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

[acbytesla]

It is scary. At least in the old days, you had to look your victim in the face when you were marching with the pitchfork and lantern brigade, although any doubts you might've had about the correctness of your actions would likely be overcome by the encouragement of the mob.

I was aware that Mr. Moore had been fired from Pepperdine, and I was pleased to read he'd received compensation. The episode is an example of the real-life consequences that internet bullying can have. It is also an example of how people, including some Pepperdine administrators involved in making the decision to fire Mr. Moore, fail to perform due diligence when evaluating the credibility of sources they are relying upon to inform their decisions.

There was actually quite an involved discussion on PMF the other day about the size of Steve Moore's you-know-what. Really? Some people actually thought that kind of conversation should be a part of a grown-up discussion about Mr. Moore's opinions on the Kercher case?

I see Andreajo, that Andrea Vogt is going after Greg Hampikian now.

 

[acbytesla]

From the other side: Bruce and "Dougie" make the mistake of believing in Journalism Heresy (words shape reality, if a journalist describes something as X, then it is X).

(They also continually make the double mistake of starting from a presumption of guilt, and trying to argue from there. That is not a convincing or persuasive way of doing it. Only weak and mediocre arguments are presented with that technique, because they force themselves to discard and ignore a lot of helpful and strong reasoning before they even start. Why they do that is a mystery, and might be explained by their innate sense of fairness.)

I believe they are referring to the interrogators being guilty of bad form.

They also continually make the double mistake of starting from a presumption of guilt, and trying to argue from there.
Is there a "I'm laughing so hard I'm crying" acronym?

There's more: For example, in Honor Bound Sollecito reports that in the week they knew each other, Knox would routinely get up at five in the morning while at his house and yet on this same-as-any-other morning he claims she got up about half past nine. He makes no explanation as to why this is completely unlike the routine he just described. In WTBH, Knox makes a similar claim about the evening that they suddenly have together ("Woo hoo!") even though both report that they had been together for six out of the previous seven evenings (the exception being Halloween the night before). Knox is intending to explain by this why she unusually switched off her phone (= so as not to interrupt this precious moment) but she then can't really remember what happened next, and she does not even try to explain why phone records show that (like Sollecito) it was the first time in 30 days that their phones were switched off.

How would they know if the phone had been turned off? Why don't these PGP ask for Meredith's phone history to see if she had made similar calls to her bank and other numbers late at night just fooling with the phone as Massei speculated?

She also switched her phone off so as not to have to ignore a call back by Patrick, which would have a unique situation for her. You know, having her boss cancel work and being with Raf.

It's another myth created out of thin air.

There is no record of every ping made by those phones. And that would be the only avenue they could know if their phones had been on all the time in those 30 days. Tower records ONLY happen when a connection is made or at least that was the case in in Italy in 2007.

 

[GreyFox]

It's like they have an Amanda Knox Voo Doo sex doll that they stick with needles (by saying provocative things about her) so they can sit back and feed off our reaction. That's more important than Knox or Merideth is to them.

QUOTE=Machiavelli;9623784]Cm’on, here it’s just a reality check.
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.[/QUOTE]

Doh !

 

[andreajo]

I see Andreajo, that Andrea Vogt is going after Greg Hampikian now.

Yes, I've been following that too. I never mind fair and open criticism, but her article is deliberately misleading. It seems that Boise State is doing better than Pepperdine did at standing behind its people.

There is a real mean and self-satisfied streak of PGP commentary about the reduction in funding to the Idaho Innocence Project that is a part of the attack on really-a-Dr. Hampikian. I hope the publicity generated spurs other funders to support the work that they do.

 

[Strozzi]

What is so enjoyable about reading Machiavelli's stuff, is that the very subject matter dealt with proves that the original prosecution really had nothing.

I agree, Bill. The prosecution apparently feels that because Amanda belongs to a set of people who have certain traits or characteristics she could be or is likely to be the killer and from there they can construct a scenario. As long as she transits the basketball area on her way to class, she and Rudy overlap and therefore could have a relationship. As long as she made a complimentary comment about a handsome black man, she and Rudy could be in a relationship. As long as she smoked pot, she could need money to buy drugs.

I have always followed Machiavelli's comments with interest because he is very intelligent and understands how Italy's justice system works - not just in form but also in practice. But most important, Machiavelli appears to be a direct or indirect advisor to the prosecution. He seems to know how they look at issues. He is our "window" on the prosecution - the closest one we have. Mignini, Commodi, Massei, et al, do not post here. Machiavelli does. He is our surrogate into their minds.

Machiavelli may be also advising the prosecution of the types of issues raised here, so that they are well informed and prepared. Fair enough.

I recently posted a few questions for Machiavelli which I repeat below:

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 the same 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, he eats from the kitchen, he might use the bathroom? And he forgets to flush!!!
4. He meets the profile of someone who could carry a knife during a burglary and might have it ready to use if he felt cornered or vulnerable?

 

[bri1]

Just to add a little something on the sexual habits of 20 year old students, The Daily Hate (The Daily Mail!) printed a story today about a girl who won an online competition to find the UK's 'horniest student'. She says she's had sex with 2-3 people per week since she's been a student.
Now that's a girl with lots of sexual partners. Doesn't mean she's capable of violence. Not one iota. But that kind of thing IS what most normal people would judge as abnormal (using the words normal and abnormal in a non-, morally neutral sense, of course).
These people who regard Amanda as some kind of deviant are deluded in the extreme.

 

[kwill]

Machiavelli:

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 have to pause over those two sentences for one more minute . . . the first one is hard to understand.

The profile is just compatible Does he mean "just" as in "just barely" or "just" as in "obviously?"

a scenario where she attended a sexual meeting

Forgive me, but is a "sexual meeting" one where people are planning sex, having sex, talking about sex, planning to talk about having sex, or what?

with Guede at Via della Pergola

This part is clear. Machiavelli wants to say that his imaginary party girl was exactly the sort who would be found with a murderer at a murder house. I picture him with a sort of mental blow-up doll, walking it around Perugia and making it do and say the sorts of things he needs it to do and say.

And this leads to the second sentence. Every rational person can see that. In Machiavelli's interesting universe, there is apparently a Venn diagram of rational people and irrational people -- circles that don't intersect. All the rational people are contained within a larger circle, which represents all those who can see the imaginary party girl blow-up doll.

Those of us who don't see his blow-up doll are therefore not rational! We know this, because he's holding that blow-up doll right out in front of us, day after day. If we can't see it as clearly as he can, the fault lies in our irrationality, not in the fact that the blow-up doll is his own creation, visible only because he insists against all reason that it exists.

 

[NancyS]

I recently posted a few questions for Machiavelli which I repeat below:

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 the same 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, he eats from the kitchen, he might use the bathroom? And he forgets to flush!!!
4. He meets the profile of someone who could carry a knife during a burglary and might have it ready to use if he felt cornered or vulnerable?

And to go one further - from reading Nina Burleight, it would seem that he had an extremely chaotic childhood with no real 'parent' figure - this would likely have caused him to have difficulty with making adult relationships and could lead to impulsive behaiour and difficulty with regulating emotions.

I did a little forensic psychiatry as a student and even went to Broadmoor (high security psychiatric hospital). I spoke to a few patients and they were superficially very charming and appeared incredibly normal - I spoke to one of the psychiatrists who claimed that the only real difference between most murderers and other people, was the ability to control our anger/emotions at periods of great stress - and that this was often caused by a chaotic childhood with disordered attachment. This is definitely compatible with Rudy

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree, Bill. The prosecution apparently feels that because Amanda belongs to a set of people who have certain traits or characteristics she could be or is likely to be the killer and from there they can construct a scenario.

<......... sinister deletia .........>

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 the same 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, he eats from the kitchen, he might use the bathroom? And he forgets to flush!!!
4. He meets the profile of someone who could carry a knife during a burglary and might have it ready to use if he felt cornered or vulnerable?

This is the point, isn't it!?

The person who invented modern day profiling, John Douglas, looked at this case and has chosen to side with the defence. And he's a guy who has made a living putting bad guys in jail...

I have not read anything by Douglas which directly addresses the claim/brag, "We solved this case before any of the forensics came in," but we all can imagine what Douglas would have said.

First of all, there is nothing, really, about any of the behaviour, weird/inappropriate or not, which a profiler would say points to suspicion on the murder.

It's also decidedly NOT the point, as some claim, that someone with this kind of weird/inappropriate behaviour should be ruled out as the murderer. It's just that the weird/inappropriate behaviour (even if it is that) by itself points to nothing.

However, what do people think John Douglas would say about Rudy Guede? I think he's covered that, as have you, actually.

So what do your questions for Machiavelli have to do with this... and why does Machiavelli refuse to answer them? Good question!

The issue is that Knox's/Sollecito's behaviour is not an indicator of suspicion; but even that does not rule out that they could have been involved if the forensics support that view. But the forensics rule them out, too.

That's what one calls a "soft" case against Knox and Sollecito, don't you agree?

In place of this, all Machiavelli has to offer is this "compatibility" schtick as if it means something. It actually does mean something. It means how far someone has to wander from anything meaningful about this case to even dredge up the most small reason to suspect AK and/or RS. I mean, if you have to wander this far from anything relevant - what did Machiavelli or Mignini have to begin with?

 

[js202]

I have always followed Machiavelli's comments with interest because he is very intelligent and understands how Italy's justice system works - not just in form but also in practice. But most important, Machiavelli appears to be a direct or indirect advisor to the prosecution. He seems to know how they look at issues. He is our "window" on the prosecution - the closest one we have. Mignini, Commodi, Massei, et al, do not post here. Machiavelli does. He is our surrogate into their minds.

Negotiating my reply as carefully as possible away from what could be perceived as a personal attack on the poster in question, I will say I think this paragraph is well off base, more or less in toto.

In fact, the recent stabs at psychological profiling by the poster in question could not be more jejune if they had been penned by a precocious 13 year old. And this crackpot character assessment has been the point of departure for this poster and his ilk from the beginning. In fact, all of the verbiage putatively clarifying Italy's laws and customs has served as so much obfuscation - and has been doing so for *years* ad nauseam, on this and other sites - resolutely following the admonition "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS."

Persistent as the sunrise, the poster's accounts of "facts" and "information" about systems and processes in question uncannily *always* manage to serve the twisted ends of the prosecution. Who knew?

If this poster is indeed officially aligned with the prosecution, then it certainly helps explain that team's persistent wrong-headedness, bull-headedness and incompetence. I will merely say that, if one goes to such a well in an ingenuous or thoughtful manner, expecting clarification or candor, all bets are off. Put simply, caveat emptor.

 

[acbytesla]

This is the point, isn't it!?
In place of this, all Machiavelli has to offer is this "compatibility" schtick as if it means something. It actually does mean something. It means how far someone has to wander from anything meaningful about this case to even dredge up the most small reason to suspect AK and/or RS. I mean, if you have to wander this far from anything relevant - what did Machiavelli or Mignini have to begin with?

Essentially, Machiavelli has said Amanda likes sex. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to having sex with Rudy. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to have a sex orgy with Raffaele, Rudy and Meredith. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to murdering Meredith. Therefore Amanda killed Meredith.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just to add a little something on the sexual habits of 20 year old students, The Daily Hate (The Daily Mail!) printed a story today about a girl who won an online competition to find the UK's 'horniest student'. She says she's had sex with 2-3 people per week since she's been a student.
Now that's a girl with lots of sexual partners. Doesn't mean she's capable of violence. Not one iota. But that kind of thing IS what most normal people would judge as abnormal (using the words normal and abnormal in a non-, morally neutral sense, of course).
These people who regard Amanda as some kind of deviant are deluded in the extreme.

I would have thought you were too protective of your privacy to enter those sorts of competitions

(But as for violence, you DID leave quite deep gouge marks on my back with your fingernails....)

Your point's well made though, of course. Judging by our (somewhat moderate in the grand scheme of things) sexual escapades in uni, I - and most people I knew, male and female - should probably have committed at least one murder

 

[Bill Williams]

I have always followed Machiavelli's comments with interest because he is very intelligent and understands how Italy's justice system works - not just in form but also in practice. But most important, Machiavelli appears to be a direct or indirect advisor to the prosecution. He seems to know how they look at issues. He is our "window" on the prosecution - the closest one we have. Mignini, Commodi, Massei, et al, do not post here. Machiavelli does. He is our surrogate into their minds.

Machiavelli may be also advising the prosecution of the types of issues raised here, so that they are well informed and prepared. Fair enough.

Machiavelli did know a lot about the Galati appeal documents, and seemed to knwo the nuances of it - and seemed to anticipate what the ISC would find compelling in overturning the acquittals.

As for what that means, it's anyone's guess. I mean, why would someone close to the prosecution even want to telegraph all if it?

With that said, he most definitely IS the most direct window to the original prosecution that there is. By this I mean that Machiavelli consistenty supports Mignini's view of things - and ignores the modifications to this that even Judge Massei made; the main thing that Massei and Mignini agree upon is guilt.

Notice, though, how Machiavelli fights tooth and nail against suggestions that Massei differed with Mignini on important issues.

1) psychopathology of the two students (I bet even listing this here will draw out another violent rebuttal from Machiavelli!!! But read Massei for yourself, don't believe me!)

2) motive - which acc. to Massei was Rudy's and Rudy's alone

3) normal, friendly relationship between Amanda and Meredith

4) no presence at all of Amanda in the murder room

5) no mixed-blood found in the cottage at all

6) yada yada yada.....​

I do not think that Machiavelli is advising the prosecution, because he's tied to Mignini and Mignini is now way up in the bleachers somewhere.... albeit that if this goes the way many hope, the next step is to hold Mignini accountable for his wrongful prosecution....

.... so as a protector of Mignini's (for some reason) Machiavelli is engaging in many preemptive strikes against Mignini's critics - Frank Sfarzo, Hellmann (who's been bought off by the Masons), Vecchiotti (who is a criminal).... etc. etc. It's unknown if Mignini himself shares these views....

My view is that Machiavelli continues to play a pivotal and privileged role in Mignini's ever diminishing world; mainly as a conduit of information. Mignini early on enjoyed the cooperation of just about every news outlet, hungry for the latest lurid leak; hungry to scoop their competition with lesbian-orgy tales.

That's not happening this time. Amanda's non-attendance has deprived that beast of its oxygen, and we're having to get to the (otherwise boring) details of things like: there's no presence, really of Meredith on that knife. (Unless you believe that the shoddy controls Stefanoni used actually DO verify that 36B is Meredith's... but there we are - at best it's non-blood, so there we are. That knife was not used to kill anyone.)

If Machiavelli is trying to protect Mignini, he's going about it the wrong way. His latest floating of all this "compatibility theory" stuff is completely strange.

If I were Mignini, I'd be saying to Machiavelli, "Please, please don't try to help me!"

I guess it is a mystery why Machiavelli does what he does, and why he's done it for so long. I have my views, but the moderator here tends to delete stuff like that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Essentially, Machiavelli has said Amanda likes sex. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to having sex with Rudy. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to have a sex orgy with Raffaele, Rudy and Meredith. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to murdering Meredith. Therefore Amanda killed Meredith.

(Lurid comment withdrawn..... to avoid moderator's wrath!)

 

[LondonJohn]

Essentially, Machiavelli has said Amanda likes sex. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to having sex with Rudy. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to have a sex orgy with Raffaele, Rudy and Meredith. Therefore Amanda is "compatible" to murdering Meredith. Therefore Amanda killed Meredith.

Yes - it's almost as ludicrous as saying the following: a human being killed Meredith; Knox is compatible with being a human being; therefore Knox killed Meredith

 

[Strozzi]

And to go one further - from reading Nina Burleight, it would seem that he had an extremely chaotic childhood with no real 'parent' figure - this would likely have caused him to have difficulty with making adult relationships and could lead to impulsive behaiour and difficulty with regulating emotions.

I did a little forensic psychiatry as a student and even went to Broadmoor (high security psychiatric hospital). I spoke to a few patients and they were superficially very charming and appeared incredibly normal - I spoke to one of the psychiatrists who claimed that the only real difference between most murderers and other people, was the ability to control our anger/emotions at periods of great stress - and that this was often caused by a chaotic childhood with disordered attachment. This is definitely compatible with Rudy

Has anyone reported that Rudy had a history of violence before he became a burglar? Did he hit people? Was he in fights? Did he ever use a weapon on anyone before the first known time when he was compromised burglarizing a residence? When did he first start carrying a knife?

I can rationalize that a slightly-built black man in Perugia could feel vulnerable on the street and along the alleyways in the city. And among drug dealers.

 

[Bill Williams]

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 post should not get lost....

This, friends, is the most comprehensive "theory of this crime" that Machiavelli can muster. Machiavelli has nothing else.

The genius of this "theory of the crime" is that even if the Nencini court re-acquits the pair, this can remain in the air forever as the best "theory of the crime" that guilters have to offer.

Enjoy!

 

[Kestrel]

Has anyone reported that Rudy had a history of violence before he became a burglar? Did he hit people? Was he in fights? Did he ever use a weapon on anyone before the first known time when he was compromised burglarizing a residence? When did he first start carrying a knife?

I can rationalize that a slightly-built black man in Perugia could feel vulnerable on the street and along the alleyways in the city. And among drug dealers.

The intruder who threatened a Perugia homeowner with a knife a few weeks before the murder was later identified as Rudy Geude.

 

[acbytesla]

Has anyone reported that Rudy had a history of violence before he became a burglar? Did he hit people? Was he in fights? Did he ever use a weapon on anyone before the first known time when he was compromised burglarizing a residence? When did he first start carrying a knife?

I can rationalize that a slightly-built black man in Perugia could feel vulnerable on the street and along the alleyways in the city. And among drug dealers.

I'm not sure that evidence is available.

And although Nancy might be right on in her "diagnosis" of Rudy, I think we are in danger of doing the same things to Rudy that the guilters do to Amanda.

Yes, Rudy is guilty of this horrible crime. For that, there is no doubt. But speculation based on the very little that is known about Rudy, much of which may be specious exaggeration, may not be all that productive.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes - it's almost as ludicrous as saying the following: a human being killed Meredith; Knox is compatible with being a human being; therefore Knox killed Meredith

Genius!!! How did you come up with that?????