Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mrs.Columbo]

Charlie Wilkes:


It should be noted that Sollecito's appeal also emphasizes the likelihood of contamination, of course, in addition to arguing that the DNA doesn't match.

Two are better than one!

 

[loverofzion]

Erm, none. She was sitting with her flatmates prior to any questioning. The questions remain - how did she know her throat had been cut and why did she refer to multiple assailants - "bastards" plural? Why did Raffaele tell Kate Mansey two days later that Amanda had discovered the body and provide more details when we know that they were nowhere near the door and never saw the body at all?

How did she know their co perpetrator was of African extraction; how did she know there had been a sexual assault; how did she know she "*********** bled to death"; how did she know the position of the body (at death) when she didn't see inside the room when it was finally opened.

And on and on..

 

[loverofzion]

Another perplexing issue for me was Amanda explaining to the Postal Police that it was not unusual for Meredith to lock her bedroom door (contradicted by Filomena), yet Raffaele had tried forcing the door and I believe Amanda tried looking into Meredith's room from the balcony. Amanda's comment is contradicted by hers and Raffaele's actions prior to the police arriving.

Yes. Raf could hardly have pushed as it was not a strong door to open.
amada never looked from the blacony into Meredith's room as it would have been almost impossible to do.

Her claiming that she was panicked about F's door being open; yet saying nothing to the Postal Police about it when they arrived is , well , another red flag about amanda.

 

[komponisto]

Two are better than one!

Yes indeed: there are multiple sources of doubt about this piece of evidence, and Sollecito's attorneys are right to call attention to all of them.

 

[pipelineaudio]

How did she know their co perpetrator was of African extraction; how did she know there had been a sexual assault; how did she know she "*********** bled to death"; how did she know the position of the body (at death) when she didn't see inside the room when it was finally opened.

And on and on..

Where did she say this?

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

Filomena did not have an alibi after 10 PM.

Filomena was with her boyfriend out of town, and that definitely did check out.

 

[loverofzion]

Yes indeed: there are multiple sources of doubt about this piece of evidence, and Sollecito's attorneys are right to call attention to all of them.

Well either it is contamination and raf's DNA went flying around that room; or else there was no DNA present.
Which one is it?
YOu can't have contamination if there was never any of his DNA there.
How do these geniouses think the DNA arrived in that room.

 

[loverofzion]

Maybe Amanda was watching when Dr. Lalli made the throat-cutting gesture that is captured in the La Repubblica photo (the one with Mignini's carry-along digital recorder).




The Kate Mansey article is not credible. For the umpteenth time.

Yes amanda knew exactly how the body had been positioned at death, and she also knew that she "*********** bled to death", among other facts not yet publicized.She bragged in the presence of her flatmates that she had found the body first.


Sounds like quite a lovely girl doesn't she.

 

[loverofzion]

Amanda thought the door being locked was strange, but stated that Meredith did sometimes lock the door. One of Meredith's friends testified that Amanda found it strange. Again, one of those things that, if Amanda was lying, makes no sense as it doesn't help her in any form. I believe her testimony and Meredith's friend's as well.



Hellen Power:


Note also that Helen's description of Amanda's behavior is different than the other girls.

Meredith only locked her door when she went home to England.
All 3 flatmates testified to that same thing.
This lie helped amanda as it bought her more time to stage the scene at the cottage, i.e., to make it look as if a burglar had been there. It is speculated that she wanted Filomena to be the one to walk in aand discover the body.
The pair was caught by surprise by the Postal Police, who described their reaction to them as surprise and embarrassed.
Lastly,of course amanda's behavior was different from the other girls; the others were all deeply distressed and grieving; amanda and her boyfriend were kissing and laughing- to the extent that one friend of Meredith thought that "maybe she was involved" in Meredith's murder.

 

[loverofzion]

SomeAlibi,

Reasonable minds may differ on the question of whether it is appropriate for the Knox family to express its condolences to the Kerchers under the present circumstances. Amanda may be of one mind and Edda another, but Edda's position (and Curt's) is entirely defensible.

Amanda's working fewer hours is consistent with business being slow. It was slow on 1 November, for example. If one examined receipts, one might be able to tell if this were a consistent pattern or not.

It would certainly be a very good thing if Rudi told the truth about what happened, but one of the few areas of agreement between pro-guilt and pro-innocence commenters is that Rudi has frequently lied. I don't see any reason for him to change now.

Maybe he'll achieve a state of grace and want to repent his ways.

 

[loverofzion]

Maybe Amanda was watching when Dr. Lalli made the throat-cutting gesture that is captured in the La Repubblica photo (the one with Mignini's carry-along digital recorder).




The Kate Mansey article is not credible. For the umpteenth time.

By the time of the article and photo it is doubtful amanda was reading newspapers. She was in jail.
Why did she call them in plural form?
Why is the writer not credible in your opinion?

 

[loverofzion]

That's from the same article. We need independent, corroborating evidence.




That's sheer speculation.




The fact that Patrick employed Amanda and the speculation that he was planning to employ Meredith should have made him a strong candidate for scrutiny by the cops.




Well, that's what we're trying to figure out, loverofzion. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

How are you "trying to figure it out"?
YOur methodology seems to be taking a piece of evidence, and then twisting it to fit your tenacious belief in the pair's innocence.
WRiters whose conclusions differ from your own are dismissed as not credible.

It is Sysiphean arguing with you as you are not truthful to the facts.

 

[Amazer]

Yes indeed: there are multiple sources of doubt about this piece of evidence, and Sollecito's attorneys are right to call attention to all of them.

I honestly don't think that the 'It's not Raffaele's DNA, or if it is then it's planted' defense is going to find much traction.

 

[loverofzion]

That's from the same article. We need independent, corroborating evidence.




That's sheer speculation.




The fact that Patrick employed Amanda and the speculation that he was planning to employ Meredith should have made him a strong candidate for scrutiny by the cops.




Well, that's what we're trying to figure out, loverofzion. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

And of course it's speculative to talk about Meredith's possible need for extra income. We must assume from external circumstances Mary about one's income and financial needs.

As it is speculative that because Patrick was going to offer Meredith a job then he should be scrutinized by the police in those first days in regard to amanda.

 

[loverofzion]

Hang on, that elephant in the room is still there.

What's your alternative hypothesis for the ones and zeroes on Raffaele's hard drive? Gremlins? Fairies? Cosmic rays?

You still haven't got one. You're still just throwing ridicule at the facts from every angle, hoping to find something that sticks.

Also, it's pretty much a desperation move to resort to "Yeah well, maybe my argument makes no sense but a jury will eat it up!". If they do, well, that just means juries are stupid. It doesn't make Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito actually guilty.

I find it very strange that certain posters will, when backed into a corner, find themselves saying "Yeah well maybe they're innocent, but they will rot in jail anyway because juries are stupid! Ha ha!".



What "application event logs" can you possibly talking about?



I'm irresistibly reminded of the chatter on the internet from Republican supporters before the last US Presidential election. It seemed like Obama couldn't put a foot wrong, yet every move he made led to a chorus from the Republican partisans of "This is bad for Obama! He's clearly desperate!".

The projection was quite blatant.



I have commented frequently on the tendency of untrained minds to think that their own folk-psychological guesswork about other people's internal states, coloured heavily by their own confirmation bias, is a more reliable indicator of the truth than hard, objective science.

They are simply wrong. Their folk-psychological guesswork would be a highly unreliable tool even if it wasn't vulnerable to confirmation bias, and the overt hatred for Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and their families amongst the yay-for-conviction community demonstrates clearly that confirmation bias is going to be a problem for them in making objective calls. So in fact I'd say that their folk-psychological guesswork is in fact worse than useless as it is likely to lead them into a spiral of greater false certainty, greater hatred and greater confirmation bias.



I could remark further on that same community's strange obsession with personalising the debate - or rather, personalising the other side of the debate. I haven't yet seen them posting their own names, addresses and CVs in order to bolster their own credibility, yet they seem incredibly interested in finding out these facts about anyone who posts on the internet and disagrees with them.

Maybe it's idle curiosity, but given the fact that people who disagree with them end up being targeted for abuse, harassment, photoshopping and similar I'm not sure that explanation works.

What do you think drives this behaviour, SomeAlibi?

And of course it's speculative to talk about Meredith's possible need for extra income. We must assume from external circumstances Mary about one's income and financial needs.

As it is speculative that because Patrick was going to offer Meredith a job then he should be scrutinized by the police in those first days in regard to amanda.

 

[loverofzion]

Hang on, that elephant in the room is still there.

What's your alternative hypothesis for the ones and zeroes on Raffaele's hard drive? Gremlins? Fairies? Cosmic rays?

You still haven't got one. You're still just throwing ridicule at the facts from every angle, hoping to find something that sticks.

Also, it's pretty much a desperation move to resort to "Yeah well, maybe my argument makes no sense but a jury will eat it up!". If they do, well, that just means juries are stupid. It doesn't make Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito actually guilty.

I find it very strange that certain posters will, when backed into a corner, find themselves saying "Yeah well maybe they're innocent, but they will rot in jail anyway because juries are stupid! Ha ha!".



What "application event logs" can you possibly talking about?



I'm irresistibly reminded of the chatter on the internet from Republican supporters before the last US Presidential election. It seemed like Obama couldn't put a foot wrong, yet every move he made led to a chorus from the Republican partisans of "This is bad for Obama! He's clearly desperate!".

The projection was quite blatant.



I have commented frequently on the tendency of untrained minds to think that their own folk-psychological guesswork about other people's internal states, coloured heavily by their own confirmation bias, is a more reliable indicator of the truth than hard, objective science.

They are simply wrong. Their folk-psychological guesswork would be a highly unreliable tool even if it wasn't vulnerable to confirmation bias, and the overt hatred for Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and their families amongst the yay-for-conviction community demonstrates clearly that confirmation bias is going to be a problem for them in making objective calls. So in fact I'd say that their folk-psychological guesswork is in fact worse than useless as it is likely to lead them into a spiral of greater false certainty, greater hatred and greater confirmation bias.



I could remark further on that same community's strange obsession with personalising the debate - or rather, personalising the other side of the debate. I haven't yet seen them posting their own names, addresses and CVs in order to bolster their own credibility, yet they seem incredibly interested in finding out these facts about anyone who posts on the internet and disagrees with them.

Maybe it's idle curiosity, but given the fact that people who disagree with them end up being targeted for abuse, harassment, photoshopping and similar I'm not sure that explanation works.

What do you think drives this behaviour, SomeAlibi?

When questioned, turn things round and attack the asker!

 

[komponisto]

loverofzion:

How did she know [the] perpetrator was of African extraction;

She didn't, at least not before she was questioned about Patrick. (Where did you get this idea?)

how did she know there had been a sexual assault; how did she know she "*********** bled to death"; how did she know the position of the body (at death) when she didn't see inside the room when it was finally opened.

She heard these things from other people. None of them are especially revelatory; they could even have been the results of guessing or partially-informed speculation on her part or the part of others. (A good deal of incorrect information was probably also communicated among the various youths in the immediate aftermath of the crime, which we just haven't heard about.)

Filomena was with her boyfriend out of town, and that definitely did check out.

Filomena was in town (within short driving distance); it was Laura who was out of town (in Rome).

Well either it is contamination and raf's DNA went flying around that room; or else there was no DNA present.
Which one is it?

As I said in my first post, I don't know whether Raffaele's DNA was on the clasp via contamination or if the claim of a match was erroneous. All I know is that one of those is true.

 

[loverofzion]

What unpublicized details? Please cite.

Once again: that the perpetrator was an African man; that there were plural attackers; that there was a sexual assault; and that she (amanda) knew the positioning of the body at death WITHOUT being able to see into the room.

 

[loverofzion]

I recall 2 students from England along with Meredith's BF found Raffaele and Amanda's behaviour inappropriate, cannot recall whether it was Sophie, Robin who stated that she found Amanda behaviour cold or detached given her housemate had been brutally murdered. In the context of the events of the day it is reasonable to conclude that individuals of a similiar age, knowing each other for a similiar length of time would respond in similiar ways, everyone that was in the police waiting room was upset except Amanda and Raffaele. It is possible that Raffaele and Amanda dealt with Meredith's murder differently but the difference was at odds with everyone else who knew Meredith.

Especially those carthweels.

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion:



She didn't, at least not before she was questioned about Patrick. (Where did you get this idea?)



She heard these things from other people. None of them are especially revelatory; they could even have been the results of guessing or partially-informed speculation on her part or the part of others. (A good deal of incorrect information was probably also communicated among the various youths in the immediate aftermath of the crime, which we just haven't heard about.)



Filomena was in town (within short driving distance); it was Laura who was out of town (in Rome).



As I said in my first post, I don't know whether Raffaele's DNA was on the clasp via contamination or if the claim of a match was erroneous. All I know is that one of those is true.

Heard these things from "what other people"?