Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

The first clue in working out what has gone so wrong on-line in all these years, is to look at the criticisms PGP aim at the PIP.

Almost universally, they are criticisms which ignore/justify the PGP for doing what they accuse.

This is nowhere truer than the old meme that somehow the PIP have engaged in a massive PR effort to influence public opinion. This meme of theirs conveniently justifies the PGP from engaging in what can only be called a "PR campaign to influence public opinion."

When Raffaele Sollecito appeared on the Katie Couric afternoon-show in (2012?) the-then group of PGP were not even subtle about how they planed to leaflet audience members. Given the tenor of Couric's questions (mainly ignoring him, and obsessing about Amanda Knox) my belief is that they were successful in lobbying Couric herself.

For instance, Raffaele looked genuinely surprised that he was being asked to "explain Knox". "What about all her odd behaviour?" Sollecito tried to steer the conversation back to himself, the injustice he'd suffered - the factoid evidence against him which had led to his own 2011 release from prison.....

..... and there were all these questions about Knox - a hallmark of the PGP PR campaign. The epitome of this was when Couric asked him, "Do you ever regret meeting Amanda Knox?" He handled that question brilliantly, what had happened to him was not about Knox, it was about a rogue prosecution and a tabloid world which went ga-ga over claims of sex and murder.

And as you say above, analemma - it's gratifying to hear a new term being coined by the massive wave of innocentisti who've arrived only since seeing the documentary - PGP Truthers. That one is worth the documentary.

In it, the documentary has Nick Pisa in his own voice describe what the problem always was - the only difference between him and us is that Pisa thinks it is "just business" to send non-fact-checked articles, so that he can get the feeling of "having sex" in seeing so many front page headlines with his byline.

If an innocentisti had accused Pisa of saying that, people like Vixen would accuse it of being a faulty translation. Yet there is Pisa defending it. Then he has the unmitigated GALL to, at the end, say it is not his fault that the police fed him lies. It's not his job to fact-check (he must have been sick the day they taught journalism in journalism school!)

What's left are the PGP Truthers. Hoots! I wish I'd thought of that!!!

From Justin Bieber to Nancy Sinatra - BiWi's doing the rounds of trash pop culture today.

You keep lying when you ought to be truthing
You keep losing when you ought to not bet
You keep saming when you ought to be changing
What's right is right, but you ain't been right yet

Once again, you've twisted what Pisa was talking about, he was referring to court documents when he made the comment about 'fact-checking'.

You ought to know better than anybody that it can take up to six months for written reasons to appear.

Do take Nancy's advice.

 

[Vixen]

If they are really doing this, clicking on articles to increase views, that's truly pathetic. It's desperate to play games like that with search engines. I pity them for having to resort to games like directed clicking and commenting. Truth always wins in the end.

I don't know anybody in their right mind who does that. Oh wait...acbytesla said the other day he does....ah...

 

[Vixen]

Sonia,
I have little doubt that the PGP are doing this: how does an obscure two year old article appear on page ONE of the search?
And
The Truth does NOT win if no one sees the Truth because the PGP have pushed it down 20 screens.

Occams Razor says a news article appears top because - hello? - that's what people are looking up.

No need to introduce mad paranoid theories.

 

[Vixen]

Right. A Netflix documentary is the equivalent of Nazi propaganda. Right.

Same technique: vilify the Italian police and prosecutor and the British hack (really?), idealise the poor ugly American abroad, and hey presto, you have a Goebels-style lie.

 

[analemma]

Occams Razor says a news article appears top because - hello? - that's what people are looking up.

No need to introduce mad paranoid theories.

Correction : that's what "Guilt Nutters" are looking up: over and over and over and over

 

[analemma]

Occams Razor.......

mad paranoid theories.

This from one who has never applied Occams Razor to this case: and in fact throws insults at those who do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This from the Queen of mad paranoid theories.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, must be so traumatic butchering your roommate and then have nasty prosecutors wanting to prosecute one. Bloody disgusting!

What's sick and moronic is accusing her of that with no credible evidence. But I don't expect you to get over it either.

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again, you've twisted what Pisa was talking about, he was referring to court documents when he made the comment about 'fact-checking'.

Have you seen the documentary? You obviously skipped over the parts where Nick Pisa spoke for himself. He said if one took the time to fact check, then they'd lose a payday.

Please at least watch the thing, rather than draw your factoids from truther-sites.

 

[Vixen]

Have you seen the documentary? You obviously skipped over the parts where Nick Pisa spoke for himself. He said if one took the time to fact check, then they'd lose a payday.

Please at least watch the thing, rather than draw your factoids from truther-sites.

Please keep up. It should be obvious from my comments, I must have seen it.

I know it's the standard amongst the PIP to just read the Marriott crib sheet and never actually be familiar with what the court documents really say (Blackhurst and McGinn, included). By your own standards you assume no-one else knows what they are talking about either.

 

[Vixen]

What's sick and moronic is accusing her of that with no credible evidence. But I don't expect you to get over it either.

Read the court documents.

 

[Bill Williams]

Read the court documents.

The last court document acquitted them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Once again, you've twisted what Pisa was talking about, he was referring to court documents when he made the comment about 'fact-checking'.

You ought to know better than anybody that it can take up to six months for written reasons to appear.

The more you post the more it is apparent you have not seen the film.

Pisa said:

"We are journalists and we are reporting what we are being told. It's not as if I can say, 'Right, hold on a minute. I just wanna double check that myself in some other way.' I mean, goodness knows how. And then I let my rival get in there first before me, and then, hey, I've lost a scoop. It doesn’t work like that. Not in the news game. "

But I suspect that Pisa really didn't say that at all. I think someone doctored the video so that his mouth just looked like he was saying that. Somewhere he really did say he was referring to court documents.

 

[toto]

Pisa speaks for himself. The only way he can be seen to be vilified is if that is the impression you get from his own words. If you want to see the documentary you can get a free month's subscription to Netflix.

 

[Vixen]

The more you post the more it is apparent you have not seen the film.

Pisa said:

"We are journalists and we are reporting what we are being told. It's not as if I can say, 'Right, hold on a minute. I just wanna double check that myself in some other way.' I mean, goodness knows how. And then I let my rival get in there first before me, and then, hey, I've lost a scoop. It doesn’t work like that. Not in the news game. "

But I suspect that Pisa really didn't say that at all. I think someone doctored the video so that his mouth just looked like he was saying that. Somewhere he really did say he was referring to court documents.

Read your own quote back. He is talking about the industry in general.

 

[Vixen]

Pisa speaks for himself. The only way he can be seen to be vilified is if that is the impression you get from his own words. If you want to see the documentary you can get a free month's subscription to Netflix.

I signed up temporarily to Netflix (as I already have amazon prime), saw the film, wrote a review - which has had more than 8,000 'impressions' within about three days now, when I tweeted it - have been watching Making a Murderer whilst I'm there.

It's interesting to see how the Innocence Project lawyers spin it.

At one point one of them says, 'Avery can't possibly have anything to do with the disappearance of Theresa Halbach, you saw how he sobbed on camera.'

As if killers don't sob for the tv cameras (Tracey Andrews, the guy who had his granddaughter's body in his attic, the guy who killed six of his own children in a house fire, to get revenge on an ex-) . They all wept like no tomorrow.

I have only seen two episodes and am already sceptical of the claim, 'police set him up'.

 

[Vixen]

So when at the 2013 Nencini trial in Florence, Nencini appointed the RIS Carabinieri to analyze Sample 36I, you believe that the Florence Court acted illegally!?

Please keep on with this stuff.... lurkers are reading!

Nencini had to, because this was an exceptional case of controversy. You recall Vecchiotti and Conti refused to analyse it, ultra vires of the court, falsely claiming it was 'rye starch'.


Now Greg Hampikan is apparently bragging that he had fed Vecchiotti and Conti their 'results', despite his own having been rejected by the defence counsels.

There has been so much corruption in this case on both sides of the Atlantic, it's just a matter of time before it all blows open.

 

[Stacyhs]

Read your own quote back. He is talking about the industry in general.

Wow. Denial really has a grip on you.

He was talking about his attitude in general including his time in Perugia. But you'd know that if you'd actually seen the film instead of getting your twisted story from the likes of TJMK.

 

[Stacyhs]

I signed up temporarily to Netflix (as I already have amazon prime), saw the film, wrote a review - which has had more than 8,000 'impressions' within about three days now, when I tweeted it - have been watching Making a Murderer whilst I'm there.

It's interesting to see how the Innocence Project lawyers spin it.

At one point one of them says, 'Avery can't possibly have anything to do with the disappearance of Theresa Halbach, you saw how he sobbed on camera.'As if killers don't sob for the tv cameras (Tracey Andrews, the guy who had his granddaughter's body in his attic, the guy who killed six of his own children in a house fire, to get revenge on an ex-) . They all wept like no tomorrow.

I have only seen two episodes and am already sceptical of the claim, 'police set him up'.

Somehow, I have doubts that anyone actually said that as you quoted it. When I googled it, nothing came up. I'm not surprised.

 

[Bill Williams]

Read your own quote back. He is talking about the industry in general.

So now you're dropping the lie that he was referring to court documents?

Interesting. Glad you finally got a free subscription rather that simply parroting the truther sites..

 

[LondonJohn]

Nencini had to, because this was an exceptional case of controversy. You recall Vecchiotti and Conti refused to analyse it, ultra vires of the court, falsely claiming it was 'rye starch'.


Now Greg Hampikan is apparently bragging that he had fed Vecchiotti and Conti their 'results', despite his own having been rejected by the defence counsels.

There has been so much corruption in this case on both sides of the Atlantic, it's just a matter of time before it all blows open.

You're aware that scientists (real scientists, that is, not the ones you believe exist) routinely share data, experimental results and current thinking, right? Your tellingly-pejorative description of Hampikian "bragging" of having "fed" C&V their results is as ignorant as it is ridiculous. Real scientists welcome relevant data being provided to them, in order to better inform their own thinking. Real scientists use their own critical faculties and powers of scientific reason to evaluate data and conclusions that are provided to them, in order to assess whether those data/conclusions are a) relevant to their own work, b) robust and reliable, and c) likely to lead them to better, more robust results and conclusions of their own. You wouldn't know this, of course, being a non-scientist who doesn't understand all this properly.

Oh, and "ultra vires" is a doctrinal condition. One cannot talk of something being done "ultra vires of the court". If you insist on continuing with pretentious Latin legal phrases (rather than, for example in this instance, simply writing something like "outside the powers/remit of the court"), please ensure you use them in the correct way - it's doubly embarrassing if you don't. Thanks!