Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

A poor choice of words, I accept correction and withdraw them.

Would you allow 'the expressed wishes of some who dislike this discussion and think it should have died an ignoble death thirty-thousand posts ago?'

Sure, but there are always gonna be a few grumps hovering around any sample this size.

I doubt anyone pays any attention to them other than the other grumps. No one's got them tied to a chair with their eyelids pinned open. If they don't like it, they can go read something else.

 

[quadraginta]

I think Meredith was too good a housekeeper to want to sleep on a stained pillowcase and the pillowcase would have been tossed into the laundry with her other items on Nov 1. Therefore , the pillowcase was not stained Nov 1 AM. Therefore, the stain is neither the BF's or Halloween makeup or lip balm (an earlier guilter theory (Fulcanelli?)) and given its location the odds are the stain is related to the sexual assault on Meredith.

<snip>

That's an awful lot of therefore built up one one little, bitty I think.

Maybe she wasn't doing a load with that color. Maybe it slipped her mind when she was rounding up laundry. Maybe she knew it was just cold cream and wasn't all that worried about it. Maybe she did her bedclothes on a certain day, and that wasn't it. When I change our bed I strip the whole thing and wash it all at once. That's pretty much a whole load for our small machine, and it's all the same color. If there's a load of clothes we need then a harmless spot on a pillowcase won't take precedence.

Maybe ...

This sort of starting with a single, opinionated conjecture and spinning it into an entire sequence of supposedly irrefutable certainties is the sort of thing which rings false when trying to offer a persuasive argument. There's been a lot of that in these threads.

 

[Mary_H]

Everyone knows that the judge did not enforce the law and require all data (electronic) in regards to DNA testing by making PMs release the same to the defense. To this day this has not happen and is just one of the points the appeal will be based on.

Arguments we had and all everyone was able to see was the "too low" "too low" too low" entries made by Comode. What the defense wants and still has not obtained from the PM is the electronic results from these test and other areas where a verbal testiment is not enough proof. The court last year just accepted the testimony as fact without having all the testing results (electronic). The defense was never given thie right to review these as well.

As much as I appreciate any efforts on behalf of Amanda and Raffaele, it would be less confusing for me if you didn't use the name of a guilter journalist as your user ID.

 

[Kaosium]

As much as I appreciate any efforts on behalf of Amanda and Raffaele, it would be less confusing for me if you didn't use the name of a guilter journalist as your user ID.

I got a different impression when I googled "Nick Pisa Amanda Knox"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-along-great-with-meredith-says-her-mother.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...urt-told-atMeredith-Kercher-murder-trial.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...after-Meredith-Kercher-murder-court-told.html

Pretty much straight news. No 'Streets of Bagdad' crap.

 

[LondonJohn]

As much as I appreciate any efforts on behalf of Amanda and Raffaele, it would be less confusing for me if you didn't use the name of a guilter journalist as your user ID.

Actually, I don't think Mr Pisa (the real one) should be categorised as a guilter journalist. I think that in reality he's no more than a jobbing journalist who has a prevailing motivation in being published. And since he's a freelance "stringer", this motivation is probably even stronger, since if he doesn't get published, he doesn't get paid.

So, in his position, he's always got an eye on what editors want to see in their paper, and will tailor his copy accordingly. I think that between 2007 and mid-2010, UK newspaper editors (and TV producers) were predominantly interested in the sex-crazed-Foxy-Knoxy angle - it was provocative, titillating, and had kind of a "modern Hindley/Brady" vibe to it. And they felt it was the story that the UK public preferred to read or see, so Pisa gave them what they wanted.

But I think that editors now realise that this well is running dry, and that there's now mileage in examining the flip side - after all, everyone likes a "whodunnit". Coupled with that is, I suspect, the (misunderstood) sense among the UK media and general public that the upcoming appeal must necessarily be based upon solid grounds, since in the UK justice system there's no such thing as an automatic appeal, and appeals are only granted if there are demonstrably strong grounds to do so.

There's a beautiful phrase used in Fleet Street (coined by Kelvin MacKenzie when he was editor of The Sun) called the "reverse ferret". This phrase describes the oft-employed tactic of the red-tops (and, increasingly, the mid-markets and even occasionally the broadsheets) of abruptly u-turning their editorial stance on a given issue if they sense that it's at odds with the prevailing public mood - and then to either pretend that the new stance was always their position or give some bogus reason for switching horses. I think that we may be seeing the signs of an impending reverse ferret in sections of the UK media over the culpability of Knox and Sollecito. And, if that's the case, then Pisa will merely oblige by performing his very own personal reverse ferret. Otherwise, he won't get paid.

 

[LondonJohn]

I got a different impression when I googled "Nick Pisa Amanda Knox"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-along-great-with-meredith-says-her-mother.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...urt-told-atMeredith-Kercher-murder-trial.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...after-Meredith-Kercher-murder-court-told.html

Pretty much straight news. No 'Streets of Bagdad' crap.

Bear in mind, though, that these three reports are all straight reportage of court proceedings. And since Pisa was almost certainly trained in the UK, he's probably automatically defaulting to the UK sub-judice rules whereby journalists can only write completely factual, unembellished reports of trials in progress, and can only write about that day's testimony. One of those reports even ends with the obligatory one-line paragraph which concludes pretty much any UK press report of a UK court case: "The trial continues".

As Mary said, some of Pisa's outside-the-trial pieces during 2007-2009 were somewhat more provocative, and leaned towards a certain presumption in the guilt of Knox (and by extension Sollecito). But my view on why Pisa took this angle, and why there are signs that he's now starting to change his angle (check out his copy form the past few weeks) is encapsulated in my previous post. Reverse ferret, anyone....?

 

[Chris C]

I just realized it could also be Meredith's bodily fluids as her body would lose all muscle control at her death. If ILE assumed same then that it is the only valid reason for not testing the stain - BUT still a huge assumption. Test, test, test.

I also believe its possible that its Meredith's own body fluids, however I think its highly unlikely. They knew the stain was there and had no evidence to link Knox or Sollecito to the room. Who here actually believes they didn't test it? I mean you have a possible semen stain and no evidence to link Knox or Sollecito to the room. Why would they not test it? If they are willing to LIE about not testing the luminol prints for blood, then they are willing to LIE about not testing the stain. They even made statements that they didn't test it because there was no way to date it. All you have to do is read between the lines, most likely it was tested and it wasn't Guede's or Sollecito's. Therefore they had no way to link it to someone else, because they dont have dna samples from anyone.

 

[Draca]

John Kercher's Daily Mail article

delete

 

[Draca]

John Kercher's Daily Mail article

You're partially right. Mr Kercher is defending the memory of his daughter against cultists who have created a minor celebrity out of one of the three individuals responsible for her death.

After reading John Kercher's article a few times he seems to be mostly angry with Amanda Knox 'Foxy Knoxy' constantly being in the media and that the media will not let the story rest and constantly shoves the woman who killed his daughter in front of his family. He's not even able to avoid seeing her or her parents on T.V. He then ends the article just asking for peace.

1. It was never Amanda Knox or her supporters that created 'Foxy Knoxy'. That was created by the Daily Mail and used by guilters to say the worst things possible about her. 'Angel Face' was used the same.

2. I don't think either side is happy about the 2-3 movies being produced while the appeal has not even been completed.

3. Both Amanda and Raffaele's parents have been very vocal about supporting their children. Who can blame them for this?

4. Amanda doesn't look like she feels she is a 'celebrity'. The toll of years in prison are already easy to see on her face. She is sitting in a cell. How glamorous does anyone think she feels?

5. It is not Amanda Knox's fault that she was wrongfully convicted. She never asked for this attention or any other. That is the fault of the Perugian authorities and the Kerchers own lawyer who have been so 'kind' to them. The Kercher family believing she is guilty does not make it true.

6. If peace is suppose to come by the media and everyone else shutting up and no longer discussing this wrongful conviction it is not possible. It is not going to happen. For one thing, Amanda and Raffaele deserve their right to appeal.

I am sorry for the Kerchers loss. Their daughter was lovely and they are clearly a decent family. Its painful what they are being put through, by Rudy Guede who killed their daughter primarily. Then everyone involved in wrongfully convicting Amanda and Raffaele and extending the Kerchers pain in the process. Allowing independent forensic analysis during the appeal will hopefully end this soon with Amanda and Raffaele's release.

 

[Mary_H]

I got a different impression when I googled "Nick Pisa Amanda Knox"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-along-great-with-meredith-says-her-mother.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...urt-told-atMeredith-Kercher-murder-trial.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...after-Meredith-Kercher-murder-court-told.html

Pretty much straight news. No 'Streets of Bagdad' crap.

You and LondonJohn are probably right, Kaosium. Maybe I am thinking of someone else. Peter Quennell wrote on TJMK: "...Nick Pisa (one of the most energetic reporters on the case from Perugia who we often quote from here)" but obviously that doesn't mean anything.

Sorry, faux (or real) Nick Pisa -- never mind. (What's all this fuss about violins on television?!)

 

[Mary_H]

I also believe its possible that its Meredith's own body fluids, however I think its highly unlikely. They knew the stain was there and had no evidence to link Knox or Sollecito to the room. Who here actually believes they didn't test it? I mean you have a possible semen stain and no evidence to link Knox or Sollecito to the room. Why would they not test it? If they are willing to LIE about not testing the luminol prints for blood, then they are willing to LIE about not testing the stain. They even made statements that they didn't test it because there was no way to date it. All you have to do is read between the lines, most likely it was tested and it wasn't Guede's or Sollecito's. Therefore they had no way to link it to someone else, because they dont have dna samples from anyone.

One excuse they might have used for not testing it is that they thought they already had enough evidence against Rudy and didn't need any more. I don't think it's Meridith's body fluids, because I think she was still alive (barely) when Rudy molested her.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Since the topic of electronic data files have been brought up, I wonder if Charlie Wilkes would be so kind to explain where the screenshots of the electropherogramins in the petition (the one Hampikian put his name to), and quite recently in this post were obtained?

I have established a relationship with Amanda's family. They have given me access to the most important evidence files and permission to use them according to my discretion.

 

[lionking]

It is not Amanda Knox's fault that she was wrongfully convicted.

If I were John Kercher this sentence alone would be enough to drive me mad and put my thoughts into print. The certainty of the AK supporters would disgust me.

 

[Kaosium]

Bear in mind, though, that these three reports are all straight reportage of court proceedings. And since Pisa was almost certainly trained in the UK, he's probably automatically defaulting to the UK sub-judice rules whereby journalists can only write completely factual, unembellished reports of trials in progress, and can only write about that day's testimony. One of those reports even ends with the obligatory one-line paragraph which concludes pretty much any UK press report of a UK court case: "The trial continues".

As Mary said, some of Pisa's outside-the-trial pieces during 2007-2009 were somewhat more provocative, and leaned towards a certain presumption in the guilt of Knox (and by extension Sollecito). But my view on why Pisa took this angle, and why there are signs that he's now starting to change his angle (check out his copy form the past few weeks) is encapsulated in my previous post. Reverse ferret, anyone....?

Thanks for the background. I wasn't paying any attention to bylines when I googled about, and got a lot of things out of chronological order. I'd read somewhere he wasn't exactly the favorite of some, but recent articles where I noticed his byline didn't seem unfair, even trending towards what should be the objective position: 'There's something rotten in the state of Umbria.'

Incidentally, regarding the Mail, do you suppose publishing that piece linked earlier means they plan to shut up about the case completely to spare the family the pain of ever reading about it?

 

[shuttlt]

If I were John Kercher this sentence alone would be enough to drive me mad and put my thoughts into print. The certainty of the AK supporters would disgust me.

True, but there is also something that isn't normal about the level of interest (regardless of the pro/anti-Amanda perspective) in the case that is WAY out of proportion. Somehow it has generated a couple of orders of magnitude more posts and comment than I personally would have expected at the outset. Most other parents of murdered children don't have crowds of people on the internet (myself included) rubbernecking at their tragedy.

 

[Kaosium]

If I were John Kercher this sentence alone would be enough to drive me mad and put my thoughts into print. The certainty of the AK supporters would disgust me.

The certainty comes because if you actually look into it with objectivity it becomes pretty obvious what happened. It takes a while to chase it all down, but once you do you realize there's a reason all the evidence comes with a 'story' and all the witnesses laughable.

They arrested three people without evidence and then when the forensics came back they had evidence of only one person who was none of the above. They got their hands on him, so they let one go and convicted the three of them, even though the whole idea of three people who barely knew each other murdering a girl for no reason--or downright ludicrous ones that the tabloids lapped up--is just silly.

Step back and look at it and it's preposterous. That requires a huge burden of proof, and they came up with nothing that passes the sniff test. The real story is how they got the conviction.

 

[lionking]

The certainty comes because if you actually look into it with objectivity it becomes pretty obvious what happened. It takes a while to chase it all down, but once you do you realize there's a reason all the evidence comes with a 'story' and all the witnesses laughable.

They arrested three people without evidence and then when the forensics came back they had evidence of only one person who was none of the above. They got their hands on him, so they let one go and convicted the three of them, even though the whole idea of three people who barely knew each other murdering a girl for no reason--or downright ludicrous ones that the tabloids lapped up--is just silly.

Step back and look at it and it's preposterous. That requires a huge burden of proof, and they came up with nothing that passes the sniff test. The real story is how they got the conviction.

Spoken with true religious conviction.

What I find preposterous is the level of certainty. If AK's appeal is successful, the so-called "guilters" would, I believe, concede that she was innocent. If it goes the other way, you guys will just not give up.

 

[shuttlt]

Incidentally, whether or not the pro-Amanda argument is correct isn't really relevant. The point is that presumably Mr Kercher doesn't agree. He might be wrong in his understanding, but that's beside the point when it comes to how he may or may not be feeling.

 

[lionking]

Incidentally, whether or not the pro-Amanda argument is correct isn't really relevant. The point is that presumably Mr Kercher doesn't agree. He might be wrong in his understanding, but that's beside the point when it comes to how he may or may not be feeling.

Agreed. And he has the right to put his views as widely as possible.

 

[Withnail1969]

Spoken with true religious conviction.

What I find preposterous is the level of certainty. If AK's appeal is successful, the so-called "guilters" would, I believe, concede that she was innocent. If it goes the other way, you guys will just not give up.

I think you're seriously underestimating the level of obsession the guilters have with this case. We've recently had guilters visiting Perugia and poking about the murder scene, and one of them has sent a 2,000 word letter to Rudy Guede trying to persuade him to implicate Amanda and Raffaele.

I'm certainly interested in the case, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if the appeal fails.