the bra-clasp for 47 days? He said something akin to the bra-clasp being noted on Nov 2 as to-be-collected by the Scientific Police, while blaming the defence for it laying there for 47 days.

What on earth is he possibly talking about? They left it there. There never should have been any 'second trip' to the crime scene, there was no evidence they collected that had any sort of forensic integrity after the polizia scientifica were done.

Aside from the fact that there WERE NO DEFENCE LAWYERS between Nov 2 and (what was it) Nov 8.... what does noted for future collection mean? To me it means that the Scientific Police were unusually incompetent! That Massei let's Stefanoni off the hook for the non-collection of the bra-clasp, and sustains Stefanoni in not testing the presumed semen-stain... well that says buckets about the integrity of some judges in Italy...

I agree.

One of the very first websites I read that had a pro-innocence slant to it made the comment that to solve crimes like this, you start in the immediate-intimate vicinity of the victim and work your way outwards. The webmaster reasoned that Amanda and Raffaele most be innocent, because it is only going to the far reaches of the "outer edges" of this crime, that one even finds anything to suspect them of something.

Good advice, do you recall who that was?

And as noted, incredibly, Patrick Lumumba's apartment was never considered a "crime scene" in the way Raffaele's apartment was. What was THAT about?

It may have been because they reasoned that he didn't go back to his house after the murder, he went directly to Le Chic so he could establish his presence there by ringing things up on the till. So they considered Le Chic the equivalent of Raffaele's for him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

18th variation

Ha! I'm trying to have a life... going to see this tonight.

I find it encouraging that we're having the same discussion now that we were just after the wheels came off the prosecution's short bus. Despite all the bluster around the ISC ruling and the new trial the evidence looks as weak as ever. The PGP are adamant that additional investigation could bury the defense (though the knife results would appear to contradict this assertion) yet the PGP are unwilling to call the defense's 'bluff'. I find this telling.

Did you enjoy the Rachmaninoff Variations? The 18th variation was used in two movies, "The Story of Three Loves," and "Somewhere in Time." We are still debating alcohol oxidation via alcohol dehydrogenase (who knew that Michaelis-Menten kinetics could be controversial). That reminds me: the last of the 24 variations is called the creme de menthe variation.

 

[Kaosium]

How long is the constant curve for the processing of alcohol?

All the sites I provided say that although women may get drunk easier they process it at the same pace.

I know, my point was it was easier for a female to get there if they're out drinking all night long.

People really think she was this drunk: 0.20 Loss of motor control; must have assistance standing or walking; mental confusion; needs medical assistance.

That would explain the stumbling. Note that effects vary considerably from person to person depending on tolerance, people that drink more often (generally) learn to function with higher BACs--up until a certain point.

At .25 she would have about .12 when she woke up yet no one noticed: 0.11 - 0.12 Coordination and balance becoming difficult; distinct impairment of mental faculties and judgment

Tolerance works the same way when coming down, your mind and body adjusts to the poison you're putting in it and tries to keep you functioning. That's why people that drink heavily have to be careful the next day as they may feel they're not legally intoxicated, they will have the BAC to prove it if they get pulled over driving to work the next morning.

 

[Samson]

I wonder if there is anyone, aside from those who knew Amanda and Raffaele before the crime, who came to this discussion believing in innocence. None of the initial media reports in any country questioned the prosecution's claims. None.

A few people might have started out with suspicions -- people like Charlie and Chris Halkides, because they had seen and worked on other cases of wrongful accusations and imprisonment. I, personally, was somewhat doubtful that someone from Amanda's high school could have done what she was accused of doing, but I was certainly open to the possibility.

The pro-innocence group now have a lot of knowledge about the case, as should be obvious from the discussion of evidence that has gone on here for almost four years. They didn't gain their knowledge by reading propaganda, they gained it by having access to court documentation. The continuous threats from people like Peter Quennell that we haven't seen half the evidence and "just you wait" have never panned out.

When I read the various forums, I often see people stating they came to the case convinced of guilt but then changed their minds. I never see anyone say, "I used to believe they were innocent, but now I know they are guilty!" Well, I do know one person who did that, but intellect had nothing to do with it.

There is no way to corner and crush the case for innocence with mathematical proof. If there were, it would have happened by now. You insult thinking people again and again by calling them ignorant.

At least we have tried to understand your culture. You and Mignini's ilk have complete tunnel vision when it comes to trying to understand ours. You are ideologues who refuse to believe there can be a version of reality different from your own.

This appears all correct, in my admittedly several month acquaintance with the case, although a vast amount can be learned in this time with the press reports from the time etc. I am perfectly certain that this forum, being the open to all comers one, reflects the truth, in successfully exhausting the jailers. Machiavelli doesn't answer my questions, the one I wish he would is if he believes the Italian system would be better if Guede had to testify as a witness to a murder he saw/heard committed by AK and RS. He loves legal form to declare truths, I prefer logical function.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Is there any reason she couldn't have collapsed immediately following the fatal wound?

