Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[moije2]

-


-

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

-

Don't worry. I don't think you are emotionless. I actually think it is rather impossible. It is really a matter of posture and presentation. Something drives everything. How 'bout that for a profound statement!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

Bah. I could see that the case against Amanda was garbage in early 2008. I had never met her and had no idea what she was like.

But a great deal of the discussion about Amanda centers not on the evidence, but on her character - i.e., leaving aside luminol and DNA, is she the type who would be likely to commit this crime? I would argue that actually knowing her is useful in forming an opinion about her character. Do you disagree?

 

[Samson]

Bah. I could see that the case against Amanda was garbage in early 2008. I had never met her and had no idea what she was like.

But a great deal of the discussion about Amanda centers not on the evidence, but on her character - i.e., leaving aside luminol and DNA, is she the type who would be likely to commit this crime? I would argue that actually knowing her is useful in forming an opinion about her character. Do you disagree?

Grinder is a referee, where everyone should know the rules, and play the same game. Two highly trained teams. The analogy is false.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

PMF Article

Article posted on PMF article, I wonder how the disparate rebuttal team will respond?

 

[Desert Fox]

PMF Article

Article posted on PMF article, I wonder how the disparate rebuttal team will respond?

That article is basically just smear mongering, sorry

 

[lonepinealex]

What is a "content executive"??

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That article is basically just smear mongering, sorry

Just to clarify, I assume you mean smearing Amanda not Guede or Raffaele?

 

[Matthew Best]

What is a "content executive"??

I was wondering that! Also, I was wondering why one of her friends on Twitter is called "freerudyguede".

 

[Dan O.]

What is a "content executive"??

Apparently it's the modern term for a paper shuffler. I scanned the twitter feed of the author and it seems to be over 95% retweets and the rest are mostly just promoting the couple of articles she wrote.

Is there anything in her articles that casts any new light? I see a large percentage of her retweets are of Harry Rag. Why should I expect to find anything else in her articles?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Selene Nelson's article

PMF Article

Article posted on PMF article, I wonder how the disparate rebuttal team will respond?

CoulsdonUK,

Do you believe that the article accurately summarizes the DNA evidence? the foot track evidence? Do you think that Knox's prank is accurately described as a break-in?

 

[LondonJohn]

PMF Article

Article posted on PMF article, I wonder how the disparate rebuttal team will respond?

Who are the "disparate rebuttal team"? Do they have team meetings? Or are they a figment of your imagination?

But as a broader answer to your question, a cursory reading of that article exposes it as an agenda-led emotionally-overinvested concoction of half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations. It certainly doesn't read as an objective analysis, let alone an intellectually-honest one. Others are pointing out the specific areas in which this article falls down badly. Above that, I think it's fairly obvious that the author is highly partisan. Oh, and it's being published in the backwaters of the internet, so it's not going to get any general readership whatsoever. I'm sure she thinks she's up for a Pulitzer though

 

[LondonJohn]

Bah. I could see that the case against Amanda was garbage in early 2008. I had never met her and had no idea what she was like.

But a great deal of the discussion about Amanda centers not on the evidence, but on her character - i.e., leaving aside luminol and DNA, is she the type who would be likely to commit this crime? I would argue that actually knowing her is useful in forming an opinion about her character. Do you disagree?

Just to be clear, I totally respect the personal relationships that you and others here have built with Knox (and/or Sollecito) and their families, and I fully understand that this gives you a different perspective into them and their characters. I also understand how you feel that this helps you understand how/why they cannot have participated in the murder. I also understand and respect how many people (including, obviously their families and their long-term friends, plus many who have befriended them since 2007) have an emotional attachment towards them as people, which is part and parcel of their emotional attachment to the concept of wrongful convictions. I don't criticise that level of involvement for one moment. All I'm saying is that I, personally, don't feel that level of attachment.

However, I would caution that however nice Knox (in particular) and Sollecito may be - and I don't doubt for a moment that they are warm, caring, kind-hearted people - I'm afraid that this really shouldn't be used in and of itself as a pointer to innocence. Sometimes people have dark insides that they are extremely good at concealing from even their closest family and friends. Please note that I am not suggesting that this might be the case with Knox or Sollecito - I'm just saying that it can sometimes happen. I would therefore guard against making any sort of automatic correlation between the observed personalities/personas of Knox/Sollecito and their perceived propensity to murder someone.

Instead, I think that any analysis of their involvement (or not) in the murder should stand and fall entirely on a) the physical evidence (and lack of it); b) witness testimony (and a proper adjudication of its credibility/reliability); and c) their known behaviours and actions before and after the time of the murder. It's my firm belief that any objective, rational analysis of these areas shows conclusively that 1) there's absolutely zero basis upon which either Knox or Sollecito should be criminally convicted for anything related to the murder; 2) Knox and Sollecito were almost certainly nowhere near the murder scene and had nothing to do with the murder whatsoever; 3) the murder was committed by Guede, acting alone, after he had broken into the cottage and had been surprised by Kercher arriving home at 9pm.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ah, well here is the nub of the issue.

I totally agree with your point that forming a personal friendship with Knox (or Sollecito) should not logically be any impediment to keeping an objective, impartial, honest, open mind on whether or not she/they was/were involved in the murder.

BUT....... declaring oneself a friend must logically at least open oneself up to the perception (whether that perception has any real validity or not) that one might - consciously or subconsciously - adopt a partisan position to some extent. Particularly when one states - as Charlie has done - that one's knowledge of Knox's personality is a significant factor in one's assessment of her capability/propensity of committing murder. As I said in my previous post, I think it's troublesome to let those sorts of factors impact one's analysis.

Again I say: I understand and respect those who have formed bonds of friendship with Knox (or Sollecito). Of course there are those such as her close family who automatically (and fairly irrevocably) have that bond. If her mother were supporting her chiefly on the basis that "I know my daughter could never do something like this", then I'd be worried and apt to discount that sort of emotionally-charged appeal. But if her closest advocates stick to the facts, then of course their closeness to Knox makes no difference, other than the fact that it may make them more forceful and energetic in their efforts to expose the injustice, which can only be a good thing in this instance.

 

[Anode]

Who are the "disparate rebuttal team"? Do they have team meetings? Or are they a figment of your imagination?

But as a broader answer to your question, a cursory reading of that article exposes it as an agenda-led emotionally-overinvested concoction of half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations. It certainly doesn't read as an objective analysis, let alone an intellectually-honest one. Others are pointing out the specific areas in which this article falls down badly. Above that, I think it's fairly obvious that the author is highly partisan. Oh, and it's being published in the backwaters of the internet, so it's not going to get any general readership whatsoever. I'm sure she thinks she's up for a Pulitzer though

I can't even get to it. I'll have to wait until I get home tonight. While attempting to access it on my company's network I get redirected to a page declaring that this site is blocked due to possible viruses and sexually explicit material etc... Tells you something right there.

 

[Desert Fox]

Just to clarify, I assume you mean smearing Amanda not Guede or Raffaele?

It starts without really showing any evidence of guilt but seems to assert guilt. That is always a bad start. It then talks about Amanda's supposed PR machine.

 

[Numbers]

Ah, well here is the nub of the issue.

I totally agree with your point that forming a personal friendship with Knox (or Sollecito) should not logically be any impediment to keeping an objective, impartial, honest, open mind on whether or not she/they was/were involved in the murder.

BUT....... declaring oneself a friend must logically at least open oneself up to the perception (whether that perception has any real validity or not) that one might - consciously or subconsciously - adopt a partisan position to some extent. Particularly when one states - as Charlie has done - that one's knowledge of Knox's personality is a significant factor in one's assessment of her capability/propensity of committing murder. As I said in my previous post, I think it's troublesome to let those sorts of factors impact one's analysis.

Again I say: I understand and respect those who have formed bonds of friendship with Knox (or Sollecito). Of course there are those such as her close family who automatically (and fairly irrevocably) have that bond. If her mother were supporting her chiefly on the basis that "I know my daughter could never do something like this", then I'd be worried and apt to discount that sort of emotionally-charged appeal. But if her closest advocates stick to the facts, then of course their closeness to Knox makes no difference, other than the fact that it may make them more forceful and energetic in their efforts to expose the injustice, which can only be a good thing in this instance.

LJ,

I agree with your position with the caveat that the perception of character is an important element - not a deciding element - in evaluating a person's actions or the possibility that said person has committed a crime - especially a violent crime.

Further, when a person is subjected to a sustained campaign of character assassination which is clearly baseless by persons obviously malicious, that also has implications, IMO.

When unreliable evidence is all that is offered to convict someone of a crime, while exculpatory evidence is suppressed, that also has its implications.

There is no doubt in the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito that they are actually innocent of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

demonization of Guede?

Just to clarify, I assume you mean smearing Amanda not Guede or Raffaele?

CoulsdonUK,

From the link in question: "No one is absolving Guede of his crime; his abhorrent involvement in Kercher’s murder is incontrovertible. However, my absolute belief in his guilt has no bearing on an untold and hugely important fact: Guede has been unfairly demonized in the press for nearly seven years."

Can you or anyone else find an example of this unfair demonization? Do you agree with Ms. Nelson's assessment?

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Evidence/"Supposed" PR Machine

It starts without really showing any evidence of guilt but seems to assert guilt. That is always a bad start. It then talks about Amanda's [ii]supposed PR machine.

My square brackets and bold formatting

For some very strange reason, ahem, it would appear you missed the link in the article which directed to : http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence

[ii] http://www.gogertymarriott.com/showcase/amanda_knox/

Nuff said?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Do you believe that the article accurately summarizes the DNA evidence? the foot track evidence? Do you think that Knox's prank is accurately described as a break-in?

Based on family and American co-workers my subjective opinion is that there isn’t much ongoing interest in the case apart from the occasional media event like Raffaele press briefing and as such I am curious to read opinions as to points raised about the US media.

I am not going to be drawn down the whole DNA evidence, although I am sure it be discussed again.

Who are the "disparate rebuttal team"? Do they have team meetings? Or are they a figment of your imagination?

But as a broader answer to your question, a cursory reading of that article exposes it as an agenda-led emotionally-overinvested concoction of half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations. It certainly doesn't read as an objective analysis, let alone an intellectually-honest one. Others are pointing out the specific areas in which this article falls down badly. Above that, I think it's fairly obvious that the author is highly partisan. Oh, and it's being published in the backwaters of the internet, so it's not going to get any general readership whatsoever. I'm sure she thinks she's up for a Pulitzer though

The past few pages have covered varying levels of JREF member’s interest in Raffaele and Amanda with some posts covering folks who “know” Amanda and or her family, so my “disparate rebuttal team” is a tongue-in-cheek description of those who may have a “special” interest based on their personal knowledge of Amanda and or Raffele.

Do not believe any of the article of books will attract any literary prize.

 

[Desert Fox]

My square brackets and bold formatting

For some very strange reason, ahem, it would appear you missed the link in the article which directed to : http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence

[ii] http://www.gogertymarriott.com/showcase/amanda_knox/

Nuff said?

We have discussed everything claimed on that list and refuted them.

I used to discuss evolution vs creation on old time bulletin boards.
I remember refuting every single creationist claim and what did the creationist do, just post all of the items all over again as if they had not just been debunked. What the article writer and you are doing is exactly the same thing.