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

[AmyStrange]

-

Not that's important but the UW is located in the north end of the city in what is generally thought as the better part of the city. The part of the city north of the ship canal is traditionally where richer, whiter and more educated citizens live.

The U-District is most likely the highest crime area in North Seattle but mostly because of all the young people both at the UW and homeless kids that are aided by churches near the campus.

As for it being "smack dab in the center of Seattle" - 5 mile from the north border and 11 miles from the southern border - clearly not in the center.
The U-District is more tacky than dangerous.

-

Not that this is really important either, but the UW used to originally be in the Eastern part of downtown Seattle just West of Capital Hill. It's why one of the downtown East to West Streets is called University Street. It's between Union and Seneca.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Washington

"In 1861, scouting began for an appropriate 10 acres (4 ha) site in Seattle to serve as the campus for a new university. Arthur and Mary Denny donated eight acres, and fellow pioneers Edward Lander and Charlie and Mary Terry donated two acres to the university[9] at a site on Denny's Knoll in downtown Seattle. This tract was bounded by 4th and 6th Avenues on the west and east and Union and Seneca Streets on the north and south."

When I first moved here in 1991 (on Christmas Eve), I did a real thorough read of the history of Seattle, and it is a fascinating read. I probably know more about it's history than a lot of people who have lived here their whole lives. Bill Spiedel was my favorite author (his writing style is weird, but very entertaining), especially his book about Doc Maynard whom he credits with the actual founding of present day Pioneer Square (which was the original Downtown Seattle). He makes a good case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swinson_Maynard

Bill Speidel, Doc Maynard, The Man Who Invented Seattle (Seattle: Nettle Creek Publishing Co., 1978) (ISBN 0-914890-02-6)

d

PS the term "Skid Row" has been cited by many Etymologist as coming from the informal name "Skid Road" (now Yesler Way in Seattle) which was so named because it was originally used to skid the logs down to the Sawmills at the bottom of the hill. Near there was a large conglomeration of tents and shanties where the poorer population lived.
-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

robbery is not burglary

She does but confirms a robbery prank that required an apology for the distress caused.

One, robbery is more serious than burglary; the former involves violence or the threat of violence. The April Fools prank might be described as a burglary prank but not as a robbery IMO. Two, PGP commenters who discussed a rape prank owe Ms. Knox a sincere apology for their wild and unfounded conjectures. And I say shame on those who do not apologize.

 

[Briars]

"Knox once got a bunch of her friends to dress up in ski masks and break into her apartment and assault her roomates as an "april fools" joke. She's guilty and *********** nuts. - Joh"
​

Where does he say he is friends with a roommate? You just make that up?

Where does he say that they assaulted a female? Right, you made that up too.

Having totally made up it all up you now move on to guess that this assault will evolve into a rape...so why not say kidnap.

How much money do you think a tab or TV crime show would have paid for the person assaulted, kidnapped and raped to come forward?

Joh worked with one of Amanda!s roommates I'm guessing they were friendly.He said they broke in with masks staging an assualt prank. Did Amanda have female housemates or not? If so the females may have felt particularly threatened, As we heard this from Joh who discussed things privately with Peggy we don't know what exactly he told her. So Amanda cleared up the mystery on her blog. According to you the PG have been hanging their hat on the rape prank story for years. Why then weren't they devastated to learn there was no rape or abduction part of the prank?In fact not only were they not upset to learn these details from Amanda but the admission of the robbery prank was an major surprise. Andrea Vogt made her first prank comment this week.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

You know Machiavelli, This is one of your biggest nonsense and ignorant posts yet. If you spent a few months in Seattle, you would come to realize just how ignorant it is.

Seattle is one of the most advanced, most modern, most literate, most liberal and least racist cities in the United States. Believe me, I have lived in many places in the country including the Deep South and some rural areas where there is a significantly larger populations of bigots.

People in this city are overall very tolerant of pretty much all races, religion, sex, sexual preference and sexual identity. Washington State with Seattle leading the way has pushed for and enacted laws against sexual preference including allowing gay marriage. It has had women mayors, African American mayors and now has a gay mayor. The county and the State has had an Asian mayor as well as a woman mayor.

Can you say the same in Perugia? My guess is no.

You even take a shot at the headmaster of Seattle Prep and add a very derogatory comment calling "Seattle Perp". As if you have a clue about it or them.

You seem to think that anyone who defends Amanda is some kind of idiot or part of some conspiracy. I assure you that is not the case. I really feel sorry for you and your ignorance.

-

interestingly enough before what happened, Perugia was being considered as the Italian sister city to Seattle. They were even going to dedicate a park to that effect, but after what happened to Amanda there, most of that was cancelled:

Capitol Hill park has new name: Summit Slope Park - WA USA
Originally published Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Seattle Times staff reporter
By Susan Gilmore

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2013926319_parkname14m.html

"Capitol Hill's Perugia Park has a new name

"A Capitol Hill park that was to be named after Seattle's sister city Perugia, Italy — a name that was quickly withdrawn — now has a new name: Summit Slope Park.

"In 2009, the Seattle Parks Department announced that the park at the northeast corner of East John Street and Summit Avenue East would be named Perugia Park, but just a day later, the city backpedaled because of the Amanda Knox murder case in Perugia, Italy... "

d

-

 

[Skind]

Why then weren't they devastated to learn there was no rape or abduction part of the prank?

Why would they be?

As far as the guilters are concerned, Knox admitted to something negative, guilters have been saying negative things about Knox for years, ergo Knox has admitted the guilters were right.

The actual details do not matter to guilters.

Never have.

 

[Briars]

One, robbery is more serious than burglary; the former involves violence or the threat of violence. The April Fools prank might be described as a burglary prank but not as a robbery IMO. Two, PGP commenters who discussed a rape prank owe Ms. Knox a sincere apology for their wild and unfounded conjectures. And I say shame on those who do not apologize.

Joh close to the source said a prank involving people wearing ski masks staged an assualt prank.Hard to tell if an assualt would mean threat of rape or not.Should he apologize? Take it up with him , we actually have no idea which version is closer to the truth.At this point.PG people will probably be satisfied with Amanda's I know I found it of interest.

 

[codyjuneau]

The whole point of a wiki is its editability. It says all I need to know that when an error (I mean it's bound to have a few just in normal times!) crops up, it can be fixed.

That wiki is now the equivalent of the Wikipedia article on "The Murder of Meredith Kercher", where people contributing from the innocence side were complained about and banned. It took the personal intervention of no less than Jimbo Wales to remedy it, and a senior Wikipedia editor was assigned. There were no less than 35+ "talk pages" generated by BRMull alone! Pages!

It's why many believe that this wiki in question is BRMull project - posing as Edward McCall, whoever that is. The two obsessions the fellow had were Wikipedia and saying slutty things about Amanda Knox.

.
I wonder how much this BRMull guy, and others, think their lives will be improved, if Amanda is convicted? One percent, a half of one percent, a tenth of a percent?
.

 

[Skind]

Joh close to the source said a prank involving people wearing ski masks staged an assualt prank.Hard to tell if an assualt would mean threat of rape or not.Should he apologize? Take it up with him , we actually have no idea which version is closer to the truth.At this point.PG people will probably be satisfied with Amanda's I know I found it of interest.

But PG people aren't satisfied with Amanda's (explanation), otherwise they wouldn't be using it to say things about Knox that are not contained in, implied, or can reasonably be inferred from her explanation.

Over at webslueths, for example, we have a number of guilters using her explanation as evidence that she a) was the ringleader for the prank (not contained in the explanation), b) maliciously enjoyed pranking (not contained in the explanation), c) had a habit of pranking (not contained in the explanation).

If guilters were happy with Knox's explanation, they'd stick to it, and not need to add details or make accusations of Omerta.

What they've actually done is taken it and made it into something totally different, even though they must know any person can see the original explanation and see that their extrapolations are baseless and flawed.

If they're willing to engage in that much distortion right in front of our faces, then we should treat anything else they have to say with extreme caution and skepticism.

 

[toto]

Joh close to the source said a prank involving people wearing ski masks staged an assualt prank.Hard to tell if an assualt would mean threat of rape or not.Should he apologize? Take it up with him , we actually have no idea which version is closer to the truth.At this point.PG people will probably be satisfied with Amanda's I know I found it of interest.

I think if the victim or the prank protagonists had thought in retrospect that whatever Amanda Knox had done regarding the April Fool's prank was disturbing and worthy of much comment the main stream media would have interviewed all concerned by now.

 

[Bill Williams]

One, robbery is more serious than burglary; the former involves violence or the threat of violence. The April Fools prank might be described as a burglary prank but not as a robbery IMO. Two, PGP commenters who discussed a rape prank owe Ms. Knox a sincere apology for their wild and unfounded conjectures. And I say shame on those who do not apologize.

And for every moment they delay apologizing to Ms. Knox, we can now invoke Machiavelli criteria of Omertà and call their silence in not coming forward "a lie".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

openness and transparency

Regarding the authoritarian meme, I plead guilty.

SNIP

The reason I posted on JREF is because my curiosity got the best of me. I wanted to know whether there were people who believed in Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence dispassionately, but who were also open to the possibility of their guilt. It appears that the answer would be, no. (But thanks Planigale – your response was at least dispassionate and genuine).

(highlighting mine)
The question you originally posed does not answer the part that I highlighted IMO. A possibly better question is whether or not there exists untested evidence, which if tested fairly and competently, would change one's mind about guilt or innocence. And this question could be addressed to both PIP and PGP.

Do you have a timeline and narrative for the crime? One that explains inculpatory evidence? I have a hard time understanding how one can believe that they are guilty and yet not be able to present a consistent scenario for what happened.

I respectfully suggest you reread Rolfe's discussion of the need for transparency. There should be sufficient evidence publicly available for a person to come to his or her own conclusions about guilty or innocence. If there is not, that raises serious questions about the process in and of itself.

 

[Bill Williams]

Joh worked with one of Amanda!s roommates I'm guessing they were friendly.He said they broke in with masks staging an assualt prank. Did Amanda have female housemates or not? If so the females may have felt particularly threatened, As we heard this from Joh who discussed things privately with Peggy we don't know what exactly he told her. So Amanda cleared up the mystery on her blog. According to you the PG have been hanging their hat on the rape prank story for years. Why then weren't they devastated to learn there was no rape or abduction part of the prank?In fact not only were they not upset to learn these details from Amanda but the admission of the robbery prank was an major surprise. Andrea Vogt made her first prank comment this week.

It's difficult to believe it has gone this far, based on an "I'm guessing," a "He said," a "may have," and a "we don't know."

Andrea Vogt is showing her fondness for tabloid, yellow journalism by talking about this at all. The one credit I will give to Vogt though is that she's one of the few willing to put her name (and reputation) to this silliness.

 

[Bill Williams]

The question you originally posed does not answer the part that I highlighted IMO. A possibly better question is whether or not there exists untested evidence, which if tested fairly and competently, would change one's mind about guilt or innocence. And this question could be addressed to both PIP and PGP.

Do you have a timeline and narrative for the crime? One that explains inculpatory evidence? I have a hard time understanding how one can believe that they are guilty and yet not be able to present a consistent scenario for what happened.

I respectfully suggest you reread Rolfe's discussion of the need for transparency. There should be sufficient evidence publicly available for a person to come to his or her own conclusions about guilty or innocence. If there is not, that raises serious questions about the process in and of itself.

There's another claim that LBR makes, one of equivalence between PGP and PIP. He/she basically summarizes that there is JREF and IIP which is pro-innocence, and two (warring) PMF's and TJMK which is pro-guilt. He/she then implies that the "public mind" is split.

There is no equivalence. The discussion here on JREF and esp. on IIP has public, known experts in their respective fields, lending their names and reputations to their opinions. Note: John Douglas, Steve Moore, Ron Hendry, and a whole host of DNA experts who have put their names and backgrounds (ie. verifiability) to their opinions on such subjects as why the original DNA evidence that Massei saw was bogus.

What is there on the PGP side? A Wiki from someone named McCall. That's all that is publicly known. A faux-legal expert named Machiavelli, who also goes by Yummi. Peggy Ganong is known, as is Peter Q. But then there's Kermit and the rest with an interesting array of names, but not any verifiable expertise - particularly Kermit, who at one time was the go-to guy in understanding the break-in. Witness his powerpoints.

Andrea Vogt is a bit of an exception, as is Barbie Nadeau. Both lend their names, their backgrounds and reputations to their words - and for that they should be thanked. Myself, I have expressed many negative opinions of the content of what Vogt pushes - esp. her support for the Wiki - but at base she's saying, "This is me, deal with it."

One can respect that.

But at the end of the day it is not an equivalence. Other than Alan Dershowitz, who is there? Partrizia Stefanoni?

 

[Welshman]

I made this point in an earlier post. If there is a strong case against someone, you should not have to rely on an event which happened before the crime as evidence particularly if that event bears no resemblance to the crime. I will use an example to illustrate my point. A man has been accused of breaking into a house, raping and murdering a female occupant. The following evidence exists against the suspect :-

* The victim's blood is found on the suspect's clothes.
* The suspects DNA is found all over the crime scene.
* The victim's possessions are found in the suspect's home.
* The DNA of the suspect is found in the victim's vagina's.
* There is clear cctv footage of the man running away from the crime scene covered in blood.

There is a slam dunk case against the suspect. Despite this people who believe the suspect is guilty constantly use a prank where the suspect hid someone's possessions as evidence although there is a major difference between hiding things and raping and murdering someone. Would people not find it odd that a minor prank is used as evidence when there is solid direct evidence the suspect has carried out a rape and murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hearsay

I made this point in a post earlier post. If there is a strong case against someone, you should not have to rely on an event which happened before the crime as evidence particularly if that event bears no resemblance to the crime.

Welshman, I agree, but I would also add that the person who made the claim about the prank was engaging in hearsay, and he no longer wants his true identity associated with his comments any longer apparently. Why should these not factor into an assessment of his credibility?

 

[codyjuneau]

No idea. He was 26 years old and a dungeons and dragons aficionado when he posted about a nineteen year old. His MySpace page made him seem a bit creepy to me. He clearly wanted attention as he linked to his real name and D&D promo page.
The prank theme has been a constant at PMF as they too have a hard time putting together a scenario.

.
One would think that with the guilter's collective brilliance, plus the benefit of have two, going on three trials to review, they could come up with a scenario they are not ashamed to post and defend? But apparently not, so it's back to April Fool's jokes, soccer nicknames, joke vibrators, Rudy the burglar's turd, whatever.

Personally I could care less what guilter posters think, much like I could care less about people that believe in Sasquatches, UFO crop circles, shape shifting reptilians, Loch Ness Monster, etc. What scares me is that apparently some adults working in the Italian justice system, in particular the Perugian one, share the same views as the guilter posters. That, to me is scary.
.

 

[Briars]

But PG people aren't satisfied with Amanda's (explanation), otherwise they wouldn't be using it to say things about Knox that are not contained in, implied, or can reasonably be inferred from her explanation.

Over at webslueths, for example, we have a number of guilters using her explanation as evidence that she a) was the ringleader for the prank (not contained in the explanation), b) maliciously enjoyed pranking (not contained in the explanation), c) had a habit of pranking (not contained in the explanation).

If guilters were happy with Knox's explanation, they'd stick to it, and not need to add details or make accusations of Omerta.

What they've actually done is taken it and made it into something totally different, even though they must know any person can see the original explanation and see that their extrapolations are baseless and flawed.

If they're willing to engage in that much distortion right in front of our faces, then we should treat anything else they have to say with extreme caution and skepticism.

It was her residence,she brought outside people or friends not her roommates to help with the prank. Did she organize it probably or she would have said otherwise. Did she enjoy it ? probably why do it if not for fun? Sorry not seeing any distortion here. People who know of the prank first hand could still come forward with details now that it is being talked about more openly.

 

[RoseMontague]

Regarding the authoritarian meme, I plead guilty.

Regarding the open discussion “until a consensus forms around the best truth that can be extracted from the available evidence”, - this amounts to the court of public opinion. This is a court that for all intents and purposes, will not matter come January 30th.

JREF has come to a consensus of innocence, as has IIP. TJMK and PMF have come to a consensus of guilt. There is no common ground or any agreement on any of the evidence (circumstantial or forensic) presented between these divergent courts of public opinion.

It is possible for a person to have read the translated primary court documents and have come to an opinion of guilt, without hating, without degrading, without being irrational, and without having a pony in this race. It is also possible for a person to be devoid of arrogance, and to admit that he or she is not completely sure of this stance. Therefore, I rely on my meme and not on the opinions of strangers on a forum. If they are truly innocent, I hope the wisdom of the court in Florence judges it to be so. If they are truly guilty, then I hope that this is the judgement with punishment to follow.

The reason I posted on JREF is because my curiosity got the best of me. I wanted to know whether there were people who believed in Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence dispassionately, but who were also open to the possibility of their guilt. It appears that the answer would be, no. (But thanks Planigale – your response was at least dispassionate and genuine).

My curiosity has me asking if you have asked the pro-guilt site the same question. One side at least has the confidence in the evidence to discuss the case with those that are undecided or pro-guilt. The other side will not allow that. Go figure.

 

[NancyS]

It was her residence,she brought outside people or friends not her roommates to help with the prank. Did she organize it probably or she would have said otherwise. Did she enjoy it ? probably why do it if not for fun? Sorry not seeing any distortion here. People who know of the prank first hand could still come forward with details now that it is being talked about more openly.

I think she said it was a prank that she played with a few of her roommates on a few other of her roommates. It's all meaningless though - I once lay on the floor with ketchup on my head as my flatmate pretended he had murdered me, this was all part of a Halloween joke - I don't think this was any indication of me being murderous

 

[Dan O.]

Regarding the authoritarian meme, I plead guilty.

Regarding the open discussion “until a consensus forms around the best truth that can be extracted from the available evidence”, - this amounts to the court of public opinion. This is a court that for all intents and purposes, will not matter come January 30th.

In a free society, the public outweigh the courts.

JREF has come to a consensus of innocence, as has IIP. TJMK and PMF have come to a consensus of guilt. There is no common ground or any agreement on any of the evidence (circumstantial or forensic) presented between these divergent courts of public opinion.

The difference is that here at JREF we don't control the administration. Anyone is welcome to join the debate as long as they follow the site rules. You will not be banned for expressing a minority view.

It is possible for a person to have read the translated primary court documents and have come to an opinion of guilt, without hating, without degrading, without being irrational, and without having a pony in this race. It is also possible for a person to be devoid of arrogance, and to admit that he or she is not completely sure of this stance. Therefore, I rely on my meme and not on the opinions of strangers on a forum. If they are truly innocent, I hope the wisdom of the court in Florence judges it to be so. If they are truly guilty, then I hope that this is the judgement with punishment to follow.

What's the point in studying a case if you are going to sit back and accept somebody else's verdict? That's the question that comes up at the end of every trial: will we accept the judges decision? My answer is that the judge announcing a decision of the court does not provide any information from which to form a different opinion to that which I held prior to the announcement. I would at least have to wait for the motivations report to examine the reasons for that decission

The reason I posted on JREF is because my curiosity got the best of me. I wanted to know whether there were people who believed in Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence dispassionately, but who were also open to the possibility of their guilt. It appears that the answer would be, no. (But thanks Planigale – your response was at least dispassionate and genuine).

But there you have reached an incorrect conclusion. We remain open to all possibilities. It's the evidence that closes off the possibility of guilt. We regularly ask those that still believe in guilt to present their theory of the crime. There just isn't a theory that stands against the lone wolf theory that Rudy Guede broke in, took a dump, killed Meredith when she came home shortly after 9PM And was out of the cottage with the cell phones well before 10PM. You are welcome to probe the details of this theory to try and find some credible evidence that is incompatible. Or, you could present a theory of your own. And let us use our resources to try and find any holes in it.