Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

No doubt there is, at a minimum, a freakish tendency on the part of such individuals. Confronted with the relentlessly persistent and prolific application of such behavior over years, it strains one's imagination what sort of flesh and bones individual may exist behind the keyboard.

Note that the Ergons of the world have made a sort of martyr out of the obsessive miscreant Brenda Leyland. Possessing such a skewed sense of reality and a profoundly unbalanced existence, presumably it's a necessary defense mechanism.

There were better ways to handle Brenda Leyland than "gotcha" journalism which pushed her over the edge. Did she need to be stopped? Of course. It would have been better if she'd received communication on lawyer's letterhead.

 

[Bill Williams]

My focus is the Kerchers, not Knox.

Yeah, right.

The Kerchers should be left alone. Even their Italian lawyer has said this is all over; and the Kerchers deserve peace and privacy to get on with their lives. They do not need these faux-warriors claiming "all for Meredith" to keep it going.

The biggest lie in this whole thing is from those who are not Kerchers, but who claim to be doing this for Meredith.

 

[js202]

There were better ways to handle Brenda Leyland than "gotcha" journalism which pushed her over the edge. Did she need to be stopped? Of course. It would have been better if she'd received communication on lawyer's letterhead.

I can agree with that, to an extent. But no reporter could have anticipated that such a character would have committed suicide over being unveiled. My view is that Leyland's behavior was contemptible, and that the behavior - at a minimum, as a type - needs to be exposed.

Post-inquest, it came out that Leyland had a history of bouts with depression and mental issues, in general, and was in the midst of a, if I recall the adjective correctly, "fractious" dispute with a neighbor. My suspicion is that Leyland herself is a type. And that, as individuals, the Harry Rags, Ergons, Michaels, Yummi's, KrissyG's, et al., possess characteristics not dissimilar to hers.

There was a time when comments to the editor came into newspapers and other periodicals in an orderly fashion and they were vetted before being published. In a world where unedited viewpoints in cyberspace possess more and more potential for impact in the manifest world of our daily existence, mental illness is no excuse for such maliciousness, and said maliciousness deserves to be exposed and, when appropriate, prosecuted.

 

[Kauffer]

The Kerchers should be left alone. Even their Italian lawyer has said this is all over; and the Kerchers deserve peace and privacy to get on with their lives. They do not need these faux-warriors claiming "all for Meredith" to keep it going.

The biggest lie in this whole thing is from those who are not Kerchers, but who claim to be doing this for Meredith.

Yes of course. I'd still like to see the advice they were getting from that undertaker of a lawyer of theirs. And I'd like to know about his fee agreement.

 

[carbonjam72]

There were better ways to handle Brenda Leyland than "gotcha" journalism which pushed her over the edge. Did she need to be stopped? Of course. It would have been better if she'd received communication on lawyer's letterhead.

But that wouldn't have sold newspapers Bill, now would it?

A quiet lawyers letter would take care of the problem most of the time. But the problems are generated by the media's need to sell sensational stories, regardless of truth or damaged reputations.

Even genuine criminals shouldn't be vilified in the press. That's not part of a judicial sentence, yet it is an injury, and its motivated by profit.

Its a gutter industry.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Kerchers should be left alone. Even their Italian lawyer has said this is all over; and the Kerchers deserve peace and privacy to get on with their lives. They do not need these faux-warriors claiming "all for Meredith" to keep it going.

The biggest lie in this whole thing is from those who are not Kerchers, but who claim to be doing this for Meredith.

All well and good to respect their need to grieve in peace.

But also they have a debt to those they have wrongly accused and hounded for nearly 8 years.

They still haven't dissociated themselves from the fictional slander of a misguided prosecution, and villainous actions and statements of their civil attorney Maresca.

John Kercher's statements may have been born of pain, but they were damaging to innocent people, and contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

They should blow their invisible dog whistle and call off the lunatics at a minimum, whom they helped to foment.

I think they share far less blame then others, but symbolically they could help to make things right, if they wanted to, if they cared.

After watching Arlene's reaction on Youtube, I don't believe they have the capacity, the strength, to actually evaluate the case on the merits.

I'm not hopeful for the parents. But the kids are still young, and still have a chance.

 

[js202]

Even genuine criminals shouldn't be vilified in the press. That's not part of a judicial sentence, yet it is an injury, and its motivated by profit.

Then this would place you in opposition to countless Op Ed pieces published in serious newspapers over the centuries. Possibly in opposition to Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate work, which certainly implied harsh judgments with regard to the characters of numerous individuals, as well.

Since the days of Woodward and Bernstein's revelatory reporting, the press - and news industry, in general - has succumbed to weaknesses typical of several industries overtaken by multi-national business conglomerates.

Sensationalism was more than present in the days of Pulitzer and Hearst, and it persists. But, withal, in my opinion, Jefferson was right to perceive the press as "the only tocsin of a nation."

 

[Strozzi]

What would be the motivation of hiding an unincriminating profile on the mop?

Or is that it?

The fact that its unincriminating, would disabuse the lay observer from believing a mop (an instrument of "clean-up"), was somehow associated with and used in a scientifically impossible clean-up.

Is this more of the "bleach receipt" line of prosecution lies?
That a foggy association with an instrument of a material used for cleaning up in general, infers cleaning up occurred in this case, as a means of explaining the fact that there is no actual evidence against Amanda and Raf, which implies therefore that they must have been cleaning to make the evidence that must have been there disappear.

Says a lot about the prosecution, and its says a lot about their audience.

The issue about how Amanda's lamp got into Meredith's room is used similarly as bleach receipts to imply a connection that does not exist. Amanda did not move her desk lamp into Meredith's room. Meredith might up have borrowed it or the police might have moved it to illuminate under Meredith's bed. Mignini may well know that, yet he questioned Amanda about it on the stand to make her look involved in the crime while Mignini possibly knew that police introduced it into Meredith's room.

Indeed, if the police introduced the lamp into Meredith's room Mignini must know it. There would be no plausible excuse for him not to know it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Then this would place you in opposition to countless Op Ed pieces published in serious newspapers over the centuries. Possibly in opposition to Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate work, which certainly implied harsh judgments with regard to the characters of numerous individuals, as well.
Since the days of Woodward and Bernstein's revelatory reporting, the press - and news industry, in general - has succumbed to weaknesses typical of several industries overtaken by multi-national business conglomerates.

Sensationalism was more than present in the days of Pulitzer and Hearst, and it persists. But, withal, in my opinion, Jefferson was right to perceive the press as "the only tocsin of a nation."

For heavens sake, we're not talking about Coulson, Erlichmann or Dean, or the US President's chief of staff.

We're talking Brenda Leyland - as well as potentially dozens of similar "lovelies" who've made an internet cottage industry about vilifying innocents - people they've never met, people who they've made the most wild of assuptions that has fueled "something" inside of them. My belief is that reasonable people would respond well to a lawyers letter on lawyer's letterhead. They actually would give their head a shake, and get on with their own lives.

I don't imagine any of the .NUT folk rate an OpEd in a major daily. This is a small universe and in the post-exonerated world just about everyone has gotten on with their lives.

 

[Desert Fox]

But that wouldn't have sold newspapers Bill, now would it?

A quiet lawyers letter would take care of the problem most of the time. But the problems are generated by the media's need to sell sensational stories, regardless of truth or damaged reputations.
Even genuine criminals shouldn't be vilified in the press. That's not part of a judicial sentence, yet it is an injury, and its motivated by profit.
Its a gutter industry.

I think that vilifying a defendant is often the hallmark of a weak case.

 

[carbonjam72]

Then this would place you in opposition to countless Op Ed pieces published in serious newspapers over the centuries. Possibly in opposition to Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate work, which certainly implied harsh judgments with regard to the characters of numerous individuals, as well.

Since the days of Woodward and Bernstein's revelatory reporting, the press - and news industry, in general - has succumbed to weaknesses typical of several industries overtaken by multi-national business conglomerates.

Sensationalism was more than present in the days of Pulitzer and Hearst, and it persists. But, withal, in my opinion, Jefferson was right to perceive the press as "the only tocsin of a nation."

Media exposure is limited at trials because its thought to unfairly influence a trial process.

I think protecting the right to a fair trial, is something different from protecting the reputation of corporations or governments, or officials therein.

Yes the press/Media is an important and vital counterweight against the powerful. But aiming that spotlight at average citizens, seems like a different kettle of fish.

And the concentration of power in media, perhaps shifting the sense of mission to one more profit oriented and less public service oriented is something to consider as well.

Does News Corp report on News Corp?

 

[js202]

For heavens sake, we're not talking about Coulson, Erlichmann or Dean, or the US President's chief of staff.

We're talking Brenda Leyland - as well as potentially dozens of similar "lovelies" who've made an internet cottage industry about vilifying innocents - people they've never met, people who they've made the most wild of assuptions that has fueled "something" inside of them. My belief is that reasonable people would respond well to a lawyers letter on lawyer's letterhead. They actually would give their head a shake, and get on with their own lives.

I don't imagine any of the .NUT folk rate an OpEd in a major daily. This is a small universe and in the post-exonerated world just about everyone has gotten on with their lives.

A comment was made with regard to the press, in general, being "a gutter industry." I find that too glib, by half, sorry, and think the repercussions of such a sensibility need to be resisted.

I also find your perception of the "lovelies" too generous. A civilized society's rockbed foundation depends in large part on a system of laws. The repercussions of bad behavior - with individuals being punished, ideally fairly and judiciously, for their bad behavior - in my view rightly gets amplified by instruments like the press.

Not to go all Vixen with a quote, but at least you can trust this one is accurate:

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[Numbers]

Dropped Article 3 already?

For the sake of brevity, I did not review all the Convention violations involved in Italy's wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia against Lumumba.

The Convention violations include violations of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment, substantive and procedural branches) and violation of Article 6.1 (arbitrarily reasoned judgment). I also left out the Convention violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3e (failure to provide a fair interpreter).

There is ECHR case-law applicable for all of these violations. The most extensive case-law (greatest number of previous cases) is for the violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c (failure to provide a lawyer for interrogation, and while in police custody).

 

[Strozzi]

Yes of course. I'd still like to see the advice they were getting from that undertaker of a lawyer of theirs. And I'd like to know about his fee agreement.

I'd like to know who referred John Kercher to Maresca? Was it Mignini? Was it Police Chief de Felice? Or did his name just appear on a list of Italian attorneys that the British Embassy hands out routinely to British citizens needing referrals to local attorneys?

 

[Kauffer]

I'd like to know who referred John Kercher to Maresca? Was it Mignini? Was it Police Chief de Felice? Or did his name just appear on a list of Italian attorneys that the British Embassy hands out routinely to British citizens needing referrals to local attorneys?

I think John Kercher said he got a list from the embassy.

 

[js202]

Media exposure is limited at trials because its thought to unfairly influence a trial process.

I think protecting the right to a fair trial, is something different from protecting the reputation of corporations or governments, or officials therein.

Yes the press/Media is an important and vital counterweight against the powerful. But aiming that spotlight at average citizens, seems like a different kettle of fish.

And the concentration of power in media, perhaps shifting the sense of mission to one more profit oriented and less public service oriented is something to consider as well.

Does News Corp report on News Corp?

I think it's a messy process, for sure - mainly because human beings intersected with money and power are at the heart of it - but an ever-evolving one. I think the impact of unedited and unvetted information proliferating online, for example, is creating a new kind of Wild West in terms of the impact of information and opinion on society, and, especially because it's now evolving faster than ever, needs to be carefully observed and course-corrected in real time.

In other words, I think these new instruments of communication, frequently at least satellites of the postmodern press structure need to be reflected upon, commented on, and self-corrected by the press.

Is Twitter an element of the postmodern press? I think so. If so does a Harry Rag's magnificently grotesque effusion of anti-Amanda Knox propaganda on Twitter deserve to by commented on by the press? I think so.

 

[carbonjam72]

A comment was made with regard to the press, in general, being "a gutter industry." I find that too glib, by half, sorry, and think the repercussions of such a sensibility need to be resisted.
I also find your perception of the "lovelies" too generous. A civilized society's rockbed foundation depends in large part on a system of laws. The repercussions of bad behavior - with individuals being punished, ideally fairly and judiciously, for their bad behavior - in my view rightly gets amplified by instruments like the press.

Not to go all Vixen with a quote, but at least you can trust this one is accurate:

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson

Hi JS, no offense but the context "in general" is something you've added to my comment, or my intended comment.

I'll try again.

The amoral, profit induced, smearing efforts of tabloid journalism, and similarly inclined efforts under whatever banner, are a "gutter industry".

Does that work any better for you? I'm ok with it.

 

[js202]

Hi JS, no offense but the context "in general" is something you've added to my comment, or my intended comment.

I'll try again.

The amoral, profit induced, smearing efforts of tabloid journalism, and similarly inclined efforts under whatever banner, are a "gutter industry".

Does that work any better for you? I'm ok with it.

Fair enough. But, respectfully, my opinion is it's still a more nuanced situation than this. See my last comment in response to your earlier post to me.

 

[carbonjam72]

I think it's a messy process, for sure - mainly because human beings intersected with money and power are at the heart of it - but an ever-evolving one. I think the impact of unedited and unvetted information proliferating online, for example, is creating a new kind of Wild West in terms of the impact of information and opinion on society, and, especially because it's now evolving faster than ever, needs to be carefully observed and course-corrected in real time.

In other words, I think these new instruments of communication, frequently at least satellites of the postmodern press structure need to be reflected upon, commented on, and self-corrected by the press.

Is Twitter an element of the postmodern press? I think so. If so does a Harry Rag's magnificently grotesque effusion of anti-Amanda Knox propaganda on Twitter deserve to by commented on by the press? I think so.

I agree its messy, and the new media blurs the lines that have existed.

Personally I like the opportunity to hear new voices, and to participate as well, rather than having distribution held in the hands of a few powerful people and their varying degrees of ethics and intentions.

After all, we're conversing here.

But the Harry Rags and hate trolls are really something different. There's a malice to it. And the tabloids that foment and profit from such, often fabricated controversies, that's something different too.

So on some level, I don't see Harry Rag's petty slanders as news worthy of coverage in particular. I do think he and some of his cohorts merit the attentions of the law enforcement authorities, but not so much the media.

I think harry Rag and his kind, are a police problem. And the Tabloids that foment his ilk, are skirting the boundaries of criminality, IUAM.

 

[JREF2010]

The Kerchers should be left alone. Even their Italian lawyer has said this is all over; and the Kerchers deserve peace and privacy to get on with their lives. They do not need these faux-warriors claiming "all for Meredith" to keep it going.

The biggest lie in this whole thing is from those who are not Kerchers, but who claim to be doing this for Meredith.

I agree.
Its so obvious, the proof is in the posts slandering Amanda for the majority of their time, then they include Raffaele some, Rudy rarely, and during the peak were attacking even Amandas little sisters.

Maybe a miniscule percentage of the Guiltards were sincere and believed in their case.