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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
No, my purpose is not to minimize them, it's to attribute them to someone who is not Rudy Guede and to see them as unrelated to Rudy Guede. These phones are taken by someone who is maybe not called "thief", and our "thief" Guede is not the charachter with a logical motive or propensity for stealing the phones and toss them away.
This is what I am thinking, not what you try to put in my mouth.
Click to expand...

It is interesting you state here your purpose is to "attribute them to someone who is not Rudy" and to "see them unrelated to Rudy." This is in fact stating you have an agenda. (Not that this wasn't obvious.) You are blatantly stating your purpose is to make Guede innocent!

But, what I think is even more interesting, is your "ability" to ascribe motives to people. Why is it okay or "correct" when you do it, but wrong when someone else does it?
 
Samson said:
It is disappointing to see the uphill battle faced if this poll is true, imported from TJMK
Click to expand...


I am actually furious at the so-called skeptics here that allow the hate groups to carry the message. For a long time, the only repository of documents was the PMF and TJMK site. And the message that went with those documents was GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. This is what the journalists first see if they try to research for their articles. This is what the curious individuals see when they they try to find out more about this case that has been in the news.

Now there are other resources scattered around the internet. A few individuals have stepped up to translate some of the key documents. But try to find an index, a comprehensive list of documents, some place to search the known material for specific facts. What is known, What is rumor, What is peer reviewed, What is supported by references, What has been kept up to date as new information becomes available?

Since I started on this case years ago I've been pushing the wiki site format as a tool for making the best information available in the most useful ways. I started a private wiki with the resources I had available and invited many to contribute to make it better. A few have contributed and I thank them but so many others have signed up and since ignored it.

So many of you have waisted so much time just reading this thread not to mention any research and posting time. And what have you got to show for it? Sure, you might think you would do well if there were a quiz show on only this case. But probably not. Who do you think would be running the show? It's not going to be a skeptic with the factual answers!

For those that post here, who do you think is going to go back and read those old posts? Sure, I have the entire thread archived and indexed so I can refute claims with posters own words. But threads are of limited value when it comes to research. Much of the older information is found to be inaccurate but it still pops up contaminating search results making new information harder to locate. The same goes for blogs, they are not much more than single poster threads.

So now there is a wiki on the Meredith Kercher case. Finally somebody picked up what I've been saying and created a resource to more effectively distribute their message. But their message is not the truth. The wiki is filled with intentional bias pointing towards guilt. This is what happens when skeptics sit on their asses.

Is the answer to a guiltier wiki the creation of an FOA wiki? I don't think the interested public is interested in a wiki war. They are looking for facts to answer their questions. If they wanted he said/she said superficial arguments they would listen to the broadcast news. What the public wants and needs is trusted factual information with references and analysis that goes as deep as they wish to dig.


In my opinion, the answer to the biased wiki is not to answer it but to supersede it. This applies not only to this case but for all cases where there are strong contentions and conflicting information. But do the skeptics have what it takes to make this happen?




[/rant]
 
Raffaele was arrested based on his Rebok shoe matching a shoe print in blood found next to the victim. That the print did not match should have been obvious to a lay person. The fact that an expert declared a match indicates that the investigators saw their job as supporting the prosecutor instead of justice.
 
Dan O. said:
​


It is well known that Mignini was aware of at least one English language discussion of this case. How could Machivelli have forgotten that it was Mignini that had The original Perugia-Shock blog shut down. I suspect that Machiavelli is either lying about what Mignini follows or Machiavelli knows who is doing the following and reporting to Mignini.
Click to expand...

With the help of Florence judges...as I understand it.

....It was from the court order, Sfarzo told CPJ, that he learned that Perugia Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini—who has a long-standing record of anti-press actions—has filed a lawsuit against Perugia Shock for “defamation, carried out by means of a website.” The court order, which stemmed from Mignini’s claim, was issued on February 23 by Florentine Judge Paola Belsino....
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
I am actually furious at the so-called skeptics here that allow the hate groups to carry the message. For a long time, the only repository of documents was the PMF and TJMK site. And the message that went with those documents was GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. This is what the journalists first see if they try to research for their articles. This is what the curious individuals see when they they try to find out more about this case that has been in the news.

Now there are other resources scattered around the internet. A few individuals have stepped up to translate some of the key documents. But try to find an index, a comprehensive list of documents, some place to search the known material for specific facts. What is known, What is rumor, What is peer reviewed, What is supported by references, What has been kept up to date as new information becomes available?

