Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

I'll be sure to pass on that message to Rosa Parks.

I am pretty sure Rosa Parks died a few years ago, a strange attempt to make a point, surely you are not comparing the alleged actions of the Sollecito family with the American civl rights movement in 1950's? You'll be quoting Malcolm X next, what was it "By Any Means Necessary!"

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Rather a harsh view. Do you believe that anyone following their own conscience rather than human law "cannot be justified"? All forms of civil disobedience: unjustified? Ghandi, The Velvet Revolution, the American Civil Rights movement: unjustified?

If you meant that if they are proven to have broken the law, they should be punished, I might agree with you. But to dismiss all such actions as "unjustified" demonstrates a lack of awareness of morally justifiable responses to abuses of power and repressive or unjust laws.

I don't see my view as harsh, in the case of displaying Meredith's body on TV for only 2 or 3 seconds it was still wrong in my opinion, even if Meredith's family or friends didn't see it to know that this happened added to their pain and distress of their daughter, sister or friends brutal pointless death; it is not just about the Sollecito and Knox family's! Your point of view is Raffaele and Amanda, whilst mine is Meredith and her families life sentence.

 

[RoseMontague]

CPJ responds to frog.

http://www.cpj.org/blog/2011/04/cpj-responds-to-readers-comments-on-italy-letter.php#more

 

[Bruce Fischer]

CPJ responds to frog.

http://www.cpj.org/blog/2011/04/cpj-responds-to-readers-comments-on-italy-letter.php#more

CPJ gave a very professional response as would be expected from a group with their credibility. Kermit's letter was ridiculous and he should be happy that he received any response at all.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CPJ responds to frog.

http://www.cpj.org/blog/2011/04/cpj-responds-to-readers-comments-on-italy-letter.php#more

A tongue in cheek observation, I am surprised your name hasn’t appeared in the comments section yet.

 

[LondonJohn]

CPJ gave a very professional response as would be expected from a group with their credibility. Kermit's letter was ridiculous and he should be happy that he received any response at all.

I had to laugh at someone who was comparing Sfarzo's alleged treatment at the hands of the Perugian authorities with the alleged harassment of the Seattle-based administrator of a website connected to the case. The fact that the person who made the comparison can't tell the difference is interesting and telling, and the difference is this: if the website administrator was indeed illegally harassed, she should be able to engage the services of the police and other authorities, whose duty it would be to find and prosecute the perpetrator(s). However, Sfarzo is allegedly being harassed (and worse) by the very authorities which are supposed to protect him under the law. He therefore has very limited right of redress against such activities. Surely a 6-year-old could tell the difference between the two situations?

 

[RoseMontague]

A tongue in cheek observation, I am surprised your name hasn’t appeared in the comments section yet.

I did think it was rather amusing that Kermit was mentioned by name. It seems to me that PMF and TJMK are taking a stance against Frank simply because of his position on the case. I am surprised that capealadin has not stepped up to defend him after all the nice things said about Frank recently regarding Nara.

 

[LondonJohn]

CPJ responds to frog.

http://www.cpj.org/blog/2011/04/cpj-responds-to-readers-comments-on-italy-letter.php#more

Interesting that the response notes that they've had many emails which "question the accuracy of our letter as well as our motives for writing it", which they say are linked to the frog's "open letter". One can only imagine the weird individuals firing off their battery of emails to the CPJ, with their variety of over-invested rantings and poor spelling/grammar....

 

[RoseMontague]

I had to laugh at someone who was comparing Sfarzo's alleged treatment at the hands of the Perugian authorities with the alleged harassment of the Seattle-based administrator of a website connected to the case. The fact that the person who made the comparison can't tell the difference is interesting and telling, and the difference is this: if the website administrator was indeed illegally harassed, she should be able to engage the services of the police and other authorities, whose duty it would be to find and prosecute the perpetrator(s). However, Sfarzo is allegedly being harassed (and worse) by the very authorities which are supposed to protect him under the law. He therefore has very limited right of redress against such activities. Surely a 6-year-old could tell the difference between the two situations?

That particular person does not seem to see a difference.

 

[platonov]

OK

Tonight !

Na na na na Naa

Apols Kaosium - I think I missed a 'na'

It should have been ..

Na na na na na Naa ! ....


You obviously weren't a fan

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Tabloid trash. Gossip gone public. I see your point and don't want to engage in semantics, there is an element of 'spin' involved in 'infotainment,' though it is a predictable and banal one and expected of that genre. In this case it appears to me it was originally the attempt of the prosecution to defame the character of the defendants in the eyes of potential jurors, then taken to absurd lengths by the fervent imaginations of the tabloids and the paparazzi.



I'd say that sums up the 'Foxy Knoxy' campaign in whole and in part. They took 'leaked' diaries and phone calls and 'spun' them as salaciously and as detrimentally as they could. The Daily Mail paid Patrick Lumumba 70k Euros for the 'soulless' smear, they went all the way to Seattle waving around fist-fulls of dollars in order to get what they wanted, in the latter case rather less than they expected I would imagine.



I wrote that because on no level is the fact that a couple fuzzy frames of the victim were revealed a reason for the charge. The official reason was something to the effect of 'interfering in an investigation' which was Mignini's old standby when he was partnered with Michele Giuttari and which got him convicted of abuse of power. The real reason in my view is they humiliated the police, not out of capriciousness, but in the interests of justice. Real journalism, for the best of reasons, not the worst. You seemed to be trying to justify it with 'noble aims' which were not in any way relevant to the law or the 'offense' they were charged with.



Do you suppose the police are going to come right out and tell you 'we're charging these people because we really screwed the pooch and they're letting people know?' Once, even twice one can imagine the press/family might have gotten out of hand, but in this case there's about twenty people so far being charged with extraneous offenses, all of them on dubious grounds for anything supposedly a free society.

Six months to a year from now this will probably be considered one of those things everyone can see in hindsight and wonder how anyone could have been fooled at the time.

Just a general response really to your post. I have just finished watching the “Kennedy’s” miniseries over here, there are people who will never accept the official version of JFK’s assassination, and there are people who actually believe that the movie JFK is historically accurate. My wife believes Princess Diana was killed by powerful forces within the UK establishment because she was dating Dodi Fayed. In short people believe what they choose to believe at the end of the day in this case the verdict of the appeal jury will decide Raffaele and Amanda’s fate.

Anyway, I am busy tomorrow playing a set at the Royal wedding party in Buck House tomorrow!!

PS
I doubt my grammer(typo’s)/spelling will meet LondonJohn’s standards!!

 

[RoseMontague]

Anyway, I am busy tomorrow playing a set at the Royal wedding party in Buck House tomorrow!!

Awesome. Have fun and perform well.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just a general response really to your post. I have just finished watching the “Kennedy’s” miniseries over here, there are people who will never accept the official version of JFK’s assassination, and there are people who actually believe that the movie JFK is historically accurate. My wife believes Princess Diana was killed by powerful forces within the UK establishment because she was dating Dodi Fayed. In short people believe what they choose to believe at the end of the day in this case the verdict of the appeal jury will decide Raffaele and Amanda’s fate.

Anyway, I am busy tomorrow playing a set at the Royal wedding party in Buck House tomorrow!!

PS
I doubt my grammer(typo’s)/spelling will meet LondonJohn’s standards!!

Re your PS: I'm assuming that you were too intelligent and independent-thinking to send an email to Joel Simon.And I'm also assuming that the grammar and spelling in your PS were meant to be ironic

And re the rest, the people who believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy involving two or more gunmen are almost definitely wrong. He was killed by a single gunman - Lee Oswald - who fired three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book depository, the last two of which hit Kennedy*.

And the people who believe that Diana and Dodi were killed by an MI6 plot (or something similar) are most definitely wrong. They were killed by a driver with a long-term alcohol problem, who was not used to driving sch a powerful and heavy Mercedes, and who took a dangerous brow-of-hill/bend in the road too fast.

* Funnily enough, I had a conversation at a party abroad a few years ago with someone connected to US intelligence activities (I was affiliated to the British Embassy in this particular country at the time), and he told me that one of the main reasons why the Secret Service acted so paranoid in the immediate aftermath of the assassination was that a Secret Serviceman in the car behind Kennedy's car fired off a round from his AR-15 rifle by mistake shortly after the final shot was fired. They were all completely terrified that this was the headshot that had killed Kennedy. So there you go

 

[platonov]

<snip>

* Funnily enough, I had a conversation at a party abroad a few years ago with someone connected to US intelligence activities (I was affiliated to the British Embassy in this particular country at the time), and he told me that one of the main reasons why the Secret Service acted so paranoid in the immediate aftermath of the assassination was that a Secret Serviceman in the car behind Kennedy's car fired off a round from his AR-15 rifle by mistake shortly after the final shot was fired. They were all completely terrified that this was the headshot that had killed Kennedy. So there you go

Great story LJ.

Did this US spook's letting you have 'a peek behind the curtain' regarding one of the more 'controversial' high profile assassinations work ?

Did he also invite you on a trip to stay in a remote part of Scotland to watch for Soviet subs

 

[LondonJohn]

Just a general response really to your post. I have just finished watching the “Kennedy’s” miniseries over here, there are people who will never accept the official version of JFK’s assassination, and there are people who actually believe that the movie JFK is historically accurate. My wife believes Princess Diana was killed by powerful forces within the UK establishment because she was dating Dodi Fayed. In short people believe what they choose to believe at the end of the day in this case the verdict of the appeal jury will decide Raffaele and Amanda’s fate.

Anyway, I am busy tomorrow playing a set at the Royal wedding party in Buck House tomorrow!!

PS
I doubt my grammer(typo’s)/spelling will meet LondonJohn’s standards!!

Oh, I missed your last sentence before the PS: yes, congratulations! But why they want someone playing tennis at the post-wedding party is a mystery to me

(Only kidding - I'm assuming you're a musician. Hope it goes well.)

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Oh, I missed your last sentence before the PS: yes, congratulations! But why they want someone playing tennis at the post-wedding party is a mystery to me

(Only kidding - I'm assuming you're a musician. Hope it goes well.)

Playing tennis, oh that has shattered my self confiedence. I only post here LJ.

 

[babycondor]

I don't see my view as harsh, in the case of displaying Meredith's body on TV for only 2 or 3 seconds it was still wrong in my opinion, even if Meredith's family or friends didn't see it to know that this happened added to their pain and distress of their daughter, sister or friends brutal pointless death; it is not just about the Sollecito and Knox family's! Your point of view is Raffaele and Amanda, whilst mine is Meredith and her families life sentence.

I agree with you that it was extremely poor judgement on the part of the broadcaster to air a video showing Meredith's body. But kindness and sensitivity are not qualities I expect in the media, and poor taste, so far as I know, has not yet been made illegal.

 

[theRealBob]

I did think it was rather amusing that Kermit was mentioned by name. It seems to me that PMF and TJMK are taking a stance against Frank simply because of his position on the case. I am surprised that capealadin has not stepped up to defend him after all the nice things said about Frank recently regarding Nara.

PMF and TMJK enjoy a stance or two.

Pity they're wrong in all of them and the posts resound with immaturely unconvincing arguments in everything they do. When I started following this stuff I was unsure of Raff and Amanda'a innocence. I'm 100 per cent certain now after watching all the non-evidence slide down the slime-pile but...

In following this case one of the standout points in my view has been the the sheer non-sensical gullibity of the TMJK and PMF posts. From saying Mignini is a nice old very good prosecutor, to still going on about a non-violent female student leading a sex attack on a girl who's her flatmate, with her boyfriend and a stranger. There's the great post there about Raff buying some scanning device for mobile phones before he cunningly tossed Meredith's down a ditch. I guess if the affluent students were interested in her phones in any way during a cleanup or whatever, they would have just switched them off. It does seem likely that a burglar took the phones with him because of their size but freaked out about the theft after the murder. How do people dream up this c*** to stay in tune with Mignini's official fable ?

Now we have the latest tripe about Frank which is unintelligible to people who follow the case. Many articles they publish, like the one I read on that appear as if they're written by people who really jusyt don't know what is going on with the facts. I found the post on frank to be child-like in the extreme.

 

[Kaosium]

Just a general response really to your post. I have just finished watching the “Kennedy’s” miniseries over here, there are people who will never accept the official version of JFK’s assassination, and there are people who actually believe that the movie JFK is historically accurate. My wife believes Princess Diana was killed by powerful forces within the UK establishment because she was dating Dodi Fayed.

Heh, I recall an article about that, shadowy old-school aristocratic figures 'taking care of embarrassing problems,' it read like an Ian Fleming novel! Incidentally, I would love to know what Barbie Nadeau thinks of that particular theory...

JFK's conspiracy survives because no matter how much of the stuff in that movie--and the rest of the canonical canards--has been debunked, you're still left with Lee Harvey Oswald who in the process of establishing himself as a complete nutjob managed to 'associate' himself with two entities who might well want JFK dead. Then Jack Ruby just waltzes into the police garage and blows away the most wanted man in America on live TV. Plus he's 'associated' with another entity that had reason to hate the Kennedys! There's lots of stuff to work with there, one can imagine why some might be suspicious, they're interesting to talk to at parties if nothing else.

In short people believe what they choose to believe at the end of the day in this case the verdict of the appeal jury will decide Raffaele and Amanda’s fate.

Very true, and when the verdict comes, 'that about wraps it up for guilt.' They can't argue the case anymore even with the current guilty verdict, it's not going to get better as that marginal case is exposed in court weekend after humiliating weekend, there's no more 'good days' for guilt. When's the last time you even saw someone try to make a sustainable case for guilt? All they can do is snipe at the edges like good conspiracy theorists, and there's not much left to shoot at anymore.

What use is a pre-debunked conspiracy theory anyway?

Anyway, I am busy tomorrow playing a set at the Royal wedding party in Buck House tomorrow!!

Congrats to you and yours!

I can't believe they had the wedding on Draft Day Weekend though! Somebody needs to get their priorities straight! Look into who scheduled that!

PS
I doubt my grammer(typo’s)/spelling will meet LondonJohn’s standards!!

LOL! I hated grammar, I just make it up as I go along. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Antony]

And the people who believe that Diana and Dodi were killed by an MI6 plot (or something similar) are most definitely wrong. They were killed by a driver with a long-term alcohol problem, who was not used to driving sch a powerful and heavy Mercedes, and who took a dangerous brow-of-hill/bend in the road too fast.

Added to that, he had been blinded by a photographer's flash. I have seen a flash photograph of the occupants of the car, taken through the windscreen from directly in front. It was described as "shortly before the crash". IMV that action of letting off a flash in front of the driver would have been enough to cause the crash on its own.

To get back on-topic, Coulsdon's comparison of JFK/Princess Diana CTs with the well-founded evidence for the Perugia stitch-up is laughable, and can only be explained by this: his view of reality is based solely on what the establishment tells him, and not on any facts that he can find for himself. That's why he continually refers back to decisions of the Perugia courts, and seems unable to discuss any actual evidence.

In the case of the JFK, Diana and 9/11 CTs, I agree with you - a few unanswered questions don't contradict the official accounts which are broadly coherent and supported by facts. In the Perugia case, the official version is completely incoherent and unbelievable, while it's the innocence campaigners' account that is entirely convincing. Only blind faith in officialdom could fail to see the difference.