Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Who does Ghirga work for?

Pisa got it wrong. It will be corrected.

'What' did Pisa get wrong?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The ideal is that the public has all the information, both positive and negative, before forming an opinion. In Perugia, they had only one side.

'What' information exactly were the public not getting?

 

[Fulcanelli]

What would be wrong with accepting money for an interview?

Everything, if it's profit from a murder you or your family member committed (and no, just because you're denying it, that doesn't suddenly give you the right to or make it okay). And if you can't/won't/don't understand that or why that is I can't help you. Nobody can.

 

[stilicho]

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....

I consider myself to be rewarded by insomnia rather than suffering from it but thank you very much.

Nick Pisa is almost certainly a paid professional who is not a staff writer. His stories on Berlusconi make it into our own national papers:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=3007415

Yet, if it weren't for the cross-border Seattle media, nobody here would ever have heard of Amanda Knox. She is a garden variety murderer who simply isn't as newsworthy as Karla Homolka or Kelly Ellard.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I thought under the Italian system, the defendant is considered innocent until the result of the final appeal. Besides, it's not Amanda who would be getting paid, it's her family. They should be entitled to generate income.

Not from the crime their daughter is charged with/convicted of committing.

 

[Amazer]

I thought under the Italian system, the defendant is considered innocent until the result of the final appeal. Besides, it's not Amanda who would be getting paid, it's her family. They should be entitled to generate income.

Are Amanda's family giving the interview? Or is Amanda?

If it's Amanda that will be interviewed, and by all accounts it is, then a payment to her family for this interview equals a payment to Amanda,

If the family wants to generate income, they'll have to find other ways to do this.

 

[Mary_H]

'What' information exactly were the public not getting?

Media coverage in Italy favored the prosecution's case. Cesare Beccaria as much as admitted this when he wrote:

"Most people in Italy believe the two trials ended correctly because they have been exhaustively reported-to throughout....

"...The media coverage in Italian in Italy exceeds the media coverage in English in the UK and USA by a factor of five or ten. And there have been a number of very highly rated and balanced TV talk-shows on the case, in the course of which the defenses were not able to muzzle or slant the discussions - even if they ever considered doing such a thing."

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

No concern over the potential for the prosecution "to muzzle or slant" suggests Beccaria is prejudiced in favor of the prosecution's case, as does claiming people believe the verdict is correct because of the way the trial was reported.

There are many people who believe the trials ended incorrectly, because they get their information from sources apart from the Italian media.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Media coverage in Italy favored the prosecution's case. Cesare Beccaria as much as admitted this when he wrote:

"Most people in Italy believe the two trials ended correctly because they have been exhaustively reported-to throughout....

"...The media coverage in Italian in Italy exceeds the media coverage in English in the UK and USA by a factor of five or ten. And there have been a number of very highly rated and balanced TV talk-shows on the case, in the course of which the defenses were not able to muzzle or slant the discussions - even if they ever considered doing such a thing."

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

No concern over the potential for the prosecution "to muzzle or slant" suggests Beccaria is prejudiced in favor of the prosecution's case, as does claiming people believe the verdict is correct because of the way the trial was reported.

There are many people who believe the trials ended incorrectly, because they get their information from sources apart from the Italian media.

What information was withheld from the Italian people?

 

[Mary_H]

Are Amanda's family giving the interview? Or is Amanda?

If it's Amanda that will be interviewed, and by all accounts it is, then a payment to her family for this interview equals a payment to Amanda,

If the family wants to generate income, they'll have to find other ways to do this.

Well, the interview question is moot, anyway:

"The (Telegraph) article is trying to create a controversy out of nothing," Mellas told the West Seattle Herald by phone. "This is a non-issue because there was never a June 1 date set for an interview. There was a request for an interview, but it has been denied by the Ministry of Justice. They are in charge of making this decision, not a judge, because the case is sort of in limbo. There is currently no judge assigned. Otherwise it would be up to a judge whether Amanda would be permitted an interview."

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

I still see nothing wrong with the family taking advantage of the situation they're in to pay their debts. Amanda is innocent, but even if she were guilty, think how many people would pay (and have paid) to read her story. I think it's an ideal way to pay the settlements and bills that directly resulted from her arrest and conviction.

 

[Mary_H]

What information was withheld from the Italian people?

Whatever information was required to allow them to fairly weigh the defense's case against the prosecution's.

There appears to be a cozy relationship between the press and the prosecution and police in Perugia. I doubt the press would jeopardize that by printing anything about the suspicions of misconduct that are openly expressed in the U.S. media. There's always that knee-jerk slander-suit problem to keep in mind, too.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Media coverage in Italy favored the prosecution's case. Cesare Beccaria as much as admitted this when he wrote:

"Most people in Italy believe the two trials ended correctly because they have been exhaustively reported-to throughout....

"...The media coverage in Italian in Italy exceeds the media coverage in English in the UK and USA by a factor of five or ten. And there have been a number of very highly rated and balanced TV talk-shows on the case, in the course of which the defenses were not able to muzzle or slant the discussions - even if they ever considered doing such a thing."

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

No concern over the potential for the prosecution "to muzzle or slant" suggests Beccaria is prejudiced in favor of the prosecution's case, as does claiming people believe the verdict is correct because of the way the trial was reported.

There are many people who believe the trials ended incorrectly, because they get their information from sources apart from the Italian media.

Rubbish. In your own quote Cesare states the coverage was balanced (I highlighted it for you). Moreover, all public comments by the defence lawyers or the families to the media were printed/aired.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, the interview question is moot, anyway:

"The (Telegraph) article is trying to create a controversy out of nothing," Mellas told the West Seattle Herald by phone. "This is a non-issue because there was never a June 1 date set for an interview. There was a request for an interview, but it has been denied by the Ministry of Justice. They are in charge of making this decision, not a judge, because the case is sort of in limbo. There is currently no judge assigned. Otherwise it would be up to a judge whether Amanda would be permitted an interview."

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

I still see nothing wrong with the family taking advantage of the situation they're in to pay their debts. Amanda is innocent, but even if she were guilty, think how many people would pay (and have paid) to read her story. I think it's an ideal way to pay the settlements and bills that directly resulted from her arrest and conviction.

Why should the family of a convicted killer be able to make money on that? Again, should I be able to exploit my brother's lawbreaking tendencies by selling an interview with him?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Whatever information was required to allow them to fairly weigh the defense's case against the prosecution's.

There appears to be a cozy relationship between the press and the prosecution and police in Perugia. I doubt the press would jeopardize that by printing anything about the suspicions of misconduct that are openly expressed in the U.S. media. There's always that knee-jerk slander-suit problem to keep in mind, too.

Interesting...so it's only a fair and balanced opinion if it's the same opinion you have. Right.

 

[Mary_H]

Why should the family of a convicted killer be able to make money on that? Again, should I be able to exploit my brother's lawbreaking tendencies by selling an interview with him?

In the long run, it is her lawyers, the Kerchers, Patrick Lumumba and whoever else the court decides Amanda owes money to who will be receiving the money. How is the family supposed to pay their settlements if they aren't allowed to earn money from their most valuable commodity -- information?

Wouldn't their creditors rather have the bills paid sooner than later or not at all?

 

[Mary_H]

Rubbish. In your own quote Cesare states the coverage was balanced (I highlighted it for you). Moreover, all public comments by the defence lawyers or the families to the media were printed/aired.

Well, he claims the coverage was balanced, but he's writing the article because he believes the verdict was fair, so his opinion is hardly unbiased.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, the interview question is moot, anyway:

"The (Telegraph) article is trying to create a controversy out of nothing," Mellas told the West Seattle Herald by phone. "This is a non-issue because there was never a June 1 date set for an interview. There was a request for an interview, but it has been denied by the Ministry of Justice. They are in charge of making this decision, not a judge, because the case is sort of in limbo. There is currently no judge assigned. Otherwise it would be up to a judge whether Amanda would be permitted an interview."

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

I still see nothing wrong with the family taking advantage of the situation they're in to pay their debts. Amanda is innocent, but even if she were guilty, think how many people would pay (and have paid) to read her story. I think it's an ideal way to pay the settlements and bills that directly resulted from her arrest and conviction.

It's not moot. The article you quoted has Shay and Mellas denying something Nick Pisa never wrote in the first place (that Amanda would be interviewed on June 1....Nick Pisa never said that). Nick Pisa IS correct that they're trying to get Amanda a TV interview and that they're in negotiations with several media companies to do so. It's therefore not moot at all.

As for your morality, ethics and level of personal corruption, I can't help you. It is never okay to profit from having murdered somebody, even if you say 'I didn't do it'.

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting...so it's only a fair and balanced opinion if it's the same opinion you have. Right.

Isn't it odd to you that EVERYBODY (or so it has been claimed) in Italy thinks Amanda is guilty but NOT everybody in the rest of the world thinks she is? I guess it could be that the Italians have MORE information than the rest of us, but if so, wouldn't they have shared it by now?

 

[Fulcanelli]

In the long run, it is her lawyers, the Kerchers, Patrick Lumumba and whoever else the court decides Amanda owes money to who will be receiving the money. How is the family supposed to pay their settlements if they aren't allowed to earn money from their most valuable commodity -- information?

Wouldn't their creditors rather have the bills paid sooner than later or not at all?

You don't compensate the family by making money off the back of their daughter you murdered. What's wrong with you???

 

[Mary_H]

It's not moot. The article you quoted has Shay and Mellas denying something Nick Pisa never wrote in the first place (that Amanda would be interviewed on June 1....Nick Pisa never said that). Nick Pisa IS correct that they're trying to get Amanda a TV interview and that they're in negotiations with several media companies to do so. It's therefore not moot at all.

"There was a request for an interview, but it has been denied by the Ministry of Justice. They are in charge of making this decision, not a judge, because the case is sort of in limbo. There is currently no judge assigned."

As for your morality, ethics and level of personal corruption, I can't help you. It is never okay to profit from having murdered somebody, even if you say 'I didn't do it'.

Is it okay if you didn't actually murder anybody?

 

[LondonJohn]

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....

Nope, the Mail Group and Telegraph Group are totally independent of each other, and would most definitely regard each other as rivals. The Mail Group is owned by a publicly-listed holding company confusingly called "Daily Mail and General Trust" (DMGT), while the Telegraph Group is owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers (no relation to the bank) as a private entity. And just for completion, Murdoch's News Group owns the Sun (daily paper), and the News of the World (Sunday paper).

This is why I find it most strange that Pisa would be filing copy for two different newspaper groups that have absolutely no ownership or editorial connection, and which would regard each other as rivals. I presume that each editor knows that the story is also going to a rival...