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

[LondonJohn]

The problem with this theory is that 1. Amanda Knox is under trial, not "the Italian system", and : 2. anyway no one is in moral or ethical position to be a "judge" of the Italian justice system, this is especially for a country that has a system like the USA has.

I'm afraid that none of this makes any sense to me.

Hellmann was chosen by one specific person, which is a person I have very well in mind. Anyway, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is not a 10 year old boy and he's equally responsible.

So are you alleging that this person - who must, after all, be somebody in a sufficiently senior position to be controlling the appointment of appeal court judges - has acted in a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent or negligent manner?

Because if you are alleging this, then I find it almost amusing that you cannot see that this in itself would be symptomatic of a rotten and broken criminal justice system - and at a level significantly higher than Hellmann's. Wow. Care to elaborate? Or defend the stinking malpractice (per your version of events) within the upper echelons of the Italian criminal justice system?

 

[AmyStrange]

GWAK

-

Maybe they are lying without being confused, like the CNN reporter who described the crowd befor the Perugia courtroom as a group of citizens complaining against the police. Or like those who denied everything about the April's fool prank.
I was there in the courtroom, it was Hellmann's courtroom, and moreover all what happened was recorded in the transcripts.

-

PGPers have tunnel vision to the point where everyone gets a pass except for anyone or anything that proves they are wrong. TJMK should be renamed GWAK,

d

-

 

[js202]

Anyway, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is not a 10 year old boy and he's equally responsible.

With the exception of keeping the calunnia charge, which of course should also have been overturned, Pratillo Hellmann happened to be %100 correct and wise in his judgment of the case. Any opposing view is strictly the province of conspiricists, crackpots and special pleaders.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe they are lying without being confused, like the CNN reporter who described the crowd befor the Perugia courtroom as a group of citizens complaining against the police. Or like those who denied everything about the April's fool prank.I was there in the courtroom, it was Hellmann's courtroom, and moreover all what happened was recorded in the transcripts.

Who in their right mind would deny it was an April Fool's prank? In fact, who has EVER denied it?

Just for the record, I once shortchanged a restaurant by 5 cents, when a buddy and I in grade 6 went there for a milkshake. My buddy told me (on the way home) that this would lead to a life of crime when I was older.

The next day, I rushed up to the restaurant on my bike, put a balaclava on my head and went in to the cashier, and left her a nickel. I beat a hasty retreat to my bike and took a convoluted route home, lest I was followed.

Yet a guilter/hater found out about this unfortunate criminal episode in my past. For years they portrayed it as that I had deliberately refused to pay for the item, and was charged in juvenile court as such. That I had entered the restaurant with a balaclave on to conceal my identity - but the way they spun it, it was when I was drinking the milkshake through the mouthhole of the material....

I was taunted and taunted by guilters/haters for years about this - they accused my family of having connections "in the system" because try as they might, there was no record of this criminality - and only a powerful family could have the record expunged like that.

One guilter/hater even got a hold of my friend, now an adult, and the quote which appeared on TJMK was, "The friend admits to warning him that he was headed for a criminal future as an adult. Coincidence? I think not."

Finally out of sheer exhaustion, I confessed to the guilters/haters that it really was a case that I'd been short a nickel on the purchase. When I was 11. And that I paid it back.

Then...... THEN what happens? The guilters and haters accuse me of being purposely, wilfuly and deceptively silent about the real story! And of course, the silence is considered by these same guilters and haters as a capital "L".... LIE!

Sheesh.

You can't write this stuff. Ah, er, apparently you can!

 

[AmyStrange]

More GWAK instead of TJMK

-

Can you be more specific about this group of people? What are your criteria for belonging to the 'pro-Knox' group?

-

I'd also like to know the answer to that.

And also notice the use of "Pro-Knox" instead of "Pro-Knox and Sollecito". Another example that this is about GWAK and not really about TJMK,

d

-

 

[LondonJohn]

-


-

PGPers have tunnel vision to the point where everyone gets a pass except for anyone or anything that proves they are wrong. TJMK should be renamed GWAK,

d

-

It truly is a textbook (and research-worthy) case study in the poisonous effect of groupthink, tunnel vision, confirmation bias, ex-post-facto rationalisation, adoption of certain online personas and the cloak of anonymity, and projection of anger (usually because the individuals involved have some prior close personal connection to a victim of violent crime).

I am absolutely serious to say that if I had the time, I would give real consideration to doing an MSc in sociology in the online age, with this case's online commentary history (weighted heavily towards the pro-guilt commentary groups) as the core case study. I believe the sort of group and individual behaviours being exhibited (again, almost exclusively within the pro-guilt commentary groups) are at once fascinating, beguiling, bewildering, baffling and rather shocking.

 

[Skind]

Amanda Knox disn't give an 'explanation' at all, if you want to use ths term 'explanation' with some consequence - Amanda Knox made a half admssion in vague terms.

Amanda stated what she did, why she did it (prank), who she did it with (without naming names), how she did it (hid things), what the reaction was and what she did after.

That's a helluva lot more 'precise' detail than the original accusation.

You are simply wrong to state she did not provide an explanation. You are doubly wrong to call the accusation 'precise' but call her explanation 'vague'.

What you call 'obligation' is actually a requirement in relation to the innocentisti calling Joh's report a "lie". If you remain silent when someone reports about a prank with people wearing ski masks, or about a rape prank, then you have no ethical obligation.
But if you start complaining about "lies" and point your finger against alleged "liars" about some information, you need to have a story of transparency with regard to that information.
Which the Knox-supporters don't have.

No such obligation exists, stop making things up.

You overlook the fact that Knox supporters DID have transparency 'with regard to that information'. 'That information' was false and no such event ever occurred, nor has anyone reliable ever indicated that it had. Stating that it's not true that an event occurred IS the 'transparency'. The made-up event did not occur, there is no other 'that information' that can even be given.

The anonymous reports about an April fool prank oranized by Knox against her roomates which included weraing ski masks and a rape threat, is information much more honest and closer to the truth than the innocentisti's denial.

You have no way of knowing this, and your given reasons for thinking it's true are illogical and counterfactual.

Not only is a 'precise' allegation not in and as of itself evidence that is true, no 'precise' allegation was ever made. The terms of the allegation are no less 'vague' than you wrongly and counterfactually accuse Knox of being.

'They' (who is 'they)?
'Broke in' (How?)
'To the apartment' (except Knox lived in a shared house.....)

You know what? I'm not even going to go into the rest of the accusation. It's such a basic formulaic accusation that the only thing it proves is lack of imagination on the behalf of the accuser.

Ski masks?
On April Fools day?

Hardly 'precise'. Hardly a novel accusation. More like "So clearly made up, it's painfully obvious".

 

[Machiavelli]

Can you be more specific about this group of people? What are your criteria for belonging to the 'pro-Knox' group?

Sorry, I can't tell for sure who is 'in' and 'out'. I know that there is a group of people - almost all from Seattle - who knew the Knox family and have always been disingenuous and non-transparent. These people certainly include judge Heavey, the executives and headmaster of the Seattle Prep (which I would call the Seattle Perp), a large number of acquaintences and speakers (when there are people like Tom Wright who are reported to say "friends of the family will defend Amanda independently from the evidence", this does not really need comment). But I do not address just people: also a restricted "culture" these people apparently share, an atmosphere, a shared attitude, which I promptly define racist and mafious.

Then there is an enlarged group that has added over time, that started to revolve around the first core - Seattle Prep, Rotary, local masonry, Gogerty Marriott working as original flywheels. Steve Moore for example was an outsider and a late entry. All mainstream media and media circus came in later. Many of these "external" people can well also be qualified as disingenuous.
But then I assume there must be also a large layer of 'normal' people revolving around this who are not what I would call 'racist' and not intellectually dishonest. I don't know in what degree they share the cultural views of the rotten "core". There isn't a clear demarcation line but I know that some do not, at least some of the innocentisti have attitudes significantly different and far from sharing this common feeling of belonging and 'ethics' (I know this because several have spoken with me privately).

 

[Bill Williams]

The problem with this theory is that 1. Amanda Knox is under trial, not "the Italian system", and : 2. anyway no one is in moral or ethical position to be a "judge" of the Italian justice system, this is especially for a country that has a system like the USA has.

Hellmann was chosen by one specific person, which is a person I have very well in mind.
Anyway, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is not a 10 year old boy and he's equally responsible.

That's true. Acc. to some he was paid off by the Masons... er, apologies, the Masons were only the conduit of the money which came from US media sources.... do I have that right?

In Italy, is there a criminal offence related to accusing someone of committing a crime, when you know full well they did not?

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, I can't tell for sure who is 'in' and 'out'. I know that there is a group of people - almost all from Seattle - who knew the Knox family and have always been disingenuous and non-transparent. These people certainly include judge Heavey, the executives and headmaster of the Seattle Prep (which I would call the Seattle Perp), a large number of acquaintences and speakers (when there are people like Tom Wright who are reported to say "friends of the family will defend Amanda independently from the evidence", this does not really need comment). But I do not address just people: also a restricted "culture" these people apparently share, an atmosphere, a shared attitude, which I promptly define racist and mafious.

Then there is an enlarged group that has added over time, that started to revolve around the first core - Seattle Prep, Rotary, local masonry, Gogerty Marriott working as original flywheels. Steve Moore for example was an outsider and a late entry. All mainstream media and media circus came in later. Many of these "external" people can well also be qualified as disingenuous.
But then I assume there must be also a large layer of 'normal' people revolving around this who are not what I would call 'racist' and not intellectually dishonest. I don't know in what degree they share the cultural views of the rotten "core". There isn't a clear demarcation line but I know that some do not, at least some of the innocentisti have attitudes significantly different and far from sharing this common feeling of belonging and 'ethics' (I know this because several have spoken with me privately).

I for one, thank you for this comprehensive theory of the conspiracy to hoodwink Italy justice, all emanating from a rotten core in Seattle.

Now - perhaps you'd also like to give a go at a comprehensive theory of the crime - from, say, 8 pm Nov 1, 2007, to 6 am, Nov 6, of the same year.

You've never even bothered to do that!

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It truly is a textbook (and research-worthy) case study in the poisonous effect of groupthink, tunnel vision, confirmation bias, ex-post-facto rationalisation, adoption of certain online personas and the cloak of anonymity, and projection of anger (usually because the individuals involved have some prior close personal connection to a victim of violent crime).

I am absolutely serious to say that if I had the time, I would give real consideration to doing an MSc in sociology in the online age, with this case's online commentary history (weighted heavily towards the pro-guilt commentary groups) as the core case study. I believe the sort of group and individual behaviours being exhibited (again, almost exclusively within the pro-guilt commentary groups) are at once fascinating, beguiling, bewildering, baffling and rather shocking.

-

I'd pay good money to read that thesis,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Amanda stated what she did, why she did it (prank), who she did it with (without naming names), how she did it (hid things), what the reaction was and what she did after.

I am able to read.

Knox is not accountable to anyone about any question. But she avoided saying exactly what she did. She avoided answering to the points directly asked by poster Celeste. It was also obvious that she did not intend to say all what she did: she did not say anythin more than Joh. Actually she gave less information than poster Joh. She instead pointed out what she did not do, but that was extremely vague (no damages to people or property) and offered a judgement instead of information (the media had greatly exaggerated).

What Knox said is of no interest per se. What is interesting is that there are people who try claim that the story was "false" and have the pretension to assert that it was something "totally different" from what the guilters were thinking about.

 

[Machiavelli]

With the exception of keeping the calunnia charge, which of course should also have been overturned, Pratillo Hellmann happened to be %100 correct and wise in his judgment of the case. Any opposing view is strictly the province of conspiricists, crackpots and special pleaders.

And of the Supreme Court.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I for one, thank you for this comprehensive theory of the conspiracy to hoodwink Italy justice, all emanating from a rotten core in Seattle.

Now - perhaps you'd also like to give a go at a comprehensive theory of the crime - from, say, 8 pm Nov 1, 2007, to 6 am, Nov 6, of the same year.

You've never even bothered to do that!

-

That'll never happen, because then Saint Rudy would be no more,

d

-

 

[andreajo]

Sorry, I can't tell for sure who is 'in' and 'out'. I know that there is a group of people - almost all from Seattle - who knew the Knox family and have always been disingenuous and non-transparent. These people certainly include judge Heavey, the executives and headmaster of the Seattle Prep (which I would call the Seattle Perp), a large number of acquaintences and speakers (when there are people like Tom Wright who are reported to say "friends of the family will defend Amanda independently from the evidence", this does not really need comment). But I do not address just people: also a restricted "culture" these people apparently share, an atmosphere, a shared attitude, which I promptly define racist and mafious.

I don't know why they would need to be racist to try to protect someone they care about and whom they believe to be innocent of any crime. It seems like a pretty normal thing for friends and family to do. I don't really know what being mafious entails.

Then there is an enlarged group that has added over time, that started to revolve around the first core - Seattle Prep, Rotary, local masonry, Gogerty Marriott working as original flywheels. Steve Moore for example was an outsider and a late entry. All mainstream media and media circus came in later. Many of these "external" people can well also be qualified as disingenuous.
But then I assume there must be also a large layer of 'normal' people revolving around this who are not what I would call 'racist' and not intellectually dishonest. I don't know in what degree they share the cultural views of the rotten "core". There isn't a clear demarcation line but I know that some do not, at least some of the innocentisti have attitudes significantly different and far from sharing this common feeling of belonging and 'ethics' (I know this because several have spoken with me privately).

The Masons? Are you sure?

Consider the possibility that many in this enlarged group are not emotionally attached to Amanda Knox herself, but are vehemently opposed to sending people to jail for crimes they have not committed. I can't see any reason for them to put their professional reputations on the line by making stuff up. They are braver than we are, and put their names behind what they are saying. I am thinking of Steve Moore, Chris Halkides, John Douglas, and Ron Hendry for a start, though I know that there are more.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Can you be more specific about this group of people? What are your criteria for belonging to the 'pro-Knox' group?

-

well obviously you first have to be a racist, then a silent liar, and finally not believe in the divinity of Rudy, oh and also be from Seattle, but that Seattle requirement may not be absolutely necessary... just liking Seattle may be enough.

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Something which should further point to the inadequacy of judge Pratillo Hellmann (who had no experience as a criminal judge, btw).

Guilters need to stick to one story. Hellmann is either inadequate for the job or corrupt. Think of the risk if he is both. He could be paid off by the Masons but be so inept as not being able to remember if he'd been paid to acquit or convict!

It's like the lady who complained about hospital food. She said, "it's awful, and you get such small portions."

 

[Machiavelli]

-
No, I blame Maresca because HE was the one who projected the image not Hellman. He could have just handed out photos to the Judge, Jurors, prosecution, and defense, but he didn't, and Meredith's parents still pay this man. It's disgusting and disrespectful to the victim and anyone who thinks it isn't is wrong.

What's the point of sending away the public, then there would be no need to project the image. Photos would have been fine.

d

ETA: I'm not saying Hellman was not wrong for allowing it, but Maresca is the one who actually did it. It had no evidentiary value only prejudicial
-

Conti and Vecchiotti had projected a video which - as for your logic - should have no evidentiary value, because it was the one the judges already have.

You see, your argument is so utterly flawed I hardly understand you can't see it. Why should the defence (like Vinci) project their findings in court instad of just giving the judges the photos?

Autopsy and wounds was a main point of evidence i this trial. The fact that you think it wasn't, that it was only prejudicial and not evidentiary, it's just your opinion, and your opinion is wrong.

Francesco Maresca was acting onf the Kercher's behalf and was doing exactly what he had to do in order to discuss with the judges about why their daughter and sister was assaulted and killed by three people, not by a lone killer.

Pratillo Hellmann is the only person responsible for not abiding to Maresca's requests of sending out the people. I recall very well his lazy indifferent tone when he tried to object saying let's not lose time, that the public won't be impressed, who cares. And Maresca objecting that Meredith was naked, that there were sexual details, that the family wanted respect.

 

[Skind]

I am able to read.

Knox is not accountable to anyone about any question. But she avoided saying exactly what she did. She avoided answering to the points directly asked by poster Celeste. It was also obvious that she did not intend to say all what she did: she did not say anythin more than Joh. Actually she gave less information than poster Joh. She instead pointed out what she did not do, but that was extremely vague (no damages to people or property) and offered a judgement instead of information (the media had greatly exaggerated).

What Knox said is of no interest per se. What is interesting is that there are people who try claim that the story was "false" and have the pretension to assert that it was something "totally different" from what the guilters were thinking about.

I can read as well. Unfortunetly for you, so can everyone else here. We all know you are wrong.

Knox stated as explicitly as possible what she did - there was no avoidance at all - you are simply making that up.

You are simply wrong to assert she did not say what she did.
You are simply wrong to assert she gave less detail than Joh (who gave very little actual detail at all)

You are simply wrong to assert that her words were vague. "No costumes of any kind" is general, not vague, it leaves you in no doubt that the person is asserting that there was no costumes of any kind.

"No damage to property" is general, not vague, it clearly states that there was no damage. That is not vague. It leaves you in no doubt that the person is asserting that there was no damage.

You assert that she is vague - anyone who can read her actual words can see that this is false. In fact, they don't even need to go that far - you call her vague and then quote excerpts where she is expressly not vague!

You should revisit your understanding of the difference between 'general' and 'vague'.

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't know why they would need to be racist to try to protect someone they care about and whom they believe to be innocent of any crime. It seems like a pretty normal thing for friends and family to do. I don't really know what being mafious entails.



The Masons? Are you sure?

Consider the possibility that many in this enlarged group are not emotionally attached to Amanda Knox herself, but are vehemently opposed to sending people to jail for crimes they have not committed. I can't see any reason for them to put their professional reputations on the line by making stuff up. They are braver than we are, and put their names behind what they are saying. I am thinking of Steve Moore, Chris Halkides, John Douglas, and Ron Hendry for a start, though I know that there are more.

-

I personally don't like Amanda. To me, she really looks creepy, but I've also known a lot of people who seemed really creepy looking (to me anyway) but were the nicest people you could ever want to meet.

Rudy on the other hand looks like a really nice guy to me. I guess that's why I can't stop believing he didn't intentionally kill Meredith. I think it was an accident, but all of this is just my opinion,

d

-