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

[kwill]

I talking specifically about the morning of the discovery. The photos of her and RS. She appears to have not slept.

1. How do you know you've seen all the photos taken of her that morning?
2. Do you think it's possible that the editors of the papers who published the photographs you did see might have chosen them to create a certain effect?
3. How does one distinguish between the expression of a person experiencing an immediate trauma and that of one who has not slept the night before?

Once I was in a trauma center with my middle school aged daughters, being told that their dad (and my husband) had just suffered a catastrophic injury. I'm dead certain that if someone had photographed us in the hours right after that, we all would have looked like we'd been up for days.

All I'm saying is, it's not really logical to draw any assumptions based on a set of photographs that may or may not represent anything. But I'm open to arguments about why I might be wrong.

 

[HotNostril]

Somehow Hot Nostril can tell from a couple of moments of video that Amanda didn't sleep the night before. See how it works? Hot Nostril is making what ordinarily be an innocent comment. But what she is really suggesting is that Amanda was up all night cleaning and freaked out from the experience and fear.

Clever and frankly disgusting. It is Hot Nostril's subliminal message. Hot Nostril can't tell that from that video. None of us can. She certainly doesn't look that way to me. She does seem out of it. But who wouldn't? That has to be the most surreal experience you could have. To come home and find your new roommate murdered and surrounded by two dozen people she doesn't' really know talking seriously in a language you barely understand.

Wow you certainly are presupposing a whole lot!

I was speaking of her physical appearance. Specifically the bags and puffiness.

I never claimed or even thought Knox exhibited fear or appeared freaked out. That's your imagination.

I simply replied to someone else's opinion.

 

[HotNostril]

1. How do you know you've seen all the photos taken of her that morning?

2. Do you think it's possible that the editors of the papers who published the photographs you did see might have chosen them to create a certain effect?

3. How does one distinguish between the expression of a person experiencing an immediate trauma and that of one who has not slept the night before?



Once I was in a trauma center with my middle school aged daughters, being told that their dad (and my husband) had just suffered a catastrophic injury. I'm dead certain that if someone had photographed us in the hours right after that, we all would have looked like we'd been up for days.



All I'm saying is, it's not really logical to draw any assumptions based on a set of photographs that may or may not represent anything. But I'm open to arguments about why I might be wrong.

I'm very sorry about your husband. I can't even imagine.

I agree. A photograph is merely a second in time captured.
I was simply giving my opinion based on my experiences.
I've done my share of not sleeping all night.
I've been emotionally devastated & have mourned & have sobbed for days.
She appears to me to have not slept. Her eyes, for such a young girl, look AWFUL.....
Who knows? Maybe she looks that bad every morning?

 

[HotNostril]

I was listening to a podcast. A woman called into the show. Let us call her "Kat"

Kat says that she was eight and a half months pregnant when her baby died.

A non believer, she could not go to God and Jesus for help.

All she could think about was that if she broke down, everybody around her would break down. As a result, Kat stayed firm, did not cry, and helped everybody else, even while she was delivering the dead body (she wanted a Vaginal Birth not a Cesarian because she did not want a scar reminding her of the horror)

Some people act different under stress.

That's the way I react under great emotionally difficult times. I only break down in private.

 

[kwill]

I've not heard one report that she cried. IIRC quite the contrary, people remarked that she did not.
So why the puffy exhausted looking eyes?

That's the way I react under great emotionally difficult times. I only break down in private.

You might have just answered your own question.

 

[acbytesla]

Wow you certainly are presupposing a whole lot!

I was speaking of her physical appearance. Specifically the bags and puffiness.

I never claimed or even thought Knox exhibited fear or appeared freaked out. That's your imagination.

I simply replied to someone else's opinion.

Ppppppuuuuuuuhhhhhhllleeeeeaaaasss!!!! ROFL WINK WINK.... We both know what you're comment is about. At least be honest with yourself.

What is consistent about the guilt perspective is viewing nuances in people's behavior. A belief that they can read people. They see and make guilt comments about crying or not crying or not sleeping or sleeping.

It's almost never about concrete evidence. It's almost always...reading tea leaves.

 

[HotNostril]

Ppppppuuuuuuuhhhhhhllleeeeeaaaasss!!!! ROFL WINK WINK.... We both know what you're comment is about. At least be honest with yourself.



What is consistent about the guilt perspective is viewing nuances in people's behavior. A belief that they can read people. They see and make guilt comments about crying or not crying or not sleeping or sleeping.



It's almost never about concrete evidence. It's almost always...reading tea leaves.

Oh the irony is rich!

Perhaps you should stop attempting to read my tea leaves

 

[HotNostril]

You might have just answered your own question.

I was talking about her physical appearance not her behavior.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's the way I react under great emotionally difficult times. I only break down in private.

So just simply give her a break. . . .
Don't just anything based on her emotional response.

Base your judgement on the actual physical evidence.
That evidence points to Guede as being the only perpetrator.

For that matter, She could be a spoiled brat and hated Meredeth.
Does not matter as long as she did not kill her.

 

[HotNostril]

So just simply give her a break. . . .

Don't just anything based on her emotional response.



Base your judgement on the actual physical evidence.

That evidence points to Guede as being the only perpetrator.



For that matter, She could be a spoiled brat and hated Meredeth.

Does not matter as long as she did not kill her.

"Give her a break"?


I can assure you my opinion of her doesn't effect her in any way, shape or form.

 

[anglolawyer]

Let me fill you in on what I recall Amanda wrote about the open front door. She was a bit concerned finding it open but knew it didn't lock right. She also thought perhaps one of her housemates had stepped out momentarily to take out the trash or visit the guys' place downstairs.

Pity, but we have lost track of why I brought this up. The question was, why would a guilty Amanda make up the story about the unlocked door? But hey, talk among yourselves, I don't mind. Really

As this has come up again recently, I'd like to repost where Massei describes the prosecution argument for the breaking of the glass. It starts with his argument that Sergent Pasquali's presentation showing how the glass was broken from a rock thrown from outside the cottage was not good enough so he came up with this gem instead. Here it is preserved in glorious wall of text style:

so the pane is only slightly ajar as I read that and you kind of hook your arm around to bash the glass from the far side thereby precisely fabricating what a throw from the outside would look like but overlooking that such a throw would be next to impossible with that 11" gap you failed to take into account and failing to consider the illogicity (copyright Mach) of the choice of window. Morons.

So I just discovered the cite where the famous "Harry" posts. I have been following this case for years and never knew that site and thread existed. Did that Harry dude really convince all those people that Amanda and Raphelle were guilty?

I read about 10 pages and was kinda shocked how many more guilters there were than I had previously thought. I'm not going to lie, it forces me to question my own beliefs when I see such a large number of individuals that are convinced of guilt. I do believe though, that no matter what, the amount of reasonable doubt in this case should be an acquittal in any western justice system. I guess I'm just confused now how that many seemingly educated and reasonable individuals can be so heavily convinced of guilt.

Argumentum ad populum?

Multiple reasons:
It is a horrific crime. Many believe that it cannot just be the work of one man. Similar lagic with the death of Kennedy, 9-11, Pearl Harbor, etc.
People have trouble believing that anybody would confess (even vaguely) to a crime when they are innocent
Have trouble believing that is can happen to an innocent person. Otherwise, they could see it catch them.
Simple respect for authoirity. They believe the authority must be right
I am sure there are others as well.

One man was responsible for Pearl Harbour? Wow! And 9-11 too? Maybe it was the same guy!

I don't think that's a uniquely female perspective, and I don't think it's only a matter of looking like a ninny. I'm a guy, and I think I and a lot of guys are also inclined to downplay a potential problem because the alternative is that we have to do something about it, and it might be something we can't fix. In this case, the choice is between "The crappy front door lock didn't latch" or "A bloodthirsty killer broke into the house." I'm gonna hold on to the first choice as long as I can.

Yes, but what about my question ....

We would eat him alive in a real debate.

He does not do 'real debate'. Harry has a whole armoury of sophisticated weaponry that precludes real debate.

I was talking about her physical appearance not her behavior.

Of course you were. You weren't by any means unintentionally disclosing that the sum total of your 'thinking' on this case is derived from a gut feeling that something about her just seems wrong.

 

[Samson]

Just a general question... that I am sure some of you have experience with.

What is it like going to a guilters message board and trying to argue the case for innocence?

You must not be able to last long.

Guilters never answer the detail of the question asked. Time of death is a classic. I once asked Harryrag about specifics of TOD, and he answered "Are you a gastronomist?" He would not engage on the subject again.

 

[anglolawyer]

Guilters never answer the detail of the question asked. Time of death is a classic. I once asked Harryrag about specifics of TOD, and he answered "Are you a gastronomist?" He would not engage on the subject again.

Next time, try lying and claiming to be one. See how his software is programmed to deal with that. Just for a laugh.

 

[davefoc]

Oh the irony is rich!

Perhaps you should stop attempting to read my tea leaves

FWIW, I sympathized with acbytesla's comment even while I think it wasn't an appropriate comment to make at this juncture.

There is a phenomena that has been alluded to often in this thread about a tendency for people that believe RS & AK are guilty to draw conclusions based on observations of expressions, emotions and actions unrelated to the murder. It appears to us that many of these observations are just exercises in confirmation bias reinforcement driven by illogical analysis.

While I think it is appropriate to make you aware that some of your comments seem to border on this kind of thing as some of us might see it, I disagreed a bit on acbytesla's take on you that this is necessarily what is going on here. I think you've been open about your possible biases with respect to this issue and you seem to have been open to a logical discussion of the issues in places. My sense of it also, was that you should be given the benefit of the doubt as a new poster in this forum and not have gotten the same kind of crap that is usually reserved for a more long term poster.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh the irony is rich!

Perhaps you should stop attempting to read my tea leaves

Why don't you talk about the DNA, or the fingerprints, or the shoe prints or the cellular phone calls or the CCTV cameras? No..instead you talk about ...she doesn't look like she got much sleep. A totally subjective observation which of course is not evidence that anyone should base their opinion...but still you mention it.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree. A photograph is merely a second in time captured.
I was simply giving my opinion based on my experiences.
I've done my share of not sleeping all night.
I've been emotionally devastated & have mourned & have sobbed for days.
She appears to me to have not slept. Her eyes, for such a young girl, look AWFUL.....
Who knows? Maybe she looks that bad every morning?

Maybe Raffaele hogs the covers? He wouldn't be used to sharing his bed. Maybe they did get up from time to time and...snuggled.

Then there's some going back and forth from Raffaele's and running around in and around the cottage panicked for a while.

She cried too as I recall after the door was opened and Meredith was discovered and Raffaele took her outside. That whole 'never crying' meme was ridiculous considering all the people who saw her crying. One look at her and you ought to be able to tell she's a crier. One girl who doesn't see her but for a little while tells the tabloids and a legend is born!

 

[AmyStrange]

Creepy and Sleepy

-

I think she looks as if she didn't get any sleep.
She looks pretty darn rough for such a young girl who supposedly got a good nights sleep.

-

Yeah, I see you got slammed just for making an observation also.

I personally think she looks like that a lot. It's her look, but the morning after the murder was the worse for her. She looks especially creepy to me that day.

You think she looks like she didn't get a good night's sleep. I think she looks like she heard something behind that door the night before which helped give her an even creepier look the next day. Some people say she looks like she just lost a friend. All of them are legitimate observations.

The bottom line is she's kind of creepy looking to some people and this doesn't help her case for innocence much, but it's still a legitimate observation, that unfortunately doesn't sit right with some people who are already jumpy from being steadily attacked here by the PGP camp.

All observations are always legitimate, as is yours and mine and everyone else's too; it's the conclusion jumping from there that someone is guilty of murder, that's not always legitimate, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[HotNostril]

FWIW, I sympathized with acbytesla's comment even while I think it wasn't an appropriate comment to make at this juncture.

There is a phenomena that has been alluded to often in this thread about a tendency for people that believe RS & AK are guilty to draw conclusions based on observations of expressions, emotions and actions unrelated to the murder. It appears to us that many of these observations are just exercises in confirmation bias reinforcement driven by illogical analysis.

While I think it is appropriate to make you aware that some of your comments seem to border on this kind of thing as some of us might see it, I disagreed a bit on acbytesla's take on you that this is necessarily what is going on here. I think you've been open about your possible biases with respect to this issue and you seem to have been open to a logical discussion of the issues in places. My sense of it also, was that you should be given the benefit of the doubt as a new poster in this forum and not have gotten the same kind of crap that is usually reserved for a more long term poster.

Why thank you, I appreciate your comments.

 

[davefoc]

Just a general question... that I am sure some of you have experience with.

What is it like going to a guilters message board and trying to argue the case for innocence?

You must not be able to last long.

I have never posted on one. I have happened on them occasionally when I have been searching the internet for something related to this case.

The last time that happened I was so grossed out that I could hardly stand to read anything. There was some sort of weird Guede wasn't that bad but Knox is horrible thing going on. Good friggin grief. A man that brutally raped and murdered Kercher wasn't all that bad but well Knox there's a really despicable human being? This might not have been a typical thread to look at but it was bad enough for me that I never wanted to even take another look at a guilter site let alone communicate with the people that participate in them.

I know this has been discussed before, but what in the world generates this anti-Knox mania. I look at her and see a woman with intelligence, discipline and courage. What in the world are other people seeing that I am missing?

 

[HotNostril]

-





-



Yeah, I see you got slammed just for making an observation also.



I personally think she looks like that a lot. It's her look, but the morning after the murder was the worse for her. She looks especially creepy to me that day.



You think she didn't get a good night's sleep. I think she heard something behind that door the night before which helped give her an even creepier look the next day. Some people say it's because she just lost a friend. All of them are legitimate observations.



The bottom line is she's kind of creepy looking to some people and this doesn't help her case for innocence much, but it's still just a legitimate observation, that unfortunately doesn't sit right with some people who are already jumpy from being steadily attacked here by the PGP camp.



All observations are always legitimate, it's the conclusion jumping from that, that's not always legitimate, in my opinion,



d



-

Agreed.

I will say that I find it incredibly difficult to ignore all of her behavior.
I make every possible conscious effort to not let it effect my thought process but I'm not always successful.

I have not discussed her behavior here.

I've been given much to think about and consider, and I'm doing that.

I've stated that I believe her to be a narcissist and that doesn't make her a murderer. It actually excuses much of her behavior.

Most of the time, I find her to be her own worst enemy. She really should just shut up and let others speak for her. She's not doing herself any favors.