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

[RWVBWL]

Gotta get back inside...

Filomena seems to me like the kind of person who thinks it's important to make a good impression and have people not think badly of her; for example, she asked Amanda not to tell the police they had smoked pot at the house. So, I can imagine her also pretending to have a neat room when she didn't.
<snip>

I read an interesting theory, Mary H,
that the reason Filomena went back into her bedroom, disturbing a crime scene where a brutal murder had happened overnight,
was so that she could retrieve her drug stash. It kinda makes sense, ya know?

Miss Knox writes in her book Waiting to Be Heard' that "marijuana was as common as pasta". And that she never purchased it herself. Hmmmm.
So who did? Who purchased the pot that Laura helped Amanda learn how to roll a joint or 2 with?

As Filomena was not in college, she was not doin' any major term papers,
like Raffaele who was, IIRC, finishing his thesis just a few weeks before he was to graduate from college, correct me if I am wrong, ok?

I wonder what was sooo important about Filomena's laptop that she had to head back inside her bedoom to retrieve it?

I don't know, maybe I'm watching too much of the early seasons of Dexter on DVD right now, but I was reading elsewhere, I noticed someone brought up a good reason why FR went back into the murder scene, it was not to retrieve her laptop, instead she did not want the cops to find something in her bedroom. Something of which she sinned, once.

What do you think?

 

[Mary_H]

I read an interesting theory, Mary H,
that the reason Filomena went back into her bedroom, disturbing a crime scene where a brutal murder had happened overnight,
was so that she could retrieve her drug stash. It kinda makes sense, ya know?

Miss Knox writes in her book Waiting to Be Heard' that "marijuana was as common as pasta". And that she never purchased it herself. Hmmmm.
So who did? Who purchased the pot that Laura helped Amanda learn how to roll a joint or 2 with?

As Filomena was not in college, she was not doin' any major term papers,
like Raffaele who was, IIRC, finishing his thesis just a few weeks before he was to graduate from college, correct me if I am wrong, ok?

I wonder what was sooo important about Filomena's laptop that she had to head back inside her bedoom to retrieve it?

I don't know, maybe I'm watching too much of the early seasons of Dexter on DVD right now, but I was reading elsewhere, I noticed someone brought up a good reason why FR went back into the murder scene, it was not to retrieve her laptop, instead she did not want the cops to find something in her bedroom. Something of which she sinned, once.

What do you think?

I think that's a good call, RW. If she had known how thorough the cops were about investigating people they didn't suspect, she could have saved herself the anxiety.

 

[RWVBWL]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Randy. Yawwwn. Can't you tell us about all the ones you've seen where the lovers turn on each other and the knives come out?

Yawwn?
Mary H, I'm still traumatised by that court stuff!
I can't even imagine what Amanda Knox went thru...

But with that said, thanks for readin' my lil' therapy posting!
See ya next time,
RW

 

[Mary_H]

Yawwn?
Mary H, I'm still traumatised by that court stuff!
I can't even imagine what Amanda Knox went thru...

But with that said, thanks for readin' my lil' therapy posting!
See ya next time,
RW

I hope you know I was just teasing you. You wrote a great post, just like always, that's why I copied the whole thing instead of trimming it.

What I am really thinking is that Machiavelli should take it to Mignini and Mignini et al could see if it makes a reasonable replacement scenario for the one they came up with -- you know, the one with the knives.

Seriously, thanks for sharing. What you have experienced in reality is obviously a thousand times more believable than what the Perugians came up with in their crusty little brains.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I read an interesting theory, Mary H,
that the reason Filomena went back into her bedroom, disturbing a crime scene where a brutal murder had happened overnight,
was so that she could retrieve her drug stash. It kinda makes sense, ya know?

Miss Knox writes in her book Waiting to Be Heard' that "marijuana was as common as pasta". And that she never purchased it herself. Hmmmm.
So who did? Who purchased the pot that Laura helped Amanda learn how to roll a joint or 2 with?

As Filomena was not in college, she was not doin' any major term papers,
like Raffaele who was, IIRC, finishing his thesis just a few weeks before he was to graduate from college, correct me if I am wrong, ok?

I wonder what was sooo important about Filomena's laptop that she had to head back inside her bedoom to retrieve it?

I don't know, maybe I'm watching too much of the early seasons of Dexter on DVD right now, but I was reading elsewhere, I noticed someone brought up a good reason why FR went back into the murder scene, it was not to retrieve her laptop, instead she did not want the cops to find something in her bedroom. Something of which she sinned, once.

What do you think?

I think her stash was missing but she couldn't very well report it to the police. I think that's what was taken during the burglary gone bad. You know, the one where everyone claims nothing was taken so it couldn't have been a real burglary? Surely Filomena couldn't risk speaking up about missing pot -- I mean remember how important it was to her to keep the pot smoking quiet?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The Guardian just posted an article entitled "Meredith Kercher family asks Amanda Knox to stay away from grave." I gotta say: I think it's creepy of Knox to keep harping on her desire to visit Meredith's grave. She'd be far better off talking about how much liked Meredith and/or pleasant times they had together.

I know talk of the grave is just more of Knox's theatrical style and inability to understand how certain kinds of remarks are received. I still wish someone would tell her to knock it off.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool PIP and I find such talk -- out of ALL THE THINGS she could talk about -- disturbing. I'm sure the Kerchers are horrified by it.

Agreed. She is a lousy spokesperson and the "creative writer" in her should be put on total hold.

That would be twice too many times.

Of ALL THE THINGS she could talk about...

I only saw her talk about it with Diane Sawyer. The Guardian said she talked about it in "a string of interviews" and I took their word for it.

People like me? You know nothing about me. I only want to see her acquitted. I hate seeing her shoot herself in the foot.

Although... one day into the trial, I already see the writing on the wall. So I guess it doesn't matter what she does.

Thanks again Wildhorses. I saw her say it at once on another interview, not Sawyer. What does she or her advisers think will happen with such a provocative statement? Of course it will be picked up across the board and then again when the Kerchers predictably responded.

When I read you guys criticizing Amanda like this, it raises questions in my mind. For example, I wonder whether you actually have your fingers to the pulse of public opinion. Do you know for a fact that other people are offended by the same things you are offended by, and that what you don't like about Amanda's behavior is actually harmful to her situation?

Second, when you imagine the group of people Amanda is not impressing, or may even be alienating, what kind of people are you imagining? Obviously, she is alienating you, but have you checked to see whether there are enough other people just like you out there that their influence is a factor in Amanda's situation? Have you ascertained whether you have the moral authority to be giving her advice versus whether you are just armchair quarterbacking?

Third, your primary concern seems to be public relations, which is great. How do you think it looks to the public, though, when some of Amanda's supporters criticize her, and for essentially the same reasons the Perugians criticized her? In my opinion, a strong united front should be one without cracks, even if you have to bite your keyboards to prevent yourselves from venting.

I know you don't see it this way, but to me, there is a very short distance between, "I wish someone would tell her to knock it off"/"She is a lousy spokesperson" and, "Her situation is nobody's fault but her own." Or worse.

 

[snook1]

I think I need a clarification on this one:

Judge Alessandro Nencini - Th court decides to proceed with DNA tests on the samples taken by the experts appointed by the appeals court of Perugia on the blade of the knife that was seized in apartment of Raffaele Sollecito, evidnce item numer 36, naming as experts, personnel from the scientific police department of The Carabinieri police based in Rome and summoning them to take on this task at the bext hearing on October 4, 2013 at 9 a.m.

So what does it mean? Will they have the results by October 4th?
Also, Bruce on IIP said that the judge declared that there is no reason to throw out the independent experts report.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think I need a clarification on this one:


So what does it mean? Will they have the results by October 4th?
Also, Bruce on IIP said that the judge declared that there is no reason to throw out the independent experts report.

No, it means that the court will summon representatives of the Carabinieri forensics team on 4th October, and will formally task them an that date with examining the knife (and will probably also set dates for submission of the report and testimony related to the report).

And yes, the C/V report is part of the canon of evidence in this trial process. The defence and the court will be able to refer to it and debate it. And, as I argued previously, I think it's far from unlikely that the Carabinieri report will be highly critical of the work of the State Police forensics squad in this case. If that IS what happens, then clearly it tends to reinforce and corroborate the conclusions reached in the C/V report regarding the massive amounts of malpractice/incompetence by Stefanoni and her "crack" team.

 

[TofuFighter]

I don't credit the "arguments" such as they are, and i couldn't find what the total number of people voting was, but there is at least some indication of public opinion.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-amanda-knox-guilty

Personally, while it's interesting to debate the various aspects of the crime, I don't think any lay person is qualified to say "she's guilty" or "she's innocent".

A lot of people on JRef are vehemently pro-Knox. I believe there's bias involved in that, just as there is bias in the general British (and i guess, Italian) view of her being guilty.

If the new trial finds her guilty, will JRef americans accept that? or will it be considered a conspiracy against Foxy Knoxy?

 

[yimyammer]

Have you seen a solid cross in this case? Perhaps you have. I have not. My gut says Rudy would be shielded from crucial question by his lawyer or the court.

What I envision is a Lumumba scenario. Incentives for sticking to the good old boy party line.

As to the matter of Knox's advisors: IMO she is woefully under-protected. Seems to be a Seattle thing: no criticism allowed. It's a pity. She'd benefit greatly from more guidance and be spared stuff like broadsides from PIP Bill Maher.

no doubt, its a farce

 

[snook1]

No, it means that the court will summon representatives of the Carabinieri forensics team on 4th October, and will formally task them an that date with examining the knife (and will probably also set dates for submission of the report and testimony related to the report).

And yes, the C/V report is part of the canon of evidence in this trial process. The defence and the court will be able to refer to it and debate it. And, as I argued previously, I think it's far from unlikely that the Carabinieri report will be highly critical of the work of the State Police forensics squad in this case. If that IS what happens, then clearly it tends to reinforce and corroborate the conclusions reached in the C/V report regarding the massive amounts of malpractice/incompetence by Stefanoni and her "crack" team.

Thank you, LondonJohn. Again, your posts give me the much needed balance and frankly, I can't wait for the results and the discussion.

As to their forthcoming(hoped for)critique - I hope they will be able to review the methods used by Stefanoni and by the independent experts and draw an obvious conclusion. But are you sure they will be allowed to address such issues and not only check the trace on the knife and write a report about it?

 

[Diocletus]

I don't credit the "arguments" such as they are, and i couldn't find what the total number of people voting was, but there is at least some indication of public opinion.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-amanda-knox-guilty

Personally, while it's interesting to debate the various aspects of the crime, I don't think any lay person is qualified to say "she's guilty" or "she's innocent".

A lot of people on JRef are vehemently pro-Knox. I believe there's bias involved in that, just as there is bias in the general British (and i guess, Italian) view of her being guilty.

If the new trial finds her guilty, will JRef americans accept that? or will it be considered a conspiracy against Foxy Knoxy?

An online poll isn't indication of anything. Injustice happens. No one has to accept a guilty verdict against an innocent person.

 

[TofuFighter]

An online poll isn't indication of anything. Injustice happens. No one has to accept a guilty verdict against an innocent person.

That's true if you know she's innocent. But you don't.

 

[snook1]

That's true if you know she's innocent. But you don't.

Amanda Knox is guilty of having blue, cold eyes(as reported throughout the years) and for having sex with Sollecito and innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher. That's it.

 

[Diocletus]

That's true if you know she's innocent. But you don't.

Excuse me, but yes I do.

 

[TofuFighter]

Amanda Knox is guilty of having blue, cold eyes(as reported throughout the years) and for having sex with Sollecito and innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher. That's it.

If you say so, it must be true. Much like Diocletus.
Don't you think that, on a skeptic's forum, you might admit that you can't state that as fact?

 

[TofuFighter]

Excuse me, but yes I do.

In that case I'd like to know how you know it's true.
I can accept that you believe it to be true based on your interpretation of the evidence, but belief doesn't make it true.

 

[snook1]

If you say so, it must be true. Much like Diocletus.
Don't you think that, on a skeptic's forum, you might admit that you can't state that as fact?

Actually no, I don't, beacuse I know Knox is innocent and it's not a matter of my interpretation of the evidence. It is a matter of available evidence that clearly show both Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

 

[TofuFighter]

Actually no, I don't, because I know Knox is innocent and it's not a matter of my interpretation of the evidence. It is a matter of available evidence that clearly show both Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

Perhaps neither Knox nor Potter is guilty of stabbing Kercher. Evidence certainly suggests that. I disagree that you can state as fact that they are innocent in this crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

narrative and timeline

In that case I'd like to know how you know it's true.
I can accept that you believe it to be true based on your interpretation of the evidence, but belief doesn't make it true.

TofuFighter,

Suppose that there were a JREF forum circa 1982 and that we were debating the Lindy Chamberlain case (there are a couple of threads here on the case). Would a guilty verdict against her be taken as proof that she murdered Azaria at a forum for skeptics? Would her defenders be conspiracy theorists?

The short answer to your question is that there was simply not enough time for A and R to commit this crime once one uses a reasonable estimate for TOD. A slightly longer answer is that there is a mountain of missing evidence that should be there but is not (such as CCTV footage and bloody clothes). Try constructing a narrative and timeline of the case assuming guilt, and see how problematic the case becomes.