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

[LondonJohn]

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.

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference?

I'll spell it out for you, to make life a little easier:

When viewers see an interview with Knox, they know for certain that Knox is speaking in her own defence. They know that Knox has that agenda, by definition. They can therefore watch an interview with Knox in that context, and perhaps make appropriate allowances. Furthermore, an interview with Knox (which was conducted before the Nencini verdicts, remember) has genuine public interest value, in that she is one of the protagonists in this story and has wholly relevant information and opinions (whether one chooses to believe her or not).

By contrast, when people watch a documentary, they almost always start with the supposition that it is presenting a neutral, balanced "reportage" point of view. Any editorialising or partisan input should be clearly indicated (for instance, it's clear that interviews with prosecutors are by definition partisan, and viewers can easily recognise that), and due balance should be provided (interviews with prosecutors should be fairly balanced by interviews with defence lawyers). Most importantly, the voice and words of the narrator should be scrupulously neutral. In the case of the Knox documentary that was just shown on BBC Three, all of the above rules of documentary journalism were trampled over ingloriously. And what's more, there was no cue whatsoever to the uninformed viewer that what they were watching was in fact a polemic against Knox (and, what's his name, Sollec-y-something...?). It was, in the very real sense of the idiom, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That is the difference.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference?

I'll spell it out for you, to make life a little easier:

When viewers see an interview with Knox, they know for certain that Knox is speaking in her own defence. They know that Knox has that agenda, by definition. They can therefore watch an interview with Knox in that context, and perhaps make appropriate allowances. Furthermore, an interview with Knox (which was conducted before the Nencini verdicts, remember) has genuine public interest value, in that she is one of the protagonists in this story and has wholly relevant information and opinions (whether one chooses to believe her or not).

By contrast, when people watch a documentary, they almost always start with the supposition that it is presenting a neutral, balanced "reportage" point of view. Any editorialising or partisan input should be clearly indicated (for instance, it's clear that interviews with prosecutors are by definition partisan, and viewers can easily recognise that), and due balance should be provided (interviews with prosecutors should be fairly balanced by interviews with defence lawyers). Most importantly, the voice and words of the narrator should be scrupulously neutral. In the case of the Knox documentary that was just shown on BBC Three, all of the above rules of documentary journalism were trampled over ingloriously. And what's more, there was no cue whatsoever to the uninformed viewer that what they were watching was in fact a polemic against Knox (and, what's his name, Sollec-y-something...?). It was, in the very real sense of the idiom, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That is the difference.

LondonJohn

No that is your opinion.

Really! Who do you think has watched this other than those who have been following the case, nothing has changed.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't see it like that. It was Guede's lawyer repeating his client's claims. The programme was ambivalent about Guede but with an overtone of sympathy imo.

Yes, that's essentially how I saw it (and yes, those words were spoken by Guede's lawyer Biscotti).

However, I would expand upon what you're suggesting: in my opinion, this "documentary" left (intentionally, in my view) the uninformed viewer with the feeling that Guede really did play only a minor role in the attack and murder. It let Biscotti's words go unchallenged, as it let Mignini's and Comodi's words about the dynamic of the attack go unchallenged.

In my view, there was a real and concerted effort by this programme to minimise the whole "Guede element". And I think there was a deliberate effort to convince the uninformed viewer that Knox was the prime mover and prime actor in the attack and murder.

 

[billyryan]

Can BBC 3 be forced to retract the claim that Raffaele rang the Carabinieri after the arrival of the Postal Police

 

[NancyS]

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference?

I'll spell it out for you, to make life a little easier:

When viewers see an interview with Knox, they know for certain that Knox is speaking in her own defence. They know that Knox has that agenda, by definition. They can therefore watch an interview with Knox in that context, and perhaps make appropriate allowances. Furthermore, an interview with Knox (which was conducted before the Nencini verdicts, remember) has genuine public interest value, in that she is one of the protagonists in this story and has wholly relevant information and opinions (whether one chooses to believe her or not).

By contrast, when people watch a documentary, they almost always start with the supposition that it is presenting a neutral, balanced "reportage" point of view. Any editorialising or partisan input should be clearly indicated (for instance, it's clear that interviews with prosecutors are by definition partisan, and viewers can easily recognise that), and due balance should be provided (interviews with prosecutors should be fairly balanced by interviews with defence lawyers). Most importantly, the voice and words of the narrator should be scrupulously neutral. In the case of the Knox documentary that was just shown on BBC Three, all of the above rules of documentary journalism were trampled over ingloriously. And what's more, there was no cue whatsoever to the uninformed viewer that what they were watching was in fact a polemic against Knox (and, what's his name, Sollec-y-something...?). It was, in the very real sense of the idiom, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That is the difference.

I definitely agree with this - and on a different forum I use, a couple of people have been posting that they are now not sure what to think

I think they were also really trying to play the race angle with Guede - and that they are only blaming him because he is black and not because his DNA was on her body, her purse and in her vagina. They pretty much gave a better description of Guede's (laughable) defence, than they did the defence of Amanda/Raffaele

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn

No that is your opinion.

Really! Who do you think has watched this other than those who have been following the case, nothing has changed.

What did you mean by "not a ripple" in your previous comment?

Did you mean "not a ripple" by commentators on this forum?

Or did you mean "nor a ripple" in terms of general public reaction?

Or did you mean something else (other than the two above possibilities)?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

There is a huge difference Coulsdon. This misrepresented facts. It's one thing to say that Amanda is guilty, it is another to say for example that Raffaele called the Carabanieri after the Postal Police arrived.

 

[anglolawyer]

Why do so many people want the Kercher family silenced, or to only comment in a manner which suits the innocent side, yet give AK and her family free rein?

Both sides have the right to their opinion and a right to voice it.

Live with the Kerchers' comments or ignore them. Yelling "no fair" is pointless and somewhat childish in my opinion.

You are kidding right?

 

[platonov]

Science eh !

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?

I see [as I have stated to London John on several occasions] that this confusion is not amenable to a text based solution

Are the bolded parts too difficult to follow

No further information required !!
We have more than enough to conclude this episode.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What did you mean by "not a ripple" in your previous comment?

Did you mean "not a ripple" by commentators on this forum?

Or did you mean "nor a ripple" in terms of general public reaction?
Or did you mean something else (other than the two above possibilities)?

There ya go.

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

More than a few had complained about this so-called documentary before it aired, including me. The response I got back was that they believed it to be fair and balanced.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, that was outrageous. There is no other word for it. Mixed blood, the call to the carabinieri, bloody footprints revealed by luminol, multiple attackers (karate) ... all the stupid, refuted guilter points.

But, according to their sub-titles, she did say she saw Lumumba's text. I will try to screen-cap that. The only thing of value in the whole prog. As I suspected, the date was given as 17 Dec not 17 Nov.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

There is a huge difference Coulsdon. This misrepresented facts. It's one thing to say that Amanda is guilty, it is another to say for example that Raffaele called the Carabanieri after the Postal Police arrived.

Acbytesla

I would guestimate that more people outside the UK watched this programme than UK citizens.

Absolutely nothing has changed, ask LondonJohn.

 

[Diocletus]

But, according to their sub-titles, she did say she saw Lumumba's text. I will try to screen-cap that. The only thing of value in the whole prog. As I suspected, the date was given as 17 Dec not 17 Nov.

That's only because Andi Vogt is too stupid to understand the SMS-deletion issue. If she did, then the screen would have translated "SMS sent to me" to mean "rape prank".

 

[LondonJohn]

Can BBC 3 be forced to retract the claim that Raffaele rang the Carabinieri after the arrival of the postal police

That was indeed one of the more shockingly dishonest inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the programme.

As I said earlier this evening (and a few times before that), it was reading this same misinformation in Russell's book "Darkness Descending" that primarily led me to my early belief in Knox's/Sollecito's culpability in the murder. After all, how on Earth can one explain an innocent Sollecito slinking off to call Carabinieri when there are already police officers in the house, and to disavow the presence of these police officers in his telephone conversation with the Carabinieri? In my mind, the only reasonable way to explain such actions would be in terms of a guilty Sollecito (and, by extension, a guilty Knox) wanting to try to control the police investigation by trying to call in his "preferred" police force once the Postals turned up by chance.

Now, the fact that Russell (et al) positioned this claim as undisputed fact in his book was bad enough: it had been thoroughly disputed in the Massei trial that predated the book's publication, to the degree that Massei clumsily declared that he couldn't decide which version was correct.

But that fact that he is still presenting this "Sollecito called the Carabinieri only after the Postal Police arrived" story as the undisputed truth in 2014 is nothing short of egregious dishonesty and an utter lack of journalistic integrity. After all, in the intervening period it has been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the defence were broadly correct in their interpretation of timings (and that, by extension, the Postal Police officers were either honestly mistaken or lying), and that Sollecito actually called the Carabinieri prior to the arrival of the Postal Police.

However, this was an independent production commissioned by BBC Three. I would suggest that if anyone wanted to pursue this issue, it should primarily be with the production company. Personally, I don't think it's even worth doing anything. Well-informed, reasonable people know the truth. And well-informed, reasonable people can use this as yet more evidence that Vogt and Russell have no place calling themselves investigative journalists in regard to this case: rather, they have become agenda-driven polemicists in thrall to the prosecution case.

 

[Diocletus]

Acbytesla

I would guestimate that more people outside the UK watched this programme than UK citizens.

Absolutely nothing has changed, ask LondonJohn.

I didn't see it.

The only things that changed for me are that I learned (i) that there is something called "BBC 3" and (ii) that BBC 3 sucks.

Carry on.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That's only because Andi Vogt is too stupid to understand the SMS-deletion issue. If she did, then the screen would have translated "SMS sent to me" to mean "rape prank".

Meow!!! Bowl of milk for the Diocletus table. Did you see the programme?

 

[LondonJohn]

There ya go.

Ah I see. Your comment was somewhat ambiguous. I had thought you meant that no JREFF commentators had complained about the interview with Knox that was transmitted on Newsnight on the night of the Nencini verdicts.

(ETA: my post on the difference between the Knox interview and tonight's "documentary" still stands though - it just doesn't address your point now that I realise what you meant )

 

[Diocletus]

Meow!!! Bowl of milk for the Diocletus table. Did you see the programme?

No. I can read her like a book. I do enjoy milk, though.

 

[platonov]

BBC insane - it's official.

This documentary has driven me onto this thread for a bit of sanity.

Its perfectly ghastly.

Ghastly - It must be quite mad !