Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Well if anyone would care to weigh in, I'm happy to hear it. If I'm lacking perspective, better to know than not.

As to the phrase US culture, I'm not sure there is one, if there ever was. Big country divided by regions, and particularly by politics. It's a mess.

Biggest mistake I'v encountered though among Euro friends, is confusing American policy, with Americans.

Different ages genders and sides of an ocean pale into insignificance compared to the cultural divide between guilters and innocenters. The latter is the eternal riddle.
I spend far too much time contemplating this, but a fellow NZer on PMF afforded me a clue today.

Here is his effort using a similar case to Pistorius

“The accused was fearful of his life and grabbed the gun that he keeps in his bedside pedestal drawer at night for protection from unwanted intruders in his home.

“The accused then made his way to the entrance door of the room and could hear the noise coming from the bathroom.

“The accused then slowly made his way to the bathroom door to investigate the noise, thinking that the burglar was hiding in the bathroom.

“As the accused reached the bathroom door, the bathroom door suddenly slid open and the accused, afraid for his life, panicked at being startled by the door suddenly opening and he fired a shot from his gun at the person who opened the door.

“After the accused had discharged the shot he realised that it was his wife that he had shot, thinking she was a burglar, it was said in Mdunge’s plea statement.

It added that Mdunge “immediately” rushed Thobile to Mediclinic Hospital, where doctors tried to save her life, but she later died.

When police got there at about 01:50, Mdunge explained to them what had happened and handed over his firearm to them.

and the analysis

We have to be careful with these two cases.

Visagie was never tried and the other is a plea bargain

So the issue was never determined.
My belief is that OP got the idea for his version from this case.

This is flawed with a moment's reflection, Oscar immediately composed his story in the heat of the moment' and even if he knew this other case, it must be chance that it was a bathroom, and the facts were similar.
This analysis uses confirmation bias to support a retrofitted explanation for Pistorius conspiring to fool everyone, just as Amanda and Raffaele are supposed to have done after the murder.

In other words he supposedly knew he was shooting at Reeva, and the scoundrel had this excuse figured beforehand.

 

[kwill]

As to the phrase US culture, I'm not sure there is one, if there ever was. Big country divided by regions, and particularly by politics. It's a mess.

True that. Is that the case in other countries, those of you who have lived in more than one place?

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not aware Bill W had made any points he wanted me to further address?

As far as I could tell, you and I at least, agreed that the film only has tension by starting from the point in time where there is a guilty conviction - on the first day of the appeal. Thus toying with the notion that, they 'may be guilty'. Winterbottom has openly taken the position that, 'we'll never know the truth'. (See Nina Burleigh's recent article in the New York Observer.)

http://observer.com/2014/09/american-black-men-amanda-knox/

Bill W, am I missing something, do you think we are in some disagreement on anything relating to this movie? (bearing in mind my limited knowledge, the fact you've seen it, and I'm relying in part of your excellent summaries)..

It occurs to me that I could have said anything about the film....

Ok, I'm now lost. Not sure what has happened in the convo between me, lonepinealex and carbonjam72. (Cool pseudos, though.)

Can you recap?

 

[carbonjam72]

It occurs to me that I could have said anything about the film....

Ok, I'm now lost. Not sure what has happened in the convo between me, lonepinealex and carbonjam72. (Cool pseudos, though.)

Can you recap?

I'm missing out on this too. I didn't follow LPA's criticism of me ducking your arguments.

LPA, if you think I've been dodging any of Bill' W's points, please identity them, and I'll try to respond.

Hey Bill W, what about my phrasing, "peculiarly british", which LPA has said my descriptions along these lines are bizarre, and I'm not seeing it. Am I nuts? Am I having my own 'Joe Biden moment' on JREF? (see my comment#2292)

 

[toto]

Well if anyone would care to weigh in, I'm happy to hear it. If I'm lacking perspective, better to know than not.

As to the phrase US culture, I'm not sure there is one, if there ever was. Big country divided by regions, and particularly by politics. It's a mess.

Biggest mistake I'v encountered though among Euro friends, is confusing American policy, with Americans.

I don't think you can necessarily equate British tabloids with British opinion, but I suppose there is some correlation. I am not sure many people are following the case in the UK, and I guess that they would probably go with the official line, which at the moment is Guilty and probably will remain so. But if Bill Williams is correct about the line (British filmmaker) Michael Winterbottom's film seems to be taking, and judging from what I have seen of Knox and Sollecito's appearances on U.K. tv and the coverage on Newsnight (BBC news/current affairs) and The Guardian then sensible coverage seems to be fair and slightly leaning towards innocence. But I accept that those that can give an opinion, such as the tabloids (UK tv should be neutral) will go for the sensational angle, which gives quite a bias towards guilt. I suspect quite a few British (I will use the term until at least next week) posters comment for pro innocence on this forum. But I may be sadly underestimating about the numbers of pro Guilty U.K. posters on the internet as a whole. I think that a divide on nationality is a mistake. We should be looking at this case on its own merits.

From my perspective as a Brit watching US news on satellite or the internet I get the impression the U.S is a pretty divided country, but I think that would be the result of watching both Fox News and MSNBC. Sean Hannitty and Chris Matthews are simply worlds away!

 

[lonepinealex]

Well if anyone would care to weigh in, I'm happy to hear it. If I'm lacking perspective, better to know than not.

As to the phrase US culture, I'm not sure there is one, if there ever was. Big country divided by regions, and particularly by politics. It's a mess. Biggest mistake I'v encountered though among Euro friends, is confusing American policy, with Americans.

Well there you go, that's exactly my point. So enough with the British peculiarities and extrapolating the tweets of a couple of ex-pats to the mindset of the entire nation.

The Winterbottom thing - you keep bringing him and his film up as an example of Brits and their pro-guilt biases, yet Bill W seems to be saying that the film is not pro-guilt at all, and in fact leans the other way.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't think you can necessarily equate British tabloids with British opinion, but I suppose there is some correlation. I am not sure many people are following the case in the UK, and I guess that they would probably go with the official line, which at the moment is Guilty and probably will remain so. But if Bill Williams is correct about the line (British filmmaker) Michael Winterbottom's film seems to be taking, and judging from what I have seen of Knox and Sollecito's appearances on U.K. tv and the coverage on Newsnight (BBC news/current affairs) and The Guardian then sensible coverage seems to be fair and slightly leaning towards innocence. But I accept that those that can give an opinion, such as the tabloids (UK tv should be neutral) will go for the sensational angle, which gives quite a bias towards guilt. I suspect quite a few British (I will use the term until at least next week) posters comment for pro innocence on this forum. But I may be sadly underestimating about the numbers of pro Guilty U.K. posters on the internet as a whole. I think that a divide on nationality is a mistake. We should be looking at this case on its own merits.

From my perspective as a Brit watching US news on satellite or the internet I get the impression the U.S is a pretty divided country, but I think that would be the result of watching both Fox News and MSNBC. Sean Hannitty and Chris Matthews are simply worlds away!

Well that has never been my intention, to divide on nationality. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-innocence people in Italy and the UK, and plenty of guilters' in the US.

And maybe this is my bias speaking here, but the US guilters strike me as straight up nutters and damaged people, whereas many of the pro-guilt people from italy and the UK strike me as intelligent people inexplicably misguided in their views. (But nuts and wacky fringe folk are a universal phenomena).

But having said that, and I think I've been misunderstood on this point, is that European countries, much more so than the US, have a national stereotypical identity or culture, that like it or not, calls them to mind. (US has this in a more regional way.) That doesn't confer an, "well they're all like that" prejudice, but it does mean certain types of behavior or tendencies are not unfamiliar.

To witness an old joke, and now I may be dating myself -
In Heaven, the policemen are British, the cooks are French, the lovers are Italian, and its all organized by the Germans.
In Hell, the cooks are British, policeman are French, the lovers are German, and its all organized by the Italians.

If the French can take justified pride in their prowess in the kitchen, can they fault us for laughing at Inspector Clouseau?

ARe there great french policeman, and terrible french cooks? Of course, but is there any reality to these kinds of cultural memes? I have to say yes, there are cultural aspects that make every culture unique, and wonderful, and terrible.

-----

By the way, if you're looking for solid news coverage in the US, stick with PBS/Corp for Public Broadcasting - with the "News Hour", or "National Public Radio", "NOVA specials", or Bill Moyers if he's still around.

The rest are varying shades of commercial entertainment, with the Big 3 TV networks the last remnant of respected national news programming from the commercial side. And then FOX, cable, and right wing crackpot radio following up in the fantasy brigades. FOX and MSNBC especially, are overtly adversarial, which is a relatively new thing in the US TV and media, at least. British advocacy in the press is a culturally different phenomena than in the US.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well there you go, that's exactly my point. So enough with the British peculiarities and extrapolating the tweets of a couple of ex-pats to the mindset of the entire nation.

The Winterbottom thing - you keep bringing him and his film up as an example of Brits and their pro-guilt biases, yet Bill W seems to be saying that the film is not pro-guilt at all, and in fact leans the other way.

Not exactly what I've said about WInterbottom. I keep bring him up as an example of blindness to the suffering of the defendants.

(Nor have I said 'Brits have a pro-guilt bias'. I'm not confusing 'ALL" with "many", or "more than one would expect given the actual facts". )

Winterbottom is playing both sides for the same effect as the tabloids. By pretending that Amanda may have a double nature, the question is created, 'did they do it'. Without that lie, the tabloids have no cash cow story, and Winterbottom has no film.

I don't think Bill W and I have disagreed on anything with respect to this film, even if Bill W does (sorry Bill, but even this is unclear at the moment).

We're talking about blindness to the defendants' suffering as unjustly accused & convicted, and the fabrication of 'Foxy Knoxy' in the British tabloids.

When the acquittals were announced on Oct 3, 2011, David Cameron said something to the effect that, "the Kerchers have been told they were involved in the crime, and people should think about that".

Cameron's emphasis was on the disappointment of the Kerchers in not having their conviction, not on the fact that two innocent young people had spent four years of brutal imprisonment for a crime they had nothing to do with, after being framed by a madman who had managed to become an Italian prosecutor.

That's blindness. I don't see how you can get away from it.

Winterbottom and Tina Brown are not simply ex-pats. They have prominent positions and have a voice in major media in a way most of us will never have. They are British, and they have been oddly, self-servingly blind. And they are not alone or unique, nor is their behavior excusable because they are "ex-pats".

So in my view the British tabloids are, "British". For you, they are written and published by human beings who are low on critical thinking skills. Is this really a disagreement?

I think I'm giving up on arguing this point. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

 

[toto]

Not exactly what I've said about WInterbottom. I keep bring him up as an example of blindness to the suffering of the defendants.

(Nor have I said 'Brits have a pro-guilt bias'. I'm not confusing 'ALL" with "many", or "more than one would expect given the actual facts". )

Winterbottom is playing both sides for the same effect as the tabloids. By pretending that Amanda may have a double nature, the question is created, 'did they do it'. Without that lie, the tabloids have no cash cow story, and Winterbottom has no film.

I don't think Bill W and I have disagreed on anything with respect to this film, even if Bill W does (sorry Bill, but even this is unclear at the moment).

We're talking about blindness to the defendants' suffering as unjustly accused & convicted, and the fabrication of 'Foxy Knoxy' in the British tabloids.

When the acquittals were announced on Oct 3, 2011, David Cameron said something to the effect that, "the Kerchers have been told they were involved in the crime, and people should think about that".

Cameron's emphasis was on the disappointment of the Kerchers in not having their conviction, not on the fact that two innocent young people had spent four years of brutal imprisonment for a crime they had nothing to do with, after being framed by a madman who had managed to become an Italian prosecutor.

That's blindness. I don't see how you can get away from it.

Winterbottom and Tina Brown are not simply ex-pats. They have prominent positions and have a voice in major media in a way most of us will never have. They are British, and they have been oddly, self-servingly blind. And they are not alone or unique, nor is their behavior excusable because they are "ex-pats".

So in my view the British tabloids are, "British". For you, they are written and published by human beings who are low on critical thinking skills. Is this really a disagreement?

I think I'm giving up on arguing this point. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

Was this the quotation? Slightly less anti Knox than how you put it but I take your point.

"What I would say is that we should be thinking of the family of Meredith Kercher because those parents had an explanation for what had happened to their wonderful daughter and that explanation isn't there anymore," David Cameron told Daybreak

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/10/04/cameron-wades-into-knox-judgement

 

[carbonjam72]

Was this the quotation? Slightly less anti Knox than how you put it but I take your point.

"What I would say is that we should be thinking of the family of Meredith Kercher because those parents had an explanation for what had happened to their wonderful daughter and that explanation isn't there anymore," David Cameron told Daybreak
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/10/04/cameron-wades-into-knox-judgement

Yes, I think that's it. And, I didn't say it was anti-knox at all.

I said it was blind to the suffering of two innocent college students unjustly framed for a crime they had nothing to do with, by an Italian lunatic who'd managed to become a prosecutor.

 

[toto]

Yes, I think that's it. And, I didn't say it was anti-knox at all.

I said it was blind to the suffering of two innocent college students unjustly framed for a crime they had nothing to do with, by an Italian lunatic who'd managed to become a prosecutor.

I suppose it's possible that Cameron knew that the legal process was not complete (as obviously it isn't) and that as British Prime Minister his main job was to show sympathy for the British Kerchers, so I personally would cut him some slack for that. He couldn't really advocate for the innocence of Knox and Sollecito knowing the extremely long legal process the Italians have. And let's face it, as it officially stands, he said the right thing.

 

[lonepinealex]

carbonjam, your fixation on this idea of wilful blindness and national stereotypes (based on old jokes and Monty Python and your impression of our newspapers) is just wrong.

If you believe that there aren't generic stereotypes about Americans or that other countries are too small to have their own regional stereotypes, then you're misinformed. What any of that has to do with this case though, I have no idea. That is what I find bizarre - that you can see any connection at all to a forty year old comedy show and some notion about the British attitude to Amanda Knox. I might as well draw conclusions about the American psyche based on I Love Lucy and Happy Days for all the sense it makes.

The reason you aren't seeing more investigative journalism, or public figures speaking out, from the UK, is because there isn't very much interest at all in the case over here, because Amanda Knox is American. Beyond the salacious "student sex killer" stuff that the tabloids initially lapped up, no-one's interested. There's always a national bias in news reporting, in every country.

My impression of the tabloid reporting, and even the Vogt documentary, is that they're just reporting what happened in the trials. There's no interest in delving into it here and in general our news outlets don't have the resources to go beyond superficial reporting these days. Even BBC news has been cut to the bone. Understanding that this is a wrongful conviction requires spending a lot of time reading court documents, as everyone here surely knows. I can't even explain it properly to my boyfriend, because it would take hours. So he keeps saying things like "no smoke without fire" (largely to wind me up). But he finds it really unlikely that the Perugian police wouldn't just go "oops, we made a mistake", when they found the Guede evidence. There's no incentive for tabloids - which are just about sales - to care about explaining any of that to their readers, it's just too complex.

The serious news outlets in the UK have taken a more nuanced approach to reporting the case, and the Guardian in particular is essentially pro-innocence (in that it publishes pro-innocence articles, I don't think any of the papers have an editorial stance on it). That's about all you can expect of news reporting, especially given the danger of libel laws in the UK. It's such a minor story here though, that there's no incentive for anyone to devote the necessary resources to it. You might think it's unreasonable and irresponsible of them, but why should they care so much more about this story than any other, just because you do?

The UK press is about more than tabloids - your perception on this is flawed because of the notoriety that our tabloids have.

You're holding other people up to completely unreasonable standards - there's no way a Prime Minister can take a position on a legal process in another country, it would be a diplomatic disaster. What has Obama had to say about it all? Did Hillary Clinton ever say anything firm on the case? Of course not. Your expectations are out of line with reality.

Quite why you think Michael Winterbottom is shirking some kind of responsibility by not making the film you wish he'd made is beyond me. I'm pretty impressed that the film has turned out to be favourable to A & R, I didn't expect that.

 

[lonepinealex]

I suppose it's possible that Cameron knew that the legal process was not complete (as obviously it isn't) and that as British Prime Minister his main job was to show sympathy for the British Kerchers, so I personally would cut him some slack for that. He couldn't really advocate for the innocence of Knox and Sollecito knowing the extremely long legal process the Italians have. And let's face it, as it officially stands, he said the right thing.

Absolutely. Cameron probably hadn't even heard of the Kerchers or Amanda Knox before he was briefed that morning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Quite why you think Michael Winterbottom is shirking some kind of responsibility by not making the film you wish he'd made is beyond me. I'm pretty impressed that the film has turned out to be favourable to A & R, I didn't expect that.

Far be it for me to weigh in on a dispute which does not involve me..... but why should I change now....

It seems that this as an AKRS-favourable film is also being lost, to all except those few who are case-aficionados (or as friends of mine put it: obsessives).

Manohla Dargis of the NY Times:

"The festival’s generic organizational rubrics (Discovery, Special Presentations) don’t help. Michael Winterbottom was slotted into the Masters section with his godawful “The Face of an Angel,” about a director, Thomas (Daniel Brühl), trying to figure out how to make a movie about a young American in Italy (a stand-in for Amanda Knox) who’s been accused of murdering her roommate. In between drinking, drugging, spelling out the movie’s themes (journalists are parasites, etc.) and hanging out in Siena with friendly lovelies (Kate Beckinsale, Cara Delevingne), Thomas broods. He also pines — as does a man in Mr. Winterbottom’s “Trip to Italy” — about the child he’s left behind. In other words, it is all about a director’s struggle to make a self-indulgent work surely no one wants to see."​

Winterbottom may just have treated the AKRS wrongful prosecution so (new word alert!) "backgroundy" that it's completely missed....

.... and the elevation of Frank Sfarzo to Oracle at Delphi status is buried deep, deep, deep, beneath the reviewers' disgust that Winterbottom says bad things about Nadeau and Pisa.

What's clear is that what interests us, is not what's being written about for the film - if indeed ANYONE even notices it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm missing out on this too. I didn't follow LPA's criticism of me ducking your arguments.

LPA, if you think I've been dodging any of Bill' W's points, please identity them, and I'll try to respond.

Hey Bill W, what about my phrasing, "peculiarly british", which LPA has said my descriptions along these lines are bizarre, and I'm not seeing it. Am I nuts? Am I having my own 'Joe Biden moment' on JREF? (see my comment#2292)

I would not say you're nuts.

I spent some time in the UK a decade ago. It was an eye-opener how the tabloids there were so prominent, and (I say with fear and trembling) that they did seem to "hook" something in the British (a term to be used until next week, so I'm told) psyche, that is now hooked as firmly elsewhere.

I was there during the whole Jeffrey Archer debacle and trial. The Sun always had some young lady on page three who looked as if she was needed at a new-borns' orphanage. Everyone would cluck distain at page 3, but there was a direct ratio (Anglo: read relationship!) between her bust size and the number of copies sold.

If there is some bit of caricature I can add to perhaps make lonepinealex raise an eye-brow, it's that the whole tabloid phenomenon seemed to be a guilty pleasure for folk of all social standing, not taken terribly seriously yet could produce a lot of chattering.

The chattering would burst like a bubble if someone injected an actual fact into the conversation, and they'd lear at you as if to say, "You're always spoiling my fun!"

So I would not say that you're nuts, and there is SOME basis for saying that Monty Python touches a nerve somewhere, somehow.

So, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be saying, and what it is we're talking about now....

 

[lonepinealex]

If there is some bit of caricature I can add to perhaps make lonepinealex raise an eye-brow, it's that the whole tabloid phenomenon seemed to be a guilty pleasure for folk of all social standing, not taken terribly seriously yet could produce a lot of chattering.

Yeah I'll go with that. The tabloids can be very influential, but nobody thinks of them as serious news outlets.

The idea that this type of journalism is a UK-only problem is just wrong though, as various people, including carbonjam, have acknowledged in this thread. In the US, this stuff is on TV rather than in the papers. UK broadcast news is regulated and is supposed to be impartial. The newspapers do not have this regulation, so they are used to promote various agendas.

We do not have anything like Fox News over here (although the Murdochs are lobbying to have the regulations changed so that Sky can go down that road).

It's not a UK problem, it's a human problem. It just takes different forms in different countries.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Raffaele would never have been charged if he wasn't Amanda's alibi - she was the target.

Well according to some who post here Raffaele is as good as convicted so I guess he will be comforted in prison by your assertion that “they” are were after Amanda.

Coulsdon - I brought up a couple of cases where the people convicted were released and asked whether the stories about them should focus on the victims (paraphrase). I wasn't comparing them to Raf or Amanda - I was comparing the nameless victims in those cases to Meredith.

Because you have some distant vague connection to Meredith doesn't really strike me as significant. Why really should you or I care more about the memory of Meredith than Sabrina Buie? It took me a while to find the name since she isn't named in most stories.

As I have recently previously stated, my interest in this case as opposed to others is because Meredith Kercher was a local girl. Prior to this case had you followed what you regard as other wrongful convictions or is your interest due to Amanda being from Seattle.

Since you believe in the Italian judicial system or at least accept their decision because they have jurisdiction and believe that the system works or should work, I would think that movies that feature the victim and perhaps go against the defendants would trouble you.

Gosh. As I have previously the simple fact is Italy has jurisdiction, now if as some state here that Raffaele and Amanda are as good as convicted, I doubt Amanda will be extradited and I think for some folks that will be the end of any interest in this case.

CoulsdonUK,

Any time a reporter quotes an anonymous source, the credibility of the quote rests with reliability of the reporter. I have read Ms. Battista's articles in the past and I have had no reason to criticize their accuracy. How would an anonymous source provide an opportunity for corroboration? Do you disregard every quote from anonymous sources, or are you selective?

If you wish to accept that Ms Battista knows that the person she spoke to was an actually juror that is your prerogative, but it is hardly proof. Are you familiar with the “fake 9/11 survivor”?

No, my comment was #2133, and your response was #2184. I agree that the Daily Mail is not an ideal source, but (as I mentioned before), I trust them a bit more with respect to direct quotes than I would for other types of information. BTW, there is a slight error in #2193. The citation that MichaelB found backed up the Huffingtonpost citation I gave, as opposed to the DM citation I gave.

I would hope that an American judge would excuse the juror from service under those circumstances. Juries in Italy play by different rules.

Yes, Italy has a different judicial system and in this case; the judge addressed the juror’s question and as far as I know was not censured.

Coulsdon, you almost appear to believe their innocence or guilt is currently indeterminate. Is this a reasonable interpretation? Your view is fairly analagous to the conundrum of Schrodinger's cat, and that the box will be opened with the ISC final verdict.

I don't need to point out that this is not a quantum situation, but everything you post appears to treat it as such.

To date Raffaele and Amanda have had a trial and an automatic appeal and currently waiting for the Italian Supreme Court to review their case, now I don’t know what the outcome of that will be, do you?

Wish folks would make their minds up as to whether this is a discussion site or some kind of alternative international judicial body.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well according to some who post here Raffaele is as good as convicted so I guess he will be comforted in prison by your assertion that “they” are were after Amanda.



As I have recently previously stated, my interest in this case as opposed to others is because Meredith Kercher was a local girl. Prior to this case had you followed what you regard as other wrongful convictions or is your interest due to Amanda being from Seattle.




Gosh. As I have previously the simple fact is Italy has jurisdiction, now if as some state here that Raffaele and Amanda are as good as convicted, I doubt Amanda will be extradited and I think for some folks that will be the end of any interest in this case.



If you wish to accept that Ms Battista knows that the person she spoke to was an actually juror that is your prerogative, but it is hardly proof. Are you familiar with the “fake 9/11 survivor”?



Yes, Italy has a different judicial system and in this case; the judge addressed the juror’s question and as far as I know was not censured.



To date Raffaele and Amanda have had a trial and an automatic appeal and currently waiting for the Italian Supreme Court to review their case, now I don’t know what the outcome of that will be, do you?

Wish folks would make their minds up as to whether this is a discussion site or some kind of alternative international judicial body.

You've managed neither.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You've managed neither.

Bill

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[Grinder]

Well according to some who post here Raffaele is as good as convicted so I guess he will be comforted in prison by your assertion that “they” are were after Amanda.

I don't agree with the after Amanda nor with the get an American nor the framing of her from the git-go. I also don't think his not staying in the Caribbean proves anything nor do I think his being over the border in Austria when the appeal verdict came in proves anything.

As I have recently previously stated, my interest in this case as opposed to others is because Meredith Kercher was a local girl. Prior to this case had you followed what you regard as other wrongful convictions or is your interest due to Amanda being from Seattle.

Yes I was brought to this case by the local media and no I'm not a crime tourist. My question however is why you believe that in a case, you must admit, that by now the only thing that can be debated is guilt or innocence of the kids. Meredith was murdered. Rudi was part of it.

If the kids were clearly guilty and a competent legal system had proven BARD their guilt but the british tabs or US media kept writing human interest stories about the angel of death, then I would agree Meredith should be mentioned. At least I would understand why it would bother you. What did the bird man of Alcatraz do to be jailed?

Gosh. As I have previously the simple fact is Italy has jurisdiction, now if as some state here that Raffaele and Amanda are as good as convicted, I doubt Amanda will be extradited and I think for some folks that will be the end of any interest in this case.

So? Of course some people will drop out. Well I don't think anyone here will ever completely not have interest.

If you wish to accept that Ms Battista knows that the person she spoke to was an actually juror that is your prerogative, but it is hardly proof. Are you familiar with the “fake 9/11 survivor”?

Yes, Italy has a different judicial system and in this case; the judge addressed the juror’s question and as far as I know was not censured.

He was put before two panels to review his missteps. He wasn't punished beyond the embarrassment of being hauled in front of hearings.

To date Raffaele and Amanda have had a trial and an automatic appeal and currently waiting for the Italian Supreme Court to review their case, now I don’t know what the outcome of that will be, do you?

Wish folks would make their minds up as to whether this is a discussion site or some kind of alternative international judicial body.

It is an alternative international judicial body. JREF rules