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

[billyryan]

The first witness who brought information about the prank gave precise information, described an assault wearing ski masks. He/she did not talk about a "rape" prank. But information about date location and context were precise, not made up, so why should I assume the detail about ski masks should be false?
You that are sure what the witness said was not what happened? Why not the sky masks?
Amanda Knox didn't even answr abou the ski mask disguise in her first answer. That was an admission, but it was oily, evasive, a mention offering vague indications, saying what was not rather than what it was, and adding re-framing with judgemental statement - so not a clear answer to the things said by poster Celeste, not a description but half a description, half an admission of something.
Then in a following comment a couple of days later she offered the tiny additional bit of info that the prank "did not include" a dressing up.
But should we believe her?

Yet, she admitted to "shock" and "distress".
And the Daily Mail might get everyghint wrong, but it did not get wrong the stone throwing on the road, the administrative fine, the police report and the name of the officer.

At this point, maybe you fail to understand what the problem is.
I am talking from the point of view of an Italian, and I am talking to the Knox supporters. Those who were claiming that the story was a lie, that what trully happened is different.

How do you know that what happened was different? If you actually knew something happened and it was something "totally different", how did it happen that you didn't talk about it before?

Do you know what's the real problem with all this, in my view?
What is more meaningful to me, what is more striking and infurating, but above all more revealing, is that a group Knox's Seattle acquaintances knew everything about robbery prank, they well knew the story was true. At least 5-10 people knew everything about it from the beginning which means everyone knew something happened.
You say that what happened is not what was told by the "guilters".

But what the Seattle community around Knox told was SILENCE!

The truth might have been story different from a "rape prank" or different from "ski masks".
But the group of Seattellite acquaintances, they did not come out saying "this is what happened, it was something different, this is the truth".
The truth might have been a story that hase differences from the rumors.
But SILENCE WAS NOT THE TRUTH! Neither!

Ski masks may be false, may be "lie" (maybe), "rape" might be wrong, might be "lie".

But .... SILENCE WAS A LIE TOO

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Were you more coherent than this when the police interviewed you in the visitor section of the Florence courtroom on the 9th of January

 

[Strozzi]

It's so beyond offensive to the memory of Meredith. Are we now expected to believe that the kind, sensitive and non- confrontational Meredith was so outraged that her flatmate had some friends over, between 9-10pm and on a holiday weekend - that she started a big argument that so humiliated Amanda it induced her to murderous rage?

This is the same Meredith that stumbled home very drunk at 4am, which probably isn't the most considerate thing to do in a flatshare - but most students aren't bat-**** crazy about this stuff in the way the prosecution seem to imply

The Pro-Rudy arguments and the attempts to completely minimise his involvement is another sickening insult to Meredith. His DNA was found inside her vagina, yet he's all but forgotten.

It was stated in a recent post that Laura had a handyman friend stay overnight. If this is correct, I am glad to see that Meredith and Amanda were apparently not the only ones with male visitors. I want to ask a delicate subject, not because I am judgemental, but because I want to understand if Yummi, who appears to be advising the prosecution, is correct that Amanda put such stress on the relationship with her housemate. Is it known if Laura in fact had male companionship overnight? What about Filomena?

 

[Samson]

You should not import arguments from other forums. While we all assume that the poster in question is a member here, that is not a proven fact. The article you posted doesn't look like the writings of our Mach. it might have been written by someone who had been banned from this forum and therefore is not permitted to post here and not permitted to be posted here by proxy. If Machiavelli did write that, he can post it here himself. I don't think he wrote it because it looks like the writings of a prosecutors shill.

I must admit I expected censure formally or informally on the thread, but I am unsure what civility and protocols are going to aid A and R to recover their deserved status, citizens of the free world. Yummi is hell bent on denying them these rights. He is wrong in his opinions, and his facts. It is a structurally asymmetrical debate that appalls me beyond belief. The fake wiki The Machine is promoting with malice is fundamentalism at its most destructive, but I am geographically remote, and availed only of a broadband connection to form a view.

 

[RoseMontague]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

So now we are members of the mafia as well as racists? This is a big part of why nobody here takes your rants seriously. Your arguments are full of crazy theories and wild accusations. I dare to criticize people like Quintavalle because he is a lying liar. That has been sufficiently demonstrated as far as I am concerned. You daring to call me a racist and a mafia member is another matter entirely.

 

[Samson]

So now we are members of the mafia as well as racists? This is a big part of why nobody here takes your rants seriously. Your arguments are full of crazy theories and wild accusations. I dare to criticize people like Quintavalle because he is a lying liar. That has been sufficiently demonstrated as far as I am concerned. You daring to call me a racist and a mafia member is another matter entirely.

Of course Mach/Yummi is congratulated profusely when posting elsewhere, he couldn't care less what time Ms Kercher expired. Rolfe cares.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
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.

Yummi says...
"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."

Which part of the physical evidence related to the autopsy? You often mention this "evidence" but then you never elaborate just what this autopsy evidence is. As someone who has assisted in 1000 plus autopsies I have a little experience in these exams...so what are you referring to? Because...

This is key for me. Aspirated blood droplets on the outside of the bra. Plus aspirated blood droplets on the bare breasts. Those two bits of evidence tell a huge part of the story.

Meanwhile, your baseless speculation about number and location of wounds and how that indicates multiple attackers is just that... meaningless words and quite frankly wrong!

And then to argue in spite of the overwhelming evidence against Guede that his crime is somehow odd and rare is just crazy. It is quite easy to come up with a 100 cases of attacks on women in their homes that involved murder and some sort of sick sex...your own MOF removed female genitals right? A robbery turned attack with sexual violence and murder is dead common frankly.

OTOH a 4 way sexual game of ritualistic (day after Halloween according to Mignini) All Saints Day or Day of the Dead or whatever that idiot was trying to peddle is rare as hens teeth. Now add double knives, and staged break-in and a whole slew of suspicious police and prosecutor misconduct and you can start to add things up quite easily. (this would be called your rare case)

Corrupt fools trying to cover up major blunders...starting with allowing Guede the freedom to kill Miss Kercher when he should have been sitting in a jail cell waiting for his trial for burglary in a school with a deadly weapon. But no...something strange goes on in Milan and Perugia.

This is the case investigators and reporters should track down. Why is Guede not even arrested? No one brings a case against him? How is it possible? How does Mignini charge everyone except his own mother in this case but a week or two earlier he lets a dangerous, caught red handed, criminal roam free to kill a young innocent girl? There is your crime... and there is your motive to cover it up with a ludicrous case against innocent persons. The police and prosecutors of Milan and Perugia have much to hide IMHO.

And how is it that Rudy getting out on work release in just a few months exactly true justice for Meredith? It is a horrible twisting and denial of justice to promote a case against two innocent people while the real killer gets off easy. Where is the outrage from those that claim they want true justice?

 

[NancyS]

It was stated in a recent post that Laura had a handyman friend stay overnight. If this is correct, I am glad to see that Meredith and Amanda were apparently not the only ones with male visitors. I want to ask a delicate subject, not because I am judgemental, but because I want to understand if Yummi, who appears to be advising the prosecution, is correct that Amanda put such stress on the relationship with her housemate. Is it known if Laura in fact had male companionship overnight? What about Filomena?

Exactly - Meredith was a young, sexually active woman, who was possibly more sexually adventurous than many of her peers, who liked to stay out late drinking heavily with her friends - this in no way corresponds to someone who is horrified by flatmates having men to stay or flatmates having a bit of a party. I always thought Meredith sounded like a normal student who liked to have fun and got on well with everyone - yet it seems the prosecution is determined to turn her into a puritanical clean freak who gets angry with her flatmates/friends over minor household issues.

A flatmate bringing a man home is usually the subject of great interest and gossip - not murder.

I also remember my poor flatmate at university was given fybogel for IBS, she left us massive floaters for weeks. She was so embarrassed - but nobody was driven to murderous rage

 

[Dan O.]

The difference between me and other PGPers was I am willing to admit when I was wrong.

No. The difference is that you are an independent thinker. You are not dependent on the support of the group-think family that hangs at the guilter sites.

The guilters don't allow their members to have their own thoughts. One disagreement and it's "thanks for stopping bye". That group will turn on it's own members in a heartbeat. Even the ones that post here cannot truthfully answer questions that challenge their instilled beliefs because those answers will be challenged back home.

 

[Dan O.]

I must admit I expected censure formally or informally on the thread, but I am unsure what civility and protocols are going to aid A and R to recover their deserved status, citizens of the free world. Yummi is hell bent on denying them these rights. He is wrong in his opinions, and his facts. It is a structurally asymmetrical debate that appalls me beyond belief. The fake wiki The Machine is promoting with malice is fundamentalism at its most destructive, but I am geographically remote, and availed only of a broadband connection to form a view.

My beef is if Machiavelli wants his argument heard he should post it here himself. Because the rant was quoted from outside this board, I was denied the opportunity of nominating it as a guilter's summary of the case.

 

[zooterkin]

May I remind all participants, once again, to keep posts on topic for the thread, and to be civil towards one another.

The topic is "Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case"; it is not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[andreajo]

No. The difference is that you are an independent thinker. You are not dependent on the support of the group-think family that hangs at the guilter sites.

The guilters don't allow their members to have their own thoughts. One disagreement and it's "thanks for stopping bye". That group will turn on it's own members in a heartbeat. Even the ones that post here cannot truthfully answer questions that challenge their instilled beliefs because those answers will be challenged back home.

In contrast to the groupthink approach, Amanda allows dissenting voices in the moderated comments on her blog at amandaknox.com. She says:

I do allow what some would define as controversial commentary. I do so because I believe it is important to not be reticent about certain arguments and allow, as stated above, differing views so that they may be peer reviewed. I do not determine whether or not to allow a comment based on whether or not I agree with it.

 

[Diocletus]

I was researching my Ialian heritage and wanted to someday travel to Italy. Now I have ceased all research and I will never go to Italy. I am somewhat ashamed of my Italian heritage an the country in general.

Remember, Poppy: Your ancestors who got on the boat from Italy said to themselves "let's get the hell out of here." You should celebrate that bit of wisdom.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Didn't 7 out of 8 experts (excluding the Kercher's hired liar) say that the wounds were consistent with a single attacker? Obviously, they know a hell of a lot more than does internet poster "Machiavelli."

And, how many experts agreed that a single knife could have caused the wounds?

 

[Rolfe]

That's an awful lot of blood. Human bood volume is ~ 4 - 6 liters (or quarts). 3 quarts of blood would weigh ~6 lbs.

Total blood volume of a cat is about 250ml. Trust me on this. Half a pint? (I never heard of anyone measuring anything in quarts.)

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

But .... SILENCE WAS A LIE TOO

Silence is only a lie when there is a duty to speak.

No one ever had a duty to speak to you, or anyone else, about a college prank, so spare us the feigning of outrage.

In most normal countries, this evidence of a "prank" and a noise citation isn't even admissible. Problem is that in Italy, there is no demarcation between evidence and innuendo, and therefore no boundary between fact and fantasy. Trials seem to be a contest to see who can make up the most interesting stories. I understand that Italy has a long history where heralds, muses and soothsayers pass on epic stories, but a modern courtroom is no place for tall-tale telling.

 

[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.

Didn't 7 out of 8 experts (excluding the Kercher's hired liar) say that the wounds were consistent with a single attacker? Obviously, they know a hell of a lot more than does internet poster "Machiavelli."

And, how many experts agreed that a single knife could have caused the wounds?

Those experts now include both Crini and Machiavelli themselves.

Ever since the RIS Carabinieri all-but removed Raffaele's kitchen knife from the case (Exhibit 36) they have been desperate to bring it back, by trying to make it seem that it caused the bedsheet outline.

If it IS the bedsheet outline, there's no indication that a second knife was used, as the only reason a second knife was even posited to begin with was because Exhibit 36 was deemed, even by Mignini, unable to have caused all the wounds.

Without the bedsheet outline being a second knife - or without Exhibit 37 being the second knife because it's been ruled out - both Crini and Machiavelli are, in essence, arguing for one knife, too.

This is the problem with lack of a comprehensive narrative of this crime from the guilter standpoint. They actually get to reinvent the crime each time one bit of their "all the other evidence" fails.

 

[MichaelB]

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.

delete

 

[MichaelB]

How do you delete a message? Maybe a mod can clean up these posts. Sorry

 

[MichaelB]

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.

Yet Paola also wondered if it was Meredith's menstrual blood.

p33/34

About the door and the blood, after speaking with Amanda on the phone
honestly I didn’t imagine anything tragic, I wanted there to be a plausible explanation or at least an optimistic one, and so I thought maybe she cut herself, she became scared, the pharmacy was nearby, she will have run to get medicine to put something on it, she will have asked for help, because if Amanda has said that the door was open, perhaps she didn’t close it behind her and she didn’t use the key for the fear. With Paola Grande I agreed “but of course, come on, we’re not tranquil, let’s not think that something bad has happened, it will have been forgetfulness maybe, I don’t know”, and if I’m not wrong, Paola said: “maybe she has her period, then she went below, and she forgot to close the door. Amanda will call you back and we’ll see what she says, otherwise if something has happened we’ll go there, otherwise obviously we stay calm, let’s try to understand what is happening first”.

 

[MichaelB]

deleted