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

[Antony]

Then there's the bit about Rudy was not eligible for being imprisoned for his break-ins prior to the killing of Meredith Kercher. What am I forgetting?

... don't forget the claim that the bra clasp was "not conservable evidence" (can't remember the exact words), and anyway the lab had no way of keeping it from rusting without an expensive chemical treatment that would have destroyed the DNA anyway.

 

[RandyN]

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?

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.

Yes he did. In his interview with the CNN guy. I dont recall the details offhand and its late and I am tired and lazy...Graham?

 

[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.

In reflecting on Machiavelli's use of the words religious and religion in this passage, my mind wanders to some of the people who started out in this debate but eventually left. Fulcanelli, Fiona, stilicho, SomeAlibi, Bob the Donkey, pilotpadron, capealadin -- these are all posters who found more comfort and community in the bosom of PMF than at JREF. I think they departed because their facts were successfully challenged, leaving them with nothing but their faith.

The essence of faith is that it is based on beliefs and not facts. A religious person is faithful, not fact-ful or proof-ful. No one can prove that God exists, but within the structure of religion, that's okay, because religion is about faith and belief, not facts.

In the same way, no one can prove that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, but within the structure of the guilt community, that's okay, because their community is also about faith and beliefs, not facts.

So yes, some people do make a religion of their position in this case, but it is not the ones Machiavelli thinks.

 

[RandyN]

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.

Well you can bet the bank that it WILL BE in Barbies movie. Mignini will be claiming a satanic rite planed for Halloween but moved one day because of a dinner. I think he said and implied it and I also think Comodi told him to drop it or she was gone. Machaeli as much as confirmed it.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes he did. In his interview with the CNN guy. I dont recall the details offhand and its late and I am tired and lazy...Graham?

Ah, thank you, Randy. I guess it wasn't that recent -- it was in 2011, Here is Candace's take on it:

Because the prosecutor, after nearly four years, admits that no trace of alleged murderer Amanda Knox was found at the crime scene. “Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room,” Mignini told Graham on May 21 in a long special feature about the Perugia murder.

A crucial quotation, because it contradicts the substance of the indictment, which alleged that Amanda had a dual active role: masterminding the orgy that led to the murder and also holding Meredith firmly by the arm while Rudy and Raffaele slit her throat.

(Candace doesn't even mention the theory about Amanda taunting Meredith with the knife, which was another one.)

So much for the claim that the scenario was basically unchanged over time.

 

[Supernaut]

LOL, well artistic tastes differ, I guess.

Any directors you'd recommend instead?

I was going to ask you the same thing.

Like you say, "tastes" differ, but Winterbottom is and will probably always be a wannabe and phony - not to mention a careerist, mindful of Camden and Hampstead house prices.

 

[charlatan]

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.

The Rhapsody was brilliant (it helps to have a genuine prodigy at the piano) but I was primarily there for Shosty's 11th. That little ditty always keeps the old folks awake and leaves one's ears ringing. Perhaps I'm just a revolutionary at heart, but I feel it has great relevance to our time -- and to this case in particular.

 

[RandyN]

If you were looking down with the wardrobe at the top, Guede dragged her sideways from right to left. Hendry thinks he dragged her by the blue jacket until it came off with the sleeves inside-out. He only moved her a couple of feet, and he didn't drag her lower body through the pool of blood in front of the wardrobe.

Everyone (that I know) agrees she was on her knees, facing the wardrobe, when her throat was cut. Somehow she ended up in the middle of the room, on her back with her legs spread and a pillow under her buttocks.

This is the one thing I disagree with Hendry about. I think Guede partially lifted and slid MK to the middle of the room. I think he used her bra strap (the large center one) as his handle on her body. He may well have done this thru other layers of clothing like the thin undershirt or maybe even thru the blue jacket but I doubt that since I believe the blue jacket came off in the fight. Guide grabbed her by the hair and hood and she broke free by slipping out of her jacket. The jacket would easily slip off but when he went back he grabbed hair and that is an inescapable hold. I still think the pillow was incidential and likely on the floor and she partially was on in due to Guedes turning her over and back to undress her. This also prolonged her life although not her consciousness...turning her over would allow her lungs to drain a bit and start the cough reflex...returned to her back would allow blood to flow into her lungs once more...a cough or two perhaps and then death. The swirl marks are from hair and upper body. He moved her to get her out of the blood. He wanted her out of the blood so that he would not get any on himself as he sexually assaulted her.

 

[codyjuneau]

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.

.
Probably a fairly accurate explanation of how Migi's brain works. Probably the knife divining cop also.

In my opinion, anybody that listens to a 'psychic' to determine who committed a crime, should not be entrusted with investigating a jaywalking complaint, let alone a murder.
.

 

[RandyN]

Very interesting, Randy. Of course, if someone who is not Italian were to impersonate an Italian, his ability to write in a second-language kind of way might be so inconsistent as to raise suspicions in other people's minds about whether more than one person is writing his posts.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that a person invested in this kind of scheme would go to the trouble of making up an Italian autobiography, learning Italian law and defending Italian culture to the point of looking like an authentic native. But then, stranger things have happened. It would make a fun book.

Both 1 and 2 are not native but have lived and worked in the country for decades. One is an actor with a theater background and the other is not an actor but rather someone more concerned with proper grammar. Can you guess which one is Vogt? Of course its strange. I also happen to think it is exactly correct. It walks like duck, it talks like a duck...a good book? Maybe. Pulp Fiction.

 

[davefoc]

In reflecting on Machiavelli's use of the words religious and religion in this passage, my mind wanders to some of the people who started out in this debate but eventually left. Fulcanelli, Fiona, stilicho, SomeAlibi, Bob the Donkey, pilotpadron, capealadin -- these are all posters who found more comfort and community in the bosom of PMF than at JREF. I think they departed because their facts were successfully challenged, leaving them with nothing but their faith.
The essence of faith is that it is based on beliefs and not facts. A religious person is faithful, not fact-ful or proof-ful. No one can prove that God exists, but within the structure of religion, that's okay, because religion is about faith and belief, not facts.

In the same way, no one can prove that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, but within the structure of the guilt community, that's okay, because their community is also about faith and beliefs, not facts.

So yes, some people do make a religion of their position in this case, but it is not the ones Machiavelli thinks.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with you before about anything substantive Mary_H and I don't exactly disagree with you here. But I think your idea that people don't post here "because their facts were successfully challenged, leaving them with nothing but their faith." is a little off the mark. Having one's views agreed with is a kind of brain candy that most of us find it hard to resist. And conversely having one's views disagreed with is often not a pleasant experience. The people left here because they wanted to participate at a site where they would find like minded individuals to agree with them.

Biases are major drivers in human belief formation and once a belief is strongly formed most of us aren't all that interested in listening to people who disagree with it. This is a sword that cuts both ways and one of the drivers for the commonality of views on this site is that over time people that are out of sync with the majority will generally leave and those of us that agree with the consensus view here, stay.

I am not trying to say that all beliefs are equally likely to be true. But I think it is difficult to judge exactly when we believe something because logic and evidence have led us there and when we believe something because our mind has tricked us into believing our view is the logical one based on the available evidence when it is really our biases that are driving the show.

 

[LondonJohn]

If his penis was involved in penetration, the autopsy would have found pre-ejaculate in addition to epithelial cells

I don't think that once can forensically detect pre-ejaculate within a vaginal environment, unless it contains sperm. It appears that the scientific community is currently split on whether pre-ejaculate always, sometimes or never contains sperm. Here's an interesting and relevant document:

http://ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/November_Newsletter.318163054.pdf

This passage appears to be directly relevant to the Kercher case:

One issue with this study is that it is unclear whether ejaculation took place or not with each of the tested samples. A second study in 2002 using FISH technology included testing of vaginal swabs obtained following intercourse with no ejaculation. The researchers found that male epithelial cells were able to be identified even in samples where no ejaculation had taken place, thus proving that male DNA can be transferred to the vaginal canal through intercourse without ejaculation.

I have a strong suspicion that the epithelial cells of Guede's found inside Meredith's vagina were from his penis, rather than from his finger. As I've said before, my main reason for thinking this is that Meredith's jeans were completely removed; if Guede's sole aim was digital penetration, it would have been both unnecessary and cumbersome to have removed the jeans completely - merely unbuttoning/unzipping them and pulling them down below the crotch would have been sufficient to allow for digital (and visible) access. However, if full penile penetration were his aim, then it would obviously have been necessary to remove the jeans completely (or at least from one leg) in order to allow for the legs to open sufficiently.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

I'd like to think that everyone gets a warm welcome here, regardless of their arguing position. In my view, if people are ready and willing to argue and debate with objectivity and honesty, then they should be embraced here.

In fact, I'd argue that I prefer there to be people who do not share my point of view within any debate of which I am a part. I say this because a) it's good to be challenged and to consider opposing opinions, and b) merely hearing broad confirmation of one's own position tends to be a self-reinforcing mechanism that is destructive to good thinking (just look at the pro-guilt forums for textbook proof of this phenomenon!).

Having said all that, I would add that I am of course in total agreement with David's stated position, and I congratulate him on his ability to see the case through rational, sceptical eyes

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

You beat me to the punch on this one!

As you say, symptoms present very differently depending on whether you're "going up" or "coming down". When the body experiences alcohol intoxication, it gradually starts to adjust its sensory and metabolic parameters in order to compensate for the perceived poisoning. In fact, this adjustment is one of the main drivers of a hangover - the body has adjusted, but the alcohol has at least partly dissipated, resulting in a net "over-adjustment". That's why people the "morning after" feel overly sensitive to bright lights, loud noises, challenging balance situations (Fancy going on a rollercoaster with a hangover? Thought not!) and anything requiring intense concentration.

As you point out, one of the resultant effects is that people usually feel "non-drunk" the day after a very heavy night out, in that they are no longer experiencing speech, balance, thought-process or visual impairments. But that's only because the brain has had the time to re-calibrate these things. However, it's eminently possible that their BAC will still be well over the legal limit.

Incidentally, the brain also starts to produce longer-term compensatory effects in people who are habitual heavy users of alcohol. This is of course colloquially known as building tolerance. It's why, for example, if a regular heavy drinker and an infrequent drinker of the same weight and gender consume the same amount of alcohol, it's almost guaranteed that the regular heavy drinker will exhibit far fewer signs of intoxication that the light drinker. There appears to be evidence that Meredith was a regular binge drinker, both before and during her stay in Perugia.

 

[TofuFighter]

I don't think I have ever disagreed with you before about anything substantive Mary_H and I don't exactly disagree with you here. But I think your idea that people don't post here "because their facts were successfully challenged, leaving them with nothing but their faith." is a little off the mark. Having one's views agreed with is a kind of brain candy that most of us find it hard to resist. And conversely having one's views disagreed with is often not a pleasant experience. The people left here because they wanted to participate at a site where they would find like minded individuals to agree with them.

Biases are major drivers in human belief formation and once a belief is strongly formed most of us aren't all that interested in listening to people who disagree with it. This is a sword that cuts both ways and one of the drivers for the commonality of views on this site is that over time people that are out of sync with the majority will generally leave and those of us that agree with the consensus view here, stay.

I am not trying to say that all beliefs are equally likely to be true. But I think it is difficult to judge exactly when we believe something because logic and evidence have led us there and when we believe something because our mind has tricked us into believing our view is the logical one based on the available evidence when it is really our biases that are driving the show.

This.
I'm glad you've brought this up Dave.
It is exactly on a forum like Jref that I would expect people to admit to possible bias, rather than deny it for themselves, and project it upon others.

The evidence that I have seen suggests to me that K&S are not guilty of killing MK. I don't trust all of the information I've seen, and i don't believe I have all of the information i need to sit in judgment.

The existence and use of the term 'guilters' (similar as it is to 'truthers') is condescending, and to me, in this case, doesn't do the user any credit.

 

[Supernaut]

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?



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?

But that was then, and it was only for a few years(?). He's all better now.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think I have ever disagreed with you before about anything substantive Mary_H and I don't exactly disagree with you here. But I think your idea that people don't post here "because their facts were successfully challenged, leaving them with nothing but their faith." is a little off the mark. Having one's views agreed with is a kind of brain candy that most of us find it hard to resist. And conversely having one's views disagreed with is often not a pleasant experience. The people left here because they wanted to participate at a site where they would find like minded individuals to agree with them.

Biases are major drivers in human belief formation and once a belief is strongly formed most of us aren't all that interested in listening to people who disagree with it. This is a sword that cuts both ways and one of the drivers for the commonality of views on this site is that over time people that are out of sync with the majority will generally leave and those of us that agree with the consensus view here, stay.

I am not trying to say that all beliefs are equally likely to be true. But I think it is difficult to judge exactly when we believe something because logic and evidence have led us there and when we believe something because our mind has tricked us into believing our view is the logical one based on the available evidence when it is really our biases that are driving the show.

Thank you for you thoughts, dave. I always enjoy your posts and you bring up a very interesting point here. I agree that, in general, day-to-day life, what you have observed applies. I love the "brain candy" I get from my husband, family and friends, and I get very annoyed when we are at odds.

I don't agree that it applies in this case, though, for the following reason:

I LOVE IT WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH ME ABOUT THIS CASE.

The logic of this case is so easy, it makes all pro-innocence people feel smart when they get to argue it. It's just terribly, terribly fun -- that's why we keep doing it.

When I first started writing about the case, I was on the Seattle Times, was one of very few pro-innocence posters and didn't know anyone else. I still loved it! No matter how many other posters were against me or ganged up on me, the logic of a pro-innocence stance is impeccable and any rational person can see it. I never got (or get) discouraged in the least in the face of the opposition -- I feel energized.

I'm sure there are many hardier souls than I among the guilters, but arguing this case against pro-innocence posters is not rewarding for them, and there's a reason for that.

 

[Supernaut]

..... and Machiavelli's contribution to all this is to call someone "intellectually dishonest", "logically wrong", and employing a form of blackmail for asking to see the document Maciavelli says proves there'd been no mention of a Satanic Rite by Mignini.

Mach also says that a 20-year old foreigner could choose not to sleep where that judgement comes through her writings, and that this 20-year old American had spent her few weeks in Italy learning "Mafia Code" so that she could prepare for jail-house talks with her mother. O yes, that it is also probable that Rudy Guede was Amanda Knox's pimp, in a college town known for people who trade sex for drugs.

How am I doing, Machiavelli? I don't want to get this wrong.

Then there's the bit about Rudy was not eligible for being imprisoned for his break-ins prior to the killing of Meredith Kercher. What am I forgetting?Do you think Machiavelli will EVER comment on: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9568149#post9568149

To be clear, it's unlikely that that Guede would ever have been kept on remand after his arrest in Milan, the issue is that he wasn't charged.

He was, effectively, as good as encouraged to carry on burglarising when he happened to be short of money, given no sense whatsoever that he was putting himself in any peril.

He would almost certainly have been giving some thought as to how it would look were he to be caught yet again while awaiting a court appearance, and Meredith might well still be alive.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think that once can forensically detect pre-ejaculate within a vaginal environment, unless it contains sperm. It appears that the scientific community is currently split on whether pre-ejaculate always, sometimes or never contains sperm. Here's an interesting and relevant document:

http://ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/November_Newsletter.318163054.pdf

That report says that it seems possible DNA would be in pre-ejaculate. I agree. Those cells would be different from epithelials.

This passage appears to be directly relevant to the Kercher case:

I have a strong suspicion that the epithelial cells of Guede's found inside Meredith's vagina were from his penis, rather than from his finger. As I've said before, my main reason for thinking this is that Meredith's jeans were completely removed; if Guede's sole aim was digital penetration, it would have been both unnecessary and cumbersome to have removed the jeans completely - merely unbuttoning/unzipping them and pulling them down below the crotch would have been sufficient to allow for digital (and visible) access. However, if full penile penetration were his aim, then it would obviously have been necessary to remove the jeans completely (or at least from one leg) in order to allow for the legs to open sufficiently.

What Rudy wanted to do and what he succeeded in doing may be two completely different things. Meredith may already have had her pants off, as Katy has suggested, or Rudy may have pulled off Meredith's pants with the intention of genital intercourse. However, I think it is much more likely that he inserted his fingers to facilitate penile penetration and just did not get that far, because he was too excited and whacked out. I don't think he would have had the presence of mind to pull out, and I also I think there would have been some distention or bruising of the vagina or other clues that made it obvious genital penetration had taken place.

 

[Supernaut]

The Rhapsody was brilliant (it helps to have a genuine prodigy at the piano) but I was primarily there for Shosty's 11th. That little ditty always keeps the old folks awake and leaves one's ears ringing. Perhaps I'm just a revolutionary at heart, but I feel it has great relevance to our time -- and to this case in particular.

I should cocoa. The New York Philharmonic and a world-class pianist. Blimey.