Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

I agree with your assertion that the internet has shaken the profession of journalism to its core.

I disagree with your assertion that amateurs are preferable to professionals.

Anyone searching for objective, fact-based news and analysis in respect of this case is in for a crash course in what can happen when people purporting to be journalists are not duty bound to a professional code of ethics.

Last year I went to a talk given by Tina Brown, editor of the Daily Beast. She`s obviously quite proud of the reporting done on the Kercher case, as on one of the slides shown on the screen in the background was one of Nadeau's articles accompanied by a picture of Amanda Knox. One of the audience members asked her whether she was concerned about the impact sites like the Daily Beast are having on the traditional, objective, fact-based model of journalism. She said she didn't understand the question.

There is very little objective, fact-based reporting on this case, and what little there is certainly doesn't come from writers like Nadeau, 'professional' or not. I think you underestimate the extent to which much professional journalism now has gossip and sensationalism as its focus, not fact and objectivity. And that's nowhere more true than in a case like this.

As for blogging, there is a huge amount of information about what actually went on during the trial on Frank Sfarzo's site, perhaps more than there is anywhere else on the net. He had a full, detailed summary of the Massei report 24 hours after its release, while everyone else was relying on the same select quotes. I think you're unwise to dismiss him just because he's not a 'professional' (and to be over-reliant on others just because they are).

 

[snook1]

Curatolo seems to have testified that he saw Amanda and Raffaele Halloween night and has admitted using heroin at that time.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=

Halloween night? What about Nov 1 st? I thought he claimed he saw them on Nov 1 st...

 

[Branded]

Nadeau's book is a good source for this issue. The reporters would gather at a local bar after the hearings to discuss the case. There they would trade stories, documents, and information. They all resented Frank because he had information and access. They were jealous of him, in other words. The fact that he wrote better than they did (my opinion) most likely contributed to this feeling.

Frank got the scoop on many of the regular reporters on this case. Many of the regulars were fed information from the cops and dutifully printed that information in order to show they were on the job. The fact is much of this information later turned out to be false. The cops were using the press and the press was allowing itself to be a mouthpiece for the police.

If there is going to be a major news break in this case in the future my guess is that it will come from a blogger, somebody like Frank. A good example of this is Alaska politics and the last presidential election with Palin as a VP candidate. There were two AK blogs in particular that constantly scooped the regular press and became a thorn in the side of the political establishment in Alaska. One local politician got so upset he publicly outed an anonymous blogger as just being a local housewife. That local housewife completely outdid the press in Alaska and the last time I checked in, continues to do so.

a) To say that "Frank" writes better than Nadeau is to depart wholly with reality; are you making a joke?

b) Who told you that anyone was jealous of "Frank", was it "Frank"?

c) I saw a picture on "Perugia Murder File" yesterday purporting to depict "Frank" sitting next to the accused's step father (Mellas), behind the lap top they used to start a pro-Amanda blog.

To wit, "Frank" traded objectivity for "access" to the accused's parents.

Indeed, he may well be paid by the accused's family (whose use of PR agents is no secret).

How is that objective journalism (assuming that you could call someone without a J school education a journalist in the first place)?

 

[RoseMontague]

Halloween night? What about Nov 1 st? I thought he claimed he saw them on Nov 1 st...

He was confused, I guess. I believe I have fixed the links.

 

[katy_did]

Curatolo seems to have testified that he saw Amanda and Raffaele Halloween night and has admitted using heroin at that time.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=

Bwahahaha. No really, you're kidding, right? I'm using my slow Kindle browser but will try and get to the original article to have a look...

 

[RoseMontague]

a) To say that "Frank" writes better than Nadeau is to depart wholly with reality; are you making a joke?

b) Who told you that anyone was jealous of "Frank", was it "Frank"?

c) I saw a picture on "Perugia Murder File" yesterday purporting to depict "Frank" sitting next to the accused's step father (Mellas), behind the lap top they used to start a pro-Amanda blog.

To wit, "Frank" traded objectivity for "access" to the accused's parents.

Indeed, he may well be paid by the accused's family (whose use of PR agents is no secret).

How is that objective journalism (assuming that you could call someone without a J school education a journalist in the first place)?

The jealous of Frank was the impression I got from my reading of Nadeau's book. Maybe you should ask her.

 

[RoseMontague]

Bwahahaha. No really, you're kidding, right? I'm using my slow Kindle browser but will try and get to the original article to have a look...

Added the original link to my post but here it is

http://www.gazzettadiparma.it/prima...vidi_Amanda_e_Raffaele_la_sera_Halloween.html

 

[RoseMontague]

Another link, seems to be the same story:

http://translate.google.com/transla...011/03/26/visualizza_new.html_1531181150.html

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2011/03/26/visualizza_new.html_1531181150.html

 

[Supernaut]

Does a really cheap knife with a molded in place plastic handle have anything to open up?

something I used to hear referred to as 'capillary action' tends to occur in very fine clearances between surfaces, fluids tend to seep between them readily.

For example, if you press two pieces of together firmly and immerse an edge in water, the water will quickly spread between them.

Whatever, the knife should have been dismantled as a matter of course.

 

[snook1]

Another link, seems to be the same story:

http://translate.google.com/transla...011/03/26/visualizza_new.html_1531181150.html

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2011/03/26/visualizza_new.html_1531181150.html

So what he's basically saying is that:

- he saw Amanda and Raffaele arguing vividly in front of the cottage while there were kids in the masks, the disco buses were also there
- at the same time he claims he's sure that the next day "the white suits" came and police asked questions.

How's this reliable? How's this possible? How can any guilter say that Curatolo is credible? How?

 

[Supernaut]

a) To say that "Frank" writes better than Nadeau is to depart wholly with reality; are you making a joke?

Putting aside that FS's second language is English, he is insightful whereas BLN is a blundering hack with no clue about what jounalism is actually supposed to entail.

In interviews BLN gives the impression that she is slightly sedated, perhaps on prescription tranquilisers.

 

[snook1]

Putting aside that FS's second language is English, he is insightful whereas BLN is a blundering hack with no clue about what jounalism is actually supposed to entail.

In interviews BLN gives the impression that she is slightly sedated, perhaps on prescription tranquilisers.

That's what I thought! She always comes across like being bored, sleepy or as you've put it, sedated! Great post!

 

[RoseMontague]

So what he's basically saying is that:

- he saw Amanda and Raffaele arguing vividly in front of the cottage while there were kids in the masks and the disco buses were there
- at the same time he claims he's sure that the next day "the white suits" came and police asked questions.

How's this reliable? How's this possible? How can any guilter say that Curatolo is credible? How?

I don't see how anyone can claim his testimony is reliable any longer. I would think that this means that Amanda's and Raffaele's alibi has not been broken after all. Here is the third report confirming the same thing. It appears the last disco owner also testified but I have seen nothing from the prosecution putting witnesses on the stand about the presence of buses in the area. Maybe they decided it was pointless?

http://translate.google.com/transla...tp://www.leggonline.it/articolo.php?id=113586

http://www.leggonline.it/articolo.php?id=113586

 

[Kaosium]

Another link, seems to be the same story:

http://translate.google.com/transla...011/03/26/visualizza_new.html_1531181150.html

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2011/03/26/visualizza_new.html_1531181150.html

Huh...it looks to me like it might be effectively over if they're adjourning until the DNA tests are officially presented. Why wouldn't they continue to get other business completed in the interim, unless they realize without any DNA to retest, and the 'standards' of the former tests evident to the most casual observer to be flawed, they've no case left. No evidence whatsoever at the scene, nothing to break their alibi, and they might well have an electronic alibi as Raffaele's team announced last November or whenever it was.

Curatolo recanting might just be the writing on the wall.

 

[snook1]

I don't see how anyone can claim his testimony is reliable any longer. I would think that this means that Amanda's and Raffaele's alibi has not been broken after all. Here is the third report confirming the same thing. It appears the last disco owner also testified but I have seen nothing from the prosecution putting witnesses on the stand about the presence of buses in the area. Maybe they decided it was pointless?

http://translate.google.com/transla...tp://www.leggonline.it/articolo.php?id=113586

http://www.leggonline.it/articolo.php?id=113586

I also looked for any mentioning of prosecution's witnesses, but failed. That was pointless indeed, but I'm not sure they were aware of it. Maybe they couldn't find any?

As to Curatolo's credibility - altough, the first reports do not say that it is yet another court victory for AK and RS, I feel like it's another huge step. I mean, how can anyone (apart from the PMF'ers) think he's credible? The testimony that he gave today speaks for itself. That's at least my opinion.

Seeing them arguing while there were kids in masks and disco buses, then the next day, there were police - this is clearly Halloween and Nov 2nd(he's missing one night, the most important night to be specific). One can add the confirmed heroin addiction and one can easily draw a conclusion. He's nuts.

I'm amazed however by the guilters and their opinion on that. Some of them wrote the exact same thing about the testimony and then put the "breakdancer" emoticon next to it. WTF?

 

[snook1]

Huh...it looks to me like it might be effectively over if they're adjourning until the DNA tests are officially presented. Why wouldn't they continue to get other business completed in the interim, unless they realize without any DNA to retest, and the 'standards' of the former tests evident to the most casual observer to be flawed, they've no case left. No evidence whatsoever at the scene, nothing to break their alibi, and they might well have an electronic alibi as Raffaele's team announced last November or whenever it was.

Curatolo recanting might just be the writing on the wall.

I'm more and more optimistic and believe me, I'll get to Perugia for the verdict and will sing the song you attached to your post. I will sing it loudly while the families and friends of Amanda and Raffaele will walk hand in hand with them out of the court.

 

[Branded]

I don't see how anyone can claim his testimony is reliable any longer. I would think that this means that Amanda's and Raffaele's alibi has not been broken after all....

a) the shop keeper has not been discredited, has he?

b) Raffaele is still refusing to back Amanda's version, no?

c) what about the computer logs, cell tower pings and telephone records?

Their alibis are, in point of fact, an unmitigated disaster, hence their current addresses.

Were you really under the impression that the homeless man was the entire case?!

 

[Branded]

I'm more and more optimistic and believe me, I'll get to Perugia for the verdict and will sing the song you attached to your post. I will sing it loudly while the families and friends of Amanda and Raffaele will walk hand in hand with them out of the court.

Is this a joke or are you related to the accused?

 

[snook1]

a) the shop keeper has not been discredited, has he?

b) Raffaele is still refusing to back Amanda's version, no?

c) what about the computer logs, cell tower pings and telephone records?

Their alibis are, in point of fact, an unmitigated disaster, hence their current addresses.

Were you really under the impression that the homeless man was the entire case?!

c)yeah, what about computer logs...I mean, didn't the police damaged all the hard discs?

It's not that we were under any impression. It's just the fact that the prosecution made us believe that Curatolo is the one, the star wintess, the hero, the man...He saw them, he's basically the only one who saw Amanda and Raffaele on the night of the murder in front of the crime scene. Well, we know that he was wrong. Unless, kids in Perugia, forgot to take off their Halloween masks on Nov 1st and the bus drivers messed up their work schedules.

 

[Kaosium]

a) the shop keeper has not been discredited, has he?

Who cares what they were doing the next morning anyway? Quintavalle was peripheral anyway, a 'witness' to 'bleach lurking' in a case with no clean-up.

b) Raffaele is still refusing to back Amanda's version, no?

I'll put Amanda's fate in Raffaele's hands. What was it he stood up in court and said again?

c) what about the computer logs, cell tower pings and telephone records?

Ummm...they back the defendants! Except for the ones that 'couldn't be recovered' after being in the hands of the police in Perugia.

Their alibis are, in point of fact, an unmitigated disaster, hence their current addresses.

What do you think of Kevin Lowe's argument about the claim of Raffaele's defense that they have recovered computer interaction the entire night of the 1st? As I recall he bases that on the assumption that lawyers seldom lie about matters of verifiable fact. I am less confident of the probity of lawyers, what is your view?

Were you really under the impression that the homeless man was the entire case?!

Kinda pathetic isn't it? It's the sort of thing that deluded prosecutors must rely on when they can't assemble legitimate evidence against the accused. Google 'Jim Garrison' sometime.