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

[Caper]

Sorry Amy... But are you arguing guilt or in innocence or still trying to form an opinion?

 

[AmyStrange]

I believe they're Innocent...

-

Sorry Amy... But are you arguing guilt or in innocence or still trying to form an opinion?

-

The TOD (the duodenum, Meredith's last try to her Mom, and Rudy's Skype) is what proves to me that the probabilities are too high for Raffaele and Amanda to have killed Meredith.

That is the only thing the TOD proves to me. It doesn't prove that Amanda didn't go there later for just 15 minutes to get something,

d

-

 

[lane99]

If it doesn't fit...just say it does, and hope no one notices

That's not what he said in what I read. Do you have a cite for this?

There is a cite. It's in the same book ("Journey into Darkness", or such as) I believe you quoted from earlier in this thread. So if you have the book, you'll find it in there. I don't have a copy handy and don't remember the page.

How did Douglas describe the accuracy of his profile of Morin in whatever it was you read?
.
.

 

[BaileyBell]

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed. Did that Harry dude really convince all those people that Amanda and Raphelle were guilty?

I read about 10 pages and was kinda shocked how many more guilters there were than I had previously thought. I'm not going to lie, it forces me to question my own beliefs when I see such a large number of individuals that are convinced of guilt. I do believe though, that no matter what, the amount of reasonable doubt in this case should be an acquittal in any western justice system. I guess I'm just confused now how that many seemingly educated and reasonable individuals can be so heavily convinced of guilt.

 

[GWCarver]

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed. Did that Harry dude really convince all those people that Amanda and Raphelle were guilty?

I read about 10 pages and was kinda shocked how many more guilters there were than I had previously thought. I'm not going to lie, it forces me to question my own beliefs when I see such a large number of individuals that are convinced of guilt. I do believe though, that no matter what, the amount of reasonable doubt in this case should be an acquittal in any western justice system. I guess I'm just confused now how that many seemingly educated and reasonable individuals can be so heavily convinced of guilt.

Educated and reasonable people should be looking at the facts and the evidence instead of listening to a yahoo like Harry Rag - assuming that is the "Harry" you are talking about.

 

[Matthew Best]

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed.

If you're talking about Harry Rag, I think he's posted on just about every single site that had anything about Amanda Knox somewhere on it - except this one.

 

[Desert Fox]

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed. Did that Harry dude really convince all those people that Amanda and Raphelle were guilty?

I read about 10 pages and was kinda shocked how many more guilters there were than I had previously thought. I'm not going to lie, it forces me to question my own beliefs when I see such a large number of individuals that are convinced of guilt. I do believe though, that no matter what, the amount of reasonable doubt in this case should be an acquittal in any western justice system. I guess I'm just confused now how that many seemingly educated and reasonable individuals can be so heavily convinced of guilt.

Argumentum ad populum?

Multiple reasons:
It is a horrific crime. Many believe that it cannot just be the work of one man. Similar lagic with the death of Kennedy, 9-11, Pearl Harbor, etc.
People have trouble believing that anybody would confess (even vaguely) to a crime when they are innocent
Have trouble believing that is can happen to an innocent person. Otherwise, they could see it catch them.
Simple respect for authoirity. They believe the authority must be right
I am sure there are others as well.

 

[acbytesla]

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed. Did that Harry dude really convince all those people that Amanda and Raphelle were guilty?

I read about 10 pages and was kinda shocked how many more guilters there were than I had previously thought. I'm not going to lie, it forces me to question my own beliefs when I see such a large number of individuals that are convinced of guilt. I do believe though, that no matter what, the amount of reasonable doubt in this case should be an acquittal in any western justice system. I guess I'm just confused now how that many seemingly educated and reasonable individuals can be so heavily convinced of guilt.

Are you talking about Harry Rag the most prolific guilt poster of them all?

I'm sure that there are hundreds of people convinced of Amanda's guilt. In fact it might even extend into the thousands. But I wouldn't even begin to understand just how many there really is. There are people that have multiple monikers. I can think of both PIP and PGP that use different handles for different sites. I'm pretty much the same one every where.

I'm with you about the your mystification. I feel the same way.

Personally, I think most of them are people that were sold on Amanda's and Raffale's guilt and have no way to walk back from their jump to conclusion. But if a genius like Einstein has a difficult time admitting that he was wrong...what makes you think ordinary mortals don't suffer from the same problem?

 

[Dan O.]

Amy it's the definition. Jimmied doesn't mean propped open - it means breaking in - why not say she could have just bombed the front door?

I believe the common use of the phrase had changed many years ago. Jimmied is also understood^* to reffer to interfering with the locking mechanism such as wedging a piece of wood into the latch so the door will appear to close but doesn't lock.

[*] except by hard nosed dictionary thumpers

 

[Desert Fox]

Personally, I think most of them are people that were sold on Amanda's and Raffale's guilt and have no way to walk back from their jump to conclusion. But if a genius like Einstein has a difficult time admitting that he was wrong...what makes you think ordinary mortals don't suffer from the same problem?

The reverse can be argued against us. . . We are sold on their innocence
I will grant that I am more likely than some to see reasonable doubt.
Trouble is that I cannot even see this as a reasonable doubt issue.
I see them as simple innocence.

 

[Dan O.]

Remember, the first official sighting I've found of Rudy at the clubs dancing was about 12 midnight.

Have you got a cite for that? There is a good cite for dancing at 2am on November 3 and it's often said that he was dancing at 2am on the 2nd but without naming a witness.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I believe the common use of the phrase had changed many years ago. Jimmied is also understood^* to reffer to interfering with the locking mechanism such as wedging a piece of wood into the latch so the door will appear to close but doesn't lock.

[*] except by hard nosed dictionary thumpers

-

Thank you Dan,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Have you got a cite for that? There is a good cite for dancing at 2am on November 3 and it's often said that he was dancing at 2am on the 2nd but without naming a witness.

-

no I don't. I just made a shout out here, and the earliest was a midnight maybe.

2 am was the time, I saw more times cited, which really just begs the question even more, what is he doing for 3+ hours (or longer) after leaving Meredith the first time and before he leaves for Germany?

I know you don't think Rudy went back after killing her, and I think it is less probable that it happened also, but it's still possible in my mind,

d

-

 

[kwill]

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed. Did that Harry dude really convince all those people that Amanda and Raphelle were guilty?

I read about 10 pages and was kinda shocked how many more guilters there were than I had previously thought. I'm not going to lie, it forces me to question my own beliefs when I see such a large number of individuals that are convinced of guilt. I do believe though, that no matter what, the amount of reasonable doubt in this case should be an acquittal in any western justice system. I guess I'm just confused now how that many seemingly educated and reasonable individuals can be so heavily convinced of guilt.

I know what you mean.

Many of them really are educated and reasonable, but it takes more than that to reach valid conclusions. You have to be able to take new information on board and assimilate it, which is one thing that can't happen under their rules.

Those sites don't tolerate any dissent, and you'll have noticed that there's dearth of educated and reasonable guilters willing to post here. I wish it were different, because I'm pretty sure that the ones who really are reasonable would both sharpen the discussion and help to highlight exactly which way the evidence points.

The problem is that their certainty doesn't serve them; it just makes them comfortable in a sort of self-reinforcing echo chamber.

Here's a thought experiment:
If Rudy confessed tomorrow to having killed Meredith alone, stolen her cash, and thrown away her phones, would those sites collapse after everybody there realized they'd been unjustly and viciously targeting a pair of innocent college students? Or would there be guilters who still thought they "had something to do with it," or that Rudy had somehow been coerced?

Conversely, if Amanda confessed tomorrow that she and Raffaele were there, and gave exact details of how the murder happened, would the sites full of people who have worked so hard to demonstrate why the two of them are innocent collapse? Or would there be people still insisting on innocence and claiming that Amanda had lost her mind?

I think in the former case you'd have people who would refuse to accept it, and in the latter every single one of us would be saying, "Wow, I was flat wrong."

It's about whether you're able to hear something new and evaluate it on its merits. The guilters, IMO, can't do that. I don't know why, but they can't.

 

[Bill Williams]

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed. Did that Harry dude really convince all those people that Amanda and Raphelle were guilty?

I read about 10 pages and was kinda shocked how many more guilters there were than I had previously thought. I'm not going to lie, it forces me to question my own beliefs when I see such a large number of individuals that are convinced of guilt. I do believe though, that no matter what, the amount of reasonable doubt in this case should be an acquittal in any western justice system. I guess I'm just confused now how that many seemingly educated and reasonable individuals can be so heavily convinced of guilt.

Harry Rag/The Machine is unique - no matter which "side" you look on. There is no one quite like the internet-presence of HR/TM.

Even the most hardcore guilter, or most logical innocenter.... every one of them has gone through some evolution of thought.

Not so Harry Rag.

I used to try to reply to the carpet-bombing of various internet sites, but it didn't seem to matter and it was truly impossible to keep up.

Harry Rag/The Machine has not moved one iota from the "mixed-blood", "ample amount of DNA" factoids that have long, long, long since been debunked. I've not followed him that closely, really, but he seems not to have taken into account even the revision of a "guilt perspective" of the March 2013 Cassazione quashing of acquittals, and the Jan 2014 re-convictions.

Can anyone think of, or has anyone ever seen a movement of thought from HR?

 

[acbytesla]

The reverse can be argued against us. . . We are sold on their innocence
I will grant that I am more likely than some to see reasonable doubt.
Trouble is that I cannot even see this as a reasonable doubt issue.
I see them as simple innocence.

Of course it can. People who act like they know everything are annoying to those of that do.

The ability to change one's mind when new information comes to light is the mark of both intellectual honesty and emotionally intelligence. Some times smart people can be both intellectually dishonest and/or emotionally stupid.

I changed my mind twice on this case and if new information came to light I could and would change my mind again. Not that I think or believe that any new evidence became available.

I'm with you, I think they are innocent and were naive. They needed to put a sock in their mouths and demanded to see a lawyer when the cops ask to talk to them a second time. Other than that, I can't really criticize either Amanda or Raffaele.

There is only one piece of evidence that troubles me in the least and that is the bra clasp. And I chalk that up to contamination or downright police corruption.

Beyond that, there is nothing that makes me think that they could have done it.

 

[Dan O.]

The TOD (the duodenum, Meredith's last try to her Mom, and Rudy's Skype) is what proves to me that the probabilities are too high for Raffaele and Amanda to have killed Meredith.

That is the only thing the TOD proves to me. It doesn't prove that Amanda didn't go there later for just 15 minutes to get something,-

If we accept the defense claim about the screensaver logs and other evidence it shows that Raffaele never really went to sleep that night until 6am. Is that when you think Amanda went out?


You are supposing that Amanda went out without Raffaele's knowledge. You are supposing that Rudy went back to the cottage where's there is a dead girl and he doesn't attempt to clean up his traces, wash the body, take the clothes, wipe down anything he might have touched, mop the floor where he tracked blood and where he fell on his butt in the kitchen, toss the bathmat in the pool of blood, flush the toilet. Rudy did none of this. He had not returned to the cottage.

Rudy had already searched most of the cottage before Meredith came home. He had found Meredith's cash and had been through Laura's drawer at the other end of the cottage. He was ready to leave when he took a bathroom break. If he needed more cash he would go to another student apartment. This one was simply too hot.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm with you, I think they are innocent and were naive. They needed to put a sock in their mouths and demanded to see a lawyer when the cops ask to talk to them a second time. Other than that, I can't really criticize either Amanda or Raffaele.

I don't necessaily see myself as doing any better.

This case though. . .The hero of the case sentances Amanda Knox to four years for lying while she was effectively forced into it.

 

[andreajo]

I don't necessaily see myself as doing any better.

This case though. . .The hero of the case sentances Amanda Knox to four years for lying while she was effectively forced into it.

To add insult to injury, she was being billed for investigative expenses, including the translation into Italian of a journal that was leaked to the media. A little while ago, Machiavelli mentioned that she and Raffaele ought to be billed for the kazillion euro animation as well.

This kind of undermines the principle of presumption of innocence...

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei did not see any psychopathology in Knox or Sollecito

I've been asked to repost the part of Massei where he denies that the two have any psychopathology. I'm not sure how Massei could have been any clearer...

The issue is, the ONLY people who talk psychopathology are hardcore guilters - where they get it from I don't know.

it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons. These circumstances seem significant ex Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code.

Both defendants are very young, and were younger still at the time the events [took place]. The inexperience and immaturity characteristic of youth were accentuated by the situation in which both found themselves because it [the situation] was different from that in which they had grown up and did not have the usual points of reference (family, friends, acquaintances made through the years, one’s own country and town....