Note the desperation here... how Knox's participation in an April Fools prank many years previous, a prank participated in with others, a prank which led neither Knox nor the others into a life of crime, is rolled into this.....
Yummi said:
This is, in a nutshell, the Prosecutor General Crini’s idea about motive. Even if he does not put a genesis theory inclusive of planned prank into the equation.
He says there is no evidence that the three had planned doing something specific to Meredith, like a prank or a planned sex assault. He calls a planned scenario “unnecessary”, while he does not state for sure that there wasn’t any; there is just no specific evidence of it.
However, this does not change the dynamic of the crime into nothing but details about the previous time, the genesis of the previous context.
It most certainly DOES change the dynamic of the crime. If Crini wants to keep Raffaele's kitchen knife in this scenario.... what's the explanation for the transport of the knife? Like Massei had to do, he'd have to invent some reason for carrying that knife - or has Crini conceded that the RIS Carabinieri DNA evidence has ruled out that knife?
For from not "changing the dynamic of the crime, there now IS NO DYNAMIC OF THE CRIME, other than the dispute over the pooh."
Yummi said:
Crini sticks to the most simple and stark elements needed for an explanation using the known factual elements, he says the background behind an emerging argument - the prior “genesis” of some conflict, especially that lead to possibility to spark arguments on Meredith’s part - should be considered the disagreements about house managements, meaning habits related to the sharing of the house.
The sharing of a common space is one certain background, one sure terrain where an argument or negative emotions must have sparked from. (This obviously does not rule out likely contribution by other causal factors).
How did the potential conflict, anger or annoyance on Meredith’s part, come to emerge and generate an argument at a specific moment? And in what situation did this happen?
Great question. Most people will read your explanation below, and see that you have not answered it. You've only tried to stage the question in some sort of vilifying manner hoping that guilt sticks with no answer.
Yummi said:
The path leading to this event, did it go through a planned prank? Through an annoying party or else? We don’t know.
Talk about a strawman argument. Are you saying here that Amanda made Rudy pooh in Filomena's toilet on purpose? As a prank which would knowingly annoy Meredith so that Amanda would have an excuse to stab her?
No wonder you only ask this as a question - because when it's pointed out to you how ridiculous this is, you have plenty of backpedalling room, "I was only asking the question!"
Strange - I thought you were advancing a theory of this crime! No wonder you have not tried until now.
Yummi said:
It’s possible that something was going on which we will never know. However the one thing we know, somethign that must have occurred on this path, is the physical, certain elements, are the unflushed toilet and the presence of Rudy Guede.
In other words, confirmation bias. "We know she killed Meredith so it must have happened in some manner, otherwise she didn't kill Meredith. But we know she did."
Yummi said:
These are elements that are certain and that must have played a role, as they would generate a complain on the part of Meredith, anger against Knox’s behaviours which were already complained about, and may well indicate that Meredith felt disturbed by the invading of her home space (unknown men, noise, dirt, and maybe the invasion of her private space, touching money in her private room as Guede’s testified). And this behaviour generated an argument.
This is terribly disrespectful of Meredith. It portrays Meredith as petty and prone to anger at petty things, and NO ONE thinks that, except perhaps for you. Moreover it contradicts Massei's motivations report which essentially says that both Meredith and Amanda led the same lifestyle. Have you not read the reasoning Massei uses for not testing the presumed semen stain under the victims hips? In deference to Meredith, I will let you read that for yourself, and not re-repost that here.
Yummi said:
The key point of reasoning of Crini was that the assault on Meredith had both the nature of sexual violence, and the nature of violent hate aggression. However, the component of rage aggression was predominant over the sexual violence component, which should be considered a minor aspect.
The aggression was triggered by rage more than by sexual arousal. The sexual violence is a kind of accessory. This is my understanding of Crini’s argument. But as being an accessory, it is also a kind of pretext.
A drugged-up Knox may not be able to stand the bursting humiliation of being insulted and threatned to be thrown out from the apartment or maybe accused of things involving stealing or maybe other aspects of behaviour (sex, cleaning etc). The sexual harassement is a response intended to “win” and humiliate, a letting out a feeling of rage.
"The aggression was triggered by rage more than by sexual arousal." Where is there evidence of this, other than desparate speculation? "May not?" How many times must "Foxy Knoxy" be reinvented? I'm not talking here about Amanda Knox, but Foxy Knoxy? And this does not explain at all Raffaele's actions, nor Rudy's for that mattter.
Yummi said:
But at this point, when this happens, the actual motive sets in.
Only after all this, at this point, this is the moment when the “motive”, in Crini’s scenario, actually takes shape.
It is the motive that Earthling described: the motive for the killing is fear, on the part of Knox and Sollecito, about the ultimate consequences of their “prank”, or of Knox’s not being able to control her emotions and letting go her resentment in a way that she could not control - that none of the three was able to control.
When the three idiots realized that they had gone too forward, that they were committing a violence, and they would pay extreme consequence for it, they realized they were gone beyond a no-return point.
At this point, as for at least two of them, Sollecito and Knox, the victim needs to die. Because this was the only way they could silence her.
Crini explains this pointing at the element that summed up their terror and triggered their lethal response: Meredith’s scream. The traumatic memory about this scream, the terror that they themselves had, probably at the idea that someone could hear this scream, and their killing to stop the scream.
This is the "motive"? Based on what - an anonymous internet poster named "Earthling"? Have you people not read Judge Massei's motivations report, which says that the motive was Rudy's and Rudy's alone, it was Rudy's lust and he needed no urging from anyone else?
How many times do you people get to reinvent this crime out of thin air?
Fundamentally, this is a dishonour to Meredith.
, but I got right what Massei was saying the first time I read it - that Raffaele called the Carbainieri before the Postal Police arrived. When I read it I noted it for a second reason as well - the way Massei made the correction. Massei worded it to delicately correct the timing issue without calling attention to (repudiating) the prosecution for their glaring error. Massei made it sound like a minor correction, when it was a major error by the prosecution. The true time error made by the police or prosecution was in the range of 20-24 minutes (see below).
