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

[acbytesla]

Of course they're certain. They are - with very few exceptions - poor thinkers who are riddled with confirmation bias and bitter personal vindictiveness (for some reason) towards Knox (mainly) and Sollecito (secondarily).

The prevailing idiot "wisdom" also appears to be that it's a racing certainty that it was Sollecito (or his legal team) who leaked and drew attention to this CCTV footage. The "reasoning" for this appears to be that Sollecito is now trying to adopt the strategy of disassociating himself from Knox altogether, to the extend (in the idiots' minds) of placing "incriminating" evidence against Knox into the public domain.

Now, I shouldn't need to point out that this is laughably absurd and utterly incorrect. The entire reason for Sollecito (and his lawyers) attempting - correctly - to separate the case as regards Sollecito and Knox is simple and obvious. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Sollecito trying to drop Knox in the doo-doo (or "push her under the bus" in idiot parlance). Instead, it has everything to do with the notion that it is judicially improper to think that the two are either both guilty or both not-guilty (or both innocent). It's clear that a number of courts in this trial process have - consciously and unconsciously - adopted the flawed thinking that if Knox is guilty, then Sollecito must also be guilty, and vice-versa. Because of this, evidence which only pertains to one of the two has implicitly been used against the other. And that's unlawful and unethical.

It's entirely proper, for example, for Sollecito and his lawyers to point out that it's theoretically possible for Knox to have participated in the murder without Sollecito's knowledge or complicity (she could, in theory (for example), have stolen his keys while he was snoozing and slipped out to participate in the murder). Likewise, Knox could argue exactly the same sort of thing.

But here's the important thing: this doesn't mean that Sollecito thinks Knox might have participated in the murder. And it wouldn't mean that Knox thought Sollecito might have participated in the murder either. Rather, it's the manifestation of the judicial principle that a person should only be found guilty of a criminal offence on the basis of the evidence against that person.

For all of these reason, I hugely doubt whether Sollecito or anyone connected with his was behind the recent highlighting of this CCTV footage. I am virtually certain that there is no attempt (or desire) in the Sollecito camp to suggest in any way whatsoever that Knox might have indeed been involved in the murder without Sollecito's knowledge or assistance. Sollecito knows (as does Knox) that neither of them had anything to do with it. The point about separate defences is nothing to do with seeking to blame the other. It's all about making sure the court acts lawfully in the way it convicts (and acquits).

Well said LJ.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course they're certain. They are - with very few exceptions - poor thinkers who are riddled with confirmation bias and bitter personal vindictiveness (for some reason) towards Knox (mainly) and Sollecito (secondarily).

<.......... sinister deletia ............>​

For all of these reason, I hugely doubt whether Sollecito or anyone connected with his was behind the recent highlighting of this CCTV footage. I am virtually certain that there is no attempt (or desire) in the Sollecito camp to suggest in any way whatsoever that Knox might have indeed been involved in the murder without Sollecito's knowledge or assistance. Sollecito knows (as does Knox) that neither of them had anything to do with it. The point about separate defences is nothing to do with seeking to blame the other. It's all about making sure the court acts lawfully in the way it convicts (and acquits).

Some questions ......

If this person in the garage at that time is Knox, then who did Jovana Popovic see at Sollecito's apartment door at approximately the same time?

If this is Knox, and Popovic was mistaken, then this is an alibi FOR Knox, and it immediately calls into question the Nencini motivations report. (Maybe That's why it was released!!)

As for the press which ran with this, it is good to be freshly reminded about how the press simply cannot cover this case responsibly.

I'm reminded of Erin Burnett on CNN who had Steve Moore on, following the Jan 30, 2014 re-conviction. All Burnett could ask about was Knox's weird behaviour.

I reminded of Sollecito on Katie Couric, an obviously A-list news personality. All SHE could ask Sollecito about was KNOX's behaviour. Sollecito kept saying, |I don't know about that, but all I want to know is: what's this got to do with me?"

Instead of demonstrating what the is case had against Sollecito, even Couric kept returning to Amanda and "weird behaviour".

That garage video serves as a timely reminder how people go ga-ga.

 

[Bill Williams]

Incontrovertible proof that Amanda Knox is guilty.

 

[acbytesla]

Incontrovertible proof that Amanda Knox is guilty.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971536a48818b1f1.jpg[/qimg]

WOW!!! Amazing Bill!!! You've found the missing evidence. Now that I've seen that, I'm convinced.


What really amazes me Bill, is that CCTV image doesn't look any thing like Amanda. The person in it looks like they have short hair...and Amanda had long hair at the time. They might even have a mustache and the person is walking away from the cottage, not toward it.

What it most amazing about it to me is the news media. That they will print anything.

 

[moodstream]

Did the police try to analyze Rudy's computers too? Did they fry all of them like they did with Raf's, Amanda's and Filomena's? Or did the police electronic experts have better luck with the "power surges" on this batch?

I'm guessing they just tried to return them to their rightful owners.

 

[carbonjam72]

News Media and Profit incentives to print ANYTHING

WOW!!! Amazing Bill!!! You've found the missing evidence. Now that I've seen that, I'm convinced.


What really amazes me Bill, is that CCTV image doesn't look any thing like Amanda. The person in it looks like they have short hair...and Amanda had long hair at the time. They might even have a mustache and the person is walking away from the cottage, not toward it.

What it most amazing about it to me is the news media. That they will print anything.

It's also important to understand the profit motive in printing absolutely anything associated with Amanda Knox. It's guaranteed to get "visual impressions" for autoplay ads, which results in direct cash payments to the site owners.

So when you go to a site, and are treated to auto-play ads that start blabbering away as soon as you get to the page, interfering with your ability to read the article, there's a reason that's happening, its not just to make your experience annoying and irritating. It generates money. You been shown an ad, and you might buy something, in the eyes of the ad scammers.

Also, you'll see sites like Liz Houle's Astrology SIte on Examiner dot com, where the first sentence will start off with some astrological bullsh*t, before launching into some rabid anti-knox propaganda. This has the effect of promoting web hits in google searches, and boosting the viewership under the category of "astrological sites", a sub category where any hits are leveraged by virtue of its being a niche site, even though it purports to be about a news story. It shows you the criminally deceptive mindset of these and similar low-life vultures, feeding off the misery of two innocent people.

I would add my support to the belief that Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt deserve to be sued out of every penny, and then some, that they have made by furthering this tragedy through their intentionally false and malicious reporting, or misreporting. Same goes for Tina Brown, News Week, the Daily Beast, and anyone else who's had a hand in furthering and perpetrating this fiasco.

 

[Sonia]

The Independent ran the same story about the CCTV footage in November, 2007. I can't view the whole story because it's behind a paywall. The Guardian picked up the CCTV story on 12 November 2007, which although the details are garbled is clearly referring to the same video with 20:43 timestamp:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/13/italy.ukcrime

I also saw the same video footage about three years ago on the Quarto Grado website. Can't find the link now; maybe the link to the clip's been updated to go with the 2014 stories.

How is this tired old carpark-surveillance video news? It's footage the PLE have had since very shortly after the crime, and they leaked information about it to the media then. Why do it again now?

 

[anglolawyer]

WOW!!! Amazing Bill!!! You've found the missing evidence. Now that I've seen that, I'm convinced.


What really amazes me Bill, is that CCTV image doesn't look any thing like Amanda. The person in it looks like they have short hair...and Amanda had long hair at the time. They might even have a mustache and the person is walking away from the cottage, not toward it.

What it most amazing about it to me is the news media. That they will print anything.

She was in disguise!!

 

[Grinder]

The problem for the two is that they were each other's alibi. It would seem to me that while it is certainly theoretically possible that one or the other was involved in the murder without the other, they have combined their fates with their alibi.

Since Raf sits in Italy his fate is more immediate and I can see that his team is feeling extra pressure. At this point I wouldn't blame them for trying anything and Nencini's comments to the press may seem as guide to them.

No one that I've seen has commented on the picture in terms of if it could be Amanda. I haven't seen a coat similar to the one in the picture and she is using the opposite hand to hold the backpack. While people can switch they do tend to be creatures of habit.

Was this in the official trial records? I can't believe they wouldn't have released this the first week as they did everything else.

 

[acbytesla]

I would add my support to the belief that Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt deserve to be sued out of every penny, and then some, that they have made by furthering this tragedy through their intentionally false and malicious reporting, or misreporting. Same goes for Tina Brown, News Week, the Daily Beast, and anyone else who's had a hand in furthering and perpetrating this fiasco.

It's a nice idea, but it isn't going to happen. Really tough to sue the media. You have to prove that the writers wrote with malice and knew what they were writing was demonstrably wrong when they wrote it. Vogt and Barbeau can easily fall back that they were just printing what the Italian authorities told them.

Far worse in my book is what the tabloids and Murdoch publications in particular have been publishing. This latest story is a perfect example of how the media in general operate. Some Italian tv show gives a 1 minute blob throwing Amanda under the bus. A day later, a little heard of British tabloid publishes a small blurb about it with a sensationalist headline, a day after that a bunch of tabloids reprint it and now that it is out there the Big boys jump in like CNN and ABC etc so they can sell the advertising. The media will milk this for two weeks and then it will be gone...all, but the impression that it left.

 

[anglolawyer]

The problem for the two is that they were each other's alibi.
snip

What a strange way to put it. This is what comes of spending too long on a bat-**** crazy Italian case. Try this:

The two of them spent the night together at Raffaele's place. The problem is that the absence of a single spec of reliable or credible evidence to the contrary is insufficient in Italy's upside-down system.

 

[Poppy1016]

Fascinating how many legit news outlets are nows featuring the headline:

"Amanda Knox's Alibi Appears Challenged By New Video"

or

"CCTV Footage May Cast Doubt Over Knox's Alibi"

or something like it.

As far as who leaked it to the press: well, the person most helped by the release would be Sollecito.

Loved his recent interview with Anderson Cooper: he now says he only met Meridith once and did not speak with her. Pretty amazing since his prison diary says something quite different.

Also: Knox in her interview with Cuomo says: "Right now me and Raffaele are fighting together for our innocence..."

Nice PR spin, but Raffles corrects her saying to Cooper: "I'm working by myself..."

And Sollecito's lawyer? He says to Cooper:

"Raffaele never falsely accused someone of being involved in the murder..."

Oh dear.

Next phase? The headline: "Yes, Amanda Wielded the Knife says Raffaele Sollecito"


--

This is all you have in your belief in the conviction ?

 

[Poppy1016]

Think Poppy think! Amanda is American so Stef used an AMERICAN plastic bag to store it so it's America's fault.

That is basically what she said.

Silly me.

 

[JREF2010]

The problem for the two is that they were each other's alibi. It would seem to me that while it is certainly theoretically possible that one or the other was involved in the murder without the other, they have combined their fates with their alibi.

Since Raf sits in Italy his fate is more immediate and I can see that his team is feeling extra pressure. At this point I wouldn't blame them for trying anything and Nencini's comments to the press may seem as guide to them.

No one that I've seen has commented on the picture in terms of if it could be Amanda. I haven't seen a coat similar to the one in the picture and she is using the opposite hand to hold the backpack. While people can switch they do tend to be creatures of habit.

Was this in the official trial records? I can't believe they wouldn't have released this the first week as they did everything else.

The word possible is used a lot in this case. The media has been absurd in its polarized presentations, imo.

Yes, its possible innocent people go to prison so more powerful people, like judges and and police, and Rome SCS keep their stupid face on.

Its history all over, crucifying innocents etc.. just doing it with media and the internet these days.

It's possible the Pro-Guillotine Persecutors held this CCTV card for just this occasion, being Italian they should know how long trials last and how to release slanderous vindictive media leaks slowly, and silently at just the riught times...like a pre-planned framing.

It is possible.

 

[carbonjam72]

Of Malice and Murdoch

It's a nice idea, but it isn't going to happen. Really tough to sue the media. You have to prove that the writers wrote with malice and knew what they were writing was demonstrably wrong when they wrote it. Vogt and Barbeau can easily fall back that they were just printing what the Italian authorities told them.

Far worse in my book is what the tabloids and Murdoch publications in particular have been publishing. This latest story is a perfect example of how the media in general operate. Some Italian tv show gives a 1 minute blob throwing Amanda under the bus. A day later, a little heard of British tabloid publishes a small blurb about it with a sensationalist headline, a day after that a bunch of tabloids reprint it and now that it is out there the Big boys jump in like CNN and ABC etc so they can sell the advertising. The media will milk this for two weeks and then it will be gone...all, but the impression that it left.

I'm not so sure a case against Vogt and Nadeau couldn't be made, or for that matter, even Dershowitz. Just imagine a US jury having an opportunity to express their displeasure with these scoundrels I'll defer to the experts, but it seems there is a fine line between being wrong, and being unreasonably wrong and harming others with your stupidity (legally speaking, negligence or reckless conduct). But let's put that aside, since neither of us have standing, although lawyers on the site might wish to weigh in. But I do believe they merit it, and I wish it would happen.

As for Murdoch, its actually interesting. My gross impression was that his UK publications lean towards the 'guilter view', while the US children lean toward the US 'innocent' view. In short, Mr Murdoch knows his audience, and packages his wares accordingly. Accuracy & truth, or as they themselves put it, "fair and balanced", doesn't really have too much to do with it.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not so sure a case against Vogt and Nadeau couldn't be made, or for that matter, even Dershowitz. Just imagine a US jury having an opportunity to express their displeasure with these scoundrels I'll defer to the experts, but it seems there is a fine line between being wrong, and being unreasonably wrong and harming others with your stupidity (legally speaking, negligence or reckless conduct). But let's put that aside, since neither of us have standing, although lawyers on the site might wish to weigh in. But I do believe they merit it, and I wish it would happen.

As for Murdoch, its actually interesting. My gross impression was that his UK publications lean towards the 'guilter view', while the US children lean toward the US 'innocent' view. In short, Mr Murdoch knows his audience, and packages his wares accordingly. Accuracy & truth, or as they themselves put it, "fair and balanced", doesn't really have too much to do with it.

With all due respect, I think it would be close to impossible to win a libel suit against either Vogt or Nadeau and definitely not Dershowitz. Fox News, Murdoch's right wing outlet in the US actually argued in court that it was their right to lie knowing it was a lie on their news show and this was guaranteed by the First Amendment. (AND THEY WON THE CASE!!!) It is truly a very fine line.

Go watch the movie "Absence of Malice" with Paul Newman and Sally Field. Great movie and the title comes from the ruling in New York Times v Sullivan. This case pretty much gave the media a blank check to publish whatever it wants. You can win a libel or defamation suit in the US...but the bar is placed very high. It's virtually the opposite of Italy. I'm not sure how it is in the UK.

Dershowitz is no different than you or I, whether we like it or not. He is "expressing" his opinion....which is 100 % protected even if it is wrong. Vogt and Nadeau are very different. They are publishing the facts of the case. If they knowingly published lies (that would be with malice) they would be committing libel. But the media is able to kind of hide from this in a multitude of ways.

If you sue someone for libel, you have to prove the malice, that they were outrageously wrong and that the lie damaged your reputation.

Otherwise you are out of luck.

 

[Anode]

I've got it! I know who's in the CCTV footage. It's Monica Napoleoni! She had just met Rudy (or is it Rudiee?) to get some information from him ("the informer") on drug trafficing in Perugia.

The he complained of gastrointestinal problems. She, seeing the cottage was empty picked the lock and let him in to use the toilet.

Wait, I haven't explained the broken window yet. I'll get back to you...



Hey, it makes more sense than being Amanda!

 

[codyjuneau]

RandyW

I found your post on the Tramontano incident interesting. The account there seemed rather different from the earlier one though. In one of them, there is a relaxed conversation at the door with Rudy showing the knife and saying he can't get out. In that one CT knows who he is. In the second version, he does not know Rudy and does not help him leave.

I can tell you (I think) why he enters via a window but leaves by the door. It's because it's hard to climb out of window with a laptop under your arm without dropping and breaking it.

Codyjuneau

Nice spot on all those computers Rudy had at his place. Obviously stolen. This is a great point actually and ties in with the mysterious Milan charges that nobody on four obsessive forums or on this thread ever knew about before. An Italian observer of the case told me he never heard of the charges against Rudy until his recent appeal was turned down. Who made that happen and why? Maybe Mach can tell us where and when the first instance trial took place. I also want to know some other stuff - fast track or full trial (I bet it was fast track) the witnesses, the evidence, the property found on Rudy when arrested, the motivation, the grounds of appeal and so on.

Question: in whose interests might it have been to hush up Rudy's life as a 'professional burglar' and his conviction for carrying an offensive weapon (assuming that charge was laid - and if not why not)? Hmmm. Thinks ….

.
There was an interview, I think it was Graham interviewing Mignini, where Graham asked Mignini outright if Rudy was a police informant. Mignini gave an evasive answer which from memory was something like 'well he could have been, he is the type of person recruited for that'. Does it seem reasonable that Mignini would not know if his suspect in a murder investigation was or was not a police informant?

I think someone should ask Rudy's Spanish neighbours for more information. For example get estimates of how many computers were in Rudy's apartment. How many were portable and how many not. What about other electronic devices. Did the number of computers vary from week to week, and from Milan trip to Milan trip. Did they tell the police about Rudy's room being filled with computers. That sort of thing.
.

 

[Planigale]

It's a nice idea, but it isn't going to happen. Really tough to sue the media. You have to prove that the writers wrote with malice and knew what they were writing was demonstrably wrong when they wrote it. Vogt and Barbeau can easily fall back that they were just printing what the Italian authorities told them.

Far worse in my book is what the tabloids and Murdoch publications in particular have been publishing. This latest story is a perfect example of how the media in general operate. Some Italian tv show gives a 1 minute blob throwing Amanda under the bus. A day later, a little heard of British tabloid publishes a small blurb about it with a sensationalist headline, a day after that a bunch of tabloids reprint it and now that it is out there the Big boys jump in like CNN and ABC etc so they can sell the advertising. The media will milk this for two weeks and then it will be gone...all, but the impression that it left.

Whilst I am no lawyer, I do wonder if at the end of the day there may be a big libel case in England. A lot of posters have posted on 'English' sites. Whilst there may be a defence of fair comment when reporting the court cases, many of the comments of some of the more prolific posters go far beyond what was ever said in court. In particular those who claim Knox is a psychopath and / or who claim Knox was a drug addict (some specify a cocaine addict), neither of which were part of the court case. I think a judge might take the view that the more 'professional' posters had little excuse for not getting it right, and such comments are clearly defamatory. Whilst English defamation damages are not enforceable in the US, for European based posters they may be in trouble, and the US based posters will need to ensure no assets are within reach of UK courts and they don't transit through Heathrow or they may lose their luggage (OK I know that happens whether you have an outstanding debt or not).

 

[Planigale]

With all due respect, I think it would be close to impossible to win a libel suit against either Vogt or Nadeau and definitely not Dershowitz. Fox News, Murdoch's right wing outlet in the US actually argued in court that it was their right to lie knowing it was a lie on their news show and this was guaranteed by the First Amendment. (AND THEY WON THE CASE!!!) It is truly a very fine line.

Go watch the movie "Absence of Malice" with Paul Newman and Sally Field. Great movie and the title comes from the ruling in New York Times v Sullivan. This case pretty much gave the media a blank check to publish whatever it wants. You can win a libel or defamation suit in the US...but the bar is placed very high. It's virtually the opposite of Italy. I'm not sure how it is in the UK.

Dershowitz is no different than you or I, whether we like it or not. He is "expressing" his opinion....which is 100 % protected even if it is wrong. Vogt and Nadeau are very different. They are publishing the facts of the case. If they knowingly published lies (that would be with malice) they would be committing libel. But the media is able to kind of hide from this in a multitude of ways.

If you sue someone for libel, you have to prove the malice, that they were outrageously wrong and that the lie damaged your reputation.

Otherwise you are out of luck.

In England you do not need malice and much posting has been on British sites, do read up on libel tourism. Libel lawyers have realised you can sue many people who have posted on line for small amounts and get much money.