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

[Machiavelli]

On the contrary, the claim that Guede committed a sexual assault after cutting Meredith's throat is based purely on physical evidence, as opposed to a feeble tissue of speculation about what could have happened.

With due respect you seem to grossly ignore the implication of physical evidence related to the autopsy. You called Meredith's assault a "brief confrontation". You simply ignore the existence of a whole pattern of injuries.

Then you also sweep away the needed explanation of other evidence, like the blood traces in bathroom and bathmat, modus operandi etc.

The problem is that your reasoning is the following: you place a Guede-alone scenario as axiome, and the rest gets rationalized upon it in the most vague and improbable and unfounded ways, or ignored.

 

[Bill Williams]

With due respect you seem to grossly ignore the implication of physical evidence related to the autopsy. You called Meredith's assault a "brief confrontation". You simply ignore the existence of a whole pattern of injuries.

Then you also sweep away the needed explanation of other evidence, like the blood traces in bathroom and bathmat, modus operandi etc.

The problem is that your reasoning is the following: you place a Guede-alone scenario as axiome, and the rest gets rationalized upon it in the most vague and improbable and unfounded ways, or ignored.

You really need to read the Massei report, Machiavelli. Massei does NOT rule out a single attacker on the basis you suggest. Why is it that guilters/haters ignore the Massei report? That is a puzzle.

 

[codyjuneau]

Whenever I argue with Grinder, I think I'm 11 again....

.
I wonder if that would work for me also? It's worth a try I guess.
.

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda's recounting? I am based ont the English girls and roommates testimonies, obviously not on Knox's declarations.
Knox's recollection included a "blaming of victim", while offering an obviously false account: among other absurdities she said about the blood stains in the bathroom, she said she didn't worry about the 20 cm blood stain on the mat because she thought it could have been menstrual blood from Meredith, so nothing to worry about. Reality: leaving smears of menstrual blood, this is what Meredith complained with her for, because it was something that she found unnerving, and given that - as everybody knew, including Knox - Meredith was extremely clean and was fussy about clean bathroom, and she would have just never left patches of blood on the bathmat.
Knox perfectly knew that she would never do that, no way she could have thought that such behaviour could have been a casual behaviour of Meredith and that it happened there was nothing to worry about. No way.
Knox is projecting her own "blame" on another person. While perfectly knowing - and she admits it elsewhere - that it didn't belong to that person.
She is, technically, "blaming the victim" - projecting her own flaws and shameful sides on the victim; she's taking a revenge, returning blame. It's resentment, it's a most typical red flag, it's what murderers do.

Once again, men's minds are going where no woman's mind has gone before. In the span of time they had lived together, very few menstrual periods would have occurred per housemate -- no more than three and as few as one or none -- certainly not enough for anyone to get familiar with the other's habits, if, by some strange fluke of social anomaly, one had chosen to be public with hers.

When it occurred to Amanda that the blood she saw might have been Meredith's menstrual blood, the only thing that was going through her mind was that if you see blood in a woman's bathroom, it is very possible -- even probable -- that it is menstrual in origin. It's not that uncommon.

You think that Amanda is projecting shame, shifting blame and accusing Meredith of doing something "unnerving," because you find the appearance of menstrual blood shameful, unnerving and something to be blamed for. Some of us are more like, "Meh."

ETA: And it is possible for a young, menstruating woman to take a shower without a tampon and to step out onto a bathmat with menstrual fluid running down her leg and form a footprint. It can take many women several years to get familiar with and gain the kind of control they want over their bodily functions.

 

[andreajo]

As much as giving wild parties


Or organizing pranks that cause "distress" and "shock".
Or having phone contacts with the Perugia drug dealers.

Does this lead to committing a murder? Usually not.

But on the other hand you are accusing Guede of a very peculiar crime, of committing a very violent murder (not typical of murders committed by burglars), and of sexually abusing of a corpse (basically of being very rare, extreme kind of criminal profile).
Is there evidence of that? Zero.

