Originally Posted by toto
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.
Cameron could have said nothing. Or he could have formed an independent panel of British experts to examine the evidence in the case if he really wanted to give the Kerchers solace. Why allow the Kerchers to suffer in ignorance if he really wanted to speak out on the case.
The idea that the Kerchers "lost" a guilty verdict against two innocent defendants is just an asinine position.
You want to say its the correct diplomatic response. Personally, I would like to see governments recognize that the lives and well being of citizens, and truth and justice,
are the national interest, not appeasing the idiotic blunders that cause people to suffer unjustly, simply to avoid embarrassing other governments.
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.
I actually do think TV shows reflect the culture where they are made and watched. Like folklore, it's almost a kind of 'national diary'.
But aside from that, I don't subscribe to, nor have I suggested the positions you speculate I might believe. I've enjoyed many of your posts, but I'd really rather engage you on what I actually do write or do believe, if that's ok. I really don't want to have to deny absurd positions you first fabricate, then attribute to me.
(Snip)
I think most on these boards believe Vogts doc was extremely biased and unfair, essentially parroting the prosecution's unsupported allegations. For example, Vogt presented only Commodi on the issue as to whether the wounds required that there be two knives, no contrary opinion. Just one example.
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 tabloids have made an international sensation out of marketing a fake persona. I had nothing to do with that.
It's weird how you attribute my opposition or criticism to personal demands. I don't believe I'm a part of the discussion. I hope I'm objective. I amazed at the loathsome behavior I've seen, and sometimes write about it. Again, you're ascribing bizarre motives without any basis in anything I've written. Where is that coming from?
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.
My recollection is that Hillary Clinton indicated she would be willing to discuss the Knox case after the original conviction, because it was perceived as a miscarriage of justice. And after the acquittal in 2011, either Clinton or the state dept publicly thanked Italy for acquitting Knox. (I'm sure I don't have this exactly right, but its close). So yes, the US said something about the case, even though it was technically still in process, and still is in process.
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.
Once again, you're attributing to me some bizarre motive that I have never suggested, and don't hold.
I don't 'wish' he'd made any film or particular kind of film, at all. I'm not aware he is a film maker, particularly, I couldn't name a film he's made that I've seen, let alone liked.
My belief is that Winterbottom has taken advantage of a tragedy of wrongful conviction to sell movie tickets. That he did so premised on the lie that there is any genuine controversy as to actual guilt. He is toying with the notion of guilt, and I believe he knows its dishonest.
I believe that at the very least he owes the defendants his honest opinion, stated in public, as to their guilt or innocence, and to publicly justify his beliefs.
That he owes them this, because he has intentionally profited from their tragedy, by releasing a film in the middle of an ongoing judicial process their freedom depends upon, and has done so by repeating the lies that have dogged this case for 7 years, "maybe they did it".
I don't believe that he believes his public position, "oh, we'll never know the truth". I think if he wanted to lob a film into an ongoing legal case, and he believes the defendants are innocent or guilty, he should have the integrity to publicly say what he truly believes, and not hide behind vagueness, which is the equivalent of saying, "Maybe they did it", or "Maybe they know more".
ON BLINDNESS:
I've said there has been a peculiar blindness to the plight of the defendants coming from people and publications in or from the UK. I've pointed to Winterbottom, Tina Brown, David Cameron, the BBC, and scores of tabloid and more mainstream publications. I think I know what I've seen. I've said the blindness is both peculiar, and peculiarly British. The blindness reminds me of Monty Python skits. That's just my honest perception, I'm sorry if it offends you.
I think the comedy of the Italian forensic investigators strikes me as Fellini-esque. Having tons of people trampling circus-like through a crime scene is sad, and but for the tragedy of wrongful conviction, deeply comical in an Italian way.
You disagree? Perfectly fine. You want to discuss it, please stick to what I've actually said, not fabricating the absurd and attributing it to me.
You don't have to agree. Obviously you don't agree. Maybe you're being blind as well?
) Ficarra told her she couldn't leave.
.