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

[Kaosium]

Actually this is an incorrect report. Dalla Vedova said something else. He did not point out that the RIS could not identify the substance; quite on the contrary, it was the RIS who answered that they could have no way to identify the substance, while Dalla Vedova insisted that they should (or could) identify the substance based on Vecchiotti & Conti's report. Dalla Vedova thus attempted to have the RIS expressing themselves about the Vecchiotti's report, or maybe in terms of crediting or validating the C&V report in some way. Since they refused to do that and Dalla Vedova insisted in a "Bill Williams-style" dialogue (what do you you say they say...) Nencini stopped him abruptly telling him he was just attempting to put others' words into people's mouth.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[kwill]

Such a tangle.

I cannot accept that there are people who came to the physical evidence in this case unbiased and concluded after careful examination of that evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were definitely involved in Meredith's murder. I know they claim this to be the case -- that the physical evidence convicts them -- but I don't believe them.

It seems very clear to me that all the physical evidence points exactly the other way. And then I look at the "soft" evidence, and it fully supports that conclusion.

Then they look at the "soft" evidence, and what they see fully supports their conclusion. That is, believing that Amanda and Raffaele are murderers, they're perfectly ready to also believe they're liars, slackers, extreme drug users, sexually deviant, etc.

I, believing that they're innocent bystanders, am perfectly ready to believe that they're honest, hardworking, normal in every way, etc.

Discussing the physical evidence in the context of a narrative that accounts for all of it should be possible for the people who say that it's the evidence (and not their analysis of Amanda's behavior) that led them to believe she and Raffaele are guilty.

Ron Hendry has written a narrative that accounts for all the reliable physical evidence, Amanda and Raffaele are not in that narrative. I am flatly saying that the bra clasp is unreliable. It can't be part of any case against anyone because it was unsecured for so long, and collected so shoddily. Likewise, the DNA testing has shown that the knife wasn't the murder weapon.

But let's assume that there are those who still believe both the knife and the bra clasp are reliable evidence. I'm trying to take them at their word. If it's the case that Amanda and Raffaele committed this murder, how exactly did it happen? In Ron Hendry's book, everything fits into a timeline, and every scenario fits what we can see for ourselves in photos taken at the crime scene.

Where is the similar narrative that shows what happened if Amanda and Raffaele were there? Surely after all this time someone has come up with a storyline from inside that cottage that hangs together. Where is it?

 

[jhunter1163]

It appears that the previous mod box did not have the desired effect. Therefore, this one will be a little more direct. Knock it off, all of you, now. If civility is not voluntarily maintained, it will be enforced, and we all know what that means. None of us, including the Mod Team, wants to go there. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Bill Williams]

Discussing the physical evidence in the context of a narrative that accounts for all of it should be possible for the people who say that it's the evidence (and not their analysis of Amanda's behavior) that led them to believe she and Raffaele are guilty.

Where is the similar narrative that shows what happened if Amanda and Raffaele were there? Surely after all this time someone has come up with a storyline from inside that cottage that hangs together. Where is it?

This is the sum total of what should have been looked at from the beginning. Right from Nov 2, 2007, onwards. (Holy cow, has it been 6 years?)

The cops/prosecution openly bragged that they'd solved this through careful analysis of behaviour, before the forensics came in.

Be that as it may, perhaps all of us would have excused this rush to judgment, except for what the cops did once the forensics DID come in.

Lumumba had to be replaced with Guede, mainly on Lumumba's alibi; but also because there was no forensics at all pointing to Lumumba at the cottage that night. None, niente, nil, zero, zilch. But is is similarly inexplicable why they kept AK and RS as part of this. That they took AK and RS to trial, and convicted them.... that is at best a head scratcher and at worst a travesty. No honour to Meredith at all.

Bra-clasp - look at the collection video. Follow Stefanoni's own testimony at cross examination where she cannot rule out that she'd touched the hook with an obviously contaminated glove: and this is BEFORE considering that it laid there for 47 days. (ETA: some guilters actually blame the defence team for it laying there for 47 days! Ten points to anyone who spots why this cannot be true!)

Knife: is there anyone left who thinks this knife had anything to do with the murder? From a criminal forensics point of view, 36B is not Meredith's. It's simply not. And even Stefanoni admits there was no blood of anyone's found - thus the "cleaning" meme and all the foo-for-ahh about bleach, and bleach receipts that one guilter claims to have. Except that if bleach HAD been used, then there'd be no 36a or 36i, much less 36b. The RIS Carabinieri have pretty much proved that the thing was never cleaned.

How much of this bears repeating?