Well, somebody did it and his DNA is in and on her body. He was there, and there is nothing other than his word to suggest that he had been invited there by anybody. That is pretty suggestive.

And people here talk as if there was a kind of logical contiguity between committing a theft and being a serial killer who rapes dying women.

He only killed one person, so he won't be a serial killer unless he does it again when he is released from prison.

The two things seem close to each other in some people's minds.
I guess they tend to look closer in particular when if the person doesn't have a too light coloured skin and didn't attent the Seattle Prep.

I come from an interesting family. Some of my nearest and dearest are culturally Amanda-like geeky study abroad types who smoke dope. Some have an African background with a shaky early start like Guede. They are all good people. I don't believe race is an issue in my perception of his sole responsibility in this crime.

Btw, you also accuse Guede of acting through ha series of improbable actions, each one of them unusual, something cmpletely inconsistent; but that's another topic.

The end result of murder is unusual. Some of the lead-up actions might be unusual.

In your mind necrophyiliac killer and thief they becomes contiguous concepts when it comes to Guede.

His DNA was in her. He left her to die. What else should we think?

Actually there isn't any logical link. Certainly not more than between Amanda's parties-drug dealers contacts-pranks-casual sex lifestyle and the scenario of a murder committed by drugged idiots who realized they had lost control.

It is better to use the right name for the drug instead of just saying "drugged idiots". Marijuana is not famous for its violence inducing qualities. Anyway, the prior burglaries just tell us what he was doing in the house, not whether he had tendencies toward sexual violence. It is his DNA inside her and on her bra that tells us about the sexual violence.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The problem is that your reasoning is the following: you place a Guede-alone scenario as axiome, and the rest gets rationalized upon it in the most vague and improbable and unfounded ways, or ignored.

Huh. Who would do such a thing?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Once again, men's minds are going where no woman's mind has gone before. In the span of time they had lived together, very few menstrual periods would have occurred per housemate -- no more than three and as few as one or none -- certainly not enough for anyone to get familiar with the other's habits, if, by some strange fluke of social anomaly, one had chosen to be public with hers.

When it occurred to Amanda that the blood she saw might have been Meredith's menstrual blood, the only thing that was going through her mind was that if you see blood in a woman's bathroom, it is very possible -- even probable -- that it is menstrual in origin. It's not that uncommon.

You think that Amanda is projecting shame, shifting blame and accusing Meredith of doing something "unnerving," because you find the appearance of menstrual blood shameful, unnerving and something to be blamed for. Some of us are more like, "Meh."

ETA: And it is possible for a young, menstruating woman to take a shower without a tampon and to step out onto a bathmat with menstrual fluid running down her leg and forming a footprint. It can take many women several years to get familiar with and gain the kind of control she wants over her bodily functions.

I actually have to disagree with this last statement, at least the way you worded it. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think one can ever control that particular bodily function. That is exactly why women are not shocked or appalled by blood in a bathroom. Yes, you would clean it up, but often you don't even realize it until a later time. It must be nice to be male.

 

[Diocletus]

Amanda's recounting? I am based ont the English girls and roommates testimonies, obviously not on Knox's declarations.
Knox's recollection included a "blaming of victim", while offering an obviously false account: among other absurdities she said about the blood stains in the bathroom, she said she didn't worry about the 20 cm blood stain on the mat because she thought it could have been menstrual blood from Meredith, so nothing to worry about. Reality: leaving smears of menstrual blood, this is what Meredith complained with her for, because it was something that she found unnerving, and given that - as everybody knew, including Knox - Meredith was extremely clean and was fussy about clean bathroom, and she would have just never left patches of blood on the bathmat.
Knox perfectly knew that she would never do that, no way she could have thought that such behaviour could have been a casual behaviour of Meredith and that it happened there was nothing to worry about. No way.
Knox is projecting her own "blame" on another person. While perfectly knowing - and she admits it elsewhere - that it didn't belong to that person.
She is, technically, "blaming the victim" - projecting her own flaws and shameful sides on the victim; she's taking a revenge, returning blame. It's resentment, it's a most typical red flag, it's what murderers do.

I thought Meredith got all uppity about a skid mark. And a vibrator. Now it's menstrual blood, too? Geesh. No wonder they wanted to engage in a sex game: poop and menstrual blood will do that to a gal.

 

[Bill Williams]

In rereading the Massei report, it becomes clear why Crini (and by extension Machiavelli) needs to keep Exhibit 36 (the kitchen knife) in play. But it is also clear why both Crini and Machiavelli now need to argue against Massei!

The RIS Carabinieri have all but ruled out a DNA-connection between that knife and Meredith Kercher. So what Crini does (and by extension Machiavelli) is to now, after 6 years of no one at all mentioning it, say that the kitchen knife is a match (or compatible with) the knife outline on the sheet. There is, in Crini's world, evidence of only one knife.

To be clear, no one has said this in 6 years, the only reason a guilter needs to say this is because of the RIS Carabinieri report. Indeed it was the incompatibility of the kitchen knife with the sheet outline that caused Mignini in the original trial to posit (with no evidence other than his assertion) two knives. In short, Mignini was too embarrassed 5 years ago to posit what Crini (and by extension Machiavelli) are now contending in their desperation to reinvent the crime.

But in rereading Massei.... despite receiving many, many forensic reports saying that all the wounds could be accounted for by positing a single attacker, Massei makes reference to two knives as the reason why he decided that there were, despite the experts saying otherwise, multiple attackers.

Massei needed to have Exhibit 36 make at least some of the wounds - and the existence of the sheet outline meant two knives, and ergo two (or more) attackers.....

.... again all this despite many experts at the first trial saying this was not necessarily so and that the wounds can be accounted for by one attacker.

This truly IS a case where Machiavelli meeds to familiarize himself with how Massei puts together this crime.

But it was not the nature of the wounds, really, it was that if there were two knives, then the wounds had to have been (in a guilter scenario) made by each of them.

Despite what Machiavelli says, there's actually no reason really to suspect two knives.... unless you're Massei trying to squeeze two into the crime.

What's telling is that if now the Exhibit 36 IS a match for the bedsheet stain.... then we're back to one knife - which by itself could not have made all the wounds.

Machiavellis and Crini's hypothesis cannot hold to scrutiny... it cannot even hold to what Massei claims.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

As much as giving wild parties


Or organizing pranks that cause "distress" and "shock".
Or having phone contacts with the Perugia drug dealers.

Does this lead to committing a murder? Usually not.

But on the other hand you are accusing Guede of a very peculiar crime, of committing a very violent murder (not typical of murders committed by burglars), and of sexually abusing of a corpse (basically of being very rare, extreme kind of criminal profile).
Is there evidence of that? Zero.
And people here talk as if there was a kind of logical contiguity between committing a theft and being a serial killer who rapes dying women.
The two things seem close to each other in some people's minds.
I guess they tend to look closer in particular when if the person doesn't have a too light coloured skin and didn't attent the Seattle Prep.

Btw, you also accuse Guede of acting through ha series of improbable actions, each one of them unusual, something cmpletely inconsistent; but that's another topic.

In your mind necrophyiliac killer and thief they becomes contiguous concepts when it comes to Guede.
Actually there isn't any logical link. Certainly not more than between Amanda's parties-drug dealers contacts-pranks-casual sex lifestyle and the scenario of a murder committed by drugged idiots who realized they had lost control.

You really sound like a Guede apologist with all of this. You do realize he absolutely committed a crime there, don't you? Do you believe he stood by and watched in horror as an innocent man? Do you realize his dna was inside of Meredith and on her purse? He most definitely violated her and stole from her. In fact, he savagely murdered her too.

 

[Mary_H]

I actually have to disagree with this last statement, at least the way you worded it. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think one can ever control that particular bodily function. That is exactly why women are not shocked or appalled by blood in a bathroom. Yes, you would clean it up, but often you don't even realize it until a later time. It must be nice to be male.

But you know I hate it when you disagree with me!

Okay, I'll give you that one, because sure enough, once you figure out how to handle one stage of life, another one sneaks up on you and changes everything around.

 

[Diocletus]

Once again, men's minds are going where no woman's mind has gone before. In the span of time they had lived together, very few menstrual periods would have occurred per housemate -- no more than three and as few as one or none -- certainly not enough for anyone to get familiar with the other's habits, if, by some strange fluke of social anomaly, one had chosen to be public with hers.

When it occurred to Amanda that the blood she saw might have been Meredith's menstrual blood, the only thing that was going through her mind was that if you see blood in a woman's bathroom, it is very possible -- even probable -- that it is menstrual in origin. It's not that uncommon.

You think that Amanda is projecting shame, shifting blame and accusing Meredith of doing something "unnerving," because you find the appearance of menstrual blood shameful, unnerving and something to be blamed for. Some of us are more like, "Meh."

ETA: And it is possible for a young, menstruating woman to take a shower without a tampon and to step out onto a bathmat with menstrual fluid running down her leg and forming a footprint. It can take many women several years to get familiar with and gain the kind of control they want over their bodily functions.

Italian men are scared to death of menstruation. Also, they live with their moms.

 

[Bill Williams]

Every once in a while Machiavelli says something particularly outrageous.....

But on the other hand you are accusing Guede of a very peculiar crime, of committing a very violent murder (not typical of murders committed by burglars), and of sexually abusing of a corpse (basically of being very rare, extreme kind of criminal profile).
Is there evidence of that? Zero.

You mean other than his non-sperm DNA inside the victim? Why do you argue this way, Machiavelli? Why are you trying to defend Guede so?

 

[Paninaro]

As much as giving wild parties
Or organizing pranks that cause "distress" and "shock".
Or having phone contacts with the Perugia drug dealers.

Does this lead to committing a murder? Usually not.

OK, but now we're discussing how common attacks on women by a burglar are. From what I can gather they are quite common.

BTW, can't you tell us the name of the drug dealer and exactly what his alleged connection with Knox could have been? You have given us the name of his lawyers. It's an interesting subject.

But on the other hand you are accusing Guede of a very peculiar crime, of committing a very violent murder (not typical of murders committed by burglars),

What is a typical murder committed by a burglar then?

and of sexually abusing of a corpse (basically of being very rare, extreme kind of criminal profile).
Is there evidence of that? Zero.

Well, I'm not sure exactly a what point he attacked her sexually, only that he did.

And people here talk as if there was a kind of logical contiguity between committing a theft and being a serial killer who rapes dying women.

There is a logical continuity in that it does seem to happen that burglars and home intruders attack women they come upon while entering their homes illegally. I don't think that Guede did any planning at all beforehand and I don't believe he wanted to kill Meredith. One thing led to another.

I cannot understand what you think is unlikely about the idea of a burglar attacking a woman he runs into more or less by chance. From my links it seems to be a common enough crime?

The two things seem close to each other in some people's minds.
I guess they tend to look closer in particular when if the person doesn't have a too light coloured skin and didn't attent the Seattle Prep.

As I understand it, there is no connection made by people by theft in general and rape and murder, only that home intrusion and burglary sometimes leads to the perpetrator attacking a woman. And that seems to be true, if the newspaper reports I've linked to are right?

BTW, you also accuse Guede of acting through ha series of improbable actions, each one of them unusual, something cmpletely inconsistent; but that's another topic.

I don't agree that the actions of Guede to first break in to the house and then end up murdering Ketch in itself is improbable. You could theoretically be right that they become improbable due to the established facts, but that is another thing completely.

In your mind necrophyiliac killer and thief they becomes contiguous concepts when it comes to Guede.

I don't think that's an accurate description of my position.

Actually there isn't any logical link. Certainly not more than between Amanda's parties-drug dealers contacts-pranks-casual sex lifestyle and the scenario of a murder committed by drugged idiots who realized they had lost control.

Again, in what sense is the crime of a burglar attacking a woman and in some cases killing her lacking logic? There seems to be empirical proof this happens.

 

[Skind]

Once again, men's minds are going where no woman's mind has gone before. In the span of time they had lived together, very few menstrual periods would have occurred per housemate -- no more than three and as few as one or none -- certainly not enough for anyone to get familiar with the other's habits, if, by some strange fluke of social anomaly, one had chosen to be public with hers.

When it occurred to Amanda that the blood she saw might have been Meredith's menstrual blood, the only thing that was going through her mind was that if you see blood in a woman's bathroom, it is very possible -- even probable -- that it is menstrual in origin. It's not that uncommon.

You think that Amanda is projecting shame, shifting blame and accusing Meredith of doing something "unnerving," because you find the appearance of menstrual blood shameful, unnerving and something to be blamed for. Some of us are more like, "Meh."

ETA: And it is possible for a young, menstruating woman to take a shower without a tampon and to step out onto a bathmat with menstrual fluid running down her leg and forming a footprint. It can take many women several years to get familiar with and gain the kind of control they want over their bodily functions.

More to the point - there's certainly nothing to indicate that Meredith was "extremely clean" and ample evidence that she wasn't.

Sure, she would have been "extremely clean" if she was a man, but all visual evidence available from her bedroom indicates she was well within the norm for a young woman - indeed, she was still evidently in the "blu-tack and posters" phase many young students go through.

Had she been extremely clean, there's little chance she would have left the bed as it was when she went out, she would certainly not have left her shelf as it was, her toileteries would not be out like they were and her wardrobe would be properly organised not with the stuff dumped on the base.

Compared to the organisation evident in Luara and Knox's room, Meredith would be at best third in my estimation of the cleanest people in the house.

Also, some people who are "extremely clean" are so precisely because they don't like touching anything with dirt on. It's entirely compatible with Knox's thoughts for Meredith to be "Extremely clean" AND responsible for a period patch*.

In short, Meredith being "extremely clean" is simply incompatible with the evidence present.

*yes, this is the term we used to use in army cadets when female cadets had left menstrual blood on bedding, in the toilet, on the toilet walls, on bathroom floors, in shower blocks; near, around and sometimes in the sanitary towel bin. The patch on the floor is tame compared to what I had seen by the time I was 18.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If all posters on this forums at once declare now that they don't belive Lumumba was ever mistreated by the police as teh Daily Mail says, then I will "learn" it.

Otherwise, I will think that you decide to believe the Daily Mail rather selectively.

I point out btw that Knox supporters were calling the April fool prank story "a lie" for years, until a week ago.

It was in fact a thoroughly malicious lie. It was presented as a prank in which mock intruders wearing ski masks pretended they were going to rape someone. That is the story your cult has been spreading for years, and it is not at all what happened.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip> It's entirely compatible with Knox's thoughts for Meredith to be "Extremely clean" AND responsible for a period patch*.

*yes, this is the term we used to use in army cadets when female cadets had left menstrual blood on bedding, in the toilet, on the toilet walls, on bathroom floors, in shower blocks; near, around and sometimes in the sanitary towel bin. The patch on the floor is tame compared to what I had seen by the time I was 18.

OMG, that is the perfect phrase, one I had not heard before.

The residence you describe sounds like the image they used for Amanda and Meredith's bathroom in newspaper photos.

 

[Grinder]

.
I wonder if that would work for me also? It's worth a try I guess.
.

give it a shot but I'm only good a 3 year reduction in age

 

[Machiavelli]

Once again, men's minds are going where no woman's mind has gone before. In the span of time they had lived together, very few menstrual periods would have occurred per housemate -- no more than three and as few as one or none -- certainly not enough for anyone to get familiar with the other's habits, if, by some strange fluke of social anomaly, one had chosen to be public with hers.

When it occurred to Amanda that the blood she saw might have been Meredith's menstrual blood, the only thing that was going through her mind was that if you see blood in a woman's bathroom, it is very possible -- even probable -- that it is menstrual in origin. It's not that uncommon.

You seem to simply ignore what we are talking about, and you slip into being offensive to Meredith yourself. We are talking about something that Meredith herself complained for. Something that she, herself described as unnerving. We also know that Amanda was well aware that Meredith was very clean and we know that she had pointed out (also with friends and roommates) Amanda’s not being clean.
Amanda Knox knew that Meredith would found such behaviour unacceptable.
And you say not that uncommon: we are talking about a 20 centimetre blood stain, actually a bathmat splotched with ten stains, and blood in the bathroom other three or four places. Maybe for some people that’s common, but Knox knew very well that for Meredith it was not, she knew it did not look common nor acceptable to her because she was told about how annoying this was to Meredith.

You think that Amanda is projecting shame, shifting blame and accusing Meredith of doing something "unnerving," because you find the appearance of menstrual blood shameful, unnerving and something to be blamed for. Some of us are more like, "Meh."

Not just menstrual blood, the toilet cleaning habits and poor toilet hygiene of Knox that were unnerving to Meredith. Not because it’s me finding them unnerving myself, but because Meredith is reported by testimonies of finding them unnerving. And about shame and blame, again it’s not me projecting: the topic of Knox habits and the peculiar relation with the crime scene includes other things, is not limited to menstrual blood: she was also blamed for leaving feces in the toilet, and for leaving around dirty toilet paper. Again it is not me thinking “may be something to be blamed for”: there is no “may be”, Knox was blamed for this and the topic was reportedly embarrassing in the opinions of Meredith and her friends.
The fact that Knox projects these things on others (leaves the toilet unflushed – despite she dries her hair there – decides to leave it there and highlights the presence of the feces repeatedly, pointing out the responsibility of someone else; then projects the “normality” of leaving patches of menstrual blood on someone else too ) it’s an obvious indication that she wants to put distance between these things an her, share them with others, reduce the degree of her “blame”. She was the one who was accused of leaving feces, and she is the one pointing out that it’s not her, it’s someone else: it’s an obvious defensive behaviour, an attempt to straighten the scale.

ETA: And it is possible for a young, menstruating woman to take a shower without a tampon and to step out onto a bathmat with menstrual fluid running down her leg and forming a footprint. It can take many women several years to get familiar with and gain the kind of control they want over their bodily functions.

Sorry, I’ve never seen a footprint in blood in my life. I’ve never seen a 20 centimetre blood patch in a bathroom. You need to step in a blood pool to produce something like that. I wouldn’t consider that “normal” if I saw that, I’m not saying it’s impossible blood patches like that, I’m saying it’s not normal. But anyway the point is, Knox knew it wouldn’t be considered normal by Meredith. She knew that that would be not normal for Meredith but doesn’t say that, in her e-mail and police account; she does not say Meredith was extremely clean, and does not talk about Paola Grande putting a 5 euros fine whenever Knox would fail to comply with a cleaning shift. Knox describes possible menstrual blood around attributed to Meredith suggesting that could be something normal, something that could be related to Meredith as a normal occurrence. When in fact it could had been attributed to her out of a complaint, as a behaviour that belonged specifically to “her”, attributed to her by some people who manifested some kind of disgust or repulsion for her habits and considered her “not clean”.

 

[Skind]

OMG, that is the perfect phrase, one I had not heard before.

The residence you describe sounds like the image they used for Amanda and Meredith's bathroom in newspaper photos.

Yes, the one thing people seem to forget is that there was no sign that anyone had cut themselves or otherwise had an accident that could account for the bleeding.

No chopping board and knife left out with blood on them, no broken glass with blood on it, no broken bottles, no package and knife with blood on from cutting yourself when opening, no bloody towels left around, no first aid kit out, no phone call, no ambulance outside, no neighbour waiting inside.....

The only rational explanation left for an innocent Knox is that it must be menstrual blood.

A guilty Knox can make up any one of a half dozen scenarios and explain them away as "didn't make sense" - which is exactly the state of mind she's supposed to be pretending to be in under a guilty scenario!