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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well this doc is pretty bad. That said, even if it was completely accurate, this ain't winning any awards. Pretty cheap production.

Yeah, it's pretty trashy. No chance you'd mistake it for a serious documentary.

Fifty minutes in and they haven't spoken to a single defence lawyer yet. They have spoken to the Kerchers, Mignini, Comodi, Maresca and Guede's lawyer.

Didn't think I could respect Vogt any less. Who knew?
 
And now they've just said 'Rudy is Innocent and didn't handle the knife' - it's really quite sick that the man whose DNA was in Meredith Kercher's vagina is so well supported by the prosecution

Nancy, don't be surprised if Vogt claims Rudy's DNA got in the victim's vagina by contamination and not direct contact. Vogt may claim maybe she sat on the toilet seat? :boggled:

Yeah, that's how it happened. Rudy, being the gentleman he is, got up and gave his seat to the lady.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's pretty trashy. No chance you'd mistake it for a serious documentary.

Fifty minutes in and they haven't spoken to a single defence lawyer yet. They have spoken to the Kerchers, Mignini, Comodi, Maresca and Guede's lawyer.

Didn't think I could respect Vogt any less. Who knew?

Maybe it's not a coincidence that Vogt and Sarah Palin got their journalism chops from the same school......
 
There is an unhealthy sympathy towards Guede.


It really is a shockingly warped, agenda-driven presentation. The most insidious and dishonest thing about it is that it is presenting itself as objective and fact-based, whereas in reality it is anything but.

It's clear to me that Vogt and Russell have used the programme as a platform for their own agendas, and that they have exploited their contacts with prosecutors, pro-guilt experts and the Kerchers to help them to achieve this end. It's truly as dishonest and improper as making a programme called "Were the Moon landings real?" and presenting the whole programme from the "hoax" perspective, using only prominent hoax-theory commentators as talking heads and glossing over all the evidence showing that the landings were real (and all the evidence disproving the hoax theory),

It's also clear that all but that last five or six minutes of the programme was put together before the Nencini court verdict, with the verdict and aftermath shoehorned in at the end at the last minute.
 
Why do you think I keep pounding away at the 12 or thirteen factoids from Mignini/Comodi that did not even survive the Massei conviction.

There was no mixed blood. Raffaele called 112 before the postals' arrival. Etc.

BBC3 has just lied to the British public.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Andrea Vogt.
 
BBC 3 documentary

I have just come in from work and have yet to watch the Amanda Knox programme, but have seen a few comments. If there are things to be addressed I would suggest complaining to OFCOM and writing to the Director General of the BBC and the Chairman of the BBC with the well written posts that many writers are capable of.
 
Yeah, it's pretty trashy. No chance you'd mistake it for a serious documentary.

Fifty minutes in and they haven't spoken to a single defence lawyer yet. They have spoken to the Kerchers, Mignini, Comodi, Maresca and Guede's lawyer.

Didn't think I could respect Vogt any less. Who knew?

I will be curious to see what serious British media commentators, forensic experts, and attorneys say about this in the next few days. I want to thank in advance all the UK-based posters here who will be keeping the rest of us informed.
 
Just as well the BBC 3 programme didn’t take place during the Florence appeal, like the channel 5 programme!

So CoulsdonUK. .... do you think Rudy is innocent as per BBC3? If so, how do you account for Guede's DNA inside Meredith's vagina?
 
Just as well the BBC 3 programme didn’t take place during the Florence appeal, like the channel 5 programme!


I'm guessing you're using sarcasm here to try to make a point?

But I'd argue that even though the C5 documentary was very poor in parts, and was of an overall low quality, it certainly did not have any particular agenda. Some of it was misleading in ways that were favourable to the defence; some of it was misleading in ways that were favourable to the prosecution; some of it was genuinely interesting and informative journalism (for example, the climbing experiment outside the real cottage).
 
Machiavelli, did you get a chance to view the Andrea Vogt documentary? Did you find anything wrong in it? Do you think Nencini can use it as a basis for his motivation report?
 
I will be curious to see what serious British media commentators, forensic experts, and attorneys say about this in the next few days. I want to thank in advance all the UK-based posters here who will be keeping the rest of us informed.
Well BBC 3’s big brother BBC 2 televised the UK Guardian newspaper interview with Amanda immediately after the Florence verdict, I guess what, not a ripple.
 
Wow.

You made the argument - that RG's charge didn't include the sexual aggravation component but the 2 'kids' did – and now you want me to explain your own argument to you.

I'm glad I didn’t get into the complicated 'broken window' perplexity.

So – evidences please.


Take you time – as the evidence doesn’t exist you will need lots of it.

I am obviously having a dumb day. As above could you just say what the question is that you want me to answer? I have referenced the charges (articles of Italian Legal Code) for which each were charged, I have referenced the court case applicable. What further information do you want?
 
This is a joke, right? Do you want me to show all the posts where people here are saying the Kerchers have no right to say what they have been saying? To me that is yelling "no fair".

I do believe you are actually trying to defend your own right to present a strawman argument.

You, indeed, have that right.
 
So CoulsdonUK. .... do you think Rudy is innocent as per BBC3? If so, how do you account for Guede's DNA inside Meredith's vagina?
Bill

Your gonna make me have to watch this again, I must have missed that bit, are you sure? Was there a context?
 
If it had been Amada who returned to the cottage that night at 9 pm, Amanda would have been killed, for it did not make a difference which young woman came home that evening. There was an armed burglar in the toilet who became trapped in the flat.

Meredith would have been interrogated, manipulated, and then terrorized to confess, and would be serving 28 years in an Italian prison. Her parents and siblings would be beside themselves trying to get the court to see reason.

The prosecutor would have used Meredith's history against her. She starred in a UK rock video. She had an arrest record for drunkenness and sassing the police. She didn't have a real Erasmus scholarship. She smoked pot with guys. She was falling-down drunk at the disco and dressed like a vampire on Halloween. She was intimate with the rocker downstairs, flagrantly left her vaseline out for every visitor to see, and when Silenzi went home for the weekend and didn't invite her to meet his respectable family, Meredith teamed up with Rudy for raunchy sex and killed Amanda for money or drugs. Yes, killed Amanda, the young, studious, hardworking girl from Seattle who liked to write pretty verse and wanted to become an Italian language translator. The police chief would have gone in front of the cameras and announced "Meredith told us what we knew to be correct. Case closed."

I posted a comment to this effect on the Guardian piece

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-sollecito-case-harsh-verdict-italian-justice

It was deleted by moderators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom