Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[moije2]

BTW, I would be way invested (?) In bigfoot if I met him. Of course, meeting him would be proof of his existence, unless I discovered my medication was not at therapeutic levels!

 

[anglolawyer]

The analogy was intended to point out that supporters' POV isn't as powerful as non-supporters because the supporters are biased in favor of the candidate. I play some fantasy sports games and need not to become enamored of a player because of being with the home team, ethnic origin or anything except talent.

You read me wrong. I'm very loyal to old and new friends. One of the main reasons I haven't used my location and minor connections to join in is that I want to keep myself as objective as possible. Hell, I'd wash any friends' walls if needed.

People think that only others have a subconscious that affects their judgments and decisions. Having personal connections to the kids will impact objectivity and well it should.

Don't you rather give yourself airs with that remark? You aren't on the jury and have no decision to make. Do you strive to remain equally objective in all areas of life? How very boring! You underestimate yourself anyway. It's OK to get involved and try to remain as objective as possible and I'm sure you could remain sufficiently above the fray. As Mary_H said, these things are fundamentally emotional anyway.

Maybe you unjustly denigrate those who have taken a more committed stance. We know and engage with quite a few of those, here and elsewhere, and I have every confidence in their (nay, our) ability to sift the facts and to cope well enough with confrontation.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would speculate that the reason you met her was because you had already established a strong belief in her innocence. Meeting her was perhaps similar to meeting a politician whose platform and causes you strongly identify with. (Please don't get carried away with this comparison folks!)

Probably true.

This whole thing about emotional attachment seems a dangerous slope. If you identify strong enough with something to become actively involved in the cause then there is alway the possibility that you will meet the key players. Then your objectivity can be challenged because of it. The claim of treating this as purely an intellectual exercise devoid of feeling or passion strikes me as completely disingenuous. I have commented previously that there are many here who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours on this and appear to be at their keyboard 24/7. It would be a strange bird indeed that does that without emotion and passion.

Thand goodness for emotional people. They remind us dried up old cynics what these cases are really about.

 

[Grinder]

Don't you rather give yourself airs with that remark? You aren't on the jury and have no decision to make. Do you strive to remain equally objective in all areas of life? How very boring! You underestimate yourself anyway. It's OK to get involved and try to remain as objective as possible and I'm sure you could remain sufficiently above the fray. As Mary_H said, these things are fundamentally emotional anyway.

Maybe you unjustly denigrate those who have taken a more committed stance. We know and engage with quite a few of those, here and elsewhere, and I have every confidence in their (nay, our) ability to sift the facts and to cope well enough with confrontation.

I'm speaking of analysis. Without getting specific in order to keep this as calm as possible, there are positions taken here that seem beyond what we know and influenced a lot by those with greater vesting.

There is one poster here that seems to buy anything and everything pro the kids and against all others. Certain authors that are clearly advocates of the kids are taken at face value no matter a lack of corroboration. I'm not accusing you or some notable others here of the above but it is my belief those more invested tend to accept more of these types of things.

I don't share your opinion on sifting.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I don't think I forget, but rather I am a different creature than that/you. To each his own. I personally reject the idea of a person without emotions. The issue is really the ability to separate emotions from analysis. I will state that I am emotionally... something ... by this case. Let's say affected. And not just by the facts, but with regard to AK, RS, and their families. Of the more nonobjective labels, I don't think I belong. I feel strongly for these kids and their close ones. And at the same time I would turn my emotions the other direction in a heart beat if there was <reasonable> evidence against them.

-

I hope you don't think I'm some kind of emotionless drone, because I'm not. I always have to take a break from my serial killer and missing person cases, because it gets to be too much for me emotionally.

You are right about the highlighted part. I just think that just because you are analyzing something, even with people involved, doesn't mean you are also getting emotionally involved with what your analyzing.

In my opinion,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I'm speaking of analysis. Without getting specific in order to keep this as calm as possible, there are positions taken here that seem beyond what we know and influenced a lot by those with greater vesting.

There is one poster here that seems to buy anything and everything pro the kids and against all others. Certain authors that are clearly advocates of the kids are taken at face value no matter a lack of corroboration. I'm not accusing you or some notable others here of the above but it is my belief those more invested tend to accept more of these types of things.

I don't share your opinion on sifting.

-

I was thinking about what you said above and I'd like to admit that the one thing I am emotionally invested with in this case is how Meredith died. Her death was so horrifying that it upsets me greatly.

In that I am greatly and deeply invested, but that doesn't mean I want the wrong person to suffer for her death. It's got to be the one who really did it to her. Otherwise, you're just piling up one tragedy on top of another tragedy and the real person doesn't pay properly.

I'm against the death penalty, but if I knew absolutely (100%) for sure that Rudy was the one, I'd be happy to vote for any law making his slow death possible, but I'm not that sure,

d

-

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The analogy was intended to point out that supporters' POV isn't as powerful as non-supporters because the supporters are biased in favor of the candidate. I play some fantasy sports games and need not to become enamored of a player because of being with the home team, ethnic origin or anything except talent.

You read me wrong. I'm very loyal to old and new friends. One of the main reasons I haven't used my location and minor connections to join in is that I want to keep myself as objective as possible. Hell, I'd wash any friends' walls if needed.

People think that only others have a subconscious that affects their judgments and decisions. Having personal connections to the kids will impact objectivity and well it should.

Do you believe that knowing what Amanda Knox is really like is an impediment to evaluating the accusations against her, and that people who rely solely on public sources are better informed as to how likely she might be to plunge a kitchen knife into someone's throat?

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm speaking of analysis. Without getting specific in order to keep this as calm as possible, there are positions taken here that seem beyond what we know and influenced a lot by those with greater vesting.

There is one poster here that seems to buy anything and everything pro the kids and against all others. Certain authors that are clearly advocates of the kids are taken at face value no matter a lack of corroboration. I'm not accusing you or some notable others here of the above but it is my belief those more invested tend to accept more of these types of things.

I don't share your opinion on sifting.

You are generalising from the poster who can't be named to all those you classify as fans or supporters. Anyway, I see Charlie has now shown up and, as he is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, I'll leave you to his tender mercies

 

[Samson]

I'm speaking of analysis. Without getting specific in order to keep this as calm as possible, there are positions taken here that seem beyond what we know and influenced a lot by those with greater vesting.

There is one poster here that seems to buy anything and everything pro the kids and against all others. Certain authors that are clearly advocates of the kids are taken at face value no matter a lack of corroboration. I'm not accusing you or some notable others here of the above but it is my belief those more invested tend to accept more of these types of things.

I don't share your opinion on sifting.

Once the conclusion is reached the kids could not be at the murder scene it makes no sense to be pro or anti, but to seek ways to shift public opinion to the same view. This includes analysing the known interviews and so on.

 

[Grinder]

Do you believe that knowing what Amanda Knox is really like is an impediment to evaluating the accusations against her, and that people who rely solely on public sources are better informed as to how likely she might be to plunge a kitchen knife into someone's throat?

Wow. Are you suggesting that if I meet Amanda (of course there will be a debate as to whether or not I would know her) or somehow know what she is really like that I will be made privy to secret information only dispensed to insiders?

What does "people who rely solely on public sources are better informed as to how likely she might be to plunge a kitchen knife into someone's throat?" even mean?

Are you suggesting that meeting her or somehow knowing what she is really like that it would be inconceivable that she would murder? If that's what you are saying, then you are making the case that supporters can't just look at the evidence because they know she couldn't have done it.

What I've been at is that supporters (that are sure she is innocent partially from knowing what she is really like) tend to accept anything as true that helps her case.

Do you believe Rudi was an informant? Do you have non-public information? If so, why won't you share it?

Why haven't the interview transcripts been made public? I believe the defense has them. My guess is they show that she was vague and contrasting as she herself has stated. That doesn't in way sway towards guilt but does sway me away from framing (classic definition) by the police, certainly at first.

I think the public information makes it perfectly clear that she wasn't proven to be guilty BARD and as Anglo reminds all, I think they are innocent. It is smaller details and wacky theories that I question.

 

[moije2]

Wow. Are you suggesting that if I meet Amanda (of course there will be a debate as to whether or not I would know her) or somehow know what she is really like that I will be made privy to secret information only dispensed to insiders?

What does "people who rely solely on public sources are better informed as to how likely she might be to plunge a kitchen knife into someone's throat?" even mean?

Are you suggesting that meeting her or somehow knowing what she is really like that it would be inconceivable that she would murder? If that's what you are saying, then you are making the case that supporters can't just look at the evidence because they know she couldn't have done it.

What I've been at is that supporters (that are sure she is innocent partially from knowing what she is really like) tend to accept anything as true that helps her case.

Do you believe Rudi was an informant? Do you have non-public information? If so, why won't you share it?

Why haven't the interview transcripts been made public? I believe the defense has them. My guess is they show that she was vague and contrasting as she herself has stated. That doesn't in way sway towards guilt but does sway me away from framing (classic definition) by the police, certainly at first.

I think the public information makes it perfectly clear that she wasn't proven to be guilty BARD and as Anglo reminds all, I think they are innocent. It is smaller details and wacky theories that I question.

A little comment.

He didn't say inconceivable. He said better informed. And i would add that knowing her - even meeting her - would fall outside of public information, the knowledge one can glean from being in one's presence.

It just seemed that you were taken a rather extreme reaction. The point that I gather is precisely that you would be better informed of her personality by knowing her. Short of you going out of your way there in Seattle to connect in some fashion, you don't have that knowledge and that is your way of understanding the case. For me Charlie has a valid point.

 

[carbonjam72]

Ssshhh!!

You are generalising from the poster who can't be named to all those you classify as fans or supporters. Anyway, I see Charlie has now shown up and, as he is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, I'll leave you to his tender mercies

I'm sure whoever 'the poster is that musn't be named' is not likely to go Voldemort in the comments. Please, do tell.

 

[Draca]

The analogy was intended to point out that supporters' POV isn't as powerful as non-supporters because the supporters are biased in favor of the candidate. I play some fantasy sports games and need not to become enamored of a player because of being with the home team, ethnic origin or anything except talent.

You read me wrong. I'm very loyal to old and new friends. One of the main reasons I haven't used my location and minor connections to join in is that I want to keep myself as objective as possible. Hell, I'd wash any friends' walls if needed.

People think that only others have a subconscious that affects their judgments and decisions. Having personal connections to the kids will impact objectivity and well it should.

And of course you are NOT a supporter, and therefore have a more powerful POV.

You really are amusing in a very pompous sort of way Grinder.

 

[Grinder]

A little comment.

He didn't say inconceivable. He said better informed. And i would add that knowing her - even meeting her - would fall outside of public information, the knowledge one can glean from being in one's presence.

It just seemed that you were taken a rather extreme reaction. The point that I gather is precisely that you would be better informed of her personality by knowing her. Short of you going out of your way there in Seattle to connect in some fashion, you don't have that knowledge and that is your way of understanding the case. For me Charlie has a valid point.

I read it differently. He didn't actually say anything about meeting he or even knowing her - he used an odd construction "Do you believe that knowing what Amanda Knox is really like is an impediment"

I took knowing what is really like to help in understanding - "how likely she might be to plunge a kitchen knife into someone's throat?" meant that the universal reports of her sweetness by friends, relatives and supporters make it inconceivable she could have done it. This comes from years and years of hearing about no motive, no psychopathy (hope Bill has me on ignore) and no history of violence at all. I do believe they have used words that equate to inconceivable and I was addressing more than the paragraph.

There is also some implication that there is more information available to the supporters. Obviously knowing her or as he put it "knowing what Amanda Knox is really like" can't add any knowledge about the case - so what does he mean. "How likely to plunge" isn't the question I'm addressing at all and maybe that's the key. Does a supporter start to think in those terms adding to what evidence we can glean unfounded claims as gospel to substantiate the whatever knowing what she is really like does for him?

Thanks for the comment.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

And of course you are NOT a supporter, and therefore have a more powerful POV.

You really are amusing in a very pompous sort of way Grinder.

-

Draca, I really like your cat pix. Nice.

I don't know if meeting and knowing someone clouds your judgement or not. Maybe for some people, it does, but some it doesn't. You can see that in true crime writings about real killers like Ann Rule and Ted Bundy, how she actually knew this guy before he left Seattle. I can't really prove it, but I believe she objectively looked at the evidence and decided he was a serial killer and the fact that she knew him did not cloud her objectivity.

Some people are able to do that, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

And of course you are NOT a supporter, and therefore have a more powerful POV.

You really are amusing in a very pompous sort of way Grinder.

I'd say that people that announce they are supporters in the way we are talking about diminish their pervasive power to neutral observers. It wasn't a self promoting remark as I think many or most posters here are not supporters in way intended. I think having a vested interest is an applicable term.

vest·ed in·ter·est
noun

a person or group having a personal stake or involvement.

I didn't include the financial clause because I in no way believe money has anything to do with it.

How do you categorize yourself?

 

[carbonjam72]

I'd say that people that announce they are supporters in the way we are talking about diminish their pervasive power to neutral observers. It wasn't a self promoting remark as I think many or most posters here are not supporters in way intended. I think having a vested interest is an applicable term.

vest·ed in·ter·est
noun

a person or group having a personal stake or involvement.

I didn't include the financial clause because I in no way believe money has anything to do with it.

How do you categorize yourself?

Pretty sure you meant persuasive. Not trying to nitpick.

Please though, do name the un-nameable, the 'poster who can't be named'.

btw, Is finding a typo indicative of investment?

 

[carbonjam72]

Here's a Google translation of an Italian article, coming to terms with the tragedy of Italian justice as it stands today -

Looks like some country's justice system needs an intervention. (the country that can't be named).

http://www.barbadillo.it/28726-la-n...tti-su-repubblica-e-i-diritti-degli-indagati/

The note (Angela Azzaro). The interrogation of Bossetti of the Republic and the rights of suspects

Posted on September 23, 2014 by Angela Azzaro Categories: Writings
It's funny, the manufacturer's declaration Valsecchi wanted to make a film on the killing of Yara. Every day, newspapers and television writing fiction of a court case is still open. Today, for example, the pearl found on the Repubblica. The newspaper democratic and leftist public the minutes of the interrogation chief Massimo Bossetti, accused of killing the girl Brembate. An act that should remain secret gets banged in page, complete with a creepy title to stir the minds and even more: "I looked at porn sites with my wife, but I have never tried video with minors." The life of the suspect, but still presumed innocent, that is zero. So how is zero life of his family and also the girl that no longer exists. Why make public a report so important, not only does not protect the person concerned, but also the outcome of the investigation, but it seems to be the least of the problems of the prosecution. The real goal is to give visibility to their work, being in the papers, to arrest someone. Everything But to do their jobs well.

The idea of ​​making a film on a true story is so old, stale. For more than a decade newspapers and television stations have replaced the big screen by building in direct narration of the main Italian cases. The bloody events, stories without guilty, the ingredients that enact our fears have always aroused interest. It is certainly not a novelty item. The novelty, however, is that today's TV and newspapers (all) have gone a step further: rather than tell, they process; more than explain what is happening, they condemn; more than describe the work of the investigators, the condition. While the first journalists attended by observers, are now an integral part of the processes, to the point of being able to say that determine the outcome. From an assumption that overturns the Constitution: it is guilty until proven otherwise. The story of Girolimoni, the emblem of a life ruined by an accusation later proved unfounded, it is now archeology. The most poignant memory of that time was when the injustices made ​​noise. Today, the injustice is the norm, Girolimoni is not the case for excellence, but a warning away in a country that has upset the rule of law. The jump to this, apparently unstoppable trend is revealed in its ferocity in the murder of Cogne, in 2002, a child was found dead in her home, still wearing his pajamas. His body is offended by many small cuts, which have caused the death. The culprit, no doubt, has an immediate full name. Anna Maria Franzoni. The child's mother. We do not want to discuss here about what the clues were evident, nor infilarci in the discussion that it could only be her.

We are interested instead another step: to understand how it has come to take for granted these certainties, to clear the doubt, the ability to identify not only the victim, but also with those who are accused of a heinous crime. We are interested to understand that because we have this question deleted from our system cognitive and emotional: "And if it was not she?". Not by asking this question, we bypassed centuries of literature, philosophy, history. We have become like Ris who entered the house of Cogne have deleted the most important clues. We entered into our cultural and human, we did it in pieces and we woke up all better, but worse. The murderess is always the other, the monster, the one who holds the power of evil. The company has put on a pedestal from which to watch and judge, feeling devoid of responsibility.

At this point in the argument, I know what you're thinking. For the plastic Porta a Porta, a Chi l'ha visto ?, to Quartogrado, in Five afternoon. Have you made ​​a big mistake. If the problem were only these transmissions, there would be nothing to worry about. It would be very easy to go back, to restore a culture of doubt and piety. No, it is not so, because the virus has affected all of the guillotine. From the Courier and Republic to the main Tg. Nobody is excluded. Up to enter the rooms of the Ministry of the Interior with Angelino Alfano, after the capture of Bossetti, takes it for granted that he is the murderess, anticipating three degrees of opinion and not caring about the Constitution.

Here also, the spread of the virus, there is a case in point. The crime scene is Garlasco. After the killing of Chiara, the village is stormed. It's summer, the news is few. Alberto Stasi has already become "the guilty." Eastenders has not yet begun. But the major newspapers builds a novel with characters and figures, including cousins ​​Chiara who conquered a prominent role. The newspapers the launch, cause them to become stars. However, when Fabrizio Corona, asking them to work for his agency, the condemnation is unanimous that are speculating about a murder. Each time it is. All we wallow, all are dripping blood at will, but then they feel they have to accuse someone else of having exceeded the limit. But the limit we passed it all. Relapses are also heavy on processes, strongly influenced by public opinion. Amanda Knox has not had to deal with the trials of the investigators, not with the dynamics of the crime, but with the image femme fatale, her little girl, the newspapers and television have sewn and of which, even today, you do not is released. The diva was treated, and then complain that behaved as a star. They have not forgiven looks, t-shirts, tone of voice, sometimes considered too excited, others too cocky.
On Amanda have made ​​more than one film, the last of Winterbottom. Fortunately, however, there is also good literature that resists and helps us a little 'to understand, not so much what is happening, but what would happen to each of us, if we were to end up in the same meat grinder. Read on, if you have not already done so, Persecution, the first part of the diptych Friendly fire memories of Alessandro Piperno. The writer, who with this Roman won the Strega Prize, talks about the fall hell of a man. The protagonist is an accomplished professional who is accused of pedophilia. Is not guilty, but everything leads us to believe that it is. It is left to die, like the cockroach in Kafka, returning to the level of zero to humanity that our world has forgotten. The cockroach is the ability to identify with those who suffer, those who suffer with an unfair accusation. Do not lose this ability because tomorrow it could happen to us.

 

[Numbers]

Newtonian justice?

Here's a Google translation of an Italian article, coming to terms with the tragedy of Italian justice as it stands today -

Looks like some country's justice system needs an intervention. (the country that can't be named).



The note (Angela Azzaro). The interrogation of Bossetti of the Republic and the rights of suspects

Posted on September 23, 2014 by Angela Azzaro Categories: Writings
It's funny, the manufacturer's declaration Valsecchi wanted to make a film on the killing of Yara. Every day, newspapers and television writing fiction of a court case is still open. Today, for example, the pearl found on the Repubblica. The newspaper democratic and leftist public the minutes of the interrogation chief Massimo Bossetti, accused of killing the girl Brembate. An act that should remain secret gets banged in page, complete with a creepy title to stir the minds and even more: "I looked at porn sites with my wife, but I have never tried video with minors." The life of the suspect, but still presumed innocent, that is zero. So how is zero life of his family and also the girl that no longer exists. Why make public a report so important, not only does not protect the person concerned, but also the outcome of the investigation, but it seems to be the least of the problems of the prosecution. The real goal is to give visibility to their work, being in the papers, to arrest someone. Everything But to do their jobs well.

The idea of ​​making a film on a true story is so old, stale. For more than a decade newspapers and television stations have replaced the big screen by building in direct narration of the main Italian cases. The bloody events, stories without guilty, the ingredients that enact our fears have always aroused interest. It is certainly not a novelty item. The novelty, however, is that today's TV and newspapers (all) have gone a step further: rather than tell, they process; more than explain what is happening, they condemn; more than describe the work of the investigators, the condition. While the first journalists attended by observers, are now an integral part of the processes, to the point of being able to say that determine the outcome. From an assumption that overturns the Constitution: it is guilty until proven otherwise. The story of Girolimoni, the emblem of a life ruined by an accusation later proved unfounded, it is now archeology. The most poignant memory of that time was when the injustices made ​​noise. Today, the injustice is the norm, Girolimoni is not the case for excellence, but a warning away in a country that has upset the rule of law. The jump to this, apparently unstoppable trend is revealed in its ferocity in the murder of Cogne, in 2002, a child was found dead in her home, still wearing his pajamas. His body is offended by many small cuts, which have caused the death. The culprit, no doubt, has an immediate full name. Anna Maria Franzoni. The child's mother. We do not want to discuss here about what the clues were evident, nor infilarci in the discussion that it could only be her.

We are interested instead another step: to understand how it has come to take for granted these certainties, to clear the doubt, the ability to identify not only the victim, but also with those who are accused of a heinous crime. We are interested to understand that because we have this question deleted from our system cognitive and emotional: "And if it was not she?". Not by asking this question, we bypassed centuries of literature, philosophy, history. We have become like Ris who entered the house of Cogne have deleted the most important clues. We entered into our cultural and human, we did it in pieces and we woke up all better, but worse. The murderess is always the other, the monster, the one who holds the power of evil. The company has put on a pedestal from which to watch and judge, feeling devoid of responsibility.

At this point in the argument, I know what you're thinking. For the plastic Porta a Porta, a Chi l'ha visto ?, to Quartogrado, in Five afternoon. Have you made ​​a big mistake. If the problem were only these transmissions, there would be nothing to worry about. It would be very easy to go back, to restore a culture of doubt and piety. No, it is not so, because the virus has affected all of the guillotine. From the Courier and Republic to the main Tg. Nobody is excluded. Up to enter the rooms of the Ministry of the Interior with Angelino Alfano, after the capture of Bossetti, takes it for granted that he is the murderess, anticipating three degrees of opinion and not caring about the Constitution.

Here also, the spread of the virus, there is a case in point. The crime scene is Garlasco. After the killing of Chiara, the village is stormed. It's summer, the news is few. Alberto Stasi has already become "the guilty." Eastenders has not yet begun. But the major newspapers builds a novel with characters and figures, including cousins ​​Chiara who conquered a prominent role. The newspapers the launch, cause them to become stars. However, when Fabrizio Corona, asking them to work for his agency, the condemnation is unanimous that are speculating about a murder. Each time it is. All we wallow, all are dripping blood at will, but then they feel they have to accuse someone else of having exceeded the limit. But the limit we passed it all. Relapses are also heavy on processes, strongly influenced by public opinion. Amanda Knox has not had to deal with the trials of the investigators, not with the dynamics of the crime, but with the image femme fatale, her little girl, the newspapers and television have sewn and of which, even today, you do not is released. The diva was treated, and then complain that behaved as a star. They have not forgiven looks, t-shirts, tone of voice, sometimes considered too excited, others too cocky.
On Amanda have made ​​more than one film, the last of Winterbottom. Fortunately, however, there is also good literature that resists and helps us a little 'to understand, not so much what is happening, but what would happen to each of us, if we were to end up in the same meat grinder. Read on, if you have not already done so, Persecution, the first part of the diptych Friendly fire memories of Alessandro Piperno. The writer, who with this Roman won the Strega Prize, talks about the fall hell of a man. The protagonist is an accomplished professional who is accused of pedophilia. Is not guilty, but everything leads us to believe that it is. It is left to die, like the cockroach in Kafka, returning to the level of zero to humanity that our world has forgotten. The cockroach is the ability to identify with those who suffer, those who suffer with an unfair accusation. Do not lose this ability because tomorrow it could happen to us.

Although the Google translation as usual causes lapses in clarity, this article appears to make some important points.

I added highlighting/bold to some sentences that seemed important regarding miscarriage of justice.

We've observed that the Italian judicial system works against as much as with Italian law, the Italian Constitution, and ECHR case law. The Italian judicial system seems to have a Newtonian characteristic: for every law or directive going one way, an equal and opposite one is simultaneously active. For example, AK's coerced false statements from the Nov. 5/6 interrogation were not allowed by the CSC at the 1st level criminal trial, but were allowed at the civil trial held at the same time before the same panel of professional and lay judges. Then the Hellmann (2nd level trial) discounted applying the statements except to support the calunnia conviction. Then the CSC quashed the Hellmann acquittal verdict partly because the false statements were not sufficiently considered as part of the 2nd level trial. Now that's Newtonian!

ETA Had to delete your URL cite to post!

 

[moije2]

I read it differently. He didn't actually say anything about meeting he or even knowing her - he used an odd construction "Do you believe that knowing what Amanda Knox is really like is an impediment"

I took knowing what is really like to help in understanding - "how likely she might be to plunge a kitchen knife into someone's throat?" meant that the universal reports of her sweetness by friends, relatives and supporters make it inconceivable she could have done it. This comes from years and years of hearing about no motive, no psychopathy (hope Bill has me on ignore) and no history of violence at all. I do believe they have used words that equate to inconceivable and I was addressing more than the paragraph.

There is also some implication that there is more information available to the supporters. Obviously knowing her or as he put it "knowing what Amanda Knox is really like" can't add any knowledge about the case - so what does he mean. "How likely to plunge" isn't the question I'm addressing at all and maybe that's the key. Does a supporter start to think in those terms adding to what evidence we can glean unfounded claims as gospel to substantiate the whatever knowing what she is really like does for him?

Thanks for the comment.

You made a jump from "knowing what she is really like" to the "universal" schtuff about her sweetness. I would suggest that Charlie was asking <you> if knowing her would be an impediment to looking at the facts honestly. I still don't see the inconceivable part that you refer to, and think you are making a big jump there. Of course, we know - don't we? - that you think knowing her would affect your objectivity. I think his point is still valid, that some personal knowledge of her gives more information, and thus makes you more informed.

As for the weight it carries with someone, I am not sure how important that is.

PS: Poor old Raffaele. Left as after thought. What a screw job he has gotten. My subjective opinion.