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

[Poppy1016]

The autopsy (always to be crossed with other documents) tells me that there must be more than one perpetrator.
It's the most important thing.

The autopsy also reveals that Meredith was stabbed on the left with a knife which had a large blade.

The documents also show that Meredith was kneeling and facing the wall or the wardrobe, and the person who gave the fatal blow was between her and the bed. But someone else was holding her.

If you put together this with the fact that the metal clasp was forcedly deformed by Sollecito, the strap was cut with a small blade, it was cut before she received the first stabbing on the right but not removed, and a small knife poked her on her right, you have Sollecito's role.

In order to hold a large knife you need Amanda Knox. The person who stabbed her on the left side had not cut the bra (but the bra had been cut already), and the person who cut the bra is not Knox.
The person holding her wirst was Guede, he also committed a sexual violence usinge one hand, and another hand was pressed on her mouth.
There is also a number of other previous actions which require further hands (removing her clothes). In this system, Knox needs to be consistently placed on the murder scene playing an active role in this action. She is the one who was holding one big knife. The other two perpetrators are doing different things, they didn't give the left knife blow.

Just how did Raffael forcibly deform the clasp without leaving any DNA on the bra material?

 

[Poppy1016]

No, it's not that I can, it's not a choice: I must call the mods, because otherwise I would have to answer, and that would be a breaking of the rules.

What I want to know is why the mods allow your wild , unsubstantiated remarks here in the first place.

 

[moodstream]

At the beginning, when I didn't know much about the case.
Only a rather small doubt, yet reasonable.
It didn't last for long.

When I read carefully Knox's e-mail, her memoriale, her 05.45 statement against Lumumba, and then after I heared her court testimony, to begin with, just by that evidence I had already no doubt she was a manipulative liar.
The degree of her involvement in the murder, her precise role, this was something I didn't know.
But then looking at the autopsy report, I knew.

hmm.... you didn't look at the autopsy report until after you heard her court testimony? Or, knowing her precise role from the time you read the autopsy report, you just didn't think she was a liar then?

 

[moodstream]

The autopsy (always to be crossed with other documents) tells me that there must be more than one perpetrator.
It's the most important thing.

The autopsy also reveals that Meredith was stabbed on the left with a knife which had a large blade.

The documents also show that Meredith was kneeling and facing the wall or the wardrobe, and the person who gave the fatal blow was between her and the bed. But someone else was holding her.

If you put together this with the fact that the metal clasp was forcedly deformed by Sollecito, the strap was cut with a small blade, it was cut before she received the first stabbing on the right but not removed, and a small knife poked her on her right, you have Sollecito's role.

In order to hold a large knife you need Amanda Knox. The person who stabbed her on the left side had not cut the bra (but the bra had been cut already), and the person who cut the bra is not Knox.
The person holding her wirst was Guede, he also committed a sexual violence usinge one hand, and another hand was pressed on her mouth.
There is also a number of other previous actions which require further hands (removing her clothes). In this system, Knox needs to be consistently placed on the murder scene playing an active role in this action. She is the one who was holding one big knife. The other two perpetrators are doing different things, they didn't give the left knife blow.

Apparently, in addition to the autopsy report, you spend way to much tme reading things like this.

 

[moodstream]

I am not sure, but, I think in the last frame Nencini is asking for the circular file.

 

[NancyS]

But I know many girls. Even known few North American ones. Actually, young women from North America they don't make that negative impression to me.
Actually, I recall only one woman from North America who made a comparable negative impression on me, and even more to a number of people who were working with me; maybe it's irony but that woman was a Canadian (no offence; I had a Canadian neighbour who was a very nice young guy).
I recall that woman, a narcissist, a sociopath, really an extremely negative charachter.
Acutally that woman, despite she was beautiful, I found her physically repulsive, on chemical grounds: I could not stand her odour. There was something wrong. An immediate alarm bell. The first negative message was physical, from molecules.

I obviously happened to know some other more ore less sick or disturbing individuale, probably most individuals I felt as disturbed tend to be men but I can think about several even if we speak about women. And anyway, "disturbs" are not the same, personalities are obviously very different from each other. I mean know superficially; mostly don't happen to know that kind of disturbed women closely, they are not part of my everyday life, but anyway I observe people a lot, and I happen to know a lot about several let's say "psychiatric" life situations.

Was this based on her having too many visible moles - or possibly a warty lesion on the end of her nose?

As far as I can tell Amanda shows no obvious signs of any psychopathology - although I am in no way fully trained to assess this as you would need a fully trained psychiatrist and more importantly you would need an American psychiatrist (or at least trained in America).

As a medical student we could do an elective anywhere in the world and in any specialty - however, we were advised not to do psychiatry as we would not have a good enough understanding of the culture to benefit, as huge amounts of cultural knowledge and sensitivity are required to make any diagnosis

However, I can speculate that Mignini would score very highly on a psychopathy test

I also think that the only person qualified to comment on the autopsy would be the coroner - and as I rembember he thought that the injuries were consistent with both a single and group attack and no conclusion could be made. Don't let someone with actual training and knowledge get in the way of your speculations though

 

[Samson]

This is some of the most bizarre and warped commentary I have ever had the discomfort to encounter, by the written word or in person. The only sense to be made from it is that it is emblematic of a certain approach to this case, along with the presumption that its exponents are likely somewhat less reliably correct than a broken clock.

You remind me that a broken clock tells the exact time correctly twice a day, but the information is worthless.

 

[Antony]

The sole reason this appeal takes place is that Knox and Sollecito appealed their conviction.

There has been no acquittal. There has been no appeal that was accomplished yet. The appeal that has taken place under the ruling of Pratillo Hellmann-Zanetti was illegitimate and invalid.

Wrong. No legal grounds were given for the annullment of the Hellman verdict. The ISC acted illegally.

 

[Matthew Best]

What I want to know is why the mods allow your wild , unsubstantiated remarks here in the first place.

Because being wrong and even telling deliberate lies are not against the Membership Agreement.

 

[Matthew Best]

At the beginning, when I didn't know much about the case.
Only a rather small doubt, yet reasonable.
It didn't last for long.

When I read carefully Knox's e-mail, her memoriale, her 05.45 statement against Lumumba, and then after I heared her court testimony, to begin with, just by that evidence I had already no doubt she was a manipulative liar.
The degree of her involvement in the murder, her precise role, this was something I didn't know.
But then looking at the autopsy report, I knew.

I bet you think you're a really good just of character, don't you?

 

[toto]

This is some of the most bizarre and warped commentary I have ever had the discomfort to encounter, by the written word or in person. The only sense to be made from it is that it is emblematic of a certain approach to this case, along with the presumption that its exponents are likely somewhat less reliably correct than a broken clock.

The kind of post to which you refer does not help the credibility of the poster at all, of course.

 

[toto]

@ BillWilliams re psychopath

Hi, I don't see any reference to Massei referring to Amanda as either being or not being a psychopath. Is this passage from where you draw your inferences:?
p391 English translation

it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons.

 

[bri1]

I bet you think you're a really good just of character, don't you?

Mach is suffering from the same intellectual blind spot that ILE did. The science consistently shows that human beings are unable to reliably spot lies. Even trained investigators are no better at it than chance in experimental scenarios.
But Mach feels justified in ignoring the science. So did ILE.
You may as well toss a coin, Mach. It's scientifically equivalent to you judgments about AK & RS' s veracity...

 

[Dan O.]

It is post like this:

Maybe you misunderstood: there are people who perceive what Knox says as infuriating and gets under their skin.
But to me, no, she does not infuriate me. No no, I don't feel any anger. Nothing personal. I am just extremely negatively impressed. I just can't believe a word she says. And I can't believe my eyes when I see her nodding while sayin no, failing to answer questions, sighing and swallowing inconsistently, smirking before talking: she really is incongruent, she is lying about everything and she offer a load of red flags to anyone. In other words, she such a bad actress far more than I expected. And she comes across as a more severe narcissist than I thought.

I must say that at the beginning of this case, back in 2008 and 2009, I had a very negative human perception from Sollecito, far more than Knox. I couldn't stand him talking. I found his whiny expressions oily, omertose, offensive and outraging. But Raffaele Sollecito, he maybe somehow improved a little. I still think he is lying, logically, but I don't have the same negative feeling from his voice as years ago. He still obviously refuses questioning and says things which are objectionable like playing the ethnicity card, saying he didn't notice blood on the bathmat etc., but these things are only logical things meaning he is forced to lie, it's not about human perception of his charachter.

Knox, let's say she surprised me later. Both her personality disturb and her lying are so massively obvious.



I repeat it's nothing personal. My perception about her communication & interviews is just extremely negative. It would be negative even if I saw her for the first time without knowing who she is.

I'm not saying that this has an implication in terms of hatred or sympathy. I'm saying that the fact that she lies is just so absolutely obvious. And the fact that she is, well sick person, that she has problems such as her lack of empathy, a personality suffering, is also equally obvious.

That make it all too obvious where Machiavelli is comming from. His entire argument is internal to himself, the way he perceives other people. He cannot stop to debate the issues because he has no evidence. He just jumps from topic to topic regurgitating crap and then moves on. Countering his crap with evidence only offers temporary relief as he will eventually return to the subject having forgotten all about the countering facts. It's like debating popup targets at a carnival. They are easy to shoot down but there is an endless chain setting them back up.

 

[Dan O.]

Like this argument:

If you put together this with the fact that the metal clasp was forcedly deformed by Sollecito, the strap was cut with a small blade, it was cut before she received the first stabbing on the right but not removed, and a small knife poked her on her right, you have Sollecito's role.

Machiavelli has no evidence that Raffaele forced the clasp. In fact, to force the clasp requires a force to be applied to the bra fabric and applying such a force to the fabric with ones bare hands would leave DNA behind. But there was no DNA of Raffaele's found on the fabric if that bra. What was found was the DNA of Rudy Guede on the back band where such force would deform the clasp and tear the bra apart.


And this one:

In order to hold a large knife you need Amanda Knox. The person who stabbed her on the left side had not cut the bra (but the bra had been cut already), and the person who cut the bra is not Knox.

We've been over the detals many times. Here is the end of the bra strap in question:

This fabric had not been cut except at the factory where it was manufactured. The stitch line where it had attached to the sholder strap and clasp are clearly visible. But Machiavelli believes that it had been cut because that permits him to believe that Amanda was involved.

 

[andreajo]

It is post like this:

​

That make it all too obvious where Machiavelli is comming from. His entire argument is internal to himself, the way he perceives other people. He cannot stop to debate the issues because he has no evidence. He just jumps from topic to topic regurgitating crap and then moves on. Countering his crap with evidence only offers temporary relief as he will eventually return to the subject having forgotten all about the countering facts. It's like debating popup targets at a carnival. They are easy to shoot down but there is an endless chain setting them back up.

It is interesting all the same. I am as interested in how people think as what they think. I would like to understand where extraordinarily negative reactions to Amanda might come from, since they pass me by completely. She doesn't seem like anything but open, honest, and principled to me.

 

[Mary_H]

It is interesting all the same. I am as interested in how people think as what they think. I would like to understand where extraordinarily negative reactions to Amanda might come from, since they pass me by completely. She doesn't seem like anything but open, honest, and principled to me.

I'm with you, andreajo. It's very interesting.

 

[Dan O.]

It is interesting all the same. I am as interested in how people think as what they think. I would like to understand where extraordinarily negative reactions to Amanda might come from, since they pass me by completely. She doesn't seem like anything but open, honest, and principled to me.

They could come from the authoritarian follower being forced into illogical beliefs in order to support their chosen father figure. It's possible that they don't even see it themselves but somehow internally rationalize the contradictory information. Is there even any way to distinguish between such a person and say a troll delibrately doing the same thing but with full consciousness of what they are doing?

 

[andreajo]

They could come from the authoritarian follower being forced into illogical beliefs in order to support their chosen father figure. It's possible that they don't even see it themselves but somehow internally rationalize the contradictory information. Is there even any way to distinguish between such a person and say a troll delibrately doing the same thing but with full consciousness of what they are doing?

It could be many things. We can't know how sincere any of us is, or what anyone's motivation is for participating in this discussion.

I choose to fly in the face of dietrologia and take what people post here at face value. I lose nothing if I am wrong.

 

[Mary_H]

Yesterday, Andrea Vogt wrote:

•Re: HIV test in prison. *(here CDV makes a long account of the HIV tests in prison, with him claiming that two came back positive, then a third was done that came back negative. He detailed the traumatic impact it had on Knox and spoke of how she jotted down a list of sexual partners in her diary, which was later leaked to the Italian press, etc. At a certain point he is interrupted by the presiding judge who asks if there is a paper trail, if the prison’s medical certificates exist showing the tests were done and their results or if they were allegedly just referred to her verbally. “I don’t want there to be a shadow of a doubt on this point,” [the judge] says, noting that there are certain implications were being made. CDV said they suspected the tests were an effort to pressure her, but said he could not give a definitive answer about the medical certificates. CDV: “The certificates probably exist, but are inside the prison and were not released to us.” He said he based their information on Amanda’s word and writings. The discussion then ended and he went on with his other arguments.

In September, Machiavelli wrote:

I don't think, I know it was the medical staff.

In at least four of his following posts, he implies he has concrete information about who performed the prison HIV tests.

Machiavelli -- you know more than Judge Nencini!