It's a justification of belief - a confirmation of a 'fact' they believe is already known. They have the answer and then look for the proof of it, which must be there because they have the answer. And yet I doubt her behaviour was much different in essence from anyone else's. Of course everybody has their little quirks. But only Ms Knox has a guilt filter applied to hers.
But she cried as everyone else did, she was angry as everyone else was, was as visibly shocked as everyone else and needed to be comforted like everyone else. It's a hell of a stretch to connect anything she did to murderous intent. Equally, it is highly contradictory of a further thesis - that Ms Knox is a clever manipulating plotter capable of getting others to act almost against their wills - to do her bidding.
She is this Machiavellian and yet cannot act anonymously post the murder so as not to draw attention to herself? It doesn't really fit - a bit like the idea of spending all that time fitting up Guede but then deliberately implicating Lumumba. That doesn't fit either.
Kauffer - I disagree. I do not think "confirmation bias" covers this.
Erin Burnett is sincere as an individual. She says she's stuck on Amanda's behaviour as an indicator of......... what? Erin Burnett, the journalist, has in front of her both Paul Callan and Steve Moore, who themselves can have a fairly decent donnybrook about what the evidence is and what it means....
But Burnett kept defaulting to herself as an individual and abandoned being a journalist, "then there was Amanda's behaviour." (No wonder CNN is #10!)
No less than Katie Couric on one of her very first afternoon shows had no less than Raffaele Sollecito on. Couric is not a lightweight, not at all. Yet there she had Sollecito in front of her, and all she could ask him, really, was to explain Amanda's behaviour!
If Couric had actually read Sollecito's book, she'd have found he dealt with that. Sollecito said that in the Questura he was uncomfortable with Amanda's behaviour, but not because it was "inappropriate" per se. As an Italian, he could read the cues from the cops as they observed the same behaviour, and he thought that Amanda was naive - but that his role was one of support, and not criticism at a time of grief. Besides, taking her aside on the wild assumption they were now suspects was not anywhere near his thoughts: and saying, "listen, you know how people say that you're odd? Well, this is one of those times and even though I'm okay with it, I'm quite sure you cannot read the tea-leaves as to what's going on with Napoleoni!" He did not do that. Twenty-twenty hindsight says that would have been support - but then again, it had never occurred to him that the murder would be pinned on them!
Kauffer - I "get" all the criticisms you point to above. But there are simply too many people who get stuck on this behaviour issue - and the very, very, very strange observation about it is, most people who comment on it readily agree that it has nothing to do with the murder itself.
And the dots beg for connecting which are not, apparently, connected.
If one thinks this has nothing to do with the murder, what thrill does one get from commenting on this at all?
You see, really, their behaviour was no different than others. Filomena's in lawyering up for purely practical purposes. Was she cold towards Meredith in doing that? Even if so, would that in a million years implicate Filomena in a murder?
There's something going on here that is not quite "confirmation bias." Seasoned detectives zero'd in on behaviour, one judge saying that they did not need evidence because "common sense" indicated their guilt. Journalists with no shabby reputation zero-in on behaviour..... to the point of asking Raffaele to make an excuse for someone else's behaviour, when he himself is sitting right there, willing to speak about his own innocence!!!!
There's something going on here that is not quite "confirmation bias."