And after all this - please consider that the following is Machiavelli's "theory of the crime"...

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.

If Machiavelli objects to this being presented as his theory, he's welcome to post one....

 

[acbytesla]

No need to over-react. This has always been the way the forum has been run. Of course people can attack non-members and defend attacks against them (have a look at the Politics section). What you can't do is attack another member. And Mach has been subject to unrelenting attacks.

What kind of man..no strike that, person suggests that a woman is a slut? Who lies incessantly. Seriously, Lionking?

 

[Machiavelli]

What kind of man..no strike that, person suggests that a woman is a slut? Who lies incessantly. Seriously, Lionking?

I am suggesting that white woman was having sex with a black man. That, normally, does not automatically translate like "being a slut".
Or does it, in your mind?

 

[Bill Williams]

There are people here freely spouting that Mignini and Stefanoni are criminals and heads of conspiracies, that the Italian Supreme Court are corrupt, that the Perugian LE were extorting confessions, planting false evidence, conspiring to "save face", that judges issue fraudulent verdicts... It didn't look like you were so concerned about the fact that such extremely violent statements are unsupported.

There are people here freely spouting that Vecchiotti and Hellmann are criminals and bought off by Masonic conspiracies. That the Italian courts are corrupt, by continually saying that Hellmann and Zanetti are criminals. That posters here are liars, as well as Amanda and Raffaele, who interfered with evidence, conspiring with someone who they'd never communicated with.

That judges issue fraudulent verdicts, it doesn't look like you, either, are concerned about making violent statements unsupported.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am suggesting that white woman was having sex with a black man. That, normally, does not automatically translate like "being a slut".
Or does it, in your mind?

How does suggesting something make it remotely true? It's all based on one off-hand remark that Amanda said once that someone as beautiful. Now you're translating that into them having sex? Do people always have sex with those people or things they think is beautiful?

Is having a "theory" the same thing as proof? You've never answered that.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I am suggesting that white woman was having sex with a black man. That, normally, does not automatically translate like "being a slut".
Or does it, in your mind?

And your proof is? It is just an assertion unless you have some sort of proof to offer.

 

[acbytesla]

There are people here freely spouting that Mignini and Stefanoni are criminals and heads of conspiracies, that the Italian Supreme Court are corrupt, that the Perugian LE were extorting confessions, planting false evidence, conspiring to "save face", that judges issue fraudulent verdicts... It didn't look like you were so concerned about the fact that such extremely violent statements are unsupported.

So weird, since you suggested the same thing about Hellman and Vechiotti. Stefanoni is a criminal, although I doubt anything will come of it. And the Perugian LE wouldn't be the first or the last LE to extort and coerce confessions.

There is a difference between these things and declaring to the wold that Rudy could be Amanda's PIMP!!

 

[Supernaut]

How does suggesting something make it remotely true? It's all based on one off-hand remark that Amanda said once that someone as beautiful. Now you're translating that into them having sex? Do people always have sex with those people or things they think is beautiful?

Is having a "theory" the same thing as proof? You've never answered that.

I am suggesting that white woman was having sex with a black man. That, normally, does not automatically translate like "being a slut".
Or does it, in your mind?

Excuse me - but did "Machiavelli" actually say this?

 

[Machiavelli]

Give me a beak Grinder. You know what I'm talking about. You know that Machiavelli has suggested that Amanda is a whore. That Rudy "could be her pimp. That Amanda had sex on a train. This is garbage.

Amanda had sex with a man she met on a train to Florence. They had sex that night in the hotel. At least that is what the testimonies reported.
That's not a crime.
Just not everybody has this relational style. Knox decided to take her stay in Europe as an experience of exceptional freedom from boundaries, inhibitions and control, something somehow typical. A very typical phemomenon of behaviour change that seems to happen with North American students in a more extreme manner in average, compared students from elewhere.

 

[Dan O.]

There are people here freely spouting that Mignini and Stefanoni are criminals and heads of conspiracies, that the Italian Supreme Court are corrupt, that the Perugian LE were extorting confessions, planting false evidence, conspiring to "save face", that judges issue fraudulent verdicts... It didn't look like you were so concerned about the fact that such extremely violent statements are unsupported.

Have you ever replied to the discussion of Barbie's photo of November 14 showing the open cottage door?

