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

[kwill]

I have mixed feelings here. If he was a sock puppet then the rules require banning and I understand that. If he was serious (I wasn't sure of that) then I didn't see anything else that he did that required banning . Allowing people to post here that have contrary positions to the JREF standardized poster seems kind of like the point of the place to me.

LondonJohn posted a great answer to one of his posts that seems moot now that he has left us, but I thought I'd cut and paste it anyway for one more play. It didn't seem likely that Goefrey was going to make his way all the way through it though. LJ failed to mention buying panties or anything at all about Knox's sex life so I didn't expect Goefrey to jump on it right away.

As an aside, I notice that Goefrey as we knew him has been wiped from the face of the earth. Wow, when they ban you now they're serious. All that remains of Geofry is in the posts where people have quoted him.

Actually davefoc, that exchange seems like a good example of why there wasn't much point in G's nonstop posting. He asked for a logical explanation. He got one (which is, IMO, about the most coherent, concise description of how the police went astray as I've read anywhere) and his response to it was like, whoa, wall of text!

A place that wants to be about exchanging ideas can't tolerate endless baiting and switching.

 

[Bill Williams]

At least we cannot pin the imbecility of the notion about the bra-clasp on Machiavelli....

..... only to add to your point - the chain of custody alone means that no court in the world should (or would) enter that clasp into evidence.

Then on top of this at trial, Stefanoni is shown her own Scientific Polices' video of the collection, where she is obviously wearing a dirty glove. In the video she (incredibly!) picks up the clasp and turns it around using fingers from each hand. Unfortunately, when the clasp part looks like she may be handling it directly, the angle of the video will not conclusively prove she touched it, even though it looks like it.

So she's asked: "Did you touch it."

At trial she could neither confirm nor deny, she'd touched it. At trial. She admitted it.

That Massei didn't put a stop to it right then and there is part of the travesty of justice in this trial..... that that clasp-hook was used to convict Sollecito is beyond words....

.... and, add as you say, the chain of evidence issue.

That this made it through the first trial.... and that this (as a matter of law) escaped the notice of the Italian Supreme Court, tells you all you need to know about justice in Italy.

I've seen the video of the white-suited official collecting and handling the bra clasp. That was Stefanoni? Incredible ! I didn't realize that. I just assumed it was a poorly-trained assistant. Perhaps a lab tech.

If you took 100 of the best crime-fiction writers and gave them a broad outline of a crime among foreign students and drifters in a small, rural Italian town, where the police bungled the case leading to 6 or 7 years of prosecutions.... and about a dozen side prosecutions.....

.... every one of those writers would not have written something akin to what is seen on the collection video, done by the very Scientific Police - which makes themselves look like complete doofusses.....

They'd have simply refused to write it. No one would believe it as a legitimate plot twist. It would be so obvious, and there'd be no reason to read the rest of the story to the end.... Everyone, except apparently Italian LE, would have simply ended it.

And NO ONE would believe the Stefanoni character.... no writer would write Stefanoni that way. Yet there she is, in that video, a video of her own making, in all her glory.

 

[davefoc]

...
And NO ONE would believe the Stefanoni character.... no writer would write Stefanoni that way. Yet there she is, in that video, a video of her own making, in all her glory.

Perhaps there is more to Stefanoni than I see, but sadly the US has had its share of Stefanoni like characters (and probably a lot more that never come to light) over the years, so I think at least this aspect of the story isn't that strange.

 

[davefoc]

Actually davefoc, that exchange seems like a good example of why there wasn't much point in G's nonstop posting. He asked for a logical explanation. He got one (which is, IMO, about the most coherent, concise description of how the police went astray as I've read anywhere) and his response to it was like, whoa, wall of text!

It seemed that Goefrey didn't spend a lot of his time working to understand people's responses to his posts, but at least there was a bit of humor in his candor about that.

A place that wants to be about exchanging ideas can't tolerate endless baiting and switching.

I don't disagree with this, as I said I had mixed feelings about this. I participated in a shroud of Turin* thread here where one of the participants filled the Goefrey role. The thread may still be going on. It would have died out long ago except for this guy who recycled the same set of arguments over a period of several months and the other participants rose to the bait each time. I bailed after about the second time through, but I wondered what the whole thing was accomplishing. Goefrey was different than the Shroud of Turin guy in that he was recycling his arguments at a much faster rate, I had some thought by the third or fourth time through he would give up under his own steam or the people responding to him would give up. At any rate, I was fine with it if he wanted to go on for awhile more.

*Why the hell do we call it Turin? I was traveling through Italy and there was no Turin. There's Toreno. If the Italians want to call it Toreno who are we to call it Turin?

 

[Matthew Best]

I have mixed feelings here. If he was a sock puppet then the rules require banning and I understand that. If he was serious (I wasn't sure of that) then I didn't see anything else that he did that required banning . Allowing people to post here that have contrary positions to the JREF standardized poster seems kind of like the point of the place to me.

LondonJohn posted a great answer to one of his posts that seems moot now that he has left us, but I thought I'd cut and paste it anyway for one more play. It didn't seem likely that Goefrey was going to make his way all the way through it though. LJ failed to mention buying panties or anything at all about Knox's sex life so I didn't expect Goefrey to jump on it right away.

As an aside, I notice that Goefrey as we knew him has been wiped from the face of the earth. Wow, when they ban you now they're serious. All that remains of Geofry is in the posts where people have quoted him.

That deletion of the face of the site seems to be the current policy with sock puppets - it happened to UncaYimmy's latest alias just the other day.

Obviously posting with a contrary position to the majority isn't going to trigger a ban (Machiavelli is still here, isn't he?), but for some reason the JREF is particularly opposed to sock puppetry - I'm not sure why.

 

[Mary_H]

I have mixed feelings here. If he was a sock puppet then the rules require banning and I understand that. If he was serious (I wasn't sure of that) then I didn't see anything else that he did that required banning . Allowing people to post here that have contrary positions to the JREF standardized poster seems kind of like the point of the place to me.<snip>

I agree, Dave, that contrary positions should be welcome, and that Goofery was being very careful about not breaking the rules. They must have looked into his IP address or something. I also fully agree that that was an excellent summary by LJ.

I'm surprised but glad they were able to find a way to get rid of the troll so quickly. I would much rather have a Mach calling us a bunch of stupid criminals than have the guy who writes, essentially, "We're talking about death, lol!" "We're talking about rape, lol!" "We're talking about bitches, lol!" These are the kinds of disconnected people who one day decide, "Hey, what the hell, live fast, die young," and go out on the streets with an automatic weapon.

 

[Mary_H]

I know - disgusting isn't it.

It's essentially because his sentence was originally 30 years (which in itself was at the lenient end, but the prosecution declined to appeal the sentence). However, after Knox and Sollecito were sentenced by Massei to 24 years for the murder element, Guede's sentence was adjusted at his appeal to match those meted out to Knox and Sollecito. And since Guede was eligible for the 1/3 sentence discount for taking the fast-track trial option, this put his sentence at 16 years.

One can only hope that the Italian prison system has had some measure of success in rehabilitating and re-educating Guede, such that he poses little or no risk upon release. I'm not holding my breath on that one though...

It has been my understanding that 30 years is a life sentence in Italy -- the maximum sentence allowed, that is.

 

[acbytesla]

Geoffrey was the ultimate definition of a troll. Now he wasn't insulting to people. At least not much. What he did was bait people. There was no honest discussion of the evidence. He felt no responsibility to tell the truth. And when it was pointed out that some of the things he said were out and out fabrications, he laughed it off as that was part of the game.

Amanda and Raffaele are not abstractions. They are flesh and blood people that have feelings and most of what Geoffrey did on the forum was character assassinations.

 

[RandyN]

In fact, there is something partly true in your last statement: the TMB negative test proves nothing.

The TMB test is actually expected to provide false negatives on latent stains. It doesn't work well on diluted stain, this is what textbooks say.

Which text book? The idiots guide to TMB testing? Provide a cite or else shut up!

 

[RandyN]

Boy am I dumb...I thought that scientific tests were performed for a reason!!!!

Let's see, Dr.Karl Reich,who holds a degree in molecuar biology
from the University of California, LosAngeles and Harvard
University, stated that TMB is the most sensitive presumptive blood test available; and that a negative TMB test strongly suggests that there is no blood in the area tested. Damn, things are absurd when people obfuscate...I mean lie.

Even stupid sloppy Stefanoni stated this in court...A negative TMB test means no blood. Go figure.

 

[RandyN]

Geoffrey was the ultimate definition of a troll. Now he wasn't insulting to people. At least not much. What he did was bait people. There was no honest discussion of the evidence. He felt no responsibility to tell the truth. And when it was pointed out that some of the things he said were out and out fabrications, he laughed it off as that was part of the game.

Amanda and Raffaele are not abstractions. They are flesh and blood people that have feelings and most of what Geoffrey did on the forum was character assassinations.

Yes but I liked him so much better than Dr Tesla...he did have a sense of humor...remember the "I am a better debater" line? That was hilarious. And I agree...he was a masterdebater.

 

[LondonJohn]

It has been my understanding that 30 years is a life sentence in Italy -- the maximum sentence allowed, that is.

Nope. Section 576 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states clearly that if the murder is committed in conjunction with rape or sexual assault, the mandatory penalty is life imprisonment.

(There are several such aggravating factors that bump the sentence up to life - they are all listed in 576 and 577)

 

[LondonJohn]

That deletion of the face of the site seems to be the current policy with sock puppets - it happened to UncaYimmy's latest alias just the other day.

Obviously posting with a contrary position to the majority isn't going to trigger a ban (Machiavelli is still here, isn't he?), but for some reason the JREF is particularly opposed to sock puppetry - I'm not sure why.

It seems logical to me to ban sockpuppets automatically. After all, if an individual has previously been banned for (presumably) multiple serious infringements of the rules (or perhaps one massive one...), then a reappearance of that same individual under a sockpuppet alias is nothing more than a flouting of that ban.

Other than that, I fully agree with those who say that provided a person has something to say about the case - and provided they aren't here for the clear primary purpose of baiting and insulting other posters here - then they should be welcomed to the debate. As I think I've said before, I think it's both healthy and intellectually stimulating to have your beliefs and arguments challenged. After all, if you can't refute or rebut challenges to your beliefs with clarity or precision, then it's probably time to reassess your beliefs!

 

[RandyN]

Did we already talk about how stupid it was for RS to visit MK grave? I suppose...I hate having to work...anyhoo...

I also think it was stupid for AK to express the desire to visit.

Dont these dopes understand that detectives often record grave sites and funerals because the killers often attend? These kids are not getting smarter IMHO. Saying and doing stupid stuff is not advised at this time.

They really are both clueless sometimes.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seemed that Goefrey didn't spend a lot of his time working to understand people's responses to his posts, but at least there was a bit of humor in his candor about that.
I don't disagree with this, as I said I had mixed feelings about this. I participated in a shroud of Turin* thread here where one of the participants filled the Goefrey role. The thread may still be going on. It would have died out long ago except for this guy who recycled the same set of arguments over a period of several months and the other participants rose to the bait each time. I bailed after about the second time through, but I wondered what the whole thing was accomplishing. Goefrey was different than the Shroud of Turin guy in that he was recycling his arguments at a much faster rate, I had some thought by the third or fourth time through he would give up under his own steam or the people responding to him would give up. At any rate, I was fine with it if he wanted to go on for awhile more.

I'm with you on this.

*Why the hell do we call it Turin? I was traveling through Italy and there was no Turin. There's Toreno. If the Italians want to call it Toreno who are we to call it Turin?

The Italians call it Torino

(But I appreciate your kind words about my post!)

On this subject (again off-topic), there seems to be a consensus that if non-native place names have a cultural or historical significance, then one sticks with the bastardised/anglicised name. For example, one still refers to Peking duck rather than Beijing duck, Ceylon tea rather than Sri Lankan tea, and The Black Hole of Calcutta rather than Kolkatta.

In addition to this, there is also an imprecise and ill-defined convention of referring to places in their anglicised version even in normal discourse. We talk of Cairo, rather than Al-Qahira, Moscow rather than Moskva, Cologne rather than Köln, Florence rather than Firenze. But at the same time, it's now recommended to call the capital of China Beijing rather than Peking, and the city in southern India Chennai rather than Madras. It's all a bit of a mess!

An interesting (well, in my opinion!) aside on this topic concerns one of Italy's most renowned football (soccer) clubs: AC Milan. The reason why the club is called Milan, rather than the Italian spelling of the city - Milano - is that the club's founder (and many of the early players) was an Englishman, who (in typical neo-colonial stylee!) gave the club its anglicised moniker. Ironically, this factor is now venerated by fans of the club, who delight in persisting with the anglicised name - they pronounce it "MEE-lan"

 

[LondonJohn]

Did we already talk about how stupid it was for RS to visit MK grave? I suppose...I hate having to work...anyhoo...

I also think it was stupid for AK to express the desire to visit.

Dont these dopes understand that detectives often record grave sites and funerals because the killers often attend? These kids are not getting smarter IMHO. Saying and doing stupid stuff is not advised at this time.

They really are both clueless sometimes.

I agree that it was not the smartest thing to do politically, and that it can also be construed as disrespectful to the Kerchers (who'd previously expressed a desire that only family and friends visit the grave).

On the other hand, the cemetery is a public space, and therefore the Kerchers - whether they like it or not - have no control or say over who stands in front of Meredith's grave. If Sollecito had a genuine personal need to visit the grave for his own reasons, I don't automatically attach anything malicious or hurtful to that.

I suppose the best solution would have been if Sollecito's visit to the grave had remained entirely private and untold. It would appear that this was Sollecito's intention - given that the visit apparently took place back in March. If his father had not talked about it the other day, nobody need ever have known about it.

But having said all that, if I were in Sollecito's shoes I would certainly have refrained from going to the grave at all until and unless I was acquitted of the murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

And BTW, thank you for Marshawn Lynch. We appreciate the Bills contribution to the Seahawks.

You're welcome!

I am trying to instigate a policy at the Bills of not having anyone named "-Shawn" or "-Sean" (LeShawn, LaShawn, DeShawn, DaShawn, DeSean, Marshawn, etc) on the Bills roster. For the reason that these names are UGLY and MADE-UP!

(I realise that this may leave the Bills critically short of good running backs or wide receivers, but in my mind that's a price worth paying )

Anyway, back to your regular programming.....

 

[acbytesla]

Yes but I liked him so much better than Dr Tesla...he did have a sense of humor...remember the "I am a better debater" line? That was hilarious. And I agree...he was a masterdebater.

Well I wasn't a fan of anyone using my something close to my moniker.. Geoffrey at least had a sense of humor. So I'm with you on that.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I agree that it was not the smartest thing to do politically, and that it can also be construed as disrespectful to the Kerchers (who'd previously expressed a desire that only family and friends visit the grave).

On the other hand, the cemetery is a public space, and therefore the Kerchers - whether they like it or not - have no control or say over who stands in front of Meredith's grave. If Sollecito had a genuine personal need to visit the grave for his own reasons, I don't automatically attach anything malicious or hurtful to that.

I suppose the best solution would have been if Sollecito's visit to the grave had remained entirely private and untold. It would appear that this was Sollecito's intention - given that the visit apparently took place back in March. If his father had not talked about it the other day, nobody need ever have known about it.

But having said all that, if I were in Sollecito's shoes I would certainly have refrained from going to the grave at all until and unless I was acquitted of the murder.

I really do not think the Kercher family were asking that much and the combination of Raffaele ignoring Meredith’s family public statements and his Father bizarre need to make the visit public demonstrates a serious lack empathy, it should not have been about Raffaele wishes or feelings but one of respecting the families wishes.

 

[Samson]

I really do not think the Kercher family were asking that much and the combination of Raffaele ignoring Meredith’s family public statements and his Father bizarre need to make the visit public demonstrates a serious lack empathy, it should not have been about Raffaele wishes or feelings but one of respecting the families wishes.

It could be said that the Kercher family show a bizarre lack of respect for two people declared innocent by an Italian court of the murder of their family member. Most recent is John Kercher declaring he had heard all Amanda's rubbish before, and previously Stephanie Kercher declaring we don't read these books, those of Amanda and Raffaele truthfully and laboriously telling everything they knew about the case.