Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Are you serious? I'm so sick of the Brit-bashing that goes along with this case. It's utterly ridiculous.

I don't see my comment as "Brit bashing" in the least. (If anything, I'm an anglophile). But the fact remains, Winterbottom, Tina Brown (of Newsweek and the Daily Beast, and Barbie Nadeau's benefactor), the british tabloids, and many british commentators do seem to share this peculiarity.

Dr Peter Gill and the many thoughtful citizens of the UK and around the world do not. So I don't think it's Brit bashing to point it out. (Any more than to say its USA bashing to point out that there have been opinion polls showing half the US population doesn't believe in evolution).

But to suggest this isn't a problem, in some way linked to Italy and the UK - very likely fueled in large measure by false reporting and confirmation bias as it may be, seems nonetheless to me a kind of willful blindness.

Really, nationality isn't an excuse for ignorance, no matter the latitude or national flag.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I for one am looking forward to seeing this movie because of its approach; a review from the London Guardian :Review.

I find it refreshing for the focus to be shifted back to Meredith without having to “pick a side” in this polarised case.

Very few people will see this movie just as very few people have purchased any of the books or watched the TV documentaries or previous movie, mainly because the public have moved on. Sure when the Italian Supreme Court meet to review the case there will be media interest, I do not see how any of TV documentaries, books, web sites or movies have had the slightest effect on the passage of this case.

-

So do I. Thanx for the link C.

Are you going to see it? Hopefully that if you (or anyone here) do (or does), that you (or they) will stop by and offer your (or their) thoughts on it. Going to the movies is so darn expensive now a days, I don't know if I can go and it doesn't seem that Netflix (my preferred movie source) will have it,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

It's also a Canadian phenomenon. Two words: Nyki Kish.

Another farcical prosecution, from what I understand of the Kish case. Equally tragic, but really not the same phenomena. The Knox case was fueled by tabloids making money by peddling a false persona. The scope and breadth of that media assault is something new. It really has thrown new light on wrongful convictions generally, and maybe something positive will come about as a result. Like new resources dedicated to uncovering and rectifying wrongful convictions.

 

[lonepinealex]

BFI LONDON FILM FESTIVAL

The Face of an Angel

A filmmaker struggles to turn a notorious real-life crime into a feature film in Michael Winterbottom’s moving new drama.

Oct 18, 2014 6:00 PM
Odeon West End, Screen 1
Goes on sale: 18-09-2014 10:00 AM

Oct 19, 2014 12:30 PM
Odeon West End, Screen 2
Goes on sale: 18-09-2014 10:00 AM

https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScontent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::article_id=BF05D786-5673-4801-8215-531E6F558857&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::context_id=8C5D05B0-0290-4011-93EE-16101316176A

Thanks for this. Don't think I'm going to schlepp all the way to London to see it though. It'll probably be on Netflix at some point.

 

[carbonjam72]

CJ is wrong on this. Sorry CJ. This really has nothing to do with nationalities. It has to do more with "inside baseball" than anything else. Maybe, a larger percentage of Brits have fallen for the guilter story because of the Kercher's in with the tabloids and the BBC and the tabloids. Maybe.

If there is one thing that is "particularly British" it is the tabloids which we also have in the US to a lesser degree. but the British tabloids may just be the worst about publishing nonsense and trash. (But sometimes the US press can give them a run for their money.)

No, people in all nationalities can jump to conclusions. And the press can do hatchet jobs everywhere. And wrongful convictions happen in Italy, the UK, the US and elsewhere.

I bet we can all see things that are wrong and right about our own countries.

I don't think we're disagreeing here on anything substantive, and I don't think I'm Brit bashing, I really don't. I think the issue is the ignorance itself and the damage it causes, not what we call it.

 

[lonepinealex]

I don't think we're disagreeing here on anything substantive, and I don't think I'm Brit bashing, I really don't. I think the issue is the ignorance itself and the damage it causes, not what we call it.

Fine. Don't call it "peculiarly British" then. We don't have exclusivity on poor critical thinking, and all your examples are cherry picked.

 

[carbonjam72]

Fine. Don't call it "peculiarly British" then. We don't have exclusivity on poor critical thinking, and all your examples are cherry picked.

Yes, and I don't believe I've argued that you have.

Well, you are making me think about this now. 'Peculiarly British', I didn't mean as a general slur, but reading it again, I can see how you could read it that way. I'm struggling to find another way to phrase it, and having trouble.

But the quality of blindness displayed by Winterbottom, Tina Brown, Piers Morgan (who thinks Amanda knows more), the psychiatrist who diagnosed Amanda as "psychotic" in a tabloid article - there is a somehow a peculiarly 'british blindness' to their behaviors.

(Is that cherry picking data? Have I stepped in the pile again?)

I'm thinking of the antics of Monty Python. The characters seem blithely immune to what they don't see. The dead parrot, the empty cheese shop, the transvestite lumberjacks.

Many people refer to the Italian forensic team as, 'Felini forensics'. Is it Italy bashing to say their comedy is peculiarly Italian? (Although the 'keystone cops' have also been invoked)

Help me out here, how would you describe it? I'm not for a moment saying other countries and cultures don't have their problems and 'lapses in critical thinking', but I don't think I'm hallucinating on this one. You tell me.

(Winterbottom, Tina Brown, the psychiatrist, Piers Morgan; these are not poorly educated or illiterate people. They are people of influence. And they don't appear to be extraordinarily out of sync with the mainstream, but seem to some degree, representative. I'm telling you right now, I don't get it. Why are you convinced of innocence, while so many others are not - without any evidence of guilt?).

Not trying to be offensive here, hope I'm not.

 

[lonepinealex]

Well how do you explain Dershowitz? I really can't understand why you're fixated on these people's nationality. They're either ignorant of the facts or incapable of understanding them, that's all there is to it.

Although as far as I can tell from Bill W's posts, I wouldn't include Winterbottom in your list anyway.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Thanks for this. Don't think I'm going to schlepp all the way to London to see it though. It'll probably be on Netflix at some point.

-

Damn! Really? I wasn't aware that it was only showing in the UK.

Hopefully, you're right about Netflix. As of right now though, they don't have it listed, but I've seen that change before,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

Well how do you explain Dershowitz? I really can't understand why you're fixated on these people's nationality. They're either ignorant of the facts or incapable of understanding them, that's all there is to it.

Although as far as I can tell from Bill W's posts, I wouldn't include Winterbottom in your list anyway.

Dershowitz is an unmitigated scoundrel who thrives on conflict. He's in it for the publicity, and he's made a career out of it. He is a loathsome character and represents only himself. I can't think of any responsible US commentator who supports guilt. (We have our share of wackos and right wing nuts no doubt, but we're talking about the reasonable middle here, the mainstream, not the loose canons trying to make a name for themselves and obviously not well thought out).

Nina Burleigh has also said there is a dimension of nationality to the differing views, so I'm not alone in that belief. But people who base their views on reason, and evidence, don''t seem to have these issues. Is it wrong to say that irrational views can be tainted by nationalism?

I do however find it remarkable that otherwise well informed people in the UK, with significant public reputations to protect, have gone on record toying with the idea that Knox and Sollecito "may be" or "are" guilty, or "know more".

We're not talking about the ignorant fringe in the UK, although there's plenty of that everywhere. We're talking about cultural leaders thoughtlessly slandering two demonstrably innocent college students. It's weird. And its not the same on both sides of the ocean.

I'm not anti-Brit by any means, but there's a phenomena here. Maybe you disagree, fine. I don't think I'm imagining this. (I can't comment on Italy, as I'm missing out on Italian. I'm probably more aware of the UK because of the common language).

 

[lonepinealex]

I'm really struggling with the "cultural leaders", "well informed" and "Piers Morgan" thing. Has he somehow managed to reinvent himself while on CNN? You know he's routinely referred to as Piers Moron here, right? He's a national joke. As for Tina Brown, isn't she essentially (if not actually) American now? She hasn't lived in the UK for decades.

The case is almost non-existent in the collective UK consciousness, there aren't any public figures commenting on it.

You might not be imagining it from your perspective, but your perspective is very skewed.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm really struggling with the "cultural leaders", "well informed" and "Piers Morgan" thing. Has he somehow managed to reinvent himself while on CNN? You know he's routinely referred to as Piers Moron here, right? He's a national joke. As for Tina Brown, isn't she essentially (if not actually) American now? She hasn't lived in the UK for decades.

The case is almost non-existent in the collective UK consciousness, there aren't any public figures commenting on it.

You might not be imagining it from your perspective, but your perspective is very skewed.

That part is not entirely true. The Daily Mail recently paid for a Los Angeles tabloid photographer to fly to Seattle and stalk Amanda Knox. They had her pictured handing over about $100 in cash to her boyfriend in a park.

I would say that this case is imbedded in the UK collective unconscious. The Daily Mail probably has an "app" somewhere which tells them how often to do a story like that one.....

..... all to maximize profit.

As for Piers Morgan, I think he went afoul of CNN by taking on the US gun lobby. Compared to the US gun lobby, Morgan looked like Atticus Finch. That's why they had to ship him back to the UK.

I was watching when Morgan covered the Kercher case following the March 2013 reversal. Gloria Allred and Jeffrey Toobin were his guests. Morgan seemed a tad outraged that the ISC had implied that his friend's daughter, Meredith,had been involved in a sex game, albeit before it had gone wrong. I thought Morgan was going to burst a blood vessel on that one alone.

Allred tried her best to stifle an eye-roll when Morgan alluded to Knox perhaps knowing something she wasn't telling us. Allred then recounted her own lone attempt to start a business in Italy, and how the litigation-friendly and cumbersome legal atmosphere meant that one minor run in with law, could bankrupt you and keep you tied into the courts for years.

Toobin was more succinct. As a then-CNN partner to Morgan, Toobin mercifully said, "Let's cut to the chase. Amanda Knox is not going anywhere. She should just settle into her life here in the U.S. and put all this behind her."

Toobin had been the one commenting in October 2011 in the very hours after the acquittal. When asked why the dramatic reversal, Toobin said, "Well, it's perhaps because there simply was no credible case against the two." Ever since Toobin has been a "cut to the chase"kind of analyst about it all. Nothing seems to surprise him about Italy's system.

He rarely comments about Raffaele. I would imagine if he did it would have been something like, "He should have stayed in the Caribbean."

 

[lonepinealex]

That part is not entirely true. The Daily Mail recently paid for a Los Angeles tabloid photographer to fly to Seattle and stalk Amanda Knox. They had her pictured handing over about $100 in cash to her boyfriend in a park.

I would say that this case is imbedded in the UK collective unconscious. The Daily Mail probably has an "app" somewhere which tells them how often to do a story like that one.....

..... all to maximize profit.

The DM does that stuff now because they're courting US online traffic. That's why they publish so many articles about Kim Kardashian, even though no-one in the UK really knows who she is.

ETA: the Guardian is doing the same thing, though in a less tabloid way*. That's why there's so much US politics reported on Guardian online. The papers that have decided not to put their websites behind a paywall have had to branch out into the American market.

*having said that, they do publish a lot of articles about Miley Cyrus.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Posts #2252, #2260, #2263, refer.

Okay can we address a simple fact; Raffaele and Amanda are not convicted, they can or will only be considered convicted if the Italian Supreme Court confirm the verdicts from the 1st and 2nd level trials, agreed?

As for the movie. I stand by my comments, I look forward to seeing it for the reasons stated.

Generally and as stated before JREF has no public position on this case, there are shall I say partisan web sites either side of this case, therefore, if one wishes to read a particular one point of view on this case the join which ever web site addresses your point of view.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

-


-

So do I. Thanx for the link C.

Are you going to see it? Hopefully that if you (or anyone here) do (or does), that you (or they) will stop by and offer your (or their) thoughts on it. Going to the movies is so darn expensive now a days, I don't know if I can go and it doesn't seem that Netflix (my preferred movie source) will have it,

d

-

I certainly do plan to see this movie. However, given the rather emotional responses of some posters here I think I’ll keep my opinion to myself just in case the mere uttering causes some to spontaneously combust.

I hope the movie appears on iptorrents.

 

[codyjuneau]

But DNA evidence is not enough on its own - as Sir Alec [Jeffreys] says, DNA "has context."
"For example, I could shake your hand, leave my DNA on you. You could then visit a crime scene and leave my DNA, and I've never been anywhere near it. So there are ways of transferring DNA [with] innocent explanations, which at face value look like a pretty damning bit of guilty evidence. DNA says nothing about guilt or innocence. It only seeks to establish whether sample A came from person B, or not. It can do that with exquisite accuracy. But it's up to the court to decide innocence or guilt on all the evidence, not simply on DNA." link

or from the same article

Professor Allen Jamieson is the former head of the police forensic science laboratory of Scotland.

"Even if someone says the finding is 'consistent with' someone touching this gun, for example...That phrase 'consistent with' can be very misleading. If I take a pathologist, for example, who says the wound is consistent with a 6 inch knife because it's a 6 inch deep wound, it would also be consistent with a 12 inch knife which has gone half the way in, or an 18 inch knife which has only gone a third of the way in. So people need to remember it really means 'this is one possible explanation' - and with DNA, there are many, many explanations as to how DNA can come to be on an item."

.

The linked article also mentions this about the Michael Morton case:

"But all the while prosecutors wouldn't allow one piece of evidence to be examined."

And it turned out to be the crucial piece of evidence that proved him innocent.

This seems to be a theme in many false convictions. In the Knox case we have a putative semen stain, on the pillow case of the pillow found underneath the spread legs of Meredith's dead and naked body, and the prosecution team has consistently refused to test it despite requests from the defence to do so. Besides that, the people that argue Raffaele and Knox are guilty, rather than demand it be tested, defend the decision to not test it.

To me, this proves, PROVES, that they know instinctively the result of the test will support innocence rather than guilt of the person they claim is guilty. There is no other reasonable explanation. They would rather be irrational, than wrong.

The article Chris linked to

Cody
.

 

[moije2]

Post #2252, #2260, #2263.

Okay can we address a simple fact; Raffaele and Amanda are not convicted, they can or will only be considered convicted if the Italian Supreme Court confirm the verdicts from the 1st and 2nd level trials, agreed?

As for the movie. I stand by my comments, I look forward to seeing it for the reasons stated.

Generally and as stated before JREF has no public position on this case, there are shall I say partisan web sites either side of this case, therefore, if one wishes to read a particular one point of view on this case the join which ever web site addresses your point of view.

What a vapid and silly comment.

So one is supposed to post on JREF with no point of view? No vetting of logic employed? Uh, I believe that is antithetical to the purpose of this site.

You have posted 1534 times and meticulously avoid (pretend) giving any thought to the handling - right or wrong - of this case. If you want to participate in an echo chamber of unchallenged like ideas, then you go to the "site that addresses your point of view". This site, and IIP/IA, encourage challenges and I have no doubt the point of view or position of any here would change with thoughtful analysis of the known evidence that leads them in another direction.

I continue to be surprised by the amount of response you get to your postings. I will say that your posts fully represent the position that one should not think for themselves. In that respect they are useful.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I certainly do plan to see this movie. However, given the rather emotional responses of some posters here I think I’ll keep my opinion to myself just in case the mere uttering causes some to spontaneously combust.

I hope the movie appears on iptorrents.

-

I can understand that. I can be guilty of that myself at times, but as yet I haven't as yet combusted, but I guess it's only a matter of time before I do. Ha ha.

But, feel free to PM me if you wish. I really am interested in your opinion there C,

d

-

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What a vapid and silly comment.

So one is supposed to post on JREF with no point of view? No vetting of logic employed? Uh, I believe that is antithetical to the purpose of this site.

You have posted 1534 times and meticulously avoid (pretend) giving any thought to the handling - right or wrong - of this case. If you want to participate in an echo chamber of unchallenged like ideas, then you go to the "site that addresses your point of view". This site, and IIP/IA, encourage challenges and I have no doubt the point of view or position of any here would change with thoughtful analysis of the known evidence that leads them in another direction.

I continue to be surprised by the amount of response you get to your postings. I will say that your posts fully represent the position that one should not think for themselves. In that respect they are useful.

Thank you for your kind response and point of view.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We can all have a little too much to drink and...

CoulsdonUK,

Do you think that when a juror says "It's possible," that she has been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt?