Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Osterwelle]

FWIW, I think you went too far Osterwelle.

Just MOO, davefoc. If you feel different about it, that's ok for me.

Oh and just to make it clear. I wasn't stating that Machi should be sent to the loony bin, but sadly those people exist...

-
Osterwelle

 

[snook1]

So, is Follain's book worth reading? I'm thinking about ordering it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Dr Sollecito's best lawyers that money can buy succeeded in getting his Family's trial moved closer to his hometown.
This, IMHO, for obvious reasons concerning 'water flows better up Bari's hills than Perugia's'.
Last scheduled date I saw for that one was delayed until 28mar2012.

AFIK, the other two indictments are still active, but no hard info about dates.
Last I saw for Amanda was 15nov2012, but that probably has changed with Judge Hellmann's verdict.
Curt and Edda's was scheduled for 4jul2012, but another source showed it as 24jan2012

Greetings Pilot Padron,
Thanks for the update, for I had been wonderin'...
Peace, RW

 

[davefoc]

Just MOO, davefoc. If you feel different about it, that's ok for me.

Oh and just to make it clear. I wasn't stating that Machi should be sent to the loony bin, but sadly those people exist...

-
Osterwelle

I'm sure that we don't have any substantive disagreement here Osterwelle but our choice of words might not be exactly the same. And I was sure that you weren't saying that Machiavelli's posts suggested that he needed a trip to the loony bin.

 

[Caper]

FWIW, I think you went too far Osterwelle. I think Machiavelli's posts suggest somebody that is well within the normal range. All people's ideas (including those of skeptics that have thought about this issue a bit) are formed with significant weight from their biases. Confirmation bias, group bias and self interest biases are very powerful and I suspect are often the dominant factor in people's belief structures..................

Like I said before. Machiavelli is the "David Ray Griffin" of the Amanda Knox Case. I can see his material working on people not skilled in the area of critical thinking and might not know much about the case... or in an echo chamber like PMF, but not here.

Listen to the Griffter sometme talke about how it was IMPOSSIBLE to make cell phone calls over Pennsulvania... or how it's IMPOSSIBLE for a building to fall this way or that way and thus the only answer can be his answer. Machiavelli's style is identical.

But it gets DESTROYED here. Particularly, London John does an amazing job of destroying the rubbish found in his posts.

I used to watch some of the David Ray Griffin's videos on youtube. He would throw so much junk into each one of his arguements that it would take 6 pages of writing and 10 hours of research to write a rebuttal. Not many have that kind of time or drive on their hands. Luckily for me I could go on here and R.Mackey or Gravy would have already disected and thoroughly destroyed each arguement.... which saved me alot of time. God knows I have shown a few friends others research to desuade them from 9/11 woo.

I find it the same with this subject. Machiavelli comes on with a series of posts, featuring a series of impossibilities that can only point to guilt. Then on the same page the same arguments get thoroughly ripped apart. I can't compete with the best on here... but I know good work when I see it.

Bottom line..... although I do have some admiration for someone willing to basically go it alone against many other posters....... it goes away pretty quick when I realize I'm basically watching "David Ray Griffin"

BTW, Machiavelli ... are you a Theology major?

 

[pilot padron]

Just saw this update

Greetings Pilot Padron,
Thanks for the update, for I had been wonderin'...
Peace, RW

Hi RW
From reading Andrea Vogt's tweet today, Amanda's trial may have been still on for this week, but now doubtful due to Lawyers' strike in Italy

Tweeted by Andrea Vogt:
Perugia police vs. #amandaknox slander hearing this wk may be delayed due to lawyers' strike (yes, even lawyers go on strike in #Italy).

Also saw this quote you may relate to
"Surfing soothes me, it's always been a kind of Zen experience for me. The ocean is so magnificent, peaceful, and awesome. The rest of the world disappears for me when I'm on a wave. "
Paul Walker

 

[smkovalinksy]

So, is Follain's book worth reading? I'm thinking about ordering it.

I am thinking of doing so as well. From all I have read in the way of reviews and different pmf posters who have read it, I am sure it is well worth reading, although I take issue with some of his "facts" which are dubious at best and have been refuted at worst.

 

[Grinder]

Motivation report is all that is on the table now.

Hellmann has already said there was no evidence of a break-in.

I think he will say that the bathmat print doesn't match anybody's foot and could be compatible with thousands of feet in Perugia.

The luminols prints also will be said to match no one's feet and were not shown to be from blood.

The entire collect methodology will be questioned and the LCN DNA will be totally discounted because of the it.

The mixed DNA will be explained by the fact that they lived together and that when collected they dragged the swab across the blood spots instead of dabbing.

Curatolo will written off because of multiple reasons. Nara will be believed in that she is telling the best truth she can, but her information will be seen as having no value. the time and date of her ear witness account will not be considered as viable. Quintavalle will be totally ignored because of the conflict with the police interview he gave and the testimony of the other store witness.

All of the "media witnesses" will be diminished because of the length of time it took for them to come forward.

He may also speculate that the TOD was before 10:30 and maybe as early as 9 based on the stomach contents, the phone activity and the state of the house (washing machine, heat, clothing).

The strange behavior afterwards (as in Camus "The Stranger" or "The Outsider" in England) will not be considered.

 

[snook1]

I am thinking of doing so as well. From all I have read in the way of reviews and different pmf posters who have read it, I am sure it is well worth reading, although I take issue with some of his "facts" which are dubious at best and have been refuted at worst.

Well, I just bought it, but thanks anyway.

 

[Katody Matrass]

So, is Follain's book worth reading? I'm thinking about ordering it.

Apart from the reviews there are some quotations around the web. This from Wikipedia discussion page on MoMK:

Raffaele's team chose for the experiment Delfo Berretti, a bearded, long-haired lawyer who had the significant advantage of being more than six feet tall. Watched by Mignini and detectives of the Homicide Squad, Berretti took just a few seconds to climb up the wall and get a hold on Filomena's windowsill. But he could not pull himself up and hung there, stranded, and to avoid any further embarrassment a colleague called out hastily: 'That's enough, that's fine.' Berretti let himself fall back to the ground.

This, along with the Facebook blunder, pointed in the review, shows that Foolain is extremely biased, mendaciously spins the facts and simply lies a lot in his book.


BTW, I had a chance to skim Latza's 'corrected title' book recently. It seems that they removed the libel from the cover, but the contents are still full of pretty strong defamation. Doesn't she live or spend a lot of time in Italy? I think defamation laws are harsh there. If Amanda's or Raffaele's lawyers are for some easy cash, she made quite a target of herself.

 

[smkovalinksy]

They look at things Meredith was doing, but in Amanda these same things are signs of guilt.

Rolfe.

Yes, it has always annoyed me to no end, and really offended me, that there was an effort to make a "good girl/bad girl" dichotomy with Amanda and Meredith, as though we were in the 1930s and the good girl is a virgin, does not drink or smoke, and the bad girl is a smoking, drinking slut.

I recall one poster on Websleuths, one of the very few pro-guilt ones who posted there, arguing that "Amanda comes from a broken home"(and was thus prone to be disturbed.)

I had to tell him that : 1. The term "broken home" is outdated in this age of blended families, high divorce and remarriage rates, with such families dwelling in huge suburban homes, boasting professional step parents, trips to Europe and expensive summer camps (my own divorced siblings and cousins belong to this camp.)

and 2. Meredith's parents are divorced as well. In addition, Meredith drank, smoked pot and hash, partied with the boys downstairs, and had pre-marital sex.

I think people long for the days when some wore white hats, some wore black hats, and never the twain should meet. Morally, many people find our era confusing. In former times, Gays were perverts and pedophiles, women who enjoyed sex were depraved, and so forth. Amanda has fared no better in the 21st century than she would have 80 years ago, with some. As Burleigh says in her text, attitudes can devolve to former times in a flash. Beware.

 

[snook1]

Apart from the reviews there are some quotations around the web. This from Wikipedia discussion page on MoMK:

Raffaele's team chose for the experiment Delfo Berretti, a bearded, long-haired lawyer who had the significant advantage of being more than six feet tall. Watched by Mignini and detectives of the Homicide Squad, Berretti took just a few seconds to climb up the wall and get a hold on Filomena's windowsill. But he could not pull himself up and hung there, stranded, and to avoid any further embarrassment a colleague called out hastily: 'That's enough, that's fine.' Berretti let himself fall back to the ground.

This, along with the Facebook blunder, pointed in the review, shows that Foolain is extremely biased, mendaciously spins the facts and simply lies a lot in his book.


BTW, I had a chance to skim Latza's 'corrected title' book recently. It seems that they removed the libel from the cover, but the contents are still full of pretty strong defamation. Doesn't she live or spend a lot of time in Italy? I think defamation laws are harsh there. If Amanda's or Raffaele's lawyers are for some easy cash, she made quite a target of herself.

That's disappointing. I wonder if there are more stories like this one. The book should be here by Thursday.

 

[Rolfe]

They look at things Meredith was doing, but in Amanda these same things are signs of guilt.

Yes, it has always annoyed me to no end, and really offended me, that there was an effort to make a "good girl/bad girl" dichotomy with Amanda and Meredith, as though we were in the 1930s and the good girl is a virgin, does not drink or smoke, and the bad girl is a smoking, drinking slut.

Meredith had a boyfriend back home, but she was sleeping with an Italian guy she only just met.

Meredith drank, and indeed got absolutely wasted on Hallowe'en.

Meredith did drugs, in fact the Italian she was sleeping with was a drug dealer.

I read somewhere Meredith had a conviction (or at least a caution) for drunk and disorderly back in England. (Apologies if that isn't true, I only read it one place.)

It reminds me of the title of John Diamond's book, Cowards get cancer too. Meaning that everyone with the disease is immediately praised for their bravery. Well, ordinary girls who drink and smoke pot and sleep around get murdered too. They don't immediately turn into plaster saints in retrospect.

Amanda said that it could just as easily have been her lying dead. The PMFers jumped all over that with, how can she say that she wouldn't have left Raffaele. But her exact point was, if she hadn't had Raffaele, if she hadn't gone to his flat, she could have been the murder victim.

And if Meredith had come home the next morning with Giacomo, the pair of them could easily have been in Amanda and Raffaele's predicament. Exactly the same smears could have been made against them. And more so, what with Giacomo's indoor gardening. Maybe the inappropriate behaviour Meredith would have been accused of would have been something different, but they would have found something.

And Amanda would have become the saint, of whom the witch Meredith was jealous. Meredith would have murdered her because she was annoying. And Amanda's family would have become the "dignified" and "restrained" paragons, noble in their impeccably expressed grief, while the Kerchers' odd appearance and background would have been even easier to satirise and demonise than the Knoxs'. Amanda's beauty would be praised as the revelation of a beautiful soul, while Meredith would be derided as unattractive, or worse.

It should never be about personalities, but it always is, no matter who the people are. One size fits all.

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Like I said before. Machiavelli is the "David Ray Griffin" of the Amanda Knox Case. I can see his material working on people not skilled in the area of critical thinking and might not know much about the case... or in an echo chamber like PMF, but not here.

Listen to the Griffter sometme talke about how it was IMPOSSIBLE to make cell phone calls over Pennsulvania... or how it's IMPOSSIBLE for a building to fall this way or that way and thus the only answer can be his answer. Machiavelli's style is identical.

.............

Bottom line..... although I do have some admiration for someone willing to basically go it alone against many other posters....... it goes away pretty quick when I realize I'm basically watching "David Ray Griffin"

BTW, Machiavelli ... are you a Theology major?

I am a distant friend and intellectual devotee of David Ray Griffin's. I'd like to think that I learned my critical thinking skills from him.....

So imagine my surprise when I pick of a copy of "The New Pearl Harbor," about the 9/11 Truth movement, and see my mentor make the most basic errors of logic to come to the conclusions he does.

It's not just that he's a theologian commenting in areas WAYYYYY outside his expertise, but when peer reviewed engineers say his theories on things like 'controled demolition' are bunk, the man I know and respect should sit up and take notice.

I'm, then, in a bit of a pickle. I still regard him as an intellectual mentor. Yet he's not just off base in the 9/11 stuff, he's WAYYYYYY off base. It's a tad disorienting because in other stuff I defend the guy....

I think this is a key to understanding people who are guilters-against-the-evidence. These are probably ordinary, sensible people who for some reason go all Lady Ga-Ga on us when it comes to AK - notice how RG, RG, Mignini and other barely rate a mention - not to mention MK who's rarely mentioned either, and supposed to be the one being honoured by vilifying AK......

I'm still wearing a paper bag on my head about DRG. But I do read him on other stuff which I value greatly. Call me disoriented.

 

[Keeper]

Apart from the reviews there are some quotations around the web. This from Wikipedia discussion page on MoMK:

Raffaele's team chose for the experiment Delfo Berretti, a bearded, long-haired lawyer who had the significant advantage of being more than six feet tall. Watched by Mignini and detectives of the Homicide Squad, Berretti took just a few seconds to climb up the wall and get a hold on Filomena's windowsill. But he could not pull himself up and hung there, stranded, and to avoid any further embarrassment a colleague called out hastily: 'That's enough, that's fine.' Berretti let himself fall back to the ground.

This, along with the Facebook blunder, pointed in the review, shows that Foolain is extremely biased, mendaciously spins the facts and simply lies a lot in his book.

What's the truth behind this?

 

[Osterwelle]

...

It should never be about personalities, but it always is, no matter who the people are. One size fits all.

Very nice summary, Rolfe.

I wouldn't judge anyone who is unable to see such a case from a purely neutral viewpoint as this is hardly possible. However, a lot of people don't seem to even try, instead they keep digging for incriminating details - reagardless how utterly irrelevant and stupid they are - to bolster their opinion.

I believe most things that have been said about Amanda in order to incriminate her are either simply not true or irrelevant to the case.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Osterwelle]

This poor woman cannot catch a break from some people. If she were to walk on water, they'd say, "Look at her, she can't even swim!"

That was a nice one.

Anyway, good overview. You can find the devil behind every bush if you look hard enough...

-
Osterwelle

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, the conclusions you draw from the information that's available of this case are so utterly different than mine, it's facinating. I'm tempting to ask you to bring us Elvis back from your next trip home.

I don't think you're a bad person or something, your brain just seems to work completely different than what I think is normal.

Slightly related: That's one reason why I'm very cautious with "behavioural evidence" like in the AK/RS case. People were knotting the noose because of certain behaviour they thought to be "uncomely" or "strange". But people are different and what they do and how they react in uncommon or extreme situations can be very different to what others would expect. Some even behave "strange" all of the time, but that's how they are.

I can assure you, Machiavelli, some people would put you in the loony bin or at least send you to a shrink for your views are just too alien to them.

I think this is the same reason why I take part in these forum discussions. Besides learning and practicing language skills, I am interested or curious in what's on into minds that are so alien. It's because you live in a bizarre world from my perspective, this polar difference is the tempting factor for me to respond and to explore your arguments.

In Germany we have a saying: A crow won't peck out another crow's eye (roughly translated). Just because Hellmann made a good decision (IMO) it doesn't mean he's not part of the coterie.
On the other hand, he just might've been throwing them a bone. Let's wait for the motivation report...

This is js2's conclusion, and the only possible consistent picture if you want to believe that the calunnia conviction was not justified. You have to believe Hellmann is not sincere as he praises the public ministers and calls them blameless, and that he was disingenuous or wrong as his court handed the calunnia conviction.
However, this view of things is also an expression of xenophobic prejudice. In fact it is equivalent to picturing a society where everything is corruption and fraud. That their decisions and rules after all don't matter and don't deserve to be given any weight any meaning, everytning is sullied and there is no right or wrong, the only thing that matters is that "your" kid comes back to the civilized world. This is very much related to a perception that I have about innocentisti's belief as racist. Where the terms "racist" does not refer to skin colour or etnicity, but define a set of prejudicial beliefs and attitudes. On one hand, Amanda Knox deserves a special "innocent" bias (consious or unconsciously) not because just white and American but because familiar, similar to yuo, to your normality, to what you value and what you understand and wish to trust, someone who just represents your own normality and values. The idea that evil comes from within - your sister, your trusted normality, your home values - is something istinctively repulsive, disturbing, unacceptable; innocence of a familiar person who represents positive things represents in a degree the confirmation of an equilibrium of identity, of self trust.
On the other hand, to balance this need you project a generous load of prejudice on people and worlds which you don't know anything about. That you admittedly don't understand and possibly you have never seen. While after all, the idea that they don't matter (judges they are all crows, coterie), people they are all messy and different, even if they answer polls and speak against authority they probably act falsely because of local pride, and similar things.
The idea you just expressed about Hellmann throwing a bone is fed – even in the metaphoric language - by this prejudice and moral stance. You are not even interested in whether his decision was honest or dishonest, they are a kind of morally lower species after all, and you are ready to change your view on them in function of Amanda's innocence: if he speaks against he is part of the coterie, while at the same time his decision is reliable as evidence that the defendant was innocent.... You understand something of what I see going on, or not?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Meredith had a boyfriend back home, but she was sleeping with an Italian guy she only just met.

Meredith drank, and indeed got absolutely wasted on Hallowe'en.

Meredith did drugs, in fact the Italian she was sleeping with was a drug dealer.

I read somewhere Meredith had a conviction (or at least a caution) for drunk and disorderly back in England. (Apologies if that isn't true, I only read it one place.)

It reminds me of the title of John Diamond's book, Cowards get cancer too. Meaning that everyone with the disease is immediately praised for their bravery. Well, ordinary girls who drink and smoke pot and sleep around get murdered too. They don't immediately turn into plaster saints in retrospect.

Amanda said that it could just as easily have been her lying dead. The PMFers jumped all over that with, how can she say that she wouldn't have left Raffaele. But her exact point was, if she hadn't had Raffaele, if she hadn't gone to his flat, she could have been the murder victim.

And if Meredith had come home the next morning with Giacomo, the pair of them could easily have been in Amanda and Raffaele's predicament. Exactly the same smears could have been made against them. And more so, what with Giacomo's indoor gardening. Maybe the inappropriate behaviour Meredith would have been accused of would have been something different, but they would have found something.

And Amanda would have become the saint, of whom the witch Meredith was jealous. Meredith would have murdered her because she was annoying. And Amanda's family would have become the "dignified" and "restrained" paragons, noble in their impeccably expressed grief, while the Kerchers' odd appearance and background would have been even easier to satirise and demonise than the Knoxs'. Amanda's beauty would be praised as the revelation of a beautiful soul, while Meredith would be derided as unattractive, or worse.

It should never be about personalities, but it always is, no matter who the people are. One size fits all.

Rolfe.

As I have said elsewhere, this would have been true for many, but for the PMFs, if things were turned around, and Knox were the victim, they would have simply never noticed the case. They would be neutral and uninterested.

They might say in passing, "Do you think that Kercher girl really did the murder, or is it trumped up charges? Hard to tell." and there would be no forum. Amanda made them smell blood, and like sharks, they circled in for the kill. Somehow Amanda exudes a weakness that Kercher would not have exuded. It is a frightening fact of life, that a weakness will make certain mean-spirited humans just drool with a desire to devour. I have provoked many a person myself, simply because I share (or actually shared, because it was more pronounced in my youth) that will-o'-the -wisp quality which just drives the mean and the haughty crazy.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What's the truth behind this?

The truth is that the lawyer easily climbed up the grating below the window, reached the sill and would have jumped in, if the window blinds were not sealed shut by the cops - an obvious fact that Foolain somehow missed. Another fact is that the climber still had a foothold or two to step up when he grabbed the window sill - Rudy's body size is a non-issue.
Photos of the stunt are all over the net.