Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

So - Machiavelli is part of another team translating, mediating or being a diplomat for an English-language version of the Marasca report.

I'll bet anyone how "forte sospetto" will be interpreted!!!!!!

All right Bill and what do you think it means and what does Mach say it means?

 

[Vixen]

There is NO doubt that significant incriminating evidence reduces or eliminates entirely the need for motive. That said, this case screams out the need for and the absence of it. This is not one person but the idea that three people that knew each other for less than 2 weeks and that just barely and two people didn't know each other at all conspired to murder a fourth. THERE HAS TO BE A REASON.

Amanda was desperately jealous of Mez, who was more popular, had superior academic and linguistic ability, taller, and much better looking. Mez snubbing her on halloween was the final straw. Rudy and Raff were a couple of ne'er-do-well thrill-seekers in her thrall.

No wonder Raff says he wishes he'd never met her.

Poor Mez is the real victim in this.

 

[Vixen]

Hey Vixen. I just called you out for posting 3 more lies to this forum. I would think you would want a retraction and an apology. So? Are you going to post court citations to back up your posts or are you satisfied that these are lies?

Stop being a bully. It is a fact, V&C were excoriated.

 

[Vixen]

And disproves the need for a motive. Are you saying as some have that because lacking a motive she couldn't be guilty?



Droll. The motive could be that she didn't like Thursdays. Or Fridays depending on TOD. Vixen has a motive or many motives.

Some want fifteen minutes of fame. Thanks to the murder, Amanda can brag she's "a best-selling author", got Diane Sawyer to squeeze her blood-drenched hands on TV and the fool thinks she's a celebrity.

 

[Vixen]

If the bloody fingerprint is found and the prints owner denied being a the scene a lack of motive wouldn't change a thing.

This case was a bungle from day one. The ISC seems to have it partly correct in stating that.

Someone claimed years ago the interrogation recording would be coming out very soon. Any updates?

Bruno and Marasca slagging off the police, is pure mafia code of honour stuff.

 

[Vixen]

I would buy that if we are talking about a single person. I don't when we are talking about 3.

Both Draper and his chum in the Scream murder and Jacob Ind in killing his parents, also with a chum, shows that with young psychopaths, help from peers is not at all rare.

 

[Vixen]

Yea, what did the 3 suspects have in common? No 2 are even citizens of the same country. Two had never met. Two had just barely met, The one that the gulters suggest had the prime motive could barely speak the language of the other two. Two are college educated and the third was not.

Yea, that has the makings of a mob.

That didn't stop "Kevin Wade" (Rudy) from chatting up American students. Sure Raff was quite studious, but he was a "rebel without a cause", together with the restless Amanda, who craved excitement.

 

[Vixen]

Social psychology does offer relevant explanations for group or mob mentality and violence. When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity. Groups can generate a sense of emotional excitement, which can lead to the provocation of behaviors that a person would not typically engage in if alone. - See more at: http://source.southuniversity.edu/examining-the-mob-mentality-31395.aspx#sthash.BQXLGevL.dpuf

Deleted.

 

[Vixen]

Then Amanda and Raff would leave solid physical evidence at the crime scene - Bloody footprints, fingerprints, likely Amanda and/or Raff's DNA under Meredeth's fingernails, etc.

If there was a clean up, there would be real evidence of a clean up where everything is mysteriously clean.

You haven't explained why there are massive gaps between Rudy's footprints in luminol.

As well as being Olympic standard discus/boulder thrower, gymnast ropes/wallclimber it appears he was a world record triple jump maestro, too, as well as having at least six arms to inflict two different types of knife wounds whilst holding Mez' hands down. Not only that, he was OCD and felt the urge to return, clean up, stage a burglary, scatter random papers about, undress the victim, drag her across the floor with a sheet, but then lock up the door after him, with his hands behind his back!

 

[Vixen]

There is still the problem that Amanda and Raffaele barely knew each other. The aftermath makes it even more unbelievable IMO. One or all 3 would buckle and blame it on the others. Rudy knowing that Amanda and Raffaele had been arrested would have been singing like a canary.

Sorry, still doesn't work.

They did blame each other, Rudy blamed Raff, Raff blamed Amanda and Amanda blamed Rudy.

 

[Vixen]

Of course, scientists write books all the time about their field of expertise. A Brief History of Time (Stephen Hawking), the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the Principia (Isaac Newton). One might say it is common, actually, as the entire point of being an academic is to publish their work for other people to read and understand. I certainly hope you understand that the publication of work from a leading expert in the field is not evidence that the content of the book is wrong. An expert wouldn't publish incorrect information for a minute personal gain, because that would completely destroy his reputation and his career. That would make literally no sense!

Now, there are situations where non-experts may write a book to "line his/her coffers" as you say, and to exploit a situation for their own personal benefit. With respect to this case, can you think of any examples of this, Vixen? Do you think doing such a thing may taint their perspective and bias his/her perspective a bit, Vixen?



Well, no kidding! He wasn't there when the evidence was collected, as that would have been impossible since he wasn't involved in the evidence collection! And there wasn't enough material for Stefanoni to repeat the LCN analysis of the knife more than once, as required by international protocol to insure reliability (so innocent people don't get convicted on misleading evidence), remember? So how is Gill supposed to "see" evidence first hand that was either used up, destroyed by Stefanoni (remember how she destroyed the bra clasp by storing it incorrectly?), or collected 7 years ago?

Regardless, it is normal to write an analysis of evidence that you don't "see first hand". That you think this is unusual is one of the more ridiculous things you have said. It literally happens all the time in science. This is why scientists document their work. It's kind of the entire point of what they do; perform experiments and those experiments are reviewed by other people. This is how the entire scientific process works.



Well, he's actually quite literally one of the very top people in forensic genetics, and one of the founding fathers of the entire field. But I guess since he doesn't agree with you that makes him a disgrace.

Out of curiosity: if the fact that one of the very top scientific experts in their field publishes a factual analysis proving the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was unreliable and misleading does not convince you, what will? You literally cannot get a stronger refutation than that, short of gaining an expertise in molecular biology and looking at the evidence yourself (hint: everyone that has an expertise in molecular biology and has looked at the evidence themselves agrees with Gill). Instead, rather than incorporating this information and updating your belief appropriately, the world leading expert becomes a "disgrace" in your mind. Do you see a problem with this, Vixen? I ask again, if the opinion of the top expert in the field doesn't change your mind, and the opinion of every other expert in the field that has reviewed the case doesn't change your mind, and the laws of molecular genetics don't change your mind, what will?

Not so. There are academic texts, and then there are mass maket paperbacks intended for the commercial market. Newton wrote at a time when only the learned read books anyway.

When I took my psychology degree the "pop psychology" books on the market, whilst bestsellers, were viewed as anathema by our lecturers, little more than garbage.

Dr Gill is a self-professed paid advocate for the defense, so of course he's going to try to swing it by using his influence. It's called the "halo effect".

The forensic police are well-experienced and qualified. They have no motive to frame anyone. In addition, it's not possible for anyone to fake a DNA profile.

The ginormous globule of Raff DNA could no way have been transferred from the door handle via a latex glove to the bra clasp. You have to be incredibly gullible to believe that.

 

[Grinder]

Amanda was desperately jealous of Mez, who was more popular, had superior academic and linguistic ability, taller, and much better looking. Mez snubbing her on halloween was the final straw. Rudy and Raff were a couple of ne'er-do-well thrill-seekers in her thrall.

No wonder Raff says he wishes he'd never met her.

Poor Mez is the real victim in this.

Duh!
One of the saddest aspects of this whole case is the PGP doing these ridiculous comparisons.

 

[Vixen]

You are completely misunderstanding the argument.

It doesn't matter if the DNA comes from skin, tissue, blood, or whatever else. Any process that would remove all of the blood would remove the DNA as well. This is true no matter the source of the DNA.

A proof: assume the DNA came from skin tissue. The knife was covered in blood. It is then cleaned to remove all traces of blood such that it tests negative for blood under the most sensitive forensic testing. THAT CLEANING PROCESS WOULD REMOVE THE DNA AS WELL (and it would remove the DNA more readily and easily than the blood). This is true even if the DNA DID NOT COME FROM BLOOD. The source doesn't matter. Any method used to remove the blood that thoroughly would completely destroy and remove the DNA as well (irrespective of source). I mean, this is how a forensic testing lab cleans and decontaminates as well -- if you can't remove DNA through a thorough cleaning then no DNA testing, no matter how rigorous, would be reliable because DNA could always be stuck in an invisible groove and impervious to cleaning.

If the knife was the murder weapon, it would be covered in both blood and the victim's DNA. Since there was zero blood under the most sensitive forensic testing, that means it either a) wasn't used as the murder weapon, or b) was cleaned extremely thoroughly. Since starch was found on the blade, we know b) is not true. Since Amanda's DNA was found on the handle, we know b) isn't true (cleaning would remove DNA, whether the source of the DNA was blood, tissue, skin, or whatever else. It's important you understand this.). Since the blade didn't match the wounds, we know b) isn't true. Thus a) must be true. The knife wasn't used as the murder weapon and it was entirely fabricated as a piece of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele using bad and misleading science. Proper LCN protocol wasn't followed. Therefore we know Meredith's profile was due to contamination. We know Amanda's DNA profile was on the handle because she used the knife for cooking (because she did indeed use the knife for cooking; and there was starch on the blade). This is the same opinion as every expert who has thoroughly examined the evidence and/or the documentation of the evidence. This is logically airtight proof that the knife was not connected to the murder.

The DNA was discovered lodged in a microscopic striation on the blade when forensic police magnified it under special lighting. It was organic matter which turned out to have a strong DNA profile of Mez.

The defense had an expert scientific observer there to witness the testing, even if the blackguard deliberately absented himself.

There is no innocent explanation for Mez' organic matter being on the blade.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks, I never heard that claim before. However, I have heard many people assert that there are many blatant LIES and/or (innocent?) distortions in John Kercher's book, so his book must be taken with a large grain of salt.

While Meredith was scheduled to fly home in early November, it's certainly possible that she missed home and did a quick trip in early October as ONLY her father claims.

If Meredith's father's other unsubstantiated assertion is correct, that Meredith had kavetched about Amanda all the way home in early October, then it's rather surprising that Meredith returned to Perugia from England and then went to a chocolate festival, and then the next week to a concert, with Amanda.

I despair. Hello? John Kercher's version is the honest one. Yours is a pile of pants.

ETA Amanda ripped out her diary pages re the chocolate festival and Mez left the concert half way through.

Even Raff was embarrassed by Amanda, claiming she was nodding her head and tapping her feet to classical music as though she was at a rock concert! Perhaps she even whistled along, like Del Boy at the opera.

 

[Bill Williams]

All right Bill and what do you think it means and what does Mach say it means?

Ok, you were not around when Msch msde it clear? Just need to know the baseline of knowledge so as to cut down on need for keystrokes.

Anglo is proof reading the results of another translation project, at first said Machiavelli may have a point, then after seeing larger chunks said the bromance was cooling....

Help me with the starting point of where you are...

 

[toto]

I despair. Hello? John Kercher's version is the honest one. Yours is a pile of pants.

ETA Amanda ripped out her diary pages re the chocolate festival and Mez left the concert half way through.

Even Raff was embarrassed by Amanda, claiming she was nodding her head and tapping her feet to classical music as though she was at a rock concert! Perhaps she even whistled along, like Del Boy at the opera.

Every now and then she would bob her head in time to the music, almost as if she were alone in the room with no one around to see her. Something about her was undeniably eccentric, but I didn't dislike it at all. I'd never met someone with so few inhibitions, yet she had this goofy charm that drew me to her and made me feel immediately comfortable.

Honor Bound pp5-6

..Meredith left at intermission to meet friends for dinner..

Waiting to be heard p.51

 

[Grinder]

Ok, you were not around when Msch msde it clear? Just need to know the baseline of knowledge so as to cut down on need for keystrokes.

Anglo is proof reading the results of another translation project, at first said Machiavelli may have a point, then after seeing larger chunks said the bromance was cooling....

Help me with the starting point of where you are...

Not a trick question Bill. What do you think it means and what does he. I went back and read the mentions and it was sparse and not clear. In fact the phrase only shows up once in his posts and it is you that uses the term.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams
Rats. You beat me to it.

Of course there was "forte sospetto". Why would Mignini have done what he did without "forte sospetto"?

Once again, why is it that nearly all, if not all, Italian media is seeing the Marasca report for what it is? A damning indictment of an amnesiac, incompetent, media-fueled myopic prosecution with a judiciary mainly co-conspirators!

Bill, the report places Knox on the scene of crime while Meredith was being killed. States that unequivocally Guede did not act alone. Emphasizes that Knox was certainly malicious when she falsely accused Lumumba. Reminds that Knox certainly came into contact with Meredith's blood, and that she washed her hands of it. It lists a series of pieces of evidence, each time pointing out that it's a valid piece and a reason for "suspicion".

The objective fact, is that this is what the Bruno-Marasca report is.

Any consideration about the media - or whatever you think about media, as long as it is your your interpretation of the media - is accessory, contour. It is not the real object.

An intellectual's job is to discover the object, what's below the surface. To research facts, not what allegedly people talk about.

People who can discuss with me are those who are interested in looking at facts. Those who are interested in the truth. Truth is made of facts, facts of the case, and one of the (many) facts of the case is, what the text of one SC report actually says. It's a factual element. Some who is interested may talk about it, think about it, and make other people talk about it. Either you are interested in the topic, or not. I am not interested in a discussion about what I think about what secondary sources say about "x", with someone who declares to be not interested in the object "x". If you are not interested about the actual content of the SC report, you have nothing to discuss with me and no question to ask. You won't be discussing with me an object indirectly, about what someone else thinks about it and what I think about what someone thinks about... (this is what you always do). You don't want to talk about facts of the case such as what Bruno-Marasca say, what you try to do seems to talk about me, to "frame" a social phenomenon or talk about how "popular" a talk is among media. This is the contrary of what an intellectual does. As long as the object is the case (about which this forum talks). An intellectual searches the truth, thje fact; not the echoes, the "reflexions", the "traction", the politics, talk about, the fashion. What is below, not what is above.
What you seem to do is to skip the content of the SC report. To set it aside. To skim over the fact. You have something to discuss with me if you intend to face the content of the Kercher case. It's a content that you don't know, because you claim you can't read Italian. The first thing a person (hones intellectual person researching a topic) should do, is to learn facts about the topic they don't know. Either you are interested in seeing what Bruno-Marasca say, or you aren't.

 

[acbytesla]

Stop being a bully. It is a fact, V&C were excoriated.

No. Where are the court citations?

Repeating one of those lies doesn't make it true. I think we have pointed out about 10 lies in the last 5 days. Notice I didn't say falsehoods. Because they are more than that when they are deliberate.

I'll apologize and retract WHEN you post court citations. Until then, you are a member flooding the forum with lies.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not a trick question Bill. What do you think it means and what does he. I went back and read the mentions and it was sparse and not clear. In fact the phrase only shows up once in his posts and it is you that uses the term.

You may need to look back farther, then. IIRC the term is used five times, with another word between them just to confound an easy use of the "find" function.

I realize it's not a trick question but it would make it easier if you were clearer as to what your agenda for asking is. I thought I'd been clear, also that he'd been clear.

Is this another gotcha set up?

 

[Vixen]

No. Where are the court citations?

Repeating one of those lies doesn't make it true. I think we have pointed out about 10 lies in the last 5 days. Notice I didn't say falsehoods. Because they are more than that when they are deliberate.

I'll apologize and retract WHEN you post court citations. Until then, you are a member flooding the forum with lies.

Read Chieffi.