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

[acbytesla]

Isn’t the success of a prank whether everyone involved views it as a prank? What if the target doesn’t see the funny side of it, what if they are upset by the actions of others?

For example, locking some in a cupboard as a prank might be funny to the group, but if the target person is claustrophobic would they see the funny side of things?

Well certainly there is that. When I was attending the UW, the same school as Amanda, people were always pulling pranks on others. For example, we stole my roommates car while he was at work and put it in the common room at our dorm. My roommate totally freaked out and even called the police. He was so mad at me and the others that pulled this prank on him that he didn't speak to me for a week. It was funny, but not to him.

Some times pranks go to far and people get hurt. I'm not sure this prank even qualifies as that. But Meredith's murder wasn't a prank and Amanda pulling a prank on her roommate in college does not show that Amanda "staged" the murder scene in Italy. One thing for sure, the prank did not involve a rape as has been told for years.

 

[Antony]

When an organization has an important position to fill, they will often advertise the opening and then also compose a list of internal candidates, so they then have two lists to work with: internal candidates and external candidates. Internal candidates are already known, so they have a natural advantage.

This is a factor in suspecting people close to the victim. They are real multi-dimentional people. They are known, knowable, and observable early on, versus someone unidentified (non-existent).

You almost make it sound like that justifies police arresting someone at random without looking for where the evidence leads. My point is that in many cases of miscarriages of justice, that's exactly what it looks like.

 

[Bill Williams]

Isn’t the success of a prank whether everyone involved views it as a prank? What if the target doesn’t see the funny side of it, what if they are upset by the actions of others?

For example, locking some in a cupboard as a prank might be funny to the group, but if the target person is claustrophobic would they see the funny side of things?

My word. We're not going to discuss this seriously are we?

It is telling the evolution of this particular factoid, as used by guilters. At first this was supposed to have been a "rape-prank", all with the goal of smearing Amanda Knox - showing she had a predisposition towards sexual violence towards others.

This was bandied about for years, until someone actually found the citation Amanda herself provided, with a one-line social media explanation for what had happened. Knox never once tried to hide that this had been, in essence, a very typical (and perhaps lame) April fools prank.

So, instead of arguing Time-of-Death based on stomach contents - where others pull out their credentials as a chef to suggest they know something about stomach-content-science - we're now far, far, far away from anything to do with this crime.

I suppose the good thing is that guilters have now given up on the "rape-prank" factoid.... about which this episode used-to-be-about for them... although why do I get the feeling that eventually Knox is going to be accused of two things - Gee, she did a simulated break-in prank (with others) as well as a rape prank....

..... that's how these factoids work. That's how "all the other evidence" works, esp. when rumour and misdirection are used to uphold it.

Look how this Steven Wentworth fellow folds in other factoids.... the noise ticket, for example.

Soon, they will be bringing back Amanda going to a Halloween party on 2011 dressed as her favourite Seattle Sounder soccer player... which, of course, guilters transformed into her being dressed as a burglar with the sole purpose of dissing Meredith and her family.

Enough is enough. It is clear that there is a well-organized, PR campaign to smear Knox's reputation, with Raffaele being all but forgotten.

Have you seen Harry Rag's tweets where he promises a Jan 30 avalanche of stuff against Knox?

This has to stop.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Well certainly there is that. When I was attending the UW, the same school as Amanda, people were always pulling pranks on others. For example, we stole my roommates car while he was at work and put it in the common room at our dorm. My roommate totally freaked out and even called the police. He was so mad at me and the others that pulled this prank on him that he didn't speak to me for a week. It was funny, but not to him.

Some times pranks go to far and people get hurt. I'm not sure this prank even qualifies as that. But Meredith's murder wasn't a prank and Amanda pulling a prank on her roommate in college does not show that Amanda "staged" the murder scene in Italy. One thing for sure, the prank did not involve a rape as has been told for years.

I wasn’t suggesting that Amanda did anything more than what I got up to whilst at university although the example I gave almost got me and others kicked out when the parents of the guy we locked in the cupboard complained, unbeknownst to us this guy was claustrophobic, despite his pleas to us we didn’t take him seriously. There was no malice, or intent to hurt the guy it was just a prank.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My word. We're not going to discuss this seriously are we?

