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

[moodstream]

Amanda Knox did and wrote two opposite things. Two claims, two stories, one denies the other one.
Not two ways to tell something parly and badly; no, to incompatible things.
E-mail narrative, vs. actual behaviour. Narrated attempt to break down the door due to urgency to enter the room, vs. no feeling of urgency.
This is called inconsistency.

This does not depend on what Filomena says, there were multiple witnesses (albeit, the ability to assess Filomena's credibility is definitely something the judges are competent about).

These things only matter if Amanda Knox is guilty, and then, it just gives you bragging rights for having guessed the correct explanation of her behavior, providing she ever confesses to it. Until then you are simply imputing your point of view into reports of certain events that occurred subsequent to the murder. That's what you think - Knox seemed not to display a feeling of urgency and to you that shows guilt. Fine. Think what you want. But just cause you think it does not make it evidence, and does not imply that whatever you choose to conclude about these events represents the truth.

 

[Poppy1016]

Won't it be something, when they do a perp walk with Mignini. I can't wait to see that fat disgusting tub of goo in manacles for all the damage that he did to all these people in the MOF and the Kercher trial. I hope they put him in the cell that Raffale was in. But he's lucky. He's fat and ugly, so it's unlikely that he'll become some guy's bitch.

But I sure wish he would have to endure that. If anyone deserves it, it's Mignini.

We were led to believe that the preliminary hearing was in November ?

 

[Poppy1016]

There is nothing to believe: it's in the testimonies, it's in the open.



But the thing was not exactly narrated that way by the whole of the testimonies. Filomena arrived some minutes later, Marco and Luca were already there. The police had already listened to Amanda Knox, that's why they were reluctant.
But they were reluctant from the point of view of Filomena; they objected to her request to break down the door immediately.
As Filomena was made aware that the door was locked, the men also told her "Amanda said it may be normal"; Filomena was surprised with the guys "how can you say normal?", she said them that it was not normal at all and so the guys became extremely worried; the postal police guys said they could not take responsibility to break down the door. Filomena told the police guys "I am the house lady, I take responsibility for breaking down the door", the police didn't object and Luca Altieri decided to brake down the door.

Those brave police refused to break the door down.

 

[kwill]

Here's my question to guilters, since we seem to have a few of them around.

Is there anything presented as evidence of guilt that strikes you as improbable or dubious? Anything?

But the question makes no sense.
Evidence cannot be improbable or dubious. Evidence is a fact. It's also logic about the finding.

It's something factual. A finding. And logic itself.

No. I was asking about those things that have been presented as evidence things that have led some observers to a belief in guilty of murder.

The list is long.

Amanda had sex with three different men in Perugia.
Amanda got a noise ticket in Seattle.
Raffaele carried a pocket knife.
Amanda did not use the scrub brush on the toilet.
Amanda was jealous of Meredith.
Amanda was loud.
Raffaele was dependent on his father.
Amanda was not a serious student.
Amanda was a party girl.
Raffaele smoked pot.
Raffaele had looked at bestiality porn.
Amanda didn't cry at the police station.
Amanda bought sexy underwear.
Amanda didn't want the door to Meredith's room to be opened.

To me, all these things are absurd, but it seems that they carry a great deal of weight with some observers. These same observers refuse to acknowledge that:

Meredith's meal was still in her stomach when she died, which means she was killed within an hour of returning home.

This one fact, it seems to me, requires those who believe Amanda and Raffaele committed this murder to present a logical framework that shows how and when they killed her. That would meet your standard for something factual. A finding. And logic itself.

 

[RandyN]

Amanda Knox did and wrote two opposite things. Two claims, two stories, one denies the other one.
Not two ways to tell something parly and badly; no, to incompatible things.
E-mail narrative, vs. actual behaviour. Narrated attempt to break down the door due to urgency to enter the room, vs. no feeling of urgency.
This is called inconsistency.

This does not depend on what Filomena says, there were multiple witnesses (albeit, the ability to assess Filomena's credibility is definitely something the judges are competent about).

Let me guess Yummi...you base this on the same idiot translator that got "see you later good night" to mean we will definitely meet tonight....right? Go away with this stupid argument. It insults morons let alone the intelligent people here. May I suggest peddling this crap at PMF 1 and 2 and TJMK. The weak minded there will fall for your weak argument. Oh wait do you think you are actually pulling a Jedi mind trick? Because its not working Obi Wan. LOL......

 

[RandyN]

This does not depend on what Filomena says, there were multiple witnesses (albeit, the ability to assess Filomena's credibility is definitely something the judges are competent about).
Two hilarious quotes in one post...I cant stop laughing. Yummi has alluded that Italian judges are competent about something....hahahhahahaha You are funny!

Yum...Italian judges are incompetent at best...incompetent and corrupt is more likely given what we have seen so far.

Thanks for the comic relief though. I needed cheering up.

 

[acbytesla]

No. I was asking about those things that have been presented as evidence things that have led some observers to a belief in guilty of murder.

The list is long.

Amanda had sex with three different men in Perugia.
Amanda got a noise ticket in Seattle.
Raffaele carried a pocket knife.
Amanda did not use the scrub brush on the toilet.
Amanda was jealous of Meredith.
Amanda was loud.
Raffaele was dependent on his father.
Amanda was not a serious student.
Amanda was a party girl.
Raffaele smoked pot.
Raffaele had looked at bestiality porn.
Amanda didn't cry at the police station.
Amanda bought sexy underwear.
Amanda didn't want the door to Meredith's room to be opened.

To me, all these things are absurd, but it seems that they carry a great deal of weight with some observers. These same observers refuse to acknowledge that:

Meredith's meal was still in her stomach when she died, which means she was killed within an hour of returning home.

This one fact, it seems to me, requires those who believe Amanda and Raffaele committed this murder to present a logical framework that shows how and when they killed her. That would meet your standard for something factual. A finding. And logic itself.

Thanks for pointing these things out Kwill. These may all be true and/or false, but they are not evidence of a crime. They are worthless for building any kind of case. Yet the PGP, attempts to weave some nefarious narrative from them.

It really should insult the intelligence of anyone with a brain.

 

[RandyN]

No. I was asking about those things that have been presented as evidence things that have led some observers to a belief in guilty of murder.

The list is long.

Amanda had sex with three different men in Perugia.
Amanda got a noise ticket in Seattle.
Raffaele carried a pocket knife.
Amanda did not use the scrub brush on the toilet.
Amanda was jealous of Meredith.
Amanda was loud.
Raffaele was dependent on his father.
Amanda was not a serious student.
Amanda was a party girl.
Raffaele smoked pot.
Raffaele had looked at bestiality porn.
Amanda didn't cry at the police station.
Amanda bought sexy underwear.
Amanda didn't want the door to Meredith's room to be opened.

To me, all these things are absurd, but it seems that they carry a great deal of weight with some observers. These same observers refuse to acknowledge that:

Meredith's meal was still in her stomach when she died, which means she was killed within an hour of returning home.

This one fact, it seems to me, requires those who believe Amanda and Raffaele committed this murder to present a logical framework that shows how and when they killed her. That would meet your standard for something factual. A finding. And logic itself.

Sorry kwill but you are trying to get logic from someone who fails to understand the concept. That is the only logical conclusion I see in his/her argument.

 

[acbytesla]

You should see the PMs they send me about you!

(For clarity - not really.........)


FWIW, I thoroughly disagree with acbytesla's personal attack on Mignini. My own view is simple: if he has committed misconduct, he should be held properly to account for it. If he hasn't then he should be swiftly exonerated and be allowed to move on. If he's been falsely accused in some sort of witch hunt (which in itself wouldn't speak very highly of the Italian judiciary of course), those doing the witch-hunting should be properly investigated and brought to account themselves.

I don't know enough about the MoF case to even begin to make an educated call on Mignini's conduct in that case. But regarding the Kercher case, I don't believe he was guilty of actual misconduct of any sort. I think he made numerous huge mistakes, but that's a different matter altogether.