 

[Diocletus]

No, no. You have it all wrong:

There are people here freely spouting that Mignini and Stefanoni are criminals and heads of conspiracies

Mignini is a Satan-fighting nutjob; Stefanoni is incompetent and dishonest

that the Italian Supreme Court are corrupt

No, they are just suck at law. Now, it is true that there are others who say that Hellmann is corrupt.

that the Perugian LE were extorting confessions

They extracted a false accusation. Illegally.

planting false evidence

This is suspected, it is true. The timing looks right.

conspiring to "save face"

It's not so much a "conspiracy" as it is a whole bunch of people all trying to save their faces.

that judges issue fraudulent verdicts..

"fraudulent" seems like the wrong word. I would say, maybe, "silly".

 

[Diocletus]

Amanda had sex with a man she met on a train to Florence. They had sex that night in the hotel. At least that is what the testimonies reported.

There's all kinds of sex, all over the place. And yet, the only sex that matters for this case is the sex that left the semen beside Meredith Kercher, and the incompetent cops didn't bother to test it. Yet, they, and apparently all of Italy, are mesmerized by the sex life of an American coed. Creepy.

 

[Supernaut]

Amanda had sex with a man she met on a train to Florence. They had sex that night in the hotel. At least that is what the testimonies reported.

"Clever". You're not saying that they actually had sex on the train, but only later, in Florence. But you phrase your statement in such a way that it reads, in casual parsing, that she ... had sex on the train.

That's not a crime.
Just not everybody has this relational style. Knox decided to take her stay in Europe as an experience of exceptional freedom from boundaries, inhibitions and control, something somehow typical. A very typical phemomenon of behaviour change that seems to happen with North American students in a more extreme manner in average, compared students from elewhere.

Back in 1984 I got off with a girl sitting next to me on a flight to Australia, under the blankets handed out on the leg between Jakarta and Melbourne. It was exciting!

I mean, REALLY exciting.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>

Edited for Rule 0 and Rule 12

 

[Machiavelli]

And your proof is? It is just an assertion unless you have some sort of proof to offer.

The assertion consists in pointing out that the described event is verosimile, credible, plausible. Since there is a number of elements that support this.
There is no proof, but no proof about this was intended to be sought. I thought that this was clear. The analysis of the context, the elements that I mentioned, it's just a check, meant to control if there is something that contradicts the guilty scenario. There is nothing that contradicts, there are elements instead that favor the scenario.

Obviously, I mean to say the scenario is just about a one-night sexual meeting involving Knox and Guede, it has nothing to do with the ludicrous idea that Guede was a pimp.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are people here freely spouting that Vecchiotti and Hellmann are criminals and bought off by Masonic conspiracies. That the Italian courts are corrupt, by continually saying that Hellmann and Zanetti are criminals. That posters here are liars, as well as Amanda and Raffaele, who interfered with evidence, conspiring with someone who they'd never communicated with.

(...).

Acbytesla said he should refrain talking about me, and I should refrain talking about Knox.
Strangely, he doesn't consider refraining from talking about other people.
So he seems only willing to comply with two 'taboo' subjects: about posters, and about Knox's private life.

I don't understand your position on this. Are you saying we should all refrain from talking about the alleged 'unsupported' things, about anyone, or are you saying we should all speak out, about anyone? I didn't understand.

 

[andreajo]

Amanda had sex with a man she met on a train to Florence. They had sex that night in the hotel. At least that is what the testimonies reported.
That's not a crime.
Just not everybody has this relational style. Knox decided to take her stay in Europe as an experience of exceptional freedom from boundaries, inhibitions and control, something somehow typical. A very typical phemomenon of behaviour change that seems to happen with North American students in a more extreme manner in average, compared students from elewhere.

How do you know that North Americans manifest a behavior change toward "freedom from boundaries, inhibitions, and control" more than students from elsewhere? This sounds like an expression of a prejudice rather than a description of a real-world state of affairs unless you have some data to back up your assertion.

This statement does go some way toward explaining your willingness to believe that Amanda Knox made an extraordinary departure from everything anyone who actually knows her would expect her to do and instigated a sex-murder party.

To me, this is not a reasonable proposition. A reasonable proposition is that Rudy Guede did what he had done before: chucked a rock through the window and entered the flat intending to rob it. Sadly, Meredith arrived home and surprised him. He killed her and sexually assaulted her.

 

[andreajo]

"Clever". You're not saying that they actually had sex on the train, but only later, in Florence. But you phrase your statement in such a way that it reads, in casual parsing, that she ... had sex on the train.


Back in 1984 I got off with a girl sitting next to me on a flight to Australia, under the blankets handed out on the leg between Jakarta and Melbourne. It was exciting!

I mean, REALLY exciting.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for moderated content

Did this make you and/or the lady more or less likely to murder someone in a foursome gone wrong?