Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Charlie Wilkes]

She must have been listening to you Charlie Barbie Nadeau strikes back:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-02/how-the-media-got-knox-wrong/full/

It's an excerpt from the book, which I've already read. If she was listening to me she might have addressed some of the points that I believe are factual errors - the bleach receipt, the Albanian and Greek supposedly "bedded" by Amanda, and the obscenity supposedly shouted in the courtroom by Raffaele's stepmother.

 

[stilicho]

She must have been listening to you Charlie Barbie Nadeau strikes back:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-02/how-the-media-got-knox-wrong/full/

It's an excerpt from the book, which I've already read. If she was listening to me she might have addressed some of the points that I believe are factual errors - the bleach receipt, the Albanian and Greek supposedly "bedded" by Amanda, and the obscenity supposedly shouted in the courtroom by Raffaele's stepmother.

So you read the whole book and found only three objections. None of them are even relevant.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

money back

So you read the whole book and found only three objections. None of them are even relevant.

First, Charlie didn't say that those were his only objections. Second, how you can say that the bleach receipt is not relevant is beyond comprehension. I suggest you go back to your high school and ask for your money back for not teaching you how to read. I will write a strong letter in support.

 

[stilicho]

First, Charlie didn't say that those were his only objections. Second, how you can say that the bleach receipt is not relevant is beyond comprehension. I suggest you go back to your high school and ask for your money back for not teaching you how to read. I will write a strong letter in support.

To have listed them they must be the objections he sees as relevant. I suppose I should have been more specific about "the" bleach receipt. Which bleach receipts were introduced at RS's trial? I was under the impression that none were.

Who cares what Raffaele's stepmother yelled in the courtroom? Who cares how many guys AK slept with? You think these things are relevant. Nobody cares.

 

[Fulcanelli]

First, Charlie didn't say that those were his only objections. Second, how you can say that the bleach receipt is not relevant is beyond comprehension. I suggest you go back to your high school and ask for your money back for not teaching you how to read. I will write a strong letter in support.

They top his list, so they are clearly his priorities. So, his priorities are...Raffaele's step mum didn't swear at the judge, the Albanian and a Greek she's supposed to have slept with, neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not she murdered Meredith. And a bleach receipt which doesn't mean very much either.

I really don't understand why Charlie cares, considering a) it impacts the case not a jot and b) is in a book and so will only be bought and read with a particular interest in the case and will therefore know the ins and outs of it anyway. It is even more surprising when a good many other writers have made worse and far more numerous mistakes (if indeed what Ms Nadeau wrote were even mistakes, because let's face it, Charllie doesn't really know either since he was never actually there).

The only reason I can see, is it's all simply because he wants to bash Barbie because he considers her the enemy. Writers considers friendly to their cause, like Egan or Shay just for example, can spew as much tosh as they like with nary a blink from Charlie simply because they at least have the virtue if talking Amanda up and the Italians and case down. It's the end and and not the means that count for these people and any lies, falsehoods, misinformation, twisting or spin is all good to get to that end. The FOAKers aren't really good at anything, but they have hypocrisy nailed.

I'd really quit bashing Ms Nadeau. You people have been bullying, threatening and intimidating her from the start and she's been nothing but neutral and professional. And it's backfired for you, big time, as she's exposed it to the public. Yet still you've not learned and continue. It's not even about Amanda Knox for them anymore, for all their accusations of the ILE being about saving face, for the FOA and their followers it's about THEM saving face. They've just been projecting themselves on the ILE all along because they assume everyone thinks like them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Who cares what Raffaele's stepmother yelled in the courtroom? Who cares how many guys AK slept with? You think these things are relevant. Nobody cares.[/qyote]

They care, because no matter how pathetic it may be, they want some excuse to attack Ms Nadeau. They also care because of highest importance to them is Amanda's 'image'. They are helping fight the propaganda campaign to sculpt that image and let's face it, they've put a lot of effort and spent a lot of money on it. It's part of the grand 'plan B'. If you can't win the case in the court room with the evidence, then try and win it with the public and politicians and they may then put pressure on the Italians to fudge the case in her favour. That's the game.

 

[stilicho]

I'd really quit bashing Ms Nadeau. You people have been bullying, threatening and intimidating her from the start and she's been nothing but neutral and professional. And it's backfired for you, big time, as she's exposed it to the public. Yet still you've not learned and continue. It's not even about Amanda Knox for them anymore, for all their accusations of the ILE being about saving face, for the FOA and their followers it's about THEM saving face. They've just been projecting themselves on the ILE all along because they assume everyone thinks like them.

It's also transparent nonsense and dishonesty. The agenda doesn't even seem to have anything to do with freeing Amanda any longer. That would be enough to make me take a long look at what we were doing if it were my organisation involved with such erratic schemes.

The JREF is one of the only forums on the internet where both the FOA and those who feel justice has been done in Perugia can meet to discuss openly anything they wish about the case. There is no deletion of opposing views and people are frankly able to produce anything they wish to talk about.

This would be the place for Amanda's supporters to demonstrate their ability to clarify rather than to obfuscate. It would be here that they could present the information that's really important to her upcoming appeal. It would also be the place to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The JREF is one of the only forums on the internet where both the FOA and those who feel justice has been done in Perugia can meet to discuss openly anything they wish about the case. There is no deletion of opposing views and people are frankly able to produce anything they wish to talk about.

Well...this is the only 'properly moderated' place it can happen. It also happens on Frank's Perugia Shock, but since it is only 'scantily' moderated (and that's being kind) where pretty much anything goes and everyone posts and 'anonymous' and nobody needs to own their words, it's just one giant big punch-up. So, 'here' is the only place the two sides can come to actually 'discuss' it.

It's also transparent nonsense and dishonesty. The agenda doesn't even seem to have anything to do with freeing Amanda any longer. That would be enough to make me take a long look at what we were doing if it were my organisation involved with such erratic schemes.

You're right...for many it isn't and for some it never actually was to begin with. But the FOA don't care about that, they'll take anyone, they're not fussy. But like I said, the means doesn't matter for them, only the end. It's cynical and the only ones who will follow it are those who are cynical like them. Their misjudgement has been that they have assumed that the majority of people out there are cynical like them and thought to succeed. But to date, it can only be said it's completely failed. Politicians in government aren't making demands of the Italians. The public aren't marching through the streets and and while many US news articles may be sympathetic to Amanda and her family and misrepresenting the case to that effect, they are not running an open free Amanda campaign.

This would be the place for Amanda's supporters to demonstrate their ability to clarify rather than to obfuscate. It would be here that they could present the information that's really important to her upcoming appeal. It would also be the place to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims.

It is. But they need to drop the sophistry, bad faith argument and hyperbole first. They'll sway nobody with that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nadeau on Tagliabracci's testimony

"Last July, testimony by noted forensic specialist Adriano Tagliabracci was abruptly suspended after the defense discovered that they had not been given all the prosecution’s evidence reports. Specifically, they did not have crucial evidence about Sollecito’s DNA found on the clasp of the bloodied bra that was cut from Kercher after she was stabbed."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-12/amanda-knoxs-summer-in-prison/2/ "Amanda Knox's Summer in Prison" by Barbie Nadeau

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fulcanelli writes:

They top his list, so they are clearly his priorities. So, his priorities are...Raffaele's step mum didn't swear at the judge, the Albanian and a Greek she's supposed to have slept with, neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not she murdered Meredith. And a bleach receipt which doesn't mean very much either.

Go back to your own post, #5841. You are the one who brought the bleach receipt into the discussion.

I'd really quit bashing Ms Nadeau. You people have been bullying, threatening and intimidating her from the start and she's been nothing but neutral and professional.

I have never bullied, threatened, or intimidated Nadeau in any way. I have simply pointed out what I believe are egregious falsehoods in her writing.

 

[Fulcanelli]

"Last July, testimony by noted forensic specialist Adriano Tagliabracci was abruptly suspended after the defense discovered that they had not been given all the prosecution’s evidence reports. Specifically, they did not have crucial evidence about Sollecito’s DNA found on the clasp of the bloodied bra that was cut from Kercher after she was stabbed."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-12/amanda-knoxs-summer-in-prison/2/ "Amanda Knox's Summer in Prison" by Barbie Nadeau

Sigh...yes...and then they were given the data and two months over the summer to review it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Go back to your own post, #5841. You are the one who brought the bleach receipt into the discussion.

'I' may have brought it into the discussion, simply as another discussion point, but you were the one who took it and made it into the most important thing since the Big Bang.

Maybe you personally haven't, but the Knox family, FOA and many of those who support them have and these are the people you support. Not to mention the fact that for the last two pages now you've been trying to make out that Barbie Nadeau is the Anti-Christ of journalism.

 

[stilicho]

I have simply pointed out what I believe are egregious falsehoods in her writing.

Some kind of babble about an alleged curse word, bleach receipts that were not produced as evidence, and Amanda's sexual history have no bearing on the case.

Nobody cares.

 

[stilicho]

"Last July, testimony by noted forensic specialist Adriano Tagliabracci was abruptly suspended after the defense discovered that they had not been given all the prosecution’s evidence reports. Specifically, they did not have crucial evidence about Sollecito’s DNA found on the clasp of the bloodied bra that was cut from Kercher after she was stabbed."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-12/amanda-knoxs-summer-in-prison/2/ "Amanda Knox's Summer in Prison" by Barbie Nadeau

I thought that Ms Nadeau was persona non grata in the FOA camp. Why is she suddenly quoted as authoritative and knowledgeable?

By the way, will Tagliabracci be summoned for the appeal? I am intrigued by this possibility since his original testimony was deemed trivial.

 

[Kermit]

I have never bullied, threatened, or intimidated Nadeau in any way. I have simply pointed out what I believe are egregious falsehoods in her writing.

.
In the prior pages on this thread, pro-Knox posters have written aggressive comments against Ms. Nadeau.

We've seen that her "double-translation" quotes concerning Amanda's diary appeared in Malcolm Moore articles in The Telegraph, and Nick Pisa articles in Sky News a year earlier and in more extensive and detailed versions.

Where's the phalanx of pro-Knox posters sliming these other journalists in the same way?

Why does Ms. Nadeau get the special treatment?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

Where's the phalanx of pro-Knox posters sliming these other journalists in the same way?

If I got information about Nadeau's sexual history and then exaggerated it, I'd be sliming her. If I reported that she behaved obnoxiously in a public place by yelling "f*** you" when she did not in fact do so, I'd be sliming her.

But I'm not. I'm focusing on serious factual errors in her writing. The reason she is the focus of my comments is because her book just came out and someone else introduced it into this discussion.

 

[Alt+F4]

I have simply pointed out what I believe are egregious falsehoods in her writing.

Why do you consider the non-existant bleach reciept as an "egregious" falsehood? It was not presented as evidence at the trial and RS's first cleaning lady testified that she herself bought the bleach months before the murder.

Perhaps the focus for the appeal should be on the egregious falshoods told by AK and RS.

 

[Kermit]

If I got information about Nadeau's sexual history and then exaggerated it, I'd be sliming her ....
But I'm not. I'm focusing on serious factual errors in her writing.

.
Yeah, but I think we've seen that there are other journalists who from a FOA or pro-Amanda point-of-view have gone into further detail on the supposed details of the double-translated jail diary, yet haven't received the aggressive attention which FOA and pro-Amanda types have dished out for her.

Your comments on Ms. Nadeau, Charlie, have actually been quite mild-mannered compared to other Amanda stalwarts on these pages (BTW, have they all disappeared now? Are they all "kneeling and praying", to use Dan O's vocabulary?). All one has to do is read the prior pages of this thread.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Kermit writes:

Where's the phalanx of pro-Knox posters sliming these other journalists in the same way?

If I got information about Nadeau's sexual history and then exaggerated it, I'd be sliming her. If I reported that she behaved obnoxiously in a public place by yelling "f*** you" when she did not in fact do so, I'd be sliming her.

But I'm not. I'm focusing on serious factual errors in her writing. The reason she is the focus of my comments is because her book just came out and someone else introduced it into this discussion.

Were you in the court room Charlie? Do you speak Italian? How do you know what Raffaele's step mother shouted?

What bearing does what she did or did not shout have on Raffaele's or Amanda's guilt or the case at large?

Why do you not have the slightest problem with many of the falsehoods, of which there are a great many, told by FOA journalists?

 

[quadraginta]

Why do you consider the non-existant bleach reciept as an "egregious" falsehood? It was not presented as evidence at the trial and RS's first cleaning lady testified that she herself bought the bleach months before the murder.

Perhaps the focus for the appeal should be on the egregious falshoods told by AK and RS.

I don't think that the goal is to show that the trial or its conclusion were wrong. It's to try and show that anyone who doesn't agree with FOA is wrong. What they might be wrong about is not particularly important.

See the difference?