Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

I had not thought of that. Now I am sad. Thanks a lot!

 

[moije2]

Do you want to talk about Meredith? How well did you know her? Was she the kind of girl that would make a date with a virtual stranger and invite him into her home while she was already involved with another man? Or, would she come home early from dinner with her friends and kick around idly at home, not trying to call her mother, not tending to the wet clothes in the washer, not even cracking the book she borrowed to study that night, just laying in her unmade bed fiddling with the buttons on her phone for an hour?

It's been almost 7 years now that Meredith hasn't so much as lifted a finger. What does she have to contribute to the current discussions? What truths could she expose?

I find your "Remember Meredith" meme to be disingenuous blather.

Agreed.

And how does this movie - that almost none of us have seen - shift the focus back to Meredith? We hear there is tribute of sorts at the end of the movie. Very nice. But the movie is still apparently about the chase by the journalists among others to make money off of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by sensationalizing this story. Whether they are guilty or not - of which there is very little intelligent analysis going against them.

Meredith, her poor soul, has been violently taken and unfortunately become more widely mourned than could be otherwise imagined.

Amanda Knox is in my view the ultimate rape victim. Not just once, but for the last 7 years. And Raffaele is her co-rape victim, the guy they ran over while getting at the evil vixen who in their minds deserved to be pilloried. Just think about their situation. Amanda was 20 and now is something like 27. She will likely be 30 before the dust settles on the legal charade. Her entire 20s egregiously marred by this witch hunt. And Raffaele prosecuted in his own country, although being from the relative lesser step-child of Puglia. This is a time when many of that age are finding mates, getting married, having children, and establishing their careers. And not having themselves and their families hounded by mentally imbalanced anonymous internet people.

So yes, CoulsdonUK's comment about refreshing to see the focus move back to Meredith is really strange. Whether you think they are innocent, or guilty as you appear to believe, AK and RS should be the focus. And if you, CoulsdonUK want to give more tribute to Meredith, I suppose you could go to sites with that purpose, such as TJMK or the PMF folks. Oh, but they don't really pay tribute to her, do they?

 

[carbonjam72]

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 hope you will come back and share your opinion. The fact that you seem to lean towards a finding of guilt for Knox and Sollecito, or are even willing to entertain the proposition given the lack of any evidence, and the malfeasance of the prosecution, makes your opinion stand out.

I'm guessing this film will sit you down, and walk you through the acquittal. And your reaction to that experience will be fascinating. I really do hope you'll share.

 

[Grinder]

Thank you for your kind response and point of view.

Do you think that in the recent case where 3 men were let out of prison after 30 years or the West Memphis 3 that it is a shame that the victims of those crimes don't get top billing? Or do you think bad prosecutions are actually good because long forgotten victims get their names in the media when the wrongful convictions are addressed years later?

I think friends of Meredith and family will always remember her, but I really don't understand why there should be a special concern to keep her memory alive as opposed to all those others that met with a tragic death in the interim or before.

But given the job the ILE did, her memory will be kept alive for a long, long time - at least mention of her name.

I didn't read her father's book so I know very little about her life. I'm guessing you did read it, perhaps you could start a thread on her life and invite people from both sides to contribute.

 

[carbonjam72]

Agreed.

And how does this movie - that almost none of us have seen - shift the focus back to Meredith? We hear there is tribute of sorts at the end of the movie. Very nice. But the movie is still apparently about the chase by the journalists among others to make money off of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by sensationalizing this story. Whether they are guilty or not - of which there is very little intelligent analysis going against them.

Meredith, her poor soul, has been violently taken and unfortunately become more widely mourned than could be otherwise imagined.

Amanda Knox is in my view the ultimate rape victim. Not just once, but for the last 7 years. And Raffaele is her co-rape victim, the guy they ran over while getting at the evil vixen who in their minds deserved to be pilloried. Just think about their situation. Amanda was 20 and now is something like 27. She will likely be 30 before the dust settles on the legal charade. Her entire 20s egregiously marred by this witch hunt. And Raffaele prosecuted in his own country, although being from the relative lesser step-child of Puglia. This is a time when many of that age are finding mates, getting married, having children, and establishing their careers. And not having themselves and their families hounded by mentally imbalanced anonymous internet people.

So yes, CoulsdonUK's comment about refreshing to see the focus move back to Meredith is really strange. Whether you think they are innocent, or guilty as you appear to believe, AK and RS should be the focus. And if you, CoulsdonUK want to give more tribute to Meredith, I suppose you could go to sites with that purpose, such as TJMK or the PMF folks. Oh, but they don't really pay tribute to her, do they?

Just want to say thanks, great post.

 

[moije2]

Thank you for your kind response and point of view.

I am not sure how "kind" it was, given that many here voice similar comments of irritation with your pretense of no position and deferral to authority. My surprise is that they find it a good use of time. Of which I am guilty now as well. But we all having our breaking point don't we? Or maybe I just had a little time to throw away.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

The comments I see on the Daily Mail seem to be about 80-90% UK, with a smattering of people claiming to be from the US. The comments are running about 2 or 3 TO 1 in favor of guilt. That's what I see.

Piers Morgan was an editor of one of the UK tabloid newspapers I thought. He also is featured as a TV host on CNN, I don't know if he had a show in the UK. It doesn't make him smart, but it does mean that smart or dumb, he gets to have his say. That's what I meant by "cultural leaders", people who have prominent voices, by virtue of their access to the major media. (btw, he was right to speak out on guns).

Tina Brown was editor of the Daily Beast and Newsweek I believe. That doesn't make her smart, but it allowed her to champion and amplify the reporting of Barbie Nadeau, and to publish her book on the Knox case.

The BBC funded Winterbottom's film from Nadeau's book, and another unit perhaps at the BBC bought Andrea Vogt's documentary (as you and I have discussed in the past). (A smaller radio 4 BBC show was done with Dr Gill rubbishing (I'm trying to sound british) the evidence).

The point is not that these people, who championed these types of work are particularly smart or well informed, but only that they have the influence to get their views disseminated into print, books, TV Doc, and movies.

I have no particular regard for Piers Morgan or Tina Brown, although I think less of them after their comments on this case. My own view is they (Brown, Morgan and Winterbottom) should all be barred from entering, residing in, or doing business in the US, for their slanders in this case. Let them be geniuses in the UK. Dershowitz I suppose we're stuck with, but I truly wish we could deport him as well.

Call me cranky. BUt these people have enjoyed the best of American society, and slandering the wee folk ought not be the prerogative of visitors and charlatans. Leave that to our own home grown nut bags, and their right to their asinine free speech.

 

[moije2]

The comments I see on the Daily Mail seem to be about 80-90% UK, with a smattering of people claiming to be from the US. The comments are running about 2 or 3 TO 1 in favor of guilt. That's what I see.

Piers Morgan was an editor of one of the UK tabloid newspapers I thought. He also is featured as a TV host on CNN, I don't know if he had a show in the UK. It doesn't make him smart, but it does mean that smart or dumb, he gets to have his say. That's what I meant by "cultural leaders", people who have prominent voices, by virtue of their access to the major media. (btw, he was right to speak out on guns).

Tina Brown was editor of the Daily Beast and Newsweek I believe. That doesn't make her smart, but it allowed her to champion and amplify the reporting of Barbie Nadeau, and to publish her book on the Knox case.

The BBC funded Winterbottom's film from Nadeau's book, and another unit perhaps at the BBC bought Andrea Vogt's documentary (as you and I have discussed in the past). (A smaller radio 4 BBC show was done with Dr Gill rubbishing (I'm trying to sound british) the evidence).

The point is not that these people, who championed these types of work are particularly smart or well informed, but only that they have the influence to get their views disseminated into print, books, TV Doc, and movies.

I have no particular regard for Piers Morgan or Tina Brown, although I think less of them after their comments on this case. My own view is they (Brown, Morgan and Winterbottom) should all be barred from entering, residing in, or doing business in the US, for their slanders in this case. Let them be geniuses in the UK. Dershowitz I suppose we're stuck with, but I truly wish we could deport him as well.

Call me cranky. BUt these people have enjoyed the best of American society, and slandering the wee folk ought not be the prerogative of visitors and charlatans. Leave that to our own home grown nut bags, and their right to their asinine free speech.

I tried twice last week to make comments to Daily Mail articles. Each comment was benign I thought. But nowhere did they appear. I assume that just like the rest of this "journalism", the comment section is tightly controlled for best impact to keep the clicks going, and that one needs to abandon the thought that the comment section is truly a public space for comment.

Am I wrong?

 

[codyjuneau]

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.

.
Hmmm.

This gives me an idea for a website: http://www.vapid.org the refreshingly new site where no point of view is allowed because it is wrong to have a point of view .... oops.

Cody
.

 

[moije2]

vapid.com

.
Hmmm.

This gives me an idea for a website: http://www.vapid.org the refreshingly new site where no point of view is allowed because it is wrong to have a point of view .... oops.

Cody
.

Good idea!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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

Gosh! If possible I would like to know the jurors name and the case they were referring to and if possible the quotation from more than one credible independent source. Reasonable?

Do you think that in the recent case where 3 men were let out of prison after 30 years or the West Memphis 3 that it is a shame that the victims of those crimes don't get top billing? Or do you think bad prosecutions are actually good because long forgotten victims get their names in the media when the wrongful convictions are addressed years later?

I think friends of Meredith and family will always remember her, but I really don't understand why there should be a special concern to keep her memory alive as opposed to all those others that met with a tragic death in the interim or before.

But given the job the ILE did, her memory will be kept alive for a long, long time - at least mention of her name.

I didn't read her father's book so I know very little about her life. I'm guessing you did read it, perhaps you could start a thread on her life and invite people from both sides to contribute.

Is this the North Carolina case? If so, I think those guys were convicted along racial grounds, just like the Central Park Five and in both cases I do not see a link to Raffaele and Amanda, I guess you do.

I am not a friend of the family nor did I know Meredith although my eldest daughter was a year behind Meredith in primary school as I have stated a number of times.

How well do you know Amanda and or any members of her family?

Do you have any information on Amanda's ECHR appeal?

I hope you will come back and share your opinion. The fact that you seem to lean towards a finding of guilt for Knox and Sollecito, or are even willing to entertain the proposition given the lack of any evidence, and the malfeasance of the prosecution, makes your opinion stand out.

I'm guessing this film will sit you down, and walk you through the acquittal. And your reaction to that experience will be fascinating. I really do hope you'll share.

First things first. Do you agree that Raffaele and Amanda are currently not convicted?

I am not sure how "kind" it was, given that many here voice similar comments of irritation with your pretense of no position and deferral to authority. My surprise is that they find it a good use of time. Of which I am guilty now as well. But we all having our breaking point don't we? Or maybe I just had a little time to throw away.

This isn’t about me so I am able to respond tongue-in-cheek (rants) posts from fellow JREF members.

Hey look, if the Italian Supreme Courts sends this case back to the appeal phase for whatever reason you won’t see me howling at the injustice of this or that; just here we go again.

 

[acbytesla]

So yes, CoulsdonUK's comment about refreshing to see the focus move back to Meredith is really strange. Whether you think they are innocent, or guilty as you appear to believe, AK and RS should be the focus. And if you, CoulsdonUK want to give more tribute to Meredith, I suppose you could go to sites with that purpose, such as TJMK or the PMF folks. Oh, but they don't really pay tribute to her, do they?

I think it is a joke to say that this movie or virtually any of the articles and discussion moves the focus back to Meredith. The movie actually moves the focus to the people covering the case. Meredith's name is only mentioned in the credits in case anyone forgot.

The fact is that people haven't been discussing Meredith for at least 6 years.
This is all about the Italian judicial system and the victims of that judicial system. Meredith was the victim of Rudy Guede and it truly is a shame that here life was snuffed out so cruelly. But putting the wrong people behind bars has little to do with Meredith's life.

 

[Bill Williams]

The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute. The man who doesn't is a fool for life. - Confucius.

 

[acbytesla]

Is this the North Carolina case? If so, I think those guys were convicted along racial grounds, just like the Central Park Five and in both cases I do not see a link to Raffaele and Amanda, I guess you do.

You act as if the only kind of discrimination is racial. Nina Burliegh just wrote an article comparing problems with race and the problem Amanda had/has in Italy. She is the outsider and xenophobia is just as prevalent as racial prejudice.

First things first. Do you agree that Raffaele and Amanda are currently not convicted?

Are they? I've been hearing for years that nothing is final until the ISC rules. So who knows?

This isn’t about me so I am able to respond tongue-in-cheek rants posts from fellow JREF members.

Hey look, if the Italian Supreme Courts sends this case back to the appeal phase for whatever reason you won’t see me howling at the injustice of this or that; just here we go again.

That last line makes me laugh.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute. The man who doesn't is a fool for life. - Confucius.

That's Deep!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You act as if the only kind of discrimination is racial. Nina Burliegh just wrote an article comparing problems with race and the problem Amanda had/has in Italy. She is the outsider and xenophobia is just as prevalent as racial prejudice.

Erm; the case of the guys from North Carolina and the Central Park Five, I do believe race was the motivating factor. Raffaele’s treatment doesn’t appear to have been much different than Amanda’s, right?

Are they? I've been hearing for years that nothing is final until the ISC rules. So who knows?

Are you teasing me? Okay Raffaele minus is passport is free to live his life such as it is in Italy, he is not under house arrest, he even had a press conference not too long ago, so yea they are not convicted.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's Deep!

Thanks. But it was not meant for you.

 

[Grinder]

Gosh! If possible I would like to know the jurors name and the case they were referring to and if possible the quotation from more than one credible independent source. Reasonable?

The account was about the Nencini appeal. Nencini said that lay judges were confused by the media accounts and would come to him and ask what was correct.

Maybe he should have had De Felice explain to the jurors what was correct.

Is this the North Carolina case? If so, I think those guys were convicted along racial grounds, just like the Central Park Five and in both cases I do not see a link to Raffaele and Amanda, I guess you do.

Come on now, the point was clear that you and just about everyone following the developments don't recall the victim(s) nor is it relevant to the wrongly convicted men. Are you saying victims aren't important when the perp is black or falsely convicted as a black but if the perp is white the victim has some other status that must be recognized?

How well do you know Amanda and or any members of her family?

Do you have any information on Amanda's ECHR appeal?

Once again, I have had no contact with the family ever except seeing Curt in a restaurant once. No idea about the ECHR.

First things first. Do you agree that Raffaele and Amanda are currently not convicted?

Yes.

Hey look, if the Italian Supreme Courts sends this case back to the appeal phase for whatever reason you won’t see me howling at the injustice of this or that; just here we go again.

Of course, because you have some strange idea that whatever the Italian court system does is correct.

 

[lonepinealex]

The comments I see on the Daily Mail seem to be about 80-90% UK, with a smattering of people claiming to be from the US. The comments are running about 2 or 3 TO 1 in favor of guilt. That's what I see.

Piers Morgan was an editor of one of the UK tabloid newspapers I thought. He also is featured as a TV host on CNN, I don't know if he had a show in the UK. It doesn't make him smart, but it does mean that smart or dumb, he gets to have his say. That's what I meant by "cultural leaders", people who have prominent voices, by virtue of their access to the major media. (btw, he was right to speak out on guns).

Tina Brown was editor of the Daily Beast and Newsweek I believe. That doesn't make her smart, but it allowed her to champion and amplify the reporting of Barbie Nadeau, and to publish her book on the Knox case.

The BBC funded Winterbottom's film from Nadeau's book, and another unit perhaps at the BBC bought Andrea Vogt's documentary (as you and I have discussed in the past). (A smaller radio 4 BBC show was done with Dr Gill rubbishing (I'm trying to sound british) the evidence).

The point is not that these people, who championed these types of work are particularly smart or well informed, but only that they have the influence to get their views disseminated into print, books, TV Doc, and movies.

I have no particular regard for Piers Morgan or Tina Brown, although I think less of them after their comments on this case. My own view is they (Brown, Morgan and Winterbottom) should all be barred from entering, residing in, or doing business in the US, for their slanders in this case. Let them be geniuses in the UK. Dershowitz I suppose we're stuck with, but I truly wish we could deport him as well.

Call me cranky. BUt these people have enjoyed the best of American society, and slandering the wee folk ought not be the prerogative of visitors and charlatans. Leave that to our own home grown nut bags, and their right to their asinine free speech.

This is what I mean about your perspective. Piers Morgan and Tina Brown (who is an American citizen now, btw) have been asked about the case in the US. I can't think of any prominent "cultural leaders" talking about it here. So your examples of Brits on the wrong side of the fence, are actually in an American cultural context. They don't speak for Brits or represent us in any way in this matter - no-one does, cos it's not that big a deal here.

Piers Morgan is the regular butt of jokes on practically every TV and radio current affairs comedy programme. He's a walking punchline.

Are you wilfully ignoring Bill Williams' points about Winterbottom? You seem to have discounted my views on the whole BBC fandango. To give you a bit more cultural perspective that might change how you feel about the two documentaries, BBC3 is like the BBC's tabloid/youth channel, R4 is serious and well respected talk radio.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The account was about the Nencini appeal. Nencini said that lay judges were confused by the media accounts and would come to him and ask what was correct. Maybe he should have had De Felice explain to the jurors what was correct.

I have a vague recollection of Nencini directing a jurist to disregard what they had seen on a TV programme, is that what you are referring to?

Come on now, the point was clear that you and just about everyone following the developments don't recall the victim(s) nor is it relevant to the wrongly convicted men. Are you saying victims aren't important when the perp is black or falsely convicted as a black but if the perp is white the victim has some other status that must be recognized?

No that is what you posted, I merely stated that I do not see any connection between those cases and this one. I remember this one because Meredith was a local girl (kid), just as you may have particular interest in this case because Amanda is from Seattle, both position are understandable.

Once again, I have had no contact with the family ever except seeing Curt in a restaurant once. No idea about the ECHR.

Ok.

Yes.

Thank you.

Of course, because you have some strange idea that whatever the Italian court system does is correct.

No just that Italian court system has jurisdiction, right?