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

[js202]

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

Precisely. And to be less reliable than that is a pitiable thing, indeed.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

toto - I am glad that you say that Massei says nothing either way, and then you quote a passage from Massei which says the defendants were rather normal.

The Nencini court this week saw a bit of the baseless character assassination of Amanda Knox, this time once again from Maresca. In any other court system one would only be able to say those things with positive evidence gleaned from some sort of clinical evaluation - and there is no such clinical evaluation on record....

..... go to the hate sites and see all the rampant and equally baseless speculation about psychopathology as if there'd been hours of evaluation done on the students in prison to prove this.

At absolute worst for Massei the explanation for RS's and AK's involvement in this crime is that AK and RS were messing around in Amanda's room, they heard a commotion in Meredith's room, went in and saw Guede forcing lust on to Meredith, and completely inexplicably, under the influence of a soft drug, AK and RS then "made a brief choice for evil". It had nothing to do with their psychologycal condition - it was, for Massei, the soft drugs, as if marijuana forced people to make evil choices.

After all Massei heard in court otherwise from Mignini, Maresca and Pacelli... the above is ALL Massei can write afterwards about the character assassination of Knox with regard to psychopathology. He did not believe it. He invented his own, different scenario. Yet out in guilter world, psychopathology persists as if Massei made some positive reference supporting it.

It seems to me that this can be used to prove neither psychopathology nor the ability to be agnostic on the subject.

So when you say, "I don't see any reference to Massei referring to Amanda as either being or not being a psychopath," and then quote a passage which refers to both RS and AK as being otherwise fairly normal, I really don't know what else to say, except....

.... that the lingering and baseless character assassination done at trial has done its job, with no evidence to back it up, has worked. To even be agnostic on this subject is to buy into evidenceless, baseless conclusions. At some point you want to believe it just because you want to believe it.

I actually don't know what else to say. If it is not obvious what Massei is basing his assessment of the absence of "psychopathology" on passages as per above, with nothing else really said by him on the subject..... well, you get the point.

 

[Grinder]

I think you're forgetting the fact that no similar comment was made when the Kercher's letter was read. If, as you say, there is "no automatic right to expect that communication be given the same weight as it had been delivered in person", that would apply to the Kercher's letter as well. I'm not making a judgment on it, I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency.

Perhaps a better example would be Rudy's letter to his lawyers that was read by Mignini including an accusation against the kids but no cross was allowed.

The Supreme Court has sent down instructions on how to rule. Every claim of the prosecution must be sustained, and every problem raised by the defense must be dismissed.

Looks that way.

But why should they? ("they" who?) The first instance judges found him credible. They listened to him in person, they listened to his voice, asked him all questions they wanted, and thought he was credible. And thought there were reasons to think he likely saw the right people (he knew them already at sight).

You don't "drop" witnesses. You assess their reliability and their relevance.
Here the relevance (imho) is quite low because the witness is unnecessary, but this is not a reason for "dropping" him. He exists, he brought a testimony.

Christian was nor allowed to testify because he didn't file a report. Curatolo didn't file a report. The idea that logical assessment is thrown to the side and only the impression he makes is used shows how superficial the cultural is. This is substantiated by Mach's assessment of Amanda.

Odd system that would allow any nut-case to take up valuable court time that some judge just said he was concerned about.

You can only find one Italian source which says "saxual rite".
But I can point out court documents that do say something else which is totally different and rules it out.
It's not that I am just asking to cite court evidence: I actually pointed to court documents which is evidence of the contrary.

It is impossible for a court document to "rule it out". If Mignini had used the term early on but not in court how could you prove it? Btw, you just admitted that there is just as much evidence of "satanic rite' and drug dealer on her speed dial.

Meredith's girl friends testified about a rather non-idyllic picture.

Yeah that's it. It wasn't ideal. It wasn't nirvana. It wasn't Shangri-La. But that doesn't make it a reason murder. The testimony didn't describe a tense untenable relationship at all. Perhaps you need to reread it.

Let's say that it was the others (Meredith, friends, flatmates) who perceived some bizzarre, odd, and annoying behaviours on the part of Amanda, in areas such as cleaning and on relational aspects.

The most extreme accusations did not add up to bizarre. Please produce an example of bizarre behavior. I would say if Meredith was really extremely upset by the toilet not being brushed or a small bag of sexually related item in their private bathroom THAT would be bizarre.

Well he expressed his ideas with his friends, but also in his interrogation by the prosecutor.

Since we know the PLE get what they want in interrogations, so what if true. I very much doubt he said he "intended to bang" Amanda. Can you provide this cite?

I just think if you are a woman who decides to spend a night with Guede, a bit of cocaine might be, let's say, part of the "pacakge" for the evening fun in some way. It might be or may be not. And I am not interested in investigating about "tradings".

Did the Spanish girls receive the standard offer? There is no evidence of any of this and you just made it all up

He said if it's in the file the court will read it, and that's enough for the court. There is no need to spend the hearing time to read documents which they are going to read anyway.

Why was Rudy's similar letter allowed to waste the precious time of the court that takes off about 6 months a year while people rot in jail?

 

[GreyFox]

familar rants

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.

This rhetoric sounds so familiar . I wonder where I've heard it before ? Hmm let me think.

"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it".
Goebbels.

Oh yeah that's right. It's old school influence from the 1940's perhaps.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

This is so wrong. Everyone knows that Canadian girls smell like maple syrup. And maple syrup is Yummi.

 

[andreajo]

This is so wrong. Everyone knows that Canadian girls smell like maple syrup. And maple syrup is Yummi.

I choked on my waffles and maple syrup when I read this.

 

[Strozzi]

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.

I am glad that Machiavelli posts here because his information on the Italian legal process is valuable to understand the court. His comments on the people, evidence, motivations are useful to read because he is the closest we have here to see into the mindset of the prosecution. Mignini won't post here; Machiavelli does and he is a surrogate into Mignini's mind.

 

[toto]

toto - I am glad that you say that Massei says nothing either way, and then you quote a passage from Massei which says the defendants were rather normal.

The Nencini court this week saw a bit of the baseless character assassination of Amanda Knox, this time once again from Maresca. In any other court system one would only be able to say those things with positive evidence gleaned from some sort of clinical evaluation - and there is no such clinical evaluation on record....

..... go to the hate sites and see all the rampant and equally baseless speculation about psychopathology as if there'd been hours of evaluation done on the students in prison to prove this.

At absolute worst for Massei the explanation for RS's and AK's involvement in this crime is that AK and RS were messing around in Amanda's room, they heard a commotion in Meredith's room, went in and saw Guede forcing lust on to Meredith, and completely inexplicably, under the influence of a soft drug, AK and RS then "made a brief choice for evil". It had nothing to do with their psychologycal condition - it was, for Massei, the soft drugs, as if marijuana forced people to make evil choices.

After all Massei heard in court otherwise from Mignini, Maresca and Pacelli... the above is ALL Massei can write afterwards about the character assassination of Knox with regard to psychopathology. He did not believe it. He invented his own, different scenario. Yet out in guilter world, psychopathology persists as if Massei made some positive reference supporting it.

It seems to me that this can be used to prove neither psychopathology nor the ability to be agnostic on the subject.

So when you say, "I don't see any reference to Massei referring to Amanda as either being or not being a psychopath," and then quote a passage which refers to both RS and AK as being otherwise fairly normal, I really don't know what else to say, except....

.... that the lingering and baseless character assassination done at trial has done its job, with no evidence to back it up, has worked. To even be agnostic on this subject is to buy into evidenceless, baseless conclusions. At some point you want to believe it just because you want to believe it.

I actually don't know what else to say. If it is not obvious what Massei is basing his assessment of the absence of "psychopathology" on passages as per above, with nothing else really said by him on the subject..... well, you get the point.

Thanks. I just wrote a longer reply but managed to delete it by accident. Will just say that I am happy Massei quite clearly does not see A and R as psychopaths.

 

[Strozzi]

I choked on my waffles and maple syrup when I read this.

I still want to know if Machiavelli understands that the lady's odor molecules are her DNA and that the process by which he came in contact with them is contamination.

 

[kwill]

Wow, Amanda's replies to the haters on her blog are just incredible. Warm, clear, direct, responsive, intelligent.

To read them, and then to happen here upon frothy insistence that she's a lying sociopathic narcissistic party girl is to see through the looking glass. I'm getting a better-than-textbook education in how strong self-delusion can be.

This morning Amanda posts that she's taken the link to Meredith's family's fundraiser off her page:

I feel trapped in a position where any attempts I make to respect their grief from a distance are perceived as indifference, and any attempts to make a connection are perceived as antagonism and arrogance.

Sounds about right. She can't ever be forgiven for something she had nothing to do with. I don't know how many people could hold up under that kind of weight.

 

[andreajo]

She can't ever be forgiven for something she had nothing to do with. I don't know how many people could hold up under that kind of weight.

Amanda must have a strong support system. I worry about Raffaele, though. In addition to everything else, he must feel betrayed by his own country. In his book, he refers to himself as 'Mr. Nobody' in the aftermath of Meredith's murder. His dad is certainly there for him. I hope there is a wider support network out there for him as well.

 

[kwill]

Amanda must have a strong support system. I worry about Raffaele, though. In addition to everything else, he must feel betrayed by his own country. In his book, he refers to himself as 'Mr. Nobody' in the aftermath of Meredith's murder. His dad is certainly there for him. I hope there is a wider support network out there for him as well.

Yeah. He's the bystander who got caught up and continues to be. One thing he said in his book that has stuck with me and rings truer with each passing year is that "they arrested us because they didn't like us."

That was the basis of the original case: There's just something wrong with these two. Let's force them to say something incriminating and figure out the evidence later.

He's going to have to build a life outside Italy, which is just unbelievably wrong, but there it is. Exiled, jailed, vilified for falling for a pretty girl, spending a single week with her, and refusing to lie about her.

 

[moodstream]

Yesterday, Andrea Vogt wrote:



In September, Machiavelli wrote:



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!

That is an excellent point. Since Machiavelli knows that the tests were performed, and who performed them, Machiavelli has a duty to come forward with this information.

Machiavelli, can you post the details ( names, dates, location of certificates) since you know them as you have said, or do you actually not know them and were not being truthful in your earlier posts?

 

[tsig]

Machiavelli, I can only read this with a sigh. To me, it is no wonder that you don't even try to put together a coherent narrative concerning guilt. You simply cherry pick within each element to make Knox seem the most "guilty", even if you contradict yourself on other points.

Please remember that the essence of your argument about the interrogation, was that Knox could "choose not to sleep," and therefore was fresh and ready to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators..... ..... so much so, that on the basis of the "See you later" mistranslation (well done Anna Donnino), the cops went out and broke down Patrick Lumumba's door with nothing else against him.

Then when they had to let him go and squeeze Rudy in to the crime - because all the forensics pointed to him and him alone - they had to paint Knox as an Academy Award winning actress as a cover for the incompetence of the PLE/Mignini.
Which is it Machiavelli? Do you simply make this up as you go?

I thought they were a clown posse who couldn't investigate straight?

Or maybe they had on garlic flavored after shave?

 

[moodstream]

This is so wrong. Everyone knows that Canadian girls smell like maple syrup. And maple syrup is Yummi.

Maybe from her scent Machiavelli could tell she was a pusher for the Canadian Maple Syrup Syndicate

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli, I can only read this with a sigh. To me, it is no wonder that you don't even try to put together a coherent narrative concerning guilt. You simply cherry pick within each element to make Knox seem the most "guilty", even if you contradict yourself on other points.

Please remember that the essence of your argument about the interrogation, was that Knox could "choose not to sleep," and therefore was fresh and ready to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators.....
..... so much so, that on the basis of the "See you later" mistranslation (well done Anna Donnino), the cops went out and broke down Patrick Lumumba's door with nothing else against him.

Then when they had to let him go and squeeze Rudy in to the crime - because all the forensics pointed to him and him alone - they had to paint Knox as an Academy Award winning actress as a cover for the incompetence of the PLE/Mignini.
Which is it Machiavelli? Do you simply make this up as you go?

I thought they were a clown posse who couldn't investigate straight?

Or maybe they had on garlic flavored after shave?

You think right. They WERE a clown posse. The point is that Machiavelli thinks of Knox as both a bad actress (witness his comments about her in court), as well as an exceptional actress at interrogation. Both cannot be true.

Because if they were NOT a clown posse, then this bad actress should not have been able to fool them with some nonsensical story about being at the cottage. Not if they'd been competent investigators.

It's what cops in the U.S. learned as a result of The Central Park Five - all five of whom confessed, on videotape, to crimes they did not do. From this point of view, and with 20/20 hindsight, it is impossible to look at those tapes (cf. Sarah Burns documentary) and think they were describing the crime they'd been accused of.

Any non-clown posse would have taken their confession and, if they'd been competent, released them. They'd just proved they knew nothing of the crime - to the only other possibility is that something else was going on to make them confess. Maybe they're covering for someone else, maybe the cops themselves had subtly coerced them, maybe this was a way to make a name for themselves, whatever...

Point is, that now cops get training to spot false confessions - sending people home instead of to jail and 6 years of wrongful prosecution.

This is a lot better than Machiavelli, who simply makes up factoids as he goes, and doesn't really care if they are conflicting factoids.

 

[Grinder]

I thought they were a clown posse who couldn't investigate straight?

It would seem that given all the mistakes made that we can assume they resemble a clown posse or the keystone kops but that doesn't mean they weren't seasoned.

These same kops went after Napoleoni's ex and his court appointed shrink to "influence" the outcome of a child custody dispute. In that case they were caught and are "in the system" currently.

I would say as members of the clown posse they would be more likely to improperly employ "inetrview" techniques that produce bad results.

While I can see someone thinking that the kids were involved and haven't proven their innocence, I can't see how anybody can think the PLE did a good job. If I were a PGP I would be furious with them for leaving so many loose ends and obvious screw-up such as the computers, lack of interrogation recordings, lack of photos of the ground outside and wall under Filomena's window, trashing of the cottage without recording their actions, allowing break-ins after the murder and removal of Meredith's mattress, "finding" test records in a garage etc.

Or maybe they had on garlic flavored after shave?

How would that impact anything?

 

[Rolfe]

Scent or body odour are not DNA, by the way.

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not saying being innocent is sufficient for being without fear.
But it is one necessary thing.

I'd like to have some of whatever drugs you are taking. There are very guilty people that walk around without fear. They are called sociopaths. Garry Ridgeway, a famous serial killer that killed more than 50 women in the Seattle area over a dozen years said that he never was really afraid of being caught.

Fear has nothing to do with guilt or innocence except while under immediate investigation.

This was personified by the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele compared to Rudy immediately following Meredith's murder. Amanda and Raffaele knew that they had nothing to do with Meredith's murder and they harbored no fear of being caught and incarcerated or convicted of the crime. Amanda and Raffaele, were there from minute one on. They were naive and didn't lawyer up, they answered all the questions. Amanda felt extremely confident that she was going to be acquitted during the first trial, never dreaming that a jury would find her guilty of the crime she didn't commit.

Compare this to Rudy, who disappeared and fled the country after the crime, even though no one was hunting him. This is because he knew he was guilty, and was afraid of being caught.

Amanda faces a far different situation today. She is afraid, because she knows it matters little that she is innocent of the crime. She has already spent 4 years of her life in a hell hole. Amanda knows, that she could still find herself behind bars for a good part of her life. Who wouldn't be afraid under such circumstances?

Could you Machiavelli honestly say that you would not be also afraid if you had to face this possibility?

 

[acbytesla]

Seasoned investigators or clown posse? Why can't they be both???? Do you think the clowns at a Ringling Brothers circus aren't seasoned? That they don't practice their craft?

Golf pros knows this axiom very well. Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

The Perugian authorities are a seasoned clown posse.

They are not experts at catching the bad guys. They are however, experts at catching the wrong guys. See the MOF and Kercher cases.