Well, we have a difference of opinion. I'm thoroughly convinced that Mignini is a corrupt prosecutor, like Nifong. His actions during the night of the interrogations should be enough to have him disbarred at the minimum or maybe a few years picking up the soap in the prison shower at Campanne.

 

[Poppy1016]

Well, we have a difference of opinion. I'm thoroughly convinced that Mignini is a corrupt prosecutor, like Nifong. His actions during the night of the interrogations should be enough to have him disbarred at the minimum or maybe a few years picking up the soap in the prison shower at Campanne.

My sentiments exactly. And not only Pignini should do prison time for this fiasco.

 

[NancyS]

Amanda Knox did and wrote two opposite things. Two claims, two stories, one denies the other one.
Not two ways to tell something parly and badly; no, to incompatible things.
E-mail narrative, vs. actual behaviour. Narrated attempt to break down the door due to urgency to enter the room, vs. no feeling of urgency.
This is called inconsistency.

This does not depend on what Filomena says, there were multiple witnesses (albeit, the ability to assess Filomena's credibility is definitely something the judges are competent about).

Are you Migini's psychic lady friend? I can't think of any other reason that you would know exactly how Amanda was feeling during this time.

Being a non-Italian speaker she probably felt hugely unsure of what to do as she would have had difficulty in expressing herself. Relying on the reports of people translating her Italian to try and prove her true feelings and meaning, is illogical and makes no sense to anyone with any cultural sensitivity

 

[Planigale]

Machiaveli says : "Amanda Knox admitted in court to basically have said Meredith some time would close the door, with obvious effect of downplaying the importance of the locked door, by trivializing it (might be normal) and diminishing possible meaning as reason of concern.

There is no question Filomena's report and Knox's report before the witnesses about the element, were obviously different and incompatible with each other.
Everybody recalls Knox saying the locked door was not important after the police officers had already arrived, and when they (Sollecito, Knox, then minutes Luca and Marco) already knew about the phone findings.
The actual change in the assessment of this element happened the moment of the arrival of Filomena, not at the arrivel of the postal police.

And besides that we have an inconsistence between what Knox tells, and the factual habits of Meredith (the detail was actually not normal in her behaviour), there is also inconsietence between Knox's real attitude observed by testimonies, and Knox's own behaviour in the previous moments as she reports it herself (attempt to break down the door and e-mail narrative).

"But the question makes no sense.
Evidence cannot be improbable or dubious. Evidence is a fact. It's also logic about the finding."

The problem is on Machiaveli's own definition we do not have evidence. We cannot know if MK always or never locked her door. If Filomena said MK never locked her door that is inherently unlikely (unlike saying seldom) and unknowable (unless Filomena habitually went round checking to see if the door was locked). AK did not say that the locked door was unimportant - please provide a quote if you can find one. If we are being factual the person who said that the door was normally locked to the police was RS. Filomena was not present (according to Machiaveli), so she cannot give evidence about what was said since she was not there. RS says he mis translated.

It is important we stick to the facts. Not Chinese whispers. The policeman only understood what RS said he cannot give as fact what AK said.

We cannot know whether AK felt things were 'urgent' or if she was 'worried', these are unknowable. We cannot mind read. What can be reported is behaviour, but we need to be aware recall of behaviour is very poor (lots of evidence on this). The interpretation becomes a matter of opinion, and very dubious opinion, if relying on second hand descriptions. It is not evidence. We then come into cultural issues. Have you been brought up with a stiff upper lip anglo-saxon ethos (inspired by the Spartans), to show no emotion under stress, keep calm and carry on, or the over the top hand waving shouting and screaming demonstrative Italian behaviour that I always think looks artificial. Machiaveli does not have the cultural background to interpret AK behaviour. For me what she did all sounds normal. My opinion (IMHO) is better than Machiaveli. I think the only way one can have any evidence on behaviour is if there was a video recording. Otherwise we have selective recall from non experts under stress, trying to do cross cultural interpretation for which they are not trained. Do you think anyone really has an accurate recall of what happened just before the body was discovered? The trauma of this would interfere with registration of memory. The problem is we know memories are NOT like recordings. The are actively remembered reprocessed, it is easy to create artificial memories. (Ref. Chevalier M, Gingold H, 1958).

