Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

What is obvious to anyone that actually reads the words that she wrote and doesn't override them with their own projections is that what Amanda misses was the quiet parties where friends talked with a few drinks and not the loud get drunk bar hopping partying that was going on both in the bars that Amanda visited that night and at the disco where Meredith was busy getting drunk.

If there were any hurt feelings, Amanda had an opportunity to air them with Meredith at noon the next day when Meredith finally crawled out of her bedroom. And if Amanda had said anything to Meredith, Meredith would have gossiped it to her frinds and it would have come out at the trial. But we have heard of no such talk.

Instead, Amanda goes home with Raffaele and they have a quiet evening talking, watching movies and having sex. She doesn't even let a broken pipe in the kitchen spoil that evening.

Mistake: Thought the statement was about the prior night.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is completely absurd. You gloss over that this is not required in a motivations report, when it would be a great asset for a judge to prove something against someone if it was even remotely true.

And if it not required in a motivations report, what is Mignini doing putting it TO the court in his closing? If Massei believed it at all, why didn't

a) Massei order a psychological evaluation, or
b) repeat what Mignini said, in closing, as a factor, circumstantial or otherwise, in his report?​

Take it out of this situation, and the whole process you outline is asinine. It's difficult to believe you'd even try to put it to print. This is a sick fantasy.

Sorry, one problem is you appear to be ignorant about the ABC of procedure.

But first, between us just consider that the prosecution are not psychologists or psychiatrists, they would be really amateurish if they pursued evidence of that kind, they don't have the competence to elaborate on such scenarios. They are not able even to see it, and they don't search for that.

About procedure you completely ignore fundamental principles, for example something that is expressed by Art. 220 paragraph 2.

(..) Salvo quanto previsto ai fini dell'esecuzione della pena o della misura di sicurezza, non sono ammesse perizie per stabilire l'abitualità o la professionalità nel reato, la tendenza a delinquere, il carattere e la personalità dell'imputato e in genere le qualità psichiche indipendenti da cause patologiche

"Except for what concerns the execution of the sentence or to assess acutionary measures, expert reports meant to establish: the habit or professionality of the crime, the tendency to commit crimes, the charachter and the personality of the defendant and in general psychological qualities independant from patological causes, are not admitted".

 

[Machiavelli]

Gossip is catty. It's needlessly hurtful to spread stories about another person. It's immature to do so without confronting that person. You don't know what it was that Meredith actually said, only what the English women said.

Oh, we know very well that the English girls couldn't know anything of Amanda's behaviour at home, but what Meredith told them.
Because it would be impossible for them to learn that, unless Meredith told them.

Meredith is not here to defend herself. I give her the benefit of the doubt and point out that her friends were immature and vicious, because of their own testimony.

Apart from the fact there is no doubt Meredith was the one who told them, Meredith wouldn't need to defend herself, because she did nothing.
There is actually nothing immature and vicious in what those women said, there is nothing vicious in talking about your roomate in general.

If you think it's obvious her English friends disliked Amanda, and you deduce so solely based on the fact they talked about things, then you are also saying it's obvious Meredith disliked Amanda. It's elementary.

And if you think the English women reported about their opinions, their likes and dislikes, then you are behind a think black curtain of denial, because witnesses report facts, events, memories.

There was nothing immature and vicious in what they said.
The problem is that you don't like what they said.
And the reason why you don't like that, that's only my guess, is that you feel that you may be too similar to Amanda Knox. You feel there may be something in her personality that resembles you. You identify with her, and this is the only reason why you don't like the way Meredith talked those gossip and that she criticized things.

Your motive is transparent. Your self-contradiction and your baseless calling "vicious and catty" some witnesses is so glaring it doesn't require a comment.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, one problem is you appear to be ignorant about the ABC of procedure.

But first, between us just consider that the prosecution are not psychologists or psychiatrists, they would be really amateurish if they pursued evidence of that kind, they don't have the competence to elaborate on such scenarios. They are not able even to see it, and they don't search for that.

About procedure you completely ignore fundamental principles, for example something that is expressed by Art. 220 paragraph 2.

It would be helpful if you didn't make my point for me. You are the one going on and on and on and on about Knox's so-called, "narcissistic personality." You have presented NOTHING, nothing at all to support your smear.

But added to this....... you are the one who summarized Mignini who, at closing, did EXACTY what you now say, "they don't have the competence to elaborate on such scenarios."

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.
First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":​

For pity's sake, Machiavelli, whose side are you on?

I'm beginning to think you believe that Wednesday's decision by Cassazione will not go well for your side.

This is perhaps the most, bar none, bizarre series of posts there have been. And that's saying something.

 

[Desert Fox]

About procedure you completely ignore fundamental principles, for example something that is expressed by Art. 220 paragraph 2.

(..) Salvo quanto previsto ai fini dell'esecuzione della pena o della misura di sicurezza, non sono ammesse perizie per stabilire l'abitualità o la professionalità nel reato, la tendenza a delinquere, il carattere e la personalità dell'imputato e in genere le qualità psichiche indipendenti da cause patologiche

"Except for what concerns the execution of the sentence or to assess acutionary measures, expert reports meant to establish: the habit or professionality of the crime, the tendency to commit crimes, the charachter and the personality of the defendant and in general psychological qualities independant from patological causes, are not admitted".

The problem is that you are still asserting without evidence which most jurisdiction (Maybe Italy is the exception but I doubt the ECHR will support them) consider a valid argument for a mistrial. A classic case in the US is the David Camm trial.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is perhaps the most, bar none, bizarre series of posts there have been. And that's saying something.

The pro guilt posts I have been reading today period have been some of the most bizarre I have ever read. I saw that earlier when I was discussing Eric Wilson.

 

[AmyStrange]

Oh, we know very well that the English girls couldn't know anything of Amanda's behaviour at home, but what Meredith told them.
Because it would be impossible for them to learn that, unless Meredith told them.



Apart from the fact there is no doubt Meredith was the one who told them, Meredith wouldn't need to defend herself, because she did nothing.
There is actually nothing immature and vicious in what those women said, there is nothing vicious in talking about your roomate in general.

If you think it's obvious her English friends disliked Amanda, and you deduce so solely based on the fact they talked about things, then you are also saying it's obvious Meredith disliked Amanda. It's elementary.

And you think the English women reported about their opinions, their likes and dislikes, then you are bahind a think black cuirtain of denial, because witnesses report facts, events, memories.

There was nothing immature and vicious in what they said.
The problem is that you don't like what they said.
And the reason why you don't like that, that's only my guess, is that you feel that you may be too similar to Amanda Knox. You feel there may be something in her personality that resembles you. You identify with her, and this is the only reason why you don't like the way Meredith talked those gossip and that she criticized things.

Your motive is transparent. Your self-contradiction and your baseless calling "vicious and catty" some witnesses is so glaring it doesn't require a comment.

-

More pop psychology that is just plain wrong.

Mach, except for some simple pop psychology "catch-phrases" (like the one above), you know little to nothing about real psychology, plus you operate on confirmation bias most of the time, and your critical thinking skills need a lot of fine tuning. You have made some good points now and again, but in the psychology department, you are just plain wrong,

d

-

 

[kwill]

The problem is that you don't like what they said.
And the reason why you don't like that, that's only my guess, is that you feel that you may be too similar to Amanda Knox. You feel there may be something in her personality that resembles you.

Your motive is transparent. Your self-contradiction and your baseless calling "vicious and catty" some witnesses is so glaring it doesn't require a comment.

Gobsmacked again. I should probably stop responding to these increasingly bizarre posts, but they are serving the purpose of exposing how truly twisted a person's thinking has to be if they're going to try to justify Mignini's disgusting "Now we will make you have sex," fantasy.

You are correct, Mach. I don't like what those women said in court. I find them catty, vicious, and immature. But this isn't about me, right?

It's about whether or not there is any evidence in the record to show that Amanda Knox disliked, resented, hated, was sexually attracted to, or was jealous of Meredith.

There isn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is perhaps the most, bar none, bizarre series of posts there have been. And that's saying something.

The pro guilt posts I have been reading today period have been some of the most bizarre I have ever read. I saw that earlier when I was discussing Eric Wilson.

Is there something in the water?

I'm still reeling from this set of posts by machiavelli....

But first, between us just consider that the prosecution are not psychologists or psychiatrists, they would be really amateurish if they pursued evidence of that kind, they don't have the competence to elaborate on such scenarios. They are not able even to see it, and they don't search for that.​

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.
First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":​

For the first time I am wishing that Mignini himself followed this thread. What's Italian for, "With friends like you, Machiavelli, who needs enemies?"

Con amici come voi che ha bisogno di nemici

 

[Bill Williams]

Gobsmacked again. I should probably stop responding to these increasingly bizarre posts, but they are serving the purpose of exposing how truly twisted a person's thinking has to be if they're going to try to justify Mignini's disgusting "Now we will make you have sex," fantasy.

You are correct, Mach. I don't like what those women said in court. I find them catty, vicious, and immature. But this isn't about me, right?

It's about whether or not there is any evidence in the record to show that Amanda Knox disliked, resented, hated, was sexually attracted to, or was jealous of Meredith.

There isn't.

Massei heard testimony from Meredith's boyfriend:

(Giacomo Silenzi) had had a romantic relationship with Meredith, which had begun a couple of
weeks before she was killed.
There were no particular problems between the girls; the only complaint had been
about cleaning the house.
The relationship between Amanda and Meredith was normal and friendly. Now and
again, they would have dinner and spend time all together.​

Perhaps Machiavelli might want to post something to suggest otherwise, rather than simply making wild assertions.

Please also note that Rudy Guede says different.... that Amanda and Meredith were fighting. Judge Nencini believed Rudy Guede over Giacomo Silenzi. Draw your own conclusions about Judge Nencini.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't think anybody gets along 100% every second of every day. . . .That would be abnormal to me

 

[Machiavelli]

The problem is that you are still asserting without evidence which most jurisdiction (Maybe Italy is the exception but I doubt the ECHR will support them) consider a valid argument for a mistrial. A classic case in the US is the David Camm trial.

Also, it's just not true that personality issues would be a big asset to the prosecution. In the real world psychological expert reports is mostly worthless evidence at trials. In the real practice not even serial killers are assessed by experts, not because inadmissible but because it's worthless evidence. You suspect a narcissistic personality disorder, would you demand an expert assessment? No prosecutor would. Or they would have to do so for all criminals. I don't remember even one case where a report about personality was ordered, unless it was to determine that a folk was insane to the point of not be able to tell a duck from a melon.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I don't think anybody gets along 100% every
second of every day. . . .That would be abnormal to me

-

That's so true.

Normality is an abstract construct anyway,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

Also, it's just not true that personality issues would be a big asset to the prosecution. In the real world psychological expert reports is mostly worthless evidence at trials. In the real practice not even serial killers are assessed by experts, not because inadmissible but because it's worthless evidence. You suspect a narcissistic personality disorder, would you demand an expert assessment? No prosecutor would. Or they would have to do so for all criminals. I don't remember even one case where a report about personality was ordered, unless it was to determine that a folk was insane to the point of not be able to tell a duck from a melon.

Your post seems to have the only purpose to suggest that Amanda has a narcissistic personality without presenting any evidence to support your argument.

I am not really worried about what you can show in court but that there is no evidence off the court either. Plenty of people know her personally and do not consider her a narcissist yet you want to argue it without evidence.

You want to argue that Tom Cruise is a narcissist, that may be a different issue.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's so true.

Normality is an abstract construct anyway,

-

Years ago, when I was in the navy, I had a buddy who said that normal was getting stumbling drunk every Friday and throwing up. Since I did not drink, I was not normal.

 

[Bill Williams]

Also, it's just not true that personality issues would be a big asset to the prosecution. In the real world psychological expert reports is mostly worthless evidence at trials. In the real practice not even serial killers are assessed by experts, not because inadmissible but because it's worthless evidence. You suspect a narcissistic personality disorder, would you demand an expert assessment? No prosecutor would. Or they would have to do so for all criminals. I don't remember even one case where a report about personality was ordered, unless it was to determine that a folk was insane to the point of not be able to tell a duck from a melon.

Upthread you called Mignini amateurish and incompetent.

Now there will be dietrology telling us why you did not.

 

[kwill]

Also, it's just not true that personality issues would be a big asset to the prosecution. In the real world psychological expert reports is mostly worthless evidence at trials. In the real practice not even serial killers are assessed by experts, not because inadmissible but because it's worthless evidence. You suspect a narcissistic personality disorder, would you demand an expert assessment? No prosecutor would. Or they would have to do so for all criminals. I don't remember even one case where a report about personality was ordered, unless it was to determine that a folk was insane to the point of not be able to tell a duck from a melon.

Not a big asset to the prosecution.
Worthless evidence at trials.
Worthless evidence.



So basically what you're saying is . . . Amanda is psychologically abnormal and unstable to the point that she got so freakishly jealous and bitter over not getting to hang out with these English women who didn't even like her that she took a knife to Meredith while saying, "Now we will make you have sex!"

But that's worthless at trial.

Actually, of course, if there were evidence that Amanda really was that crazy it would be very valuable at trial. Instead we got the catty English women with their gossip and nothing else. So now it's officially worthless.

Got it.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Years ago, when I was in the navy, I had a buddy who said that normal was getting stumbling drunk every Friday and throwing up. Since I did not drink, I was not normal.

-

They're right. You're not normal, ha ha, just kiddin',

d

-

 

[codyjuneau]

For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages.

Hey! Where's the citation? Nobody can find it. Where did you get this idea from?

I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.

Mach actually cited a specific page in Burleigh's book, but so far, no one can find the quote.

Maybe it was removed with the same magic soap that Amanda and Raffaele used to clean up their DNA from the murder room.

.
Yeah and:

Like the striation on the knife that Doc Stef could see but nobody else could.

Or the bleach receipt the police had that turned out to be a pizza receipt.

Or like the washing machine being warm when the police arrived, but it wasn't.

Or like the first 3 interrogation recordings that don't exist because of budget problems.

Or like Mignini's credentials as a Notary.

Or like the 39 missing wiretapped phone conversations.

Or like the data on the 4 computers that the police destroyed.

Or like the CCTV camera images in town that the police erased.

Or like all the Raw data files for the DNA which Doc Stef hides.

Or like the bra clasp that Doc Stef destroyed.

Or like Amanda's missing shirt, that was on her bed at the cottage all the time.

Or the Harry Potter book that Amanda lied about, but actually did not because there were two of them.

Or the size of the bathmat footprint that was mis-measured by the police expert.

Or the ladies foot print in the murder room that turned out to be Rudy's.

But the biggest disappearing act of all is:

The results for the putative semen stain found on the pillow case of the pillow that was found between the legs of Meredith's naked body.

No, come to think of it, the biggest disappearing act of all is:

The total lack of professionalism, honesty, integrity, and/or justice accorded to Raffaele and Amanda. But at least this will be corrected by the ECHR.

Cody
.

 

[Desert Fox]

They're right. You're not normal, ha ha, just kiddin',

Actually, it is fine. . . .I am not normal