Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

What does 6 days have to do about it? She wasn't allowed in her room after day 1. So to assume that she should notice the lamp missing after 6 days has no merit, because she wasn't going in her room to notice it missing. Where as Filomena could have easily told the police that she left her room messy or that she kept her dirty clothes on the floor. Yet its obvious that most of those clothes couldn't have come from anywhere but the floor or from outside the room. Since there isn't enough room in her closet to store them all.

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the discussion. It has been suggested by some Knox advocates during this latest exploration of the lamp question that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Knox failed to notice the absence of her lamp even perhaps for as long as the sixs days of her burgeoning romance with Sollecito.

Either you missed that, or you are intentionally prevaricating.

I'll opt for the more charitable view.

She doesn't have to have perfect recollection of every item in her room.
<snip>

Where have I suggested otherwise?

All I have done is point out that it was inconsistent to hold Filomena to a more stringent standard concerning the same subject, the state of her own room.

Do you believe this is unreasonable?

Has Filomena ever claimed her room was ransacked or staged out of curiousity? I'm just wondering not because I would believe her if she said it but because I more curious about what the defense asked her.

I don't know. Perhaps someone more conversant with all the details can enlighten us.

My understanding is that Knox suggested it had been, and I have not seen any discussion about any of the other housemates, including Filomena, contradicting this. One would expect that it would be a rather conspicuous topic for the Knox advocates to bring forth if they had.

There has been more than enough pictures shown on this forum that not only shows but proves where not only those clothes but all those purses and bags couldn't have come from. Thats not counting what they allowed Filomena to take from the room that wasn't photograhed. Either way perhaps you could coughed up some photos I haven't seen that would show me where Filomena stored those clothes at.

I've read this opinion being offered here, perhaps by you.

I'm afraid that I cannot concur with it. I do not believe that the photos we have seen here of Filomena's room "prove" that she could not have kept all her clothes there.

 

[quadraginta]

Denial seem to be your game. You deny you make arguments and deny you make claims. If you don't think the lamp was important, why do you go on and on about it?

Maybe because people like you keep posting me questions about it. As I keep pointing out, all I ever did to start with was mention that I recalled something different from the claim LJ had made about functioning lights in her room. A recollection which I was uncertain about, but which was later confirmed.

Amanda simply said that she didn't notice the lamp in her room was missing. It has been shown that this is plausible. And there has been no evidence presented that it is not.

And I have not said that there has been.

I have pointed out that "plausible" is not the same thing as likely, and I admit to some reservations about that, especially when the claim is bandied about (by certain parties) that this lack of awareness "could" have "possibly" persisted for as long as nearly a week.

At some point in that time span "could" and "possibly" begin to diverge even from "plausible", much less from likely.

And there has been no evidence presented that they do not.

 

[quadraginta]

I think quad is being confused. I posted on the CT thread that Amanda had not spent a night or evening in her room for up to 6 days (ever since she met Raffaele) and quad has confusedly transposed this into the lamp being missing for 6 days.

Perhaps I have conflated some of the conversation, but not quite as you describe. I believe it has been suggested that Knox could easily have not noticed her lamp missing for as much as the six days that she spent romancing with her new beau.

I may not have this right. If so I apologize for my confusion. Do you think I ought to go back and review the dialogue to see where I went astray, or can you enlighten me more quickly?

 

[pilot padron]

Arguing precisely

It's probably been absent of mention here today, pilot, because it's 1.) a different blog, and 2.) it's not that important. This is not the first time Frank has laid into the innocence supporters. Looking over the first page of the comments again, I see he has called all of us confused, not just Bruce.

Hi Mary
In respect for the penchant for preciseness I admire in your posts, please note that Frank was pretty specific in what he said
It is very adverse to 'summarizing' or spinning, or as you infer .."well.. he said we all are confused"

Frank said verbatim:
*******************
Ah ok, Bruce, so you just repeat what the defense says.

That explains why we don't agree, because I don't agree with many arguments the defense used.

You see, you got all confused.

*********************

You admonished me in a very courteous manner after one of my very early posts on another venue, I recall,that 'every single aspect of the case is 'important' because Amanda and Raffaele's youth is at stake'.

Also, a very 'hot topic' here lately has been several less than rational defenses by posters of what for example Paul Ciolino and Oggi magazine said

Again, to be precise, *what I got* from the first 210 comments, is that Frank was specifically perturbed about those innocentsi who were ridiculing witness Nara Capezzali and forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni.

Pretty much exactly what Cape pointed out above
Frank zeroed in on Brucie *very specifically and very unequivocally*

He did not say as you infer "You all got confused" in relation to Brucie
He said : "You (Brucie) got all confused"
Big difference.

PS:
Even I do not think you are all 'confused'.
You and a few others often provide excellent food for thought and even sometimes cause for reconsideration of some elements in the case.

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps I have conflated some of the conversation, but not quite as you describe. I believe it has been suggested that Knox could easily have not noticed her lamp missing for as much as the six days that she spent romancing with her new beau.

I may not have this right. If so I apologize for my confusion. Do you think I ought to go back and review the dialogue to see where I went astray, or can you enlighten me more quickly?

Since I already pointed to where that dialog was, I'm surprised you haven't reviewed it already. Perhaps you need to figure out where you are trying to go with this. State your claim and state the evidence you use to support your argument. Then see if it holds up or crumbles away like the evidence the prosecutors claimed to have.

My position is that there has been no valid evidence presented to support the claim that Amanda lied when she said she didn't notice anything was stolen from her room or the subsequent statement in court when she said she didn't notice that her lamp was missing.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Interesting...and absolute proof they were all on drugs in the Seventies. I half expected someone with a Scottish accent to start in with 'How can ya have any pudding if ya don't eat yer meat!!'

Looking again at those pictures on IIP Bruce Fisher just linked I gotta ask myself 'did Massei ever see those pictures?' He came up with that convoluted nonsense about the glass bouncing off the inner shutter to 'simulate' a rock being thrown from outside, when he 'hypothesized' it was in fact thrown from indoors, but just looking at those pictures it's readily apparent that's just plain silly. To get the glass all the way out to the blue rug in that pattern it wouldn't have gotten there by ricocheting, not like that.

Why on earth didn't he just say they threw the rock from outside when they were leaving? You'd think that's how anyone would have done it, so as to be able to flee if anyone heard the window break. No wonder Steve Moore still gets this mixed up, the Massei contention is mindlessly moronic.

You have to bear in mind that the Massei/Mignini mission was not merely to make up a fairy story where all the evidence was consistent with Amanda and Raffaele doing it.

They had to make up a fairy story where all the evidence proved that Amanda and Raffaele did it.

They couldn't claim that Amanda and Raffaele broke the window in a way indistinguishable from a real break-in. That wouldn't be evidence against them. They had to claim that Amanda and Raffaele broke the window in a way that proved that it was staged, no matter how stupid that made the story they were telling.

 

[quadraginta]

Since I already pointed to where that dialog was, I'm surprised you haven't reviewed it already.

No you didn't. Unless waving almost aimlessly in some general direction is your idea of pointing.

Perhaps you need to figure out where you are trying to go with this.

I haven't been trying to "go" anywhere.

(Except out shopping for groceries, since we were dealing with a round of tornadoes in the vicinity, and I didn't want to leave Mrs. qg alone until the weather front had gone by. But I'm back now. )

I've spent most of this dialogue attempting to disengage from the claims other people seem compelled to make on my behalf.

Maybe we should be concerned about a shortage of livestock feed in the near future, in view of the remarkable quantities of straw being used around here.

State your claim and state the evidence you use to support your argument. Then see if it holds up or crumbles away like the evidence the prosecutors claimed to have.

My claim was that I thought LJ might have been mistaken when he claimed that Knox would not have needed her lamp because there was already an overhead light in her room which she could use instead.

Since it would seem that the overhead light was not working (at least according to Knox), it appears that I was not mistaken about that. The evidence was supplied in a subsequent post, quoting her testimony.

My position is that there has been no valid evidence presented to support the claim that Amanda lied when she said she didn't notice anything was stolen from her room or the subsequent statement in court when she said she didn't notice that her lamp was missing.

Okay.

... and ...?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I have claimed. I never said Knox lied about the lamp.

I did question some of the assumptions which were being presented as virtual certainties, and I did that as a response, not as anything which I instigated. If you cannot resist the compulsion to build windmills to tilt at, please refrain from painting my name on them.

 

[RWVBWL]

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?

Actually the real question is why would she wipe her fingerprints off it and then forget it in Meredith's room.

How is that possible? Wouldn't she need a light source to see where those fingerprints were?

Hi Dan O., Chris C, and Quadraginta,
I too wonder how come Amanda Knox did not mention that her lamp was missing to Raffaele when she 1st told him of the strangeness she had noticed at her shared apartment that morning while having breakfast with him afterwards. Nor did she mention it to the Postal Police when they came inside and she was showing them around. Nor did she mention that her lamp was missing in her infamous emal back home, which I find strange.

Was it because it was still in her bedroom that morning? Did Officer Battistelli use it to light up Meredith's bedroom and examine her after kicking everyone, Filomena, Amanda, and the guys out, of the cottage? Or did Amanda just not use it that much, especially after she started dating Raffaele, and so she did not even notice it missing?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Hi Mary
In respect for the penchant for preciseness I admire in your posts, please note that Frank was pretty specific in what he said
It is very adverse to 'summarizing' or spinning, or as you infer .."well.. he said we all are confused"

Frank said verbatim:
*******************
Ah ok, Bruce, so you just repeat what the defense says.

That explains why we don't agree, because I don't agree with many arguments the defense used.

You see, you got all confused.

*********************

You admonished me in a very courteous manner after one of my very early posts on another venue, I recall,that 'every single aspect of the case is 'important' because Amanda and Raffaele's youth is at stake'.

Also, a very 'hot topic' here lately has been several less than rational defenses by posters of what for example Paul Ciolino and Oggi magazine said

Again, to be precise, *what I got* from the first 210 comments, is that Frank was specifically perturbed about those innocentsi who were ridiculing witness Nara Capezzali and forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni.

Pretty much exactly what Cape pointed out above
Frank zeroed in on Brucie *very specifically and very unequivocally*

He did not say as you infer "You all got confused" in relation to Brucie
He said : "You (Brucie) got all confused"
Big difference.

PS:
Even I do not think you are all 'confused'.
You and a few others often provide excellent food for thought and even sometimes cause for reconsideration of some elements in the case.

I like how you ignored my last post. You talk about me constanly but then when given the oportunity to talk to me you opt out. I find that pretty interesting.

 

[Dan O.]

My claim was that I thought LJ might have been mistaken when he claimed that Knox would not have needed her lamp because there was already an overhead light in her room which she could use instead.

For some reason I had gotten the impression that the lamp was the only artificial light source in Knox's room.

Was this mistaken? Or should your sentence have read, "... presumably she wouldn't have missed a desk lamp the only light in her room aside from the window all that much."?

Since it would seem that the overhead light was not working (at least according to Knox), it appears that I was not mistaken about that. The evidence was supplied in a subsequent post, quoting her testimony.

Meanwhile, an excerpt from Amanda's testimony:

"I only have one window, but it was also coming from the other side because there's a balcony."​

Okay.

... and ...?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I have claimed. I never said Knox lied about the lamp.

I did question some of the assumptions which were being presented as virtual certainties, and I did that as a response, not as anything which I instigated. If you cannot resist the compulsion to build windmills to tilt at, please refrain from painting my name on them.

So perhaps you are only guilty of echoing the guilter talking point about the lamp and really had no clue that you were stepping into a long standing feud.

In the future, if you don't want to pick up the fight, choose softer words when just asking questions.

 

[Chris C]

How is that possible? Wouldn't she need a light source to see where those fingerprints were?

Na my point was, that whoever grabbed it and brought it to Meredith's room didn't leave a fingerprint on it. Its been suggested in the past that Knox cleaned up her fingerprints, which begs to question why would she clean her fingerprints off the lamp and then forget it in Meredith's room.

 

[Chris C]

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the discussion. It has been suggested by some Knox advocates during this latest exploration of the lamp question that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Knox failed to notice the absence of her lamp even perhaps for as long as the sixs days of her burgeoning romance with Sollecito.

Either you missed that, or you are intentionally prevaricating.

I'll opt for the more charitable view.




Where have I suggested otherwise?

All I have done is point out that it was inconsistent to hold Filomena to a more stringent standard concerning the same subject, the state of her own room.

Do you believe this is unreasonable?




I don't know. Perhaps someone more conversant with all the details can enlighten us.

My understanding is that Knox suggested it had been, and I have not seen any discussion about any of the other housemates, including Filomena, contradicting this. One would expect that it would be a rather conspicuous topic for the Knox advocates to bring forth if they had.




I've read this opinion being offered here, perhaps by you.

I'm afraid that I cannot concur with it. I do not believe that the photos we have seen here of Filomena's room "prove" that she could not have kept all her clothes there.

First off I misunderstood about the 6 days. Either way though, a messy person knows if they keep their room messy. There is stuff on her bed and on the floor and yet there is no record of where Filomena left ANY of the stuff when she left the apartment. The lamp is 1 item. There is probably a 100 items on filomena's floor and bed and she can't remember the last place she left them. Though from the pictures its obvious that none of that stuff was left on the desk, bedside stand, wall shelf, or the wall closet. Even yourself admits that it couldn't all of fit in the closet. So why is there still an argument that the room was staged because their was glass on the clothes when even yourself has to admit that there must have been clothes on the floor to begin with.

And it is about holding everyone to the same standard. Filomena should be held to the same standard as Knox and everyone else should be also. Guilters try to accuse pro innocence of holding others in this case to a higher standard but that just isn't true. We want all evidence held to the same standard. So if guilters believe that because knox didn't notice the light, so therefore she is guilty. Then everyone else that can't remember in this case should be held to the same standard concerning the evidence.

So lets look at the prosecutions evidence of the break in: First they tracked blood into the room and then cleaned the floor. Then they imported clothes and stuff from outside the room to throw on the floor rather than grab stuff off the desk, wall closet, or bedside table. Then knox grabs filomena's laptop and throws in on the floor but forgets she did that. Then they brake the window to appear to look like it was broken from outside. In their hurry to close the door and leave the room, they forget to steal anything or break anything else leaving the room with only a broken window and nothing stolen. This is the most absurd staged break theory of all time and this is what the prosecution fed the jury to prove a staged break in occured.

 

[quadraginta]

So perhaps you are only guilty of echoing the guilter talking point about the lamp and really had no clue that you were stepping into a long standing feud.

In the future, if you don't want to pick up the fight, choose softer words when just asking questions.

It would be enlightening if you could share an example of words you would consider "softer" for asking that question, in light of the rather extreme hypersensitivity in evidence among some subsets of non-"guilters" on the subject.

I, for one, would welcome such an example because it appears to me that any mention at all of the subject beyond curt dismissal is considered to be some sort of provocation.

At least, that is what this most recent exchange suggests.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

And it is about holding everyone to the same standard. Filomena should be held to the same standard as Knox and everyone else should be also.

<snip>

That is what I was trying to explain to you in the first place.

I'm glad to see that you have come to agreement with me on this point.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary
In respect for the penchant for preciseness I admire in your posts, please note that Frank was pretty specific in what he said
It is very adverse to 'summarizing' or spinning, or as you infer .."well.. he said we all are confused"

Frank said verbatim:
*******************
Ah ok, Bruce, so you just repeat what the defense says.

That explains why we don't agree, because I don't agree with many arguments the defense used.

You see, you got all confused.

*********************

You admonished me in a very courteous manner after one of my very early posts on another venue, I recall,that 'every single aspect of the case is 'important' because Amanda and Raffaele's youth is at stake'.

Also, a very 'hot topic' here lately has been several less than rational defenses by posters of what for example Paul Ciolino and Oggi magazine said

Again, to be precise, *what I got* from the first 210 comments, is that Frank was specifically perturbed about those innocentsi who were ridiculing witness Nara Capezzali and forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni.

Pretty much exactly what Cape pointed out above
Frank zeroed in on Brucie *very specifically and very unequivocally*

He did not say as you infer "You all got confused" in relation to Brucie
He said : "You (Brucie) got all confused"
Big difference.

PS:
Even I do not think you are all 'confused'.
You and a few others often provide excellent food for thought and even sometimes cause for reconsideration of some elements in the case.

Oh, pilot, how I hate to do this, but if it's precision you want, it's precision you'll get. On April 13th at 11:42 AM, Frank wrote: "I know you guys have got all confused there. For you guys it's just a huge conspiracy that involved all these people in the same way, witnesses, prosecutors, judges, scientists, cops...."

I definitely agree with you that "Frank was specifically perturbed about those innocentsi who were ridiculing witness Nara Capezzali and forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni." And I agree he zeroed in on Bruce, although I don't understand why. Maybe Bruce hosted the original comments about Nara?

Frank's last comment today ended this way: "I've got people explaining to me, from the States, how things work here and who framed the girl... What to say? Thank you!"

He seems to forget that he once believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, until people from the States helped change his mind.

 

[pilot padron]

Not convinced but appreciate effort

Oh, pilot, how I hate to do this, but if it's precision you want, it's precision you'll get. On April 13th at 11:42 AM, Frank wrote: "I know you guys have got all confused there. For you guys it's just a huge conspiracy that involved all these people in the same way, witnesses, prosecutors, judges, scientists, cops...."

I definitely agree with you that "Frank was specifically perturbed about those innocentsi who were ridiculing witness Nara Capezzali and forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni." And I agree he zeroed in on Bruce, although I don't understand why. Maybe Bruce hosted the original comments about Nara?

Frank's last comment today ended this way: "I've got people explaining to me, from the States, how things work here and who framed the girl... What to say? Thank you!"

He seems to forget that he once believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, until people from the States helped change his mind.

My post referenced Frank's direct quote from 15apr @ 4pm, and I still stand by it and its preciseness about Brucie's confusion.

But Mary, please don't allow my opinions and direct quotes to make you do anything you dislike.

As Kaosium chided me yesterday, yes, I am really enjoying this in house cat fight from my balcony seat with the popcorn he coyly mentioned.

This additional verbatim quote from Frank today was worth another whole bag
***************
"I just wanted to tell them Look, before you write in a post, in a book; before you tell in a conference, in an interview that Nara is half deaf and in a mental institution, I'm telling you that it's not true.

The great experts can write and say that Nara is deaf and crazy, that Stefanoni framed Amanda, and things like that, which they read in a Milan magazine or in the appeals...
******************
(that was from 16apr @ 11:38; just after your couple of pertinent posts there)

"write in a post".....??? Hello halides1 (and several others who derided Cape so ruthlessly and steadfastly)

"tell in a Conference"....Hello Ciolino ( you of distracting concentric circling and user of crude offensive mafia don type language while addressing students)

Pass me another bag please, Mr Kaosium

 

[bri1]

Frank's dismissal of AK / RS supporters

Frank wants us to limit our discussion to the media's coverage, not actually discuss the case because we're all 'simple'.
However, he won't address well-reasoned arguments that Stefanoni has been incompetent bordering on negligent in her work.
He thinks that because there are others who've done worse, we shouldn't be talking about any blame placed at her door. I for one think there's plenty of blame to go around.
He also thinks that Stefanoni's work (although 'not perfect') more than adequately meets the standards common in Italy. Well that's alright then!
I think the fact is that if you had a decent forensics investigator on this case, the police probably would've been forced to drop this a long time ago.

 

[Chris C]

That is what I was trying to explain to you in the first place.

I'm glad to see that you have come to agreement with me on this point.

Why are you trying to explain that to me? The pro-innocence side from the start has been complaining about the prosecution/guilters not holding everyone to the same standard that Knox is held to. Its not Knox pretending to have super hearing. Its not Knox that testified that Knox was throwing olives at him. Its not Knox that saw dead people, buses, did heroin and then claims to see Knox/Sollecito standing on a basketball court while Meredith was getting murdered. Its not knox that claims knox/sollecito staged a burglary by making it look like a burglary. Yet apparently doing cartwheels gets you locked up for 26 years.

 

[Chris C]

My post referenced Frank's direct quote from 15apr @ 4pm, and I still stand by it and its preciseness about Brucie's confusion.

But Mary, please don't allow my opinions and direct quotes to make you do anything you dislike.

As Kaosium chided me yesterday, yes, I am really enjoying this in house cat fight from my balcony seat with the popcorn he coyly mentioned.

This additional verbatim quote from Frank today was worth another whole bag
***************
"I just wanted to tell them Look, before you write in a post, in a book; before you tell in a conference, in an interview that Nara is half deaf and in a mental institution, I'm telling you that it's not true.

The great experts can write and say that Nara is deaf and crazy, that Stefanoni framed Amanda, and things like that, which they read in a Milan magazine or in the appeals...
******************
(that was from 16apr @ 11:38; just after your couple of pertinent posts there)

"write in a post".....??? Hello halides1 (and several others who derided Cape so ruthlessly and steadfastly)

"tell in a Conference"....Hello Ciolino ( you of distracting concentric circling and user of crude offensive mafia don type language while addressing students)

Pass me another bag please, Mr Kaosium

In house catfight? Frank is one person that does a fairly decent job of keeping everyone informed. Yet Frank as a singular person isn't causing Bruce's site to form 2 new sites. Its kinda hard to have in house fighting when you live in different houses and since I only post at JREF or Bruces site what Frank does with his own site has no impact on my posting. Even with that it would be kinda hard for most of us to even be considered part of an in house fight considering you dont need to sign a membership agreement to post at Frank's site. Though it does amuse me that guilters think because Frank thinks there are bigger villians in this case than Stefanoni and most of the rest think Stefanoni is just as guilty as the police, that there is some kinda in fighting. There is no waivering on the belief of innocence inside the pro innocent side. There are just disagreements on who should go to jail for this wrongful conviction.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

In house catfight? Frank is one person that does a fairly decent job of keeping everyone informed. Yet Frank as a singular person isn't causing Bruce's site to form 2 new sites. Its kinda hard to have in house fighting when you live in different houses and since I only post at JREF or Bruces site what Frank does with his own site has no impact on my posting. Even with that it would be kinda hard for most of us to even be considered part of an in house fight considering you dont need to sign a membership agreement to post at Frank's site. Though it does amuse me that guilters think because Frank thinks there are bigger villians in this case than Stefanoni and most of the rest think Stefanoni is just as guilty as the police, that there is some kinda in fighting. There is no waivering on the belief of innocence inside the pro innocent side. There are just disagreements on who should go to jail for this wrongful conviction.

You summed it up perfectly. If everyone takes the time to go back to Perugia Shock and read the entire conversation you will see that there is no debate on the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. Frank notes at the end that the DNA is so weak, our argument may hold true but he feels that the police hold all of the blame on this. Wow! that's a big win for stint the retired farmer pilot. This poster talks about me daily yet he seems to refuse any conversation. This same observation goes for everyone in retired farmer's barnyard. They don't want real conversation. One round table discussion would put many of these online squabbles to rest. I wonder if that discussion will ever take place. I think one side would be a no show. Just a guess.