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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow – again, what a lot of emotional responses.

What is the problem
- my highlighting the low response to the petition
- the perceived smear of AK [or Obama's dog's] character
- the reference to RS's taste in pornography [ he was into even sicker stuff IIRC , dismemberment etc ] .

The first and last are factual – hence the upset perhaps.

As regards the middle ...
It was a throwaway line – but the response again highlights something I noted soon after I first posted on this topic. The constant furious efforts to defend Amanda's honour – very telling. Bizarre but explicable as I said at the time.

As I pointed out then and it remains true today, it's her liberty not her honour that's at stake.

Amanda's honour? or honor? Frankly, I'm more interested in defending her obvious innocence. I don't care if she's a slut or a virgin. There is simply no evidence pointing to her involvement in her crime. Unfortunately, Amanda and Raffaele are being demonized in an attempt to get others not to look at the facts of the case.

Sadly, there are people like you that are blind to facts and logic. That are enjoying twisting their mustaches and carrying pitchforks.

Someone has to defend these kids against the likes of you.
 
You forgot your headline: Defending the honour of killers.

Here is the problem: the evidence clearly shows they're not killers. Perhaps you'd like to argue the facts on that? Sans invented "I think I heard that" sort of stuff?

Your display of joy at the recent court decision and the difficulty in which they find themselves is therefore a bit like a guy who cheers while watching a freight train advance toward a pair of innocent people tied helplessly to a track.

I think most of us have heard the insults so often it just gets old after awhile. The same old character smears repeated so often they become just silliness.

Why are none of the pro-guilt posters willing to give us a theory and a timeline that fits with the evidence in the case? Maybe because they can't.
 
Shout, shout turn yourself about...

-

It's a difference of opinion rather than "hate".
-

Then why don't they spend as much time opinionating about Raffaele and Rudy?

It's because they hate Amanda and are not doing it for TJMK but to GWAK, whom they hate.

Rudy is allowed to leave the prison for hours at a time and there were a very small amount of people who complained on one of the PGP sites, but were shouted down by the rest who said it was a good thing,

d

-
 
-

It's because the trauma has made you forget.

All you have to do is clear your mind... and get someone to slap the back of your head to push the memory forward...

-
No, I don't think so. I'm a lover not a killer. That's just a lot more fun.
 
It's a difference of opinion rather than "hate".

LOL! It's the manner in which that "difference of opinion" is conveyed that makes them hate sites. I am not sure the mods here would tolerate even reposting some of the stuff....

I think the only time I ever saw someone on one of those sites being rolled back by a moderator was when someone went off on, "what a slut Amanda was." For some unknown reason, and after all the other invective that had been hurled, all of a sudden the use of the word "slut" was off limits.

That's the only time I have ever seen actual moderation exercised at that site, in the manner which is practised with regularity here. Even IIP has moderated according to similar standards as JREF, although it, too, has been tolerant of guilter's hate-language, too.

To call it a "difference of opinion" is quite the hoot to hear. I was banned from one of the sites - banned! - for suggesting that the break-in was eminently doable! After, there was a lot of invective heaped my way with no chance of responding!
 
Last edited:
It's a difference of opinion rather than "hate".

No, it's hate.

There is a huge difference between having a difference of opinion on the merits of a controversy and troll behavior. As much as I disagree with Machiavelli's opinions for the most part I don't see him as a troll. For the most part I don't see troll behavior even from the guilters on this site. But I see them all over the Internet discussing this case and other cases as well as on controversial issues.
 
No, it's hate.

There is a huge difference between having a difference of opinion on the merits of a controversy and troll behavior. As much as I disagree with Machiavelli's opinions for the most part I don't see him as a troll. For the most part I don't see troll behavior even from the guilters on this site. But I see them all over the Internet discussing this case and other cases as well as on controversial issues.

Machiavelli here is not a troll, not in the definition as applied to folk who post on threads like these.
Machiavelli offers valuable insight into the think of prosecutors, often anticipating what a prosecutor will come up it. He is wedded to their reasoning that it is not their job to provide evidence....

... it is their job to offer assertions, and then supply an osmotic and logical overview of why guilt could be true based on it all. Machiavelli is no troll.
 
A letter written by Rudy Guede on the FB page "Processo e dintorni. Storie di vite e storie di giustizia"
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Proc...di-vite-e-storie-di-giustizia/248562865304583
With what NancyS was saying about dissociation recently I wonder whether Guede might have persuaded himself that he didn't do anything.
Now that is an intriguing thought. I'd love to hear from anyone with expertise in this area.
 
An 80 year old quote from the Andrew Gumbel article nicely sums up Italian justice:


"It may be that half of the sentences handed down are unjust […] and therefore half of those in prison are innocent; but by the same reasoning half of those acquitted and set free are in fact guilty and should be in prison. Instead of worrying about individual cases, it's important to look at the bigger picture and understand that every error is compensated by another in the opposite direction. So the scales of justice are in balance and we judges can sleep easy at night."

- Piero Calamandrei "In Praise of Judges"

http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/tr...htmare-italian-justice/#.UvpNvbs45zR.facebook

That's kind of like singing in a choir. When you sing sharp and I sing flat, it doesn't even out!:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
-


-

I guess people who like slasher movies and researching serial killers are both doomed to become killers also. It's a wonder half the population of the world isn't dead from all of us "perverts" yet,

d

-

In this case, the insinuation derives from a single comic book written for Japanese teenagers. That was the strongest evidence of a deviant personality they could find when they searched his apartment.
 
The protocols she skipped and lied about are the ones where she determines if there was anything on the blade or anything on the swab she extracted. That's rather important if you stop and think of it! The 'too low' is the same result she would get if there was nothing on the swab when she extracted it. That lab processed hundreds of item with Meredith Kercher's DNA, there was nothing on the knife except debris and food particles which show the knife wasn't scrubbed clean to remove all blood traces and it tested negative for blood with the two tests Stefanoni performed and the one the independent experts did. As she got the same result as nothing when she tried to quantify what she extracted, the irresistible inference is that that smidgin of DNA came from her lab. It registered 'peaks' of 20-40 RFUs (as opposed to 1000-2000) which with an Identifiler kit and 28 cycles suggests around 10 picograms of material, around 1 nanogram (1000 picograms) is what that equipment is designed for. One reason for those minimum DNA thresholds (she used 100 RFUs on most samples, 50 RFUs was the lowest in use at the time) is to prevent 'profiling' contamination.

However she lied about the amount in court, claiming she quantified it with Real Time PCR amplification and got a result of 'some hundreds of picograms.' At that juncture her (paper) records weren't available and they avoided allowing the defense to see them until July 30th, 2009 which is where much of this was discovered, including her lies about the TMB negatives she also hid. To this day she has managed to avoid releasing the EDFs, the electronic data which those electopherograms are generated off of, defying the request of the independent experts and the judge.

So to make a long story shorter, there's no reason to think that DNA was ever on the blade and numerous reasons to think it wasn't. There's no reason to think it was even in the sample she put into the extractor, and in fact she could even have photoshopped it, though that's not what she did, instead she just advanced contamination as evidence and lied about it to hide that.

To use your example it would be the equivalent of the police finding absolutely nothing in the trunk, but taking out the trunk rug and claiming to the court they'd found a pill. Then when the records were shown it was determined there was no pill, instead she tested the trunk rug in a lab which tested hundreds of items with ecstasy dust and what she actually claimed she found tested negative first but then when performing more tests in that dirty lab claimed she found 1% of a pill by ignoring the lab rules which automatically discount that as they know that picking up minute quantities like that happens when you test hundreds of items that do have ecstasy dust on them. Oh, and she refuses to actually show the results of the test but just a piece of paper that says she found a minute amount of dust and won't let you see the entire results of those tests come hell or high water.

I read somewhere in the last court Crini didn't even pretend there was Meredith's DNA on the blade anymore, he just used the knife anyway as it had Amanda's DNA on the handle because she used it to cook with. I await further information on that.

Very good description.

I would add that the ecstasy dust expert also failed to run the required negative and positive control tests to assure the testing machine was working properly plus that nothing was contaminated with ecstasy.

The trunk full of pills revealed in an accident is not similar as an analogy. It would be closer if someone pretended that a pill was found in the trunk and then showed you a photo of a pill and said ....See look there. It is a pill right there in this photo.

Q. Where is this pill now? A. It was consumed in the test or lost or stored in acid because that is how we were taught to store this evidence. But trust me...it was a pill. Q. Can we see the raw data file from your camera and the program you used to produce this printed photo? A. NO! Oh OK then I guess we simply have to believe you then. Guilty beyond all doubt!
 
Last edited:
I think most of us have heard the insults so often it just gets old after awhile. The same old character smears repeated so often they become just silliness.

Why are none of the pro-guilt posters willing to give us a theory and a timeline that fits with the evidence in the case? Maybe because they can't.
They don't have to give a theory but Nencini does, and in reality he will be writing a second attempt after Massei. It presumably will describe the killing before the car break down, and what they did next. Massei had an easier job, as he did not have to account for activity during this period. I can not imagine he is looking forward to the task, some suggest he does not believe in their guilt. Will he allow for the 9 26 cartoon?
 
Last edited:
I was arguing with a person in Germany about Raffaele's DNA on the clasp and Meredith's DNA on the knife and used this as evidence on just how easy it is for DNA contamination to occur.
Wasn't having any of it. Just told me to read the Italian Supreme Court document on the case. Now, he said "Especially these pages" and "Especially these pages." I did not read the whole thing but those he pointed to. Did not give me a good feeling of the Italian court. They he told me I had to read the whole thing. The thing is that it is written in legal language as is which makes it really had to make heads or tails out of it.
The legal jargon doesn't help, but what really makes the document hard to understand is the faulty logic.
I believe that when many people have trouble comprehending some of the more convoluted case-related documents, they don't want to admit it because they think that they might look foolish. It's a bit like the people who didn't want to admit that couldn't see the Emperor's new clothes (a common analogy in this case). To me, it looks a bit like a tarted up 'baffle them with bull pucky" strategy.
 
The dirt, yes. The bra clasp....no that was probably carried in Stefanoni's pocket so she could plant it at the scene.

Interesting. You don't suppose . . . ? This intimate item, Meredith's bra clasp, wasn't just lying on the floor in the open. It had moved, been stepped on (the metal hooks were crushed), and was supposedly "found" under a rug. Then how did they find it? As I understand, a helpful police officer who was seen on video glancing toward the rug went to the rug and (supposedly) pulled it out from under there, off-camera. It was then handed to Stefanoni on camera who handled it like it was a lost jewel, fondling it with her dirty glove and possibly wiping a dirty-gloved finger on the metal hooks herself (shielding that last move from the camera's view). She then put it back on the floor to be photographed on the floor, in situ, a move that in the US might be interpreted as staging evidence for the camera. She then picked it up and triumphantly showed it off. So I repeat, you don't suppose . . . ?
 
Wow – again, what a lot of emotional responses.

What is the problem
- my highlighting the low response to the petition
- the perceived smear of AK [or Obama's dog's] character
- the reference to RS's taste in pornography [ he was into even sicker stuff IIRC , dismemberment etc ] .

The first and last are factual – hence the upset perhaps.

As regards the middle ...
It was a throwaway line – but the response again highlights something I noted soon after I first posted on this topic. The constant furious efforts to defend Amanda's honour – very telling. Bizarre but explicable as I said at the time.

As I pointed out then and it remains true today, it's her liberty not her honour that's at stake.


No! It is neither liberty or honor that we discuss here. Rather only facts of this case are important and that they either prove or disprove involvement of two accused persons in the death of Miss Kercher.

For me the argument and evidence and facts seems abnormally tilted in favor of innocence meanwhile the guilt side fails miserably to even present a simple time line showing guilt. In fact all they ever present are meaningless bullet points much like your post here does. Nothing factual about the case. Rather opinion that could be attributed to any number of perfectly normal non murderous people.

But none of that matters really. More important is the fact that the prosecution and the convicting judges all fail miserably to present any sort of time line indicating guilt and involvement of any sort of these two in what was a brutal murder.

In fact they go to extreme and silly measures to ignore botched science, illegal interrogations, missing evidence, meanwhile clinging to discredited, silly, lying, drug addicted witnesses and sanctioning corrupt and complete failure to allow a fair and honest discovery of material critical to the defense in this case.

Why it is as if they wanted to make a fair trial impossible! ;-) Just the facts mam.
 
One more British opinion that the case against Knox and Sollecito should have never made it to court, much less been convicted.

Of interest is that this European Parliament member from the UK criticises the Kerchers - not for their loss (obviously) but for calling for Knox's incarceration while at the same time claiming that no one knows what happened that night.

Why, though, is there no mention of Raffaele?

Roger Helmer MEP: Continental Justice?

http://www.betteroffout.net/roger-helmer-mep-continental-justice/

it seems clear that considerable doubt remains over the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox. A colleague who advises UKIP in Brussels, and is a former barrister, assures me that no British jury would have convicted on the evidence presented in Florence. If she is innocent, then she has been subjected to the most appalling nightmare over many years, which will inevitably blight an otherwise promising young life.

It seems to me that in this case (and I admit I am no expert) the Court in Florence has applied the test of “balance of probabilities” (appropriate to civil actions) in a criminal case where (in the UK at least) the test is “beyond reasonable doubt”. I dare say that Knox’s defence team would argue that she should be found Not Guilty even on the balance of probabilities. I find it inconceivable that her guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 
In this case, the insinuation derives from a single comic book written for Japanese teenagers. That was the strongest evidence of a deviant personality they could find when they searched his apartment.

That Japanese comic book was encased in plastic as a collector's item. Raffaele was given it as a birthday present when he was a teenager by another boy at a birthday party. He saved it as a collector's item. A classic collector's item. No evidence he ever took it out and looked at it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't; but keeping it in plastic shows it's value to him was as a classic item to save - not keep on his nightstand to refer to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom