• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
You are completely incorrect. You took the story and ran with it long before you had the actual facts. They are not selling an interview. This story will be corrected. Here is the first correction.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/05/16/news/update-article-amanda-knoxs-tv-interview-inaccurate
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no, if this article is taken fully at face value. Chris Mellas seems to say that the reason that an interview is not scheduled as of now is that it's been denied by the Ministry of Justice, which has had to make the decision since no appeal judge has yet been appointed. Mellas goes on to say that when an appeal judge IS appointed, this new judge will be asked to re-rule on whether an interview is permissible.

Mellas gives the clear impression that he wants an interview to go ahead. The phrase "whatever Amanda wants, big deal" indicates a worrying lack of wider perspective. He does, however, state explicitly that no money will change hands. If he's sincere in that assertion, then the family's rationale for the interview seems to be solely to satisfy AK's wish to be heard.

Mellas notes and doesn't deny the claim that AK's Italian lawyer is against the idea. This, if true, would bolster the idea that AK's family have been countermanding their own lawyer. As I've stated before, I'm of the strong opinion that AK (or any charged suspect or convicted person awaiting an appeal, for that matter) should totally refrain from making any statements or giving any interviews. She ONLY risks doing damage to herself. Any exonerating statements she might want to make should only be discussed at length in confidence with her lawyer, and only raised in court if they add materially to her defence and are judged by her lawyer as able to withstand cross-examination. That's only my opinion of course, but I suspect that if you asked 100 criminal defence attorneys you'd get pretty much 100 in agreement.

So maybe AK's lawyer does recognise the importance of keeping AK quiet - and has done from the very start of his involvement - but maybe he's simply been railroaded and overruled by the Knox/Mellas family camp, and by AK herself. If this is/was the case, I'd be surprised if he hasn't come close to resigning his representation, although I don't know what the legal code in Italy has to say about lawyers quitting mid-case - it might not be allowed. If it's not allowed, then I feel very sorry for Sr Ghirga.
 
I've just checked again, and yes, that is a direct quote from Ghirga. Via Nick Pisa in Italy.

Mellas and Shay or Ghirga and Pisa. Hmmm....
 
Mary_H said:
If the group's attitudes were affected by their cultural or political history (and I don't know how anyone can claim they're not), then it is appropriate to keep it in mind. As in the example I gave to Bob, if this case were being tried in Saudi Arabia, then we would certainly examine the cultural attitudes of that country to explain what we see as inconsistencies or errors.
Click to expand...
If it were tried on Vulcan we could have trial by combat.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, yes and no, if this article is taken fully at face value. Chris Mellas seems to say that the reason that an interview is not scheduled as of now is that it's been denied by the Ministry of Justice, which has had to make the decision since no appeal judge has yet been appointed. Mellas goes on to say that when an appeal judge IS appointed, this new judge will be asked to re-rule on whether an interview is permissible.

Mellas gives the clear impression that he wants an interview to go ahead. The phrase "whatever Amanda wants, big deal" indicates a worrying lack of wider perspective. He does, however, state explicitly that no money will change hands. If he's sincere in that assertion, then the family's rationale for the interview seems to be solely to satisfy AK's wish to be heard.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, the Knox/Mellas/Mariott PR machine has been trying very hard to do this - and it's not as if her testimony isn't available for all to see. I agree that I can't see how an interview with Amanda is going to change anything (at least, not for the better). As hard as the Knox/Mellas/Mariott PR Machine is attempting to have this case tried in the "Court 'o' Public Opinion", I fear they've missed that the case is being tried in a real Court with real evidence against Amanda... That should be where they are focused, not on Public Opinion which is, in fact, quite fickle and doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make a whit of difference when it comes to the Judges.

Sadly, those like Mary H. feel that trying the case in the "Court 'o' Public Opinion" is a fair tactic only when the information/evidence being presented is in favor of Amanda's Innocence. On the contrary, any negative effect of the Public Opinion on the case should be grounds for a mistrial. Quite duplicitous/hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
Seriously mate, if I wanted 'facts', Chris Mellas and Steve Shay are the last people on Earth I'd go to.
Click to expand...

The Nick Pisa "interview cash-in" story was filed for the UK "Mail On Sunday" newspaper and placed on the "Mail Online" website, whereas it's erroneously referred to in the "West Seattle Herald" as having been published in the "British Newspaper Telegraph's online edition". That's a reasonably poor lapse in journalistic accuracy. EDIT: It actually WAS published in the Telegraph online site as well - my mistake.

I would however start from the assumption that Chris Mellas' quotes were reported accurately at least. But whether Mellas' quotes were a true reflection of the position vis-a-vis payment for any interview, or whether they were merely intended to neutralise the "cash-for-access" story, is harder to divine.

Sheeeeesh, what am I doing awake at this time?!!!!!
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
The Nick Pisa "interview cash-in" story was filed for the UK "Mail On Sunday" newspaper and placed on the "Mail Online" website, whereas it's erroneously referred to in the "West Seattle Herald" as having been published in the "British Newspaper Telegraph's online edition". That's a reasonably poor lapse in journalistic accuracy.

I would however start from the assumption that Chris Mellas' quotes were reported accurately at least. But whether Mellas' quotes were a true reflection of the position vis-a-vis payment for any interview, or whether they were merely intended to neutralise the "cash-for-access" story, is harder to divine.

Sheeeeesh, what am I doing awake at this time?!!!!!
Click to expand...

It was in both the Telegraph and the Mail, both submitted by Nick Pisa.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
In all fairness, the Knox/Mellas/Hilton PR machine has been trying very hard to do this - and it's not as if her testimony isn't available for all to see. I agree that I can't see how an interview with Amanda is going to change anything (at least, not for the better). As hard as the Knox/Mellas/Hilton PR Machine is attempting to have this case tried in the "Court 'o' Public Opinion", I fear they've missed that the case is being tried in a real Court with real evidence against Amanda... That should be where they are focused, not on Public Opinion which is, in fact, quite fickle and doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make a whit of difference when it comes to the Judges.

Sadly, those like Mary H. feel that trying the case in the "Court 'o' Public Opinion" is a fair tactic only when the information/evidence being presented is in favor of Amanda's Innocence. On the contrary, any negative effect of the Public Opinion on the case should be grounds for a mistrial. Quite duplicitous/hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You got the wrong hotel Bob.
 
HumanityBlues said:
It was in both the Telegraph and the Mail, both submitted by Nick Pisa.
Click to expand...

Crikey, you're right. Apologies for my error. I'll edit to correct. It's incredibly strange though - I was under the impression that Pisa was actually employed by the Daily Mail Group of papers. But even if he's only freelancing for the Mail, I still can't understand how and why he's filing the same story for two competitive newspapers which have no common ownership structure whatsoever. To the best of my knowledge, this is unheard of: UK newspapers often contain raw or re-written copy from the same wire agencies (PA, Reuters etc), but that's the only instance I can think of for duplicated stories in rival papers...

And now I'm beginning to worry that I'm developing insomnia!
 
LondonJohn said:
Crikey, you're right. Apologies for my error. I'll edit to correct. It's incredibly strange though - I was under the impression that Pisa was actually employed by the Daily Mail Group of papers. But even if he's only freelancing for the Mail, I still can't understand how and why he's filing the same story for two competitive newspapers which have no common ownership structure whatsoever. To the best of my knowledge, this is unheard of: UK newspapers often contain raw or re-written copy from the same wire agencies (PA, Reuters etc), but that's the only instance I can think of for duplicated stories in rival papers...

And now I'm beginning to worry that I'm developing insomnia!
Click to expand...

Many JREFers have insomnia! I haven't asked Stilicho, but he and I both seem to suffer from it.:) I think Pisa is a freelancer. This happens all the time incidentally with Pisa. They might be subsidiaries of the same entity. I know Murdoch owns a lot of British papers....
 
LondonJohn said:
Mellas gives the clear impression that he wants an interview to go ahead. The phrase "whatever Amanda wants, big deal" indicates a worrying lack of wider perspective. He does, however, state explicitly that no money will change hands. If he's sincere in that assertion, then the family's rationale for the interview seems to be solely to satisfy AK's wish to be heard.
Click to expand...

Of course it's for money. And of course Mellas is denying it. 'That' part was meant to be a secret and it leaked. Mellas is now terrified the future judge will deny permission for the interview if the judge believes cash is changing hands. Hence, why Mellas rushed out so fast (and that was lightening fast) to deny it. Too late, Pisa'a already got all the info from Ghirga and Mediaset and the secret's out. I'm willing to bet the Chris Mellas household is not a happy one tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom