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

[acbytesla]

Mach, don't answer that. As your attorney I ask you to not incriminate yourself. And yes, this is being recorded.

C'mon Strozzi, they never record anything in Italy. Except interrogations. Or do I have that backwards?? Or is it they record interrogations and don't record phone calls? No,...no, maybe it is they record hallway conversations and ....hmmmmm (scratching my head) I'm confused now.

 

[Supernaut]

Anything's possible, but this story does seem fairly improbable, doesn't it? People do weird things sometimes, but boogying during a minute's silence for your victim while a crowd of people stare at you would be an incredibly weird thing to do.

As Charlie said - it kind of rings true. And as Strozzi just said, Guede might well have been a "psychological basket case" at that point. Who knows what he was thinking/feeling - maybe he thought his 'swaying' silently was a way of conveying "sorrow" to onlookers at the venue. Maybe he had his eyes closed and didn't realise that he was making himself conspicuous?

It's much like the reports that on the same night he "smelled bad" - weird, but why would someone just make that up? Like I said - I find it entirely credible that the lining of his right shoe, which had been bloody and damp for over 24 hours, had started to smell bad enough that people were getting a rank waft from it, but which Guede unaware of.

None of this is as outlandish as much of what was advanced as 'circumstantial' evidence against AK and RS by Mignini and Commodi.

 

[yimyammer]

I have been reading this board for 20 months and only recently began posting. I paid a lot of attention early on to what Machiavelli wrote. Then he went silent for a long time. I missed his commentary. Then one day he began posting again and I was actually very happy to see it. Because I do pay attention to what Machiaveilli has to say - even though we view the case from opposite sides.

I'm glad he is here too, despite not seeing things as he does, he provides a voice of dissent that fosters the discussion and gives us a view of how some, if not many, Italians view the case which gives me serious concern about whether the outcome of the current trial will be favorable to Raf & Knox

 

[charlatan]

MIT was a notorious party campus back in my school daze. I see little has changed:

The restrictions came a month after an MIT student fell through a plexiglass skylight down a four-story stairwell at the university’s Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity house. The 18-year-old did not suffer life-threatening injuries and was taken to Brigham and Women’s Hospital at about midnight on Sept. 11.

Witnesses told police the student had been jumping on the skylight, according to a Sept. 12 Boston Globe article. The skylight and the roof deck had apparently been constructed without a permit and the fraternity was cited for the unsafe roof deck and alcohol violations at the party.

http://www.dailyorange.com/2013/11/...als-implement-heavy-restrictions-for-parties/

Wild parties are the perennial concern of campus administrators worldwide, even at elite institutions. It's unsurprising that young students get up to the occasional mischief. This behavior stems from immaturity and social/academic pressures rather than deviance. It's beyond silly to suggest Knox's relatively tame noise citation has any bearing whatsoever on this case or her character in general.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm glad he is here too, despite not seeing things as he does, he provides a voice of dissent that fosters the discussion and gives us a view of how some, if not many, Italians view the case which gives me serious concern about whether the outcome of the current trial will be favorable to Raf & Knox

And what I've learned in 25 months of following this, is that Machiavelli is only interested in a fictionalized, but compatible (a weasel word by his/her own admission), account which takes every opportunity to sluttify a person they've never met.

 

[Strozzi]

Machiavelli, if your behavior analysis is even partially correct - that a college student would fit the profile of someone who would be involved in a forced-orgy turned-murder - will you agree that behavior analysis also means that the following is possible:

1) That Rudy fits the profile of a burglar who could break in the flat alone?
2) That if a burglar did throw the rock and climb in the window, the burglar would likely be a slender, agile male between 15 and 40 years old like Rudy?
3) That from what is known or suspected of Rudy's other burglaries, when Rudy enters a property he seems to be in no hurry to exit, he makes himself at home, eats from the kitchen and might use the bathroom? And he forgets to flush!!!
4) That he carries a knife and might pull it out if cornered?

 

[christianahannah]

Anything's possible, but this story does seem fairly improbable, doesn't it? People do weird things sometimes, but boogying during a minute's silence for your victim while a crowd of people stare at you would be an incredibly weird thing to do.

I think some of these stories come from witness statements during Rudy's fast track trial and are in the Micheli Report. I am not certain of the accuracy of what is mentioned in this thread with regards to the statements but will try to locate them in the report.

Maybe Machiavelli is familiar with these statements?

