Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Yes, and this is precisely why Italian prosecutors or police would never try (because there would be no point) to leak information damaging to the defendant(s) to compliant media contacts, in order to poison the well against said defendants.

(...)

Good occasion to point out that, in fact:

First, while the lay judges might be influenced by public sentiment like any human being, they can also read the actual trial file and, this way, themselves access material (prints, photos, videos, records) which is far more sensitive, direct and influencing than any press report. The key point is that the courts can access the trial files: they don't need to go drink at the "posoned" well, they can connect directly with a pipe to the poison can.

Second, it's not worthless to repeat that the truth is, there was no media lies campaign against Knox, and there was no evidence of any orchestrating a media campaign by authorities or police in the Italian media. I acknowledge there is a myth about this, a belief of this in the hearts of the pro-Knoxes, and also in some English speaking mainstream media commenters.
But the interesting fact, is that there is no evidence of this. It appears just false, when you actually look back at the Italian media.
It's interesting that, time ago, when I asked some posters to provide actual examples of this, it became evident mostly they had no knowledge about what was actually going on the Italian media (for example they had no clue about what the media actually reported about bleach receipts); while I recall Mary H. cited Sarzanini, putting forward her peculiar cultural theories as argument, but basically also showing a basic misunderstanding or ignoring of what Sarzanini actually said.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm busted! Mrs CoulsdonUK has found me posting. Nite.

You, sir, are a lucky man!

 

[js202]

Good occasion to point out that, in fact:

First, while the lay judges might be influenced by public sentiment like any human being, they can also read the actual trial file and, this way, themselves access material (prints, photos, videos, records) which is far more sensitive, direct and influencing than any press report. The key point is that the courts can access the trial files: they don't need to go drink at the "posoned" well, they can connect directly with a pipe to the poison can.

Second, it's not worthless to repeat that the truth is, there was no media lies campaign against Knox, and there was no evidence of any orchestrating a media campaign by authorities or police in the Italian media. I acknowledge there is a myth about this, a belief of this in the hearts of the pro-Knoxes, and also in some English speaking mainstream media commenters.
But the interesting fact, is that there is no evidence of this. It appears just false, when you actually look back at the Italian media.

More unsubstantiated, nonsense assertions from your quarter. The Italians I know - to a person, educated and ecumenical - completely disagree with you, and have been glued to the ongoing sensationalism like watching a train wreck.

 

[Bill Williams]

Second, it's not worthless to repeat that the truth is, there was no media lies campaign against Knox, and there was no evidence of any orchestrating a media campaign by authorities or police in the Italian media. I acknowledge there is a myth about this, a belief of this in the hearts of the pro-Knoxes, and also in some English speaking mainstream media commenters.
But the interesting fact, is that there is no evidence of this. It appears just false, when you actually look back at the Italian media.
It's interesting that, time ago, when I asked some posters to provide actual examples of this, it became evident mostly they had no knowledge about what was actually going on the Italian media, while I recall Mary H. cited Sarzanini, putting forward her peculiar cultural theories as argument, but basically also showint a basic misunderstanding or ignoring of what Sarzanini actually said.

People who are wondering about this should consult this webpage:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Amongst others were.....

Below you will see the photo that was released by the prosecution. The photo was released with no explanation whatsoever. There was no mention that the photo shows the room saturated in a pink chemical. This photo was seen around the world. Some people still believe that Amanda Knox took a shower in the bathroom shown below. The efforts by the prosecution to destroy Amanda Knox in the media were disgusting. Amanda was a twenty year old college student visiting a foreign country. She never stood a chance against this blatant abuse of power from the prosecution.

 

[Machiavelli]

More unsubstantiated, nonsense assertions from your quarter. The Italians I know - to a person, educated and ecumenical - completely disagree with you, and have been glued to the ongoing sensationalism like watching a train wreck.

Like those watching Sollecito speaking on Vespa's show? If that is what you mean by sensationalism, this is correct. But that's plain normal show, has nothing wrong and has nothing to do with orchestrating a lie campaign.

If you mean something else instead, then you are welcome to prove your point. What did this media frenzy say? What articles, pictures...?

 

[Bill Williams]

Like those watching Sollecito speaking on Vespa's show? If that is what you mean by sensationalism, this is correct. But that's plain normal show, has nothing wrong and has nothing to do with orchestrating a lie campaign.

If you mean something else instead, then you are welcome to prove your point. What did this media frenzy say? What articles, pictures...?

Machiavelli - you need to take your own advice. Go upthread for the factoids you have asserted with no proof - no articles, pictures.....

 

[Machiavelli]

People who are wondering about this should consult this webpage:

(...)

Good example. Think about the fact that such photo was sold by barcroft media and published by a British tabloid, while it was not published by any Italian press source.

You could not find this picture in the Italian press.
Think about it.

 

[js202]

Like those watching Sollecito speaking on Vespa's show? If that is what you mean by sensationalism, this is correct. But that's plain normal show, has nothing wrong and has nothing to do with orchestrating a lie campaign.

If you mean something else instead, then you are welcome to prove your point. What did this media frenzy say? What articles, pictures...?

I welcome you first to prove any of your points, whatsoever. It would be a singularly refreshing jolt of honesty and good will from your quarter.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - you need to take your own advice. Go upthread for the factoids you have asserted with no proof - no articles, pictures.....

You perfectly know I had already quoted the articles months and years ago (and maybe you missed it, I pasted again the Italian text from an article in Il Giornale dell'Umbria a few pages ago).

 

[Machiavelli]

I welcome you first to prove any of your points, whatsoever. It would be a singularly refreshing jolt of honesty and good will from your quarter.

Like pasting the text from an Italian newspaper a few posts ago?

Like the dozens of factual errors I corrected over tha recent weeks and months? (control room... etc...)

Should I make a list?

 

[js202]

Like pasting the text from an Italian newspaper a few posts ago?

Like the dozens of factual errors I corrected over tha recent weeks and months? (control room... etc...)

Should I make a list?

Look up the word "assertion."

You persistently mistake superciliously expressing your own peculiar *viewpoint* with the citation of incontrovertible facts. An actual scientist like Chris_ Halkides appears in this thread, uses extensive citations - alluding to bona fide *facts* - which humiliate your assertions, and you, for example, insult him for employing an Anglicized spelling variant for a particular scientist's name. A schoolboy ploy in response to having been embarrassed by scientific facts.

No, for those with eyes to see, you don't like facts, per se, which have proven to be your solemn enemy in this matter.

 

[platonov]

Case closed.

People who are wondering about this should consult this webpage:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Amongst others were.....



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971550cc11a092c6.jpg[/qimg]

She took a shower in that bloodstained bathroom and didn't notice anything amiss – it’s not surprising that she was found guilty!

That settles it!

 

[platonov]

Einen augenblick bitte

Look up the word "assertion."

You persistently mistake superciliously expressing your own peculiar *viewpoint* with the citation of incontrovertible facts. An actual scientist like Chris_ Halkides appears in this thread, uses extensive citations - alluding to bona fide *facts* - which humiliate your assertions, and you, for example, insult him for employing an Anglicized spelling variant for a particular scientist's name. A schoolboy ploy in response to having been embarrassed by scientific facts.

No, for those with eyes to see, you don't like facts, per se, which have proven to be your solemn enemy in this matter.

Extensive - perhaps, perhaps not?

Do you stand full square behind all his 'citations'?

 

[Kauffer]

Good example. Think about the fact that such photo was sold by barcroft media and published by a British tabloid, while it was not published by any Italian press source.

You could not find this picture in the Italian press.
Think about it.

Wasn't it sold to barcroft by one of the police photographers at the crime scene. How else did barcroft get it?

 

[kwill]

No, no. I can google, however, Time isn't an official document or transcript (even though that article wasn't written in comic sans).

Maybe Machiavelli can help here. It's good to have an additional source(s) to help back up what a journalist writes.

It is indeed. I'm wondering how you reconcile your argument about Mignini's character with the direct quote from that article?

The prosecutor is said to have taken all day for his closing argument. If you find an English translation, I'd love to see it.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Why not emphasise the reason to destroy a few families?

From PMF just now.

I echo the fine points you have made. The Defense and AK47's supporters have tried for years to make this case about only the DNA evidence, some of which was shaky in its time period, as if that was all the Prosecution had on them.

The strongest evidence, however, was their guilty behavior and actions after the murder. No innocent person would have acted like AK47. There had to have been a lot of eyes rolling when she gave her testimony. It was definitely worth the wait to be heard

-

Thank you Samson.

What guilty behavior?

The problem with using behavior as proof someone is a murderer is you are also giving proof of your confirmation bias. To interpret Raffaele and Amanda's behavior as proof of murder is naive at best or lying at worst. Real psychology doesn't work that way.

Go to a funeral. I myself have seen some really odd behavior that puts their behavior to shame. Are all these people guilty of murder also?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I am wondering if in five years he will be caught attempting to attack a woman and the guilt side will try to blame Amanda for ruining him.

-

He might join ISIS,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

This 1735 decision in New York helped to establish that truth is a defense to an accusation of libel.

Did Rita Ficcarra hit Amanda Knox or not Machiavelli?
I know she did because her account stands up to the scrutiny of the reasonable man/woman.

Therefore Mignini's action against her parents is another example of the behaviour of a thug protected by a malevolent state.

I'd lke to urge you to look at your fallacies here.

First, as a logical point, if truth is a good defence from an accusation of libel, this means that Knox has a possibility to defend herself, but that also implies that, exactly like in 1735, an accusation must moved against her in order to let her defend herself by asserting her "truth".

Second, there is a factual error in your statements. Mignini is not acting against here parents. It's a number of police officers who filed a defamation lawsuit against her parents, not Mignini.

Third, I point out your statement "I know she did because her account stands up to the scrutiny of the reasonable man/woman", because I notice that nobody among the pro-Knoxes accuses you to peddle hearsay as incontrovertible truths or of not providing scientific evidence. You assume a report as truth simply because it seems reasonable to you, and nobody accuses you to only bring unsubstantiated assertions.

Fourth: without questioning the point that Knox's report of being hit, if taken in isolation, itself is reasonable, I must point out there are, however a few other factual elements attached to it, that have their legal value. A factual element is that Ms. Knox did not sublit any legal complaint about being hit, and another fact is that her own lawyers publicly denied she was hit. This is a problem in Knox's defence, since you cannot take the first report in isolation from the other elements, because of the rules of the game. If the victim doesn't complain, that has a value like expressing the position that her rights were not violated and factually bars the allegation from being investigated.

Fifth: Mignini's is not a thuggish behaviour. There is no reason why he should be seen as a thug. He even has no initiative in the prosecution of Knox's parents, and would also have no interest in that (since he was not the defamed party). Thats police officers' initiative to protect their legitimate interest. Anyway it's something they have the right to do, in which Mignini had no power to initiate anything.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wasn't it sold to barcroft by one of the police photographers at the crime scene. How else did barcroft get it?

Maybe it was a lawyer who picked it from the trial file and sold it, or a clerk. Why do you rule out so many lawyers who accessed the files (Lumumba's attorneys, etc.)? But even if it was one of the police photographers, this does not mean "authorities are orchestrating a media campaign against Knox".
One individual who solds pictures for money for a foreign photo agency, hardly has somethign to do with a theory of "police orchestrating a media campaign" with the "purpose of influencing public opinion".

 

[Kauffer]

Maybe it was a lawyer who picked it from the trial file and sold it, or a clerk. Why do you rule out so many lawyers who accessed the files (Lumumba's attorneys, etc.)? But even if it was one of the police photographers, this does not mean "authorities are orchestrating a media campaign against Knox".
One individual who solds pictures for money for a foreign photo agency, hardly has somethign to do with a theory of "police orchestrating a media campaign" with the "purpose of influencing public opinion".

I suppose it could have been Maresca. From what we are told he's only on a contingency, so maybe he felt he deserved the money. But I see it could have been Pacelli too, because he probably wasn't getting paid either. You've picked some possibles there, I'll give you that.