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

[Samson]

-

Rudy on the other hand looks like a really nice guy to me. I guess that's why I can't stop believing he didn't intentionally kill Meredith. I think it was an accident, but all of this is just my opinion,


-

This seems wildly inconsistent with the lone killer thesis. He has withheld the narrative and precise details of this accident, thus maliciously conspiring to consign A and R to three trials and imprisonment, at vast cost to their families and his adoptive country, in exchange for the self interest of early release and a teaching career.

No more mister nice guy

 

[Dougm]

At least five people were involved directly in the prank, and at least one more person proved she knew it, since posted about it on a forum.
At five or six people means five or six families, and means the close friends of five or six people.
This means a community.
You say that after Knox's arrest, none of these people and their friend ever talked about what they "knew" about Knox, with anybody? It's not credible.
If nobody talks in the open, is because nobody wants to talk. Because somehow feels that talking would look bad, against a tacit social feeling, against a quietly accepted agreement. The person who posted even remained anonymous.
It's obvious that people of this community didn't like to talk about some things regarding Knox. And it's obvious that there is a common implicit agreement about this.

All of this is to deflect attention to the fact that the PG community embellished (meaning lied about) the story, changing it to make it something even the original, anonymous poster never said it was (a "rape" prank). And now Amanda is being deceptive if she doesn't explicitly deny something that was made up by anonymous internet posters, who also speculate about other things they have no evidence she ever did?

Oh, and she DID explicitly deny it, even though there was no reason to do so. I see that as the sign of someone who is being a lot more honest than the people that toss made up accusations at her.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

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. -Joh

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. - Joh

Joh was contacted by Peggy but refused to comment further or give names of these people.

One reason I doubted his account was that she didn't live in an apartment before she left for Italy but rather a house. I still am not aware that she 'shared' a room with some unnamed female in that house on twelfth.

The PGP spent years on what they termed a 'rape prank'.

I'm not sure that I bothered to call Joh a liar but it would seem he was blowing it out his ass.

I think pranks are stupid. I'm not a fan.
Do you really think she should have made a statement in court about this event? Do you think that she was even aware that two comments had been left on a Muede post on the Slog?

I'm surprised that Muede's connection to the guy who died while having sex with a horse wasn't connected to Raf and his love of animal porn. See the movie Zoo.

I find it interesting that people from the birthplace of the mafia and fascism would label Seattle as some center of evil.

-

I'm not a big fan either. I think it's a kind of bullying.

And if Amanda did actually say no one was harmed, she's not really the one to decide that and she is wrong about it. The only person who gets to decide that is the person being pranked, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

At least five people were involved directly in the prank, and at least one more person proved she knew it, since posted about it on a forum.
At five or six people means five or six families, and means the close friends of five or six people.
This means a community.
You say that after Knox's arrest, none of these people and their friend ever talked about what they "knew" about Knox, with anybody? It's not credible. If nobody talks in the open, is because nobody wants to talk. Because somehow feels that talking would look bad, against a tacit social feeling, against a quietly accepted agreement. The person who posted even remained anonymous.
It's obvious that people of this community didn't like to talk about some things regarding Knox. And it's obvious that there is a common implicit agreement about this.

You are kidding, right?

Dude, this was an April Fool's prank! It was not the night of the long knives in Germany!

This is pure dietrology.

 

[Skind]

At least five people were involved directly in the prank, and at least one more person proved she knew it, since posted about it on a forum.
At five or six people means five or six families, and means the close friends of five or six people.
This means a community.
You say that after Knox's arrest, none of these people and their friend ever talked about what they "knew" about Knox, with anybody? It's not credible.
If nobody talks in the open, is because nobody wants to talk. Because somehow feels that talking would look bad, against a tacit social feeling, against a quietly accepted agreement. The person who posted even remained anonymous.
It's obvious that people of this community didn't like to talk about some things regarding Knox. And it's obvious that there is a common implicit agreement about this.

No, no-one is saying Knox's community didn't talk. They did. Repeatedly. It was overwhelmingly positive about Knox. Some even travelled to a different continent at great expense in order to talk about Knox.

Implicitly agreeing to refuse to bring out irrelevant and harmless information about someone in order to avoid it being badly manipulated, thereby protecting someone from salacious, malacious and undeserved harm because a random person decided to perpetrate an untrue and unfounded rumour is common behaviour.

That behaviour has a name.

It is not Omerta.

It is called friendship.
It is called family.
It is called community.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

This seems wildly inconsistent with the lone killer thesis. He has withheld the narrative and precise details of this accident, thus maliciously conspiring to consign A and R to three trials and imprisonment, at vast cost to their families and his adoptive country, in exchange for the self interest of early release and a teaching career.

No more mister nice guy

-

Yeah I know, but it's hard to get past those nice good looks and believe he's evil like that.

Also (on a side note), since Rudy won't say what actually happened that night in full detail, doesn't that make him a liar, at least according to Mach's definition of "Omerta"?

Just curious,

d

ETA, I kinda like this "Omerta" thing in a way. It's really a two edged sword and not exclusive to the silent Seattle "prank" people.
-

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
It leaves it vague what is meant by assault. Knox makes it clear that no one was harmed.

Everytime you make a claim about what Knox did/did not say, it's really easy to go to the source and see - quite, quite clearly - that you claim she did not say is there front and centre, and what you claim she definetly did say if conspicious by its absence.

You forget that anyone here can check to see if what you say is true. So far, it hasn't been.

It has been always true and your report confirms it, you just don't admit it.
For instance. Knox is asked if she asked someone wearing ski masks; she does not say she assaulted anyone nor denies it; she says that no-one was harmed. She 'answers' mentioning something that did not happen. Her answer was a negative statement, thus offering minimal information, it is not a description of what she did.
It's reminds me of Michael Jackson, when, in an interview, he was asked if he had sexual intercourses with children; his response was "I never absolutely never committed any act of violence on a child". But the interviewer didn't ask him whether he committed violence, she asked him whether he had sex wth children. He answered just mentioning something else, denying something else, downplaying something, thus he gave the impression that he was implicitly admitting it and thus his was actually a half amission, a hiding of part of the truth.

 

[Dan O.]

Rudy on the other hand looks like a really nice guy to me. I guess that's why I can't stop believing he didn't intentionally kill Meredith. I think it was an accident, but all of this is just my opinion,

d

Do you also believe that it was just an accident that Rudy didn't know where a phone was to call the Italian medical emergency services?

I had no trouble finding a phone and I had never been there. I simply posited that there ought to be a phone in front of the school and a quick look in Google street view found it near the front of the news kiosk beside the basketball court where he hung out.

Of course, if Rudy were to ask Alessia at the news stand for change to use the phone she would probably react saying "Oh, no. Not again!"

 

[Bill Williams]

No, no-one is saying Knox's community didn't talk. They did. Repeatedly. It was overwhelmingly positive about Knox. Some even travelled to a different continent at great expense in order to talk about Knox.

Implicitly agreeing to refuse to bring out irrelevant and harmless information about someone in order to avoid it being badly manipulated, thereby protecting someone from salacious, malacious and undeserved harm because a random person decided to perpetrate an untrue and unfounded rumour is common behaviour.

That behaviour has a name.

It is not Omerta.

It is called friendship.
It is called family.
It is called community.

When all one has is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.

Remember when Machiavelli said that Amanda and her mother (based on secret police recordings of them) spoke in Mafia Code? Who on earth other than an Italian heavy with confirmation bias would even think of such a thing, and apply it to two people from Seattle!?

Now it's Omerta.

Omertà (/ɵˈmɛərtə/; Italian pronunciation: [omerˈta]) is a cultural attitude and code of honour that places heavy importance on a deep-rooted "code of silence", non-cooperation with authorities, and non-interference in the illegal (and legal) actions of others. It originated and remains very common in Corsica and Southern Italy where Mafia-type criminal organizations such as the Cosa Nostra, 'Ndrangheta, Sacra Corona Unita, and Camorra are strong. It also exists to a lesser extent in certain Italian-American neighborhoods where the Italian-American Mafia has influence and other Italian ethnic enclaves in countries such as Germany, Canada, and Australia, where Italian organized crime exists.

Prejudice and retaliation against informers who invoke authority is common in criminal circles

The "authorities" do not investigate April Fool's pranks. For one thing, there simply are not enough "authorities" these things are so common.

Unless the "authorities" Machiavelli refers to are guilters/haters.... these "authorities" for years talked of this prank as a "rape prank"... which, perhaps, would have been investigated or reported.

This is making a mountain out of a molehill...... Omertà? Because of an April Fools prank? Really!?!?

Who thinks this way other than a guilter/hater?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

It is not Omerta.

It is called friendship.
It is called family.
It is called community.

I know the mantra. I know it exactly because I know the places where the word omertà is from.

There is absolutely no mafia. Only 'family', friendship and community.

Nobody accepts to be called omertoso - how inspector Volturno called Sollecito's high school headmaster - they are friendly loyal or grateful to their community.
So the records of what serial killer Danilo Restivo did while he was a schoolboy disappeared from the memory of his acquaintances in the southern city of Potenza; the records of episodes of Sollecito's endeavours and habits (like when he wounded a girl with a pair of scissors) apparently disappeared too from the memory of the people of Giovinazzo.

What do you think the credibility of all this looks like?
You are really trying to convince me about the moral tansparency of your community?

 

[Bill Williams]

I know the mantra. I know it exactly because I know the places where the word omertà is from.

There is absolutely no mafia. Only 'family', friendship and community.

Nobody accepts to be called omertoso - how inspector Volturno called Sollecito's high school headmaster - they are friendly loyal or grateful to their community.
So the records of what serial killer Danilo Restivo did while he was a schoolboy disappeared from the memory of his acquaintances in the southern city of Potenza; the records of episodes of Sollecito's endeavours and habits (like when he wounded a girl with a pair of scissors) apparently disappeared too from the memory of the people of Giovinazzo.

What do you think the credibility of all this looks like?
You are really trying to convince me about the moral tansparency of your community?

IMO no one is trying to convince you of anything. The purpose of responding is to show to the casual reader here how ludicrous it is to interpret people from Seattle in Italian terms, and not just Italian terms, but in a consistent Italian conspiratorializing.

Seeing the world through the eyes of mafia or Omertà and applying it to Seattle and an April Fools prank simply strains seriousness or credibility.

You certainly have a right to express yourself the way you say fit. Everyone else has to the right to read it for what it is. Complete confirmation bias.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Do you also believe that it was just an accident that Rudy didn't know where a phone was to call the Italian medical emergency services?
I had no trouble finding a phone and I had never been there. I simply posited that there ought to be a phone in front of the school and a quick look in Google street view found it near the front of the news kiosk beside the basketball court where he hung out.

Of course, if Rudy were to ask Alessia at the news stand for change to use the phone she would probably react saying "Oh, no. Not again!"

-

I try to distance myself from my personal opinion when I try to critically think things through, but with that in mind, to answer your highlighted
question; I think it's possible, just not highly probable that he didn't know where a phone was. Hell, I'm sure one of those disco clubs he went dancing to afterwards had some kind of phone service,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - I have noted that guilters and haters are rude. How do I know this?

They continually act out of "yobisute", which is literally the Japanese practise of "dropping the name honourific", a sign of rudeness for sure.

If you get to judge Seattleites as to Omertà, I get to judge guilters and haters from "yobisute".