I assume she would have collapsed immediately, and did collapse immediately, which does not explain how she ended up in the position where she was found. Nor does it explain how or why her bra was ripped off after her throat was cut, but before she stopped breathing.

Some blood spots were in the middle of the floor, and presumably would've landed there whether she was standing or partly or fully on her knees at the time it happened.

I have no particular theory on this one, she could well have been on her knees or at least slumped. I'm not interested in defending an absolute theory, only in reading the various opinions and coming to a view as to which is more likely (the conclusion of 'more likely', btw, is the best we can ever do on this).



You emphasized things which made the positioning sound deliberate and missed out things which leave open the possibility it was accidental. "Legs spread" is a misleading description of her actual position (and if you doubt this is the case, do a google search for 'legs spread' and see what kind of results you get. Just don't do it at work).

I think you represent one particular theory as being much more certain than it really is because you fear leaving any scope for uncertainty also leaves an opening for people to suggest Amanda and Raffaele were involved. Your position is understandable: one of the great weak points of the PGP position is that they have no coherent theory of the crime; ergo if there's one definite PIP theory of what happened which we can hammer home again and again and again and again, that (so the theory goes) strengthens our position. But refusing to consider any other, perhaps equally likely alternatives doesn't get us any closer to the truth of what happened either.

Anyway since I really, really have to go to bed now, I'll continue this tomorrow...

No, that's not my motivation. I think the WM3 are innocent, and I have no idea what really happened, only that the case against the WM3 is bogus and utterly implausible. I think Scott Peterson is guilty, but again, I have no idea how he did it, only that the circumstances show he did it somehow.

The Meredith Kercher murder is different. It is possible to figure out what happened, and it makes no sense to nurture a mystery when the facts are so clear. If it seems I am wedded to a theory, it is because Hendry pieced together one, specific scenario that is consistent with all of the important details shown in the crime scene photos. I can only consider "other, perhaps equally likely alternatives" to the extent someone can present one that meets the same standard. So far, no one ever has. What people have done is to propose vague alternatives they extrapolate from a subset of details, but those alternatives run aground on other points of fundamental importance.

Dale Myers reconstructed the Kennedy assassination, and it looks to me as though he got it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

Quote: "You can talk about all the theories you want, but this thing happened only one way."

It's the same with Meredith's murder.

 

[xinonix]

This stuff is still important in 2013 because the guilters are making a movie about it.
We have to think of Amanda as a fellow American, so if you mess with her, you mess with us!
The theory that Mignini consulted a psychic again starts to make sense when you review the story after accepting that it is the psychics vision that guided Mignini.
If I had Mignini's job and 2 guys from the postal police told me that they thought that AK+RS were lying to them and the the crime scene was fake, this would not be enough evidence for me to put Amanda through a 52 hour ordeal in an attempt to make her confess. I would have to have proof that they killed Meredith and were the kind of criminals who did not deserve their civil rights.
Unlike me, Mignini knew That AK+RS were satanists, guilty of murder and should be locked up and the key be thrown away.
So when he heard that she made an improper grief reaction to her friend's death and the cops thought she was lying to them, he would think that would be what a satanist who killed someone in a ritual would do. When the detective wanna-be said the broken glass was on top of the items, they must have ransacked the room and then broke the window. Mignini would say yes they were attempting to stage a break-in. These things were enough to prove that the psychic's vision was true. He then made up hiss mind that the satanists would be worked over until they confessed.

 

[Samson]

Did you enjoy the Rachmaninoff Variations? The 18th variation was used in two movies, "The Story of Three Loves," and "Somewhere in Time." We are still debating alcohol oxidation via alcohol dehydrogenase (who knew that Michaelis-Menten kinetics could be controversial). That reminds me: the last of the 24 variations is called the creme de menthe variation.

Where the Russian inverts the Italian theme from memory, darkness into light?.

 

[acbytesla]

I only became interested in this case this year. I have heard of "the Amanda Knox murder" but did not know anything about it. Then, in March of this year, there was a news report about Amanda, how she was first convicted, then aquitted on appeal, and then now had the aquittal overturned. This got me somewhat interested.

I had no opinion about whether she was guilty. I expected that after researching this that I would most likely decide either that she is probably guilty but maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt---or maybe that she is guilty and should have been convicted but got off due to a good defense---or maybe that there is some real doubt about her guilt. Before looking into this case I would have thought the least likely possible conclusion I would reach is that I would become certain of her innocence.

But that is what happened. I looked at both pro and con innocence articles and websites, read the English translations of the court documents, read many forums about the case, and have concluded that there is absolutely no real evidence against Amanda and Raffaele--NONE WHATSOEVER. It is incredible to me that they were arrested--let alone charged or convicted.

I am now convinced that there is some corruption in the Perugia justice system--if not all of Italy. Now, there is no doubt to me that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded.

Welcome to the site David. Your story sounds like most of the people who visit the site. I use to believe that Amanda was probably guilty and I came to the same conclusion as you.