You keep presenting this claim that Amanda's lamp was somehow an important part of her room yet you fail to acknowledge how little you actually know about it. For instance, when was the last time Amanda was in her room and needed to use that lamp?
I have made no such claim. Misrepresenting what I have said does not lend any strength to your arguments. Rather the contrary.
I have suggested that it was a
singular part of her room furnishings. In that there was apparently no other piece of equipment, fixed or movable, which supplied the same functionality. What part of this do you take issue with?
As to your question, I have not "failed to acknowledge" anything. Why do you make such a false claim? Quite obviously I know no more about that than
you do, which makes any conjecture dependent solely on likelihood. You are insinuating that yours is more likely than any other, and I have offered none at all.
So why do you ask me this question? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to explain yourself.
This entire tangent was initiated simply because I asked for a clarification of a claim made by LJ concerning the availability of artificial light sources in Knox's bedroom, and was hoping to have my recollection either confirmed or corrected.
For the last 6 days, Amanda was spending the night with Raffaele at his apartment. During this time she would not necessarily notice where the lamp was or wasn't because by the time she returned in the morning there would be plenty of light coming into her room through the patio doors.
"Not necessarily". Yes. I accept that. This does not address
likelihood, which I have also made no particular claims about, except in relation to other peoples' assertions.
Again, there has been nothing shared which would make one hypothesis more
likely than another.
I am, as I type this, sitting in a living room on a couch within a yard of a six foot wide sliding glass door which opens onto a southeast facing porch. It is early afternoon and yet I have the lamp beside the couch turned on (two bulbs) to augment the natural daylight. This is not an unusual state of affairs. Why should I assume that Knox would never find any need for her lamp simply because it isn't after dark?
Do you even know where her lamp was in her room when she last used it?
Do you? Why do you ask me? In what way is that germane to the question of whether or not she would notice the lamp's absence?
In the earliest photo of her room it's on the bedside table. It would be useful here for reading in bed. I would also expect it to have been used on the table next to the computer. The long cord could have reached between the two locations without requiring an extension cord as Meredith had on her lamp.
And ...?
So we have a room accessory that could at any time be in either of at least 2 locations that may not have been used for about a week or more. When Amanda looks at her desk, there is no clue that the lamp is missing because the lamp could have been on the bedside table. Similarly, when Amanda looks at the bedside table there is no clue that the lamp is missing because it could be on the desk. The only way to notice that the lamp is missing is to first think about where the lamp is and note that it is not in either of the locations where it should be.
Are you quite certain that this would be the "only" way? It seems to me that you might be rather cavalierly discarding other potentially feasible scenarios.
Or is there a careful phrasing here which would give you semantic wiggle room if pressed for more detail?
Why would you do that? Are you motivated by something other than an honest contemplation of what little we do actually know about the circumstances?
In the context of looking for things that might have been stolen in a burglary, where on the list would you put the lamp? I believe there are only a few items that Amanda would explicitly look for. Her computer would be number one. She would then grab her rent money if she had left it in the room. And she would check that the guitar that she borrowed from Laura was still there. In my opinion, the lamp would not make the list.
In your opinion.
Since it is also apparently your opinion that she could easily go for nearly a week blithely unaware of its absence I can certainly understand how you might come to such a conclusion.
It is not as clear to me that this is, of itself, any cause to attribute additional weight to its likelihood.
On the other hand, If Amanda had just spent all night using that lamp to remove every bit of evidence that she and Raffaele were in Meredith's room and then in the morning watched Raffaele try to break down Meredith's door to retrieve the lamp, she most definitely would have known that her lamp was missing from her room. Why wouldn't she mention that it was missing?
Good question.
I have not ventured to answer it, either. Nor would I, not least because I have no particular attachment to the premise you found it upon, which is that Sollecito attempted to break through the door in order to retrieve the lamp.
I have not offered such a hypothesis, and I have not indicated that it has any merit ... in
my opinion. Are you suggesting that I did, or is this merely another attempt at misdirection?
