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.....
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.....
