Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bri1 said:
The arguments seem to be:
a) Bloggers aren't journalists- therefore CPJ should not be protecting them.
b) Look at this photo- Frank and Mignigni get on fine- Frank must be lying
c) Frank didn't immediately write about the incident on his blog- therefore he's lying
d) The investigative phase, and the first trial is over- therefore Mignigni has no motive for harrassing journalists
e) If people don't make official complaints against the police, then they're lying
f) That the CPJ themselves have been taken in by the Knox PR juggernaut.

I'm not sure why it took Kermit about 80 bazillion words just to say this!

a) The CPJ have obviously seriously considered what blogging is, and how it fits with their remit. They state on their website that in areas such as north Africa and the Middle East "blogging has becomes a serious medium for social and political commentary" (http://www.cpj.org/mideast/jordan/2009/), and in those areas where blogging is used in this way, it can become a target of government suppression.
b) LOL!
c) Ridiculous. When a major incident like this happens, one has to think very hard about how to deal with it, and that thinking sometimes has to happen in private.
d) False. Until all normal court proceedings that Mignigni is involved in are finished (an the current appeal is normal within the Italian justice system), then Mignigni very much has a horse in this race, which is worth protecting. Although considering the grudge lists that were on his computer when it was seized as part of the abuse of office prosecution, even once this is all over, people need to think very carefully about what they publish about this man.
e) This argument affords no weight to the idea that sometimes, by making official complaints, the situation can often become worse, not better. If the culture is such that harrassment can continue after such complaints are made, then following this route becomes much more difficult.
f) Unbelievably naive. The CPJ activities are directed by 35 'prominent journalists' (http://www.cpj.org/about/). They know their work, and they know how PR activity sits with that work. To try and say that CPJ's involvement is due to being hoodwinked by a PR campaign is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

After reading Kermit's rant, this is a breath of fresh air. Very nice.
 
bri1 said:
The arguments seem to be:
a) Bloggers aren't journalists- therefore CPJ should not be protecting them.
b) Look at this photo- Frank and Mignigni get on fine- Frank must be lying
c) Frank didn't immediately write about the incident on his blog- therefore he's lying
d) The investigative phase, and the first trial is over- therefore Mignigni has no motive for harrassing journalists
e) If people don't make official complaints against the police, then they're lying
f) That the CPJ themselves have been taken in by the Knox PR juggernaut.

I'm not sure why it took Kermit about 80 bazillion words just to say this!

a) The CPJ have obviously seriously considered what blogging is, and how it fits with their remit. They state on their website that in areas such as north Africa and the Middle East "blogging has becomes a serious medium for social and political commentary" (http://www.cpj.org/mideast/jordan/2009/), and in those areas where blogging is used in this way, it can become a target of government suppression.
b) LOL!
c) Ridiculous. When a major incident like this happens, one has to think very hard about how to deal with it, and that thinking sometimes has to happen in private.
d) False. Until all normal court proceedings that Mignigni is involved in are finished (an the current appeal is normal within the Italian justice system), then Mignigni very much has a horse in this race, which is worth protecting. Although considering the grudge lists that were on his computer when it was seized as part of the abuse of office prosecution, even once this is all over, people need to think very carefully about what they publish about this man.
e) This argument affords no weight to the idea that sometimes, by making official complaints, the situation can often become worse, not better. If the culture is such that harrassment can continue after such complaints are made, then following this route becomes much more difficult.
f) Unbelievably naive. The CPJ activities are directed by 35 'prominent journalists' (http://www.cpj.org/about/). They know their work, and they know how PR activity sits with that work. To try and say that CPJ's involvement is due to being hoodwinked by a PR campaign is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Bri,

Excellent concise summary. The letter also, in my opinion, insults the CPJ by stating Preston has used money to manipulate the CPJ into writing this letter. (Preston needs book sales; Preston financially supports CPJ therefore CPJ will state whatever Preston wants.) I believe very few will read past this accusation. Those who read past this will surely not read much farther as it is obvious it is nothing more than a rant from someone with an agenda. My exact description to someone offline was "The triviality of the whole rant is highlighted by Kermit’s regularly interjected opinions and suggestions, not to mention his substandard grammar. It reeks of five-year-old pettiness and spitefulness."
 
suspicious interest in the Monster of Florence case

"On November 18, 2004, at 6 a.m., Spezi and his family were awoken by the sound of their door buzzer. Polizia!” screamed a voice. Perquisizione!” The police were from GIDES, Giuttari’s squad. Their warrant gave two reasons for the search: Spezi had “materially damaged the investigation by casting doubt on the accusations through use of the medium of television,” and he had “evidenced a peculiar and suspicious interest in … the investigation.” He was served with an avviso di garanzia, one step short of a formal indictment. It listed seventeen crimes for which Spezi was being investigated, all undisclosed." From The Atlantic.

In this case the "suspicious interest" may have been related to the allegation that Spezi was interfering with the investigation. Nevertheless, it is too close for comfort to the charge of being obsessed with the Knox/Sollecito case. Maybe Frank helped AK and RS find the rock and pinch the mop head...
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Hmmm concise verses verbose! Still a fairly limited response, I guess I expected better, oh well. :)

Night.
Click to expand...


That's a long post! I hope you weren't expecting a point-by-point rebuttal. Why don't you post an excerpt from part of it you found especially....lucid. :p

Being reminded that Kermit was European perhaps explains his...misconceptions...regarding the American media and the role of PR firms. I wonder what Dick Lugar thought if that ever made it to his desk? Maybe he could have been president if he'd just hired the right PR firm! I recall when he ran for president and was campaigning in New Hampshire he did an event with a local radio host and a caller started in on the Council on Foreign Relations. I betcha he got that same funny look on his face as he tried to explain the CFR was a think-tank of 'elites' that advises, nothing more.

You see, there's some who note those who've 'associations' to the CFR, and that sometimes their policy recommendations are accepted, (height of irony--one was Reagan's Cold War strategy) and who can go back through their history and find older policy recommendations and positions that might not be so...popular...in certain quarters, like a certain subset of GOP primary voters. In fact, if I go up Hwy 151 then take 41 around 'the big lake they call Winnebago' I can find all sorts of them...

Substitute 'FOA' with 'CFR' and you can see evidence of the same thinking in this piece. Substitute 'Gary Allen' and you find why Kermit uses a nom de plume. ( :p ) No wonder they were so 'suspicious' of LondonJohn! What better 'suspect' from the Milner Group could they find! :p

What it boils down to is it's OK to abuse Frank Sfarzo because that's not exactly his real name and he's a known 'associate' (but it can't be proved he's a member!) of the sinister Gogerty-Marriott FOA cabal, which in the past has had 'associates' busted for vile offenses like 'improper use of stationary.' Douglas Preston is a 'known supporter of CPJ' (gee--I wonder why that might be?) and seems to have changed his mind on Mignini, perhaps after seeing him abuse his office yet again pursuing some kooky theory. However instead it must be the irresistible allure of a fresh 'PR campaign' which caused Douglas Preston to regale everyone of his treatment at Mignini's hands!

Now, for those of you that think it 'suspicious' that Frank Sfarzo 'associates' with known 'Knox activist' Jim Lovering, (even gives him 'exposure' on his blog!) would the same be true of that radio host who had Dick Lugar on his program? Was he a surreptitious member of the Lugar '96 campaign just because he gave him access to his show? Or...was it the other way 'round? Did he 'bushwack' Lugar by having that 'caller' confront Lugar on his CFR associations? Or was it more likely that the radio host got a presidential candidate on his show (there was probably a 'PR campaign' involved too--maybe they're responsible!) because that's his job, and it just so happens amongst NH GOP primary voters you can find some who're very interested in the CFR?

Is it not possible that Frank Sfarzo, being as he's been reporting on this case from the beginning, is happy to 'associate' with major players in the case, including the family of the accused, the PM in question whom he's been quite defensive about incidentally--despite the attempt of Kermit to morph (and the CPJ contentions) his plight with Preston's claims--and those groups 'associated' with the case, like FOA? Isn't that the duty of a journalist? Those whom he's less interested in 'associating' with might just consider the possibility that over time they've managed to convince him they're Grade-A Whack-A-Moles...

What I find most interesting is the article from last summer or so on TJMK where they were accumulating a list of 'Enemies of Italy' including posters, and if I recall correctly journalists, so they could all be 'awarded' the calunnia charges they'd 'earned' seems to be missing now. What could have happened to that epistle which kicked off that righteous campaign? ;)
 
halides1 said:
CoulsdonUK,

What do you think of the content of the article at TJfMK by Kermit? What do you think of the previous article at TJfMK by SomeAlibi? Kaosium has given a rebuttal to the latter here.
Click to expand...
Halides1

In the context of the appeal I like to read as much as I can on both sides of the case which is becoming increasingly difficult due to the level a media “spin”, nonetheless I found both rebuttals interesting each giving a particular perspective. As I have said previously “The case for innocence” event would have been more interesting if both sides had representatives then at least there would have been a debate. Kermit’s rebuttal raised some interesting points; did CPJ actually speak to any other local reporters in Perugia or is Mr Sfarzo the only one? Did CPJ contact Mignini to determine his point of view? Valid points I think
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Halides1

In the context of the appeal I like to read as much as I can on both sides of the case which is becoming increasingly difficult due to the level a media “spin”,
Click to expand...

Could you give an example? I'm curious what you think is 'spin.'

CoulsdonUK said:
nonetheless I found both rebuttals interesting each giving a particular perspective. As I have said previously “The case for innocence” event would have been more interesting if both sides had representatives then at least there would have been a debate. Kermit’s rebuttal raised some interesting points; did CPJ actually speak to any other local reporters in Perugia or is Mr Sfarzo the only one?
Click to expand...

Maybe they looked at the list of Italian journalists who've had investigations started and/or charges filed on them in connection to this case? How many is it now?

5 from the TV station
2 from Oggi
1 from that local paper, Giornale dell 'Umbria

Is that it? It's certainly enough.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Halides1

In the context of the appeal I like to read as much as I can on both sides of the case which is becoming increasingly difficult due to the level a media “spin”, nonetheless I found both rebuttals interesting each giving a particular perspective. As I have said previously “The case for innocence” event would have been more interesting if both sides had representatives then at least there would have been a debate. Kermit’s rebuttal raised some interesting points; did CPJ actually speak to any other local reporters in Perugia or is Mr Sfarzo the only one? Did CPJ contact Mignini to determine his point of view? Valid points I think
Click to expand...

Do you think Mignini would have said "Why yes, I was quite angry with him so I had him roughed up on the Q.T."
 
Kaosium said:
Could you give an example? I'm curious what you think is 'spin.'



Maybe they looked at the list of Italian journalists who've had investigations started and/or charges filed on them in connection to this case? How many is it now?

5 from the TV station
2 from Oggi
1 from that local paper, Giornale dell 'Umbria

Is that it? It's certainly enough.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, at least 2 people from Giornale dell 'Umbria have been threatened or charged.
 
Kaosium said:
Could you give an example? I'm curious what you think is 'spin.'



Maybe they looked at the list of Italian journalists who've had investigations started and/or charges filed on them in connection to this case? How many is it now?

5 from the TV station
2 from Oggi
1 from that local paper, Giornale dell 'Umbria

Is that it? It's certainly enough.
Click to expand...
Spin! Well take your pick from anything generated by 24/7 media (print or TV news) after Meredith was discovered through the past 3 years; the media have little interest other than audience share or increased circulation.

With regards the list you provided, for me it’s not so much the number but the reasons charges have been filed against them, if journalist have made personal attacks on Mignini he has every right like anyone else to defend himself. Indeed, are the 5 from the TV station the same people who will be standing trial this month along with members Raffaele’s family for amongst other things leaking the video of Meredith’s body?
 
Does anyone know where can I watch the documentary that aired after the movie on LifeTime?

It was called Beyond The Headlines.

There are several sites that provide the video, but only to Us viewers and I'm in Europe.
 
LondonJohn said:
By the way, regarding Guede's faeces in the large bathroom: it's very well-documented that burglars sometimes defecate in the premises that they're burgling (or "burglarizing" if you're a colonial ;) ). I have written about it before, and debated it extensively on JREF (far from not providing any reply or information):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6082559#post6082559.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have indeed "debated" it before - with me - and now as then, you have produced zero evidence of this "well-documented" phenomenon. You ended our exchange by asking me to stop talking about it. It's somewhat difficult to have an actual debate when one side tells the other to desist.

There are a further number of posts after this one that carry on the argument. The bald truth is that it's far from unknown for burglars to open their bowels, owing to either heightened fear levels (leading to a release of adrenaline, one of whose effects is to encourage the subject to empty his bowels), or to a complex psychological "territory marking" display.
Click to expand...

It was not asserted by myself, or anyone else arguing at that time, that instances of burglar defecation are "unknown". To assert this as a rebuttal to my argument is mistaken at best, disingenuous at worst. To further introduce the concept of "territory marking" into the discussion when you are quite aware that this is of zero relevance to the Kercher case is to continue this rhetorical subterfuge.

As I said in the post above, google "+burglar +defecate" if you want to see how well-documented this phenomenon is, both in terms of examples and analysis.
Click to expand...

I have done so and am still awaiting discovery of even a single "analysis" of this "well-documented phenomenon". Perhaps you could locate one for me? Or even some actual documentation of the events themselves. Mind you - you'd be looking only for instances where a burglar defecated in the victim's toilet. I would suggest starting with "burglar leaves dna in toilet".

I have done that search myself. Excluding the Kercher case, within the first 10 pages of search results, there are only three cases I found listed where a burglar left feces in a toilet at the scene: a California burglary in January 2011, one in New Mexico in 2009, and a second-hand reference to a 2004 burglary in Sweden, originally posted at now-defunct ananova.com. Do you have some other accounts or any analysis at all of this phenomenon? If you do not, perhaps you would be so kind as to not speak about it here in such an authoritative manner.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Spin! Well take your pick from anything generated by 24/7 media (print or TV news) after Meredith was discovered through the past 3 years; the media have little interest other than audience share or increased circulation.

With regards the list you provided, for me it’s not so much the number but the reasons charges have been filed against them, if journalist have made personal attacks on Mignini he has every right like anyone else to defend himself. Indeed, are the 5 from the TV station the same people who will be standing trial this month along with members Raffaele’s family for amongst other things leaking the video of Meredith’s body?
Click to expand...

Are you joking? You think personal attacks should be actionable? So you just get to sue and criminally charge anyone who hurts your feelings?
 
Fuji said:
Yes, you have indeed "debated" it before - with me - and now as then, you have produced zero evidence of this "well-documented" phenomenon. You ended our exchange by asking me to stop talking about it. It's somewhat difficult to have an actual debate when one side tells the other to desist.



It was not asserted by myself, or anyone else arguing at that time, that instances of burglar defecation are "unknown". To assert this as a rebuttal to my argument is mistaken at best, disingenuous at worst. To further introduce the concept of "territory marking" into the discussion when you are quite aware that this is of zero relevance to the Kercher case is to continue this rhetorical subterfuge.



I have done so and am still awaiting discovery of even a single "analysis" of this "well-documented phenomenon". Perhaps you could locate one for me? Or even some actual documentation of the events themselves. Mind you - you'd be looking only for instances where a burglar defecated in the victim's toilet. I would suggest starting with "burglar leaves dna in toilet".

I have done that search myself. Excluding the Kercher case, within the first 10 pages of search results, there are only three cases I found listed where a burglar left feces in a toilet at the scene: a California burglary in January 2011, one in New Mexico in 2009, and a second-hand reference to a 2004 burglary in Sweden, originally posted at now-defunct ananova.com. Do you have some other accounts or any analysis at all of this phenomenon? If you do not, perhaps you would be so kind as to not speak about it here in such an authoritative manner.
Click to expand...

So how many examples do you want?
 
Fuji said:
How many do you have?
Click to expand...

Well I admit I haven't gone on such a hunt for **** in toilet links, but I'll see if one of my friends at the university will let me use his lexis/library account. I did find this. The book is "Introduction to Criminology": a Text Reader. Maybe someone has already posted it. Page 436 talks about burglars defecating in the toilet. It also explains why they don't flush because "the resulting noise can drown out the warning sounds of approaching danger." The need to defecate, the book says is from the emotional pressures involved in offending.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom