Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
Alt+F4,

The fact that they asked to open up the knife, for one thing. The fact that they appear to believe that turning over the electronic data files is a normal part of the forensic review process, for another. Any criminal justice system, not just Italy's, must wrestle with the lack of incentives in the system to overturn a wrongful conviction. It will only happen when someone decides that the cost of lengthening the carnival's run is prohibitively high.
Click to expand...


It's getting a bit too much like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it - although I recognise why it's currently so difficult for any pro-guilt commentators to come up with any decent arguments related to developments in the appeal. That's probably why in the main they have reduced themselves to "commenting on the commentators", rather than discussing the case itself. But it would be nice if, when pro-guilt commentators do choose to discuss the case, they could make arguments that are at least worthy of debate.
 
LondonJohn said:
You're right, of course. The history of the usage of the term "love birds" among pro-guilt commentators is based on the following: many pro-guilt commentators believe that Knox (especially) and Sollecito (to a lesser extent) are duplicitous, scheming misfits who are pathological liars and manipulators.

They therefore choose to sarcastically employ the term "love birds" to imply that they - and those who believe in their non-guilt - see themselves as nothing more than two innocent young naive people who flitted around in love with each other and were too wrapped up in each other to be involved in a horrific crime such as murder. The pro-guilt commentators think therefore that the term" love birds" can usefully be employed in an ironic sense to contrast against the image that they have of Knox (and Sollecito) as a cold-blooded, scheming, vicious murderer.
Click to expand...


I think that describes it pretty accurately, the term is used as an ironical reflection on us who believe them to be innocent …

… and is also a reference to the image Amanda and Raffaele supposedly are creating of themselves as innocents who could't hurt a fly, plus as moije said, it alludes to the sexual nature of it all … those two, who are egoistically living for pleasure and sex only …
 
Last edited:
Rhea said:
I think that describes it pretty accurately, the term is used as an ironical reflection on us who believe them to be innocent …

… and is also a reference to the image Amanda and Raffaele supposedly are creating of themselves as innocents who could't hurt a fly, plus as moije said, it alludes to the sexual nature of it all … those two, who are egoistically living for pleasure and sex only …
Click to expand...


Indeed. I can't help thinking there's an element of what psychiatrists call projection going on with respect to the sexuality elements of the case.

Incidentally, in the spirit of full disclosure, I should reveal that I have, in the past, sarcastically referred to both the police forensic science team on this case and the Perugia Postal Police as "crack" units :D

ETA: Before either party issues defamation proceedings against me, can I add that "crack" does not refer here to the cocaine-based controlled drug ;)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Ahhh - Alt+F4 has an inbuilt pejorative attitude towards Knox (particularly) and Sollecito (occasionally), which reveals itself in most of her "arguments". The sarcastic use of the term "love birds" is quite common amongst commentators who can't make coherent arguments for guilt, and who thus fall back onto a pre-determined character assassination approach.
Click to expand...

My guess is that it's from a time when it was accepted (by some) that Amanda, Raffaele and Guede/Lumumba were a trio, but Guede/Lumumba was obviously the odd one out. So somebody probably started referring to "the lovebirds" as a shorthand for discussing the 2 of them together, in this context.

It made sense to those convinced that the murder was a 3-way attack; it makes no sense at all when we point out that Amanda and Raffaele never had any contact with Guede, and there is no real evidence that they had anything to do with the murder.

Incidentally, one of the things that puzzles me is Amanda and Raffaele being referred to as "the former lovers" or Raff as her "ex-boyfriend", as though that was the situation at the time. We know that their relationship was going strong at the time of the murder and of their arrest, so it's clear that there has been no break-up apart from the one enforced by their incarceration.
 
Last edited:
Speedball Tucker

Alt+F4 said:
I don't care about this woman at all. I've never met her, I have no "dog in this fight". I'm more about the the legal and logical aspects to the case.

As for your question dtugg, what I find intresting (translate: creepy) is how many middle-aged men are soooooo concerned that this woman is set free.
Click to expand...
Alt+F4,

To which middle-aged men do you refer?
 
Rhea said:
Yes, absolutely, from the very first days on Mignini and his people became occupied with theories of sex-games and orgies gone wrong. When the murder happened, I remember this is what I heard; satanic rituals and sex orgies. Two years later when I studied the case I realized that the sex orgies were happening in the minds of the prosecutors only.

Yet Mignini called Amanda sex-obsessed, it's grotesque almost …
Click to expand...

Rhea, you are exactly right. The sexual obsession that overwhelmed this case was based on pure fantasy; it was never about sex.


Amanda Knox: A Case Dominated By Sexual Obsession
 
Lovebirds...

Rhea said:
Why are you calling them love birds? They are broken up for three years.
Click to expand...
Hi Rhea,
I too had a problem with certain members of the pro-guilt community calling Amanda and Raffaele lovebirds.

Fine, a fellow JREF poster whom I respect a lot uses it all the time here, and on PMF and IIP.

And you know what? So does Candace Dempsey in her book Murder in Italy.
"Paola Grande, for instance, never saw the lovebirds in the station, after dropping them off. In any case, Amanda and Raffaele were thrown among the English"...

I believe that Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock also made useage of the term too.

So I don't let the cute lil' lovebirds bother me whatsoever...

It might possibly be Amanda's housemate Laura that 1st coined the term. More from Murder in Italy:
"Piccioncini" , she called them. Little lovebirds.
"He followed her every footstep", she said. "He was very affectionate with her, almost obsessive."

A question about 1/2 of the lovebirds:
Was Raffaele obsessive enough to participate in a brutal, bloody murder and then afterwards, even with the risk of a lifetime in jail, not turn states witness against Amanda, his girlfriend of only a week nor Rudy Guede, a complete stranger, and spill the beans on what Mignini believes really happened in Meredith's bedroom that night?

I highly doubt it.
"Sure cops, give it to me, I'll take 25 years to protect some chick I am obsessed with.
Right...

Peace,
RW
 
Last edited:
Creepy old men...

halides1 said:
Alt+F4,
I don't care about this woman at all. I've never met her, I have no "dog in this fight". I'm more about the the legal and logical aspects to the case.

As for your question dtugg, what I find intresting (translate: creepy) is how many middle-aged men are soooooo concerned that this woman is set free.
Click to expand...
To which middle-aged men do you refer?
Click to expand...
Hi Halides1,
I am another middle aged man who follows this case. A old surfer, heck, I'm actually an old geezer. 1 who luvs taking' surfpix in L.A. and shooting chicks in bikini's. With all the many hot lookin' gals I've photographed privately and in public, I've wondered why Alt+F4 thinks some of us older guys who follow this case are attracted to and lust after Amanda Knox.
Just because she looks cute in a photograph or on TV sometimes?
Right...
 
Alt+F4 said:
It's the same system that we are constantly told is filled with liars, corruption and criminal incompetence that is conducting the appeal so on what rational basis can you say the convictions won't be upheld?
Click to expand...

I will echo what Rhea said in response to the above, but also add that I have never said with certainty that the convictions will be overturned. My view is that if the appeal verdict is based on facts, and not on the hysteria that guided the first verdict, then the appeal will be successful.

Don't the police still have to save face? What will the Italian judiciary look like if the love birds are found not guilty? That can't be allowed to happen.
Click to expand...

You may be right, and Hellmann may come up with some kind of face-saving formula that still manages to remove the problem - like finding Amanda guilty of some kind of infraction (such as causing those poor, manipulated Perugia police to go down the wrong track), release her on time served and deport her back to Seattle. Even so, it will require inventiveness on his part on a par with Mignini and Massei - only more subtle.

And then there will be the problem of keeping Raff and his family quiet - perhaps with a swiftly agreed settlement and threatening them with a callunia charge if they cause problems. But it may be that this case has become too big to lie down.

What makes you think that Vecchiotti and Conti are any different than Stefanoni?
Click to expand...

Um ... they look like actually exposing Stefanoni's methods for what they are? More to the point, Hellmann seems to have no inclination to repeat the same grotesque indulgence shown to the prosecution by the Massei court.
 
One could easily say there is a contingency of middle aged unattractive women who seem to be obsessed with this case on the basis of their jealousy of Amanda Knox's looks as well. Not a friendly conversation and not worth much time exploring though---just like the middle aged white knight claims.
 
LondonJohn said:
You replied: "Because the term I want to use isn't allowed on this forum."

Now, this would suggest to most people that the "term you want to use" was unpleasant, rude and/or derogatory.
Click to expand...

No, it's not unpleasant, rude or derogatory in my opinion (or most people). It the swear part that's not allowed.

Actually, I think you'd be better off taking a time out to get your act together.
Click to expand...

Get back to me when you're a mod on this forum.
 
HumanityBlues said:
One could easily say there is a contingency of middle aged unattractive women who seem to be obsessed with this case on the basis of their jealousy of Amanda Knox's looks as well.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't speak that way about Edda Mellas. I think she looks fine.
 
Antony said:
You may be right, and Hellmann may come up with some kind of face-saving formula that still manages to remove the problem - like finding Amanda guilty of some kind of infraction (such as causing those poor, manipulated Perugia police to go down the wrong track), release her on time served and deport her back to Seattle. Even so, it will require inventiveness on his part on a par with Mignini and Massei - only more subtle.
Click to expand...

If the DNA evidence is thrown out then the easiest face-saving formula would be to find RS not guilty and AK guilty. The Italian national no longer has any forensic evidence against him or motive (most murder victims are killed by someone they know, no one can argue that RS and MK knew each other beyond a few hellos). In addition, if the stuff in his appeal regarding the computer evidence is found true by the court, that gives him an alibi, not her.

I don't think the court can now find Amanda guilty of some kind of infraction since that's not what she is charged with in this case.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Rhea, you are exactly right. The sexual obsession that overwhelmed this case was based on pure fantasy; it was never about sex.


Amanda Knox: A Case Dominated By Sexual Obsession
Click to expand...

I see the media as focusing on sex, that is to be expected. As far as Mignini and the various prosecution and judges theories of the crime, I believe the sexual motive was about all that they could come up with because there really is no motive for Amanda and Raffaele to kill Meredith Kercher.

When we get to the discussion of blogs on the side of guilt, I don't agree with your reasoning. If there is an obsession on their part it is one of being right at all costs and on almost every point that is brought up, despite the strong evidence to the contrary. The claims they make that Amanda's support comes from middle aged men because of an attraction to her is just a way that they can claim people are not forming an opinion based on the facts of the case. They do not want to acknowledge that someone can made a reasoned judgment for innocence so they attack that person's motivation for having that opinion. This part of your article represents an attempt to do the same sort of thing and is flawed. The very weak and tenuous reasoning you make regarding the dancer and PQ does not belong in a discussion regarding the case, in my opinion.

I realize something was said about you and your daughter and I understand the desire to strike back. I do appreciate all your efforts and your blog and you are a great asset for the side of innocence but I still encourage you to take the high road in your responses to these sort of attacks. I am convinced that is the best way to handle it.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
If the DNA evidence is thrown out then the easiest face-saving formula would be to find RS not guilty and AK guilty. The Italian national no longer has any forensic evidence against him or motive (most murder victims are killed by someone they know, no one can argue that RS and MK knew each other beyond a few hellos). In addition, if the stuff in his appeal regarding the computer evidence is found true by the court, that gives him an alibi, not her.

I don't think the court can now find Amanda guilty of some kind of infraction since that's not what she is charged with in this case.
Click to expand...


And, under this scenario, just what evidence would the prosecution have to prove Knox's involvement in Meredith's murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Even though the prosecution doesn't have to prove motive, there isn't a coherent one for Knox to have killed Meredith (with or without Sollecito). And now there would be no decent forensic evidence against Knox (the mixed DNA in the sink ought to be shown up by a simple viewing of the "wide smear" collection video). And the "confession/accusation" stuff will not even be admissible in the appeal trial (and its improper admission via the Lumumba civil trial during the first murder trial should, in my view, cause ructions at the Supreme Court appeal, if it ever gets that far).

In fact, and ironically in the light of what you wrote, there would only be one so-called "decent" piece of forensic evidence still standing, and it would be against Sollecito. Evidently you'd forgotten about the blood/water partial footprint on the bath mat in the small bathroom. The first court accepted that it was almost certainly Sollecito's, and also that it was definitely not Guede's. In my view, the prosecution expert was engaging in useless pseudoscience in its evaluation of that print: the dilute nature of the print, and the extreme roughness of the surface on which it was made, mean that (in my view) it's impossible to attribute it to any specific individual - only to a man with fairly large and reasonably normal-shaped feet.

While I'm not really surprised that you seemingly forgot about this piece of evidence, it does indeed pose a potential problem for both Sollecito and Knox. If the appeal court takes the same view as the first court, then it's directly highly incriminating towards Sollecito (of at least knowingly participating in a clean-up), and by extension is incriminating towards Knox. However, as I say, I believe that the appeal court will view this print in a very different light than Massei and his "special" powers of reasoning.
 
now we are getting to the kernel of the problem

RoseMontague said:
If there is an obsession on their part it is one of being right at all costs and on almost every point that is brought up, despite the strong evidence to the contrary. The claims they make that Amanda's support comes from middle aged men because of an attraction to her is just a way that they can claim people are not forming an opinion based on the facts of the case. They do not want to acknowledge that someone can made a reasoned judgment for innocence so they attack that person's motivation for having that opinion.
Click to expand...

RoseMontague,

This is a very good point, and one that was in the back of my mind as I reread Radell Smith's two articles on the case. In response to some solid points by "zoda," Ms. Smith wrote, "Zoda, I'm going to allow your comment to remain although it is clear you are part of the Amanda Knox press junket making the rounds and can't see the forest for the trees in this case." She made a similar comment in response to someone else. It sounds as if Ms. Smith is either accusing zoda of being part of a PR campaign, or of being duped by one.

Likewise, Kaosium made an excellent point the other day. Even if all of Knox's supporters are middle aged men (who are soooo interested in her) and even if all they have is google, they are still making points that are not being successfully refuted here or elsewhere. Indeed, the points themselves are either correct or they are not correct, irrespective of who is making them or why. Pundits such as Ms. Smith should stick to arguing the facts, and discontinue the ham-handed analysis of the motives of her supporters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom