Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

BBC3 fake documentary endorsed by Editorial Committee

Posters might be interested to know that I raised a complaint against the so-called documentary "Is Amanda Knox Guilty?" broadcast on BBC3 early in 2014, and this week the Editorial Committee (EC) published its final decision rejecting the complaint.

The BBC relied heavily on decisions in the Italian courts to establish "facts", both in the initial responses to my complaint and in the final EC decision, in spite of my pointing out at the circular reasoning and appeal to authority fallacies.

The only possible response to challenge the decision is to escalate to OFFCOM, but I have found the process so disheartening that I am disinclined to take it further. If people here might wish to take up the cudgels, then I can provide the materials if requested.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes, it IS surprising, isn't it! Do you have any other questions to which you already know the answers that you'd like answered anyway?

What! No hypothetical scenario!

 

[LondonJohn]

What! No hypothetical scenario!

You didn't understand that my hypothetical scenario in that post was a thought experiment to illustrate the issue about Prof Gill's public declarations about the DNA evidence?

Maybe it was my fault for not making it clearer then. Here's the hypothetical scenario I suggested:

Supposing that, tomorrow, a piece of evidence turned up for the first time which totally exonerated Knox and Sollecito. Suppose, for example, that there had been a CCTV camera covering the entrance to Sollecito's apartment building, which had been constantly recording on the night of the murder, and which showed that Knox and Sollecito had entered the apartment building at (say) 5.30pm on the night of the murder and that neither had re-emerged from the apartment building until the following morning (repeat: this is a thought experiment. I'm not suggesting that such evidence is going to turn up....).

If such evidence did turn up at this stage, do you think it would be irrelevant? Do you think that since it had not been entered into evidence in any of the trial, it would have no potential bearing on the outcome? And aside from any impact on the trial process, do you think it would have any bearing in the search for the actual truth as to what happened that night in Perugia?


What I was trying to do here was to ask you to consider the questions at the end of this hypothetical scenario. Then to substitute "Gill's public pronouncements on the DNA evidence" for "CCTV evidence showing that Knox and Sollecito were in Sollecito's apartment all night". Then to ask yourself the same questions again, and see whether you got different answers.

Again, sorry for not making that clearer........

 

[platonov]

Just an idea.

Posters might be interested to know that I raised a complaint against the so-called documentary "Is Amanda Knox Guilty?" broadcast on BBC3 early in 2014, and this week the Editorial Committee (EC) published its final decision rejecting the complaint.

The BBC relied heavily on decisions in the Italian courts to establish "facts", both in the initial responses to my complaint and in the final EC decision, in spite of my pointing out at the circular reasoning and appeal to authority fallacies.

The only possible response to challenge the decision is to escalate to OFFCOM, but I have found the process so disheartening that I am disinclined to take it further. If people here might wish to take up the cudgels, then I can provide the materials if requested.

Yeah, it seems a forlorn hope if they are all in on it but you have another option.

What might work to get their attention/bring them to heel is a protest outside Broadcasting House.
You need a simple catchy slogan for the placards and as a chant.
How about “LEAVE AMANDA ALONE”.

If you don’t, as I suspect may be the case here, have the numbers for a mass demo then perhaps a heartfelt you tube video is the solution.
It might go viral!


ETA
For the backing chant, if you have the numbers, how about ......
“If Gill says NO
You must let her GO”
But don’t let it drown out the main message.

 

[Diocletus]

Posters might be interested to know that I raised a complaint against the so-called documentary "Is Amanda Knox Guilty?" broadcast on BBC3 early in 2014, and this week the Editorial Committee (EC) published its final decision rejecting the complaint.

The BBC relied heavily on decisions in the Italian courts to establish "facts", both in the initial responses to my complaint and in the final EC decision, in spite of my pointing out at the circular reasoning and appeal to authority fallacies.

The only possible response to challenge the decision is to escalate to OFFCOM, but I have found the process so disheartening that I am disinclined to take it further. If people here might wish to take up the cudgels, then I can provide the materials if requested.

Don't worry, Antony. When the echr rules against Italy, you can send them a letter attaching their decision together with the judgment declaring that Italy violated the defendants human rights. That will be rather poignant.

 

[Antony]

Don't worry, Antony. When the echr rules against Italy, you can send them a letter attaching their decision together with the judgment declaring that Italy violated the defendants human rights. That will be rather poignant.

Well, the ISC may still do the right thing on March 25th, which may be relevant to any further response. As I think I have said earlier, nothing the Italian courts could do will surprise me after the previous ISC decision 2 years ago.

 

[lonepinealex]

The thing is, I don't think the BBC has a case to answer over Vogt's programme. The narrative stays on just the right side of vague as to avoid serious criticism. The complaints therefore amount to nothing more than, "I don't agree with the tone". It's frustrating, but on the upside the tone of Radio 4's "The Report" was more pro-innocence (and that was an in-house production).

Not many people watched / heard either programme though, so it's not worth worrying about.

 

[Diocletus]

Don't worry, Antony. When the echr rules against Italy, you can send them a letter attaching their decision together with the judgment declaring that Italy violated the defendants human rights. That will be rather poignant.

There's nothing the isc can do now to avoid an adverse echr judgment on the Calunnia claims. That can only be avoided by a settlement, in effect, a consent judgment entered by Italy against itself.

 

[carbonjam72]

Posters might be interested to know that I raised a complaint against the so-called documentary "Is Amanda Knox Guilty?" broadcast on BBC3 early in 2014, and this week the Editorial Committee (EC) published its final decision rejecting the complaint.

The BBC relied heavily on decisions in the Italian courts to establish "facts", both in the initial responses to my complaint and in the final EC decision, in spite of my pointing out at the circular reasoning and appeal to authority fallacies.

The only possible response to challenge the decision is to escalate to OFFCOM, but I have found the process so disheartening that I am disinclined to take it further. If people here might wish to take up the cudgels, then I can provide the materials if requested.

Perhaps if cassation cancels the convictions it would provide a basis for requesting corrections or updates? If the Italian courts withdraw their conclusions, then BBC's doc has no foundation?

 

[lonepinealex]

Perhaps if cassation cancels the convictions it would provide a basis for requesting corrections or updates? If the Italian courts withdraw their conclusions, then BBC's doc has no foundation?

But, as I said above, Vogt's doc stays on the right side of the facts, as it only claims to be discussing the court findings. There would be nothing for the BBC or Vogt to correct, within the parameters she carefully set in the programme. You'd need a whole new doc to deal with the miscarriage of justice.

 

[Diocletus]

But, as I said above, Vogt's doc stays on the right side of the facts, as it only claims to be discussing the court findings. There would be nothing for the BBC or Vogt to correct, within the parameters she carefully set in the programme. You'd need a whole new doc to deal with the miscarriage of justice.

Well, the fact if the matter is the the BBC has hitched its wagon to storyline that is built around human rights violations. It's going to regret not being more circumspect. Bit of a black eye for the network when all is said and done.

 

[lonepinealex]

Well, the fact if the matter is the the BBC has hitched its wagon to storyline that is built around human rights violations. It's going to regret not being more circumspect. Bit of a black eye for the network when all is said and done.

Not, really, when it has made another programme questioning the convictions. The BBC has no formal position on this case, and most people in the UK are unaware / uninterested anyway. Like I said, the Vogt doc had low viewing figures and was shoved away on BBC3, which is not a mainstream channel and is aimed at a youth audience, so not taken seriously as a current affairs outlet, unlike Radio 4.

 

[Machiavelli]

chistianahanna,

In reference to your comments about Mignini, I am not sure which posters on the forum you are referring to as "you all (collectively)". It would be fair to say that many posters, at least on the innocence side, are aware that Mignini was prosecuted in Italy for abuse of power, was convicted of this crime, and then the case was cancelled (if that is the right term) due to procedural time limits. I personally believe that this is an illustration of the use of procedural time limits to shelter officials who commit misconduct from accountability.

...

We can call this a lie. You are seemingly "forgetting" that Mignini and Giuttari were proven innocent of the main charge (allegedly having forged the voice recording of a conversation) already in the first instance, the their conviction on remaining charges was annulled, not because of time limitation - which would be legally impossible, time limits at that stage only effect the penal consequence but not the civil and disciplinary ones nor the fact finding - but it was annulled because their whole prosecution was performed by an illegitimate authority, given that the Florentine magistrates prosecuting him and the offended parties were the same people. So not only the conviction, but the entire case, including the indictment and even the investigation was annulled. The investigation file, basically blank, was sent to Turin. Only at that point the time limitations enter into play, because Turin prosecution office won't start an investigation from scratch on hypothetical charges that have expired even theoretically and are no longer prosecutable.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Newsweek has it covered

From Newsweek: Asked whether he thinks bias played a role in the case, Hellmann says, “Absolutely! It is striking how biased it was.” He adds that Italy’s Supreme Court put itself in a bind when it ordered the trial not to consider Knox’s allegedly coerced confession but then ordered the appellate courts to consider it. “That is quite a frittata,” he says. “They are contradicting themselves.”

 

[christianahannah]

I believe that Mignini will do anything to further his career. Hence, the conviction of innocent people doesn't faze him . . . .

He is not about convicting innocent people and I believe if that ever happened unintentionally it would faze him.

Do you know what his history is and what his present responsibilities are? It might surprise you that many things you have read are not so.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, Well, Well

From Nina's article in Newsweek:

A State Department source tells Newsweek that diplomats in both Italy and the U.S. expect an extradition request to be denied: “I don’t think either Italy or the U.S. wants a major burr under our saddle in terms of relationships between our countries, and this would be that, if the Italians pushed it.” If they do, the source adds, there “is not any way” the U.S. will arrest Knox, nor will it have her declared a fugitive.

The elected Italian government in Rome is separate from the judiciary, and traditionally the two branches do not have warm relations. “I know the Italian government was rolling its eyes” over the prospect of the case reaching this phase, the State Department source says, adding that Rome faces “a real political problem” if the judiciary requests extradition.

The American diplomat predicts the Italian court won’t ask to extradite.

 

[Diocletus]

He is not about convicting innocent people and I believe if that ever happened unintentionally it would faze him.

Do you know what his history is and what his present responsibilities are? It might surprise you that many things you have read are not so.

He has a history of rogue and wrongful prosecutions, and his current responsibility is to protect his own ass by any means possible.

 

[Diocletus]

We can call this a lie. You are seemingly "forgetting" that Mignini and Giuttari were proven innocent of the main charge (allegedly having forged the voice recording of a conversation) already in the first instance, the their conviction on remaining charges was annulled, not because of time limitation - which would be legally impossible, time limits at that stage only effect the penal consequence but not the civil and disciplinary ones nor the fact finding - but it was annulled because their whole prosecution was performed by an illegitimate authority, given that the Florentine magistrates prosecuting him and the offended parties were the same people. So not only the conviction, but the entire case, including the indictment and even the investigation was annulled. The investigation file, basically blank, was sent to Turin. Only at that point the time limitations enter into play, because Turin prosecution office won't start an investigation from scratch on hypothetical charges that have expired even theoretically and are no longer prosecutable.

All I remember is that they were convicted. Then Italian judges did one of their famous disappearing acts. However, we can see that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[Diocletus]

A juror who helped to convict Amanda Knox has revealed she has 'grave doubts' over the American's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Job centre worker Genny Ballerini, who served on a panel of citizen judges that reinstated Knox's murder conviction last year, has slammed the prosecution's case citing 'questionable proof, flimsy evidence and bizarre testimony'.

The motive put forward by prosecutors that Knox killed Miss Kercher after she complained about the American leaving the bathroom dirty seemed like 'nonsense', she said.

Miss Ballerini, 48, suggested that the pair did not get a fair trial because there was 'an atmosphere of guilt' in the deliberation room before it even began.

***

The juror told Oggi magazine: 'I certainly had many doubts about the guilt of the two young people. I was not convinced of their innocence but I thought and I said to the others as well: "The evidence that we have is not sufficient to inflict all these years in prison".

She added: 'There was not enough, in my opinion, to justify such a heavy sentence: questionable proof, bizarre testimony and flimsy evidence.'

She dismissed the alleged motive as 'nonsense' and said: 'You do not massacre a girl because she complained about a bit of a stink in the bathroom.'

And she was equally doubtful about Sollecito's motivation. 'What could possibly have been the motive that Raffaelle had to participate in the killing of that poor girl.'

When she heard the verdict and sentence she immediately protested. Miss Ballerini said: 'I said immediately that I did not agree and they took note. Other members of the jury were also against an increase in the sentence, she said, but they were told there was no alternative.'

The jurors constructed a timeline with mobile phone records and statements from the witnesses that showed how the pair could have been at the murder scene at the time of death, but she questioned whether it was sufficient proof to condemn them.

She was equally unconvinced by attempts to portray the pair as bad characters. Prosecutors had painted Amanda as troublesome because she once received a fine from police for being disorderly. 'This seemed to me, excuse me, more nonsense,' she told the weekly magazine.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html#ixzz3Uq9viKXC


This is the fault of the judiciary. These jurors aren't even getting instruction on basic points of law. What an epic screw-up.

 

[MichaelB]

Juror who helped convict Amanda Knox has 'grave doubts' over American's involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder – and says there was an 'atmosphere of guilt before the trial even began'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html#ixzz3Uq9zrfJW

Una giurata del processo d’appello ad Amanda e Raffaele: “Pochi indizi per una condanna così”

http://www.frontedelblog.it/2015/03...roppo-pochi-indizi-per-condanna-cosi-pesante/