I think he’s a robber now. Definitely not part of the group sex thing. Even worse feelings toward the police.
I like the rapist theory. It’s not like Amanda was the only promiscuous American collegian around—birds of a feather… And who would rob an exchange student? No, a consensual meeting gone bad sounds like a far more common scenario to me.
Why would you murder someone just because she didn’t wanted to have group sex?
And even if you did, why the hell would you call the police yourself?
Furthermore, this case was decided by a jury. A group of average people with no real juristic knowledge at all. Just some random dumbasses who couldn’t care less and just want to get home (no, I’m not narcist. Just consider: 50% of all people are by definition dumber than the average, and a jury is randomly selected. ie the average jury ranges from IQ 80 to 120, while a professional judge should start at about 125.) Do you really believe they would come to the correct decision?
And just think of the charges against the prosecutor (about inventing crazy conspiracy theories) . .
Why would you murder someone just because she didn’t wanted to have group sex?
Not sure what you are thinking, but to clarify: I meant an encounter between just Meredith and Guede, nothing to do with Knox or Sollecito. I could see a single guy (Guede) expecting sex and then resorting to rape and then murder to cover it.
(And I suspect the jury is on average better than the populace, since just about every country gives into the temptation to lard on extra conditions like ‘if you’re a felon you forfeit forever rights such as being on a jury or voting’, which would disparately affect the lower percentiles.)
Ah, I thought you referred to an encounter between all of them. In this case, I agree with you—that’s also what I think happened.
Regarding the juries: I’ve read to many reports about bad juries than to believe in them, and the fact that they are almost certainly less educated than a judge still remains.
The Italian system is different from ours. This particular jury included two judges.
That’s an interesting variant. There may well be advantages to such a system to counterbalance the disadvantages. I know, for example, that I just felt my ‘confidence of innocence’ adjust itself downwards. (I would expect a judge to be more likely to be corrupt than a random citizen but also to have less naive vulnerability to obvious manipulations. The latter is relevant here.)
I like the rapist theory. It’s not like Amanda was the only promiscuous American collegian around—birds of a feather… And who would rob an exchange student? No, a consensual meeting gone bad sounds like a far more common scenario to me.
Why would you murder someone just because she didn’t wanted to have group sex?
And even if you did, why the hell would you call the police yourself?
Furthermore, this case was decided by a jury. A group of average people with no real juristic knowledge at all. Just some random dumbasses who couldn’t care less and just want to get home (no, I’m not narcist. Just consider: 50% of all people are by definition dumber than the average, and a jury is randomly selected. ie the average jury ranges from IQ 80 to 120, while a professional judge should start at about 125.) Do you really believe they would come to the correct decision?
And just think of the charges against the prosecutor (about inventing crazy conspiracy theories) . .
I guess for me its 5/5/90 for K/S/G.
Not sure what you are thinking, but to clarify: I meant an encounter between just Meredith and Guede, nothing to do with Knox or Sollecito. I could see a single guy (Guede) expecting sex and then resorting to rape and then murder to cover it.
(And I suspect the jury is on average better than the populace, since just about every country gives into the temptation to lard on extra conditions like ‘if you’re a felon you forfeit forever rights such as being on a jury or voting’, which would disparately affect the lower percentiles.)
Ah, I thought you referred to an encounter between all of them. In this case, I agree with you—that’s also what I think happened.
Regarding the juries: I’ve read to many reports about bad juries than to believe in them, and the fact that they are almost certainly less educated than a judge still remains.
The Italian system is different from ours. This particular jury included two judges.
That’s an interesting variant. There may well be advantages to such a system to counterbalance the disadvantages. I know, for example, that I just felt my ‘confidence of innocence’ adjust itself downwards. (I would expect a judge to be more likely to be corrupt than a random citizen but also to have less naive vulnerability to obvious manipulations. The latter is relevant here.)
[comment deleted]