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

[Bill Williams]

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.

Case in point - Machiavelli is willing to attempt a case against Knox, based on a non-existent "relationship" between her an Rudy Guede. This is combined with being completely resistant to develop a comprehensive timeline of the crime, one that fits with Dan O.'s known way-points.

All based on one comment Rudy once made that he was attracted to Knox. One comment. This becomes parleyed into it being "consistent with" Knox trading sex for drugs, and that "Knox had the name of a known drug dealer in her contact list in her phone."

Welcome to the lies - not to mention the unfounded innuendo. Then again if there were no lies and unfounded innuendo, there'd be NO case against Knox or Sollecito. Indeed, the Nencini court seems to have convicted on this principle.

 

[Desert Fox]

I have been reading through the various arguments from the pro guilt side on this forum.
There seems to be nothing solid to any of their arguments.
Has anybody seen any arguments that are actually good?

 

[Bill Williams]

I said that Knox decided to release a statement.
Which is exactly the same thing Mignini said.

Try to come to grips with it.

I have provided this forum with the proof that this is NOT what Mignini said, at least he said the opposite to Drew Griffin.

This is where your style betrays you. You merely make the assertion. I've already come to grips with this. It is called "Machiavelli lying."

Rather than merely assert I am wrong, you may wish to provide some actual "evidence". Why do I feel yet another assertion by you in our future?

 

[Bill Williams]

I have been reading through the various arguments from the pro guilt side on this forum.
There seems to be nothing solid to any of their arguments.
Has anybody seen any arguments that are actually good?

There are a lot of assertions and a lot of ad hominems. It's kind of like what happened in Nencini's court.....

So at least the proguilt side DOES understand something most do not.

 

[Desert Fox]

I wrote previously that the case just seemed similar to the Norfolk Four but I think one of the items that initially got my attention was "Satanic Ritual"

Even if they later came up with a plausible story, that leaves so many red flags that I would be inclined to be suspicious of whatever they argued next.

 

[NancyS]

I have been reading through the various arguments from the pro guilt side on this forum.
There seems to be nothing solid to any of their arguments.
Has anybody seen any arguments that are actually good?

Not that I've heard - at best they are mostly based around minor inconsistencies and annomalies found at the crime scene. At worst they are based around Amanda is a big liar, if she's a big liar, she must have murdered Meredith - or otherwise Amanda had sex, having sex is evil, evil people murder and on and on and on (depending what mud they want to throw at Amanda's personality, whilst forgetting all about Raffaele and trying to make out that Guede was misunderstood.

 

[Welshman]

Case in point - Machiavelli is willing to attempt a case against Knox, based on a non-existent "relationship" between her an Rudy Guede. This is combined with being completely resistant to develop a comprehensive timeline of the crime, one that fits with Dan O.'s known way-points.

All based on one comment Rudy once made that he was attracted to Knox. One comment. This becomes parleyed into it being "consistent with" Knox trading sex for drugs, and that "Knox had the name of a known drug dealer in her contact list in her phone."

Welcome to the lies - not to mention the unfounded innuendo. Then again if there were no lies and unfounded innuendo, there'd be NO case against Knox or Sollecito. Indeed, the Nencini court seems to have convicted on this principle.

I made this point before. If there was a mountain of solid irrefutable evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele and a 100% slam dunk case against them, why are the haters consistently unable to make the case for guilt without having to resort to lying? I gave an example of a hater on Amazon who said there were female thumbprints on Meredith's neck. Why do the haters have to resort to making things up if there was a mountain of genuine evidence against Amanda and Raffaele? If there was a solid case against Amanda and Raffaele, the haters should simply be able to list the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele truthfully.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I made this point before. If there was a mountain of solid irrefutable evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele and a 100% slam dunk case against them, why are the haters consistently unable to make the case for guilt without having to resort to lying? I gave an example of a hater on Amazon who said there were female thumbprints on Meredith's neck. Why do the haters have to resort to making things up if there was a mountain of genuine evidence against Amanda and Raffaele? If there was a solid case against Amanda and Raffaele, the haters should simply be able to list the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele truthfully.

Just a mo. Raffaele and Amanda lost their appeal in an Italian court; their final appeal will be heard by the Italian Supreme Court; so what do you believe the respective opinions of English language based discussions web sites have had on the passage of a court case in Italy and in Italian?

 

[platonov]

As they say it is over when the fat woman sings. It would not be unknown for the ISC to return the case for review for a third time. We have the ECHR case. Lots of time for this thread to run.

Yes I am a scientist. I make a testable hypothesis and try to disprove it. So which school of thought are you with? Stone thrown from inside or out? Stone thrown against inside surface or outside surface of window. All are compatible with staging. So which do you favour? Or are you afraid to commit? Because if you actually had to come up with a definite hypothesis it might be proven false and you might have to face the fact that you had condemned two innocent people.

To be frank I do not know or care about AK or RS, live or die all the same to me. I do care about shoddy science. So if I'm proved wrong I really do not mind. If they found a knife with MK blood on the blade and AK or RS finger prints on the handle I'd happily say they're guilty. I'm not emotionally invested in this.

As it is I think the most reasonable explanation is RG (with a clear history of breaking and entering, stealing mobile phones, carrying a knife) broke in and for some reason killed MK. I think there is no evidence to suggest RS or AK were involved, and any arguments to the contrary show a lack of understanding of the science.

I suspect your response means I touched a nerve, challenging your confirmation bias. If my comment angers you it is because it challenges your cognitive model.

Yea, you got me.

Routinely on this thread I have been roundly intellectually spanked by teachers, critical thinkers, vets, lawyers, phone engineers, fantasists, christians, scientologists, Mrs Doyle, time travelers and philosophers.

And now an actual scientist is about to repeat the dose and thus I lashed out.

Mea Culpa



On the broken window conundrum - which I see Kaosium has 'addressed' :
I dont like repetition so If you want to see my posts on this extremely complicated issue just google or use forum search for ..
my username & 'a photo of the window' & 'as the old joke has it someone fetch a 6yr old'.

Hope this helps.

 

[platonov]

Another marble rattles loose

While this is true, the informer theory fits and explains some aspects of the way the case has been discussed and managed which are otherwise problematic.

The PMF sites have always very strongly pushed a "poor, misunderstood Rudy" line even back in the very early days when the only thing really clear from the English sources available was that Rudy Guede definitely did it, and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were believed by the Italian police to have done it too.

Given the passionate hatred for Amanda Knox and her family expressed by the posters on those sites, their fondness for Rudy has always struck me as intensely weird. Even if you are locked in to the irrational belief that Knox was somehow involved, that really shouldn't lessen the culpability of Rudy Guede for having Meredith Kercher's actual blood on his actual hands, right? Yet poor, misunderstood Rudy is painted as the victim of Knox's manipulations (despite her poor Italian at the time), as having repented, as having redeemed himself by fingering Knox and Sollecito, as having a chance for a normal life after prison and so on.

It doesn't make any sense to me, unless someone has an agenda other than "remembering Meredith Kercher". The Perugian law enforcement community seem the likely source of that agenda. I don't see how the Kerchers stand to make a buck out of whitewashing Rudy Guede's reputation so it doesn't seem likely that it's them this time.

Old news Kevin - the now departed Justinian [for it was he] anticipated this particular story ages ago. Well, he outed an Italian cop on this very thread.
Of course he was one of the smartest of the critical thinkers in Cartland so its no shame to follow in his footsteps. Shoulders of giants and all that

But but ... not to diss you (or Justinian) there is a problem with this theory.
Most of those PMF types are jews or blacks, right.
Now neither of these groups are over represented in ILE (AFAIK) . So there appears to be a disconnect.

Unless, unless ... precisely why no one would make the connection.

The devious ********.

Luckily you were on hand to out think them.

At this rate the conspiracy will soon be unravelled

 

[Bill Williams]

Yea, you got me.

Routinely on this thread I have been roundly intellectually spanked by teachers, critical thinkers, vets, lawyers, phone engineers, fantasists, christians, scientologists, Mrs Doyle, time travelers and philosophers.

And now an actual scientist is about to repeat the dose and thus I lashed out.

Mea Culpa



On the broken window conundrum - which I see Kaosium has 'addressed' :
I dont like repetition so If you want to see my posts on this extremely complicated issue just google or use forum search for ..
my username & 'a photo of the window' & 'as the old joke has it someone fetch a 6yr old'.

Hope this helps.

It doesn't.

While you're at it, could you point us to your comprehensive time line of this crime.....

One that accounts for Nara not really knowing if it was Oct 31 or Nov 1, or Quintavalle who testified 5 years ago to only seeing Knox, but who's now (for a second fifteen minutes of fame) saying he saw Raffaele and Rudy too.

Perhaps you might also point to the alleged mountain of evidence that says the break in was staged. Hint: start with the Channel 5 documentary demonstration of how easy it was for Rudy Guede to break in.

 

[Antony]

That woman could just as well be Amanda.

Not likely bolint. That was within minutes of the time that Meredith parted ways with Sophie Purton as they walked home together. Also that person is alone, not with Raffaele, not with Rudy. Alone and 15 minutes after Ms Popovich saw Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment.

Not only that, but if it were Amanda and not Meredith, there would still have to be separate footage of Meredith returning home.

 

[Matthew Best]

Did he refuse? Where'd he do that at?
.
.

Point out to me where he has backed it up and I'll withdraw.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

"Not I", said the walrus!

I'm trying to think who you mean in relation to the public wiki - but it's not me!

I don't mind saying that while I can totally understand and respect why some people are striving to become activists on Knox's/Sollecito's behalf, I'm not one of those people. I am interested in furthering the debate, and would perhaps hope that occasionally I can offer something of even tiny value or insight. And if I'm correct in my point of view on this case, I very much hope that Knox and Sollecito will ultimately be properly and fully exonerated by the Italian criminal justice system, that they will be able to fully rehabilitate their lives and reputations, and that they will have sufficient financial recompense to compensate them fully. I also would hope that the family and friends of Meredith Kercher will be able to come fully to terms with the fact that it was only Guede who attacked and killed Meredith, and that they will be able to gain peace and (the dreaded word) closure with that knowledge.

But I have no yearning to engage in proactive advocacy or education in regard to this Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt/innocence. As I said, I respect those who choose to do so, since I believe that their aims are honourable and just. For me, though, I am content for my participation to limit itself to engagement in the online debate.

 

[Planigale]

Now you enter your usual pathetic, insulting lying mode. You fall back into it. Even when you face the obvious of written text, you can't help spouting the false. What you say it's false. Dut you defy the obvious.
I told the truth, and above all, I told exactly the same thing that Mignini said.
Amanda Knox decided to release a statement.
It's not difficult to understand the meaning of this phrase. But apparently you fail.

PS. A dead person cannot be robbed because the law says this, not because I think. But in addition to this - and I remark the concept in addition - there is also another fact, that is, that the phones were tossed away thus the indication that the purpose of the person who took the phones was a staging, that is the intent of the thief vas just the removal of the phones and not the keeping of the phones.

I do not know definition in Italian law, but I think in England theft involves intentionally depriving someone of the benefits of something. It remains theft if you take something and destroy it or dispose of it.

The other problem with your argument is that the person taking the item may have intended keeping or selling the item when taken, then changed their mind and dumped it. It was theft when taken.

Finally of course you are ageing that the first court was wrong since they found AK was guilty of theft. So who is right in interpreting the law you or the judge who found knox guilty of theft?

 

[Samson]

I suspect Nencini has created a private hell for some of the jurors he apparently has railroaded into joining him in his boys night out with nothing better to do theory. Remember they were reported to have listened intently to Raffaeles testimony, which was truthful. I hope he is now engaged in his private hell putting putrid flesh on these bones in his motivation fiction.

 

[acbytesla]

Not only that, but if it were Amanda and not Meredith, there would still have to be separate footage of Meredith returning home.

No, not necessarily Antony. The CCTV camera is motion controlled near the gate of the Parking garage. Meredith almost certainly didn't activate the camera in that view and a minute or two later there might not be a any images of Meredith returning home that night.

 

[js202]

Not only that, but if it were Amanda and not Meredith, there would still have to be separate footage of Meredith returning home.

Like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it? Classic, half-formed PGP logic.

 

[js202]

No, not necessarily Antony. The CCTV camera is motion controlled near the gate of the Parking garage. Meredith almost certainly didn't activate the camera in that view and a minute or two later there might not be a any images of Meredith returning home that night.

Hm. I'm confused. Meaning the camera stopped working after a certain hour?

 

[acbytesla]

Just a mo. Raffaele and Amanda lost their appeal in an Italian court; their final appeal will be heard by the Italian Supreme Court; so what do you believe the respective opinions of English language based discussions web sites have had on the passage of a court case in Italy and in Italian?

That is kind of a cop out Coulsdon. "The courts said they were guilty so the must be guilty?" Surely you can do better than that.

That is hardly evidence of their guilt. The same things could be said about Dreyfus, Ryan Ferguson, Debra Milke, Randall Adams...etc...etc..etc.

This a skeptics website where we don't just accept things at face value but discuss the evidence and the logic. As they say on the basketball courts, "Don't bring that weak ass game to my house"