• 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.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
colonelhall said:
"This has to do with how the authorities manipulate the media and the public,"

I thought that it was to do with how American television companies, such as CBS, and P.R. companies manipulate the public.

In my opinion, the free access that has been afforded to the Knox P.R. machine and the total absence of any serious questioning of their claims, is an absolute disgrace.
Click to expand...


colonelhall, I can't imagine any of the media networks turning down the opportunity for on-air debates about this controversial case. Debates always draw lots of viewers. Those who of you support the court's decisions are welcome to get organized and find credentialed professionals to be interviewed by broadcast journalists, just as Steve Moore has been.

A lot of information about the case is available now. Anyone who wants to educate himself about it can look at both the pro and con websites, weigh the points of view, and come to an informed decision. That was not true at first. The authorities in Perugia did give specific information to the media that was intended to shape attitudes about the case.

Just in the last couple of days on this site alone, we saw two examples of alleged, probably fictional, interviews by British reporters, with two of the major players in the case (Raffaele in the Mirror and Patrick in the Daily Mail). Both of the interviews were published within three weeks of the crime, when very little was known. No reporters would be able to get away with that now.

Obviously, media corporations and PR campaigns do have the power to influence and even manipulate people's thinking, but in this case, there is no longer anything they can say that can't be checked up on and verified.
 
Last edited:
colonelhall said:
"This has to do with how the authorities manipulate the media and the public,"

I thought that it was to do with how American television companies, such as CBS, and P.R. companies manipulate the public.

In my opinion, the free access that has been afforded to the Knox P.R. machine and the total absence of any serious questioning of their claims, is an absolute disgrace.
Click to expand...

Have you considered the possibilty that the prosecution doesn't want to get in a debate with the those claims because they will lose.
 
Chris C said:
Have you considered the possibilty that the prosecution doesn't want to get in a debate with the those claims because they will lose.
Click to expand...

Yes, briefly considered the possibility and quickly arrived at the conclusion that it's unlikely to be the case.
 
Antony: "What "Knox P.R. machine"?

Given the existence of such websites as PMF and TJMK, doesn't the absence of serious questioning tell you something?

To quote wikipedia :"Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott, of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign."
I acknowledge that they could be wrong, but I don't think so in this case.

The existence of such websites as PMF and TJMK shows that there does exist some serious examination of the case.

There are plenty of well informed experts who would be able to contribute to any televised debate. The fact of the matter is that Knox was found guilty. I am all for inviting those who think otherwise and have material to back up their arguments. However, in the U.K. in any case, they usually appear alongside a spokesman who is willing to support the verdict.

The CBS coverage is absolutely disgraceful and i seriously fail to understand how it is allowed on air.
 
Chris C: "Have you considered the possibilty that the prosecution doesn't want to get in a debate with the those claims because they will lose."

Have you considered the possibilty that the Knox family agrees to appear on television and fill airtime on the understanding that nobody supporting the prosecution is invited?
 
colonelhall said:
Chris C: "Have you considered the possibilty that the prosecution doesn't want to get in a debate with the those claims because they will lose."

Have you considered the possibilty that the Knox family agrees to appear on television and fill airtime on the understanding that nobody supporting the prosecution is invited?
Click to expand...


The stories about "Knox is innocent, says former FBI agent" got a lot of coverage, which other news agencies no doubt covet. The only reason competing media outlets that don't have access to Amanda's family don't put somebody on to say "Knox is guilty" is because they can't find anybody who will do that.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
The stories about "Knox is innocent, says FBI agent" got a lot of coverage, which other news agencies no doubt covet. The only reason competing media outlets that don't have access to Amanda's family don't put somebody on to say "Knox is guilty" is because they can't find anybody who will do that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry if you honestly believe that.
 
Mary_H said:
What is your argument, Amazer?
Click to expand...

As evidenced by this thread and the various other sites that deal with this case, there are plenty of people that believe Amanda is guilty. So the excuse that they can't find anyone sounds rather hollow.
 
Amazer said:
As evidenced by this thread and the various other sites that deal with this case, there are plenty of people that believe Amanda is guilty. So the excuse that they can't find anyone sounds rather hollow.
Click to expand...


Obviously, I meant someone with credentials. The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor both have published pro-innocence op-ed pieces. Where are the counterparts on the pro-guilt side? Where is the pro-guilt contingent's answer to Steve Moore?
 
I believe the pro-guilt contigent was the jury, who heard and looked at all the evidence, and found Amanda GUILTY....
 
"I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry if you honestly believe that."

Pass the Kleenex! Choke! Sob! Chortle!
 
capealadin said:
I believe the pro-guilt contigent was the jury, who heard and looked at all the evidence, and found Amanda GUILTY....
Click to expand...

If thats what you want to argue, then why come here. If you think shes so guilty and your whole arguement is they found her guilty, then whats your argument gonna be if Knox/Sollecito win their appeal?
 
capealadin said:
I believe the pro-guilt contigent was the jury, who heard and looked at all the evidence, and found Amanda GUILTY....
Click to expand...

But they didn't really look at all the evidence. For example, no audiometric tests were done to establish whether it was possible for Nara Cappezalli to have heard the 'scream of death' followed by 'feet rustling leaves' through her closed double glazed window.

I think the reasoning applied was something like 'it must have happened or she wouldn't have heard it'.
 
colonelhall said:
Chris C: "Have you considered the possibilty that the prosecution doesn't want to get in a debate with the those claims because they will lose."

Have you considered the possibilty that the Knox family agrees to appear on television and fill airtime on the understanding that nobody supporting the prosecution is invited?
Click to expand...

Oh? The pro guilt side got plenty of air time leading up to trial and during it. Yet now they are suddenly in hiding as more and more scientists are targeting their flawed evidence. The pro guilt side kinda reminds me of the global warming movement. Errrr, now its climate change. They have gone into hiding ever since they have been getting targeted for fudging the results.
 
Last edited:
capealadin said:
I believe the pro-guilt contigent was the jury, who heard and looked at all the evidence, and found Amanda GUILTY....
Click to expand...


Pretty good answer, capealadin. I salute you.

colonelhall, et al., and I were talking about the media, though. Remember, Charlie wrote, "This has to do with how the authorities manipulate the media and the public, and how people defer to the judgment of authorities even when it should be obvious that the authorities are wrong." Then colonelhall went on to say the Knox PR machine is manipulating people because they are the only ones being given access to the media.

The jury panel made its decision, but that decision is now being challenged by a lot of people for a lot of good reasons. Steve Moore's appearances are part of that challenge, and I would think the pro-guilt camp would want to counter that, if they could.

Chris asks a good question: "If thats what you want to argue, then why come here. If you think shes so guilty and your whole arguement is they found her guilty, then whats your argument gonna be if Knox/Sollecito win their appeal?"
 
You may recall that I was looking for the Quintavalle TV interview. A poster at another forum (Broken English) found a portion of it buried in a 2 hour show on the case. Quintavalle is shot from behind as not to show his face. Rough translation also provided by the same poster. The original link as well as one on a different format (the first link requires Silverlight to play) are also provided. I need to learn Italian as there are lots of interesing visuals on this show, just a lack of language understanding on my part.

http://redirectingat.com/?id=673X54...um.org/general-discussion-thread-t17-130.html

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/porta_a_porta_01_19_09.asf

Voice of Francesca Pozzi
Deemed crucial by the prosecution is also the testimony of the trader who claims to have seen Amanda Knox, the morning after the murder, in his shop not far from the house of the crime. Amanda instead has always told of being stayed at home of Raffaele until 10 a.m.

Quintavalle: I arrived in the morning, when opening the store at 7:45 precisely, (she) was waiting outside to enter, I did pay much attention to this thing because it's difficult ..it was a... the morning after the "weekend for the dead" there was no one, she came in and I saw her as she entered (Pozzi: unintelligible) she looked at me as I re-looked at her..

Pozzi: Remember how she was dressed?

Quintavalle: Yes, She was dressed, (she) certainly had jeans, certainly a gray coat, (she)had a scarf mmmm I think of color light-blue or bluish-gray, a color so anyway. And then (she) had a headdress

Pozzi: (Do you) Remember that attitude (she) had?

Quintavalle: An attitude I...think she had this scarf "appu" (he is on the point to say "appunto"="just")..as to cover (herself)
Click to expand...
This is a comment from BrokenEnglish
Quintavalle has repeated this testimony in Court but he was contradicted by his employees who said they did not remember these facts.

Quintavalle and employees seem sincere people, they do not lie. But it is clear to everyone that they confuse the dates (and maybe even the person). Quintavalle says he saw Amanda after the "weekend for the dead". In Italy November 1 is hollyday (Allsaints), November 2 is half-hollyday (day of the dead, memory of deceased), November 4 is Armed Forces Day. so "after the weekend for the dead" in 2007 was monday, November 5 and "after the day for the dead" was saturday November 3.(and not friday, November 2).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The interview appears shortly after 40 minutes

The episode was aired the january 19, 2009 about from 11.30 p.m. to 1.30 a.m.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Obviously, I meant someone with credentials. The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor both have published pro-innocence op-ed pieces. Where are the counterparts on the pro-guilt side? Where is the pro-guilt contingent's answer to Steve Moore?
Click to expand...

I don't know and I don't particularly care either. The debate in the USA about this case is irrelevant.
 
"The jury panel made its decision, but that decision is now being challenged by a lot of people for a lot of good reasons. Steve Moore's appearances are part of that challenge, and I would think the pro-guilt camp would want to counter that, if they could."

Mary, with all due respect. If I may give an example. When Steve Moore comes up with statements such as "There are those who believe that the police fabricated evidence" It would not be hard to ask for evidence of this or to ask who these people are.

There are so many examples of the likes of Steve More or the Knox family making misleading statements that could easily be challenged.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom