Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[acbytesla]

Anglo, I let everyone out every so often, most earn their way back in, some sooner than later, there is only one here whom I will never let out.
Now for your question, when did I ever say that anything is to be drawn from anything. This is typical PIP behaviour to try and draw an argument out of someone. Once again, Tesla (and I really do respect him) mearly stated that he did not find anything Amanda did as 'strange or suspicious', he listed a few examples that I myself do not disagree with, however, how anyone can say there are things that she did that were not strange or suspicious is beyond me, does no one remember how this very thread originally started? Amanda may very well be the poster child for 'strange and suspicious' worldwide after this is all over.

You see Sherlock you assert something like Amanda may very well be the poster child for strange and suspicious and then of course you don't mention a single thing. As I have said, I haven't heard one thing that Amanda did was strange. NOT ONE. The strangest thing I think I've heard that she did was "ta da" when putting on the booties. And I understand what she did. It really isn't that strange. I don't think clinging to Raffaele in this environment is the least bit strange. I don't think missing the memorial at school was the least bit strange and suspicious, nor buying underwear, nor stretching, or breaking down sobbing. I've read pretty much all the stories Sherlock and I haven't read a single one that I think is strange and/or suspicious when put in the right context.

You see it's the perspective that you view it in that makes it strange to anyone. Tell the story in a particular fashion and it all sounds so very suspicious, tell it another way and it is boring and meaningless.

It's like the scary movie when resident goes down into the basement and your clinging to each other and thinking.."don't go down there". But if there wasn't the scary music, you wouldn't have these thoughts at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please point out the post # were I used the word suspicious?

You said it attracted the attention of "seasoned investigators" and then called it Fog if Nonsense when I pointed out that Filomena's behaviour was was essentially the same, perhaps more suspicious since Filomena meddled with stuff more materially central to the case.

if you will say that the behaviour was not suspicious, something you will not do, I'll concede.

 

[Wildhorses]

I'll withdraw it and kindly ask that you at least address Mr. Wildhorses's allegations, rather than say, "provide proof". You can deny it better than that.

Let me be clear: my questions were not "allegations."

I was/am genuinely curious about Coulsdon's reaction to the SC report. I've perused the report, but not read it carefully yet. (Turns out it's not well-suited for beach reading.)

I have no problem with Couldsdon or anyone else wishing to keep Meredith's memory alive. I think we all agree the legal and internet three-ring circuses have... well, let's just say they've made a mess no one would want Meredith's memory sullied by.

I have no issue with Coulsdon's views either. Though I KNOW Raffaele and Amanda are innocent, KNOW the forensic work was sloppy to the point of utter uselessness, KNOW crucial facts were deliberately withheld, I am *somewhat* sympathetic to the view that PIP group think has a couple blindspots and a tendency to overstate the significance of this case to Italian judicial reform.

IMO some of the more stridently expressed views of the Italian judiciary hurt Amanda and Raff. I understand the fury. I know two young lives are being destroyed by a witch hunt. But to me, that only makes it more important to not go overboard slandering every Italian in the land. JMO, obviously.

The double bind you alluded to: I don't read TJMK. (And BTW, IMO it's obvious Coulsdon thinks for himself.) But yes, I did view the reasons for Coulsdon's prediction as an acknowledgment that the SC decision was heavily influenced by "other factors."

 

[CoulsdonUK]

No. Male cops were goading Knox to display sexualized behaviour that Knox immaturely regarded only as yoga. And other cops, Chiacchiera being one, openly disagreed with Napoleoni's direction towards arrests.

Next question.

Okay thanks for confirming that Napoleoni was not the only detective.

Now, sorry, are you now suggesting that Chiacchiera was solely overruled by the inexperienced Napoleoni? What about the other detectives you refer to on the case, do you know what their position was towards arresting Raffaele and Amanda?

Are you suggesting the inexperienced Napoleoni overruled her male detectives, does this sound realistic to you?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You said it attracted the attention of "seasoned investigators" and then called it Fog if Nonsense when I pointed out that Filomena's behaviour was was essentially the same, perhaps more suspicious since Filomena meddled with stuff more materially central to the case.

if you will say that the behaviour was not suspicious, something you will not do, I'll concede.

Again, please provide the post # were I used the highlighted words.

I teasingly you referred to your response as "Fog of Nonsense"

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo, I let everyone out every so often, most earn their way back in, some sooner than later, there is only one here whom I will never let out.

You have an unjustifiably inflated opinion of yourself.

Now for your question

Gee thanks Sherlock

.... when did I ever say that anything is to be drawn from anything. This is typical PIP behaviour to try and draw an argument out of someone. Once again, Tesla (and I really do respect him) mearly stated that he did not find anything Amanda did as 'strange or suspicious', he listed a few examples that I myself do not disagree with, however, how anyone can say there are things that she did that were not strange or suspicious is beyond me, does no one remember how this very thread originally started? Amanda may very well be the poster child for 'strange and suspicious' worldwide after this is all over.

Have we discussed yet what colour Amanda's toenails were painted? I say they were red but Randy says green. What about you? What's that? Meaningless and irrelevant? Oh, I see.

We aren't discussing her 'strange and suspicious' behaviour for the heck of it. We are addressing an unexpressed guilter point that, to put it in words from which you and Briars pusillanimously shrink, 'we know she's guilty because she acted funny'. That's the unspoken message, right? If it isn't then please explain why we don't just move onto the toenails and, for that matter, the eye shadow (which I say was black btw.).

 

[acbytesla]

Let me be clear: my questions were not "allegations."

I was/am genuinely curious about Coulsdon's reaction to the SC report. I've perused the report, but not read it carefully yet. (Turns out it's not well-suited for beach reading.)

I have no problem with Couldsdon or anyone else wishing to keep Meredith's memory alive. I think we all agree the legal and internet three-ring circuses have... well, let's just say they've made a mess no one would want Meredith's memory sullied by.

I have no issue with Coulsdon's views either. Though I KNOW Raffaele and Amanda are innocent, KNOW the forensic work was sloppy to the point of utter uselessness, KNOW crucial facts were deliberately withheld, I am *somewhat* sympathetic to the view that PIP group think has a couple blindspots and a tendency to overstate the significance of this case to Italian judicial reform.

IMO some of the more stridently expressed views of the Italian judiciary hurt Amanda and Raff. I understand the fury. I know two young lives are being destroyed by a witch hunt. But to me, that only makes it more important to not go overboard slandering every Italian in the land. JMO, obviously.

The double bind you alluded to: I don't read TJMK. (And BTW, IMO it's obvious Coulsdon thinks for himself.) But yes, I did view the reasons for Coulsdon's prediction as an acknowledgment that the SC decision was heavily influenced by "other factors."

You see Wild horses, I do have a problem with Coulsdon and Sherlock's views. Not that I have a problem with either of them. I'm sure if we ever met we could hoist a pint at the pub and talk about Futbol.

My problem is the FOG of their opinions. This "I don't have any real evidence, but they must have done something for the nutjobs with the PLE to think they are guilty".

I'm thoroughly 100 percent convinced of their innocence. I can understand maybe thinking that speck of DNA on the bra clasp means something.

But nothing else. The rest is NONSENSE. Their behavior isn't probative or incriminating and really shouldn't even be brought up. It is reading tea leaves and some kind of psychic intuition which I'm sorry, is a bunch of cow chips.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You see Sherlock you assert something like Amanda may very well be the poster child for strange and suspicious and then of course you don't mention a single thing. As I have said, I haven't heard one thing that Amanda did was strange. NOT ONE. The strangest thing I think I've heard that she did was "ta da" when putting on the booties. And I understand what she did. It really isn't that strange. I don't think clinging to Raffaele in this environment is the least bit strange. I don't think missing the memorial at school was the least bit strange and suspicious, nor buying underwear, nor stretching, or breaking down sobbing. I've read pretty much all the stories Sherlock and I haven't read a single one that I think is strange and/or suspicious when put in the right context.

You see it's the perspective that you view it in that makes it strange to anyone. Tell the story in a particular fashion and it all sounds so very suspicious, tell it another way and it is boring and meaningless.

It's like the scary movie when resident goes down into the basement and your clinging to each other and thinking.."don't go down there". But if there wasn't the scary music, you wouldn't have these thoughts at all.

I can fully respect your opinion, without agreeing with it, but just for clarity, when Meredith's door was opened and Amanda and Raff were in the kitchen, in Amanda's own 'E-mail' to friends, she states, 'I was in the kitchen, having already done my part'. Your telling me that, that was not 'strange or suspicious', at best maybe 'inappropriate'?

 

[anglolawyer]

I can fully respect your opinion, without agreeing with it, but just for clarity, when Meredith's door was opened and Amanda and Raff were in the kitchen, in Amanda's own 'E-mail' to friends, she states, 'I was in the kitchen, having already done my part'. Your telling me that, that was not 'strange or suspicious', at best maybe 'inappropriate'?

It's 'you're'. Why don't you really stick your (sic) neck out and say why you think it was strange and suspicious?

 

[Briars]

Ok.... speaking of strange behaviour in unusual circumstances.

Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver, 2010. What is this couple up to? It all depends on your perspective doesn't it!?

[qimg]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/292280/VANCOUVER-RIOTS-2011.jpg[/qimg]​

Not really she fainted according to her boyfriend.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not really she fainted according to her boyfriend.

10 out of 10, Briars. Yet for weeks this was touted as inappropriate necking behaviour in the middle of the riot.

I'll leave it to others to draw their own parallel with you know what.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You have an unjustifiably inflated opinion of yourself.

Impossible for you to know, however.........

Gee thanks Sherlock


Have we discussed yet what colour Amanda's toenails were painted? I say they were red but Randy says green. What about you? What's that? Meaningless and irrelevant? Oh, I see.

We aren't discussing her 'strange and suspicious' behaviour for the heck of it. We are addressing an unexpressed guilter point that, to put it in words from which you and Briars pusillanimously shrink, 'we know she's guilty because she acted funny'. That's the unspoken message, right? If it isn't then please explain why we don't just move onto the toenails and, for that matter, the eye shadow (which I say was black btw.).

We, were not discussing anything, I merely replied to Tesla, everyone else jumped in, most with only half the facts and the others just make up their own. Tesla is well capable of answering himself which he has done quite well, there is no unspoken message, except the ones you guys like to invent for sake of argument. I've said many times, I like to discuss, I won't argue, therefore, if your looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

 

[acbytesla]

I can fully respect your opinion, without agreeing with it, but just for clarity, when Meredith's door was opened and Amanda and Raff were in the kitchen, in Amanda's own 'E-mail' to friends, she states, 'I was in the kitchen, having already done my part'. Your telling me that, that was not 'strange or suspicious', at best maybe 'inappropriate'?

NO. not in the least. . Ever read people's emails or texts? they are never complete with all the thoughts and emotions. It is shorthand communication. People misunderstand each other all the time with written communication and it is always not in context. And with all due respect, that is what you are doing. You are looking at this through a prism of guilt instead of through clear glass.

 

[Briars]

Thats true . It would seem to admit to any lack of empathy or social intelligence could cause the whole stack of cards to tumble.

 

[Bill Williams]

You said it attracted the attention of "seasoned investigators" and then called it Fog if Nonsense when I pointed out that Filomena's behaviour was was essentially the same, perhaps more suspicious since Filomena meddled with stuff more materially central to the case.

if you will say that the behaviour was not suspicious, something you will not do, I'll concede.

Again, please provide the post # were I used the highlighted words.

I teasingly you referred to your response as "Fog of Nonsense"

Ok, I get it. You're John Follain.

John Follain wrote a whole book in this style. He wrote a book called, "A Death in Italy: The definitive account of the Amanda Knox case."

First of all it's not "The Amanda Knox case." I agree wholeheartedly with the Kerchers on this one.... and, BTW, with Amanda Knox herself. This is not about her - at the very least Raffaele Sollecito is in harm's way, too, and it is actually the case of a rather brutal murder of a true innocent in all this.

Second, and more to the point, Follain and you have the same style of argument. If John Follain expressed an opinion in his book his face would fall off. Yet he fills his paragraphs with all sorts of plausible deniabilities... not saying stuff, and when accused of saying something as part of a sub-text or underlying assumption can always fall back on, "Show me the quote where I said they were guilty?"

Well, he never does. He just puts little tidbits in. Behaviour is key to Follain. He never once says that the behaviour is suspicious, but that begs a HUGE question - why include it in the "definitive account" if it is, as Anglo says, equivalent to the colour of her toenail polish?

It's strange that anyone, you or Follain, would want to be so public with what you think is authoritative, the cops' case against Knox and Follain, and then reject that you think it's so authoritative when that's pointed out. The fact you've never once really answered a direct question - as Follain avoids making a personal statement at all costs - says buckets.... well, to me only, perhaps - and I an REALLY nobody in all this.

Is this an English thing?

I agree with Wildhorses latest on this.

Yet you simply won't answer - which is you complete right. What crime would you charge Amanda Knox with based on her behaviour?

But since you won't answer let me continue with my stream of consciousness about your alter ego, John Follain.

Follain, if you asked him over a pint, would say that Amanda Knox is stone cold guilty. Yet if you got him into a formal setting would say that the PLE had reasons to suspect her, mainly because of her behaviour. It would be up to whoever it was talking with Follain to remind him that Raffaele and Rudy were also similarly charged.

Then you read his book. Guilters regard the book as the definitive account of the case against Amanda Knox - also leaving one to wonder where Raffaele or Rudy fit into all this. Yet when you read the book, the guilter Bible, the book really has as its three great subtexts:

1) The PLE had reason to suspect Amanda Knox
2) The case against them fell apart at trial
3) The Kerchers and the British friends continue to feel bitter towards Amanda Knox​

That's it, really. For my money (and I paid full price for the book!) Follain actually argues FOR innocence. Yet he sprinkles in enough tidbits - one of which was out of nowhere commenting that Knox did not wear underwear in prison! - to either make you think that Amanda was a slut....

.... or that Follain was a dirty old man for even including the snippet. That one depends totally on your confirmation bias!

But if you accused Follain of implying she was a slut, he'd come back with a, "Show me where I said that," and then argue "IS" with you.

So, I will ask one more time, just to save my wearying soul more sidetracks into John Follain.

What crime would you charge Amanda Knox with based on her behaviour? Giobbi was very clear. For saying Ta-Da, for crying, and for eating pizza, he'd have her charged with murder. He was quite clear that he made this evaluation even before the forensics came in.

When you duck the question by saying.....

The point I am making is the difference in their reaction would have been noticed by any experienced homicide detective.

First of all, this was Napoleoni's first case as lead detective, second of all, other detectives were either trying to sexualize Knox at the Questura, or (and I'm talking of Chiacchiera here) were trying to steer Napoleoni away from arresting her for the behaviour and even the so-called confession!

What I am asking is - what crime would YOU have charged her with?

Please don't make me quote more Follain.....

 

[anglolawyer]

Impossible for you to know, however.........



We, were not discussing anything, I merely replied to Tesla, everyone else jumped in, most with only half the facts and the others just make up their own. Tesla is well capable of answering himself which he has done quite well, there is no unspoken message, except the ones you guys like to invent for sake of argument. I've said many times, I like to discuss, I won't argue, therefore, if your looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

Your persecution complex is showing. 'Everybody else jumped in'. What melodramatic nonsense.

You said:

Bliars, I totally agree but these guys reaction to just saying she acted strange is unbelievable, they just can't say, 'yes, she acted strangely' and be done with it, they have to argue, that's what they do, they will change around everything you say as well, and then add a 'what does that have to do with the murder', complete denial, hilarious. Where Grinder when you need him?

Others have explained they don't agree with your opinion about what is strange and what not. I have not 'jumped in' on that. What I want to know is what you infer from the 'strange' behaviour? Your answer seems to be to shrug 'aw, nuthin'' and you characterise being pressed about it as hilarious.

 

[Bill Williams]

Others have explained they don't agree with your opinion about what is strange and what not. I have not 'jumped in' on that. What I want to know is what you infer from the 'strange' behaviour? Your answer seems to be to shrug 'aw, nuthin'' and you characterise being pressed about it as hilarious.

Once the DNA is debunked, once Curatolo and Nara are disbelieved (because they confuse Oct 31 with Nov 1, among other things).....

..... Amanda Knox's "behaviour" becomes "all the other evidence."

What is strange for me, and it may just be me, is that folks will variously draw attention to the behaviour, pat the PLE on the back for noticing it as the clue to busting this case, but then shrug off the behaviour at the same time in the manner you describe.

I truly don't get it.

There's no DNA, there's no superwitnesses, there's no "all the other evidence," because no one will admit that they are persuaded by the PLE that it is the basis for arrest....

... and yet they still think Knox is either guilty of something, or at the very least not telling us something we currently don't know about this horrible murder.

What is it that we don't already know? CoulsdonUK and Sherlock Holmes seem to "know" something I don't know. And when I ask, they say, "Show me where I said....."

I am now genuinely confused. But I ask myself this: THIS is the case against Raffaele and Amanda?

 

[acbytesla]

Your persecution complex is showing. 'Everybody else jumped in'. What melodramatic nonsense.

You said:

Others have explained they don't agree with your opinion about what is strange and what not. I have not 'jumped in' on that. What I want to know is what you infer from the 'strange' behaviour? Your answer seems to be to shrug 'aw, nuthin'' and you characterise being pressed about it as hilarious.

On this Anglo and I totally agree. If you have a point Coulsdon, then make it. If you think Anglo and I are full of crap then say that. Maybe I'm speaking for myself on this but I think Anglo and I feel the same way about this. We're not made of glass. Give us your best argument and stop hiding behind this wishy washy bologna. .

The guilty behavior argument in my opinion is beyond a doubt the worst one for the prosecution. Virtually every single so called "strange" behavior only looks strange if you paint the picture that it is somehow strange.

 

[Wildhorses]

There is no excuse for a 20 year old to giggle joke and kiss at the questura, She made everyone uncomfortable . You could argue that she is innocent an extreme narcissistic and cared more about not having the murder interfer with her fun . To argue that her behavior including her delayed retraction of her accusation against Lumumba was normal doesn't work.

Bliars, I totally agree but these guys reaction to just saying she acted strange is unbelievable, they just can't say, 'yes, she acted strangely' and be done with it, they have to argue, that's what they do, they will change around everything you say as well, and then add a 'what does that have to do with the murder', complete denial, hilarious. Where Grinder when you need him?

I think she's a polarizing personality, which is to say I agree that in some ways she acted strangely.

But I also think cultural and situational factors were at play. BIG generalization, but I'm of the opinion European young adults are more polite and aware of "proper" behavior than American young adults. Dempsey gives a good description of the first night at the Questura -- and I groaned at the cultural improprieties. It's not right, but any American high school teacher can tell you it's not unusual for an upset American youth to "act out" distress by shouting random obscenity-laced comments.

Situationally, it was bad luck she and Raff were one week into a heavy love affair. It colored their behavior and judgement.

Also, I think parents have a better understanding of Knox than the childless. Twenty-year-olds aren't perfect. Parents develop a tolerance for their excesses and foibles. Knox isn't "extremely narcissistic," but I do think, like many artsy kids, she's a tad more self-absorbed and self-dramatizing than average. It didn't play well under the circumstances... but I know dozens of West Coast young adults who would have behaved the same way.

She wasn't "having fun." She was upset and shell-shocked.

About attending the memorial: you might note that Filomena, Laura, AND Amanda were the only friends of Meredith who were homeless and without access to their possessions. Would you attend a memorial in dirty clothes?

What delayed retraction? There was no delayed retraction! Knox was clear from the get-go that she was confused and that her accusation was by no means reliable. She wanted to speak up about Lumumba at the first hearing, but her lawyer told her not to.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think she's a polarizing personality, which is to say I agree that in some ways she acted strangely.

But I also think cultural and situational factors were at play. BIG generalization, but I'm of the opinion European young adults are more polite and aware of "proper" behavior than American young adults. Dempsey gives a good description of the first night at the Questura -- and I groaned at the cultural improprieties. It's not right, but any American high school teacher can tell you it's not unusual for an upset American youth to "act out" distress by shouting random obscenity-laced comments.

Situationally, it was bad luck she and Raff were one week into a heavy love affair. It colored their behavior and judgement.

Also, I think parents have a better understanding of Knox than the childless. Twenty-year-olds aren't perfect. Parents develop a tolerance for their excesses and foibles. Knox isn't "extremely narcissistic," but I do think, like many artsy kids, she's a tad more self-absorbed and self-dramatizing than average. It didn't play well under the circumstances... but I know dozens of West Coast young adults who would have behaved the same way.

She wasn't "having fun." She was upset and shell-shocked.

About attending the memorial: you might note that Filomena, Laura, AND Amanda were the only friends of Meredith who were homeless and without access to their possessions. Would you attend a memorial in dirty clothes?

What delayed retraction? There was no delayed retraction! Knox was clear from the get-go that she was confused and that her accusation was by no means reliable. She wanted to speak up about Lumumba at the first hearing, but her lawyer told her not to.

Don't get me started. Amanda Knox is not at all unusual for the west coast. Trust me on this one.