Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

It starts without really showing any evidence of guilt but seems to assert guilt. That is always a bad start. It then talks about Amanda's supposed PR machine.

Oh right, I thought it was generally accepted that Amanda’s father did hire Gogerty Marriott to handle media interest and interview. Indeed, the link in post #3023 appears to support this.

CoulsdonUK,

From the link in question: "No one is absolving Guede of his crime; his abhorrent involvement in Kercher’s murder is incontrovertible. However, my absolute belief in his guilt has no bearing on an untold and hugely important fact: Guede has been unfairly demonized in the press for nearly seven years."

Can you or anyone else find an example of this unfair demonization? Do you agree with Ms. Nelson's assessment?

I have been puzzled by media’s description of Guede being a drifter as this suggest to me someone without a home, that drifts from place to place. I think the media in say Italy, America and the UK have natural national perspectives, although as I have said before the interest has waned considerably over time.

In conversations, I have had about the case I tend to have to remind folk about the case and generally the response is “oh yea right, is that still going on”.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Oh right, I thought it was generally accepted that Amanda’s father did hire Gogerty Marriott to handle media interest and interview. Indeed, the link in post #3023 appears to support this.

I have been puzzled by media’s description of Guede being a drifter as this suggest to me someone without a home, that drifts from place to place. I think the media in say Italy, America and the UK have natural national perspectives, although as I have said before the interest has waned considerably over time.

In conversations, I have had about the case I tend to have to remind folk about the case and generally the response is “oh yea right, is that still going on”.

-

I agree that the portrayal of Rudy as a drifter etc is not exactly accurate. I'm not even really satisfied with the evidence against him. Sure it proves he was there, but none of the evidence proves absolutely that Rudy killed Meredith. Maybe he was telling the truth that someone else killed her and he only tried to help her. Maybe he had the knife against her throat just to scare her and somehow they fell and she was killed accidentally and Rudy panicked. I can believe that more than he outright killed her on purpose.

What's bad here is that he didn't call for help. That doesn't make him look good at all.

I do disagree that Marriott is so big and powerful that they can control news reporting like that. I need a whole lot more than just your say so or the article's author's say so here,

d

-

 

[xinonix]

During the 1st trial Amanda had not learned to speak Italian yet, so it was like Mignini introduced her, and told us what she was like without her being able to say anything.
Mignini had to use his imagination and thought up a fictional character for her to be.
Her purpose was to be one of the 3 people on trial for Kercher's murder. It was not neccessary for Mignini to prove her guilty, she was there so Rudy would have an opportunity to roll over on her so he could get his sentence reduced.
There is nobody who knows Amanda well who thinks she killed anyone.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

-


-

How can you even be objective with so much hate inside you for Raffaele and Amanda? Did you have the hate before you looked at the evidence, or did you acquire the hate after you looked at the evidence and decided to hate them?

d

-

I hate murderers. Read the source documents ( I appreciate that might be asking too much) and work it from there.

 

[AmyStrange]

Why this case...

-

I hate murderers. Read the source documents ( I appreciate that might be asking too much) and work it from there.

-

I don't particularly care for them either, but why this particular murder? Why so much hate for this specific case?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

During the 1st trial Amanda had not learned to speak Italian yet, so it was like Mignini introduced her, and told us what she was like without her being able to say anything.
Mignini had to use his imagination and thought up a fictional character for her to be.
Her purpose was to be one of the 3 people on trial for Kercher's murder. It was not neccessary for Mignini to prove her guilty, she was there so Rudy would have an opportunity to roll over on her so he could get his sentence reduced.
There is nobody who knows Amanda well who thinks she killed anyone.

-

Interesting, do you think Rudy is guilty too?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

To frightened to put your beliefs up to scrutiny?

-

I've read back to 2010 on this forum topic and I think it's safe to say that most of the evidence against Raffaele and Amanda has been analyzed to death. I even remember reading through dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of pages about what certain phone pings meant. Fascinating stuff really, at least to me anyway.

The duodenum, the DNA, alibis, confessions, diaries, e-mails, text messages, phone pings, court transcripts, true crime books, Rudy's criminal record, Amanda's noise citation, her admission they played a prank, who was outside the house at the time, the ease of the window climb, the super witnesses, bleach receipt, the motivations report and on and on. It's all been discussed here.

Most of the psychological interpretations of Raffaele and Amanda are just plain junk, and the lies told by Amanda are also just plain junk also. The confession is a joke. It reads like a story you tell kids at night to scare them. It's the worst confession I have ever read. No details about the actual murder itself whatsoever. And then, the LPE goes out and arrest L without any kind of investigation announcing Amanda finally broke and told them what they already knew.

It's all just plain noise to my conclusion that the duodenum, Meredith's last call to her mother, Rudy's Skype call, Raffaele and Amanda's alibi, and no evidence of them in the room, all together make it improbable that Raffaele and Amanda killed Meredith, who I am more emotionally invested in than any of the other three.

I'm not even sure Rudy is guilty, but the evidence is more overwhelming against him than them, in my opinion.

I've read the autopsy report and my conclusion is that it is consistent with one person killing Meredith. I even did a post on it that I think was earlier this year.

Is there something I'm missing here?

d

-
ETA: And I didn't even mention the improbabilities of three virtual strangers getting together and psychologically agreeing to kill a fourth party. That puts the whole case against Raffaele and Amanda outside the realm of possible probabilities, especially when you add in all the other stuff I mentioned above. Add all that together and the improbabilities are indeed mind boggling.

-

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm not even sure Rudy is guilty, but the evidence is more overwhelming against him than them, in my opinion.
-

His initial first confession on the Skype call leaves me with the only real possibility that Guede is guilty of sexual assault and murder.

 

[Wattson]

-


-

I've read back to 2010 on this forum topic and I think it's safe to say that most of the evidence against Raffaele and Amanda has been analyzed to death. I even remember reading through dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of pages about what certain phone pings meant. Fascinating stuff really, at least to me anyway.

The duodenum, the DNA, alibis, confessions, diaries, e-mails, text messages, phone pings, court transcripts, true crime books, Rudy's criminal record, Amanda's noise citation, her admission they played a prank, who was outside the house at the time, the ease of the window climb, the super witnesses, bleach receipt, the motivations report and on and on. It's all been discussed here.

Most of the psychological interpretations of Raffaele and Amanda are just plain junk, and the lies told by Amanda are also just plain junk also. The confession is a joke. It reads like a story you tell kids at night to scare them. It's the worst confession I have ever read. No details about the actual murder itself whatsoever. And then, the LPE goes out and arrest L without any kind of investigation announcing Amanda finally broke and told them what they already knew.

It's all just plain noise to my conclusion that the duodenum, Meredith's last call to her mother, Rudy's Skype call, Raffaele and Amanda's alibi, and no evidence of them in the room, all together make it improbable that Raffaele and Amanda killed Meredith, who I am more emotionally invested in than any of the other three.

I'm not even sure Rudy is guilty, but the evidence is more overwhelming against him than them, in my opinion.

I've read the autopsy report and my conclusion is that it is consistent with one person killing Meredith. I even did a post on it that I think was earlier this year.

Is there something I'm missing here?

d

-

What's missing is any "guilter" giving a version of events that holds water. Not one guilter is willing to put forward a timeline of the murder because they know damned well it won't hold up to scrutiny. All we get is drive by snarky comments.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

What's missing is any "guilter" giving a version of events that holds water. Not one guilter is willing to put forward a timeline of the murder because they know damned well it won't hold up to scrutiny. All we get is drive by snarky comments.

-

That IS frustrating,

d

-

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

This is a brilliant article and it needs to be read by all those posting here.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/the-media-and-the-amanda-knox-case/764282/

 

[acbytesla]

This is a brilliant article and it needs to be read by all those posting here.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/the-media-and-the-amanda-knox-case/764282/

What a crock Supercal. It mentions the "overwhelming evidence against her" which links back to the phony McCall wiki which has been thoroughly debunked.

It pretends that Gogerty Marriott turned Rudy Guede a guy totally unknown to Raffaele and virtually unknown to Amanda as somehow an innocent. It mention bs footprint evidence that we all know cannot be attributed to Amanda or Raffaele. Yet there are a dozen easily identifiable prints of Rudy Guede in Meredith's blood throughout an apartment that Rudy had never been in ever.

It acts as if the total absence of any DNA ..doesn't mention that there are half a dozen shoe prints of Rudy's as well as his palm print in Meredith's blood and DNA evidence. Yet ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of Amanda's.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudy demonized?

Based on family and American co-workers my subjective opinion is that there isn’t much ongoing interest in the case apart from the occasional media event like Raffaele press briefing and as such I am curious to read opinions as to points raised about the US media.

I am not going to be drawn down the whole DNA evidence, although I am sure it be discussed again.

CoulsdonUK,

You are interested in the (fact of a?) disparate rebuttal but not the substance of the article itself, meaning its factual accuracy? I can't say that I share your priorities. Exposing and refuting half-truths, quarter-truths, and outright falsehoods strikes me as much more worthy of one's time.

Is it inaccurate to call Rudy a drifter? It's not the way I would chose to describe him (layabout would be a good start), but it does not rise to the level of demonization, either. On the other hand Ms. Nelson created a misleading impression. Rudy was convicted of at least one crime besides those he committed on 1 November, but the reader would not know it from this article. What hypocrisy that is.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

This is a brilliant article and it needs to be read by all those posting here.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/the-media-and-the-amanda-knox-case/764282/

-

I have and commented on it elsewhere (#3028). I will add that when you deny the possibility of contamination and whether it really was a small amount, is where you start losing me big time. Adding in the way the bra clasp was destroyed (along with the DNA of at least four others) and the DNA really was a small amount (that's what LCN literally means), ignoring all that shows a very clear bias for guilt. It's not an objective way of looking at things.

The article itself is speculative at best and hypocritical at worst, by doing the same thing to Raffaele and Amanda that they are complaining about, the way the Marriott's PR machine is hypothetically able to control news reporting, and more importantly, how it got everyone else to portray Rudy the wrong way, kinda like how their portraying Raffeale and Amanda.

What exactly in the article specifically convinces you of their guilt? Or, are you just going to say ALL the evidence together is why they are guilty, or that the judicial process is all you need to believe what you believe, or none of the above?

d

-

 

[NotEvenWrong]

This is a brilliant article and it needs to be read by all those posting here.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/the-media-and-the-amanda-knox-case/764282/

Supercalifragilistic,
From the article you linked:

Instead, we are told that it’s not Knox who is lying, but everyone else. Let’s point the finger at the mendacious Italian judiciary system; let’s insist that the police, multiple judges, witnesses, lawyers and forensic teams have all united in deceit because of their medieval judgment of a sexually active American woman.

A question for you: is there any particular reason why there is no mention of Hellman's verdict and all of the independent experts within the Italian system who have stated the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is absolutely terrible and completely unreliable? What is the motivation for being dishonest and twisting the facts? Are you ok with this? Why?

 

[Diocletus]

This is a brilliant article and it needs to be read by all those posting here.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/the-media-and-the-amanda-knox-case/764282/

Not this gal again. Are she and Kelsey Kay sorority sisters?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Just to be clear, I totally respect the personal relationships that you and others here have built with Knox (and/or Sollecito) and their families, and I fully understand that this gives you a different perspective into them and their characters. I also understand how you feel that this helps you understand how/why they cannot have participated in the murder. I also understand and respect how many people (including, obviously their families and their long-term friends, plus many who have befriended them since 2007) have an emotional attachment towards them as people, which is part and parcel of their emotional attachment to the concept of wrongful convictions. I don't criticise that level of involvement for one moment. All I'm saying is that I, personally, don't feel that level of attachment.

However, I would caution that however nice Knox (in particular) and Sollecito may be - and I don't doubt for a moment that they are warm, caring, kind-hearted people - I'm afraid that this really shouldn't be used in and of itself as a pointer to innocence. Sometimes people have dark insides that they are extremely good at concealing from even their closest family and friends. Please note that I am not suggesting that this might be the case with Knox or Sollecito - I'm just saying that it can sometimes happen. I would therefore guard against making any sort of automatic correlation between the observed personalities/personas of Knox/Sollecito and their perceived propensity to murder someone.

Instead, I think that any analysis of their involvement (or not) in the murder should stand and fall entirely on a) the physical evidence (and lack of it); b) witness testimony (and a proper adjudication of its credibility/reliability); and c) their known behaviours and actions before and after the time of the murder.

Sure, I can go along with that. It is why I realized within a few weeks of the arrests that Amanda/Raffaele are completely innocent. I could see that the so-called forensic evidence was junk, and police lacked the real evidence they surely would have found had the suspects been guilty. I could see that the case was like many others I have followed and read about, where public authorities stake their credibility to a false accusation and then scramble to make it stick.

At that time I had not met Amanda or Raffaele, and I had no idea what they were like as people. I didn't need to know them to understand what was going on.

But let's face it: the prosecution's case, and the nauseous rhetoric of an online hate cult, is largely predicated on a negative assessment of Amanda's character... a die-hard belief that she is the type of person who would suddenly turn violent and commit murder.

That assessment rests on inferences drawn from a hodge-podge of trivia that is unrelated to the murder of Meredith Kercher - noise ticket, April Fool's prank, etc. Any savvy reader of the news can see that the inferences are overblown, that much is being made of inconsequential matters. But those of us who actually know Amanda are better able to appreciate how false and villainous this character assessment truly is.

 

[carbonjam72]

CoulsdonUK,

From the link in question: "No one is absolving Guede of his crime; his abhorrent involvement in Kercher’s murder is incontrovertible. However, my absolute belief in his guilt has no bearing on an untold and hugely important fact: Guede has been unfairly demonized in the press for nearly seven years."

Can you or anyone else find an example of this unfair demonization? Do you agree with Ms. Nelson's assessment?

I think the gist of the article is to play on people's fears over being tagged as racist.

As though you have to be racist to say that only the black person is responsible for the crime, even though it happens to be true.

It's one more tactic to get people to not conclude Amanda and Raf are innocent, as all evidence, reason and common sense dictate.

Mignini imploring the Hellman appeal court, "don't let the black boy pay alone", comes to mind.

That's why I tend to think all of this propaganda comes from Mignini's office, and is passed along through Maresca and the Kercher's contacts in the media. That would be my guess. But I would hasten to add, that I would welcome a government investigation into this type of coordinated slander that has been a feature of the case for 7 years, and seeing all those involved in spreading these kinds of lies, held accountable - preferably with custodial sentences.
It has nothing to do with anything, just a bunch of drunks yelling at each other in the night.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I think the gist of the article is to play on people's fears over being tagged as racist. As though you have to be racist to say that only the black person is responsible for the crime, even though it happens to be true. It's one more tactic to get people to not conclude Amanda and Raf are innocent, as all evidence, reason and common sense dictate.

Mignini imploring the Hellman appeal court, "don't let the black boy pay alone", comes to mind.

That's why I tend to think all of this propaganda comes from Mignini's office, and is passed along through Maresca and the Kercher's contacts in the media. That would be my guess.

But I would hasten to add, that I would welcome a government investigation into this type of coordinated slander that has been a feature of the case for 7 years, and seeing all those involved in spreading these kinds of lies, held accountable - preferably with custodial sentences.

It has nothing to do with anything, just a bunch of drunks yelling at each other in the night.

-

And it's interesting that they never go into how LPE concentrated on and arrested another black man first without any evidence except that Amanda finally broke and told them what they already knew.

Who are the real racist here?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I think the gist of the article is to play on people's fears over being tagged as racist.

[...]

It has nothing to do with anything, just a bunch of drunks yelling at each other in the night.

-

I Like the imagery there cj. Quite good actually,

d

-