 

[RandyN]

Machiavelli, I just realized that if you are at home in Italy it is 4:15 am. I'm glad you are online (but also sorry for you that you are not asleep).

Well Bill remains very concerned about someone not getting any sleep. My idiom alert is on high. Lets move on then.

I understand from AK book "Waiting To Be Heard" that she felt that leaks to the press, before she was ever charged of a crime, came from the police and prosecutors office. What is all this crap I hear here in the civilized world about oh...we cant discuss an ongoing investigation stuff? Why in Italy they not only phone it in but they also send bloody crime scene photos...or those that appear to be bloody and therefore would cause a false impression to be created about certain defendants...or are they defendants even before charges are filed? Almost a full year detained without charges? Animals! Denied lawyers? Thugs. Hit about the head? Criminals. And that's just the police and prosecutor.

 

[RandyN]

MIT was a notorious party campus back in my school daze. I see little has changed:



http://www.dailyorange.com/2013/11/...als-implement-heavy-restrictions-for-parties/

Wild parties are the perennial concern of campus administrators worldwide, even at elite institutions. It's unsurprising that young students get up to the occasional mischief. This behavior stems from immaturity and social/academic pressures rather than deviance. It's beyond silly to suggest Knox's relatively tame noise citation has any bearing whatsoever on this case or her character in general.

But what about the rocks on the street? Wait...rocks on the street and a rock thru the window of Filomenas window...excuse me...I have to go rethink this case...or else I just have to go to bed because unlike someone else, who shall remain nameless...I need to sleep.

 

[RandyN]

And what I've learned in 25 months of following this, is that Machiavelli is only interested in a fictionalized, but compatible (a weasel word by his/her own admission), account which takes every opportunity to sluttify a person they've never met.

I see what you did there...(be very quiet....Im hunting wabbits)

 

[Grinder]

Yes, no car was hit but these are details, Grinder. It was a rather wild party, people are not supposed to throw rocks on the street, no matter what consequence happens or doesn't happen. I think it was not a "noise" ticket, I think it's called 'disturbance' rather than noise, and think I it's not a "ticket", since it requires police minutes and report, and was on a police call.

Mach this is something I am very familiar with in that I live only about a mile from the house where this occurred. I know the law. I've been at parties when the police stopped by.

Here is the quote from the police report: I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

The official name of the ticket is residential disturbance.

25.08.225 Residential disturbance.

This is from the official code: "Residential disturbance" means a gathering of more than one (1) person at a residential property located in a single family or multifamily zone, as defined in SMC Section 23.84A.048 between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) p.m. (eleven o'clock (11:00) p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights) and seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. at which noise associated with the gathering is frequent, repetitive or continuous and is audible to a person of normal hearing at a distance of seventy-five (75) feet or more from the property.

It is in fact a noise ticket. The ticket carries a fine which may be paid in person or by mail. It is on par with a parking ticket.

But the details of the incident are obviously irrelevant. It was a party where something went out of contol and Knox was attending that party. It's just an element of personal history. She might have been a honour student (albeit, this claim is unproven) but she was not in a honourable situation that night.

Mach it was just a party that was too loud near a neighbor that complained. The fact that some idiot may have thrown a couple of rocks hardly reflects on Amanda.

I have no idea.
Meredith had actually won an Erasmus scholarship, a real one, so it is a fact she was entitled to that.
I think she had a different lifestyle anyway, she was a different kind of person.

Mach she was cited for public drunkenness in England. She was having sex with the bot downstairs and not just the missionary position. She was well known in many bars in Perugia. She stayed out all night with her boyfriend out-of-town. She had alcohol in her system when she she died 15 hours after coming home from the party. I don't give a hoot but she wasn't some superior person to Amanda.

 

[acbytesla]

I see what you did there...(be very quiet....Im hunting wabbits)

It's duck season though.

 

[Grinder]

I admit that 'compatible' can be seen almost as a weasel word, because its consequences depend on the context and on the specific case.

Is weasel word an Italian idiom?

Well, here I see you talking about two different things. The foot prints are 'compatible' with some persons (and above all, some are 'not compatible' with others). The logical consequence of this on the scenario, may depend on the number and features of suspects you have in your set.

This is a very defective way to approach evidence to be used against anyone. It would be fine if there were only three people on the island. Evidence can't be narrowed down to three people in this case and then say that the prints looks the most like one of the three and therefore that is evidence against that person. The evidence must match. The experts should at a minimum be able to match the print out of a line-up of a 25 similar ones.

But the concept of 'circumstantial evidence' is different. The circumstantial evidence itself is not something 'compatible', it't incorrect to define it so. Circumstantial evidence is an indicator, it points into a direction. It is actually a set of indicators. Some of those indicators can be things that are just 'compatible', but they are crossed with other logical elements.

No circumstantial evidence is any evidence that isn't direct. You seem to be describing what Giobbi described when he was able to tell from their behavior that they were guilty. The kind of circumstantial you seem to being referring to is psychological profiling. It is the opposite of the PIP saying there was no motive and they had no history. Neither the pro or negative opinions of the kids is probative. Those opinions may make people feel better about how they feel about guilt or innocence, but don't help prove anything.

Well, I won't push myself over as to include "any" college student. And, anyway, I think it's usualy impossible to associate a person with the concept "a murder", a totally generic concept, and do this based on the persons' features. I don't think murderers fit any category.

Good. Why do you write about her lifestyle then?

I am thinking about Amanda being 'compatible' with a scenario where she dates Rudy Guede for a (maybe drug-fuelled) sexual meeting/party at her apartment. It's the compatibility of this scenario what I was talkijg about, rather than a murder.

I think Meredith was more compatible with a "dating" scenario. We know she had gone out late into the night and had a lot to drink. She was without a guy for the weekend. She left the pizza party before 9. She had alcohol in her system. She was into extreme sexual experiences. She knew Rudy at least as well as Amanda. She was definitely in the cottage that night.

 

[Teddy2007]

Cm’on, here it’s just a reality check.
If Amanda Knox was an upper class buisness woman above 30, with a well-paid job, living with a husband ad children, a regular social life with her acquaitned and relatives, who would have dinner every night at 9 pm, in a cool apartment in some other neighborhood downtown… then, her profile and lifestile would appear ‘not compatible’ with a scenario of her dating Rudy Guede for a casual drug-fuelled sex party at a students’ house in via della Pergola.

Amanda Knox was a 20-year old whom Sollecito described as “only interested in pleasure” and completely detached from reality, who described her student life as “excessive”. She is a person who would drift around Europe looking for fun, would have casual sex with people he met on a train and skip her house cleaning tasks. Witnesses described her as having an attitude of showing off to get others attention, being perceived as inopportune, often annoying and un-empathic, making monologues about herself instead of conversation, as having something compulsive in her bringing men at home (she was even seductive and jealous about Meredith’s boyfriend). She praised the lifestyle of ‘casual’ sex outside any relation regardless of boyfriends. She knew Guede since at least a month before she met Sollecito, and Guede used to say “I’d like to screw her”. She had a part time casual job where she performed poorly so that Lumumba immediately changed her mansions. She had some psychological issues, obvious from details like her copying Laura’s piercings. She admitted to be smoking a lot of weed that night and to be together with a guy (Sollecito) who was recorded at the Prefect office of Bari as a heavy drug consumer, and recorded at his middle school for having injured a girl with scissors. Her phone number was in the cell phone of a drug dealer and they exchanged telephone contacts (the drug dealer in question was accused of giving drug to female students in exchange of sex). The place where Guede would spend his afternoons was in the midway between her house door and her university, she lived at about 90 meters from there and attended classes at an institute 60 meters beyond there. Guede lived behind via Garibaldi and there she recalls to have met a black man she describes as “beautiful”, and they promised to meet each other again after she would be back from Germany; despite this, she never revealed his name.

Your (folks') objections were that she was not a ‘party girl’ because she was a honor student (a curiously unproven claim, btw) and that the reason and circumstances in which she gave her phone number to the drug dealer are not known in detail.
It’s self-evident that such objections are ludicrous.
You may try to disagree on the interpretation of some of the details listed above, but you can perfectly see the basic data about the person’s profile.

The profile of Amanda Knox is just compatible with a scenario where she attended a sexual meeting with Guede at Via della Pergola. Every rational person can see that.
Just say it’s compatible and move on.

I won't breakdown your list of lies point by point, I'll just respond to the part about Raffaele cutting a girl with scissors in his home-town school.

What I was wondering is why you would tell such a lie? You know this is a lie, because you attended the hearings.

You will have heard inspector Volturno say that he followed a lead by an unnamed informant that he would not reveal, to Raffaele's school, on the basis that some boy had apparently pricked or cut a girl with scissors. When he got there, he found the story to be unfounded. Not only did the school or anybody else say that Raffaele had not cut anybody with scissors, but indeed no girl had ever been cut by scissors.

So this was an unfounded claim, and as such, was not entered as evidence against Raffaele.

So my question to you Machiavelli, is why would you write such despicable lies?

 

[moodstream]

I find it peculiar that Machiavelli places weight on Knox's character, but seems uninterested in the character of her interrogators, about whom very serious aspersions have been cast.

 

[acbytesla]

I won't breakdown your list of lies point by point, I'll just respond to the part about Raffaele cutting a girl with scissors in his home-town school.

What I was wondering is why you would tell such a lie? You know this is a lie, because you attended the hearings.

You will have heard inspector Volturno say that he followed a lead by an unnamed informant that he would not reveal, to Raffaele's school, on the basis that some boy had apparently pricked or cut a girl with scissors. When he got there, he found the story to be unfounded. Not only did the school or anybody else say that Raffaele had not cut anybody with scissors, but indeed no girl had ever been cut by scissors.

So this was an unfounded claim, and as such, was not entered as evidence against Raffaele.

So my question to you Machiavelli, is why would you write such despicable lies?

Because he is a despicable person. In the last two days outside of discussing any evidence in this case he has said the following lies about Amanda Knox.

1. That Amanda had "sex on a train"
2. That Amanda had sex with Rudy.
3. That Amanda wasn't an honor student despite absolute zero knowledge.
4. He suggested that Amanda's matriculation at the University for Foreigners in Perugia was some kind of dodge for a lazy party girl.
5, He exaggerated a noise citation.
6. That Amanda called a drug dealer the day before Meredith's murder despite the fact we have her phone records. Mach won't even say who the drug dealer was or if he has any knowledge that Amanda was a drug dealer.

I have enjoyed "debating" Machiavelli to a point. He does have knowledge of Italy and its justice system. That said, he has proven over and over again, that he is willing to say absolutely anything to defame Amanda,

 

[davefoc]

...

I have enjoyed "debating" Machiavelli to a point. He does have a knowledge of Italy and its justice system. That said, he has proven over and over again, that he is willing to say absolutely anything to defame Amanda,

That appears to be true. His latest barrage of anti-Knox fervor is silly, false or both silly and false. I wonder if there is any value in responding to it at all. It clearly indicates that the author of it is deeply involved in circular reasoning. He knows that Knox is guilty and therefore whatever behaviors he thinks might be true are true if they sustain his belief that Knox is guilty. And then he uses his belief that his little collection of half truths, falsehoods and innuendos are true and incriminating to prove to himself that Knox is guilty.

There is no way to break this circle of logic that I can see. It is self sustaining.

...
Secondly we need to ask ourselves "Are these things associated in the criminological literature with sex murderers?". The answer is that they are not. Now if Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito were children of violent alcoholics and had histories of sadomasochistic sexual behaviour and impulsive violence then you would have a case, but they weren't.

...

Exactly, evidence of violence (being at a noisy party doesn't count Machiavelli) or even some kinds of unusual sexual practices would lend credence to the idea that somebody might have been involved with a crime like the murder of Kercher. But despite, all this digging and all this hate filled sniping about Knox there isn't a tiny piece of evidence that has been made public about Knox to suggest that she is the kind of person that one would expect to commit this kind of crime. Machiavelli's nonsense should stand Knox in good stead on this issue, if this is all that the Knox haters can come up with she must be a very good person.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>So my question to you Machiavelli, is why would you write such despicable lies?

He likes innuendo. It has a nice Italian ring to it -- much like scenario, vendetta, and fiasco.

 

[Planigale]

I thought that Ms. Knox was tested for drug use and it came out negative. A competent forensic laboratory would detect cocaine, opiates, ecstasy, amphetamine use up to 3 months after use; a competent laboratory.

So a 20 yr old gets her ears pierced, really that is so adventurous, come on look around you, I have said it before she is vanilla! What no pierced nose, eyelid, tongue stud, tummy button. What about those scandalous tattoos? What none? That lesbian experience everyone promises themselves when they go to uni - none. She fancied a black guy. Sorry to break it you (some) girls fancy guys - it doesn't mean we want to be … by them! But she had a track record of (scandalously) interracial sex or not? She had a loud party the neighbours complained about, how old is mach obviously missed the 60's 70's 80's 90's 00's so I guess nearly 80.

I do not know what sort of world Mach lives in but it certainly is not my London.

She did not clean the loo! Grief! obviously never left home and shared a student flat.

