I think I already mentioned, I think the abscence of the word "Satanic" is splitting hairs. He called it a Halloween ritual killing. None of what you wrote above makes that concept even remotely reasonable.
I don't agree, sorry. That he proposed the whole thing was a ritual killing meant for Halloween (or later, on All Saints Day), is pretty lurid and absurd. He made quite a few leaps of logic to get there. Had he said the motive was sexual, that by itself would make some sense. Saying it was a ritual killing because someone liked comic books is, frankly, stupid. (Mignini that is, not you).
He never said it was a ritual killing either. There is a big difference between considering the possibility of themed sex where at least one person already has a demonstrable interest in that theme: and proposing some satanic/or ritual killing. Mignini does not say that the killing was planned: not in his letters or accounts and not in court. But as I said: you pays your money
I would consider myself neither. And you consider the UK media as supporters of Amanda Knox?
Never said you were: but then you did not raise it.
A question about the uk media is too wide: the media outlets here vary. For what it is worth I think the bbc is a credible source and they tend to report both sides quite evenly: as we see with your link and mine.
TJMK are very critical of one particular reporter, Peter Popham, writing in the independent: and they do seem to have a point in portraying him as partisan. It is odd because he is their rome correspondent but I get the impression he does not really like Italy or Italians. He has a column called Rome notebook you might want to take a look at: it may be that everything he reports is true: but he does not exactly accentuate the positive
Volatile mentioned the guardian coverage which you also cite and which I will come to. The guardian is generally a good source, IMO
Nick Pisa seems to do have done a respectable job so far as I can tell: a great surprise to me because he works for the daily mail
The tabloid press don't care, but they do like a frenzy about pretty girls and murder most foul: if you hand them kinky sex and satanic abuse as well, they will bite your hand off.
When they run out of that kind of copy they will turn on the other side and demonise that. Consistency is not really on the agenda for them: sensation is
Perhaps you do not have papers like that where you are: but these are not newspapers in any meaningful sense of the word and it is unwise to rely on them for facts.
Yes, Mignini sued (and tried to get shut down) an overseas newspaper because it quoted someone who said something bad about him.
Now Amanda Knox's parents are under investigation for "defamation" for an interview they gave in 2008 18 months ago in the United States -- charges conveniently announced 5 days before the end of their daughter's trial.
Did he try to get it shut down? Ambitious
. And a little optimistic, in my opinion. Otherwise I don't get your point really
Is this supposed to discredit Preston or... what? So not only did he research the story as a journalist and author, he had personal run-ins with the guy. I get that Preston has a bias, but are you suggesting that he is making things up?
Yes I think he may be. His account is very clearly at odds with that of Mignini. Again, you pays your money
If he is, he has incredible luck. He writes a book in which he makes up a story about Mignini being prone to going for absurd conspiracy theories, and then Mignini obliges him by presenting a bizarre theory very similar to that mentioned in the book.
Except it isn't
Do you know that these stories were written without "fact checking"? Did you fact check Mignini's statements? It seems you're suggesting that several sources, including the BBC, the Independent, Preston and his writing partner, are all either lying, making things up or completely mistaken. The BBC article, for example, is from 2004 -- before Preston's book or the Knox trial.
I think the BBC is reporting the news in both articles.
This is one of Popham's pieces about the case: it is certainly biased against the Italian justice system: and he has a responsibility to recognise that his british audience will mostly not know enough to be able to judge. I think the piece is terrible, actually. For example
In the absence of other suspects, prosecutors accused them of murder with an African friend. Unfortunately for the prosecutors, Patrick Lumumba had never even set foot in Mez's flat and eventually they had to let him go.
No mention that Lumumbu was arrested because Knox accused him.No mention of the conflicting and ever changing stories; the lack of alibi; the forensic evidence and on and on. If he does check his facts it is hard to see him as competent to do so: and if he doesn't, well let me say that he seems to me to have an agenda.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...chance-to-redeem--italian-justice-974428.html
I think Preston may be a liar, or he may be someone who does not like to be crossed, or he may be a good journalist with hard facts and insight to share. That may also be true of Mignini, though. As I said, it is a judgement call. You have the same information that I have
It's no more shameful than the character assassination against Amanda Knox. I'm not particularly convinced she's innocent -- in fact, I lean more toward her being guilty.
But the numerous leaks -- including parts of the diary she wrote in prison -- with a non-sequestered jury... it stinks. It would stink if it happened here and it does there.
There are number of things here:
1. The police are said to have leaked evidence. That is certainly not good and it is not defensible, if true. To that extent we are agreed. It would have been nice to see some idea of what exactly the police had leaked, but I see no mention of that there. The examples he gives are nothing to do with police leaks at all, nor does he say they are: they are examples of an intrusive and salacious press.
It would also have been nice to get some indication that the journalist knew something about Italian law. In this country we have a sub judice provision ( I have the impression it is not as strong as it used to be judging from some of the stuff I see in the papers but that is by the by) and I think that is very valuable indeed: it seems they do not have such a rule in Italy and there is an interesting exchange here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-19/zero-hour-for-amanda-knox/
The most important parts are in the comment from the poster called Mick-Mack. It sheds a great deal of light on the differences in the Italian system.
2. You mention character assassination of Knox: I see that the piece says
Most of the information about Knox's life was culled by reporters who found material posted by her on Myspace and in Youtube videos,
I also see that it says:
one recent leak was outrageous - the release of the video of Kercher's dead body. An Italian TV station showed grotesquely poor taste in broadcasting it. Both Sky News and The Guardian reported two weeks ago that images of Kercher's corpse had "shocked and distressed" her parents.
It is perfectly true that is outrageous that that was leaked. We do not know who leaked it but we do know that members of Sollecito's family have been charged with that. I hope we get full information from that trial: but we do not have it yet.
It is obvious that there are some limits on what can be disclosed and how it can be disclosed in Italy. I have not fully understood what those limits are. There is a case against the Sollecito family but there is no case against a woman who wrote a book which contains extracts from Knox's prison diaries: nor against newspapers who did the same
On this basis it seems to me that the rules are very different indeed. Other posters have also mentioned the fact that the jury is not sequestered. I am not even sure what that means. But whatever it means it is not how the Italians do things and there is no legitimate reason to expect that they should follow your idea of a justice system. Nor is there any reason to presume that their outcomes are less just. But even if they were, the crime was committed in Italy and was dealt with under Italian law: and that is as it should be. I see you think it stinks and you might even be right: but your opinion counts for nothing and I am not presently convinced that the police "leaked" much. There is no indication in the article you cite that they did, beyond the bare assertion: and the complaints come from journalists who are not Italian.
3. The journalist here is significantly better than Popham because he does mention at least some of the evidence such as Knox's involvement in Lumumba's arrest: the changing stories etc. I also note that he only mentions Knox in connection with changing stories, though it applies equally to Guerde and to Sollecito: who is it that is assassinating Knox's character again?
The thrust of the article is to do with journalistic ethics and not to do with the law. The author "felt" that they could have spent more time discussing whether the police had much of a case: in the context of a complaint about them leaking evidence that just seems bizarre: on the one hand the journalists should have no idea at all if his general criticism is accepted: yet he wants them to make a judgement on the issue.
And I also note that there were thousands of pages of evidence held and reviewed by the judge: some members of the press (popham, for example) did not manage to include any of what was available. I do not see that this speaks to any problem with the Italian judicial system: it properly focusses on problems with the press, as a conference on Journalism ought to do.
And unless you're suggesting the Italian justice system is so great that prosecutors are always caught if they do something wrong, then the above is a red herring. I'm not suggesting that the prosecutors faked any evidence. The evidence itself has been questioned enough here, anyway. Prosecutors don't have to stage crimes or fake evidence to railroad people. Overzealous prosecutors can do a lot of things, and it may not even be on purpose: influence the jury through the media, "coach" witnesses a bit too much, ignore exculpatory evidence (which would be illegal), or simply interpret evidence incorrectly, or "fall in love" with their own theory and do everything they can to make evidence fit it. Innocent people have been found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" before without misconduct.
All of that is true: but I have already shown why the safeguards for the accused are more robust in Italy than they are in this country, and nothing you say here even acknowledges that. Prosecutors in Italy are not like prosecutors in your country: they have a lot less freedom.
And given that the lead prosecutor in this case is under indictment for abuse of power as well as everything else noted, well... (And yes, I am aware Mignini has responded to his indictment by...shockingly! saying that he didn't do anything wrong).
Nope. He said a great deal more than that.
No idea who leaked it. So some of Sollecito's family have been indicted. Amanda Knox's parents are being investigated. A Seattle newspaper is being sued. Has anyone been indicted for leaking things detrimental to Amanda Knox or Sollecito? Have they even been investigated?
See above.
