Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Grahame Rhodes is a tongue-in-cheek character. The discussion was about Amanda's 'article' 'Rituals' so hence the topic of death came up. As Voltaire said, what a fuss about an omelette.

It is a pity you are not concerned about innocence fraud where killers get away with having murdered good, decent people, much loved by the families and who contributed to society.
Click to expand...



In this case, the killer (Guede) got convicted and incarcerated (though not for long enough, thanks again to the broken Italian system and the fact that Mignini needed to keep Guede onside in his (Mignini's) pursuit of Knox and Sollecito).

There's an extremely strong likelihood that neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in the killing of Meredith Kercher, and there's most certainly no credible, reliable evidence of their participation in the murder. How come you don't understand this by now?
 
Vixen said:
Grahame Rhodes is a tongue-in-cheek character. The discussion was about Amanda's 'article' 'Rituals' so hence the topic of death came up. As Voltaire said, what a fuss about an omelette.

It is a pity you are not concerned about innocence fraud where killers get away with having murdered good, decent people, much loved by the families and who contributed to society.
Click to expand...

Vixen makes excuses for people uttering death threats. Apparently he was only joking.
 
Vixen said:
That's because the reviewer in the GUARDIAN has been wilfully misled by the filmakers into believing it is a true fair objective documentary, without realising it is more of a commercial break, selling Amanda.
Click to expand...


Haha. That "12 Years a Slave" was also more of a commercial break, selling opposition to slavery. Reviewers and audiences alike were wilfully misled into seeing a thoroughly one-sided presentation. Shame on the makers of that film!!!!



I'll dig out the Cantwell citation.
Click to expand...


You do that. It'll be good to see some actual evidence.
 
Bill Williams said:
Why didn't you tell us they had to "sneak" it on to Netflix! I am a shareholder of that company, and I find it repugnant that senior programmers allow topics to be "sneaked" (snuck) by them!?

I am outraged. Je me souviens.
Click to expand...

Can you call an extraordinary shareholders meeting with the special resolution to pull the plug on the faux documentary, before it causes business reputation damage?
 
LondonJohn said:
The concept of a "tongue-in-cheek" incitement to murder is certainly thought-provoking...............
Click to expand...

Bringing up what she perceives as the evils of "innocence fraud" sounds to me like a motive for approving of Grahame Rhodes threats.

Vixen once said she disapproves of violence in all its forms, save for just war.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
Vixen said:
You have already been told several times, this topic came up for discussion before. It was asserted then that the diagonal was 11.78", by a PIP.
Click to expand...

YOU told me but provided no evidence of this whatsoever. I don't just accept what YOU claim. That's based on past experience.
YOU asserted the diagonal was 11.78" as a "fact" and not "debatable". But it wasn't, was it?
 
Vixen said:
Can you call an extraordinary shareholders meeting with the special resolution to pull the plug on the faux documentary, before it causes business reputation damage?
Click to expand...


Hahahaha! Rest assured that the weird agitation of a tiny bunch of zealous (but utterly irrelevant) obsessives and the potential pompous threats from an egomaniacal Perugia prosecutor are not going to cause "business reputation damage" to Netflix.

And, as it happens, the effect of this particular film on Netflix's reputation is very likely to be quite the opposite.
 
LondonJohn said:
1) What "transparency" did/do you demand from the film makers? And why?

2) Did the film makers ever state that they held no prior opinions on this case before making the film?

Thanks again in advance.
Click to expand...

1) It is ethical and good practice to declare any vested interest in a project. For example, the tobacco industry when they claim smoking is not dangerous.

2) Yes. They claimed to be purely objective. Morse deleted all of his old trolling tweets and kept his participation secret until the last minute.
 
LondonJohn said:
In this case, the killer (Guede) got convicted and incarcerated (though not for long enough, thanks again to the broken Italian system and the fact that Mignini needed to keep Guede onside in his (Mignini's) pursuit of Knox and Sollecito).

There's an extremely strong likelihood that neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in the killing of Meredith Kercher, and there's most certainly no credible, reliable evidence of their participation in the murder. How come you don't understand this by now?
Click to expand...

Because I can see reality for what it is.
 
Vixen said:
Can you call an extraordinary shareholders meeting with the special resolution to pull the plug on the faux documentary, before it causes business reputation damage?
Click to expand...

You and about six nutters on TJMK are the only ones calling it a faux documentary.

But I'll admit - you have God on your side.
 
Vixen said:
The judges did not have any doubt Nara heard the scream. It is within the judge's remit to dismiss any application, and any party is free to appeal any decision by a judge.
Click to expand...

And this from the woman who
1) had a history of mental problems and had been hospitalized for them.
2) declared she saw newspaper headlines about the murder BEFORE the murder was even discovered.
3) was hard of hearing, according to her niece.
 
Vixen said:
1) It is ethical and good practice to declare any vested interest in a project. For example, the tobacco industry when they claim smoking is not dangerous.
Click to expand...


That is in no way comparable. As you probably well know. In the matter of the Knox film, there was zero obligation for the film makers to either declare or practise "neutrality".


2) Yes. They claimed to be purely objective. Morse deleted all of his old trolling tweets and kept his participation secret until the last minute.
Click to expand...


More reading comprehension issues. You seem to be confusing "deleting old tweets" with what I actually asked for, which is evidence that the film makers ever stated that they had no prior point of view on this case before they set out to make the film.

How is that not clear?
 
LondonJohn said:
Haha. That "12 Years a Slave" was also more of a commercial break, selling opposition to slavery. Reviewers and audiences alike were wilfully misled into seeing a thoroughly one-sided presentation. Shame on the makers of that film!!!!






You do that. It'll be good to see some actual evidence.
Click to expand...

The director of Twelve Years a Slave adapted a 'true narrative'. He openly declared his anti-slavery interest and Benedict Cumberbatch openly declared some of his ancestors were slave-owners.

Open. Transparent.
 
LondonJohn said:
The concept of a "tongue-in-cheek" incitement to murder is certainly thought-provoking...............
Click to expand...

Stop making a mountain out of an aery trifle.

It's a pity you are keen for common murderous thugs to evade justice but take grave exception to someone calling Amanda, 'a piece of dirt'.

There was no 'incitement to murder'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom