Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

A sharpened hammer would be a hatchet but you meant a pointed hammer so you're forgiven.

Can you explain how removing some things from a shared residence to prank a roommate is vaguely similar to the alleged staging at the cottage. In the former no damage was done to the building and things were hidden whereas in the latter the window was smashed and nothing was taken from the break in room - phones, cards, and money were taken from Meredith.

The fact the subject of Amanda's very hilarious prank was apologised to, indicates the type of trauma he or she must have felt. A friend of mine had his room at Surrey Uni turned over and he freaked out. It turned out to be a prank, but it wasn't the slightest bit amusing to him. His impulse was to immediately trash the room of the prankster.

 

[Vixen]

Don't you know that anything Amanda ever did which is vaguely tricky is evidence that she killed President Kennedy. . . . .It does not matter that she was not even alive yet.

Strangely, psychopathic killers are scarily samey.

 

[Vixen]

So here's the deal.

Every time someone trots out pseudo-evidence like this, it is an indication that even they are conceding that the "hard" forensics have collapsed - the DNA, the luminol, etc.

After the DNA evidence collapsed at the Hellmann/Zaneti trial, we were promised that there still was, "all the other evidence" that still convicted them. As mentioned, all that, "all the other evidence" pops up whack-a-mole style. It doesn't matter how many times the April Fools prank back in Seattle is debunked (as evidence relevant to the Perugian murder) - sure enough, someone will recycle it in what amounts to a six-month cycle - and that's just on JREF/ISF.

I dare you. Do a search for it. April Fools prank. One English language, Italian poster here at JREF once said that the whole of Seattle knew about the April Fools prank, and he said they virtually conceded that it was relevant to the trial because all of Seattle practised the Mafia concept of Omertà; meaning that they took a vow of silence to protect one of their own.

This is the way a ersatz-guilt narrative is constructed - from a patchwork of these guilt-sounding things, heavily reinterpreted.

One I fell for early on was the claim that Knox went to Italy already a felon, for the rock-throwing incident at her going away party. Remember that - a felon.

When I joined JREF in the fall of 2011 I simply assumed that was (unfortunately) true. Then I was pointed to JREF posts circa April 2010 where the issue, way back then was discussed ad nauseam.

One guilter had, right on cue, defended the (then recent) Massei conviction by saying, "After all she went to Italy already a felon."

Then - this is five 1/2 years ago people!!! - someone got ahold of the noise citation, a citation the equivalent (according to the form) of a speeding ticket. There was, then, testimony proffered that the reason Knox was served with it, was because she was the least drunk and the most responsible of the people there. Other house-renters could have easily been served.

What have guilters for the last half-decade been citing this as an example of, when it comes around in the cycle?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397153d41aabb5645.jpg[/qimg]

I even have it here on file at ISF for the next time someone claims it was a war-zone felony.

April Fool prank, or rock-throwing incident - the only reason to raise these things is to readily concede there never was much of a case against Raffaele and Amanda; or else they be talking DNA and luminol.

Let's get this into context. bagels and Grinder were arguing that since Rudy had burgled the second-floor lawyers office, then he must have burgled the cottage, grimly intent on scaling a 9 foot wall with no footholds. I said, by that logic you could also argue that as Amanda had definitely by her own account staged a burglary before, then she was conversant with the concept.

It is a fact that most criminals have a history of offences, and whilst the noise-ticket is indeed relatively minor in the scheme of things, cops thought it serious enough to fine her. Raff has drug possession in his records.

A studious RC college student who has a wild side and decides to go to Italy to lay every guy in sight, is a symptom of this underlying personality disorder. It means nothing outside this context, and is nothing to do with slut shaming. Johanna Dunnohy (sp??) was a normal middle-class home counties girl who at 15 suddenly started getting drunk on whisky, smashed windows in the classroom and ran away with fairground workers. She was a diagnosed psychopath.

A professor of criminal psychopathology, Colin Wilson (check this) brought out a tv series recently about psychopathic killers in British crime annals and he told the DAILY MAIL that having read Amanda's prison diary, he was convinced she had a sociopathic narcissistic personality disorder.

 

[LondonJohn]

The fact the subject of Amanda's very hilarious prank was apologised to, indicates the type of trauma he or she must have felt. A friend of mine had his room at Surrey Uni turned over and he freaked out. It turned out to be a prank, but it wasn't the slightest bit amusing to him. His impulse was to immediately trash the room of the prankster.

So your "friend" was at least as bad as the prankster, and in fact probably worse, since his revenge was motivated by malice. Lovely bloke.

And of course the acts of the prankster are indicative of some level of psychopathy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this prankster ended up murdering someone within the next few years....

 

[LondonJohn]

You are skilled at giving an answer to a different question than the one raised. It matters not a jot whether Amanda's April Fools joke was a prank or not. The point - but of course you already know - is that your idol knew how to stage a burglary, which she then applied to the murder scene in Perugia.

She wrote her lies quite voluntarily, and called it a "present", in relaxed solitude - nobody asked her too. It is obvious that like a child, she thought she would substitute Patrick's name for Rudy's, whilst simultaneously taking herself off the hook and placing herself in a passive role.

Elsewhere in the self-serving missive she prattles on about nobody deserving to die like that, as if it's not a transparent attempt to manipulate the perception of the reader, to present herself as a caring person.

Well fortunately, all those whose judgements ultimately mattered in this case held/hold strikingly opposite views to these. And it really wasn't difficult - either in law or in ethics - for them to come to the right and proper conclusions on these matters. Nor is it difficult for any observers with balance, objectivity and some understanding of the law to come to the same right and proper conclusions.

Just as a small taster of just how many errors are contained within the quoted post above, here's just one: it's improper and unlawful to use any statements - verbal or written - by someone in custody against that person, unless/until that person has been informed of his/her rights (the right to silence, the right to a lawyer, etc). And in Italy, the law goes further still in protection of the person in custody, since it mandates that a lawyer must be provided. This is not some arcane, technical rule. There are extremely sound reasons in ethics why vulnerable people in this position, with the full weight of the state lined up against them, must be afforded proper protection. That's exactly why such laws and procedures exist, and why - in properly-run countries at least - they are rigorously applied.

 

[LondonJohn]

And the "your idol" thing, as some sort of pejorative shorthand for "Amanda Knox", is disgusting, untrue and nastily partisan. I hope it will not be used again. OK?

 

[Vixen]

So your "friend" was at least as bad as the prankster, and in fact probably worse, since his revenge was motivated by malice. Lovely bloke.

And of course the acts of the prankster are indicative of some level of psychopathy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this prankster ended up murdering someone within the next few years....

Completely in character for you, you have changed the context to turn it into a personal attack.

The issue about the staged burglary was Amanda had experience in staging a burglary. If being in possession of a lawyer's stolen laptop makes Rudy a professional burglar, by your logic, then the same rule applies to your idol.

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's get this into context. bagels and Grinder were arguing that since Rudy had burgled the second-floor lawyers office, then he must have burgled the cottage, grimly intent on scaling a 9 foot wall with no footholds. I said, by that logic you could also argue that as Amanda had definitely by her own account staged a burglary before, then she was conversant with the concept.

It is a fact that most criminals have a history of offences, and whilst the noise-ticket is indeed relatively minor in the scheme of things, cops thought it serious enough to fine her. Raff has drug possession in his records.

A studious RC college student who has a wild side and decides to go to Italy to lay every guy in sight, is a symptom of this underlying personality disorder. It means nothing outside this context, and is nothing to do with slut shaming. Johanna Dunnohy (sp??) was a normal middle-class home counties girl who at 15 suddenly started getting drunk on whisky, smashed windows in the classroom and ran away with fairground workers. She was a diagnosed psychopath.

A professor of criminal psychopathology, Colin Wilson (check this) brought out a tv series recently about psychopathic killers in British crime annals and he told the DAILY MAIL that having read Amanda's prison diary, he was convinced she had a sociopathic narcissistic personality disorder.

You do realise that it's contrary to all professional ethics (not to mention professionally demeaning and almost always motivated by greed) for anyone - whether an academic or a practising clinical psychologist/psychiatrist - to make media diagnoses of individuals using nothing more than second- or third-hand information?

No, I thought not. Well, that's the case. And that being the case, the witterings of this "professor" can be entirely discounted. Glad we cleared that one up

 

[Vixen]

Well fortunately, all those whose judgements ultimately mattered in this case held/hold strikingly opposite views to these. And it really wasn't difficult - either in law or in ethics - for them to come to the right and proper conclusions on these matters. Nor is it difficult for any observers with balance, objectivity and some understanding of the law to come to the same right and proper conclusions.

Just as a small taster of just how many errors are contained within the quoted post above, here's just one: it's improper and unlawful to use any statements - verbal or written - by someone in custody against that person, unless/until that person has been informed of his/her rights (the right to silence, the right to a lawyer, etc). And in Italy, the law goes further still in protection of the person in custody, since it mandates that a lawyer must be provided. This is not some arcane, technical rule. There are extremely sound reasons in ethics why vulnerable people in this position, with the full weight of the state lined up against them, must be afforded proper protection. That's exactly why such laws and procedures exist, and why - in properly-run countries at least - they are rigorously applied.

Bruno and Marsca upheld the burglary was staged and that Rudy had collaborators.

Amanda's written confessions and incriminating email to the world were barred as evidence at the trial, so I am not really sure why you would get hot under the collar. No-one made her write all that self-incriminating stuff.

 

[LondonJohn]

Completely in character for you, you have changed the context to turn it into a personal attack.

The issue about the staged burglary was Amanda had experience in staging a burglary. If being in possession of a lawyer's stolen laptop makes Rudy a professional burglar, by your logic, then the same rule applies to your idol.

I've told you several times now about "your idol". Stop using that term. It's disgusting, and entirely unwarranted. Why do you use it anyhow? Is it just to push buttons? I wouldn't be surprised.

Your "friend" sounds just as much - if not more - of a sociopath as the prankster, or Amanda Knox

And yes, previous form in committing a criminal act can, in some instances, be weakly circumstantial evidence in assessing whether the same person has committed another similar criminal act. SO, for example, if Knox or Sollecito had previously committed a staged break-in as a criminal act for the purpose of committing another criminal act, then such information could certainly be of some (limited) value in assessing whether or not Knox or Sollecito staged a break-in for the purpose of deflecting from the murder of Kercher.

(I'm guessing you're perhaps not aware of the recent sensible changed to E&W law to reflect that reality.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Bruno and Marsca upheld the burglary was staged and that Rudy had collaborators.

Amanda's written confessions and incriminating email to the world were barred as evidence at the trial, so I am not really sure why you would get hot under the collar. No-one made her write all that self-incriminating stuff.

You don't realise that you cannot/should not use those statements against Knox for exactly the same reasons as the courts cannot use them? Or do you not know of the link between law and ethics?

 

[Vixen]

I've told you several times now about "your idol". Stop using that term. It's disgusting, and entirely unwarranted. Why do you use it anyhow? Is it just to push buttons? I wouldn't be surprised.

Your "friend" sounds just as much - if not more - of a sociopath as the prankster, or Amanda Knox

And yes, previous form in committing a criminal act can, in some instances, be weakly circumstantial evidence in assessing whether the same person has committed another similar criminal act. SO, for example, if Knox or Sollecito had previously committed a staged break-in as a criminal act for the purpose of committing another criminal act, then such information could certainly be of some (limited) value in assessing whether or not Knox or Sollecito staged a break-in for the purpose of deflecting from the murder of Kercher.

(I'm guessing you're perhaps not aware of the recent sensible changed to E&W law to reflect that reality.)

Yes, Sir! <fx clicks heels>

Please do keep track of what is being spoken about. We were talking about profiling. If Rudy's profile is that of a cat burglar, then similar profiling shows Amanda to be a young woman who went completely off the rails. How do we know, because of her profle/history. Raff's profile was someone with a fetish for exotic and lethal knives and Marilyn Manson. Both had written scandalous things on their MySpace/FaceBook pages with outrageous photos designed to shock. Of course, it doesn't in itself prove anything. However, if you are going to claim Rudy must be a professional cat burglar because of a stolen laptop in his possession, then the same profiling applies to the kids.

There are no two ways about it: the burglary was staged. If as you say Rudy was a real burglar, he has no reason to stage one.

Now, the issue of profiling - a useful detective tool - is very different from acceptable evidence in a trial.

Do I make myself clear, now?

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's get this into context. bagels and Grinder were arguing that since Rudy had burgled the second-floor lawyers office, then he must have burgled the cottage, grimly intent on scaling a 9 foot wall with no footholds. I said, by that logic you could also argue that as Amanda had definitely by her own account staged a burglary before, then she was conversant with the concept.

Two things. It was not a 9 foot **climb** once one got on to the bars of the window below, and it required no footholds on the wall. So there goes that point - simply repeated regardless of the refutation of it two pages ago.

Second - the April Fools prank was nowhere near equivalent to the scene of Filomena's room, as Grinder pointed out on the last page.

It does no good to simply repeat refuted claims.

It is a fact that most criminals have a history of offences, and whilst the noise-ticket is indeed relatively minor in the scheme of things, cops thought it serious enough to fine her. Raff has drug possession in his records.

None of those cops would have though her "a criminal". For pete's sake, how long are you going to advance this? Drug possession is something that everyone who lived in the cottage could have had on "their record", indeed every student in Perugia, as well as all the journalists (cf. Winterbottom film) who covered the case.

Is that what you have?

A studious RC college student who has a wild side and decides to go to Italy to lay every guy in sight, is a symptom of this underlying personality disorder.

Once again, every sexual partner is known - hardly every guy in sight. It does you no good to engage in needless hyperbole. Oh wait, yes it does! It's all you've got.

Once again, no judge found an underlying personality disorder in either AK or RS - perhaps because no one actually tested/examined them. The only (and I believe first) mention of that was Mignini in his 2009 closing making some reference to psychopathological jealousy, where nothing at trial had been submitted remotely suggesting such. (Which is probably why even Massei ignored it.

But for your own unknown purposes you simply chuck it in, with equally no evidence, really, so to do.

It means nothing outside this context, and is nothing to do with slut shaming. Johanna Dunnohy (sp??) was a normal middle-class home counties girl who at 15 suddenly started getting drunk on whisky, smashed windows in the classroom and ran away with fairground workers. She was a diagnosed psychopath.

Which no one in this case was so diagnosed.

A professor of criminal psychopathology, Colin Wilson (check this) brought out a tv series recently about psychopathic killers in British crime annals and he told the DAILY MAIL that having read Amanda's prison diary, he was convinced she had a sociopathic narcissistic personality disorder.

He then has proven that he's a quack, because no reputable professor in that field would make such a diagnosis without seeing the person in a controlled setting.

Reading a prison diary? If he said that, and if the Daily Mail is reporting this correctly, then he's a quack.

Either that or post the related literature on making psychological diagnoses from reading a diary? I'll save you time. There is none.

 

[Vixen]

You don't realise that you cannot/should not use those statements against Knox for exactly the same reasons as the courts cannot use them? Or do you not know of the link between law and ethics?

They are court documents in the public domain. Any member of the public can freely access them. That is the nature of a trial.

I am sure the reader is capable of making their own mind up about their content.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, Sir! <fx clicks heels>

Please do keep track of what is being spoken about. We were talking about profiling. If Rudy's profile is that of a cat burglar, then similar profiling shows Amanda to be a young woman who went completely off the rails. How do we know, because of her profle/history. Raff's profile was someone with a fetish for exotic and lethal knives and Marilyn Manson. Both had written scandalous things on their MySpace/FaceBook pages with outrageous photos designed to shock. Of course, it doesn't in itself prove anything. However, if you are going to claim Rudy must be a professional cat burglar because of a stolen laptop in his possession, then the same profiling applies to the kids.