 

[davefoc]

This locked door thing is nuts. Amanda called Filomena because she was worried. Raffaele mentioned the door twice when he called the cops. When the postals arrived, he and Amanda invited them in to investigate.

So we're supposed to believe Amanda was trying to delay the discovery of the body, because of some confusing dialog about whether or not Meredith was in the habit of locking her door? What exactly is the premise here? Was Amanda supposedly thinking that maybe if she made the locked door out to be normal, everyone would just go away and forget it, and find the body some other time?

If so, why call people in the first damn place?

This is guilter ******** on steroids.

Why is this not the definitive word on this issue?

What is the argument here? Knox feigned concern by calling everybody that she could think of to ask about Kercher and after that, she asked Sollecito to call the police, but when the police get there she tells a lie about Kercher locking her door so the police will go away? And what was supposed to be her plan after that? Were she and Sollecito going to bury Kercher in the garden after the police left? One would have thought this strategy must have been a tad worrisome to Sollecito who allegedly has just committed a murder and his girl friend is having him call the police to investigate the murder they allegedly have just committed.

I think we need, devil's advocate Grinder to step forth and explain why this isn't a contender for craziest guilter theory yet. Is there the slightest element of logic in this theory? Maybe I haven't understood it?

 

[Vibio]

Excellent posts Machiavelli.

 

[toto]

If you can't think of "any other way" than a habit of "sneaking inside" to see that as normal, maybe this your problem; your view looks inherently a bit rigid and limited.

Filomena says she knew it was normal for Meredith to leave her door open, not locked. I found Filomena's knowledge about this totally normal.

Reading Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's account, it seems as though both Amanda and Meredith were saying she locked her door when out of town/in the U.K, but Amanada also added that sometimes she locked her door when getting changed. (In the fog of confusion Raffaele did not quite hear Amanda's point clearly).Amanda's point about changing clothes though probably a truthful point could be slightly irrelevant since obviously she hadn't been changing for the last few hours. It does in my view add to Amanda's credibility.

Anyway I would really appreciate it if you could address Rolfe's and other posters' points about when Meredith's stomach contents might reasonably be seen to show some evidence of a meal.
Also should we accept all Curatolo/Toto's (no relation) evidence or just the bits that help the defence and/or the prosecution?

 

[acbytesla]

But the question makes no sense.
Evidence cannot be improbable or dubious. Evidence is a fact. It's also logic about the finding.

It's something factual. A finding. And logic itself.

A scenario could be improbable, or the logical meaning of a factual finding can be dubious.

But evidence, because of its nature, consisting of factual findings and logical reasoning about it, it cannot be "improbable".
A reasoning can be wrong, logically flawed. A finding can be wrongly interpreted or wrongly recorded.

But "evidence", well what I consider as evidence, since I consider it evidence, I don't understand how could I consider it dubious and improbable.

Evidence is a provable fact that is used to support a logical argument for guilt or innocence. But this is the problem. Hardly any of these facts are provable or do they support a logical argument for guilt or innocence.

In regards to the point that Filomena said that Meredith always kept her door lock and Amanda's response and intent. This hardly supports a logical argument for guilt or innocence.

1. You have a non native Italian speaker who's command of the Italian language is minimal. It is questionable as to whether Amanda was trying to communicate that Meredith usually kept her door "closed" or "locked".

2. Amanda and Raffaele had already called the police and expressed concern over Meredith being missing and the "locked door".

The argument that they were trying to delay Meredith's discovery is ludicrous. If this was the case, why would they have been raising the alarm all morning and calling the police not once, but twice.

This is one of those "facts" that are told by the PGP as something nefarious, when in truth it is meaningless. It does not support an argument of guilt and is totally meaningless.

 

[RWVBWL]

Nice post up above Kwill,

But Sexy underwear?

No, Amanda didn’t buy a red g-string a couple of days after the murder for a night of wild sex with Raff,
just a pair of red bikini briefs with a cartoon cow on them. IIRC, it was that time of the month, right?

Sexy underwear?
Sure Guilters, sure...

 

[toto]

As I said, this can't be a point. It could be a matter for the defences to put a question to Filomena. But the just the question alone, put later, without Filomena's answer, cannot be an argument usable for speculation.



Amanda Knox admitted in court to basically have said Meredith some time would close the door, with obvious effect of downplaying the importance of the locked door, by trivializing it (might be normal) and diminishing possible meaning as reason of concern.



There is no question Filomena's report and Knox's report before the witnesses about the element, were obviously different and incompatible with each other.
[highlight]Everybody recalls Knox saying the locked door was not important after the police officers had already arrived[/highlight], and when they (Sollecito, Knox, then minutes Luca and Marco) already knew about the phone findings.
The actual change in the assessment of this element happened the moment of the arrival of Filomena, not at the arrivel of the postal police.

And besides that we have an inconsistence between what Knox tells, and the factual habits of Meredith (the detail was actually not normal in her behaviour), there is also inconsietence between Knox's real attitude observed by testimonies, and Knox's own behaviour in the previous moments as she reports it herself (attempt to break down the door and e-mail narrative).

She did not say this as far as I recall. If you provide the line in which she says the words "not important" then I will make a donation to the charity of my choice.

 

[acbytesla]

Nice post up above Kwill,

But Sexy underwear?

No, Amanda didn’t buy a red g-string a couple of days after the murder for a night of wild sex with Raff,
just a pair of red bikini briefs with a cartoon cow on them. IIRC, it was that time of the month, right?

Sexy underwear?
Sure Guilters, sure...

You're right RW. It wasn't sexy underwear. But so what if it was? That wouldn't mean anything either. It wouldn't be evidence supporting guilt.

It might mean they wanted to preoccupy their minds by being naughty. It wouldn't actually have meant anything if they had visited a sex shop and bought a sex swing, lubricating oils, body paint and a dozen vibrators.

This is not evidence. It does NOT support any logical argument for guilt or innocence. It's not like they went to a hardware store and bought shovels, plastic tarp and a map.

There is the crazy absurd, actually stupid kind of circular logic that the guilters employ. They start with the premise that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Then they catalog their actions and then interpret those actions through their filter of guilt and then they weave a narrative using their guilty interpretations as if that constitutes evidence. Every single point they bring up can be interpreted a dozen different ways. This is not evidence. It is like lines from a novel.
Similar to a phrase like "it was a dark and stormy night". Sounds like something evil and ominous is in the air. Right? Well in a novel it might be, but in real life it means nothing other than a comment about the weather.

They all are tying to play Sherlock Holmes noticing and interpreting insignificant events as the proof that Amanda and Raffaele, two people with neither the motive, nor the history or psychological backgrounds as killers.

Machiavelli may not be stupid, but his arguments sure are.

 

[RWVBWL]

You're right RW. It wasn't sexy underwear. But so what if it was? That wouldn't mean anything either. It wouldn't be evidence supporting guilt.

It might mean they wanted to preoccupy their minds by being naughty. It wouldn't actually have meant anything if they had visited a sex shop and bought a sex swing, lubricating oils, body paint and a dozen vibrators.

This is not evidence. It does NOT support any logical argument for guilt or innocence. It's not like they went to a hardware store and bought shovels, plastic tarp and a map.

Great points ACbyTesla,
Buy shovels to dig a grave and hide a body?
Heck, they could have buried the body in the valley below that Briars often mentions.


Or they could have parked Raff's Audi in the driveway and carried Meredith's body outside and put it in the trunk, drove out on that trip to Gubbio, stopped somewhere along the way in the early morning hours of that holiday weekend, with probably not much traffic around and buried the body...

But they didn't.

Instead, they sounded the alarm, called the police, showed everyone what they found, helped the police to try and catch a brutal murderer and then, after wearing the same underwear for a coupla days, Raff went out with Amanda, (as she was probably scared to travel alone around town at the time after Meredith's murder) and bought some plain red underwear with a cow cartoon on it. Pricey $$, those chonies*, but clean at least!
RW


* - http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/205992/what-are-chonies-