Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli you are obviously a proponent of the prosecution's case. Can you say something about why Andrea Vogt should similarly be called an advocate for the prosecution, and not a journalist?

Actually, you had answered your question yourself.

You wrote:

My conspiratorial little mind is wondering if Andrea Vogt is more central to keeping the hater's PR machine going than any of us realize. Yes, she herself has profited from this murder with a few articles - but not so much like Barbie Nadeau. At least Nadeau is one of CNN's "go to people" on the Kercher murder trials, as long as she behaves herself.

It's just puzzling about Vogt. She's pursuing an agenda which is not all that clear. She has very infrequent paycheques from stuff she submits, but she still disseminates through her seldom-visited blog guilter talking points.

(…)

For my liking, Vogt played a role in creating the very news she reported on. But is was NOT for her own financial gain really. That would be to confuse her with Barbie Nadeau.

So the only thing left is to wonder...... what's in it for Vogt? To keep her relationship with Peggy Ganong intact? I think not.

Basically you wonder *why* does Andrea Vogt not follow the line of most mainstream journalists (petting-the-Knoxes) and why does she report things that sound bad for the defence and good for the prosecution case. It’s a mystery. There may be a kind of conspiracy, a plan, complicate hidden motive. You don’t quite understand why she does that way, given that she does not get financial gain for her work.

You conclude – all by yourself – that she must not be in for the money. So you wonder what else…
You are sure, that she is on no payroll; she is not paid by a big circus; not getting big money from what she does. So what is the reason why she does that?

You are so blinded that you are unable to see the answer, you scan the horizon for the hill while you are on it. Your preliminary consideration may well be just the answer.
You may just invert the causal order.
You said: Vogt is not on a payroll; she is not in for money; she is not paid much for writing stories like those pro-Knox stuff that make networks sell.
So why does she write reports that point out evidence of guilt? - Well actually I’d say, why does she report the truth, instead of CNN-style stories?

Well, think about it, maybe, it’s just because she is not on the payroll; because she is not going after money.
Maybe she writes because she is just a journalist. I mean not one of those rich paid mercenaries from the media show. Maybe she reports and write about these things, not because she is aiming at money or other advanteges or part in the CNN-style infoshow, but instead maybe, just because these things are the truth.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, think about it, maybe, it’s just because she is not on the payroll; because she is not going after money.
Maybe she writes because she is just a journalist. I mean not one of those rich paid mercenaries from the media show. Maybe she reports and write about these things, not because she is aiming at money or other advanteges or part in the CNN-style infoshow, but instead maybe, just because these things are the truth.

Just for the sake of argument, and just for the veneer of objectivity - can you report anything Ms. Vogt has said that is friendly at all to the defence?

 

[Machiavelli]

Welcome back, Mach.

*We* see something different because *we* speak English. Is English the first language for any of the people mentioned above, with the exception of the pro-guilt advocate, Vogt?

These are the same people who thought "see you later," something Americans say at least once a day, meant "let's get together and kill somebody."

Well it is the native language of the Kercher family. Which - while I did not mention them - I did not forget.

I also think I understand English enough to realize that there is no difference between the two languages - English and Italian - on this particluar phrase (Io ero li - I was there) they make a perfect match, three words that can be overlayed in a perfect superimposition in identical structure and semantics, a translation that does not allow ambiguities: you don't "loose" anything in both ways. "I was there" cannot be translated in two ways, nor can "Io ero li".

The rest of the dialogue lines: were they talking about Raffaele's place? Did they explicitly mention that? Was that the "obvious" context?
If you think so, prove it. Quote the transcript and show this mentioning of Sollecito's apartment as the clear context.

 

[Machiavelli]

Just for the sake of argument, and just for the veneer of objectivity - can you report anything Ms. Vogt has said that is friendly at all to the defence?

Well, I recall just from the SC hearing, she wrote that Bongiorno was a good orator, that she pointed out a "factual mistake" in PG Riello's arguments, she said the defence "hammered on the bad handling of the crime scene".
Vogt even reported Knox spokesman reporting her comment where she says "my involvement in Meredith's murder has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair" (an Italian network would not report that kind of stuff).

 

[acbytesla]

Well it is the native language of the Kercher family. Which - while I did not mention them - I did not forget.

I also think I understand English enough to realize that there is no difference between the two languages - English and Italian - on this particluar phrase (Io ero li - I was there) they make a perfect match, three words that can be overlayed in a perfect superimposition in identical structure and semantics, a translation that does not allow ambiguities: you don't "loose" anything in both ways. "I was there" cannot be translated in two ways, nor can "Io ero li".

The rest of the dialogue lines: were they talking about Raffaele's place? Did they explicitly mention that? Was that the "obvious" context?
If you think so, prove it. Quote the transcript and show this mentioning of Sollecito's apartment as the clear context.

You say that you understand both English and Italian well, yet this must be the 12th time that I have seen you mistakenly write the word "loose" instead of "lose" which are two very different words. Loose meaning the opposite of tight and lose which has to do with the word lost.
A true native English speaker reading Amanda's statement knows that Amanda could just as easily be referring to Raffaele's flat as opposed to the cottage which according to Amanda was her intent. While I can understand someone reading it to mean the cottage, frankly it is NOT so clear to try and use it as evidence.

 

[Diocletus]

Prosecution Lies

Why do you suppose the Prisecution lied about the cat's blood?

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, I recall just from the SC hearing, she wrote that Bongiorno was a good orator, that she pointed out a "factual mistake" in PG Riello's arguments, she said the defence "hammered on the bad handling of the crime scene".
Vogt even reported Knox spokesman reporting her comment where she says "my involvement in Meredith's murder has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair" (an Italian network would not report that kind of stuff).

Thank you.

Please stick around - there's more stuff about Ms. Vogt. You still have not cleared up the way Italians misunderstand American idioms. It's just surprising that Ms. Vogt would miss that.

 

[Bill Williams]

You say that you understand both English and Italian well, yet this must be the 12th time that I have seen you write "loose" instead of "lose" which are two very different words. Loose meaning the opposite of tight and lose which has to do with the word lost.
A true native English speaker reading Amanda's statement knows that Amanda could just as easily be referring to Raffaele's flat as opposed to the cottage which according to Amanda was her intent. While I can understand someone reading it to mean the cottage, frankly it is NOT so clear to try and use it as evidence.

But the point isn't really that it was used as evidence in trial, the point is that a native American-English speaker represented it as otherwise, and has not retracted....

It's actually not that big a deal - journalists retract things all the time - cases are fluid, and you cannot know everything. Ms. Vogt is not in it for the money. Machiavelli has covered off other possibilities, but there are more possibilities for what Ms. Vogt is in it for....

 

[acbytesla]

Well, I recall just from the SC hearing, she wrote that Bongiorno was a good orator, that she pointed out a "factual mistake" in PG Riello's arguments, she said the defence "hammered on the bad handling of the crime scene".
Vogt even reported Knox spokesman reporting her comment where she says "my involvement in Meredith's murder has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair" (an Italian network would not report that kind of stuff).

I find this interesting Machiavelli. Your last point that Italian network would not report that kind of stuff is a very clear demonstration of the how afraid the press is in Italy of the judiciary as Vogt quoting Amanda is still a fact as it is Amanda's statement and nothing else.

Unfortunately you live in a country that is so restrained by judicial corruption that the press is afraid to report the facts. I'm afraid for Amanda because I see what happens with Italian justice. Once the judiciary makes up it's mind, it becomes a freight train willing to run over any one. I've seen your country railroad people like the crew members on the Costa Concordia and scientists who fail to predict an earthquake.

What is it like to live in a country where half the judges belong behind bars as opposed to on the bench?

 

[Machiavelli]

I find this interesting Machiavelli. Your last point that Italian network would not report that kind of stuff is a very clear demonstration of the how afraid the press is in Italy of the judiciary as Vogt quoting Amanda is still a fact as it is Amanda's statement and nothing else.

Unfortunately you live in a country that is so restrained by judicial corruption that the press is afraid to report the facts. I'm afraid for Amanda because I see what happens with Italian justice. Once the judiciary makes up it's mind, it becomes a freight train willing to run over any one. I've seen your country railroad people like the crew members on the Costa Concordia and scientists who fail to predict an earthquake.

What is it like to live in a country where half the judges belong behind bars as opposed to on the bench?

You are delusional beyond belief. The press is not afraid: the public is simply not interested. They don't like that. Most network won't report press releases from suspect murderers, simply because the public doesn't appreciate.

 

[acbytesla]

You are delusional beyond belief. The press is not afraid: the public is simply not interested. They don't like that. Most network won't report press releases from suspect murderers, simply because the public doesn't appreciate.

Oh please Mach. Stop lying to yourself. There is a reason that every single word out of Amanda is being published in the US and the UK and not always in Italy and it has NOTHING to do with the public's appetite.

The real fact is that your country doesn't have a true free press. Journalists are hamstrung by your laws and the influence of the judiciary that they are scared.

 

[Machiavelli]

You say that you understand both English and Italian well, yet this must be the 12th time that I have seen you mistakenly write the word "loose" instead of "lose" which are two very different words. Loose meaning the opposite of tight and lose which has to do with the word lost.
A true native English speaker reading Amanda's statement knows that Amanda could just as easily be referring to Raffaele's flat as opposed to the cottage which according to Amanda was her intent. While I can understand someone reading it to mean the cottage, frankly it is NOT so clear to try and use it as evidence.

Read Knox's email. Count my misspellings and count hers.
Language is an oral matter. Undersdanding is not producing. Try not to be ridiculous.
Instead, let's say it: when the "true native" has a US passport and is sympathetic to media buisness, I guess that the reference to Sollecito's appartment becomes suddenly *very* easy and likely. While I understand that the Kerchers are not truly native English speakers.
Quote the dialogue lines, quote the entire snippet of conversation, if you want to make an argument. Then you'll have a context. What are they talking about? Amanda is objecting to something her mother says; what is she objecting, what are they contending?

You have anyway changed the stance, meanwhile: "NOT so clear" is not what Bill said; since he talked about a "plain", a "clear" context in which something was clear. And he asked Vogt to RECANT an assertion which he maintains is proven FALSE.
And - recall - I am talking about Bill's claims about Vogt, not about Knox statement itself, whether it is ambiguous or not. Bill Wiliams said Vogt should recant and change her report on the ground that Knox was "clearly" saying something else; that Vogt was lying and the truth is "clearly" different.
The point: is Bill making a fair criticism of Vogt?

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh please Mach. Stop lying to yourself. There is a reason that every single word out of Amanda is being published in the US and the UK and not always in Italy and it has NOTHING to do with the public's appetite.

The real fact is that your country doesn't have a true free press. Journalists are hamstrung by your laws and the influence of the judiciary that they are scared.

My laws? You know about my laws and about Italian press as much as I know about Chassidic cooking.
What I find disgusting is exactly presumptuous ignorants spouting about people, societies, human contexts and lifes they have no clue about.

 

[Briars]

You keep referring to outside sounds as opposed to indoor sounds through walls and windows. I notice you don't talk about the neighbors fighting in their homes across the valley. Outside sounds remain distinct because there are no obstructions. Walls and ceiling and windows make a huge difference. Take those church bells that you can hear distinctly at a distance. Why do you think that is the case Briars? Everything about them is designed so they can be heard at a distance. The bells and clangers are large and the bells are capable of producing as much as 140 decibels. The bells are not inside, nor are they low to the ground. They are in bell towers open to all sides.

Sure, you can hear goats with bells on them as they climb across a hill side, but after they go over the hill you can no longer hear them and when those goats go into in the barn, you can no longer hear their bells.

Sound traveling through air as opposed to sound traveling through dense materials such as walls is significantly different Briars The first is (excuse the little joke) clear as a bell. The second is muddled and muffled.

Also screams tend to be high pitched or high frequency sounds. High frequency sounds are more directional than low frequency sounds and they are much more effected by obstructions like walls and windows. Play a flute concerto on a high fidelity stereo and put the speaker outside, you would hear the sound clearly for a very good distance and it would be fairly discernible. Then take that same speaker at the same volume inside and walk outside. The walls would not only cut the distance by more than two thirds it would would muddle the sound so as to make indiscernible

On the other hand, play a bass guitar or heavy drum solo, and you can hear the beat through wall after wall after wall.

This is why I KNOW, not I THINK, that Nara's testimony is worthless. A scream through those walls would destroy the sound so significantly as to make the idea that Nara actually HEARD and COULD DISCERN Meredith's scream as extremely unlikely. My personal guess is that if Nara actually heard something similar to a woman's scream that night she probably heard cats having sex on outside on the parking garage below which can sound very much like a woman or a tire screech.

Both witnesses concerned opened their window to listen further around the same time. The running Nara heard on the stairs fits with Guede almost colliding with a witness. The fact that both women were a little unsure of the time in my opinion within an hour is pretty close and more than coincidental. You keep saying walls but the the scream only had to be heard through the glass window and yes the shape of the valley would carry it back to Nara who was walking by hers.Tenants hear fighting in apartments separated by concrete blocks not just glass.I'm going to stick to what I know first hand about how sound travels to the parking lot from below the cottage thanks.

 

[Briars]

You say that you understand both English and Italian well, yet this must be the 12th time that I have seen you mistakenly write the word "loose" instead of "lose" which are two very different words. Loose meaning the opposite of tight and lose which has to do with the word lost.
A true native English speaker reading Amanda's statement knows that Amanda could just as easily be referring to Raffaele's flat as opposed to the cottage which according to Amanda was her intent. While I can understand someone reading it to mean the cottage, frankly it is NOT so clear to try and use it as evidence.

Petty

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
You have anyway changed the stance, meanwhile: "NOT so clear" is not what Bill said; since he talked about a "plain", a "clear" context in which something was clear. And he asked Vogt to RECANT an assertion which he maintains is proven FALSE.
And - recall - I am talking about Bill's claims about Vogt, not about Knox statement itself, whether it is ambiguous or not. Bill Wiliams said Vogt should recant and change her report on the ground that Knox was "clearly" saying something else; that Vogt was lying and the truth is "clearly" different.
The point: is Bill making a fair criticism of Vogt?

I would like to answer that question, but I have not found the full transcript yet. I did find this gem by Vogt, in which she does provide a certain context for the quote:

"The document, among others, cites a conversation Knox had with her parents while under surveillance during a prison visit in which she said "I was there," apparently referring to the night of the murder."
Really objective. Really nice.

 

[acbytesla]

Read Knox's email. Count my misspellings and count hers.
Language is an oral matter. Undersdanding is not producing. Try not to be ridiculous.
Instead, let's say it: when the "true native" has a US passport and is sympathetic to media buisness, I guess that the reference to Sollecito's appartment becomes suddenly *very* easy and likely. While I understand that the Kerchers are not truly native English speakers.
Quote the dialogue lines, quote the entire snippet of conversation, if you want to make an argument. Then you'll have a context. What are they talking about? Amanda is objecting to something her mother says; what is she objecting, what are they contending?

You have anyway changed the stance, meanwhile: "NOT so clear" is not what Bill said; since he talked about a "plain", a "clear" context in which something was clear. And he asked Vogt to RECANT an assertion which he maintains is proven FALSE.
And - recall - I am talking about Bill's claims about Vogt, not about Knox statement itself, whether it is ambiguous or not. Bill Wiliams said Vogt should recant and change her report on the ground that Knox was "clearly" saying something else; that Vogt was lying and the truth is "clearly" different.
The point: is Bill making a fair criticism of Vogt?

I traditionally ignore spelling mistakes Machiavelli but the point is that everybody makes mistakes in their writing, you included. Your reply proves my point that both written and verbal language is often unclear, ambiguous and imprecise.

Do you really think Amanda was saying in this email to her friends and relatives that she was at the cottage during the murder? You can't be that stupid Machiavelli. This is frankly, a disgusting piece of obfuscation and doesn't reflect well on anyone who uses it that way.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have anyway changed the stance, meanwhile: "NOT so clear" is not what Bill said; since he talked about a "plain", a "clear" context in which something was clear. And he asked Vogt to RECANT an assertion which he maintains is proven FALSE.
And - recall - I am talking about Bill's claims about Vogt, not about Knox statement itself, whether it is ambiguous or not. Bill Wiliams said Vogt should recant and change her report on the ground that Knox was "clearly" saying something else; that Vogt was lying and the truth is "clearly" different.
The point: is Bill making a fair criticism of Vogt?

To be clear, Machiavelli, I have NOT said that Ms. Vogt was lying. Please refer back to my post where I said that the trouble with reporting on daily events, is that the news can be fluid. I have done no such thing as you claim, accusing Ms. Vogt of lying.

What I have said is that she was paid for a piece she wrote for a Seattle newspaper with the lead on it, "I was there." This was billed as an admission by Knox that she'd been at the cottage the night of the murder.

Knox said no such thing. The plain meaning of what she told her mother, secretly recorded by PLE, is once again one of those misunderstandings of language, similar to "See you later."

The point is that Ms. Vogt, for whatever rationale, reported wrong. Mistakes like that happen in the fluid nature of news reporting. In no way, shape or form was Ms. Vogt lying when she reported that. Please do not introduce false arguments.

What I am saying is that she has never set the record straight. It is no wonder that you seem to know so much about Ms. Vogt's reporting - you both simply parrot the prosecution's case.

Uncritically.

Can you quote ONE criticism of the prosecution's case that Ms. Vogt has ever made? Remember, her objectivity as a journalist is on the line.

 

[acbytesla]

Both witnesses concerned opened their window to listen further around the same time. The running Nara heard on the stairs fits with Guede almost colliding with a witness. The fact that both women were a little unsure of the time in my opinion within an hour is pretty close and more than coincidental. You keep saying walls but the the scream only had to be heard through the glass window and yes the shape of the valley would carry it back to Nara who was walking by hers.Tenants hear fighting in apartments separated by concrete blocks not just glass.I'm going to stick to what I know first hand about how sound travels to the parking lot from below the cottage thanks.

You are being foolish Briars. Meredith's window is pointing away from the witnesses with the cottage between them. Any sound through that window radiates AWAY from the witnesses and there is nothing that would bounce that sound back. While the sound might travel down the valley it WOULD NOT TRAVEL BACK. I dare you to get someone to go into a room at the very back of their house with only a window in the other direction and try and hear them scream. You would at best hear a muddled indistinguishable sound. You would then stop this moronic argument because it would be crystal clear to you that you are 100% wrong on this point.

 

[acbytesla]

Petty

Yes it is Briars. On this I agree. But is also petty to say that Amanda's email saying "she was there" and linking it to the cottage during the murder .