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

-

katy_did said:

Agreed, the comments about the decision generally seem very critical, even more so than the articles about it...

Click to expand...

-

Agreed. Of course we're assuming the people commenting are actually from Italy. But still even if only one of them is, it does show somebody there is raising their voice in some kind of outcry, someone other than the Press; which is good, because I am always suspicious of the press.

I wonder if there is any alternative press in Italy, like we have here in Seattle, something like "The Stranger". They always have an interesting take on the local politics and happenings here.

Mostly I'm just curious,

d

-

halides1 said:

Link to Perry's Mirror story (Anti-American bias accusations branded "ludicrous" by Meredith Kercher's father) from 8 December 2009 here. There are a number of nontrivial mistakes (example: Quintavalle did not claim that Amanda bought anything), especially considering that this article appeared after the first trial had ended.

In a 2012 article about John Kercher and his book about Meredith, Parry wrote, "'We’re still trying to make sense of it. It’s not as if someone broke in and killed her, there was no robbery or real motive,' John says." It is strange that Mr. Kercher would say that there was no robbery, but it is also strange that Mr. Parry would not make a clarifying note in his article.

Click to expand...

It is difficult to know what to say. No one should be "piling on" the Kerchers.

However, even the convicting judge, Judge Massei, was very clear about motive. Did not the Kerchers' lawyer even interpret to them what Judge Massei wrote? Or if he did, do the Kerchers' still go with Mignini's various motives?..... apparently not. John Snr. is still trying to make sense of it as if there is only conflicting info out there. Perhaps for them, that's exactly what is being presented to them: conflicting information.

Or else, maybe I'm talking John Snr's words too literally, maybe they are an expression of some deeper sense, like "Why is it that bad things happen to good people?"

Strictly speaking, there WAS a robbery. Euros and cellphones were taken. There WAS a motive.... at least as far as the lone, convicting judge is concerned - it was Rudy's lust which was the motive, and the way Judge Massei shoe-horned Raffaele and Amanda into the crime was by saying they made a last second, "choice for evil." Quite literally Massei has it that Raffaele and Amanda are in Knox's room making out, when they heard the commotion in Meredith's room, a commotion which already was well on its way to murder because of Rudy's lust.

Note... there is no Satanic Rite in Massei, there is no ritual for the day of the dead in Massei, there is no sex-game gone wrong in Massei, there is no domestic tensions or jealously leading to murder in Massei, there is no pooh in the toilet leading to murder in Massei.... there is Rudy's lust as the motive and at the last second, AK and RS barge in and inexplicably take Rudy's side in a situation all ready out of control.

"It's not as if someone broke in and killed her." I implore the Kerchers to watch the Channel 5 documentary... is is extremely likely that this is the way Rudy got in.

Then again, when the family has been advised by Maresca for 6 years, it's no wonder they feel there're no closer to understanding what this is about. Read John Snr.'s comments in his book, the number of times he said the family simply did not know what was going on in Italy as things progressed....

Bill Williams said:

However, even the convicting judge, Judge Massei, was very clear about motive. Did not the Kerchers' lawyer even interpret to them what Judge Massei wrote? Or if he did, do the Kerchers' still go with Mignini's various motives?..... apparently not. John Snr. is still trying to make sense of it as if there is only conflicting info out there. Perhaps for them, that's exactly what is being presented to them: conflicting information.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you often refer to Massei's opinions. I use the Massei report for information but not opinion. If he had said that there was a sex game, satanic event or a premeditated revenge murder, what would you use then?

Massei was clear that the kids helped kill Meredith and that the CSI work was well done. He said the bathmat footprint was most likely Raf's. He said the break-in was staged.

Given how many things you think he got wrong, why couldn't the other side think while he got the verdict correct he missed on motive, if there even was one.

Grinder said:

I don't understand why you often refer to Massei's opinions. I use the Massei report for information but not opinion. If he had said that there was a sex game, satanic event or a premeditated revenge murder, what would you use then?

Massei was clear that the kids helped kill Meredith and that the CSI work was well done. He said the bathmat footprint was most likely Raf's. He said the break-in was staged.

Given how many things you think he got wrong, why couldn't the other side think while he got the verdict correct he missed on motive, if there even was one.

Click to expand...

I was trying desparately to think of a rebuttal argument to your points here, but... when I think of it, I don't actually have one. Heaven's what's the point of responding to Grinder, if I cannot manage a well-placed, "Whatever"?

I truly do not know the distinction you are making, as highlighted above.

If Massei had either "opined" or "offered information" (in his motivations report) that there was a sex game, satanic event or a premeditated revenge murder, I would have, indeed, quoting him.

The point is, he did not such thing. He was clear that the motive was Rudy's, particularly fueled by Rudy's lust, to which (acc. to Massei) AK and RS participated in, almost at the last second and only because they'd made an uncharacteristic, "choice for evil".

Indeed, when "the other side" posts here - or on the hate sites - they actually DO say that Massei got it wrong on motive, while saying that he got the verdict right. I don't understand the point you're making.

One guilter says, with all respect, that Massei also got it wrong in respect to the timing of Raffaele's 112 emergency calls. Massei implies heavily that Raffaele called the Carabineiri BEFORE the arrival of the postal police.

Massei, yes, thinks the CSI work met the standard needed to convict. Part of that was that he refused to hold anyone to account for their CSI work. It wasn't until C&V were commissioned that we saw why the original CSI work was laughable. This was also something that the RIS Carabinieri heavily implied in their report to the third trial. They did it right, Stefanoni did not.

halides1 said:

Link to Perry's Mirror story (Anti-American bias accusations branded "ludicrous" by Meredith Kercher's father) from 8 December 2009 here. There are a number of nontrivial mistakes (example: Quintavalle did not claim that Amanda bought anything), especially considering that this article appeared after the first trial had ended.

In a 2012 article about John Kercher and his book about Meredith, Parry wrote, "'We’re still trying to make sense of it. It’s not as if someone broke in and killed her, there was no robbery or real motive,' John says." It is strange that Mr. Kercher would say that there was no robbery, but it is also strange that Mr. Parry would not make a clarifying note in his article.

Click to expand...

Because of the punctuation, it's hard to know what Kercher was really saying. He might have intended to say, "It's not as if someone broke in and killed her. It's not as if there was no robbery or real motive." As I understand it, the Kerchers do think there was a motive -- jealousy -- and as Bill pointed out, there was a robbery, too.

Methos said:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.c...38&sid=fbc6fff62b55c39c9546da95fa0d8f0b#p8538



On Nov 2nd 2007 that would have been EUR 43.00. http://www.finanzen.net/devisen/dollarkurs/historisch

Not much for a Sweater and and a slip. My guess would be 39.00 for the sweater and 4.00 for the slip...

Click to expand...

Of course when the police arrested Amanda and took custody of any cash she had in her purse or in a drawer in her bedroom they checked it for fingerprints to see if Meredith's fingerprints were on any of the bills, DIDN'T THEY? The police did that to see if Amanda was in possession of any money stolen from Meredity, DIDN'T THEY? Of course, I have not read that they did this - which tells me that the police are incompetent detectives! But Giubbi, the crack homicide detective from Rome, was there. Surely he made sure it was done, DIDN'T HE???

And when the police arrested Rudy upon his extradition from Germany they checked any cash he had in his possession for Meredith's fingerprints, DIDN'T THEY???

What we have are amateurs posing as competent detectives!!!

katy_did said:

Agreed, the comments about the decision generally seem very critical, even more so than the articles about it...

Click to expand...

I find myself a little irritated with the way this story about pedophilia has been so excitedly embraced. Yes, it is more proof that the Italian court system needs to be overhauled, but didn't we have proof enough already? It should come as no surprise to anyone that the judges could sink this low, given the decisions we have seen previously.

One reason I am irritated is that I have not noticed a lot of anti-pedophilia activism among supporters in the past. Some of us fought the good fight in threads about Jerry Sandusky, but in general, there was not a lot of discussion about pedophilia among the supporters during that episode. I was even put down once by another supporter for repeating the reports that Mohandas Gandhi routinely took young girls to bed with him.

In my opinion, this subject matter has been co-opted out of opportunism, not because many people have strong feelings about the subject. It just doesn't feel authentic to me.

And in case anyone wants to use my opinion against the supporters, I will say that I also find it suspicious that PGP seem to have been completely silent on this matter.

-

Bill Williams said:

Me, I thought it was a nice touch.

But you misunderstand, Briars. What soiled it was not the image itself. AFAIK, Meredith herself is always remembered with respect at FOA events. It's true, she's the first victim of this horrible ordeal. The Kercher family has endured an unimaginable tragedy. Period. Full stop.

But then there's this loopy couple in Seattle hijacking U of W AV equipment, thinking they are shaming Raffaele. Raffaele is one who believes Meredith is victim #1 here, but unlike shamelss guilters does not try to hijack her memory.

It was the intent, once discovered which was totally creepy. The image itself was great.

Nice try with ambush posting.

Click to expand...

-

I just find it utterly impossible to believe that virtually no one from the PGP camp has EVER complained about the picture that Maresca put up during his summation in the last trial, the projected death shot of Meredith taken by PLE.

I lost a lot of respect for the Kercher's then for allowing this to happen and for still wanting to pay this man.

How can anyone from that camp not be ashamed of that? And then turn around and criticize anyone else for disrespecting Meredith?

Projecting that picture by Maresca was definitely one of the most disgusting and disrespectful things you could ever do to any victim. Photos handed to jurors, yes but projecting it up on the wall so everyone who was in court could see, no. It had no evidentiary value, only a prejudicial one.

It was a very bad move by Maresca, and when the jurors were laughing at something the defense said, who were up after Maresca finished, that's when I knew they were gonna be found not guilty.

Why is there no PGP outcry about that?

That's how I know the PGP anger is not about Meredith at all, no matter what they try to tell people, it's about the specific hate of one specific person, in my opinion,

d

-

AmyStrange said:

I just find it utterly impossible to believe that virtually no one from the PGP camp has EVER complained about the picture that Maresca put up during his summation in the last trial, the projected death shot of Meredith taken by PLE.

I lost a lot of respect for the Kercher's then for allowing this to happen and for still wanting to pay this man.

How can anyone from that camp not be ashamed of that? And then turn around and criticize anyone else for disrespecting Meredith?

Projecting that picture by Maresca was definitely one of the most disgusting and disrespectful things you could ever do to any victim. Photos handed to jurors, yes but projecting it up on the wall so everyone who was in court could see, no. It had no evidentiary value, only a prejudicial one.

It was a very bad move by Maresca, and when the jurors were laughing at something the defense said, who were up after Maresca finished, that's when I knew they were gonna be found not guilty.

Why is there no PGP outcry about that?

That's how I know the PGP anger is not about Meredith at all, no matter what they try to tell people, it's about the specific hate of one specific person, in my opinion,

d

-

Click to expand...

.... and they have the gall to say Knox disrespected the Kerchers when all AK did was put a link to the site where money can be raised FOR the Kerchers.

I'll never understand people, really.

Mary_H said:

I find myself a little irritated with the way this story about pedophilia has been so excitedly embraced. Yes, it is more proof that the Italian court system needs to be overhauled, but didn't we have proof enough already? It should come as no surprise to anyone that the judges could sink this low, given the decisions we have seen previously.

One reason I am irritated is that I have not noticed a lot of anti-pedophilia activism among supporters in the past. Some of us fought the good fight in threads about Jerry Sandusky, but in general, there was not a lot of discussion about pedophilia among the supporters during that episode. I was even put down once by another supporter for repeating the reports that Mohandas Gandhi routinely took young girls to bed with him.

In my opinion, this subject matter has been co-opted out of opportunism, not because many people have strong feelings about the subject. It just doesn't feel authentic to me.

And in case anyone wants to use my opinion against the supporters, I will say that I also find it suspicious that PGP seem to have been completely silent on this matter.

Click to expand...

For me, I have co-opted it out of opportunism, as well as having strong feelings on the subject.

It's opportunism in that this is an opportune time to be reminded of what the ISC is capable. In a sense, though, the "tight jeans" ruling on the rape case, or the "charged with failing to predict an earthquake" is also opportunism - in the good sense. Whereas all of Italy's judicial system cannot be painted with the same brush, you have to admit - they are capable of some pretty daffy decisions!

Which is true anywhere.... I guess.

Mary seems to believe that the paedophilia case can only be referenced by posters with a history of activism in anti-paedophilia threads. This isn't really sensible. This isn't the place to branch off into a general anti-paedophilia campaign. It's perfectly reasonable for any right-thinking person to co-opt that case, with others, as part of a dossier indicating that the Italian legal system is not fit for purpose.

Rolfe.

-

Bill Williams said:

.... and they have the gall to say Knox disrespected the Kerchers when all AK did was put a link to the site where money can be raised FOR the Kerchers.

I'll never understand people, really.

Click to expand...

-

And Maresca had his hand in that one too!!! The guy is slime. I would venture to speculate that his behavior is more indicative of a psychopathic personality that is quite capable of killing someone (if he hasn't already), more so than anyone else in this case, even Rudy... but that's only my opinion,

d

-

-

Rolfe said:

Mary seems to believe that the paedophilia case can only be referenced by posters with a history of activism in anti-paedophilia threads. This isn't really sensible. This isn't the place to branch off into a general anti-paedophilia campaign. It's perfectly reasonable for any right-thinking person to co-opt that case, with others, as part of a dossier indicating that the Italian legal system is not fit for purpose.

Rolfe.

Click to expand...

-

I kind of agree

Part of my website is specifically set aside to database missing persons, but it is really hard to work on because in some Of these cases I have a gut feeling (which has been confirmed more times that I care to remember) and I can't work on this portion of the site for very long without stressing out big time.

Pedophile activism is nothing to get involved with on a casual basis (like it is here on this thread, and with that I agree with Mary). It takes hardened dedication and more people should really do more research on it, especially if you have children in your family.

At the same time I agree with Rolfe, I don't think the reference here to the 60 yo to 11 yo is out of a desire to stop pedophilia so much as a kind of confirmation bias in a, "see we were right, the ISC is crazy" kind of way.

As always, this is just my opinion,

d

-

Mary_H said:

In my opinion, this subject matter has been co-opted out of opportunism, not because many people have strong feelings about the subject. It just doesn't feel authentic to me.

And in case anyone wants to use my opinion against the supporters, I will say that I also find it suspicious that PGP seem to have been completely silent on this matter.

Click to expand...

Speaking only for myself, obviously (just because my post was the one you quoted) I commented because I read Randy's post about how the decision had been "casually accepted" by the Italian people ("Shameless fools", etc) and I knew that wasn't true because I'd read plenty of criticism about it in Italian articles, on comments pages and forums. I've read similar comments about the 'foolish' Italians refusing to speak out in this (i.e. the Kercher) case, and disagreed with those generalizations then too. My point was less to do with that particular decision and whether, as welshman says, it's right to condemn all Italians as "mindless sheep" in light of this or any other court decision.

As to the case with the 11 year old, I hadn't thought about it a huge amount in relation to this case. It does seem to me that there's a very odd and worrying attitude to the sexuality of women and girls which is evident in some of the Italian Supreme Court decisions we hear about (though of course, the cases we hear about will always be the most shocking ones). Where I do see a very general connection to the Kercher case is in the weird insistence that Meredith must have been restrained or she would have fought back - she would have had more defence wounds and so on - as support for the multiple attacker theory. That seems very similar to the 'she can't have been raped because she was wearing jeans' argument: it takes no account of the psychological impact of rape (especially when the attacker has a knife) or the possible ways a woman might react to it. So in that sense the paedophilia case, although of course very different, is another little insight into the way women and girls and the issue of consent are viewed by some of those making decisions at the Supreme Court.

Rolfe said:

Mary seems to believe that the paedophilia case can only be referenced by posters with a history of activism in anti-paedophilia threads. This isn't really sensible. This isn't the place to branch off into a general anti-paedophilia campaign. It's perfectly reasonable for any right-thinking person to co-opt that case, with others, as part of a dossier indicating that the Italian legal system is not fit for purpose.

Rolfe.

Click to expand...

You can address me directly, Rolfe; I'm right here.

You have taken a couple of leaps. I certainly do not want this discussion to branch off into a general anti-pedophilia campaign. And I certainly don't believe the pedophilia case can only be referenced by posters with a history of activism in anti-pedophilia threads. I admit I do find it disingenuous. I am in favor of gay rights and gay marriage, but I am not an activist and I have never written about the subject online. I would not feel I was being authentic if I suddenly grabbed a hold of a case about gay rights in order to support a case I was already active about. But that's just me.

It is reasonable to co-opt the pedophilia case, but it is questionable, in my opinion, to take up a banner for it. Why? Because a huge aspect of this case, if not the essence of it, is the subject of older males being attracted to younger females. This "transaction," if you will, seems to be common practice in Italy, so it should come as no surprise to us when the court rules as it did. Yet, this subject is rarely the centerpiece of our debate.

How much difference, is there, really, between this 60-year-old man, Mahatma Gandhi, Peter Quennell, Giuliano Mignini and Amanda's prison guard? Obviously, some are more pedophilic than others, but in general, I believe there are scads of old geezers men on both sides of this case who have harbored romantic feelings toward Amanda and/or Meredith. The problem with this reality is that it might, and perhaps does, tend to discourage discussion of a central issue.

It is very obvious to us that it is not okay for a 60-year-old man to lure an eleven-year-old into bed, but it is not so obvious to Italians, because of their culture. It is very obvious to me that it is not okay for a 60-year-old man to try to lure a 20-year-old into bed, but it is not so obvious to most Americans, because of our culture. I am saying I don't think we should be so high and mighty on this particular matter.

I think the articles (and the comments on these articles) linked to in earlier posts demonstrate that "Italians" are perfectly well aware that it is not OK for a 60-year-old man to lure an 11-year-old girl into bed. I think shrugging this off as something that's semi-acceptable in Italian culture is close to offensive.

I was certainly making no point about Gandhi or anyone else, or taking up a banner for the case. I didn't notice anyone else doing it either. Everyone seemed to be saying "look at one more example of the Italian SC being entirely out of touch and not fit for purpose" until you chose to interpret it differently.

Rolfe.

Bill Williams said:

For me, I have co-opted it out of opportunism, as well as having strong feelings on the subject.

It's opportunism in that this is an opportune time to be reminded of what the ISC is capable. In a sense, though, the "tight jeans" ruling on the rape case, or the "charged with failing to predict an earthquake" is also opportunism - in the good sense. Whereas all of Italy's judicial system cannot be painted with the same brush, you have to admit - they are capable of some pretty daffy decisions!

Which is true anywhere.... I guess.

Click to expand...

AmyStrange said:

-<snip>At the same time I agree with Rolfe, I don't think the reference here to the 60 yo to 11 yo is out of a desire to stop pedophilia so much as a kind of confirmation bias in a, "see we were right, the ISC is crazy" kind of way.

As always, this is just my opinion,

d

-

Click to expand...

I agree with both of you that that is what is happening for the most part. I am just trying to explore why seeing the supporters embrace the pedophilia case led me immediately to roll my eyes and continues to do so. I don't react that way to most of the things we do.

Mary_H said:

You can address me directly, Rolfe; I'm right here.

You have taken a couple of leaps. I certainly do not want this discussion to branch off into a general anti-pedophilia campaign. And I certainly don't believe the pedophilia case can only be referenced by posters with a history of activism in anti-pedophilia threads. I admit I do find it disingenuous. I am in favor of gay rights and gay marriage, but I am not an activist and I have never written about the subject online. I would not feel I was being authentic if I suddenly grabbed a hold of a case about gay rights in order to support a case I was already active about. But that's just me.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what role this "authenticity" criterion can play in critical thinking. You haven't explained it in detail, probably because it seems obvious to you, so all I can do is guess based on context. However it looks like some variation of the ad hominem fallacy where you evaluate an argument based on who is putting it forward rather than whether or not it is a sound argument.

From my perspective if an argument is sound then it is utterly irrelevant who is putting it forward. Nor is it a relevant response to try to discredit a sound argument by saying "Your facts are correct and your logic is valid, but the argument isn't authentic so I roll my eyes at it".

Rolfe said:

I think the articles (and the comments on these articles) linked to in earlier posts demonstrate that "Italians" are perfectly well aware that it is not OK for a 60-year-old man to lure an 11-year-old girl into bed. I think shrugging this off as something that's semi-acceptable in Italian culture is close to offensive.

Click to expand...

I don't know how "Italians" in general feel about the court's ruling, so you have a fair point there. I haven't even read the articles or the comments, because the case is not that interesting to me.

Do you also find it offensive for someone to say that the guilty verdict in the Kercher case was acceptable to Italian culture? Because a lot of us have said that, including you.

I was certainly making no point about Gandhi or anyone else, or taking up a banner for the case. I didn't notice anyone else doing it either. Everyone seemed to be saying "look at one more example of the Italian SC being entirely out of touch and not fit for purpose" until you chose to interpret it differently.

Rolfe.

Click to expand...

I did not accuse you personally of taking up a banner for the pedophilia case. I don't know if you have posted anything about it at all. I am talking in general terms about the supporters as a whole, because I keep seeing the case mentioned repeatedly in several of the groups and sites I follow.

I do see this as one more example of the ISC being entirely out of touch and not fit for purpose. However, I do not feel motivated to hold it up as such and I am curious about why so many people do. I actually feel the same way about the earthquake prediction case. I know there are a lot more facts behind it than are common knowledge.

I tend to keep a very narrow, problem-solving focus on our case. I get irritated when I see people evading essential issues, which to me, lie primarily at looking at motives at the very beginning of the case. My opinion only.

-

Mary_H said:

I agree with both of you that that is what is happening for the most part. I am just trying to explore why seeing the supporters embrace the pedophilia case led me immediately to roll my eyes and continues to do so. I don't react that way to most of the things we do.

Click to expand...

-

Pedophilia is definitely nothing to be casual about, because it is way more than just something crazy that people do, it's a nightmare that more children and teens go through than people realize. Also remember the flip side which is the damage that false and wrongful accusations cause.

All I really wish is that after anyone uses this case to show how crazy the ISC is, they also take a few minutes to research the subject specifically --especially if you have children in your family,

Thank you Mary for giving me the chance to say this, especially since it's total not on topic per se...

d

-