Since I started on this case years ago I've been pushing the wiki site format as a tool for making the best information available in the most useful ways. I started a private wiki with the resources I had available and invited many to contribute to make it better. A few have contributed and I thank them but so many others have signed up and since ignored it.

So many of you have waisted so much time just reading this thread not to mention any research and posting time. And what have you got to show for it? Sure, you might think you would do well if there were a quiz show on only this case. But probably not. Who do you think would be running the show? It's not going to be a skeptic with the factual answers!

For those that post here, who do you think is going to go back and read those old posts? Sure, I have the entire thread archived and indexed so I can refute claims with posters own words. But threads are of limited value when it comes to research. Much of the older information is found to be inaccurate but it still pops up contaminating search results making new information harder to locate. The same goes for blogs, they are not much more than single poster threads.

So now there is a wiki on the Meredith Kercher case. Finally somebody picked up what I've been saying and created a resource to more effectively distribute their message. But their message is not the truth. The wiki is filled with intentional bias pointing towards guilt. This is what happens when skeptics sit on their asses.

Is the answer to a guiltier wiki the creation of an FOA wiki? I don't think the interested public is interested in a wiki war. They are looking for facts to answer their questions. If they wanted he said/she said superficial arguments they would listen to the broadcast news. What the public wants and needs is trusted factual information with references and analysis that goes as deep as they wish to dig.


In my opinion, the answer to the biased wiki is not to answer it but to supersede it. This applies not only to this case but for all cases where there are strong contentions and conflicting information. But do the skeptics have what it takes to make this happen?




[/rant]
Click to expand...

Dan,

This is the exact same rant I had 3 days ago (privately with someone.) There seems to be quite a bit of frustration, as people are quick to bloviate but slow to put their time/effort/money where their collective mouths are. I do not understand wiki and the editing process, etc. but I would be willing to help with whatever is needed, unless it is just plain old too late.
 
Dan O. said:
I am actually furious at the so-called skeptics here that allow the hate groups to carry the message. For a long time, the only repository of documents was the PMF and TJMK site. And the message that went with those documents was GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. This is what the journalists first see if they try to research for their articles. This is what the curious individuals see when they they try to find out more about this case that has been in the news.

Now there are other resources scattered around the internet. A few individuals have stepped up to translate some of the key documents. But try to find an index, a comprehensive list of documents, some place to search the known material for specific facts. What is known, What is rumor, What is peer reviewed, What is supported by references, What has been kept up to date as new information becomes available?

Since I started on this case years ago I've been pushing the wiki site format as a tool for making the best information available in the most useful ways. I started a private wiki with the resources I had available and invited many to contribute to make it better. A few have contributed and I thank them but so many others have signed up and since ignored it.

So many of you have waisted so much time just reading this thread not to mention any research and posting time. And what have you got to show for it? Sure, you might think you would do well if there were a quiz show on only this case. But probably not. Who do you think would be running the show? It's not going to be a skeptic with the factual answers!

For those that post here, who do you think is going to go back and read those old posts? Sure, I have the entire thread archived and indexed so I can refute claims with posters own words. But threads are of limited value when it comes to research. Much of the older information is found to be inaccurate but it still pops up contaminating search results making new information harder to locate. The same goes for blogs, they are not much more than single poster threads.

So now there is a wiki on the Meredith Kercher case. Finally somebody picked up what I've been saying and created a resource to more effectively distribute their message. But their message is not the truth. The wiki is filled with intentional bias pointing towards guilt. This is what happens when skeptics sit on their asses.

Is the answer to a guiltier wiki the creation of an FOA wiki? I don't think the interested public is interested in a wiki war. They are looking for facts to answer their questions. If they wanted he said/she said superficial arguments they would listen to the broadcast news. What the public wants and needs is trusted factual information with references and analysis that goes as deep as they wish to dig.


In my opinion, the answer to the biased wiki is not to answer it but to supersede it. This applies not only to this case but for all cases where there are strong contentions and conflicting information. But do the skeptics have what it takes to make this happen?




[/rant]
Click to expand...

Dan O.
I have always wished there was something I could do to help in the areas you describe. I am retired,and have time,but I fear that I am not as skilled as may be needed. I would be willing to do anything I could,I'm just not sure what to do.
 
Last edited:
GWCarver said:
I would suggest the police picking up the knife out of Raffaele's drawer because it was CLEAN (there is nothing suspicious about a clean knife in a drawer), along with the fact that none of the knives at the crime scene were tested, just screams evidence was being manufactured. One could say the fact that there was no crevice in that knife proves nothing was found in a crevice on the knife. Unless one wants to argue the "crevice" disappeared somehow, it is pretty straightforward, I think.
Click to expand...

Some of the crevice debate is not resolved. Both sides have their arguments. I'm still awaiting a translation of the RIS report.

I just do not see why the police on Nov. 6 or whatever day they "found" the knife would be looking to frame these kids. It screams incompetence to me. Why didn't they at least pick a knife that came close to fitting the wounds. Why not put it on one Raf's flip knives?

[quote[I have always found the "double DNA knife" to be even more suspicious than the bra clasp. The clasp was on the floor for weeks being moved around, so I wouldn't be surprised what ended up on it before it was destroyed by the best DNA specialist in Italian law enforcement.:rolleyes:[/quote]

I'm not sure that the clasp was on the floor the whole time. I've never believed the DNA came from the floor.

It really doesn't take a conspiracy when everyone in the various organizations knows what needs to be done to get a conviction and just does what is necessary to accomplish it.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
 
anglolawyer said:
If only they had had REM sleep to fall back on or some other equally convincing benchmark.
Click to expand...

Am I understanding correctly that it is Machiavelli who reports that Mignini told him he, Mignini, was in REM sleep when awoken by a call to come to the Questura? I realize Mach is experienced with sleep issues and disorders. I certainly understand that Mach knows a great deal about REM. Did Mach ask Mignini about when he was awoken to come to thevQuestura? Did Mignini answer Mach and add the details as to how soundly he was asleep and use the technical term REM? Or did Mach tell Mignini he was in the REM stage?

I wish there had been a notary there to properly record Mignini's statement. :p
 
Whenever this case focusses on Amanda Knox to the exclusion of others, it goes off the rails. Sure as shooting, focussing on Amanda Knox brings out the haters who judge things on ad hominem and "looks" and photographs.

Well, "Face of an Angel," Winterbottom's film starring Kate Beckinsale as Barbie Nadeau, is no exception. The film advertises itself as having nothing to do with the case, really, just the frenzy among the journalists.

But true to form, witness the trailers. They have an ersatz-Knox looking all wildeyed, and one crazy bitch. Rather than reporting on something, this film is busy creating a reality.....

I wonder if Raffaele has even been cast? I wonder if the name Rudy Guede will even make the credits?

Barbie Nadeau must be really proud to be one of the few to monetize it like this, as well as eating over-priced salads with Beckinsale in Rome on location.

The ONLY good thing about this is that Andrea Vogt must be royally pissed. No one listens to Vogt any more... a recent tweet has her taking after Nina Burleigh.... nothing says sour grapes more than an Andrea Vogt tweet.

But "Face of an Angel." The trailers are trying their best to sluttify this thing.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
I am actually furious at the so-called skeptics here that allow the hate groups to carry the message. For a long time, the only repository of documents was the PMF and TJMK site. And the message that went with those documents was GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. This is what the journalists first see if they try to research for their articles. This is what the curious individuals see when they they try to find out more about this case that has been in the news.

Now there are other resources scattered around the internet. A few individuals have stepped up to translate some of the key documents. But try to find an index, a comprehensive list of documents, some place to search the known material for specific facts. What is known, What is rumor, What is peer reviewed, What is supported by references, What has been kept up to date as new information becomes available?

Since I started on this case years ago I've been pushing the wiki site format as a tool for making the best information available in the most useful ways. I started a private wiki with the resources I had available and invited many to contribute to make it better. A few have contributed and I thank them but so many others have signed up and since ignored it.

So many of you have waisted so much time just reading this thread not to mention any research and posting time. And what have you got to show for it? Sure, you might think you would do well if there were a quiz show on only this case. But probably not. Who do you think would be running the show? It's not going to be a skeptic with the factual answers!

For those that post here, who do you think is going to go back and read those old posts? Sure, I have the entire thread archived and indexed so I can refute claims with posters own words. But threads are of limited value when it comes to research. Much of the older information is found to be inaccurate but it still pops up contaminating search results making new information harder to locate. The same goes for blogs, they are not much more than single poster threads.

So now there is a wiki on the Meredith Kercher case. Finally somebody picked up what I've been saying and created a resource to more effectively distribute their message. But their message is not the truth. The wiki is filled with intentional bias pointing towards guilt. This is what happens when skeptics sit on their asses.

Is the answer to a guiltier wiki the creation of an FOA wiki? I don't think the interested public is interested in a wiki war. They are looking for facts to answer their questions. If they wanted he said/she said superficial arguments they would listen to the broadcast news. What the public wants and needs is trusted factual information with references and analysis that goes as deep as they wish to dig.


In my opinion, the answer to the biased wiki is not to answer it but to supersede it. This applies not only to this case but for all cases where there are strong contentions and conflicting information. But do the skeptics have what it takes to make this happen?

[/rant]
Click to expand...

I agree with you Dan, I've been far too lazy. I've done a little, but not much more. I started to use Google translate to work through Pellero's testimony but it was very tedious and I stopped. I'm sorry. I also have some diagrrams etc that I've wanted to upload to your Wiki, but have never got around to it.
 
Poppy1016 said:
Dan O.
I have always wished there was something I could do to help in the areas you describe. I am retired,and have time,but I fear that I am not as skilled as may be needed. I would be willing to do anything I could,I'm just not sure what to do.
Click to expand...


The only difference between you and the great leaders in industry is that you are willing to admit that you don't know what you are doing.

The only skill we are born with is the ability to learn. I've found that the best way to learn a new skill is to plagiarize. When you see a form that you like, copy it. make incremental changes and decide which you like best. Eventually the form will become your own.

Much of the work is simply mechanical chores. Finding and importing the original source documents, translating documents using Google, searching documents to build lists such as the names of people involved, elements for timelines. Pick whatever facet interests you, look to see if it already exists then gather the information to create it or update the existing element. Alternatively, as you are following the discussions and doing your own research, when you find a fact that you didn't already know look to see if it needs to be added to the wiki.

There are now two wikis. My private wiki and LondonJohn's public wiki. Help look at LondonJohn's wiki and see if it has the potential to go beyond the FOA answer to a guilter site and become a true skeptics resource. Unfortunately, his site is a faux wiki built on top of wordpress. I don't know yet if it will provide the full wiki capability or if I or somebody will still need to create the public skeptics wiki. In either case, the data collected in my wiki will need to be fact checked and transferred to the public wiki.

Lots of work to do. There ought to be something for everybody.
 
Honesty is the key...

-

Dan O. said:
The only difference between you and the great leaders in industry is that you are willing to admit that you don't know what you are doing.

The only skill we are born with is the ability to learn. I've found that the best way to learn a new skill is to plagiarize. When you see a form that you like, copy it. make incremental changes and decide which you like best. Eventually the form will become your own.

Much of the work is simply mechanical chores. Finding and importing the original source documents, translating documents using Google, searching documents to build lists such as the names of people involved, elements for timelines. Pick whatever facet interests you, look to see if it already exists then gather the information to create it or update the existing element. Alternatively, as you are following the discussions and doing your own research, when you find a fact that you didn't already know look to see if it needs to be added to the wiki.

There are now two wikis. My private wiki and LondonJohn's public wiki. Help look at LondonJohn's wiki and see if it has the potential to go beyond the FOA answer to a guilter site and become a true skeptics resource. Unfortunately, his site is a faux wiki built on top of wordpress. I don't know yet if it will provide the full wiki capability or if I or somebody will still need to create the public skeptics wiki. In either case, the data collected in my wiki will need to be fact checked and transferred to the public wiki.

Lots of work to do. There ought to be something for everybody.
Click to expand...
-

You can't read or look at something and decide (because it makes Amanda or Raffaele look bad) to ignore it.

That's what the PGP camp does when it runs across something that makes their guilt look like innocence and we're better than them, by a long shot.

Honesty is the key there,

d

-
 
Last edited:
HotNostril said:
Totally agree!

Amanda Knox is a proven liar.
Click to expand...

It is strange how Amanda is attacked by the haters for lying but the haters slavishly defend corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies. The haters gave glowing 5 star reviews to John Kercher's book Meredith which was riddled with numerous falsehoods. The haters often spread lies in Amazon reviews and in the comment sections of articles about the case eg female thumbprints were found on Meredith's neck. The haters have just created a pro guilt wiki filled with falsehoods. In view of this it hypocritical for the haters to condemn Amanda for lying.
 
lamasheen said:
2 - Raffaele tells the police in his phone call that nothing was stolen. Why would he make this claim when there is a break-in and the reason he is calling the police is to report a break-in and he does not live there and still has not discovered MK? The correct answer for most people would have been just "I don't know" or even "how the F do I know, I don't live here and haven't taken inventory".
Click to expand...

Amanda and he arrive at the apartment. Someone has broken in. Meredith's door is locked and she's not answering, she's probably not home and has locked her door. Since it's locked the burglar wouldn't have stolen anything there. Raffaele and Amanda look around and talk about if anything is missing, Amanda says "no". The police ask Raffaele if anything was missing, he says no.

Really quite simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom