Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen,
Perhaps you forgot already, but you noted above that the presentation of forensics in court is a very routine matter. And the highest appeal court in Italy found them innocent. You are correct that Massei found them guilty, but that is what the Supreme Court of Cassation is for -- to correct glaring errors at the lower level.

You criticized bagels earlier for using logic and reason for coming to the obvious and correct conclusion that Massei and Nencini were wrong. Bagels' was deemed correct later by the highest court in Italy. Then you come around and say your "BS detector" went off when the higher level courts acquitted.

Which is it Vixen? Is it a routine and objective process where no errors can possibly be made? Or does your intuition override all of the results of the higher Italian courts, and (more entertaining) all of the forensic science results written by the top experts in the world showing how the evidence was wrong and misleading?

It sounds like you are saying when something comes out (incorrectly) supporting Amanda's guilt, it is routine and objective in your mind. But when the overwhelming mass of empirical evidence comes out time after time proving she is innocent your "BS detector" goes off and your intuition just can't go wrong. You're not really saying that, are you Vixen?

I believe that is called confirmation bias. You even said the entire peer review process for scientific journal publications are subjective and open to opinion and interpretation because all of the actual peer reviewed work supports the position of Conti and Vecchiotti (and all the pro-innocence supporters). It is quite honestly the most insane thing I have ever heard.

Thank you for continuing to post though. The rampant dysrationalia in every single one of your posts proves to everyone reading how insane this whole ordeal truly was.

Notevenwrong, have you read the MR? They were acquitted because of (a) flawed investigtion and (b) media attention. Bruno-Marasca confirmed the lower courts' findings of (a) Amanda was there for SURE, and most probably Raff, too, (b) she washed Mez' blood from her person. As blood dries very quickly, this is damning, (c) she accused Lumumba to cover up for Rudy and (d) the behaviour of the pair remains strongly suspicious.

They were not declared innocent, the charges were DROPPED through "insufficent evidence". This means they can technically be charged again.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's posts are a short course in why this went wrong and why two were unjustly prosecuted. In my own last two points discussed with "her", she has ended up directly contradicting herself.

Not a contradiction at all. The other perps may or may not have known about Rudy's fumblings but yet still - indeed DID - return to pose the body to make it look like rape.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not a contradiction at all. The other perps may or may not have known about Rudy's fumblings but yet still - indeed DID - return to pose the body to make it look like rape.

The dysrationalia continues. The topic was premeditation. There was no posed rape. Those who believe this believe Rudy actually had a date with Meredith.

Your comments about Rudy's fumblings are meaningless.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm certainly not putting forward the typical murder mystery as a measure of believability. The recurring scene in which the cast of characters gather in the drawing room as Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot reveals the twists of the crime, while the character who turns out to be the actual culprit tries to pick holes in their logic before being handcuffed by the waiting police officer, is not something that has any basis in reality.

In fact I think crime fiction has a lot to answer for, leading to the kind of mistaken and dug-in thinking we see in this case. It's just that the ridiculous evidence paraded by the PGP here belongs neither in real life nor in fiction.

You do put your finger on the issue. Most murders, at their heart, are simple. Might have trouble getting enough evidence but the motivations are simple.

 

[Desert Fox]

More fool you. Offering to sacrifice your life is just a logical fallacy and doesn't make your statement true.

You probably will not get this but my original statement / question was not about the pro guilt side. It was about those who, like me, consider Amanda innocent but still do not like her.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Notevenwrong, have you read the MR? They were acquitted because of (a) flawed investigtion and (b) media attention. Bruno-Marasca confirmed the lower courts' findings of (a) Amanda was there for SURE, and most probably Raff, too, (b) she washed Mez' blood from her person. As blood dries very quickly, this is damning, (c) she accused Lumumba to cover up for Rudy and (d) the behaviour of the pair remains strongly suspicious.

They were not declared innocent, the charges were DROPPED through "insufficent evidence". This means they can technically be charged again.

Vixen,
Are you talking about the part of the motivations report where they "confirm" (to cover their asses so the callunia conviction and 4 years served in prison would stand) that Amanda was there, based on her coerced confession that was beaten out of her by police?

And the part where they talk about how the "mixed DNA traces" were suspicious but not at all conclusive of Amanda's involvement because the DNA could have been "mixed" when it was collected since they both used the bathroom?

What about the part where they say it was impossible that Amanda and Raf were involved since no traces of them were found at the crime scene? (section 9.4, second paragraph)? Are you accepting that or ignoring it?

By the way, I am also curious if you are saying this small part of the motivations report is correct, while simultaneously declaring that the remaining 50 or so pages that confirms Amanda and Raffaele are innocent are ALL wrong? Because earlier I pointed out how you seem to warp and distort all evidence that goes against your hypothesis, and you only accept the tiny bit of evidence that confirms it. Are you doing that here? Because that is the definition of confirmation bias. Is the trial process infallible or not, Vixen? You seem to flip-flop on that one depending on whether it suits your agenda. Just saying... something you may want to think about.

 

[acbytesla]

You have changed the context. We were talking about Amanda being trusting. You said there was no way she'd trust someone she'd only known five days.

No, the context is the same. You are suggesting that because Amanda was willing to have casual sex with someone she just met that somehow that would make her trusting enough to propose committing a homicide with a stranger.

If a pretty 22 year old girl asked a hundred single 22 year old guys they just met to have sex 98 of them would say yes. OTOH, if the same girl ask 100 guys to join in committing a homicide 99.99 would say no and most would turn the woman in.

Something in your crazy head thinks if she's wild enough to have casual sex she's wild enough to commit a homicide ?

 

[Mike1711]

The merits courts found the pair guilty. Bruno-Marasca were under some kind of pressure to acquit. They were not able to bring themselves to declare the couple innocent, and in fact, were condemnatory, particularly of Amanda.

Yes, Bruno/Marasca certainly were under immense pressure. It was the pressure of finding evidence of guilt where none existed.

 

[Mike1711]

More fool you. Offering to sacrifice your life is just a logical fallacy and doesn't make your statement true.

What? Another nonsense statement. Yours, Vixen, is an illogical fantasy.

 

[Mike1711]

The remanding judge has to assess whether to let someone out on bail. In this case, Matteini judged the pair were too dangerous* to have roaming free, based on psychological and police reports, which I already quoted elsewhere. Obviously, there is no final verdict until after a trial.

*People capable of being a danger to the public. Sociopaths do not generally learn from their mistakes.

No you did not. You made the same statement previously backed up by nothing. You do it again and tell a whopper that you have quoted sources elsewhere.

Pinocchio....

 

[Mike1711]

You have changed the context. We were talking about Amanda being trusting. You said there was no way she'd trust someone she'd only known five days.

Casual sex almost always excludes trust....which is why the wise use condoms.

 

[Mike1711]

Notevenwrong, have you read the MR? They were acquitted because of (a) flawed investigtion and (b) media attention. Bruno-Marasca confirmed the lower courts' findings of (a) Amanda was there for SURE, and most probably Raff, too, (b) she washed Mez' blood from her person. As blood dries very quickly, this is damning, (c) she accused Lumumba to cover up for Rudy and (d) the behaviour of the pair remains strongly suspicious.

They were not declared innocent, the charges were DROPPED through "insufficent evidence". This means they can technically be charged again.

Vixen.

This is utter, utter nonsense.

How can Bruno and Marasca have agreed with findings and at the very same time bluntly stated that findings based on glaring errors in the investigation make it impossible to refer the matter for lower court consideration?

B/M clearly stated that the case was so flawed that any finding of guilt is impossible.

Is it so difficult for you to understand that a conclusion based on faulty and unreliable findings or evidence is a faulty and/or unreliable conclusion?

 

[Mike1711]

Not a contradiction at all. The other perps may or may not have known about Rudy's fumblings but yet still - indeed DID - return to pose the body to make it look like rape.

....and then sat on the fence waiting, passports in hand.

 

[acbytesla]

Casual sex almost always excludes trust....which is why the wise use condoms.

I've always hated the guilter's slut shaming. And don't kid yourself that is what Vixen is doing. She'll deny it of course.

There was no reason to bring up how quickly Amanda slept with Raffaele. None. It has no bearing on trusting someone else enough to commit murder with them. It's desperate, it's spiteful, it's prudish, it's disgusting, yet they always weave it into the picture as if it's relevant. Which it is not.

 

[Bill Williams]

The remanding judge has to assess whether to let someone out on bail. In this case, Matteini judged the pair were too dangerous* to have roaming free, based on psychological and police reports, which I already quoted elsewhere. Obviously, there is no final verdict until after a trial.

*People capable of being a danger to the public. Sociopaths do not generally learn from their mistakes.

No you did not. You made the same statement previously backed up by nothing. You do it again and tell a whopper that you have quoted sources elsewhere.

Pinocchio....

There were no psychological reports. None. Nada. It's remarkable that the few remaining guilters still spin the factoid of psychological dysfunction given that there was nothing - save for opinions about folk who read Manga comics; or have premarital sex.

Yet Vixen can, apparently without blushing, refer to them as sociopaths. THEN has the gall to simply say, "I've already cited this," when there is no citation and never has been.

No wonder Marasca/Bruno and their ISC Section acquitted, which former-guilter Barbie Nadeau called an exoneration. It has not stopped, though, the evidenceless libel in this thread.

 

[acbytesla]

There were no psychological reports. None. Nada. It's remarkable that the few remaining guilters still spin the factoid of psychological dysfunction given that there was nothing - save for opinions about folk who read Manga comics; or have premarital sex.

Yet Vixen can, apparently without blushing, refer to them as sociopaths. THEN has the gall to simply say, "I've already cited this," when there is no citation and never has been.

No wonder Marasca/Bruno and their ISC Section acquitted, which former-guilter Barbie Nadeau called an exoneration. It has not stopped, though, the evidenceless libel in this thread.

It truly is a morass of circular reasoning, confirmation bias and a refusal to be objective in light of proven falsehoods.

I originally suspected the couple was guilty. That visual of the kiss between Amanda and Raffaele came off creepy when it was played while broadcasters were describing a murder. But if you take a step back, you realize it meant nothing. Combined with only a few days later the Perugians were saying case closed only confirmed what I believed. Add that and barrage of stories describing the two as freaks made so many people sure.

But when new information becomes available, smart people reevaluate. Something Vixen never does. It's a never ending cycle of head in the sand confirmation bias and denial. Who else continues to believe an article in the London Times or the Daily Mail when actual court documents show nothing of the sort?

 

[Mike1711]

It truly is a morass of circular reasoning, confirmation bias and a refusal to be objective in light of proven falsehoods.

I originally suspected the couple was guilty. That visual of the kiss between Amanda and Raffaele came off creepy when it was played while broadcasters were describing a murder. But if you take a step back, you realize it meant nothing. Combined with only a few days later the Perugians were saying case closed only confirmed what I believed. Add that and barrage of stories describing the two as freaks made so many people sure.

But when new information becomes available a smart persons reevaluates. Something good Vixen never does. It's a never ending cycle of head in the sand confirmation bias and denial. Who else continues to believe an article in the London Times or the Daily Mail when actual court documents show nothing of the sort?

I remember clearly the day I saw the newspaper placard describing a sex game gone wrong. What I read in the newspaper led me to believe what I read. I discussed the case with an advocate (barrister) friend who also believed guilt from what was fed through the mainstream press.

Then I read further and more, and realised a massive miscarriage of justice was underway. It was obvious to me that RS/AK were completely innocent.

When RS/AK were convicted I was speechless. My wife thought I must've been wrong (the courts are always right...aren't they?).

I was angry and frustrated. I wrote to the Italian Embassy in South Africa and expressed my outrage.

Thankfully things were put right for as much as they can ever be put right. Two lives are forever changed. What should have been an adventure was a nightmare and seven years of jail and limbo must've been hell for young people to deal with.

......and then you get the tragedy made worse by those "guilters" who refuse to let go of their own psychological baggage and see reality for what it is.

The Italians involved in the conviction of two innocent people should be hanged, drawn and quartered. It is outrageous.

As for Rudy Guede the less said the better. He has it in his power to help the suffering of the innocent (including Meredith's family of course) with the truth but he chooses his own sorry ass in preference.

It's off topic but the case of death row inmate, Richard Glossip in the USA is cause for concern.

 

[acbytesla]

I remember clearly the day I saw the newspaper placard describing a sex game gone wrong. What I read in the newspaper led me to believe what I read. I discussed the case with an advocate (barrister) friend who also believed guilt from what was fed through the mainstream press.

Then I read further and more, and realised a massive miscarriage of justice was underway. It was obvious to me that RS/AK were completely innocent.

When RS/AK were convicted I was speechless. My wife thought I must've been wrong (the courts are always right...aren't they?).

I was angry and frustrated. I wrote to the Italian Embassy in South Africa and expressed my outrage.

Thankfully things were put right for as much as they can ever be put right. Two lives are forever changed. What should have been an adventure was a nightmare and seven years of jail and limbo must've been hell for young people to deal with.

......and then you get the tragedy made worse by those "guilters" who refuse to let go of their own psychological baggage and see reality for what it is.

The Italians involved in the conviction of two innocent people should be hanged, drawn and quartered. It is outrageous.

As for Rudy Guede the less said the better. He has it in his power to help the suffering of the innocent (including Meredith's family of course) with the truth but he chooses his own sorry ass in preference.

It's off topic but the case of death row inmate, Richard Glossip in the USA is cause for concern.

I only looked closer at the case when I heard it was a satanic ritual? I thought at that momemt, "you can't be serious"! A 20 year old girl from West Seattle, Seattle Prep and the University of Washington committing a Satanic ritual murder while studying abroad? Give me a break. No way. The prosecution story kept changing. That's not a good sign So maybe, this warrants a closer look.

This whole thing has been a joke and for a lot of people it wasn't very funny. Only sickos and the mentally challenged still believe this farce.

 

[Desert Fox]

"Satanic Ritual" also translates to me as "bull excrement."

 

[NotEvenWrong]

"Satanic Ritual" also translates to me as "bull excrement."

One of the funniest things in all this is how Vixen's intuitive "BS meter" goes on high alert when the Supreme Court finds Amanda and Raf innocent, consistent with all the available evidence. Yet apparently it was quiet as a mouse when she read about the Satanic ritual pagan orgy on Halloween that just "got out of hand" between 3 students and a burglar who no one knew.

Something tells me that someone's "intuition" may need a re-calibration.