Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

In describing Amanda's slutty appearance on the afternoon of November 2nd at the cottage, Barbie Nadeau writes this: "She eventually put on an ill-fitting military jacket from Raffaele's car." (Angel Face, page 55.)

Hmmm. We know that the postal cops, when they arrived, found Amanda and Raffaele outside the cottage, Raffaele wearing a jacket and Amanda not wearing a jacket. (The cops said so.) An hour or two after the arrival of the postal cops the lovebirds were photographed, now Amanda wearing a jacket and Raffaele wearing none. (See: Photograph) So it looks like that jacket came directly off Raffaele's back. No need for a car.

Was Barbie making this up, the presence of Raffaele's car? Or was his car at the cottage that afternoon? If so, ...how the heck did it get there?

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Why Amanda let Raffaele make the calls

BUT (you knew there was a but coming didn't you hehehe) we both agree that in all practicality we can understand why she didn't.

First, it really did make more sense that Raffaele call them since he spoke better Italian than she and probably knew more about how to handle that type of situation (since he had lived in Italy longer) better than she did.

But, the second reason is more compelling, because unless you have lived with a drug dealer before (we both have), you probably wouldn't realize that you just can't call the cops at the drop of a hat for any old reason. The boys downstairs grew pot and this would have made me also think twice about calling them if my suspicions turned out to be just that, suspicions and nothing else.

So in conclusion, although she might have had stronger suspicions than she let on, she did the right thing by going to get Raffaele first and let him decide what to do. And she couldn't just explain to him what was wrong (especially considering her limited Italian) she had to show him.

Dave,

And Raffaele's sister was a member of the carabinieri. He spoke with her briefly before calling them.

 

[JREF2010]

Only what the defense said in the part of the documentation I've seen. They found in the WindowServer.log file evidence that the screensaver had been active and reset several times during the night with no period of activation longer than 6 minutes. The last activation was at 06:22 which indicates activity on the computer ended just after 06:02 which just happens to be the time raffaele's phone received the SMS from his dad.

Then there is the message from Raffaele about the keyboard light log which appears to be additional confirmation of activity.


The defense requested that an independent expert be appointed te reexamine the computer data. Hellmann apparently didn't think this was necessary. The prosecution made no response even though the had access to the same data and the documentation was explicit about what data was being discussed.

This seems to be such strong evidence, and the fact the incompetence of the police computer techs is proven, how can Hellman not allow this?

But if Hellman has any doubt of innocence, then the pc activity is crucial to be heard, in all fairness. The complete negligence of the police computer work would justify a full review. Even Massei, a pro guilt Judge, noted the mistakes of the incompetent-pc experts.

 

[js202]

I can't wait for the appeals to resume. This delay is making me crazy. I'm hopeful of aquittal, but very leery of the legal machine in Perugia.

Come now. The legal machine in Perugia is a paradigm of reason and equity. Didn't you notice Maresca when he told us that the Kercher case was a model for the world to follow? Just ask Pilot or Fulcanelli. They'll set you straight.

 

[pilot padron]

Says it all really

If someone has the Dateline Pisa, Vogt, Nadeau dinner video link I'd appreciate it. US viewing

As an "aside" about that dinner you question and the resultant CBS video taped 'table talk' about views on guilt/innocence of Knox/Sollecito.

Did you forget to mention that CBS Producer Sabina Castelfranco was also very visibly....Uhhhh....present ??
I mention this because her influence was the most interesting "rest of the story" I read about that video.

CBS hosted the entire evening.
CBS naturally picked up the full tab for the food, gratuities and the several bottles of wine for all the 'talkers' that CBS was professionally taping for upcoming programs.

This was mentioned as the primary reason the views expressed by the 'guest' diners and drinkers was much more closely aligned with what CBS and Marriott
spins about the case.
A couple of 'guests' quotes for the cameras were in fact very noticeably directly contrary to previously held and oft expressed Knox/Sollecito guilty views.
So contrary in fact that the freely flowing wine was blamed by some for the stark sudden reversals.
And of course there was the natural desire to say what your generous host wanted said for the host's cameras, which is my main point.

You remember the CBS less than objective spin on the case, don't you?
In case not, may I remind you:

1) CBS was also a previous employer of Mr Marriott

2) CBS and its Producers' less than even coverage of the case produced the program that so dramatically changed Michellsings Celestial Easterly Moore's opinion from guilt to innocence.
Then Ms Moore's 'pillow talk' resulted in her husband's Marriott assisted media blitz.
That ill advised endeavor resulted in him losing a cushy job and a high six figure freebie education for his daughters.

3) One of Ms Castelfranco's fellow CBS Producers who also was influential in their heavily Marriott influenced coverage of the case also spent some time recently in a NY Prison
He was convicted and sentenced as a result of unsavory criminal activities illustrative of his less than exemplary personal morals.

4) Finally, as none other than your own London John said after his posted take on the CBS dinner table talk: (which naturally was not the same as mine in reference to your omitted CBS host)

"Says it all, really..."

May I take this rare occasion to agree with alacrity, albeit for different reasons.

 

[Grinder]

As an "aside" about that dinner you question and the resultant CBS video taped 'table talk' about views on guilt/innocence of Knox/Sollecito.

Did you forget to mention that CBS Producer Sabina Castelfranco was also very visibly....Uhhhh....present ??
I mention this because her influence was the most interesting "rest of the story" I read about that video.

Oh dear, my email talking point list specifically said if Castelfranco's name appeared in a post with mine I would lose all my Gogerty Marriott frequent influencer points.

CBS hosted the entire evening.
CBS naturally picked up the full tab for the food, gratuities and the several bottles of wine for all the 'talkers' that CBS was professionally taping for upcoming programs.

This was mentioned as the primary reason the views expressed by the 'guest' diners and drinkers was much more closely aligned with what CBS and Marriott
spins about the case.
A couple of 'guests' quotes for the cameras were in fact very noticeably directly contrary to previously held and oft expressed Knox/Sollecito guilty views.

I thought Marriott said it had to do with the independent experts saying the DNA evidence was poop.

So contrary in fact that the freely flowing wine was blamed by some for the stark sudden reversals.
And of course there was the natural desire to say what your generous host wanted said for the host's cameras, which is my main point.

From my recollection only Barbie appeared influenced er affected by the generosity. You seriously believe that they were bought with dinner and wine?

You remember the CBS less than objective spin on the case, don't you?
In case not, may I remind you:

1) CBS was also a previous employer of Mr Marriott

2) CBS and its Producers' less than even coverage of the case produced the program that so dramatically changed Michellsings Celestial Easterly Moore's opinion from guilt to innocence.
Then Ms Moore's 'pillow talk' resulted in her husband's Marriott assisted media blitz.
That ill advised endeavor resulted in him losing a cushy job and a high six figure freebie education for his daughters.

3) One of Ms Castelfranco's fellow CBS Producers who also was influential in their heavily Marriott influenced coverage of the case also spent some time recently in a NY Prison
He was convicted and sentenced as a result of unsavory criminal activities illustrative of his less than exemplary personal morals.

Sorry, Pilot but it's hard to follow. Because Marriott used to work at a relatively low level for CBS, they report on an international story the way he wants?

It would appear that they got it right from the start. What mistakes did they make in reporting?

The fact that Moore's wife saw a show that moved her from PG to wherever she's at now proves what exactly?

The reason I asked for the link was to watch Vogt as I remembered her being particularly inane but my orders did not allow me to reveal that.

 

[Grinder]

If the Hellmann court does vote for acquittal (am not holding my breath here because I remember what happened at the first trial instance), they could decide to bypass all the illegality of the C&V report by not even directly referencing to it in their motivational report.

As I posted before when pilot first brought this up (it seems to have slipped by unnoticed by everyone here like I'm invisible or something hehehe), I have not seen it written anywhere that this court cannot receive new evidence or new test as part of the appeal process.

IF Mignini is right (big if) and the review is illegal, and when and IF (another big if) this court does acquit Amanda and Raffaele, they can easily make a case that all they needed to reject the (knife and bra clasp) DNA evidence (as probably contaminated) was the original video showing the collection of the bra clasp, it's current condition (as proof of improper collection and storage techniques), and the "new" test (and thus "new" evidence) showing there was no bleach or blood found on the knife, but that starch was detected which thus proved (or a strong case could be made) that it being the murder weapon is highly unlikely.

Dave your point was noted and it clearly makes sense. Perhaps overlooked because Mignini points seem so weak. The idea that all results must be appealed within a week or whatever short period of time would lead me to believe that the defense would appeal every result as a matter of normal procedure.

In this case the horse is already out of the barn or however that saying goes. If the supreme court said the C&V report was not valid and sent it back to the appeals court they could then proceed with your approach with a and a nod.

 

[christianahannah]

Not that you intended to list that evidence chronologically or in order of importance, but I think placing "Amanda's confession" first lends it a certain weight that is misleading. There would have been no "confession" without the police already having knowledge of the cell phone entries.

The fact that the police asked Amanda for her cell phone during her interrogation indicates they knew the information it held. Otherwise, they would also have asked for her purse, her books, the contents of her pockets, etc. Only the cell phone was of particular interest to them.

The police knew what was on Amanda's cell phone because they had obtained her and Raffaele's phone records, having become suspicious of them a day or two earlier. While they suspected her of being involved in the crime, I agree with Kaosium that it is unlikely they would have suspected Lumumba unless they had something else on him (e.g., a black hair). Lumumba was known as a popular, friendly man, and the texts between him and Amanda are not suspicious in themselves given that he was her employer.



That would be nice. It would certainly settle a lot of questions about when and how the police came to suspect Raffaele and Amanda. As far as I know, there are no records of Raffaele's conversation with police from any day, whether before or after he was taken into custody.

Maybe we can order the interrogation tapes while we're at it?



All true.



As noted above, there seem to be no records supporting these claims. No one here has any idea whether the police asked Amanda and Raffaele for their alibis for the night of the murder, until they were questioned on the 5th-6th.

I was never certain whether the police had obtained both Amanda's and Raffaele's cell phone records (and in the case of Raffaele also his landline) or just Raffaele's landline records.

As for Raffaele's statements, with the exception of his diary, there is no release of a November 5 statement as there was for Amanda (the 1:45 and 5:45 statements). There was an article in Corriere della Sera from November 7, 2007 which quoted parts of Amanda's 5:45 statement and then went on to quote, what is supposedly, Raffaele's statement. This statement was not used in the motivations against Raffaele, as were not Amanda's used against her.

I have pulled the quotes from the article attributed to Raffaele on the night of November 5, 2007. There is no way of knowing whether this is correct or not since no document of that interrogation has been presented. It is interesting to use as a comparison with the writings in his diary and it is possible he has confused days/nights with other events (if these are, in fact, his words).

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

Conosco Amanda da due settimane. Dalla sera in cui l'ho conosciuta lei ha cominciato a dormire a casa mia. Il primo novembre mi sono svegliato verso le 11, ho fatto colazione con Amanda, poi lei è uscita e io sono tornato a letto. L'ho raggiunta a casa sua verso le 13-14. C'era anche Meredith che è uscita frettolosamente verso le 16 senza dire dove andasse. Io e Amanda siamo andati in centro verso le 18 ma non ricordo che cosa abbiamo fatto. Siamo rimasti in centro fino alle 20.30 o 21. Io alle 21 sono andato da solo a casa mia, mentre Amanda ha detto che sarebbe andata al pub Le Chic perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici. A questo punto ci siamo salutati. Sono andato a casa, mi sono fatto una canna, ho cenato, ma non ricordo che cosa ho mangiato. Verso le 23 mi ha chiamato sull'utenza fissa di casa mio padre. Ricordo che Amanda non era ancora tornata. Ho navigato al computer per altre due ore dopo la telefonata di mio padre e ho smesso solo quando Amanda è rientrata, presumibilmente verso l'1. Non ricordo bene come fosse vestita e se era vestita allo stesso modo di quando ci siamo salutati prima di cena. Non ricordo se quella sera abbiamo consumato un rapporto sessuale. La mattina successiva ci siamo svegliati verso le 10 e lei mi ha detto che voleva andare a casa a farsi una doccia e cambiarsi gli abiti. Infatti è uscita verso le 10.30 e io mi sono rimesso a dormire. Quando è uscita Amanda ha preso anche una busta vuota, dicendomi che le sarebbe servita per metterci i panni sporchi. Verso le 11.30 è ritornata a casa e ricordo che si era cambiata i vestiti. Aveva con sé la solita borsa. Mi ha raccontato — sostiene il giovane — che quando è arrivata a casa sua ha trovato la porta d'ingresso spalancata e tracce di sangue nel bagno piccolo. Mi ha chiesto se la cosa mi sembrava strana. Io gli ho risposto di sì e le ho consigliato di telefonare alle sue amiche. Lei mi ha detto di aver telefonato a Filomena (un'altra ragazza che abita nella casa dell'omicidio ndr), mentre ha detto che Meredith non rispondeva. Lei ha aperto la porta con le chiavi e sono entrato. Ho notato che la porta di Filomena era spalancata con dei vetri per terra e la camera tutta in disordine. La porta di Amanda era aperta e invece era tutto in ordine. Poi sono andato verso la porta di Meredith e ho visto che era chiusa a chiave. Prima ho guardato se fosse vero quello che mi aveva detto Amanda sul sangue nel bagno e ho notato gocce di sangue sul lavandino, mentre sul tappetino c'era qualcosa di strano, una sorta di mista acqua e sangue, mentre il resto del bagno era pulito.... Il resto era in ordine. In quel mentre Amanda entrava nel bagno grande e usciva spaventata e mi abbracciava forte dicendomi che prima, quando aveva fatto la doccia, aveva visto delle feci nel water che invece adesso era pulito. Mi sono chiesto che cosa stesse succedendo e sono uscito per vedere se riuscivo ad arrampicarmi sulla finestra di Meredith... Ho cercato di sfondare la porta ma non ci sono riuscito e a quel punto ho deciso di chiamare mia sorella e mi sono consigliato con lei perché è un tenente dei carabinieri. Mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale. Nel precedente verbale vi ho riferito un sacco di czzate perché lei mi aveva convinto della sua versione dei fatti e non ho pensato alle incongruenze.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I can't wait for the appeals to resume. This delay is making me crazy. I'm hopeful of aquittal, but very leery of the legal machine in Perugia.

I feel the same way. I am hopeful, but also very wary. And I wish that some pro-innocence pieces had not already announced certain victory, and Knox due to head home soon, etc. Because we have no guarantee that Hellman and the jury will acquit. And to announce a victory before it is certain is never a good idea. It might even temper the outcome. I am just a very naturally cautious person. But of course I am praying they will be freed....

 

[pilot padron]

Since you ask

Oh dear, my email talking point list specifically said if Castelfranco's name appeared in a post with mine I would lose all my Gogerty Marriott frequent influencer points.

You seriously believe that they were bought with dinner and wine?

Sorry, Pilot but it's hard to follow. Because Marriott used to work at a relatively low level for CBS, they report on an international story the way he wants?

The reason I asked for the link was to watch Vogt as I remembered her being particularly inane but my orders did not allow me to reveal that.

My "seriously believed" thought was that common courtesy might influence one's after dinner remarks to limit unwanted statements and emphasize common points that your CBS host is recording for her upcoming production.
Not quite the same as the uncomplimentary "bought" as you infer, in your argument's 'spin' of what I said.

Sorry you echo the less experienced 'new' poster's unsolicited and off topic argument about "being hard to follow".
I included those points with tacit acknowledgement of your much deeper and much better informed knowledge of the case.
Apologies if I was incorrect about that.

Your argument does display a lack of knowledge when you demean David Marriott's previous employment with CBS to suit your purposes.
Mr Marriott might also beg exception to your agenda driven description of him as a "relatively low level" employee.
FYI, he was an Emmy Award winning well traveled and * very well connected* CBS Anchor.

Your argument's opening and closing witticisms about "Marriott frequent influence points" and your "orders from Marriott" are a welcome relief from opening and closing snark so prevalent elsewhere.

Mary_H now has an equal with her frequent pleasant introduction of light humor in arguments about the case

 

[Dan O.]

You misunderstood. Media playback doesn't count as inactivity and it doesn't require input to prevent screensaver.

The competent computer expert of the defence, however, argues that only keyboard or mouse activity could stop the screensaver.
How could he otherwise state that there were no intervals longer than 6 minutes without keyboard or mouse activity claiming to have proved thereby that Raffaele was always on the machine.

There are periods of screensaver activity and periods of screensaver inactivity. In order to transition from active to inactive, there must be human interaction on the keyboard or mouse. In order to transition from inactive to active, there must be no interaction with the mouse or keyboard for a period which is by default 20 minutes. The playing of a video can also prevent the activation of the screensaver. Raffaele's appeal states that there were several of these transitions throughout the night which would be consistent with playing a series of videos. We would need to see the full log to be able to state more. The prosecution has a copy of the complete log and were shown exactly which records to look for. They could have filed a response if this didn't show what the defense claimed.

There were a lot of movies played on the PC during the night.

Please name a few.

I suspect they are the set of movies that were then made into a playlist sometime after 5 am. I would need more information than I have available to confirm it though.

"although IIRC Raffaele said they didn't pay much attention to the screen"

He said that he was browsing the net. At the same time no web traffic was observed by the internet provider.

You do know that Raffaele's ISP did report web activity which the prosecutions experts simply ignored.

Have you got the quote where Raffaele says he was "browsing the web"? I am only aware that he said he was using his computer. I do believe some reporters and perhaps the prosecution interpreted that to mean browsing the web. Also, Italy's Pisanu law only requires ISPs to track HTTP (port 80) traffic and would not record HTTPS (port 443) connections or any of the thousands of other ports that could be used as a web proxy. There are also protocols as nntp (usenet) that predate the web and are still quite popular in some groups. Then for some it is even possible to use a computer without the internet

 

[Grinder]

When those that worry that Meredith is being forgotten, which is not the case and in fact Amanda and Raffaele's trial is keeping her in people's minds, talk about other mass sex murders A and R remind them of, they never talk about the victims.

TM lists these killers with glee but rarely names all their victims.

PMF should start a site where they remember all the victims of killers.

 

[ForTruth]

-

Thank you for sharing Poppy,

I am hopeful too, but not holding my breath though, but the feeling I get from Hellmann is he is a critical thinker and that bodes well for Amanda and Raffaele, in my opinion.

But you know what? I am more hopeful for the Kerchers. If they are acquitted, I hope that Meredith's family can somehow, someday come to grips with this, and maybe someday get a little peace of mind, but I don't see this ever really happening, but maybe in the far-off future they can find it in their hearts to get together with Amanda and Raffaele and their families and share a hug together in memory of Meredith,

Dave

I'm holding my breath. They have to acquit. Smashing that expectation will only charge my reaction and others to the next level. It will be an absolute explosion in terms of the press about this injustice.

 

[Grinder]

Pilot, I don't remember Marriott as an anchor for the national news but even that position once left would not leave him with power over the network. He was no Walter Cronkite.

Marriott is a former Emmy-winning television news reporter for Seattle CBS affiliate, KIRO-TV.

He worked in Seattle as a reporter for the CBS affiliate. A relatively low level position.

 

[LondonJohn]

As an "aside" about that dinner you question and the resultant CBS video taped 'table talk' about views on guilt/innocence of Knox/Sollecito.

Did you forget to mention that CBS Producer Sabina Castelfranco was also very visibly....Uhhhh....present ??
I mention this because her influence was the most interesting "rest of the story" I read about that video.

CBS hosted the entire evening.
CBS naturally picked up the full tab for the food, gratuities and the several bottles of wine for all the 'talkers' that CBS was professionally taping for upcoming programs.

<snippety-snip>

All cracking stuff, padron. Except... wasn't the dinner interview that Grinder was referring to actually the one done by the Australian SBS network? the one done for its "Dateline" magazine show? The one hosted by Amos Roberts? The one that in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the US CBS network?

I realise that you might not get much time to watch network television, but were you not aware that the US "Dateline" programme is an NBC show, not a CBS show (CBS's equivalent is "60 minutes")? So even if you had lazily assumed that Grinder's request for the "Dateline" interview was a reference to the US network TV programme of the same name, it would still have had nothing at all to do with CBS. A little research would have quickly uncovered the truth, but I guess sometimes that's not important when there's an agenda to be zealously adhered to....

Anyway, ignoring your ignorance and misplaced attacks for a moment, here is a link to the Australian SBS Dateline programme that Grinder requested. I think that this version has no geographic restrictions - I can certainly view it fine in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abtYPO2QKBY

 

[RWVBWL]

Apology from Nov. 30, 2007

Hi everybody,
As I doubt that any who debate this brutal murder case attended any of they OG trial hearings, please allow me to help whack a mole again, as Dan O. calls it, for this this concerns Amanda Knox's lack of apology for allegedly fingerin' Patrick Lumumba to the cops, something which really seems to bother members of the pro-guilt crew elsewhere.


So check this out. I was reading a little about a diary that Amanda Knox had written in while in prison back in Nov. 2007. Just after she had finished writing in it again, the police came into her cell and took this diary from her on Nov. 29, 2007.

What she had written was that she had 3 goals for her court appearance the next day, Nov. 30, 2007:

1) She wanted to confirm the memoriale the she had written on Nov. 6th, expressing doubt about the Patrick story.
2) To tell the judges that she was "SURE" that she was not there when Meredith Kercher died.
3) To assure them she'd only named Patrick Lumumba because "I was stressed and pressured by the police. They brainwashed me."*


Interestingly, when court was over the next day, a person who attended the hearing had this to say:
"She proclaimed her innocence and to convince the court, she used tears, the weapon of talent. She claimed she'd spent the night at Raffaele's place. She also apologized to Patrick. The scene was beautiful, but the judges didn't burst into applause.*"
Author: Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock

How come some pro-guilt believers constantly keep on saying that Amanda did not apologize to Patrick? It seems that Amanda Knox did so waaaay back on Nov. 30, 2007. If you were in court that day, maybe you too would have heard the apology.


*Ref: Page 230+231, Murder in Italy, Author: Candace Dempsey

 

[LondonJohn]

When those that worry that Meredith is being forgotten, which is not the case and in fact Amanda and Raffaele's trial is keeping her in people's minds, talk about other mass sex murders A and R remind them of, they never talk about the victims.

TM lists these killers with glee but rarely names all their victims.

PMF should start a site where they remember all the victims of killers.

Yes: I wonder how many of them could remember the name of a single one of the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, the Yorkshire Ripper or John Wayne Gacy?

In any case, all this stuff about "forgetting about Meredith" is a ridiculous and unpleasant attempt to introduce a level of emotional blackmail into the situation here. There's not a single person (to the best of my knowledge) arguing for acquittal here who doesn't have the deepest sorrow and sadness about the death of Meredith Kercher, and a high level of sympathy for her family and friends.

But in my opinion any attempt to portray a focus on the acquittal of two people who most likely had nothing to do with her murder - and against whom there is most definitely nowhere near enough evidence to convict - as some sort of slight on Meredith's memory is not only wrong, it's also rather insulting. And furthermore, the two things - 1) arguments for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals/innocence, and 2) the murder of Meredith Kercher - should rightfully be decoupled from one another if one is to approach the former with any degree of impartiality and objectivity.

It is entirely possible and logical for one to simultaneously hold the belief that Knox and Sollecito should justly be acquitted (and that the two are very probably totally innocent of any participation in the murder) and the belief that the murder of Meredith Kercher was a tragic and senseless waste of a young and promising life. That happens to be the position I hold. But it's nonsense and misguided to pretend that any discussion about Knox's/Sollecito's guilt, non-guilt or innocence has to somehow include constant references to the murder victim. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that any discussion about the trial or guilt of Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing has to involve frequent references to the names of all (or indeed any) of the 270 people who were murdered in that atrocity.

It's my opinion that this particular issue has been hijacked by a certain group of people on the pro-guilt side of the argument, in an attempt to persuade others (and perhaps even themselves) that there is some sort of binary divide at play here:

Pro-guilt (for Knox and Sollecito) = "pro-Meredith" or "pro justice for Meredith"

Pro-acquittal or pro-innocence (for Knox/Sollecito) = "anti-Meredith" or "couldn't care about Meredith"

If I'm correct in that analysis - and I think I probably am - then it's just another distasteful example of the way in which a certain cadre of individuals has attempted to warp logic and introduce thoroughly bogus moral/emotional "authority" in an attempt to further an agenda: and agenda which is looking more and more misplaced, ill-conceived, unpleasant and futile every day.

 

[js202]

Yes: I wonder how many of them could remember the name of a single one of the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, the Yorkshire Ripper or John Wayne Gacy?

In any case, all this stuff about "forgetting about Meredith" is a ridiculous and unpleasant attempt to introduce a level of emotional blackmail into the situation here. There's not a single person (to the best of my knowledge) arguing for acquittal here who doesn't have the deepest sorrow and sadness about the death of Meredith Kercher, and a high level of sympathy for her family and friends.

But in my opinion any attempt to portray a focus on the acquittal of two people who most likely had nothing to do with her murder - and against whom there is most definitely nowhere near enough evidence to convict - as some sort of slight on Meredith's memory is not only wrong, it's also rather insulting. And furthermore, the two things - 1) arguments for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals/innocence, and 2) the murder of Meredith Kercher - should rightfully be decoupled from one another if one is to approach the former with any degree of impartiality and objectivity.

It is entirely possible and logical for one to simultaneously hold the belief that Knox and Sollecito should justly be acquitted (and that the two are very probably totally innocent of any participation in the murder) and the belief that the murder of Meredith Kercher was a tragic and senseless waste of a young and promising life. That happens to be the position I hold. But it's nonsense and misguided to pretend that any discussion about Knox's/Sollecito's guilt, non-guilt or innocence has to somehow include constant references to the murder victim. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that any discussion about the trial or guilt of Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing has to involve frequent references to the names of all (or indeed any) of the 270 people who were murdered in that atrocity.

It's my opinion that this particular issue has been hijacked by a certain group of people on the pro-guilt side of the argument, in an attempt to persuade others (and perhaps even themselves) that there is some sort of binary divide at play here:

Pro-guilt (for Knox and Sollecito) = "pro-Meredith" or "pro justice for Meredith"

Pro-acquittal or pro-innocence (for Knox/Sollecito) = "anti-Meredith" or "couldn't care about Meredith"

If I'm correct in that analysis - and I think I probably am - then it's just another distasteful example of the way in which a certain cadre of individuals has attempted to warp logic and introduce thoroughly bogus moral/emotional "authority" in an attempt to further an agenda: and agenda which is looking more and more misplaced, ill-conceived, unpleasant and futile every day.

Brilliant unpacking and explication of a very false dichotomy, London John. Thank you.

 

[Draca]

Did you forget to mention that CBS Producer Sabina Castelfranco was also very visibly....Uhhhh....present ??
I mention this because her influence was the most interesting "rest of the story" I read about that video.

"Says it all, really..."

May I take this rare occasion to agree with alacrity, albeit for different reasons.

Sabina's comment that "we will never know what happened' really disappointed me. That to me is simply not true. We do know to a great degree what happened.

I found the most interesting "rest of the story" how Pisa, Vogt an Nadeau excused themselves for simply accepting the words and documents of the prosecution instead of investigating if what they were being told was true. The information was primary information from the police after all......

It was also repugnant to hear Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt discussing their thoughts on the 'mixed blood'. How do they still not have it clear after almost 4 years of reporting that there is absolutely no proof that there was 'mixed blood'? It makes me want to throw something at the TV in frustration, similar to a blown ref call during an NFL game.

Andrea Vogt in particular mentions discussing this with an expert. She is obviously talking about the notorious Luciano Garofano whose comments in Darkness Descending about 'mixed blood' should see his expert title removed permanently.

Now Barbie Nadeau's pamphlet is to influence an upcoming movie and Andrea Vogt is working on a documentary. It seems doing incredibly poor quality work really pays off.

 

[LondonJohn]

*sigh*

"The Machine" posts the following misrepresentation on .org in his latest attempt to discredit elements of the pro-acquittal argument:

The groupies* seem to think that the only buses that run from Piazza Grimana are disco buses and that all the clubs were closed on the night of the murder despite the fact that Rudy Guede was spotted in a club later that evening.

Hmmm. Is "The Machine" ignorant of the true argument here, or is (s)he simply flat-out lying in an attempt to mislead? Either way, let me clear up the ways in which this sentence is wrong in every single way:

Firstly, let's talk about buses. It's a straw man and a misdirection to discuss the issue of there being other buses in Piazza Grimana on the night of November 1st 2007. As "The Machine" very well knows, Curatolo made explicit reference to disco buses in his testimony, and he backs this up with explicit "recall" of groups of students/young people in masks and costumes in a party mood queuing up to get on these buses. Curatolo had lived in that square for roughly a decade: he was very well aware of the difference between disco buses (older-style white buses with no liveries or advertising) and either municipal buses (bright blue or yellow modern buses with copious advertising on their sides) or tourist buses (usually liveried, and if they were even present in Piazza Grimana at that time of night, they would most definitely have been disgorging passengers rather than picking up hordes of people). Curatolo asserted that there were disco buses present that night. There were no disco buses running that night. Therefore Curatolo's testimony is severely discredited.

Secondly, let's deal with this issue of discos/bars/clubs being open. It appears that "The Machine" is still either ignorant of the truth on this issue, or (s)he is too stupid to understand it. Here is the truth: all of the large out-of-town clubs/discos were indeed closed on the evening of 1st November 2007. These clubs/discos hire buses to ferry people from the population centre (i.e. Perugia) out to the clubs - the clubs are essentially in the middle of nowhere, and they therefore lay on the buses in order to get people there and back with ease. By contrast, most of the bars and clubs within Perugia itself were open on the evening of 1st November. But these bars/clubs/discos do not lay on buses to ferry people to their premises: there is no point in them doing so, as they are in the middle of Perugia and thus easily accessible for potential customers.

So "the groupies" do not in fact think that the only buses running in Piazza Grimana that evening were disco buses, and nor do we think that all the bars/clubs/discos in and around Perugia were closed that evening. But it's irrelevant what other buses might have been in Piazza Grimana that evening, since Curatolo specifically referred to disco buses in his testimony. And there were no disco buses running that night, because all the large out-of-town clubs/discos (the only ones to lay on such buses) were indeed closed that evening.

It's strange that someone who has been so very deeply involved with commentating on this case for so long can still get basics like this so wrong. Perhaps his Italian lawyer can put him straight on a few things......?


* "Groupies" is the standard pro-guilt term of insult for pro-acquittal or pro-innocence commentators, for those who were unacquainted with the term.