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

[RoseMontague]

She looks sincere also when she says things in contradiction with what she said in her court testimony? And with what she said in her Dec. 17.th interrogation?

You have a transcript?

The fact that she claims of being interrogated by Mignini in her book, while instead she does not claim that at all in 2008 before judge Micheli - she says she only released a statement - nor ever in the trial, this makes her look sincere?

You have a copy of her statement?

The fact that her book story is in flat contradiction with Anna Donnino, makes her look sincere? No doubt?

Anna Donnino is a lying liar.

The fact that she said that she accused Patrick because "it could be true" makes her look sincere?
The expression "the best truth that I can think about" is something likable to you?
The fact that "the only thing" she is "sure" about was that she had dinner after 10pm, something that was proven false, makes her look sincere?
The fact that she says "the truth is I don't know what the truth is", and that later she claims she remembers exactly a whole (changing) story, but does not explain how she managed to recover the memory and how she managed to distinguish it as the "true" one (given her false memory), does this lack of explanation makes her look "sincere"? Dos she look consistent to you?
The statemen "I am vary afraid of Patrick" is likable?
The detail that the only time she mentioned Meredith as a living person in her writings, was to say that she put herself something in the washing machine (but maybe picked something...), is that something likable of her?
The fact that when she realized that someone had been in the house (thus she understood that the "strange" things, the open door, the blood in the bathroom were not normal) she felf "unconfortble" and leave, did she not check for Meredith, is that likable and caring? Meredith could have been injured, could be needing help. She didn't look for her, she lost another 30-45 minutes at least. And the fact that, in addition to this, while she felt worried about these things, she told about these things to Sollecito only calmly while sitting "over breakfast", would tha be likable if true? and then she called Meredith on the phone for only 5 ad 4 seconds, is that likable?
Sound effects on the descrition of Meredith's chocking to dath, calling it "disgusting", would you call that "empathic" (maybe that's likable to you)?

I would say she comes across as very sincere. You don't. Just my opinion.

 

[acbytesla]

A narcissist is not in love with themselves. Nascissists despise themselves. Narcissists are in love with and invested into idealized projection of themselves, called the "grandiose self". Which is a unreal self.
Hardly, Amanda. Amanda has demonstrated exactly the opposite tendencies.


The chaplain Don Saulo is a notorious idiot. He was known for being an redneck when he was working as a priest in a parrish in the outskirts of Perugia.

You would paint anyone who disagrees with you badly. You have accused Conti and Vechiotti and Hellmann as corrupt. Now you are calling a priest an idiot?

You remind me of Joseph McCarthy. So I'm going to paraphrase to you what Joseph Welch said to Tail gunner Joe during the The House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Until this moment, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think I am a gentle man but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.

Let us not assassinate further. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

This is how much I despise your baseless allegations. I see them as unappealing as the actions of one of the worst players in American history. That is sad.

 

[acbytesla]

When I put "narcissism personality disorder Italian wiki" into google guess what came up? Really I couldn't believe it

Machiavellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that is funny.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Sure, everyone has a right to speculate about everything they like. Accusing Stefanoni or Mignini of fabricating false evidence are vile false allegations. Accusing Quintavalle of lying is an unsupported claim. But your opinion that someone is a narcissist, or ugly, or selfish etc., when based on iterpretation of true facts, these are just normal perceptions.



On this you are plain wrong. I thoulgt I made it clear n the past as well; I say it now again: my assessment that Knox is a pathological narcissist is totally independent from my conclusion that she is guilty of murder.
She would be a narcissist even if she were innocent - actually, she would be even more pathological and narcissist to my eyes if she were actually innocent (in that case part of her behaviour should be explained on pure pathological ground, instead of explaining it as logical behaviour consequent to being guilty).

Her pathological narcissism is - to me - something that stands out in a more immediate and obvious way than her guilt. I must say, I actually find it strange that there are people who don't perceive this aspect of her personality as obvious.

The narcissistic style of her personality stands out through a moltitude of details at basically every line of the English girl description of her behaviour, for example. It stands out in the description of her behaviour in prison. It is obvious from her writings. It is obvious from details like her copying people (imitation of piercings of Laura for example). She was a narcissist even in her movement and facial expression, even when she entered a public courtroom for the first time in 2008, you could perceive immediately the narcissistic reaction to public exposure. Overall, without entering details, she would always show off, she was evasive, unsincere and shielded, she tends to be megalomainac (think about her letter to the court and imitation of AlJazeera campaign just as recent example) and her behaviour is always inappropriate. She just came across as an unemphatic character.

I spent all day yesterday with Amanda and her friends and family.

She is a warm, sweet-natured person and a delight to be around. She runs with a small circle of intelligent, likable friends with productive lives. She has solid career prospects waiting for her when she graduates this year, because of the excellent impression she had made on people who have worked with her.

People who know her well - her peers, her family, older adults - think highly of her. Your analysis will not change that, and it will not change who she really is.

 

[RoseMontague]

I spent all day yesterday with Amanda and her friends and family.

She is a warm, sweet-natured person and a delight to be around. She runs with a small circle of intelligent, likable friends with productive lives. She has solid career prospects waiting for her when she graduates this year, because of the excellent impression she had made on people who have worked with her.

People who know her well - her peers, her family, older adults - think highly of her. Your analysis will not change that, and it will not change who she really is.

Thanks, Charlie. This is the reality of who Amanda is. Some fantasy of Machiavelli is just that, a fantasy.

 

[davefoc]

Mach... I think you have denialism. I just found the disorder when I googled "people who deny reality".

I really am quite amazed by you. I do respect the fact you continue to come here... and basically get piled on by everyone.

I wouldn't think you could know as much about the case as you do and still possibly believe in guilt unless you have some psychological disorder.

It amazes me how you can spend so much time arguing the minutiae of the case, without looking at the larger picture and seeing just how stupid the case really is. Do you ever have doubt? Did you ever think... maybe police pressure did cause the false allegation. Maybe Rudy did act alone.... and not meet AK and RS for what must be the most outlandish murder plot in the history of murder plots.

Does the potential embarrassment bother you as an Italian? Are you related to someone involved in the case and somehow AK and RS being innocent would cause family shame?

I watch you on here.... It's fascinating. I often see you get asked 5 questions in one post and you'll focus in the one where you can argue the specifics of Italian law and completely ignore questions where you might have to look at how stupid the premise is on its face..... Like the TOD questions... and how this could have possibly went down the way you believe it did, in such a short amount of time... Involving 3 people who barely know each other. It is absolutely absurd.... and I think if you ever had to focus on it, you might begin to see it.

This post captured in a few paragraphs what I have tried to express several times in this thread so I thought I'd quote it. It's such a good post and so on point that I think I'll take a break from this thread and go on with the rest of my life such as it is.

 

[Desert Fox]

You miss the part about drug taking and what the Italian old fogies think about it. Massei basically says they were on drugs and made a choice for evil under the influence.

We have a judge that uses Reefer Madness as a source for the case

In that I'm not a crime tourist, I don't have the history of every murder committed to memory but I'm sure many killers seemed like regular people. We have a woman locally that killed her husband 10 years ago and nobody has said anything about her history.

If the crime scene showed evidence of Ms Knox doing the murder.
There are some situations I could believe but not like this.

 

[Strozzi]

Look, all what you do is trying to twist other's opinion. You will pick up lines here and there and then try to throw them against me or agaisnt your opponents. This rethoric is all what you do.

There is nothing else on your part, beyond this attempt to twist others' thought along with an attempt to "use" it your way, and "against" someone. You would cherry pick up pieces of statements from here and there, twist them attempting to discredit someone, and you would never deal with any complete argumentation.

Machiavelli, please note your statement (above) which I have highlighted in yellow. This is very good advice which you correctly give to others. You need to do this, too. Please show us a timeline for the crime, including time of death, that takes into account independently-verifiable facts.

If you can not or will not, then you reveal yourself as one who "cherry picks pieces of statements from here and there, twists them attempting to discredit someone, and will never deal with any complete argumentation."

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)
I am fine with dropping the whole subject. I think it is obvious that people's perception of Knox's personality are colored by their views of her involvement in the murder of Kercher and vice versa. Machiavelli has acknowledged that even if Knox had a narcissistic personality disorder it would not provide evidence that she was guilty of murder. That seems probable to me.

It does seem like the only possible evidence to support his contention that Knox might be psychopathic is that he believes she is guilty of murder for no apparent other reason. This seems like an entirely circularly reasoned view . i.e. Knox committed murder because she might be psychopathic and she might be psychopathic because she committed murder.

(...)

It seems to me that your assertion deeming that I could be following a circular reasoning, is a circular reasoning itself.

Actually, I said and claimed on many levels that psychological condition and evidence of guilt are two separate things. This is implicit also in my opinion out that a court's judgement (like Massei's) cannot be red as an assessment about psychological or health topics.
I am repeating this concept very clearly ad nausem.

Yet, you seem to decide that anyway I must be thinking the opposite of what I said. Why do you think so? Well, probably you think so, based on your own perception that there is no motive in this murder, and the person who did it must be a psycopath. I point out, this is not something I said or that belongs to my thought: it is something you believe.

A side note: I point out that the notion that psycopathic charachters would commit murder for no apparent reason, just because they are psycopaths, is also scientifically erroneous. Psycopathy itself is not a motive for committing a specific crime or a specific action. Psycopaths may commit crimes without feeling remorse, but they would do that only on a motive, objective or subjective whatever; it could be known or unknown, could be even a sexual perversion or an emotion or a futile circumstance, like for any perpetrator, but it's a motive anyway which does not consist in the clinical condition of psycopathy itself.
I point out this, which belongs to my view about narcissism and psycopathy, because this may further stress the concept that I could not follow a purely circular reasoning to conclude that Knox is a narcissist. I could not may a reasoning like the one you attribute to me, like "my own perception is that there is no motive in this murder, so the person who did it must be a psycopath". This thought makes no logical sense from my point of view, because psychopathy or narcissistic personality disturb can be a circumstantial element within a picture/scenario, or a causal element that may help you understand the crime, but it cannot be itself an explanation or a motive.

 

[acbytesla]

I spent all day yesterday with Amanda and her friends and family.

She is a warm, sweet-natured person and a delight to be around. She runs with a small circle of intelligent, likable friends with productive lives. She has solid career prospects waiting for her when she graduates this year, because of the excellent impression she had made on people who have worked with her.

People who know her well - her peers, her family, older adults - think highly of her. Your analysis will not change that, and it will not change who she really is.

Thanks Charlie,

At least your opinion is based on actual interaction with Amanda. Which is far more than Machiavelli could say.

 

[Desert Fox]

It seems to me that your assertion deeming that I could be following a circular reasoning, is a circular reasoning itself.

Actually, I said and claimed on many levels that psychological condition and evidence of guilt are two separate things. This is implicit also in my opinion out that a court's judgement (like Massei's) cannot be red as an assessment about psychological or health topics.
I am repeating this concept very clearly ad nausem.

Yet, you seem to decide that anyway I must be thinking the opposite of what I said. Why do you think so? Well, probably you think so, based on your own perception that there is no motive in this murder, and the person who did it must be a psycopath. I point out, this is not something I said or that belongs to my thought: it is something you believe.

A side note: I point out that the notion that psycopathic charachters would commit murder for no apparent reason, just because they are psycopaths, is also scientifically erroneous. Psycopathy itself is not a motive for committing a specific crime or a specific action. Psycopaths may commit crimes without feeling remorse, but they would do that only on a motive, objective or subjective whatever; it could be known or unknown, could be even a sexual perversion or an emotion or a futile circumstance, like for any perpetrator, but it's a motive anyway which does not consist in the clinical condition of psycopathy itself.
I point out this, which belongs to my view about narcissism and psycopathy, because this may further stress the concept that I could not follow a purely circular reasoning to conclude that Knox is a narcissist. I could not may a reasoning like the one you attribute to me, like "my own perception is that there is no motive in this murder, so the person who did it must be a psycopath". This thought makes no logical sense from my point of view, because psychopathy or narcissistic personality disturb can be a circumstantial element within a picture/scenario, or a causal element that may help you understand the crime, but it cannot be itself an explanation or a motive.

I will bite. . . .Show me any example (in modern times) of a similar crime to what Amanda and Raffaele supposedly did. Something I can actually look up.

The thing is that single perpetrator rape and murders are reasonably common.

 

[Desert Fox]

I spent all day yesterday with Amanda and her friends and family.

She is a warm, sweet-natured person and a delight to be around. She runs with a small circle of intelligent, likable friends with productive lives. She has solid career prospects waiting for her when she graduates this year, because of the excellent impression she had made on people who have worked with her.

People who know her well - her peers, her family, older adults - think highly of her. Your analysis will not change that, and it will not change who she really is.

How is she doing with a Sword of Damocles over her head?

 

[Bill Williams]

It seems to me that your assertion deeming that I could be following a circular reasoning, is a circular reasoning itself.

Actually, I said and claimed on many levels that psychological condition and evidence of guilt are two separate things. This is implicit also in my opinion out that a court's judgement (like Massei's) cannot be red as an assessment about psychological or health topics.
I am repeating this concept very clearly ad nausem.

Yet, you seem to decide that anyway I must be thinking the opposite of what I said. Why do you think so? Well, probably you think so, based on your own perception that there is no motive in this murder, and the person who did it must be a psycopath. I point out, this is not something I said or that belongs to my thought: it is something you believe.

A side note: I point out that the notion that psycopathic charachters would commit murder for no apparent reason, just because they are psycopaths, is also scientifically erroneous. Psycopathy itself is not a motive for committing a specific crime or a specific action. Psycopaths may commit crimes without feeling remorse, but they would do that only on a motive, objective or subjective whatever; it could be known or unknown, could be even a sexual perversion or an emotion or a futile circumstance, like for any perpetrator, but it's a motive anyway which does not consist in the clinical condition of psycopathy itself.
I point out this, which belongs to my view about narcissism and psycopathy, because this may further stress the concept that I could not follow a purely circular reasoning to conclude that Knox is a narcissist. I could not may a reasoning like the one you attribute to me, like "my own perception is that there is no motive in this murder, so the person who did it must be a psycopath". This thought makes no logical sense from my point of view, because psychopathy or narcissistic personality disturb can be a circumstantial element within a picture/scenario, or a causal element that may help you understand the crime, but it cannot be itself an explanation or a motive.

Does anyone know what M. is talking about here? I'm serious.... is this the fellow who wrote the "narcissism entry for the Italian Wikipedia?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach... I think you have denilism. I just found the disorder when I googled "people who deny reality".

I really am quite amazed by you. I do respect the fact you continue to come here... and basically get piled on by everyone.

I wouldn't think you could know as much about the case as you do and still possibly believe in guilt unless you have some psychological disorder.

It amazes me how you can spend so much time arguing the minutiae of the case, without looking at the larger picture and seeing just how stupid the case really is. Do you ever have doubt? Did you ever think... maybe police pressure did cause the false allegation. Maybe Rudy did act alone.... and not meet AK and RS for what must be the most outlandish murder plot in the history of murder plots.

Does the potential embarrassment bother you as an Italian? Are you related to someone involved in the case and somehow AK and RS being innocent would cause family shame?

I watch you on here.... It's fascinating. I often see you get asked 5 questions in one post and you'll focus in the one where you can argue the specifics of Italian law and completely ignore questions where you might have to look at how stupid the premise is on its face..... Like the TOD questions... and how this could have possibly went down the way you believe it did, in such a short amount of time... Involving 3 people who barely know eachother. It is absolutely absurd.... and I think if you ever had to focus on it, you might begin to see it.

It's interesting, because how I see it, I seems to me the exact contrary. It's not me the person who looks for details and misses the big picture.

Actually, it's true I do happen to know details, and when I see reported some factually wrong detail about legal settings or falely reported statements from Italian, I object to them an explain how they actually are. I do this because this is probaly the only useful function I can have on this forum: to correct false information.

But I'm not the person who fails to see the picture, methinks.
Let's leave aside the TOD question for a moment (one interesting point, to me, is that the TOD happens to be distinctively a defence point in this case, and it also happens to be both uncertain and not relevant in the set of evidence, imho).

Talk about the evidence set. To me this is exactly the problem of the innocentisti. They just miss the olistic view, the osmotic view of how evidence works.

There is a nice post by andreajo of many weeks ago, which I didn't answer to, but I would like to pick it soon or later as inspiration for this point; it was a post where she was objecting that I only pointed out some conjectures and some "compatibilities", only to object to some of the innocentisti claims, but she also pointed out that all pieces of evidence could be read in an "innocent" way. Andreajo made a bit of confusion, imho, between those arguments that are just conjectures that I put forward to debunk the innocentisti claims, and those pieces of evidence which do exist, dut are in some degree not conclusive or ambiguous. She seemed to mix and overlap a bit the two sets of things.
However, her general argument was: one finding can be evidence of this, but could also be something else, this means there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Her reasoning is wrong. But it is an epitome of the thoughts of many innocentisti.
This reasoning lacks the essence of evidence assessment, which is the whole picture. The innocentisti try to object to pieces of evidence based on minutiae. Often based on sheer lies, or based on speculation and invention. Sometimes they object pieces of evidence on grotesque and surreal grounds, like when they beliee that Knox's false accusation was coerced and don't see anything wrong in her hand written notes and in her contradictions. But even when they have a point in saying one piece of evidence has soemhow an incomplete and not conclusive nature, for example when they claim that there is no absolute evidence that the break in was staged, in all those events, they al still wrong. Because, what they do, is they object to single pieces of evidence, taken one by one.
But pieces of evience must not be objected each one with a single "innocent" exllanation. In order to object evidence, you would need an innocent explanation that explaisn the pieces of evidence altogether.

This is the big picture. You cannot just mention a number of weak "alternatives" in a row to reject evience.
The innocentisti don't have an alternative substance nor an alternative explanation for luminol footprint. This lack of explanation makes the alternative intrinsically weak. It's just obvious! There is no explanation for how Sollecito's DNA happaned to be on the bra clasp. There could be a speculation totally unsupported and intrinsically improbably, this lack of explanation makes their claim weak. It's obvious! And so on. This for every each one piece of evidence, interrogation and so on. The objections are all varied, improbable and weak, if not illogical and unsupported.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no negative controls were deposited

I don't recall having seen such a post detailing "lies" of Stefanoni.

On the other hand, I noted that no one was able to answer about my posts detailing and showing some of Vecchiotti's lies. Your answer about one of them was a non-reasonable claim: I think you refused to believe a news source reporting Vecchiotti's words from the court room. Other people refused to accept Crini's or Comodi's statements and Stefanoni's declaration about negative controls being deposited with Micheli's court in 2008.

Machiavelli,

If she really had deposited the controls, then where are they? Dr. Hampikian surely understands their importance. Many people who have taken an interest in the case and asked for material from the defense also understand their importance. Anyone who asks us to believe that the negative controls were deposited is implying that both defense teams somehow overlooked them. Does that make the slightest sense?

If Stefanoni really did deposit them, then in what form were they? The most useful form would be as electronic data files, not final egrams. Even if Stefanoni did deposit them as egrams but not as EDFs, then she disregarded the near universal standards regarding DNA profiling.

 

[Machiavelli]

I will bite. . . .Show me any example (in modern times) of a similar crime to what Amanda and Raffaele supposedly did. Something I can actually look up.

The thing is that single perpetrator rape and murders are reasonably common.

You want, like two young people, among them women, killing a roommate? For no apparent reason (maybe in a sexual context)?
I don't need to go much back in time and space to find similar crimes. For example 2 weeks ago near Milan, a 28y old woman and his boyfriend, killed their 29y old roommate because, while they were on drugs, she refused to take part in a sex game with them.
They locked her body in a suitcase and carred it on a train to Venice to dump it into the sea.

http://corrieredelveneto.corriere.it/veneto/notizie/cronaca/2014/3-febbraio-2014/ragazza-uccisa-messa-dentro-valigia-milano-venezia-fermati-due-amici-2224012837106.shtml

In the US, a girl stabs her boyfriend because he refused threesome sex, happened in Florida (sep 2013):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/la-crystal-king-woolfork-stabbed-boyfriend-sex_n_4069541.html

I strongly object any suggestion that a rape and murder (during the course of a burglary) of the kind you attribute to Rudy Guede, would be e "common crime". This is a main point of disagreement: it would be extremely uncommon instead, to start with. Not toe mention the macabre details of a post-delictum rape.

 

[AmyStrange]

Your reasoning is wrong

It's interesting, because how I see it, I seems to me the exact contrary. It's not me the person who looks for details and misses the big picture.

Actually, it's true I do happen to know details, and when I see reported some factually wrong detail about legal settings or falely reported statements from Italian, I object to them an explain how they actually are. I do this because this is probaly the only useful function I can have on this forum: to correct false information.

But I'm not the person who fails to see the picture, methinks.
Let's leave aside the TOD question for a moment (one interesting point, to me, is that the TOD happens to be distinctively a defence point in this case, and it also happens to be both uncertain and not relevant in the set of evidence, imho).

Talk about the evidence set. To me this is exactly the problem of the innocentisti. They just miss the olistic view, the osmotic view of how evidence works.

There is a nice post by andreajo of many weeks ago, which I didn't answer to, but I would like to pick it soon or later as inspiration for this point; it was a post where she was objecting that I only pointed out some conjectures and some "compatibilities", only to object to some of the innocentisti claims, but she also pointed out that all pieces of evidence could be read in an "innocent" way. Andreajo made a bit of confusion, imho, between those arguments that are just conjectures that I put forward to debunk the innocentisti claims, and those pieces of evidence which do exist, dut are in some degree not conclusive or ambiguous. She seemed to mix and overlap a bit the two sets of things.
However, her general argument was: one finding can be evidence of this, but could also be something else, this means there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Her reasoning is wrong. But it is an epitome of the thoughts of many innocentisti.This reasoning lacks the essence of evidence assessment, which is the whole picture. The innocentisti try to object to pieces of evidence based on minutiae. Often based on sheer lies, or based on speculation and invention. Sometimes they object pieces of evidence on grotesque and surreal grounds, like when they beliee that Knox's false accusation was coerced and don't see anything wrong in her hand written notes and in her contradictions. But even when they have a point in saying one piece of evidence has soemhow an incomplete and not conclusive nature, for example when they claim that there is no absolute evidence that the break in was staged, in all those events, they al still wrong. Because, what they do, is they object to single pieces of evidence, taken one by one.
But pieces of evience must not be objected each one with a single "innocent" exllanation. In order to object evidence, you would need an innocent explanation that explaisn the pieces of evidence altogether.

This is the big picture. You cannot just mention a number of weak "alternatives" in a row to reject evience.
The innocentisti don't have an alternative substance nor an alternative explanation for luminol footprint. This lack of explanation makes the alternative intrinsically weak. It's just obvious! There is no explanation for how Sollecito's DNA happaned to be on the bra clasp. There could be a speculation totally unsupported and intrinsically improbably, this lack of explanation makes their claim weak. It's obvious! And so on. This for every each one piece of evidence, interrogation and so on. The objections are all varied, improbable and weak, if not illogical and unsupported.

-

I have been on debating teams where one person was able to debate both sides of just about any arguement using the very same evidence to support both sides.

You just think Andre's reasoning is (or want it to be) wrong, but that don't make it so. It's just more confirmation bias actually,

d

-

 

[toto]

Massei never uses the words "normal kids". Never. Never uses the word "kids" (nor an equivalent concept) and never uses the word "normal".
If you report that Massei stated they were "normal kids" you are simply falsely reporting.

from Massei

it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons.
​

You are splitting hairs somewhat aren't you?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

How is she doing with a Sword of Damocles over her head?

She has a lot going for her.

She has the truth on her side.

She is cheerful by nature. She doesn't freak out, and she looks for ways to make the best of whatever her situation is.

She is very intelligent, she listens carefully, she takes a thoughtful approach to problems, and she learns from experience.

She has an exceptional family, and she has chosen good friends. Her friend Madison is a huge asset for her. Madison is very smart, articulate, and has an abundance of common sense. And Madison is fiercely loyal to Amanda... which leads to my final observation:

Amanda inspires fierce loyalty, in many people. We care what happens to her. We care a lot.

I encouraged Amanda to watch The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds, about a kid who manages to forge ahead and keep herself on an even keel despite the chaos surrounding her. Amanda really is quite a bit like the girl in that movie. No one is going to sow bitterness in her heart or turn her against the world. But she shouldn't have to deal with this situation at all. She is holding the bag for problems that are not her fault, and of course it affects her and casts a dark shadow over her life. The fact that she can handle it with a hell of a lot more class than most people doesn't make it right.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It's interesting, because how I see it, I seems to me the exact contrary. It's not me the person who looks for details and misses the big picture.

Actually, it's true I do happen to know details, and when I see reported some factually wrong detail about legal settings or falely reported statements from Italian, I object to them an explain how they actually are. I do this because this is probaly the only useful function I can have on this forum: to correct false information.

But I'm not the person who fails to see the picture, methinks.
Let's leave aside the TOD question for a moment (one interesting point, to me, is that the TOD happens to be distinctively a defence point in this case, and it also happens to be both uncertain and not relevant in the set of evidence, imho).

Talk about the evidence set. To me this is exactly the problem of the innocentisti. They just miss the olistic view, the osmotic view of how evidence works.

There is a nice post by andreajo of many weeks ago, which I didn't answer to, but I would like to pick it soon or later as inspiration for this point; it was a post where she was objecting that I only pointed out some conjectures and some "compatibilities", only to object to some of the innocentisti claims, but she also pointed out that all pieces of evidence could be read in an "innocent" way. Andreajo made a bit of confusion, imho, between those arguments that are just conjectures that I put forward to debunk the innocentisti claims, and those pieces of evidence which do exist, dut are in some degree not conclusive or ambiguous. She seemed to mix and overlap a bit the two sets of things.
However, her general argument was: one finding can be evidence of this, but could also be something else, this means there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Her reasoning is wrong. But it is an epitome of the thoughts of many innocentisti.
This reasoning lacks the essence of evidence assessment, which is the whole picture. The innocentisti try to object to pieces of evidence based on minutiae. Often based on sheer lies, or based on speculation and invention. Sometimes they object pieces of evidence on grotesque and surreal grounds, like when they beliee that Knox's false accusation was coerced and don't see anything wrong in her hand written notes and in her contradictions. But even when they have a point in saying one piece of evidence has soemhow an incomplete and not conclusive nature, for example when they claim that there is no absolute evidence that the break in was staged, in all those events, they al still wrong. Because, what they do, is they object to single pieces of evidence, taken one by one.
But pieces of evience must not be objected each one with a single "innocent" exllanation. In order to object evidence, you would need an innocent explanation that explaisn the pieces of evidence altogether.

This is the big picture. You cannot just mention a number of weak "alternatives" in a row to reject evience.
The innocentisti don't have an alternative substance nor an alternative explanation for luminol footprint. This lack of explanation makes the alternative intrinsically weak. It's just obvious! There is no explanation for how Sollecito's DNA happaned to be on the bra clasp. There could be a speculation totally unsupported and intrinsically improbably, this lack of explanation makes their claim weak. It's obvious! And so on. This for every each one piece of evidence, interrogation and so on. The objections are all varied, improbable and weak, if not illogical and unsupported.

-

But, isn't that what the PGP does?

They explain each bit of evidence as proof of guilt, but never do they explain away ALL the evidence as proof of guilt, specifically the duodenum, Meredith's last try to her mother, and Rudy's Skype call,

d

-