Do the swap if it was a boy would anyone think not flushing or whatever would be anything but normal? (I know this is sexist, I am sure JREF guys always put the seat down after use).

Mach she is boring; I am boring; I have not tatts and only pierced ears (Jezabel that I am), but I know a whole lot of girls with wilder lives as students and excellent degrees and good jobs. Lots of girls have real vibrators not toys - 50% in not very reliable studies. She is boringly mundane. She is the boring vanilla girl who decided to let her hair down on her year abroad, that is normal.

We should club together to send Mach to Ibiza, he clearly has lived a hugely sheltered life.

Mach should stick to facts and not sexist misogynist innuendo.

 

[NancyS]

Cm’on, here it’s just a reality check.
If Amanda Knox was an upper class buisness woman above 30, with a well-paid job, living with a husband ad children, a regular social life with her acquaitned and relatives, who would have dinner every night at 9 pm, in a cool apartment in some other neighborhood downtown… then, her profile and lifestile would appear ‘not compatible’ with a scenario of her dating Rudy Guede for a casual drug-fuelled sex party at a students’ house in via della Pergola.

Amanda Knox was a 20-year old whom Sollecito described as “only interested in pleasure” and completely detached from reality, who described her student life as “excessive”. She is a person who would drift around Europe looking for fun, would have casual sex with people he met on a train and skip her house cleaning tasks. Witnesses described her as having an attitude of showing off to get others attention, being perceived as inopportune, often annoying and un-empathic, making monologues about herself instead of conversation, as having something compulsive in her bringing men at home (she was even seductive and jealous about Meredith’s boyfriend). She praised the lifestyle of ‘casual’ sex outside any relation regardless of boyfriends. She knew Guede since at least a month before she met Sollecito, and Guede used to say “I’d like to screw her”. She had a part time casual job where she performed poorly so that Lumumba immediately changed her mansions. She had some psychological issues, obvious from details like her copying Laura’s piercings. She admitted to be smoking a lot of weed that night and to be together with a guy (Sollecito) who was recorded at the Prefect office of Bari as a heavy drug consumer, and recorded at his middle school for having injured a girl with scissors. Her phone number was in the cell phone of a drug dealer and they exchanged telephone contacts (the drug dealer in question was accused of giving drug to female students in exchange of sex). The place where Guede would spend his afternoons was in the midway between her house door and her university, she lived at about 90 meters from there and attended classes at an institute 60 meters beyond there. Guede lived behind via Garibaldi and there she recalls to have met a black man she describes as “beautiful”, and they promised to meet each other again after she would be back from Germany; despite this, she never revealed his name.

Your (folks') objections were that she was not a ‘party girl’ because she was a honor student (a curiously unproven claim, btw) and that the reason and circumstances in which she gave her phone number to the drug dealer are not known in detail.
It’s self-evident that such objections are ludicrous.
You may try to disagree on the interpretation of some of the details listed above, but you can perfectly see the basic data about the person’s profile.

The profile of Amanda Knox is just compatible with a scenario where she attended a sexual meeting with Guede at Via della Pergola. Every rational person can see that.
Just say it’s compatible and move on.

This again seems to boil down to nothing more than - Amanda had sex, if she had sex she is bad and if she is bad she is capable of murder

It shows a total lack of understanding about young people, particularly young women and their lives. Having some sex outside of a relationship is nothing to do with potentially being violent - and most young people will experiment with drugs and alcohol and their appearance and this has nothing to do with any psychopathology.

She was not drifting around Europe just looking for fun - Amanda was not one of the very NORMAL young people on a gap year, spent mostly drunk on a Thailand beach - she was using her year to learn a language.

I think some of the views you've expressed above are also quite anti-American and are the result of a culture clash - and I say that as someone from the UK. When I started university and travelled as a young adult, I thought lots of the Americans I met were loud, flirty, annoying and not very 'cool' - many of the descriptions I've heard used to describe Amanda. It is the main stereotype used to describe young Americans travelling in Europe - thankfully I am no longer so close minded.

And to say one more thing about the drugs they were taking - cannabis has no link to violence. The absolute worst outcome with cannabis, which usually manifests itself in adolescents with excessive use, is to cause paranoia and possibly triggering schizophrenic symptoms - even then it shows no link to group sex and murder - and would more likely cause social withdrawal, isolation and possoble suicide. If anything, the evidence shows that Amanda wasn't a big drinker (alcohol is far more likely to result in violence) and that she was a fairly inexperienced smoker of cannabis.