 

[Skind]

It has been always true and your report confirms it, you just don't admit it.
For instance. Knox is asked if she asked someone wearing ski masks; she does not say she assaulted anyone nor denies it; she says that no-one was harmed. She 'answers' mentioning something that did not happen. Her answer was a negative statement, thus offering minimal information, it is not a description of what she did.
It's reminds me of Michael Jackson, when, in an interview, he was asked if he had sexual intercourses with children; his response was "I never absolutely never committed any act of violence on a child". But the interviewer didn't ask him whether he committed violence, she asked him whether he had sex wth children. He answered just mentioning something else, denying something else, downplaying something, thus he gave the impression that he was implicitly admitting it and thus his was actually a half amission, a hiding of part of the truth.

Your comparison is false.

MJ's denial does not, as a subset of that denial, require that consensual sexual intercourse did not happen.

However, as non-consensual sexual intercourse is a subset of violence, his denial is functionally equivilant to a denial of non-consensual intercourse.

Of course, that's not to defend MJ by any means.

Ski masks would be a subset of costume, if worn in this context, this Knox denial tells us that she is asserting no one was wearing ski masks. If they were, her assertion could not be true. This is not vague. In the context she was responding to "ski masks" would be functionally equivilant to "costume".

Knox stated that no one was harmed. That requires that no-one was assualted, as assualted in common parlance requires the infliction of harm to another individual. Thus Knox's "no one was harmed statement" is functionally equivilant to a "no one was assaulted" statement.

Knox's statements are clear in context and content. Your inability to parse them correctly as they would be used by a primary-language American-English speaker and in context is your fault, not hers or anyone elses.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

IMO no one is trying to convince you of anything. The purpose of responding is to show to the casual reader here how ludicrous it is to interpret people from Seattle in Italian terms, and not just Italian terms, but in a consistent Italian conspiratorializing.

Seeing the world through the eyes of mafia or Omertà and applying it to Seattle and an April Fools prank simply strains seriousness or credibility.

You certainly have a right to express yourself the way you say fit. Everyone else has to the right to read it for what it is. Complete confirmation bias.

-

Seattle has a pretty diverse population, but I don't think there's a very large population of Italians here. It used to have a large Scadinavian population, especially in places like Ballard. It's still a significant presence here, but also a very significant Asian and Hispanic population.

Now back East, where I'm originally from (Providence, RI), there's an area there called "Federal Hill" which is "suppose" to be mostly Italian, and at one time it was (Providence has a long list of Mayors that were Italian, anyone who lives there now would recognize the name Cianci), but now it's a little more diverse. Now back there I would believe the Mafioso talk, but here, I just don't see it,

d

-

 

[Skind]

I know the mantra. I know it exactly because I know the places where the word omertà is from.

There is absolutely no mafia. Only 'family', friendship and community.

This may be why you're struggling so much to see it as anything other than Omerta - the idea that Omerta might not be culturally relevant to a Seattle suburb community is alien to you.

You simply cannot think any other way.

You are really trying to convince me about the moral tansparency of your community?

It's not my community. I don't have any tangible connection to anyone involved with the case whether victim, family, suspect, police, lawyer, technician, actual real world proper Doctor.

I'm simply pointing out that stating that an event that did not happen, did not happen places no obligation to speak up about an unrelated event. This is especially true when doing so would inevitably, predictably and unavoidably lead to false, salacious, malicious, unearned and untrue interpretations of that information.

The moral obligation to defend Knox from undue harm far outweighs your misguided curiousity in a run-of-the-mill student prank. The fact is, people from Knox's community did speak - to defend her.

All of your comparisons have been false, and obviously so.

Your attempts to distort reality would be comparable to being accused of sleeping with someone's wife, denying it, and then someone saying that because I slept with my own wife, that I must have slept with yet another persons wife.

No one had any obligation to talk about the actual real world prank when other people were talking about the clearly made-up prank (seriously, it's cookie-cutter false story stuff) in the same way they had no obligation to mention Knox's tampon size when talking about her vibrator.

It's simply not relevant. You simply have no right to know. No one has any obligation to tell you.

 

[Briars]

The funny thing about the prank is even though PG people were aware of the rumor it was always just that with them. Yes Peggy contacted Joh who made the post a month after the murder , but it went no further. It was one of those make of it what you will it can't be verified. Very little was made of the prank rumor it was off the radar hence the surprise to learn there was truth to it. Forget even the unverified assualt portion of the prank , staged robbery is enough.
I like many others was surprised to learn that a robbery prank was confirmed by Amanda. I can only guess that she was fully aware denial on her public blog might cause others to come forward. There was an angry response by several people to the poster who asked for the rumor to be verified or put to rest .

 

[AmyStrange]

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. -Joh

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. - Joh

Joh was contacted by Peggy but refused to comment further or give names of these people.

One reason I doubted his account was that she didn't live in an apartment before she left for Italy but rather a house. I still am not aware that she 'shared' a room with some unnamed female in that house on twelfth.

-

G,

I live in many college area houses where a group of people get together and rent a whole house, each one getting a room. I used to live on the "Ave" (University Way, near the UW) and there are many houses in the area that you can rent that way. Sometimes rooms are sublet to people outside of the leasees. Your friends story could be true from that aspect of it,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
It's simply not relevant. You simply have no right to know. No one has any obligation to tell you.

Those who "speak" - as you say to "defend" her - have a duty to speak about everything, if they want to be believed, or shut up about everything, without complaining about alleged incorrect reporting, without claiming any credibility when they point out alleged 'lies'. Even less if they should have the chutzpa to jump out to accuse other people (witnesses etc.) or other communities. If they think others have no right to know, they better shut up. About everything.

Do you understand that all what you said, just confirms, just means nothing else but the people from that community are in fact cheaters and have zero credibility?

 

[Bill Williams]

The funny thing about the prank is even though PG people were aware of the rumor it was always just that with them. Yes Peggy contacted Joh who made the post a month after the murder , but it went no further. It was one of those make of it what you will it can't be verified. Very little was made of the prank rumor it was off the radar hence the surprise to learn there was truth to it. Forget even the unverified assualt portion of the prank , staged robbery is enough.
I like many others was surprised to learn that a robbery prank was confirmed by Amanda. I can only guess that she was fully aware denial on her public blog might cause others to come forward. There was an angry response by several people to the poster who asked for the rumor to be verified or put to rest .

Thanks for this, Briars. The is the closest thing to a genuine "other side of the story" that I have seen from, ah, er, the other side in a long time.

Still, there was no rape prank. The rumour as I always heard it, was of a rape prank, and guilters and haters always spun this as a predisposition for psychopathology for Knox. It's perhaps the very first factoid I ran into when first following this circa Aug 2011.

Well, almost the first - the other factoid was the "sex on a train" thing. Simply put, there was no sex on a train, no matter what Sharon Feinstein wrote....

Still, you bring up an important reminder for all - neither side is a giant monolith... perhaps it's true, for every guilter/hater who tried to spin this prank as a rape prank, there were perhaps three others who read about it and did as you suggest....

Truly though, it's not that big a deal and never was... whereas I can heartily (somewhat) agree with the first sentence... "I like many others was surprised to learn that a robbery prank was confirmed by Amanda," the innuendo of the second sentence, "I can only guess that she was fully aware denial on her public blog might cause others to come forward." is a little silly....

Come forward with what? That they'd done an April Fools prank?

It'd be like coming forward with a story that one had once told an off colour joke in class when they were in grade 12, and got sent to the office.... it's hardly something really to come forward, or not come forward about....

It's an April Fools prank, dude!

The only reason I could possibly see in this context for not coming forward is exactly what as happened, guilters and haters would be all over it like a cheap suit, reading all sorts of nefarious meaning into.....

....... AN APRIL FOOLS PRANK, for pete's sake!