Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Grinder,

This is your attempt at mind-reading, and I respectfully disagree with it. FWIW I don't find Raffaele's statement about nothing being missing (based on his assessment of F's room) to be very probative, either. IMO he called to report the fact that a domicile had been broken into. IIRC he did not volunteer any information about things missing; he was asked.

pro·ba·tive
ˈprōbətiv/Submit
adjectiveLAW
having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence.

Chris let's agree that his statement wasn't probative but was suspicious. Knowing something (nothing missing from Filomena's room) that he couldn't know was suspicious. You as a supporter do have an interest in the case that is subjective. This is exactly what I was talking about with Lonepine.

I don't really see the need for PIPs to "have it all" They were not proven BARD of murder. Rudi was convicted. There is no need to prove they absolutely couldn't have been looked at with suspicion. Rudi didn't need to be an informant or on a one man crime spree.

In hindsight perhaps one could say his statement wasn't odd or suspicious but AT THE TIME the police could legitimately consider very suspicious.

And the accusation of mind reading is false and without merit. I need not read a mind when the person says something they couldn't know. It is you that is reading the mind by saying what he said wasn't what he meant.

 

[Grinder]

The truth is, she did not know Rudi. Period. Neither she nor Raffaele had ANY reason to participate in a murder with Rudy, much less try to cover up his involvement.

Well you don't have any idea how it was presented in the beginning. You are a supporter that has a vested interest. You are defensive about anything not purely positive for the kids.

She did know Rudi, she just didn't know him well. That was not how the supporters framed it from the beginning.

You move from what I say into some PGP spiel that I don't.

I would use another term to discribe you but it has become a mainstay of the PGP and doesn't describe most of us following the case that don't believe she was convicted fairly and either are certain she had nothing to with it or feel we can't know for sure.

I find it just as odd for people to insert themselves into her friends and relatives that support her as those that carry on about her guilt.

I really care even less about a fictional account in a movie than a TCN.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well you don't have any idea how it was presented in the beginning. You are a supporter that has a vested interest. You are defensive about anything not purely positive for the kids.

She did know Rudi, she just didn't know him well. That was not how the supporters framed it from the beginning.

You move from what I say into some PGP spiel that I don't.

I would use another term to discribe you but it has become a mainstay of the PGP .........

You have no idea how ridiculous this is, do you.

So, we're back on to "vested interest" are we? Not only that, now I'm "defensive."

I think your intent is to render me speechless. Once again, you need to see Winterbottom's film. What it is about is how people have filled vacuums with their own preconceived notions that bear no relation at all to reality.

The post above is simply ridiculous. So much so that it is hard to respond to. Do you just make up this stuff?

 

[acbytesla]

Well you don't have any idea how it was presented in the beginning. You are a supporter that has a vested interest. You are defensive about anything not purely positive for the kids.

She did know Rudi, she just didn't know him well. That was not how the supporters framed it from the beginning.

That depends on your definition of "know" Grinder. While she might be able to recognize him on sight and was introduced to Rudy, Saying she knew Rudy was the equivalent of saying I know the new clerk at the local 7-11 because he rang up my purchase a couple of times in the last two weeks.

Personally, I don't think it is wrong to say that Amanda did not know Rudy. She didn't remember his name, they never conversed with each other other to then to say hello, there is not a text, email or phone call between them.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well you don't have any idea how it was presented in the beginning. You are a supporter that has a vested interest. You are defensive about anything not purely positive for the kids.

She did know Rudi, she just didn't know him well. That was not how the supporters framed it from the beginning.

You move from what I say into some PGP spiel that I don't.

I would use another term to discribe you but it has become a mainstay of the PGP and doesn't describe most of us following the case that don't believe she was convicted fairly and either are certain she had nothing to with it or feel we can't know for sure.

I find it just as odd for people to insert themselves into her friends and relatives that support her as those that carry on about her guilt.

I really care even less about a fictional account in a movie than a TCN.

Grinder - upon further review - this post is completely unworthy of you and the overall contribution you have made to JREF.

The fact that you descend into ad hominem, while arguing a point about Amanda's knowledge of Rudy and what the family said early on....

..... by descending into attacking the opponent is a couple of things. But the most profound is that it is completely unworthy of you and the over all contribution you have already made.

What a completely ridiculous post. I am not saying this "defensively", I can assure you. It's said with a little sadness that someone can know so much about some things, and so little about others, and not be shy about advertising complete ignorance.

Grinder - at base, you are far, far better than this.

Really? Are we really back at "vested interest"? I'd thought you'd backed away from that, as much as you'd backed away from the other ad hominem, "fan".

 

[Grinder]

That depends on your definition of "know" Grinder. While she might be able to recognize him on sight and was introduced to Rudy, Saying she knew Rudy was the equivalent of saying I know the new clerk at the local 7-11 because he rang up my purchase a couple of times in the last two weeks.

Personally, I don't think it is wrong to say that Amanda did not know Rudy. She didn't remember his name, they never conversed with each other other to then to say hello, there is not a text, email or phone call between them.

They knew each other. Besides his party night with the cottage gang he stopped by Le Chic a couple of times to say hello. Have you been introduced to your 7-11 clerk and then gone to a party in small, small living room? Has the 7-11 clerk stopped by your work place a couple of times to say hello?

Here's what one pro Amanda advocate journalist wrote in May of 2008:

8. The prosecution hasn’t proven Amanda and Raffaele knew Rudy (although they may have known OF him, sure, it’s a small town.).

We do know Rudy used to visit the boys downstairs in the girls’ house. But did he know Meredith? He says yes, but nobody will back up his tale.
​

 

[Anode]

Know verb: 2) have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.

By this definition, I'd say she didn't "know" him. This is just semantics. When her dad says "She doesn't know him", I just take that to mean that they were not friends. They didn't do "friend" things together. I can't believe this has gone on for 2 pages

If I were on a witness stand and a Lawyer asked me if I knew the defendant, I could not answer yes or no, I would ask for clarity as to if he/she meant were I friends, acquaintances etc... I mean, I know the president. His name is Obama. Have I ever met him? No.

Geeze!

 

[Bill Williams]

Know verb: 2) have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.

By this definition, I'd say she didn't "know" him. This is just semantics. When her dad says "She doesn't know him", I just take that to mean that they were not friends. They didn't do "friend" things together. I can't believe this has gone on for 2 pages

If I were on a witness stand and a Lawyer asked me if I knew the defendant, I could not answer yes or no, I would ask for clarity as to if he/she meant were I friends, acquaintances etc... I mean, I know the president. His name is Obama. Have I ever met him? No.

Geeze!

Careful. You now have an obvious vested interest in this. Note how defensively you've phrased this.

 

[acbytesla]

Know verb: 2) have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.

By this definition, I'd say she didn't "know" him. This is just semantics. When her dad says "She doesn't know him", I just take that to mean that they were not friends. They didn't do "friend" things together. I can't believe this has gone on for 2 pages

If I were on a witness stand and a Lawyer asked me if I knew the defendant, I could not answer yes or no, I would ask for clarity as to if he/she meant were I friends, acquaintances etc... I mean, I know the president. His name is Obama. Have I ever met him? No.

Geeze!

It is semantics Anode. In a big way. There really are multiple definitions of the word. In some ways, people might say she "knew" Rudy as she had been introduced. But the fact that they really said more than hello demonstrates that Amanda didn't know Rudy. Both are right. Grinder just likes picking at the edges.

 

[Grinder]

Know verb: 2) have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.

By this definition, I'd say she didn't "know" him. This is just semantics. When her dad says "She doesn't know him", I just take that to mean that they were not friends. They didn't do "friend" things together. I can't believe this has gone on for 2 pages

If I were on a witness stand and a Lawyer asked me if I knew the defendant, I could not answer yes or no, I would ask for clarity as to if he/she meant were I friends, acquaintances etc... I mean, I know the president. His name is Obama. Have I ever met him? No.

Geeze!

Gee let's look at number one:

be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

If you had been to a party and seen someone a couple of other times and told the court you didn't know him you'd be up for perjury.

If I had spent an hour with Obama smoking spliffs in the downstairs cottage living room I'd answer yes i know him and I wouldn't be charged with perjury.

If someone asked Tesla do you know the 7-11 cashier that's been here the last week he would answer yes why?

For those that heard it and read it from the beginning there was no doubt what they meant by she didn't even know him.

 

[Anode]

From Raf's book:
*****************
"So it's a home burglary?" he (the dispatcher) asked.

"No, nothing's been taken." I didn't know that for sure, of course, and I should have been more careful about my choice of words.
*****************

I don't see anything probative about that either. He doesn't live there, there is no way he can tell if something is missing or not since he has no idea what the girls have for possessions. The only good answer to the dispatcher's question ("So it's a home burglary?") would have been:

"It appears to be."

Instead he tried to read too much into the question and the implication of the word burglary. He saw a laptop sitting in plain view. It wasn't taken. He says nothing. Big deal...

 

[Anode]

Gee let's look at number one:

be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

If you had been to a party and seen someone a couple of other times and told the court you didn't know him you'd be up for perjury.

If I had spent an hour with Obama smoking spliffs in the downstairs cottage living room I'd answer yes i know him and I wouldn't be charged with perjury.

If someone asked Tesla do you know the 7-11 cashier that's been here the last week he would answer yes why?

For those that heard it and read it from the beginning there was no doubt what they meant by she didn't even know him.

I "know" that the first definition refers more to facts and inanimate objects. The second definition is aimed at persons.

See, semantics!


>>If you had been to a party and seen someone a couple of other times and told the court you didn't know him you'd be up for perjury.

And this is why I said if I was on the witness stand I'd ask for clarification.

 

[Anode]

By the way, I'm reading Raf's book now, Honor Bound. It's a fast read and I'll finish it up on the train home tonight.

It just really made me angry. I'm surprised at the reaction it's getting out of me. I haven't read Amanda's yet but maybe next...

 

[acbytesla]

They knew each other. Besides his party night with the cottage gang he stopped by Le Chic a couple of times to say hello. Have you been introduced to your 7-11 clerk and then gone to a party in small, small living room? Has the 7-11 clerk stopped by your work place a couple of times to say hello?

Rudy came into her place of business and ordered a drink. once, not twice. There is no evidence that the conversation was more than a few minutes.

Here's what one pro Amanda advocate journalist wrote in May of 2008:

8. The prosecution hasn’t proven Amanda and Raffaele knew Rudy (although they may have known OF him, sure, it’s a small town.).

We do know Rudy used to visit the boys downstairs in the girls’ house. But did he know Meredith? He says yes, but nobody will back up his tale.
​

WE know that Meredith met Rudy at the same time Amanda first met him. Beyond that ...nothing.

 

[Anode]

Careful. You now have an obvious vested interest in this. Note how defensive you've phrased this.

Indeed, maybe I should have withheld the "Geeze!"...

 

[Grinder]

From Raf's book:
*****************
"So it's a home burglary?" he (the dispatcher) asked.

"No, nothing's been taken." I didn't know that for sure, of course, and I should have been more careful about my choice of words.*****************

I don't see anything probative about that either. He doesn't live there, there is no way he can tell if something is missing or not since he has no idea what the girls have for possessions. The only good answer to the dispatcher's question ("So it's a home burglary?") would have been:

"It appears to be."

Instead he tried to read too much into the question and the implication of the word burglary. He saw a laptop sitting in plain view. It wasn't taken. He says nothing. Big deal...

sorry but he himself sees that what he said was suspicious.

It is correct that he had no way to know nothing say nothing was taken.

I think you should read the 911 transcript a little different than his book

POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is the closed door, there are bloodstains.

 

[Bill Williams]

By the way, I'm reading Raf's book now, Honor Bound. It's a fast read and I'll finish it up on the train home tonight.

It just really made me angry. I'm surprised at the reaction it's getting out of me. I haven't read Amanda's yet but maybe next...

I have read Raffaele's book all the way through and (confession time) read parts of Amanda's. Your reaction reminds me of mine.

The obsession with what the word "know" means, in someone saying, "Amanda did not know Rudi", and the obsession with Raffaele saying to a 112 operator that nothing had been taken....

is the desperate attempt to make a case where there is none. If the DNA had been solid and unquestioned, if it had been as Harry Rag/The Machine has carpet-bombed the internet with, "there was an abundance of DNA," then no one would care about what "know" means, or what Raffaele blurted out to a 112 operator on the spur of the moment.

If that stuff is the case, then there never was a case.

Except reading the accounts shows the complete tragedy of the effect this has had on those two's lives and the family around them.

It's maddening.

 

[Grinder]

I "know" that the first definition refers more to facts and inanimate objects. The second definition is aimed at persons.

See, semantics!


>>If you had been to a party and seen someone a couple of other times and told the court you didn't know him you'd be up for perjury.

And this is why I said if I was on the witness stand I'd ask for clarification.

Why do you think people ask if you knew someone well if by your take one needed to know someone well to know them at all? Semantics.

Did you hear the early defense of Amanda by her family and friend because they clearly were saying she didn't know him at all. The implication was he was a total stranger.

 

[Grinder]

Rudy came into her place of business and ordered a drink. once, not twice. There is no evidence that the conversation was more than a few minutes.
WE know that Meredith met Rudy at the same time Amanda first met him. Beyond that ...nothing.

Well there is different testimony about how often Meredith met him at the cottage.

He didn't order drinks by most accounts and it was more than once.

She had been introduced to him and therefore knew him but not well. He tells of knowing her in the Skype call which there would be absolutely no reason for him to lie about.

 

[Anode]

sorry but he himself sees that what he said was suspicious.

It is correct that he had no way to know nothing say nothing was taken.

I think you should read the 911 transcript a little different than his book

POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is the closed door, there are bloodstains.

Sorry? You don't have to be sorry. We're just trading ideas here. Are we back to semantics. I agree the police were very suspicious about everything they said. I personally don't think it rises to the definition of "probative" as you posted above. What does it afford proof of? That he was trying to cover up a burglary? From the police point of view, why stage a burglary and then try to cover it up by saying nothing is stolen? That's all that I'm saying.