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

[Grinder]

Those obits don't have events that didn't happen. They are bios, Not reporting of the events that occurred on the day of their death.

Such and such passed away on XX/XX/XXXXX. They were born on XX/XX/XXXX and well known for their xxxx, Not that their families were inconsolable and actual quotes from their family members on the day of their passing.

Obits are far more than your example but the point was that papers have articles in the can. I didn't say anything was false about them

You obviously didn't read Pisa's story at the time or probably ever.

That story was not an example of the media misrepresenting anything. It was an example of a story written for two outcomes with some banal made-up quotes like "we are pleased with the verdict".

Go look it up.

Off to a dog walk. My best wishes to the PIP that this verdict makes sense and fits with the real evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Is that really the same guy?

The one behind is the short fat perp that was spotted with his camera facing the pink bathroom and I believe there was a flash while the camera was out of view of the video recorder. His side kick is standing in front with coke bottle bottom glasses removed. Notice the identical face masks which are different than everyone else.

 

[Wildhorses]

Please remind me how it works.

Has the jury been meeting and deliberating all along? Or have the past five hours been the ONLY jury discussion/examination of the case?

The latter can't be right.

 

[Diocletus]

Please remind me how it works.

Has the jury been meeting and deliberating all along? Or have the past five hours been the ONLY jury discussion/examination of the case?

The latter can't be right.

What would they talk about? They hardly heard any testimony.

The decision will be made a the "jury" that knows the least about the case. Because, you know, the Italian system is evolved over 2000 to years to be vastly superior to any other system, in particular the Anglo-Saxon system.

 

[Antony]

So on the occasions I have seen Mrs Kercher I am left with this feeling of “there but for the grace of god, could go I.”

Why Mrs Kercher? Her daughter's misfortune had nothing to do with her friendship with Amanda. Rather, when you see Edda Mellas mentioned in the media, you should be blessing the grace of God that it isn't your daughter who discovered her friend's murder and then was falsely imprisoned for 4 years and subjected to a legal process lasting 6 years and counting.

 

[anglolawyer]

Innocent of murder staging and assault, but guilty of wasting Italies time for the past six years because of theft of the interrogation tapes

 

[Samson]

O.K. The document that RoseMontague provided shows that there are three Italian attorneys representing different members of the Kercher family.

• Stephanie has her own attorney, S. Perna, and is not represented by Maresca.
• Both of the victim's parents and her two brothers are represented by Maresca.
• In addition to being represented by Maresca, Lyle has a second attorney - Fabiani.

The last thing I recall was Stephanie saying we don't read these books. Maybe she has read these books now. In all peoples' legal experience there is an enormous amount of money owed and owing, so who knows what is going on, but there is a 3.1% chance of five people conjointly agreeing on this case with independent research on a 50% probability of a given truth.

 

[acbytesla]

Obits are far more than your example but the point was that papers have articles in the can. I didn't say anything was false about them

You obviously didn't read Pisa's story at the time or probably ever.

That story was not an example of the media misrepresenting anything. It was an example of a story written for two outcomes with some banal made-up quotes like "we are pleased with the verdict".

Go look it up.

Off to a dog walk. My best wishes to the PIP that this verdict makes sense and fits with the real evidence.

I know that papers have "articles in the can" for filler if for no other reason.

That said, the article went further than that. I read the original article. And it definitely described events within the courtroom and quotations from real people. I agree with your assessment that they prepared two stories and just released the wrong one. But they actually reported words from people that were NOT said outside of "guilty or innocent".

 

[bolint]

According to La Nazione the verdict will not be announced before 18h.

 

[LondonJohn]

Obits are far more than your example but the point was that papers have articles in the can. I didn't say anything was false about them

You obviously didn't read Pisa's story at the time or probably ever.

That story was not an example of the media misrepresenting anything. It was an example of a story written for two outcomes with some banal made-up quotes like "we are pleased with the verdict".
Go look it up.

Off to a dog walk. My best wishes to the PIP that this verdict makes sense and fits with the real evidence.

Uh well, it was a fair bit more than that (my bolding):

Amanda Knox looked stunned this evening after she dramatically lost her prison appeal against her murder conviction

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that "justice has been done" although they said on a "human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail".

As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears. A few feet away Meredith’s mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.

Following the verdict Knox and Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell at Capanne jail near Perugia and him to Terni jail, 60 miles away.

So in fact the made-up "guilty" version of the report contained a number of rather specific "facts" (which were of course pure inventions based merely on Pisa's speculation of what might have happened had there been guilty verdicts), some extremely specific reported reactions (ditto), and some purported direct quotes that went well beyond generalisations.

Had the Mail prepared a "guilty" version that was much more anodyne and non-specific (sticking to an announcement of a guilty verdict, and stating what would probably happen from then on), that would have been acceptable and prudent. But Pisa's invention went well above and beyond that. And unfortunately for him and for the Mail, this level of mendacity was cruelly exposed when someone pressed the wrong button at the Mail Online desk.

Incidentally, the BBC also got it wrong momentarily when they mistakenly believed that Hellmann's guilty verdict on the criminal slander (the first verdict to be announced) meant that the verdicts on all charges was also guilty. I suspect that the moron in the Mail Online office who pressed the button to send out the "guilty" version of the report was also watching BBC News 24, and that it was the BBC's momentary misreporting that caused him/her to send the "guilty" version live.

 

[LondonJohn]

According to La Nazione the verdict will not be announced before 18h.

Well, more accurately, there will be an announcement at 6pm local (5pm GMT) which will indicate when the verdict itself will be announced.

