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

[Antony]

Are young people more relaxed and unaware of social norms in Seattle, I really can't say. Are you saying that hippy off spring and pot culture creates some kind of dreamy haze? As far as I'm aware the only difference is that people lead more active lives on the west coast. The slack that Amanda is cut here in the behavior department is frankly parental and protective. If my four year old wanted to play with his cars during a funeral he wouldn't get the chance. Empathy and good behavior should be taught early. If not, you could grow up and never care that strumming one cord over and over on your guitar could possibly annoy all present.

Briars, why are we even having this conversation, almost 6 years on?

Don't you think it tells us something, that all those sad people who desperately want Amanda (and Raff) to be guilty can't point to any genuine evidence, so spend ages trying to read guilt into allegedly strange behaviour?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Harbour Pointe? Did you play golf? I use to be a member of the Harbour Pointe Mens Club so I know it well. I live in Bothell, Harbour Pointe is in Mukilteo about 10 miles from my home.

As for your question, I don't know.

But I don't think Amanda was shown any photos of Meredith's dead body. And if she did, I don't think that in that moment she did anything strange. The only things I've heard pointed out was Amanda's behavior in the Questura's hallway or waiting room. Or out in the cottage parking lot. For example, the video of Amanda kissing Meredith. How long after the discovery of Meredith do you think that was taken? 5 hours later?

No matter how intense the moments when Meredith was discovered, the intensity level doesn't last forever.

Picking a few moments in a 5 day period and saying these moments were strange is selective interpretation that really demonstrates little or nothing.

By the way, a wise poster here told me not to give out to much personal information as there are nutters out there, just some friendly advice.

 

[Bill Williams]

By the way, a wise poster here told me not to give out to much personal information as there are nutters out there, just some friendly advice.

You should listen to that poster!

 

[Mary_H]

Are young people more relaxed and unaware of social norms in Seattle, I really can't say. Are you saying that hippy off spring and pot culture creates some kind of dreamy haze? As far as I'm aware the only difference is that people lead more active lives on the west coast.

Seattleites aren't unaware of social norms; they are aware of their own social norms, which are relaxed. (ETA: You can wear jeans anywhere, but you are supposed to be nice to other people.) Seattle is politically liberal, and for most liberals, empathy is very high on their list of values. A comedian once joked that Seattle is the only place where a Yield sign means, "Stop, build a house, raise a family."

If Seattle were constantly under some kind of dreamy haze, I doubt the rest of the world would ever board a Boeing airplane, order a book from Amazon or use Microsoft products.

The slack that Amanda is cut here in the behavior department is frankly parental and protective.

Well, yeah.

If my four year old wanted to play with his cars during a funeral he wouldn't get the chance. Empathy and good behavior should be taught early. If not, you could grow up and never care that strumming one cord over and over on your guitar could possibly annoy all present.

One very bad thing about Seattle is its public school system. Fully one-third of kids who start high school in Seattle drop out before graduation; that may be due to the culture of the schools or the culture of the town, I don't know.

Amanda had the self-discipline to make it through four years of Jesuit high school with honors. She worked while attending the University of Washington (not that easy to get into nowadays) and saved enough to go to Europe. While in prison she became fluent in Italian, and now she has written a book over 400 pages in length. What kind of good behavior are you looking for?

As for empathy, are you forgetting that she wrote that she understood why the police were so freaked out when they interrogated her? Are you forgetting that she thanked the court for their hard work at her first trial?

When you look at Amanda putting on booties and saying "ta-da," you see radically inappropriate behavior. When I look at that scene, I see a girl who is aware that another person is present and who wants to respond to him, maybe even amuse or entertain him, both out of social conditioning and out of respect. After growing up female in Seattle, it took me literally decades to realize I didn't have to smile at every person I came into contact with. Poor Amanda learned that lesson much more quickly.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You should listen to that poster!

There you are! Touche!

 

[Bill Williams]

In all fairness neither are you, you appear to be spinning off into your very own Twilight Zone. If I may paraphrase Rod Sterlings monologue:

There is a Bill dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity, etc.

You have no idea how true this is! But I'll give you one thing. If it's you and me as a team and we;re being tortured for information, my bet is that I break first!

 

[acbytesla]

By the way, a wise poster here told me not to give out to much personal information as there are nutters out there, just some friendly advice.

I really am not worried Coulsdon, but thanks for the advice. Nobody is going to stalk me. They are welcome to join me on the golf course however.

 

[anglolawyer]

Seattleites aren't unaware of social norms; they are aware of their own social norms, which are relaxed. Seattle is politically liberal, and for most liberals, empathy is very high on their list of values. A comedian once joked that Seattle is the only place where a Yield sign means, "Stop, build a house, raise a family."

If Seattle were constantly under some kind of dreamy haze, I doubt the rest of the world would ever board a Boeing airplane, order a book from Amazon or use Microsoft products.



Well, yeah.



One very bad thing about Seattle is its public school system. Fully one-third of kids who start high school in Seattle drop out before graduation; that may be due to the culture of the schools or the culture of the town, I don't know.

Amanda had the self-discipline to make it through four years of Jesuit high school with honors. She worked while attending the University of Washington (not that easy to get into nowadays) and saved enough to go to Europe. While in prison she became fluent in Italian, and now she has written a book over 400 pages in length. What kind of good behavior are you looking for?

As for empathy, are you forgetting that she wrote that she understood why the police were so freaked out when they interrogated her? Are you forgetting that she thanked the court for their hard work at her first trial?

When you look at Amanda putting on booties and saying "ta-da," you see radically inappropriate behavior. When I look at that scene, I see a girl who is aware that another person is present and who wants to respond to him, maybe even amuse or entertain him, both out of social conditioning and out of respect. After growing up female in Seattle, it took me literally decades to realize I didn't have to smile at every person I came into contact with. Poor Amanda learned that lesson much more quickly.

Plus, we are grossly over-simplifying, by 'time-contracting'. I may have just made up that expression. It means the effect retrospect has on time by shortening it. Amanda and Raffaele spent hours at the questura on 02 Nov, much longer than anyone else. I posted here before, but can't find it now, other aspects of her behaviour showing her exhausted, angry, concerned and stressed. Hungry too and probably bored. We do not have a complete view. We have something partial, distorted by bias and collective finger-pointing and no doubt exaggerated also by those with an agenda. What those who think the 'strange and suspicious' behaviour means something should tell us is what it means. Otherwise we really need to get back to the toenails.

 

[Briars]

Briars, why are we even having this conversation, almost 6 years on?

Don't you think it tells us something, that all those sad people who desperately want Amanda (and Raff) to be guilty can't point to any genuine evidence, so spend ages trying to read guilt into allegedly strange behaviour?

The discussion was about her behavior , whether it was normal or not. The evidence pointing to guilt is substantial even separated from her odd behavior. It wasn't her innapropriate behavior that convinced me she was involved. Her shower story, and bath mat nonsense is far more powerful than a kiss outside.That is one point in case you try to suggest thats all it took to point to guilt.My theories have been shared here and I don't intend to repeat them yet again.The behavior she exhibited at the Questura and putting on the booties etc convinced me she was a narcissistic individual one who kept Sollecito very close and focused on her during that time.

 

[acbytesla]

The discussion was about her behavior , whether it was normal or not. The evidence pointing to guilt is substantial even separated from her odd behavior. It wasn't her innapropriate behavior that convinced me she was involved. Her shower story, and bath mat nonsense is far more powerful than a kiss outside.That is one point in case you try to suggest thats all it took to point to guilt.My theories have been shared here and I don't intend to repeat them yet again.The behavior she exhibited at the Questura and putting on the booties etc convinced me she was a narcissistic individual one who kept Sollecito very close and focused on her during that time.

How convenient Briars. The evidence pointing to her guilt is pretty much non existent. And saying it is substantial doesn't make it so. I really don't see how her taking a shower or the bath mat is powerfully persuasive. You are exemplifying the "guilters" perspective. You take events that could mean anything and somehow twist them in your mind to come out to mean something guilty. I don't find either of those things even mildly probative.

There is only one thing about this that gives me any pause and that is the bra clasp DNA. Everything else points in another direction and the shower and the bath mat don't point anywhere.

 

[acbytesla]

Plus, we are grossly over-simplifying, by 'time-contracting'. I may have just made up that expression. It means the effect retrospect has on time by shortening it. Amanda and Raffaele spent hours at the questura on 02 Nov, much longer than anyone else. I posted here before, but can't find it now, other aspects of her behaviour showing her exhausted, angry, concerned and stressed. Hungry too and probably bored. We do not have a complete view. We have something partial, distorted by bias and collective finger-pointing and no doubt exaggerated also by those with an agenda. What those who think the 'strange and suspicious' behaviour means something should tell us is what it means. Otherwise we really need to get back to the toenails.

Good expression Anglo. That has been my point all along. All of these examples of Amanda's so called "strange" behavior happened over a 4 day period where Amanda had a microscope focused on her. This is an example of people desperately looking for something and seizing on nothing.

 

[Supernaut]

The discussion was about her behavior , whether it was normal or not. The evidence pointing to guilt is substantial even separated from her odd behavior. It wasn't her innapropriate behavior that convinced me she was involved. Her shower story, and bath mat nonsense is far more powerful than a kiss outside.That is one point in case you try to suggest thats all it took to point to guilt.My theories have been shared here and I don't intend to repeat them yet again.The behavior she exhibited at the Questura and putting on the booties etc convinced me she was a narcissistic individual one who kept Sollecito very close and focused on her during that time.

Blah, blah, frikking-blah

This "substantial" evidence; LIST IT.

You can cut/paste Harry the Machine if you like, but be careful not to include the stuff he just made up.

 

[Bill Williams]

The discussion was about her behavior , whether it was normal or not. The evidence pointing to guilt is substantial even separated from her odd behavior. It wasn't her innapropriate behavior that convinced me she was involved. Her shower story, and bath mat nonsense is far more powerful than a kiss outside.That is one point in case you try to suggest thats all it took to point to guilt.My theories have been shared here and I don't intend to repeat them yet again.The behavior she exhibited at the Questura and putting on the booties etc convinced me she was a narcissistic individual one who kept Sollecito very close and focused on her during that time.

Sooner or later someone is going to do more than allege something. They're actually going to try to back up the allegation.

The Machine/Harry Rag is important here, because at the very least he tries. He just doesn't allege.

And when he tries he brings up things like "mixed blood". For the record, no one, not the Massei Court, not the Hellmann court found mixed blood.

I could go on. No wonder most only make allegations and "conveniently" neglect to repeat what had been disproven beforehand.

But there is NO substantial evidence of Knox's (or Raffaele's for that matter) guilt.

I could go on. But I freak out CoulsdonUK when I do. I think he likes me!

 

[Antony]

The discussion was about her behavior , whether it was normal or not.

... and a pointless discussion which in any case only serves to underline your own confirmation bias. It's neither a case you have made, nor a case worth making.

The evidence pointing to guilt is substantial even separated from her odd behavior.

Well, let's talk about the evidence. You can't, because it is all bogus. It's to distract from the non-existent "evidence" that we get all of this innuendo aimed, ludicrously, at destroying Amanda's character.

It wasn't her innapropriate behavior that convinced me she was involved. Her shower story, and bath mat nonsense is far more powerful than a kiss outside.That is one point in case you try to suggest thats all it took to point to guilt.

Seriously? This is hardly better than the nonsense about the not-at-all-strange behaviour.

My theories have been shared here and I don't intend to repeat them yet again.

You mean the scream that echoed around the valley so that Nara Capazelli heard it but Toto Curatolo didn't?

The behavior she exhibited at the Questura and putting on the booties etc convinced me she was a narcissistic individual one who kept Sollecito very close and focused on her during that time.

Well, not only do your claims not make me think she's guilty, they don't even throw any light on why you should think her guilty. I'd like to know if you understand what the word "evidence" really means. A start would be demonstrating some kind of coherence so that different elements supported each other, rather than each of them apparently belonging to a different narrative of the crime.

 

[Briars]

How convenient Briars. The evidence pointing to her guilt is pretty much non existent. And saying it is substantial doesn't make it so. I really don't see how her taking a shower or the bath mat is powerfully persuasive. You are exemplifying the "guilters" perspective. You take events that could mean anything and somehow twist them in your mind to come out to mean something guilty. I don't find either of those things even mildly probative.

There is only one thing about this that gives me any pause and that is the bra clasp DNA. Everything else points in another direction and the shower and the bath mat don't point anywhere.

I'm confident that Sept 30 and the informationto to follow coming will bring more clarity to the case. It will help to see it again in its entirety and have any half truths put to rest.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm confident that Sept 30 and the informationto to follow coming will bring more clarity to the case. It will help to see it again in its entirety and have any half truths put to rest.

Really? You believe that? Do you think that after 6 years, two trials, two appeals and a dozen books that some new information will come out during the next phase that hasn't already been brought to light? Seriously?

Considering that Italy's press is so afraid of the judicial system and how almost every story written in Italy reads like the prosecution wrote it the well has been poisoned and The ISC motivation reads like Italy's highest court is demanding a guilty verdict, I don't doubt that Amanda and Raffaele might easily get convicted. After all, Italy convicts scientists for failing to predict earthquakes. But I also don't think that will be the end of the story either. My guess is that the ECHR will end up dismissing the charges, but of course you will still be a guilter.

About the only people wthat will benefit from this farce will be the lawyers and the specialists.

 

[codyjuneau]

Are young people more relaxed and unaware of social norms in Seattle, I really can't say. Are you saying that hippy off spring and pot culture creates some kind of dreamy haze? As far as I'm aware the only difference is that people lead more active lives on the west coast. The slack that Amanda is cut here in the behavior department is frankly parental and protective. If my four year old wanted to play with his cars during a funeral he wouldn't get the chance. Empathy and good behavior should be taught early. If not, you could grow up and never care that strumming one cord over and over on your guitar could possibly annoy all present.

.
The highlighted sentence is Briar's oblique and exaggerated reference to some belated complaints about Amanda's behavior BEFORE the murder.

Everybody's behavior is personal, and unique. I bet your behavior Briars, annoys some people at times. I know mine does. I'd have to be a milquetoast for it not to.

If your perception of Amanda's behavior before the murder, is that it was unusual, why would you expect it to be different after the murder?
.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm confident that Sept 30 and the informationto to follow coming will bring more clarity to the case. It will help to see it again in its entirety and have any half truths put to rest.

I agree.

What we disagree on is what needs "adding". It is instructive that one of the reasons the ISC ordered this new trial was to do with motive - a motive that both the Massei and the Hellmann court assigned to Rudy Guede and Rudy Guede alone.

Both the lower courts rejected any motive that involved Knox and Sollecito.

So, perhaps you can enlighten us with an opinion, Briars. Do you agree that the Florence court needs to examine the "sex-game gone wrong theory/motive" as to whether or not it includes Knox and/or Sollecito?

You are asking for clarity in this case. How is it that the various and ever changing motives that Mr. Mignini brought to this case contributes to that "clarity", and why is it that #2 of the four motives Mr. Mignini offered is spotted by the ISC as "the correct one" to examine?

To review. The killing on Nov 1 (All Souls Day) offered Mr. Mignini a powerful clue as to the reason behind this murder. It was, acc. to him, a ritualistic killing associated with Hallowe'en. Acc. to none other than Barbie Nadeau, Manuela Comodi threatened to quit if Mr. Mignini took that motive to trial.

So, motive #2 - sex-game gone wrong. This motive did not survive the first trial, as Mr. Mignini shifted gears mid-trial.

Here we have motive #3. Mignini called as witnesses people like Filomena Romanelli, and Meredith's boyfirend to persue a motive, supplied by Rudy Guede, that Meredith and Amanda were fighting. Perhaps Amanda had stolen money or that Amanda was jealous of Meredith and wanted to "teach her a lesson" - in any event, this "motive was essentially provided by Rudy in exhange for a more lenient sentence.

What happened, though, at Massei's trial was the the jury and judges did not believe Rudy - or this theory. People like Meredith's boyfriend testified that all was fine between Amanda and Meredith. (So much for all the persuasive evidence The Machine says is out there!)

The upshot is that the Massei court ruled, even in convicting the pair, that essentially Raffaele and Amanda had no motive.

By the time the Hellmann trial came around, Mignini brought forth a fourth motive, perhaps more in line with what Massei had found as factual. Amanda Knox deserved life and all that time in solitary because, are you ready for it, she killed for no reason at all - the worst reason possible.

So you see, Briars, there happens not to be persuasive evidence out there. If there was you would list it. The Machine lists his reasons, and all of those reasons run counter to what was found as factual at trial - ironically, many of them as found at the very trial which convicted them.

Now, the ISC has - brilliantly - gone back to the future, and the Florence prosecutor is being (ordered?) to run with Motive #2 of this mess. So the half truth The Machine comment bombs places is to be answered thusly - did Amanda and Raffaele participate in a sex game gone wrong?

You see - this is more specific than just your assertions - "There is persuasive evidence" when you don't bother to list that very same evidence that's supposed to be so persuasive.

Ok, so maybe I don't agree with you. I believe the ISC has set this up to come up with a guilty verdict or some lesser finding of guilt about something else. They've served notice they will sign off on only a certain body of facts, even though they're not supposed to be evaluating facts at all.

It will take a particular kind of prosecutor and more importantly a particular kind of judge-panel, professional and lay, to rule in this environment supplied by the ISC.

With your own theory, Briars, just how does the sex game thing go? You do realize that even Mr. Mignini abandoned that one two theories ago!?

 

[Briars]

I agree.

What we disagree on is what needs "adding". It is instructive that one of the reasons the ISC ordered this new trial was to do with motive - a motive that both the Massei and the Hellmann court assigned to Rudy Guede and Rudy Guede alone.

Both the lower courts rejected any motive that involved Knox and Sollecito.

So, perhaps you can enlighten us with an opinion, Briars. Do you agree that the Florence court needs to examine the "sex-game gone wrong theory/motive" as to whether or not it includes Knox and/or Sollecito?

You are asking for clarity in this case. How is it that the various and ever changing motives that Mr. Mignini brought to this case contributes to that "clarity", and why is it that #2 of the four motives Mr. Mignini offered is spotted by the ISC as "the correct one" to examine?

To review. The killing on Nov 1 (All Souls Day) offered Mr. Mignini a powerful clue as to the reason behind this murder. It was, acc. to him, a ritualistic killing associated with Hallowe'en. Acc. to none other than Barbie Nadeau, Manuela Comodi threatened to quit if Mr. Mignini took that motive to trial.

So, motive #2 - sex-game gone wrong. This motive did not survive the first trial, as Mr. Mignini shifted gears mid-trial.

Here we have motive #3. Mignini called as witnesses people like Filomena Romanelli, and Meredith's boyfirend to persue a motive, supplied by Rudy Guede, that Meredith and Amanda were fighting. Perhaps Amanda had stolen money or that Amanda was jealous of Meredith and wanted to "teach her a lesson" - in any event, this "motive was essentially provided by Rudy in exhange for a more lenient sentence.

What happened, though, at Massei's trial was the the jury and judges did not believe Rudy - or this theory. People like Meredith's boyfriend testified that all was fine between Amanda and Meredith. (So much for all the persuasive evidence The Machine says is out there!)

The upshot is that the Massei court ruled, even in convicting the pair, that essentially Raffaele and Amanda had no motive.

By the time the Hellmann trial came around, Mignini brought forth a fourth motive, perhaps more in line with what Massei had found as factual. Amanda Knox deserved life and all that time in solitary because, are you ready for it, she killed for no reason at all - the worst reason possible.

So you see, Briars, there happens not to be persuasive evidence out there. If there was you would list it. The Machine lists his reasons, and all of those reasons run counter to what was found as factual at trial - ironically, many of them as found at the very trial which convicted them.

Now, the ISC has - brilliantly - gone back to the future, and the Florence prosecutor is being (ordered?) to run with Motive #2 of this mess. So the half truth The Machine comment bombs places is to be answered thusly - did Amanda and Raffaele participate in a sex game gone wrong?

You see - this is more specific than just your assertions - "There is persuasive evidence" when you don't bother to list that very same evidence that's supposed to be so persuasive.

Ok, so maybe I don't agree with you. I believe the ISC has set this up to come up with a guilty verdict or some lesser finding of guilt about something else. They've served notice they will sign off on only a certain body of facts, even though they're not supposed to be evaluating facts at all.

It will take a particular kind of prosecutor and more importantly a particular kind of judge-panel, professional and lay, to rule in this environment supplied by the ISC.

With your own theory, Briars, just how does the sex game thing go? You do realize that even Mr. Mignini abandoned that one two theories ago!?

Why not describe it as a sex game with one of the group unwilling and restrained? Evidence of mutiple attackers ,taunting cuts,finger tip bruising on her arm by restraint , clothing removed and virtual no defense wounds. What would you call it? The gone wrong part may have been her death. Gone wrong or (gone too far ),giving the accused the benefit of 2nd degree murder not first.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree.

What we disagree on is what needs "adding". It is instructive that one of the reasons the ISC ordered this new trial was to do with motive - a motive that both the Massei and the Hellmann court assigned to Rudy Guede and Rudy Guede alone.

Both the lower courts rejected any motive that involved Knox and Sollecito.

So, perhaps you can enlighten us with an opinion, Briars. Do you agree that the Florence court needs to examine the "sex-game gone wrong theory/motive" as to whether or not it includes Knox and/or Sollecito?

You are asking for clarity in this case. How is it that the various and ever changing motives that Mr. Mignini brought to this case contributes to that "clarity", and why is it that #2 of the four motives Mr. Mignini offered is spotted by the ISC as "the correct one" to examine?

To review. The killing on Nov 1 (All Souls Day) offered Mr. Mignini a powerful clue as to the reason behind this murder. It was, acc. to him, a ritualistic killing associated with Hallowe'en. Acc. to none other than Barbie Nadeau, Manuela Comodi threatened to quit if Mr. Mignini took that motive to trial.

So, motive #2 - sex-game gone wrong. This motive did not survive the first trial, as Mr. Mignini shifted gears mid-trial.

Here we have motive #3. Mignini called as witnesses people like Filomena Romanelli, and Meredith's boyfirend to persue a motive, supplied by Rudy Guede, that Meredith and Amanda were fighting. Perhaps Amanda had stolen money or that Amanda was jealous of Meredith and wanted to "teach her a lesson" - in any event, this "motive was essentially provided by Rudy in exhange for a more lenient sentence.

What happened, though, at Massei's trial was the the jury and judges did not believe Rudy - or this theory. People like Meredith's boyfriend testified that all was fine between Amanda and Meredith. (So much for all the persuasive evidence The Machine says is out there!)

The upshot is that the Massei court ruled, even in convicting the pair, that essentially Raffaele and Amanda had no motive.

By the time the Hellmann trial came around, Mignini brought forth a fourth motive, perhaps more in line with what Massei had found as factual. Amanda Knox deserved life and all that time in solitary because, are you ready for it, she killed for no reason at all - the worst reason possible.

So you see, Briars, there happens not to be persuasive evidence out there. If there was you would list it. The Machine lists his reasons, and all of those reasons run counter to what was found as factual at trial - ironically, many of them as found at the very trial which convicted them.

Now, the ISC has - brilliantly - gone back to the future, and the Florence prosecutor is being (ordered?) to run with Motive #2 of this mess. So the half truth The Machine comment bombs places is to be answered thusly - did Amanda and Raffaele participate in a sex game gone wrong?

You see - this is more specific than just your assertions - "There is persuasive evidence" when you don't bother to list that very same evidence that's supposed to be so persuasive.

Ok, so maybe I don't agree with you. I believe the ISC has set this up to come up with a guilty verdict or some lesser finding of guilt about something else. They've served notice they will sign off on only a certain body of facts, even though they're not supposed to be evaluating facts at all.

It will take a particular kind of prosecutor and more importantly a particular kind of judge-panel, professional and lay, to rule in this environment supplied by the ISC.

With your own theory, Briars, just how does the sex game thing go? You do realize that even Mr. Mignini abandoned that one two theories ago!?

This leads me to ask the following question, How does the prosecution prove this sex game theory when not one single shred of evidence has ever been produced supporting it? Raffaele doesn't support it, Rudy doesn't support it, there is never been anyone or any thing that has supported this violent sex game theory. Is it possible that Rudy will change his testimony now because of the temptation of an early release?

Will the prosecution bring forth some BDSM character from Seattle to tell the court just what a violent sex freak Amanda is? Will the prosecution say that they found in the attic of Amanda's room, a bunch of whips and handcuffs. bondage toys etc. ?

Seriously, how can they even begin to prove such a ridiculous theory?