There are no two ways about it: the burglary was staged. If as you say Rudy was a real burglar, he has no reason to stage one.

Now, the issue of profiling - a useful detective tool - is very different from acceptable evidence in a trial.

Do I make myself clear, now?

Uhh... there are two ways about it. The break-in was not staged.

And there's certainly no credible, reliable evidence to show that it must have been staged. Likewise, all the available evidence (and lack of evidence*) is entirely consistent with a real break in, conducted by the man who single-handedly broke-and-entered, then confronted and killed Kercher when she came home and surprised him.

* e.g. the inept police/PM failure to properly search the ground below the window, with the police instead using the ground to stand around on and smoke and make phone calls - the police weren't even able to produce any proper photos of this piece of ground, and they certainly never conducted a proper forensic search for footprints or for very small shards of glass. More incompetence from the "crack" Perugia team.........

 

[LondonJohn]

They are court documents in the public domain. Any member of the public can freely access them. That is the nature of a trial.

I am sure the reader is capable of making their own mind up about their content.

Yes, but in the same way, any "reader" is capable of "making their own mind up" that the Moon landings were faked.

On the other hand, readers who know something of science, and who are intelligent enough to know just how practically impossible it would be to maintain a conspiracy to cover up a faked Moon landing, can conclude that men really did land and walk on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

And likewise, all intelligent, objective readers with a reasonable understanding of law and ethics are able to conclude that Knox's statements made while in police custody without any access to legal counsel (including, of course, the bogus "spontaneous declaration" made to Mignini in a nasty sleight-of-hand by the PM) are of zero value in assessing Knox's (and/or Sollecito's) guilt. As I said, there are very sound ethical - as well as legal - reasons why such statements must be entirely discounted. So that's what educated, intelligent, enlightened people must do.

 

[Vixen]

Two things. It was not a 9 foot **climb** once one got on to the bars of the window below, and it required no footholds on the wall. So there goes that point - simply repeated regardless of the refutation of it two pages ago.

Second - the April Fools prank was nowhere near equivalent to the scene of Filomena's room, as Grinder pointed out on the last page.

It does no good to simply repeat refuted claims.


None of those cops would have though her "a criminal". For pete's sake, how long are you going to advance this? Drug possession is something that everyone who lived in the cottage could have had on "their record", indeed every student in Perugia, as well as all the journalists (cf. Winterbottom film) who covered the case.

Is that what you have?


Once again, every sexual partner is known - hardly every guy in sight. It does you no good to engage in needless hyperbole. Oh wait, yes it does! It's all you've got.

Once again, no judge found an underlying personality disorder in either AK or RS - perhaps because no one actually tested/examined them. The only (and I believe first) mention of that was Mignini in his 2009 closing making some reference to psychopathological jealousy, where nothing at trial had been submitted remotely suggesting such. (Which is probably why even Massei ignored it.

But for your own unknown purposes you simply chuck it in, with equally no evidence, really, so to do.


Which no one in this case was so diagnosed.


He then has proven that he's a quack, because no reputable professor in that field would make such a diagnosis without seeing the person in a controlled setting.

Reading a prison diary? If he said that, and if the Daily Mail is reporting this correctly, then he's a quack.

Either that or post the related literature on making psychological diagnoses from reading a diary? I'll save you time. There is none.

Erratum Soz, it's David Wilson, not Colin Wilson. You can read his comments here. He is well-respected and by no means a "quack".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-guys-today-Foxy-Knoxys-disturbing-diary.html

Re the wall: no there is no proper foothold. If you look at this police photo, the lower window is not square with the upper one. To even get both your hands on the sill to lever yourself up, you'd have to lean perilously to the left. No-one in their right mind would bother, especially on a rainy day with slippery conditions. In any case, how would a burglar know how to get down into the garden at all?

 

[Bill Williams]

You are skilled at giving an answer to a different question than the one raised. It matters not a jot whether Amanda's April Fools joke was a prank or not. The point - but of course you already know - is that your idol knew how to stage a burglary, which she then applied to the murder scene in Perugia.

So - playing a prank in Seattle is like being at con-college? Why the strawman argument, I am not arguing that since it was a prank, that it disqualifies it. Please reread the thread.

The point is as Grinder says - what was it about the prank that made it th equivalent to the scene in Filomena's room? Did both have rocks thrown through windows? How did Filomena being allowed to rummage though her room (prior to the grisly discovery) effect what was later photographed> etc. etc., etc.

The prank is not nearly a parallel and its not because it was a prank. Do you have it now?

She wrote her lies quite voluntarily, and called it a "present", in relaxed solitude - nobody asked her to. It is obvious that, like a child, she thought she would substitute Patrick's name for Rudy's, whilst simultaneously taking herself off the hook and placing herself in a passive role.

Obvious? Not to me.

Elsewhere in the self-serving missive she prattles on about nobody deserving to die like that, as if it's not a transparent attempt to manipulate the perception of the reader, to present herself as a caring person.

Huh!?

 

[Bill Williams]

Erratum Soz, it's David Wilson, not Colin Wilson. You can read his comments here. He is well-respected and by no means a "quack".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-guys-today-Foxy-Knoxys-disturbing-diary.html

Re the wall: no there is no proper foothold. If you look at this police photo, the lower window is not square with the upper one. To even get both your hands on the sill to lever yourself up, you'd have to lean perilously to the left. No-one in their right mind would bother, especially on a rainy day with slippery conditions. In any case, how would a burglar know how to get down into the garden at all?

Battling photos:


This is the climber on Channel 5 - before the climb - on the top bar of the window below, poised to hop up on to the sill.

He did not need a foothold.

How would a burglar know? You can't be serious. Rudy had been at the boys flat downstairs. Why make up such absurdities?

 

[RWVBWL]

Filomena did say the wooden shutters were swollen with age so only one side shut squarely, the other jammed unshut. So not locked.

Anyone outside only need push the shutters apart, then break window at latch.

Howdy,
You folks are still discussing the window shutters in Filomena's bedroom, which overlooked a valley below?

You do know that it was kinda breezy that day, and then at night too, right?
I'd read here, years ago, that it was blowin' towards 13 mph that night, that's what, about 21 kph for you people's over yonder from me, where I'm at the beach right now?

13mph, err 21 kph,
well it makes an American flag crackle and snap in the wind,
as this photo, that I shot above Topnga Beach earlier today, Saturday morning shows.

What you don't see and hear is the palm trees, oak trees and all the other tree's and bushes
howlin' and blowin' in the wind. It's pretty bitchin' the sound, and the warmth of these Santa Ana's early on a Fall morning.

I'm sure that an Italian flag or heck,
even an English flag would crackle and snap just as loudly in the wind.

The temp was already at 76.1° at 8:54:51am this morning when I took the photo. I've been in surf shorts all day, even when I shot this pic and others too, using that Davis WindScribe. Gusts got up towards 26.8 mph, I had to be careful to not get to close to the edge of the cliff, least a stronger gust whistle by, knock me over the cliff above Pacific Coast Highway, ya know?

How you folks believe that Filomena's shutters were not bangin' around all that day or overnight, and that her shutters were in the same exact position as when Rudy Guede apparently broke Filomena's window and climbed up+into her bedroom, and then left, leaving the front door open, which allowed wind to surely travel thru the flat overnight too, escapes me.

For that wind was blowing...

Here's a link
from Weather UnderGround from that day 11-01-2007 Perugia Italy:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LIRZ/2007/11/1/DailyHistory.html


See ya,
I'm gonna go jump in the waters of The Pacific Ocean right now.
RW