It is telling the evolution of this particular factoid, as used by guilters. At first this was supposed to have been a "rape-prank", all with the goal of smearing Amanda Knox - showing she had a predisposition towards sexual violence towards others.

This was bandied about for years, until someone actually found the citation Amanda herself provided, with a one-line social media explanation for what had happened. Knox never once tried to hide that this had been, in essence, a very typical (and perhaps lame) April fools prank.

So, instead of arguing Time-of-Death based on stomach contents - where others pull out their credentials as a chef to suggest they know something about stomach-content-science - we're now far, far, far away from anything to do with this crime.

I suppose the good thing is that guilters have now given up on the "rape-prank" factoid.... about which this episode used-to-be-about for them... although why do I get the feeling that eventually Knox is going to be accused of two things - Gee, she did a simulated break-in prank (with others) as well as a rape prank....

..... that's how these factoids work. That's how "all the other evidence" works, esp. when rumour and misdirection are used to uphold it.

Look how this Steven Wentworth fellow folds in other factoids.... the noise ticket, for example.

Soon, they will be bringing back Amanda going to a Halloween party on 2011 dressed as her favourite Seattle Sounder soccer player... which, of course, guilters transformed into her being dressed as a burglar with the sole purpose of dissing Meredith and her family.

Enough is enough. It is clear that there is a well-organized, PR campaign to smear Knox's reputation, with Raffaele being all but forgotten.

Have you seen Harry Rag's tweets where he promises a Jan 30 avalanche of stuff against Knox?

This has to stop.

Gosh Bill! May I refer you to post #2184, isn’t any wonder only a very small group of people post on this thread anymore?

 

[Rolfe]

That particular attempt at a argument was one of the poorer ones I've read in recent times. And totally unsupported with evidence, of course. When one reads "arguments" such as that one, one does begin to think that, in some people's eyes, the defence of a particular position at all costs is more important than a rational, objective analysis of whether that position is correct/supportable.

It happens.

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

I wasn’t suggesting that Amanda did anything more than what I got up to whilst at university although the example I gave almost got me and others kicked out when the parents of the guy we locked in the cupboard complained, unbeknownst to us this guy was claustrophobic, despite his pleas to us we didn’t take him seriously. There was no malice, or intent to hurt the guy it was just a prank.

No, I get it Coulsdon, I wasn't saying you. At all. There have been others that have suggested that this prank shows that Amanda had "practice" in staging a burglary.

I'm just very tired of the innuendo crap about Amanda. I have a tendency to slap down even the mildest of comments that gives credence to the crazies. Your comment wasn't really that. But it sort of echos the most recent of the attacks on Amanda even though it really wasn't one.

 

[andreajo]

Isn’t the success of a prank whether everyone involved views it as a prank? What if the target doesn’t see the funny side of it, what if they are upset by the actions of others?
For example, locking some in a cupboard as a prank might be funny to the group, but if the target person is claustrophobic would they see the funny side of things?

Certainly it is. I don't think that anybody (including Amanda) is trying to say that the April Fool's prank was successful. She mentions apologies for the upset caused.

I just wanted to add that Amanda is not only on trial for murder. She seems to also be undergoing a public trial for every ill-advised thing she has ever said or done. She is on trial for things she has done that people think she should not have done and for thing she hasn't done that people think she should have done. She is on trial for her looks, the way she dresses, her quirks, and the way she expresses herself verbally and in writing. If she doesn't try to explain things, she is hiding something. If she does try to explain things, what she says is exploded beyond all sense of reason and proportion and given a meaning which just is not there.

To get an idea of how that might feel, try to imagine an ongoing public discussion of every stupid thing you ever said or did before the age of 21 where a significant number of energetic participants in the discussion are extremely ill-disposed toward you and really won't listen to what you are trying to say.

As far as I am concerned, Amanda is comporting herself with openness and dignity in an extremely stressful and frustrating situation.

 

[andreajo]

CoulsdonUK, my preceding rant is meant to be general, not directed at you. Grinder will tell you that I do go bananas from time to time. This may be one of those times.

 

[acbytesla]

I just wanted to add that Amanda is not only on trial for murder. She seems to also be undergoing a public trial for every ill-advised thing she has ever said or done. She is on trial for things she has done that people think she should not have done and for thing she hasn't done that people think she should have done. She is on trial for her looks, the way she dresses, her quirks, and the way she expresses herself verbally and in writing. If she doesn't try to explain things, she is hiding something. If she does try to explain things, what she says is exploded beyond all sense of reason and proportion and given a meaning which just is not there.

To get an idea of how that might feel, try to imagine an ongoing public discussion of every stupid thing you ever said or did before the age of 21 where a significant number of energetic participants in the discussion are extremely ill-disposed toward you and really won't listen to what you are trying to say.

As far as I am concerned, Amanda is comporting herself with openness and dignity in an extremely stressful and frustrating situation.

Here here, Andrea. Well said.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the motivations report from the CSC

LashL,

With respect to the role of the Florence court one translation of the motivations report from the CSC reads, "The outcome of such an organic evaluation will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of possible scenarios, going from an original plan to kill to a change in the plan which was initially aimed only at involving the young English girl in a sexual game against her will to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild group erotic game which violently took another course, getting out of control."

The other translation reads, "The outcome of this assessment will be crucial not only to osmotically demonstrate the presence of the two defendants in the locus delicti commissi, but possibly to delineate the subjective position of the co-conspirators of Guede, in the face of the range of hypothetical situations, ranging from agreement on genetic option of death, to the modification of a program that initially contemplated only the involvement of the young English woman in an unwanted sex game, to the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control."

I am very concerned about this passage. It seems to me that the CSC is telling the Florence court to convict the pair of something, and the only latitude revolves around the relative culpability of Guede versus the pair.

 

[Strozzi]

You almost make it sound like that justifies police arresting someone at random without looking for where the evidence leads. My point is that in many cases of miscarriages of justice, that's exactly what it looks like.

No, I wasn't trying to justify it in any way. I think that it is just easier (and reckless) for police to focus on a real person in front of them and think of the person suspiciously than some unknown, ambiguous, shapeless person.

Police saw Amanda, talked with her, learned more about her from questioning others, knew she naturally possessed the front door key, assumed or were told she was flighty, perceived her as physically attractive or sexy, American. Easier to think of her, a real three-dimensional, flesh and blood person in front of them, rather than think of someone not known, non-existent.

The police could also think about Filomena and Laura this way as real, three-dimensional people, but they had alibis that were confirmed by multiple other people and verifiable by other means.

 

[Bill Williams]

Gosh Bill! May I refer you to post #2184, isn’t any wonder only a very small group of people post on this thread anymore?

Apologies for going off on you like that. Please consider, though, that as andreajo says, if Knox rushed across a street to help an old lady who had fallen, someone on Harry Rag's side of the fence would say, "Look at that dirty slut jaywalker!"

It gets tiresome, which is also part of the reason IMO why so few post here.

Here we are talking about our own pranking experiences, all the while Rudy Guede has a history of breaking and entering, and for some reason some still think of the break-in through Filomena's window as staged!!! Oh look, Knox once participated in a prank! That must trump Rudy's background!

Point is... what honours Meredith more? Solving her horrible murder, or this continuing bullying of some random Seattleite? The dirty jaywalker....

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK, my preceding rant is meant to be general, not directed at you. Grinder will tell you that I do go bananas from time to time. This may be one of those times.

Same here, although Grinder will tell you I go bananas all the time.

 

[Grinder]

It's a shame then that they are either so intellectually deficient or so biased (or both) to make that illogical leap.

It's not even as if there's any suggestion (even by prosecutors) that the "staged" break-in came before the attack.

The concept is that she was prone to pranks and that she had one in mind for Meredith which involved scaring her with the big knife she wouldn't recognize, but things went sideways and she was killed.

Amanda's non-criminal April Fool's prank is considered evidence of murder, while Rudy's criminal burglaries are not.

This is just so sad, and proves once more that they don't care one iota about Meredith. They are just out to get Amanda,
-

Yes funny how they don't like Rudy's history and break-in MO.

I doubt the US allows coerced statements to be used as evidence. The question is, what's the standard for a showing of coercion.

Precisely.

Can you imagine the reaction on the tjmk/pmf hate sites if Amanda had committed burglaries prior to Meredith's murder and threatened someone with a knife. If Rudy received a ticket for a noise violation or carried out a prank, the nutjobs on the hate sites would not say anything about it.

yup

Isn’t the success of a prank whether everyone involved views it as a prank? What if the target doesn’t see the funny side of it, what if they are upset by the actions of others?

For example, locking some in a cupboard as a prank might be funny to the group, but if the target person is claustrophobic would they see the funny side of things?

I think only prank 'professionals' could 'enjoy' a prank. Pranks are intended to cause pain of one level or another. I was pushed into my junior high school locker by my assigned bully locker partner. I was claustrophobic and viewed it as a respite from being punched by said locker partner. It wasn't funny in any way.

Well certainly there is that. When I was attending the UW, the same school as Amanda, people were always pulling pranks on others. For example, we stole my roommates car while he was at work and put it in the common room at our dorm. My roommate totally freaked out and even called the police. He was so mad at me and the others that pulled this prank on him that he didn't speak to me for a week. It was funny, but not to him.

It wasn't funny Tesla. How does causing severe stress and panic in someone seem 'funny'? Do you think it is funny when someone really has their car stolen? Cause it is the same feeling for the owner.

Some times pranks go to far and people get hurt. I'm not sure this prank even qualifies as that. But Meredith's murder wasn't a prank and Amanda pulling a prank on her roommate in college does not show that Amanda "staged" the murder scene in Italy. One thing for sure, the prank did not involve a rape as has been told for years.

Do you really think she would say it was a fake rape? It's too bad it happened at all and even worse that she would choose to release this account now.

It is telling the evolution of this particular factoid, as used by guilters. At first this was supposed to have been a "rape-prank", all with the goal of smearing Amanda Knox - showing she had a predisposition towards sexual violence towards others.

This was bandied about for years, until someone actually found the citation Amanda herself provided, with a one-line social media explanation for what had happened. Knox never once tried to hide that this had been, in essence, a very typical (and perhaps lame) April fools prank.

Here's one comment from the Slog - Knox once got a bunch of her friends to dress up in ski masks and break into her apartment and assault her roomates as an "april fools" joke. She's guilty and *********** nuts.
Posted by Joh | December 2, 2007 2:50 PM

and One of my co-workers shared a room with her before she ran off to Italy, and now he sleeps on the bed she gave him when she left. I told him he should put it on ebay and proclaim it is the site of "a hundred terrible sex acts". Gotta be worth millions.
Posted by Joh | November 14, 2007 4:39 PM​

I suppose the good thing is that guilters have now given up on the "rape-prank" factoid.... about which this episode used-to-be-about for them... although why do I get the feeling that eventually Knox is going to be accused of two things - Gee, she did a simulated break-in prank (with others) as well as a rape prank....

Too bad this post wasn't from the prankee.

I wasn’t suggesting that Amanda did anything more than what I got up to whilst at university although the example I gave almost got me and others kicked out when the parents of the guy we locked in the cupboard complained, unbeknownst to us this guy was claustrophobic, despite his pleas to us we didn’t take him seriously. There was no malice, or intent to hurt the guy it was just a prank.

Of course malice was intended. Do you have an alibi for Nov. 1, 2007?

I just wanted to add that Amanda is not only on trial for murder. She seems to also be undergoing a public trial for every ill-advised thing she has ever said or done. She is on trial for things she has done that people think she should not have done and for thing she hasn't done that people think she should have done. She is on trial for her looks, the way she dresses, her quirks, and the way she expresses herself verbally and in writing. If she doesn't try to explain things, she is hiding something. If she does try to explain things, what she says is exploded beyond all sense of reason and proportion and given a meaning which just is not there.


As far as I am concerned, Amanda is comporting herself with openness and dignity in an extremely stressful and frustrating situation.

Yup it sucks but that's life. They hired Marriott but seemingly decide on their own how to release and when to release statements. They went against their lawyers' advice early with media appearances etc.

Same here, although Grinder will tell you I go bananas all the time.

I told Marriott 'pay peanuts get monkeys' but obviously he didn't listen.

This prank information is unfortunate at this time even if a rational look at it comes away with nothing incriminating.

 

[kwill]

I just wanted to add that Amanda is not only on trial for murder. She seems to also be undergoing a public trial for every ill-advised thing she has ever said or done. She is on trial for things she has done that people think she should not have done and for thing she hasn't done that people think she should have done. She is on trial for her looks, the way she dresses, her quirks, and the way she expresses herself verbally and in writing. If she doesn't try to explain things, she is hiding something. If she does try to explain things, what she says is exploded beyond all sense of reason and proportion and given a meaning which just is not there.

To get an idea of how that might feel, try to imagine an ongoing public discussion of every stupid thing you ever said or did before the age of 21 where a significant number of energetic participants in the discussion are extremely ill-disposed toward you and really won't listen to what you are trying to say.

As far as I am concerned, Amanda is comporting herself with openness and dignity in an extremely stressful and frustrating situation.

That's exactly how I see it. I also think that the accusation that she "changed her story" is absurd and vicious. There was no particular reason for either Amanda or Raffaele to know the precise details of what they had done during the 24 hours preceding the discovery of Meredith's body.

Nobody can give that kind of precise accounting about a particular day that was essentially the same as the other days preceding it. If someone spent a few days questioning me repeatedly about the exact timing of what I was up to yesterday, asking the questions in different ways, repeating the questions and pretending they knew something I had forgotten, I'm perfectly sure it would appear that "my story changed."

 

[RandyN]

Marriott seems to have lost control of the Supertanker...The only statements being released should come from the defense attorneys and be about the instant case. Although these sub-standard attorneys do give one pause about even that.

I agree with LashL... the sentencing date announced for 30 January seems ominous...even if in a Freudian sort of way. The emperor appears to have given the thumbs down.

 

[RandyN]

The problem of course with Skeptical Bystander's theory is that it is wild speculation. There is no relationship of any kind to Rudy. There is no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele were taking any drugs other than some grass. Amanda is not a saint, she admitted to having casual sex but beyond that and a little cannabis she is nothing like Skeptical Bystander.

Right! It's not like Knox ever stalked a neighbors house and then admitted it on her and Michael's (still together back then IIRC) blog. I think the proof was some sort of accounting of shrubbery. But no...that cant make Peg a confirmed whack job right?

ETA...this site should have like buttons ala FB ...that would be great!

 

[RandyN]

Thanks, Randy. I am sure both Mach and Grinder will appreciate a chance to correct me.

You know truthfully I was trying to get Grinder going about Candace. Turns out my memory slightly failed me and since I was too lazy to look up the original article... Guess what? It was Seattlepi and A Vogt. (not sure which A Vogt but one of the 3 for sure) Here is the linky poo to that Hellmann mention.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Change-of-judge-adds-questions-to-Knox-s-appeal-777351.php

 

[RandyN]

There was a time when any comments-section discussion on false confessions would be interrupted by some PGP contributor declaring that Amanda made an "accusation, not a confession". The critical point on the statements of November 5-6 is that they are easily-recognisable as coerced false statements.

Since such statements are typically confessions, and indeed Amanda allegedly "confessed" to being at the murder scene, the distinction is meaningless. Any statement resulting from an interrogation of this nature has to be regarded as the work of the interrogators alone.

Especially if you consider the fact that whatever one chooses to call these things from the middle of the night or early morning 6 Nov 2007 which where typed out in Italian and plopped in front of the abused and beaten girl for her to sign...I don't think "confession" would be included. I doubt statement would fit. Perhaps a multiple choice, fill in the blank, true or false or guess sort of test or statement perhaps?

Its interesting to consider and study why exactly the police and prosecutor needed two different documents. One at 1:45 and another at 5:45 or whatever. The wording is similar and yet different but only in a legalize sort of way. Certainly not any statements a native English speaker would ever make or use. These were native Italian words being tortured into some sort of statement form so that they could lock up a innocent person. They would figure out the details later.

But the SC ruled these statements to be unusable presumably because they were obtained illegally and yet they remain in the case. The fact that Lumumba is represented in Florence is proof that Italian courts are corrupt fixed jokes pretending to do law. They don't even bother or try to thinly veil the farce. Its open for the world to view. If the world will take the time to actually look is the question. So far that answer has been no.