This leads me to believe that it's likely that the verdict itself will not be forthcoming until either later tonight or even tomorrow.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, more accurately, there will be an announcement at 6pm local (5pm GMT) which will indicate when the verdict itself will be announced.

This leads me to believe that it's likely that the verdict itself will not be forthcoming until either later tonight or even tomorrow.

Hmm. That's rather interesting.

 

[db2431]

Havnt read anything about this retrial, would somebody mind summing up very briefly what the prosecutors evidence and case are this time?I can't see from the previous acquittal what they could possibly bring to the table?

 

[AmyStrange]

The Meredith Kercher case is framed by prejudice as much as evidence

-

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ejudice-evidence-knox-sollecito?commentpage=1

"The jury's out on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito – the verdict on whether their conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher will be reinstated is expected later today – but the rest of the world appears to have made its mind up. Public opinion (as reflected by the media) has made an about-turn in their favour. The novelist Nathaniel Rich has twice defended Knox and Sollecito at length: in Rolling Stone and the New York Review of Books. Simon Hattenstone has done so in the Guardian. Casey Greenfield in the Huffington Post has gone so far as to claim that 'if Knox were homely, or modest, or male, she'd probably never have been charged to begin with'.

"Those who think Knox is guilty, or might be guilty, argue from more obscure regions of the internet that the opposite is true: that her supporters have been beguiled into supposing she's innocent precisely because she's beautiful, kooky and a woman. It has become a cliche to point out that Knox, whether as angel or luciferina, soon became a mirror of our fantasies. Sollecito, on the other hand, has never grown a public persona, while Kercher has all but disappeared from view. For example, do a keyword search for 'Meredith Kercher' on the Guardian website and pictures of Knox and Sollecito dominate.

"I read a lot about the case for a piece last year in the London Review of Books. I read Knox's memoir, Waiting to Be Heard, and several of the other books – Nina Burleigh's The Fatal Gift of Beauty, for instance – that argue for Knox and Sollecito's innocence. I found them pretty convincing. It's clear enough that the forensic evidence crucial to the pair's conviction was fatally flawed (if in doubt, pay a visit to the frighteningly thorough analysis at injusticeinperugia.org). But I also read Meredith, the book by Kercher's father, which has had a fraction of the sales of Knox's book – and I became convinced, not that Knox and Sollecito were guilty, but that it is still at least possible to believe they're guilty and not be a crank... "

-

 

[snook1]

Well, more accurately, there will be an announcement at 6pm local (5pm GMT) which will indicate when the verdict itself will be announced.

This leads me to believe that it's likely that the verdict itself will not be forthcoming until either later tonight or even tomorrow.

That's what I thought also! I'm not gonna make any predictions, but some Iv'e read some comments that the longer it takes to announce the decision, the more it is possible that it will be an acquittal.

I do not believe in things lke this, but it makes me feel a little bit hopeful.

 

[AmyStrange]

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murder verdict: live

-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-Raffaele-Sollecito-murder-verdict-live.html

"16.30 Nick Squires, our correspondent in Italy, is currently waiting very patiently inside the Florence court for news, which is now not expected for another 30 minutes at least.

"He adds:
'This painfully slow legal process has now lasted longer than the Second World War - it was seven years ago, in 2007, that Knox and Sollecito were arrested and jailed on suspicion of murdering Meredith Kercher. Their original trial was in 2009, then their appeals trial in 2011, which resulted in them being acquitted and freed from jail. Even after today's verdict, it's not over. If their original convictions are upheld, their lawyers will almost certainly launch an appeal, and the case will go back to the Supreme Court in Rome'

"16.22 'Our correspondent in New York, Jon Swaine, says the US media isn't paying oto much notice to the case, with no major networks currently covering the story. No one is taking the prospect of her being convicted again very seriously.

"16.14 'Meredith Kercher's brother Lyle and sister Stephanie are in Florence for the verdict and gave interviews to Sky Italia earlier today.
This is the gist of what they told the TV channel:

"Quote 'We just want to find out the truth of what happened on that night and to get justice. The only people that can do that are the judges, the jury, who are there with the evidence.

"'They are the ones who will make the decision based on what they have heard. As we have always said we don't want the wrong people to pay, we are ready to accept whatever decision... '"

-

 

[Diocletus]

-
"Quote 'We just want to find out the truth of what happened on that night and to get justice. The only people that can do that are the judges, the jury, who are there with the evidence. -

LOL. For real?

 

[katy_did]

Well, more accurately, there will be an announcement at 6pm local (5pm GMT) which will indicate when the verdict itself will be announced.

This leads me to believe that it's likely that the verdict itself will not be forthcoming until either later tonight or even tomorrow.

That's what I thought as well, but they all seem to be talking as if it's the actual verdict that will be announced. I guess we'll see...

 

[Strozzi]

-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-Raffaele-Sollecito-murder-verdict-live.html

"Quote 'We just want to find out the truth of what happened on that night and to get justice. The only people that can do that are the judges, the jury, who are there with the evidence.

"'They are the ones who will make the decision based on what they have heard. As we have always said we don't want the wrong people to pay, we are ready to accept whatever decision... '"

-

Stephanie, if you want justice for your sister and do not want innocent people falsely convicted why doesn't the Kercher family demand that Dr. Stefanoni release the missing DNA lab data files that she is withholding/concealing from the court and from the defense?

 

[Rolfe]

If a prosecution cannot convince a substantial majority of interested onlookers who have followed a case closely that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then there should be no convictions. Justice is supposed to be transparent and seen to be done.

This has been going on for a ridiculous length of time. Stephanie Kercher has had far more access to and exposure to the evidence than either judges or jury in this court, and Italian legal advice to explain it to her. Has she decided to check her brain in at the door or something?

Rolfe.