Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I am familiar with the EC Human Rights Act.

Censorship of the forensic evidence: Let's start with ROLLING STONE. This early article gained great popular support for Amanda, when it is complete PR fiction.


http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

This is the same publication who regard the Boston Bomber a cover page pin up.

1) The ECHR is not an "Act". It's a treaty to which Italy is a signatory. You stated that there was no evidence that Amanda's trial was unfair. Do you now understand from my post that there is considerable evidence that it is unfair and that merely because a trial is public and attended by journalists does not make it fair?

2) I can understand why you don't like the Rich article. None of the pro guilters does. But you stated that "it is complete PR fiction". Earlier you stated that media reports in the U.S. had been censored. Please indicate who has censored media reports and whether or not they are responsible for censoring the Rich article. Please indicate some examples of claims made in the Rich article which you believe are "fiction" and cite the evidence for your belief. What evidence, in particular, has been censored from the Rich article?

What information or evidence from the trials, have Americans not been allowed to see?

 

[Vixen]

More lied told by the Vixen.
.

This is a direct quote from a highly regarded journalist, of a prestgious broadsheet. Those were the facts to the best of their knowledge at the time.

Look up the meaning of "lie" and COME OUT OF THE PLAYGROUND.

 

[RoseMontague]

I already quoted Richard Owen of the TIMES 20th Nov 2007. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, you are. Richard Owen was wrong as shown by the actual evidence rather than him just printing whatever the cops told him. Pretty piss poor journalism.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Here's research from TJMK. IIRC Raf's abode is no more than ten minutes walk, so going back and forth wouldn't be arduous.

--------||

20:18:12: Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. The young woman was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell. This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub

AKP− 20.35.48 Amanda sent an SMS in reply to Patrick, at No. 338-7195723; the message was sent when the young woman’s mobile phone was in Corso Garibaldi 30 or in the immediate neighbourhood. The cell used, in fact, was that of Via Berardi sector 7 − no other [use] was shown for the

day of 1.11.07, noting that Amanda declared during hearings that she had switched her mobile phone off once she had returned 323 to Raffaele’s house, since she was more than happy she did not have to go to work and could spend the evening with her boyfriend.]

----------

I think the errors in your posts can most likely be attributed to your source. TJMK is not a credible source.

 

[Vixen]

1) The ECHR is not an "Act". It's a treaty to which Italy is a signatory. You stated that there was no evidence that Amanda's trial was unfair. Do you now understand from my post that there is considerable evidence that it is unfair and that merely because a trial is public and attended by journalists does not make it fair?

2) I can understand why you don't like the Rich article. None of the pro guilters does. But you stated that "it is complete PR fiction". Earlier you stated that media reports in the U.S. had been censored. Please indicate who has censored media reports and whether or not they are responsible for censoring the Rich article. Please indicate some examples of claims made in the Rich article which you believe are "fiction" and cite the evidence for your belief. What evidence, in particular, has been censored from the Rich article?

What information or evidence from the trials, have Americans not been allowed to see?

I have already told you, journalists in the USA, had to go through Gogeety Marriott, the firm Amanda PAID for to do PR for her within days of being arrested, and then agree as part of the contract to speak to lawyers, Amanda or the family, that their article or broadcast would be vetted by Gogerty Marriott before being released.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is a direct quote from a highly regarded journalist, of a prestgious broadsheet. Those were the facts to the best of their knowledge at the time.

Look up the meaning of "lie" and COME OUT OF THE PLAYGROUND.

I don't care if he is God, he is still wrong. The evidence shows what he said was not true. Rather, it was completely false.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have already told you, journalists in the USA, had to go through Gogeety Marriott, the firm Amanda PAID for to do PR for her within days of being arrested, and then agree as part of the contract to speak to lawyers, Amanda or the family, that their article or broadcast would be vetted by Gogerty Marriott before being released.

You said media reports were censored, no mention was made of interviews.

 

[Dan O.]

Janovic (_?) was not Polish, she was Serbian or Croatian.

The time she arrived at Raf's can only be an estimate, because who looks at their watch for the exact time and remembers it, especially a couple of days later?

Her testimony gives a strong case for the reconstruction of that time. You should read the testimony since you claim it is what happens in court that is important.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

TIMES 12.11.2007

I would suggest not to base your conclusions solely on news reports from 2007. A lot has happened since that time. I have seen you questioned repeatedly on this topic and a 2007 media report appears to be your only source. As we all know, the media put out an incredible amount of erroneous information in 2007-2008 that has since been proven wrong. Sadly, they only improved slightly in the years that followed.

 

[Vixen]

You said media reports were censored, no mention was made of interviews.

Seriously? You are a news anchor person, but you cannot interview anyone relevant unless you agree to airbrush your interview?

Hence, in the US we saw broadcasters being forced to hold Amanda's hand and make tutting noises.

It's little wonder Americans aliken prosecutor Mignini to Saddam.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I have already told you, journalists in the USA, had to go through Gogeety Marriott, the firm Amanda PAID for to do PR for her within days of being arrested, and then agree as part of the contract to speak to lawyers, Amanda or the family, that their article or broadcast would be vetted by Gogerty Marriott before being released.

Do you honestly feel that Amanda's family had the power to control the media? If that was the case (it was not the case of course, to suggest so would be absurd), don't you think the media would have been more favorable early on?

Do you have proof to back up your claims of contracts to speak to lawyers, Amanda or the family? Do you have proof to back up your claims that broadcasts and articles were vetted by Gogerty Marriott?

 

[RoseMontague]

Seriously?

Your claim was that media reports (not interviews) were filtered thru the PR firm. Are you withdrawing that claim?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Seriously? You are a news anchor person, but you cannot interview anyone relevant unless you agree to airbrush your interview?

Hence, in the US we saw broadcasters being forced to hold Amanda's hand and make tutting noises.

It's little wonder Americans aliken prosecutor Mignini to Saddam.

Do you think Marriott ordered Amanda's hand to be held by Robin Roberts on Good Morning America?

Please say yes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Her testimony gives a strong case for the reconstruction of that time. You should read the testimony since you claim it is what happens in court that is important.

Yes it does, she must have been asked by about six different lawyers for the various parties and gave the same timing.

 

[Wattson]

Seriously? You are a news anchor person, but you cannot interview anyone relevant unless you agree to airbrush your interview?

Hence, in the US we saw broadcasters being forced to hold Amanda's hand and make tutting noises.

It's little wonder Americans aliken prosecutor Mignini to Saddam.

Please provide proof of this assertion.

 

[Dan O.]

Here's research from TJMK.

Do your own research. We are not debating with TJMK.

 

[Kauffer]

These times have gotten confusing due to the lies put forward by the police and the guilters. The CCTV time stamp says 20:51:36.17 for the figure crossing the street now thought to be Meredith returning home at 9 pm.

There is a different image at I believe CCTV time stamp 20:41 and therefore actually about 8:50 pm of a lady that is not Amanda that is walking into the car park that has nothing to do with this case.

[/QUOTE]

Absolutely with you on the 20:51 time stamp.

Assuming we are talking about the same "not Amanda" figure in your second para, the time stamp I read is 20:53:51 as she passes across the camera. Therefore, this figure is recorded some 2 mins 15 secs after Kercher walking in the opposite direction of the cottage.

http://youtu.be/BH-5f8lJjCY

Have I got this right?

 

[Dan O.]

Provide the link, and I'll look at it again.

All of the available documents are available in their original form and translations at http://AmandaKnoxCase.com/ in the documents section.

 

[Kauffer]

This really is patronising nonsense. The police's job is to investigate the crime, do detective work, gather evidence, interview witnesses and suspects, reconstruct the crime, etc.etc.

They do NOT decide the case. It is up to the prosecutor, and even then, the defense is also heard.

Your claim the multiskilled police force - many of them highly educated, highly trained graduates - are all corrupt incompetents, reveals you to be deluded.

Your arrogance is breathtaking. Either that or you are ignorant as to how the police operate.

As a matter of interest and because I genuinely do not know, would you post the names, educational backgrounds and graduate qualifications of say half a dozen of the police officers on the Kercher murder case? Would you also give some details in relation to the training in place for say the Squadra Mobile? You seem to have knowledge I do not possess, according to your assertions.

 

[Dougm]

I have already told you, journalists in the USA, had to go through Gogeety Marriott, the firm Amanda PAID for to do PR for her within days of being arrested, and then agree as part of the contract to speak to lawyers, Amanda or the family, that their article or broadcast would be vetted by Gogerty Marriott before being released.

On this forum, unlike the pro-guilt only ones, people ask for documentation when you make claims of this type. Please provide one spec of evidence that this occurred, ever.

You are trying to claim that a small PR firm from Seattle was able to control what the major US TV networks and newspapers said and wrote. With no proof whatsoever.