JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags Amanda Knox , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 4th December 2011, 05:01 PM   #241
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
There were two very well written and civil comments from Kaosium yesterday. Today they are curiously missing. Is she interested in counter opinions and does she want those opinions to be discussed on her blog?
Obviously not! Look who showed up there, why it's Peg Ganong, the 'mystery' of the secret e-mailer is revealed! I bet she told her something like all those negative comments were just the 'work' of the 'PR Supertanker' and its deluded dupes. Ah, well.

At any rate I think LJ has it right, like he has about so many things dealing with the press in this issue. The comments suggesting she paid those people or went to Perugia deliberately to elicit that interview were unfortunate, as it ought to have known that if someone went to the prison to get an 'exclusive' of Amanda's time in prison they'd get some pretty pathetic rationalizations from officials suggesting she 'deserved' whatever they did to her, and that as abominably as they treated her in the beginning there would be sure to be some prisoners that would back that to justify some of the cruelties they visited upon her. The interesting thing was how this 'Vittoria' was unearthed, and I think we know that now, though not stated explicitly. There might be a story there for someone else, as those interviews suggested a number of possible leads but it doesn't appear it will come from Feinstein, she's beholden to her 'source.'

It's a phenomena that LJ has remarked on several times, 'journalists' that get access and think they're getting 'privileged' information become indebted to it, which brings to mind the SBS special, especially Nick Pisa's comment about how they felt obliged to believe all the lies the police had them print early in the case, after all who'd expect the police to be outright lying about so much? I can't seem to get that SBS video to run anymore, perhaps it's no longer available, but Bob Graham's words from the end of it are still quoted on the page: 'There are dozens and dozens of areas in this case that we as journalists have to question.' I wish the rest was available there as they could see the remaining part where he wonders if journalism will ever be called to account for it.

However I agree with SMK, there is value in the free exchange of ideas, and these interviews reveal a number of interesting things journalists actually familiar with the case and the strategies employed by Italian Law Enforcement might follow up on. For one thing it gives a name to a prison official who apparently deliberately tried to create a false impression of Amanda's time in Capanne, that's something that wouldn't have been likely to occur unless they had someone who didn't know enough about the case to question any of their contentions. In that process a number of interesting things are suggested, which might in fact be nothing but they'd be worth following up on.

Here is a prisoner who had a sick daughter who it appears was produced by this warden who might have been willing to earn 'favors' at the time the prison was attempting to induce Amanda to confess. Some of the psychological tormenting of Amanda she did seems consistent with someone trying to get someone to 'face' their 'guilt' and own up to it. Blaring the TV spreading pernicious lies every time it came on, trying to convince Amanda she'd never be set free and destroy her hope the truth would come out, the interest in her not doing tranquilizers and her refusal to talk about the murder all suggest the possibility she might know more about that campaign as she was complicit in it. Someone aware of that might be interested in following up on it.

I think you had it right from the beginning, this was a hit piece, but I don't think that was intended by Sharon Feinstein, it seems pretty apparent to me it's the same phenomena at work as went on with some reporters during much of this issue, even including the e-mail from Ganong! LOL! I wonder if there was one about me like there was apparently about SMK? Maybe exposing me as some nefarious evildoer? Trying to sound like the 'moderate voice of reason' opposing the viscous and strident 'devotees of Amanda,' a deluded dupe of the notorious 'PR Supertanker?'

I won't bother wasting time posting where it's going to be erased, I can understand why she probably did it, but it hardly matters at this juncture. She doesn't know the issue or the debate, thus in my opinion she's no different than the reporters that came to it in the beginning and were totally taken in, I can have some sympathy for Nick Pisa's excuse that it was natural to believe what the police were producing for them, and they learned eventually to question it, some had a steeper learning curve than others though.

Thus I will just say this:

In every miscarriage of justice where the accused are innocent all the 'evidence' produced at trial must be the result of either mistakes, misinterpretations or fraud, thus the ones collecting and presenting that 'evidence' at trial must be making errors, confusing the importance of something, or lying. Sometimes it's all just a coincidence, other times an understandable mistake, but other times it's the result of corruption or delusion.

It is also perfectly possible, and in fact a tenet of the justice system, that sometimes a guilty person would go free because there's not enough evidence, sometimes people can never know for sure. This is not one of those cases, and there's legions of people now who know that, they're not the progenitors or deluded dupes of any 'PR Supertanker,' they're the ones who had the common sense to realize from the beginning the prosecution theory was ridiculous and unlikely, or they were able to rationally and objectively wade through the morass of information and realize the truth of the matter: this case was nothing but an illusion based on a (mostly) tabloid smear, sophistry and bogus 'evidence.'

Others, however, read the trash the police and prosecution in Perugia produced and disseminated through unwary reporters and believed it, or at least most of it, and dismissed without due consideration the fact so much of it turned out to be untrue, coming up with excuses for the police and prosecution at every turn. They congregated and discussed the case for years, and had a great deal of fun doing so, it made for excellent reading when I first became interested in the case. They created a very interesting environment and came to the conclusion with time that Amanda was guilty and that all those who disagreed must be either the victims of a 'PR campaign' or otherwise motivated to want Amanda found innocent, oftentimes because they assumed they were entranced by her pretty face. They spent years in rhetorical combat with with the minions of this 'PR campaign,' and collected a vast reservoir of information about the case, and even translated documents pertinent to the debate and made them freely available to the public, something they deserve credit for, it was a critical reading of the Massei Report that revealed to many, including me, that the prosecution's case was a pathetic joke.

They even e-mailed reporters on the case, advertising their wares and offering 'analysis,' some took them up on it to their eventual embarrassment, citing as 'independent experts' frauds who lied to them or weren't qualified to know, the most notorious being when the 'forensics moderator' at PMF was cited by Andrea Vogt to claim1 that the contention the bra-clap might have been contaminated was "groundless," which anyone with any knowledge of the subject knew was an absurd lie just by viewing the crime scene videos they were talking about in that piece.

However since the prosecution was lying about it and Vogt thought she received 'corroboration' of that from someone claiming to be a molecular biologist who lived in Italy, she missed the real story, which was of course that video (and many other indications) should have made it obvious there was something very wrong about the prosecution in this case, and the trial of the Massei Court for allowing it, revealed eventually by the Hellmann Court's independent experts in the Conti-Vecchiotti Report. PMF's 'explanation' is that they were 'gotten to' by the 'PR campaign,' which ought to discredit them completely in the eyes of the ones who know anything about forensics 101, but not everyone does.

To this day some would like very much to keep alive the idea Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, to ensure that she is haunted by the specter of Meredith's death for the rest of her life, as they feel she was guilty and only released because of this 'PR Supertanker' which somehow must have 'gotten to' the vast multitudes of reporters on the case, the court in Italy, the independent experts, and to all the scientists, ex-FBI agents, professors, doctors and others who came to the realization that the police in prosecution were corrupt in this case and lying and producing false evidence in court and to the press.

I am well aware that the people in Perugia are overwhelmingly of the belief that Amanda was guilty and hate her to this day. That's because they spent four years reading police and prosecution lies much like Shanon Feinstein just disseminated for them again. It is not to their credit, but being as Mignini has tried to silence and intimidate reporters in this case, a regular part of his repertoire, the locals in Perugia probably don't realize just how obvious it is to an objective observer that the police and prosecution lied and cheated their way to that first 'guilty' verdict.

In an issue like this where at the crux of it there are only two basic possibilities, as either Raffaele and Amanda were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher or they were not, there is no 'middle ground.' Either one possibility is true, or the other is, it can't be both. As such, which may at first seem counter-intuitive to some, if there are two highly-polarized factions and enough information available then that's a pretty clear indication one side is right, and the other lying or deluded. The way to get a good indication of which is correct is by evaluating their facts and arguments to see which one can produce evidence of their contentions and which one is trying to deceive with rhetorical tactics and political campaign strategies.

Thus if Shanon Feinstein wants to know why people were so outraged with her and automatically knew it wasn't true, she should try to corroborate that information. All the ones criticizing her know that warden and inmate were not giving an accurate representation of Amanda and her experience in prison, the only real question is why they were incorrect. They can say it but since it's so wildly at variance with other accounts or so incomplete, it must have been intentionally deceptive, the question becomes why did they try to deceive Shanon Feinstein? She apparently feels so indebted to her 'sources' she will not be dissuaded, not realizing she was interviewing a prison official with something to hide and and a jailbird who tormented Amanda for years by her own admission with the 'justification' that Amanda deserved it, contentions she cannot provide reasonable examples of that don't make her look petty and closed-minded, if not outright prejudiced. She sure as hell isn't likely to be willing to change her misjudgment, otherwise it would become obvious she treated Amanda abominably and should be ashamed of herself.

I will leave her to the tender mercies of PMF, they have burned so many people who are unable to realize that those who make arguments in good faith and can back their contentions do so publicly, and regardless of how 'strident' they may appear, don't fear anything but censorship. Those who have nothing but lies whisper them privately and make excuses for why they will not permit others to have their say. PMF (and TJMK) is a board that doesn't permit dissension and refuses to argue their contentions as they cannot, open discussion would reveal their theories are nothing but cruel, absurd and unsupportable by evidence, much like the prosecution case and smear of Amanda they bought into wholesale.

It will be telling if they don't respond to this here where it can be rebutted by me and others who can show in excruciating detail how dishonest, manipulative and downright delusional they have become about this issue, but instead do so privately or where only they themselves are allowed to speak. That's the mark of a lying manipulator, and some of them can be awfully compelling and sound so reasonable, many con-artists are like that, and those who expose their lies might seem unreasonable and strident, which makes sense if you think on it, but that sometimes works in the favor of their deceivers.

At this point though, it doesn't matter much what she writes. Having someone entirely clueless about the issue that Perugian officials now know will just print whatever they say without checking anything or asking tough questions actually has value at this juncture, there's a number of things in those interviews journalists or writers familiar with the case might follow up on. One thing about liars is if you keep them talking and they let their guard down, sometimes hints and truths can be divined from what they are lying about, especially when it can be determined independently that they are prevaricating. Sharon seems to me to be honest and decent enough, I truly think it was ignorance and not bias that led her to headline that piece, what she didn't realize was she was speaking to two people who bullied and abused Amanda terribly and thus have every motive to still believe she had it coming and want others to think so too.

She sure won't have to worry about me writing anything more on her website.


1
Originally Posted by Andrea Vogt Seattle PI 1/15/09
But Laura Wray, an American molecular biologist living in Milan, Italy, who works regularly with DNA samples, said she believes many of the defense claims of contamination or poor match are "groundless."
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 05:33 PM   #242
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,371
Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
There seem to be there under the original post.
Yep, not sure how I missed those this morning. Our comments on her reply are there as well. Interesting.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 06:11 PM   #243
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
There seem to be there under the original post.
Indeed they are, and I stand corrected on that! I must take part of my last post back and apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion from Rose's post and then when checking not seeing that a new thread had been started decrying all the 'strident' responses. I figured that meant the likes of me!

At any rate it looks like she's going to bow out, she didn't like the 'vitriol' she received in return. I find that unfortunate and it would have better had that not occurred, especially some of the personal ones. However the way she headlined her piece probably didn't help, nor did the fact it's a character assassination piece that she didn't do the groundwork on and hasn't actually investigated the case, which makes her final admonition extraordinarily ironic.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 06:22 PM   #244
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,552
Originally Posted by RandyN View Post
Does anyone know if Knox is still getting death threats? I wonder what group would do that?

Why would you expect that to be the work of a group?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 06:23 PM   #245
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,420
Ok folks - I've just for the first time a few minutes ago gone to the Feinstein blog.

For the record, the Bill Williams there is not the Bill Williams here! I'd love to take credit for it, but, no, 'tsn't me.

Maybe I should just change my name to Bill Smith to avoid all this confusion.

Bill W. Williams.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 07:24 PM   #246
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
By the way, has anyone wondered how the cellmate, "Vittoria", in Feinstein's article spent 14 years in Capanne women's prison, yet (according to the article) had a 9-year-old daughter at some point while she was Knox's cellmate. Even if the incident involving her daughter took place back in 2008, and even if "Vittoria" only finished her 14 year stint in Capanne in 2011, this would mean that her daughter was born in 1999, yet the latest that "Vittoria" could possibly have started her prison sentence is 1997. So under every possible timing scenario, "Vittoria" not only gave birth while in prison, but also conceived the child while in prison! Veracity, anyone.......?
That could have been a result of at some point being on the home-release program that's prevalent in Italy, and then having it revoked for some offense, or when her conviction became finalized by the Court of Cassation.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 09:01 PM   #247
Dougm
Critical Thinker
 
Dougm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 497
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
The comments may indicate that but the hits are what the paper looks at and by the fact that they are still buying the pics I'd say they are high.

Without a doubt the interest for the tabs has been pretty strong as they given plenty of "ink" to the story.

I have to disagree with both you and LJ because it really wouldn't be very expensive to have higher quality stringers or have the Rome guy head over to Perugia for a few days for some in depth research.

I'm not just talking about now, I'm talking about the whole trial. It appears we can just count on poor coverage as quality journalists are all becoming spokespeople for corporations and politicians.

Don't forget that Nadeau covered some significant stories for Newsweek, which shows the poor state of journalism.
I understand your point. One of the things I have learned through this case is how terribly bad journalism has become. Some of the stories have been better than others, but I have been somewhat shocked at how sloppy the reporting has been when it involves a case where two people had their lives on the line. I recognize what you have said about how this case ended up with Nadeau, Pisa, Vogt, etc., hardly names you would find in a list of top 100 in the journalism profession. We can include Candace Dempsey in that list. I have no problem with most of what she has written, and appreciate how she stood up for Amanda and Raffaele and reported what was going on, but before the case, no one outside of a small number of Seattle locals reading about travel and food had ever heard of her.

I don't think I have read a single article from any source that did not include a fairly blatant mistake in the facts. I don't mean things that people are debating, like the infamous "mixed blood". I mean basic facts that both sides of the debate would agree are wrong. The coverage has been sloppy and inaccurate. I don't know if this is a result of the internet age, where speed to publishing has replaced accuracy and fact checking as the top priority or what. I just know that the coverage has been abysmal overall, and the fact that a lot of the key people reporting have been freelancers who's previous claim to fame was writing about food and travel has not helped.
Dougm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 03:36 AM   #248
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,947
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
That could have been a result of at some point being on the home-release program that's prevalent in Italy, and then having it revoked for some offense, or when her conviction became finalized by the Court of Cassation.

Possibly, but the article and Feinstein's blog both heavily imply that "Vittoria" spent 14 years inside Capanne prison. Two examples:

Quote:
When I left prison after 14 years I walked out
(Direct quote from "Vittoria" in the article)

Quote:
14 years in Capanne is a very long time.
(Feinstein referring to "Vittoria" on her blog)


It's entirely reasonable to interpret the above quotes as meaning that "Vittoria" spent 14 years behind bars in Capanne prison. The quotes certainly do not imply that she had a 14-year sentence, part of which may have been spent on day release or house arrest or any other semi- or non-incarceration. They clearly suggest that "Vittoria" was an inmate of Capanne for 14 years.

To my mind, there are only three possible explanations: 1) "Vittoria" was allowed conjugal visits inside Capanne that allowed for sexual intercourse and subsequent pregnancy; 2) Feinstein misinterpreted "Vittoria's" meaning on this issue; 3) "Vittoria" is lying.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 03:37 AM   #249
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,371
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Indeed they are, and I stand corrected on that! I must take part of my last post back and apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion from Rose's post and then when checking not seeing that a new thread had been started decrying all the 'strident' responses. I figured that meant the likes of me!

At any rate it looks like she's going to bow out, she didn't like the 'vitriol' she received in return. I find that unfortunate and it would have better had that not occurred, especially some of the personal ones. However the way she headlined her piece probably didn't help, nor did the fact it's a character assassination piece that she didn't do the groundwork on and hasn't actually investigated the case, which makes her final admonition extraordinarily ironic.
My mistake, Kaosium.

It is pretty obvious her knowledge of the case consists of pro-guilt talking points from several years ago. I do give her credit for allowing comments.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 07:52 AM   #250
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,699
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
By the way, has anyone wondered how the cellmate, "Vittoria", in Feinstein's article spent 14 years in Capanne women's prison, yet (according to the article) had a 9-year-old daughter at some point while she was Knox's cellmate. Even if the incident involving her daughter took place back in 2008, and even if "Vittoria" only finished her 14 year stint in Capanne in 2011, this would mean that her daughter was born in 1999, yet the latest that "Vittoria" could possibly have started her prison sentence is 1997. So under every possible timing scenario, "Vittoria" not only gave birth while in prison, but also conceived the child while in prison! Veracity, anyone.......?

Using the most favorable dates, let's place the incident at November 2007 (the earliest that Amanda was in prison). Make the daughters birthday the next month so she is 9 years +11 months old and therefore born in December 1997. Conception would be March 1997 and if incarcerated the same month and was released in December 2011, the prison term would have been 14 years and 9 months.

This looks possible therefore it must be probable. I haven't read the article so maybe I missed a detail that adds another constraint.
__________________
A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number to that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was. -- Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (Order for arrests)
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 08:02 AM   #251
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,414
Ms feinstein has written on her blog: "that is a very good point bill and Iíve just gone over the transcripts. the nine-years-old is an error which i should have checked in the final published copy and for which i apologise to the readers. this is a direct transcripts from the tape recording with vittoria- My Daughter is Maria, 14 now, who developed lymphoma when she was 9-years-old. "

Well, we all see the problem with that explanation don't we?

If the daughter was 14 when interviewed in late October ("This is what Vittoria told me when i was there in late October") then she would have been 9 in 2006 and turned 10 in 2007 before Amanda was actually in prison.

It is not believable that a mother would get the age of her daughter wrong for either contracting the disease or her current age.

I have no intention of posting there so if it hasn't been pointed out, one and all feel free.

I also have no intention of using her platinum list of hotels and restaurants
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 09:52 AM   #252
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
In Mignini's world it's more complicated than a simple 'PR campaign,' it's a vast network of 'shadowy forces arrayed against him,' centered in Italy, and 'responsible' for the 'attacks' in the American (mainly--then) press. At this point I would link 'The Master of Suspicion' from PerugiaShock, but unfortunately that was early '09 and thus never restored.
Incidentally, in response to a recent query privately I managed to find a way to view "The Master of Suspicion," which I think one of Frank Sfarzo's best and most insightful pieces on the case. Go here and then to page 251 for the piece, and the part I was thinking of when I wrote that is on page 254 which I quote below:

Originally Posted by Frank Sfarzo Perugia Shock 2/4/09

International connections

Mignini has an explanation for the American criticism. The masterminds of this are all in Italy he said, referring to the intervention of Douglas Preston and then judge Heavey. He may seem to imply that a Masonic lodge, a Satanic group of powerful people (a deviant Rotary club or a degenerated Texas Hold'em table) or a similar organization is striking back and orchestrating a campaign against him.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 10:30 AM   #253
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Possibly, but the article and Feinstein's blog both heavily imply that "Vittoria" spent 14 years inside Capanne prison. Two examples:


(Direct quote from "Vittoria" in the article)


(Feinstein referring to "Vittoria" on her blog)


It's entirely reasonable to interpret the above quotes as meaning that "Vittoria" spent 14 years behind bars in Capanne prison. The quotes certainly do not imply that she had a 14-year sentence, part of which may have been spent on day release or house arrest or any other semi- or non-incarceration. They clearly suggest that "Vittoria" was an inmate of Capanne for 14 years.

To my mind, there are only three possible explanations: 1) "Vittoria" was allowed conjugal visits inside Capanne that allowed for sexual intercourse and subsequent pregnancy; 2) Feinstein misinterpreted "Vittoria's" meaning on this issue; 3) "Vittoria" is lying.
Obviously something doesn't add up, I'm just guessing it more likely they were sloppy with their terms than simply inventing a daughter or changing the length of the sentence in totality, meaning she might have had a fourteen year sentence but not all that time spent in Cappanne, a conclusion Sharon Feinstein might have simply jumped to from the assumption she served 14 years and was in Capanne.

Fourteen years is a long time, it might end up being more time than Rudy Guede serves of his sixteen year sentence, if he gets one of those periodic sentence reductions which supposedly happen automatically if conditions are met. I wonder what 'Vitorria' did?

I can't help but wonder what it might have been like those first days in prison. Amanda's experience was spending 53 hours with police in the 90 or so hours between the murder and arrest culminating with the all-night interrogation, then being locked in solitary for two days before appearing in front of Matteini. The media is blaring all the untrue things about the 'evidence' over the next week or two, and all those wonderful things about her character, and at this point she can barely speak Italian. She had a semester of Italian before coming to Italy and then two months before the murder, but her Italian was so basic she needed a translator and couldn't even think of what to call the note she gave Rita Ficarra outside a 'gift.'

So she's getting news coverage as an especially wanton Jeffrey Dahlmer type who hides behind a facade, and can't really speak to them to suggest anything different, and the news is blaring what sounds like indisputable evidence over the first week or two of her incarceration.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 10:39 AM   #254
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
My mistake, Kaosium.

It is pretty obvious her knowledge of the case consists of pro-guilt talking points from several years ago. I do give her credit for allowing comments.
No worries, I made the same one. It looked initially like the other comments had been pulled and replaced by the other one. I too give her credit for allowing comments, it looks like she's shocked people care all that much. I've wondered before just what it must be like for someone like her or that guy at the Harvard Political Review who writes an article about a subject they're not entirely versed on and it gets noticed through Google Alert or being posted somewhere and the howling horde descend upon them.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 11:51 AM   #255
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,414
Wow just wow.

Amanda has the same agent as Obama. Boy is that going upset some people.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 05:23 PM   #256
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
 
Katody Matrass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Wow just wow.

Amanda has the same agent as Obama. Boy is that going upset some people.
In just a few hours Google returns 250 articles about it. That tells something about the level of interest. Good for her. All the best and wish she makes big bucks from the book and media deals.
__________________
Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
Katody Matrass is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 06:15 PM   #257
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base
Posts: 11,528
Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post
Very aware of that.
1) Doctor Stefanoni quoted the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2) Hellmann's selected academic experts quoted the Missouri State Highway Patrol
So, are you really arguing that you want us to accept that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation is nothing more than just another glorified Missouri State Highway Patrol ???

Poor J.Edgar would roll over in his grave reading your comparison, I fear.
This is incorrect. They stated that "These recommendations on collection procedures and protocols are accepted and clearly stated in all investigative manuals" and then listed three, Evidence Field Manual, Office of Forensic Sciences, New Jersey State Police, Forensic Evidence Handbook, Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory, and the Evidence Guide, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation. Of these three they quoted from just two, the missing one? Forensic Evidence Handbook, Missouri State Highway Patrol Forensic Laboratory. So unlike your claim, they didn't actually quote the Missouri State Highway Patrol, you are incorrect.

Further more, above these three references we find the following passage...

Quote:
The manual Handbook of Forensic Services for the Laboratory Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2007) reports the following with regard to the protocols of collection, packaging and storage of DNA evidence
Followed by a lengthy quote on FBI practices. Wow, Conti and Vecchoitti quoted the FBI too! As well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Interpol, and ENFSI among others, all who disagree with Stefanoni. Surprise, surprise. Still why let a little thing like the truth get in the way of your tales eh Pilot?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 06:56 PM   #258
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Wow just wow.

Amanda has the same agent as Obama. Boy is that going upset some people.

Oh yes, I've seen alot of verrry upset people. I'm so glad for Amanda. She deserves payment for what she's been put through.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 07:26 PM   #259
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
I have a question. Does Ms. Sharon Feinstein have a literary agent? If so, who is it?
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 07:27 PM   #260
Dougm
Critical Thinker
 
Dougm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 497
Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
In just a few hours Google returns 250 articles about it. That tells something about the level of interest. Good for her. All the best and wish she makes big bucks from the book and media deals.
Yes! Because THAT is interesting. Just like the verdict in the trial was.

Much more interesting than what she wore on Halloween, or if she purchased a Hershey bar at the drugstore. Or if she was not sufficiently friendly to a particular prisoner in the jail.
Dougm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 01:35 AM   #261
Rashomon fan
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Obviously not! Look who showed up there, why it's Peg Ganong, the 'mystery' of the secret e-mailer is revealed! I bet she told her something like all those negative comments were just the 'work' of the 'PR Supertanker' and its deluded dupes.

I noticed she couldn't resist slipping in one of her arch gibes:

Quote:
The small but strident Knox fan club ...

Which started me wondering, among people who have bothered to pay attention, what might the approximate ratio of guilters to innocenters be? It seems over there on the "Pequod" it must be about 99 to 1. Here it seems more open to discussion but still heavily pro-innocence.

I learned from Rose a few weeks ago that the majority of the handful of voters at umbria24.it/ think there're guilty - I think.

I haven't figured out why yet, but I think if you're far enough away from the actual horror of the murder there is a fascinating story about the extreme polarization of the debate about Amanda and Raffaelle. (How many discussions get moderated as heavily as this one on JREF?) I marked something LondonJohn wrote about a month ago:

Quote:
I'm interested in the second-order study of those participating in the debate. [...] Personally, I've never seen anything like it before, and I'm genuinely fascinated by the whole thing.

Just how tiny is the strident Knox fan club? Does Peggy have any numbers?
Rashomon fan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 03:05 AM   #262
Rashomon fan
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15
How much do you suppose the Prosecution's PR campaign was worth?

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Show me any evidence at all, outside bald assertions, that there was ever a million dollars spent on a 'PR campaign.' Where do you think that money might have come from with the Knox and Mellas families mortgaged to the hilt to pay for four years of lawyers, experts, airfare, maintaining two residences and other expenses?

Every time I read about the Knox "million dollar" PR campaign, I think yeah, I'm sure they paid a lot but I'm reminded of what they were up against.

I can't imagine any way to put a Euro-figure on it, but I feel certain that:
A. The prosecutor's office must have had expenses not officially in the trial or investigation for getting their story out, even if not accounted for in an itemized way. (Don't you just know it.)
B. The office used its considerable influence with media to get priceless publicity [that's not a strong enough word] for free.
The way I have come to understand it, the Pubblico Ministero faced an enormous economic and public confidence crisis in Perugia with a savage murder that made international news cycles within hours of the discovery.

I think money would have been a secondary consideration in that situation.

From what I've read, they succeeded in restoring the tourist and student trade within a year after the crime.

As for truth and good crime scene investigation, they don't look so successful.
Rashomon fan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 09:05 AM   #263
smkovalinksy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,126
Originally Posted by Dougm View Post
Yes! Because THAT is interesting. Just like the verdict in the trial was.

Much more interesting than what she wore on Halloween, or if she purchased a Hershey bar at the drugstore. Or if she was not sufficiently friendly to a particular prisoner in the jail.
There are now 323 articles on this, on Google News alone, this being one of them:

Quote:
Amanda Knox's new agent counts presidents, royalty as clients
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Aman...135051258.html
smkovalinksy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 09:23 AM   #264
smkovalinksy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,126
Latest from Sfarzo's Perugia Shock:

http://perugiashock.com/2011/12/06/i...ing-her-story/
smkovalinksy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 12:00 PM   #265
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,947
I am bemused by what Feinstein is trying to show by reproducing the letter that Knox gave to the warden. Wouldn't this tend to indicate that Knox was being kind and considerate towards the warden? And wouldn't the warden's ostentatious dismissal of the letter rather tend to speak poorly of the warden's own disposition?

On a more general issue regarding Sharon Feinstein's articles about Knox in Capanne, I would say that the reactions of Feinstein herself in the comments section of her blog make it abundantly clear that she has no place working in investigative journalism. Somehow I can't see David Leppard or Seymour Hersh getting so precious, defensive or personally invested in a similar manner to the rather embarrassing way in which Feinstein has deported herself in her blog. I think she should probably stick to writing puff-piece profiles of rich jockeys and holiday resorts.

(And, for the record, I haven't written anything on her blog)

Last edited by LondonJohn; 6th December 2011 at 12:41 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 12:55 PM   #266
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,947
Originally Posted by Rashomon fan View Post
Every time I read about the Knox "million dollar" PR campaign, I think yeah, I'm sure they paid a lot but I'm reminded of what they were up against.

I can't imagine any way to put a Euro-figure on it, but I feel certain that:
A. The prosecutor's office must have had expenses not officially in the trial or investigation for getting their story out, even if not accounted for in an itemized way. (Don't you just know it.)
B. The office used its considerable influence with media to get priceless publicity [that's not a strong enough word] for free.
The way I have come to understand it, the Pubblico Ministero faced an enormous economic and public confidence crisis in Perugia with a savage murder that made international news cycles within hours of the discovery.

I think money would have been a secondary consideration in that situation.

From what I've read, they succeeded in restoring the tourist and student trade within a year after the crime.

As for truth and good crime scene investigation, they don't look so successful.

I don't think that the Knox/Mellas family paid much at all for the services of Gogerty Marriott. In fact, it's entirely possible that much of the work (excluding out-of-pocket expenses) was done on a full or semi pro bono basis.

And in any case, I think that the actual scope and volume of the work done by Gogerty Marriott on Knox's behalf has been grossly over-exaggerated by those with an agenda to disparage the mythical "million dollar PR campaign" - including the odious Mignini, who improperly brought up this unsupportable (and almost certainly entirely false) claim in his closing argument in the appeal trial. My conservative guess is that the fully-costed value of the work that Gogerty Marriott has done on this case might amount to something in the region of $50,000 maximum. I would be certain that it is orders of magnitude lower than the mythical "million dollars".

I would repeat the following: the overwhelming majority of the Knox/Mellas outgoings related to this case would have been spent on lawyers' fees, experts' fees, and travel/subsistence for family members. I suspect that much of this money has already been paid on an ongoing basis: obviously all travel and subsistence will have to have been paid up front, and I suspect that all of the experts' fees will also have had to have been paid "on receipt". It's possible that the lawyers (Dalla Vedova, Ghirga and Del Grosso) agreed to defer some payments, but even there I suspect that they will have asked for some sort of retainer payment.

It's interesting that some of the more rabid pro-guilt commentators seem to have got it into their heads that Knox will have enormous outstanding legal bills, and that she may very well renege on payment of these bills (especially since she is a cold, calculating murderess :P). In fact, I suspect that Knox and her family owe relatively little outstanding payment to the lawyers. I think most of their expenses have already been paid. There are stories regarding the Knox/Mellas family remortgaging properties and taking other loans in order to meet their financial obligations. They have paid a heavy financial price for the process that Knox has been through, and I personally don't think it's unreasonable that they might seek to recoup some or all of that through book, magazine, TV or movie deals.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 01:44 PM   #267
Bob001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Wow just wow.

Amanda has the same agent as Obama. Boy is that going upset some people.
Not just an "agent," but one of Washington's most powerful and best connected attorneys. Too bad she didn't hire somebody like this before she talked to the cops. And woe to anybody who comes after her now.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...ker-book-deal/
www.wc.com/rbarnett
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 01:56 PM   #268
geebee2
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 35
The thing I find bizarre is that Sharon thinks it's quite ok to write a personal article about Amanda Knox and have it published in a paper with a circulation of 800,000 but when a few bloggers write a counter-attack ( and really I'm not quite sure what she is referring to in any case ) she takes great offence. If you want to dish it out, you have to take it. Anyway, I hope she is now aware of how Amanda must have felt, albeit the attacks on Amanda were many orders of magnitude greater and read by millions of people not a dozen, and moreover resulted in her spending 4 years in jail!
geebee2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 03:06 PM   #269
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by geebee2 View Post
The thing I find bizarre is that Sharon thinks it's quite ok to write a personal article about Amanda Knox and have it published in a paper with a circulation of 800,000 but when a few bloggers write a counter-attack ( and really I'm not quite sure what she is referring to in any case ) she takes great offence. If you want to dish it out, you have to take it. Anyway, I hope she is now aware of how Amanda must have felt, albeit the attacks on Amanda were many orders of magnitude greater and read by millions of people not a dozen, and moreover resulted in her spending 4 years in jail!
There are at least 2 more such ironies surrounding AK:

"Proven liar" - spoken about the most lied-about person on Earth in the last few years;
"She accused an innocent man!" - from people who continue to make the vilest unsupported accusations against her.
Antony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 03:28 PM   #270
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,414
It is so interesting that the rather mild criticisms of Feinstein are being characterized as being mean, vicious, and over the top. The people I've seen making these accusations are mainly the same people that have criticized every journalist, including Pulitzer award winners, with no holds barred. They have harassed Dempsey for years and went after her looks, her age, her resume, and her education. I'm sure some others could provide specific quotes.

As far as I can tell Ms Feinstein has no journalistic training and is self taught. I think that is just fine, but I see no attack of her for her resume. Nadeau never finished college, but has never been pilloried by them.

Feinstein says speaking of herself: "She helped to raise money for a premature baby unit at a London Hospital with a well-received 3 part series, interviewed soap stars, travelled with leading rock bands of the time like Freddie Mercury, Spandau Ballet, Rod Stewart, interviewed everyone from lifers to long-haul pilots, venerable British figures like Robin Day and David Dimbleby, and American actors like Angelina Jolie and Leonardo Di Caprio."

Can you imagine what the PGP would say about a neutral or pro Amanda writer using the third person? Also, it doesn't appear that she interviewed Angela. From the article on Jolie it appears she interviewed her brother James.

Repeating what I said upstream, Vittoria, if her child if 9 when she contracted her disease couldn't have been it jail with Amanda if her child was 14 when Feinstein says she interviewed Vittoria.

Feinstein said: "that is a very good point bill and I’ve just gone over the transcripts. the nine-years-old is an error which i should have checked in the final published copy and for which i apologise to the readers. this is a direct transcripts from the tape recording with vittoria- My Daughter is Maria, 14 now, who developed lymphoma when she was 9-years-old. All I wanted was to go out and be with her. Although Amanda did many things I didn’t like I didn’t complain or really rebel because I didn’t want to get a bad report and hinder me getting out."

14 on October 30, 2011 means she stopped being 9 no later than October 30, 2007, no later. If her birthday was earlier, then she stopped being 9 even earlier

Amanda was not in prison when this girl was 9, not in prison. Whatever Sharon is, she's not an investigative reporter.

Sharon has not taken the story down. She has moved it to her top line links.

Imagine what the PGP would have said about Amanda if she had traveled with bands the year before Perugia.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 05:30 PM   #271
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,947
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not just an "agent," but one of Washington's most powerful and best connected attorneys. Too bad she didn't hire somebody like this before she talked to the cops. And woe to anybody who comes after her now.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...ker-book-deal/
www.wc.com/rbarnett

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Knox's legal team have been keeping a watchful eye on those internet commentators who have continued to refer to Knox as a "murderer" since 3rd October. I have a feeling that some of these individuals might soon find out where the first amendment (or other freedom of speech legislation) ends, and where civil defamation begins.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 06:18 PM   #272
Skind
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 433
Originally Posted by geebee2 View Post
The thing I find bizarre is that Sharon thinks it's quite ok to write a personal article about Amanda Knox and have it published in a paper with a circulation of 800,000 but when a few bloggers write a counter-attack ( and really I'm not quite sure what she is referring to in any case ) she takes great offence.
Indeed, it's quite bizarre that any and all supporters of Knox are fair targets for en masse accusations and insults, but remarkably reserved criticism of a journalist who happened to write a negative article is seen as a gang attack and insults.

I hate to think what would have been thrown her way had she came out with a positive article. I doubt she could cope with half the stuff that gets thrown at any pro-Knox piece.

I hope she keeps well and I hope people reading her site for other reasons overlook her support of the posters that have been offensive and rude towards Knox and her supporters, and that her association with them does not tarnish her reputation too much.

I don't think she can be blamed for swallowing the story of a serious criminal - after all, it's what guilters think pro-Knox people are doing. By their own arguement, they must believe it's at least possible to be manipulated into believing the words of a known criminal.

Why we must trust one known serious criminal and not one that was cleared is something they will have to explain.

They won't, of course.
Skind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 07:06 PM   #273
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,420
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Amanda was not in prison when this girl was 9, not in prison. Whatever Sharon is, she's not an investigative reporter.

Sharon has not taken the story down. She has moved it to her top line links.
I am developing a fairly good on-line back and forth with Feinstein. I sincerely do not mean this as nehative, but you may have hit the nail on the head. Investigative reporting is a specialized discipline within the journalistic world, and Feinstein by her own admission in a very candid description of how she got the information, says as much - she was looking for colour to a well known story.

In some ways, thinking about this as a journalist might, the best thing for her is the avalanche of posting to her blog. A very good friend of mine is a feature writer/journalist for a major daily and described the intense pressure to develop an on-line personna for his feature writing. Quite literally, he is measured by his mucky-mucks simply by the hits to his blog, and secondly by the number, volumber, and "controversy" of the postings.

I, for one, think it is a mistake to suggest otherwise, ie. conspiratorialize her blog. She got a scoop at the prison, wrote what she heard - is not a surgical investigator - and now has an opportunity that comes to journalists only once in a blue moon.

She promises a new piece on Friday based on new information that, now, she seems uniquely able to get. I, for one, am willing to wait.

If nothing else, she has shown the ability to take a few hits, while also trying to get a sense of, "whoa, all I did was write a column and my server crashed because of the attention it attracted."

To a journalist, can that be bad?
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 07:27 PM   #274
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Knox's legal team have been keeping a watchful eye on those internet commentators who have continued to refer to Knox as a "murderer" since 3rd October. I have a feeling that some of these individuals might soon find out where the first amendment (or other freedom of speech legislation) ends, and where civil defamation begins.
I personally truly hope so. Because this is the most vile, despicable campaign to slur a person I've ever seen.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 09:51 PM   #275
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by Rashomon fan View Post
I noticed she couldn't resist slipping in one of her arch gibes:

Which started me wondering, among people who have bothered to pay attention, what might the approximate ratio of guilters to innocenters be? It seems over there on the "Pequod" it must be about 99 to 1. Here it seems more open to discussion but still heavily pro-innocence.


I learned from Rose a few weeks ago that the majority of the handful of voters at umbria24.it/ think they're guilty - I think.

I haven't figured out why yet, but I think if you're far enough away from the actual horror of the murder there is a fascinating story about the extreme polarization of the debate about Amanda and Raffaelle. (How many discussions get moderated as heavily as this one on JREF?) I marked something LondonJohn wrote about a month ago:

Just how tiny is the strident Knox fan club? Does Peggy have any numbers?

At one time it appeared to me, going (back) through it Summer/Fall of '10 it was heavily pro-guilt, mainly due to the media's broadcasting of the prosecution's lies and mistakes without pause for consideration. With time it grew to parity, with the help of organizations like Friends of Amanda who disseminated the facts as the holes in the case became apparent and some of the media became more skeptical of what the prosecution was saying. In early '10 Injustice In Perugia came online which storehoused vast amounts of objective data, like the crime scene videos, and articles about the case from credentialed experts such as veteran FBI agent, Steve Moore, Professor of biochemistry, Dr. Chris Halkides, Dr. Mark Waterbury and Ron Hendry, a retired forensic engineer.


By late Summer of '10, PMF had finished translating the Massei Report, which was supposed to end the debate forever as it would contain all the 'evidence' of guilt that didn't get reported by the media during the trial. That turned out not to be the case, a critical reading of the Massei Report and an understanding of its purpose revealed the ridiculous extent to which one had to twist the little evidence there was to 'support' a guilty verdict, which is what Judges Massei and Christini had to do. The verdict had already been delivered so they couldn't say, for example: 'Hmmm....the scientific evidence suggests the defense was right, there's virtually no way Meredith was still alive at 11:45 like the prosecution argued, in fact it's damned unlikely she was still alive at 10:00 PM and most probably died shortly after 9 PM.' They had to instead pretend it didn't matter and handwave by saying 'many factors influence digestion' as many times and as many ways as they could. People noticed that, as human biology doesn't work any different in Umbria than it does anywhere else.

The way the Motivations Report works is the Judge writes up the best case he can for the verdict delivered, the appeals judges and lay judges read that and the appeals documents of the defense and make a decision between them on each issue. In this case Massei is forced to go to ridiculous lengths to cobble together a case for guilt, which is a strong suggestion that the accused are innocent. The Report also put to death a number of rumors that had still been floating around from the defamation campaign that had been refuted in court but not widely reported by media. In all it was not a positive document for guilt, it exposed how tenuous the leaps of logic were and how subject to interpretation the 'evidence' was.

One can see the phenomena at work in the Cartwheels thread. It starts in December of '09 and lasts a little while and then it sorts out with the majority of regular posters in the thread proclaiming guilt, and the three 'apologists' (as they were labeled by a regular participant no longer at JREF) Halides1, Dan-O and Kestrel, with others occasionally chiming in but in the minority. Shortly thereafter PMF colonizes, invited by JREF originals who went looking for ammunition to use against these 'apologists' and found PMF and TJMK which they embraced body and soul: it must have seemed like a dream come true to them, a group of people who'd gathered together reams of data on the case that all thought them guilty. I guess it never occurred to them to be as skeptical of them as they were of the ones arguing Amanda and Raffaele were innocent.

The First Continuation was the battle royale, the Massei Report was being translated and bits and pieces coming to light, with the independent aid of Rose Montegue who risked sanity in personally running the Massei Report through Google Translate and trying to puzzle it out. By the midpoint in (that) thread the Report was complete and available to everyone and many had read it, the odds were probably even at JREF at least. That was when LondonJohn and Kevin_Lowe (mainly) took apart the time of death argument and left the bunnies and the kittens squealing in horror, aghast at what they had done: exposed in excruciating detail numerous times that what the prosecution had argued was basically impossible, citing peer-reviewed literature and using time-honored statistical methods. They smeared them, they disparaged them, they obfuscated every chance they got, but the facts didn't change: Meredith couldn't have died at 11:45, that was ridiculous. Even the 10:30 ToD from Rudy Guede's trial was dubious, none other than Comodi was forced to recognize that during the appeal according to reports, putting the death at 10:00 PM, which is still probably nearly an hour after she died, but at least within the realm of scientific plausibility.

Shortly thereafter there was a massive blow-out, seeming to me to be mainly a result that the ToD argument they'd fought so hard against illustrated something: the guilt argument didn't survive scrutiny with the facts, science, law, logic or anything else. As long as the debate was (mainly) regulated by referring to as 'evidence' the mistaken media accounts, the guilt argument could hold their own. Once the Massei Report was finished translating and added to the many other sources which had become available such as: Candace Dempsey's book, Mark Waterbury's book, Bruce Fisher's book and site, which included the analysis of Steve Moore the retired FBI agent, the guilt side couldn't argue the evidence or even the facts of the case anymore, all honest rhetorical roads led to ambushes. That's what happens when you're on the wrong side of a binary proposition. Many of them were banned in frustration dealing with this, or by design, so they appeared to boycott JREF (and other venues) for the most part, participating mostly in attempts to annoy some of the ones that most irritated them.

I don't read there regularly anymore, thus my perception may be out of date, but I got the impression when I last did there were about three dozen there on a regular basis, about a dozen highly active, and the other two dozen participating on a daily basis or almost that much. Then there were probably about the same number of irregulars, those posting once or twice a week or so, and then a number of infrequent posters every now and then, maybe a hundred all told. I checked last night and actually saw a number of interesting posts, one from Stilicho comes to mind, and read elsewhere that someone was able to post something against the grain of the board recently and not get told 'thanks for stopping by' and deleted if they continued posting. I didn't see that post, but I didn't look very hard either.

At this point I'd say there's several times that posting regularly that think Amanda and Raffaele innocent. Of the ones that can actually argue the case, they're outnumbered painfully at this juncture, probably on the order of ten to one or more. Many of the ones who think them guilty don't know much more than the canards from early in the case that have been thoroughly discredited at this point. The rest of it is easy to remember because they just blame the 'PR campaign' which has it's tentacles in just about every newsroom in the US, and eventually much of Britain and even some of Italy, reaching far and wide through the Italian government, the Hellmann court and 'getting to' the professors from Rome who did the court's review of the DNA evidence.

In one respect they're right, what they didn't realize was the 'PR campaign' they were fighting was the actual facts of the case which had to be established with difficulty from the morass of police and prosecution lies the media fell for in the beginning hook, line and sinker.

The real 'PR Supertanker' is the truth.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 10:53 PM   #276
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by Rashomon fan View Post
Every time I read about the Knox "million dollar" PR campaign, I think yeah, I'm sure they paid a lot but I'm reminded of what they were up against.

I can't imagine any way to put a Euro-figure on it, but I feel certain that:
A. The prosecutor's office must have had expenses not officially in the trial or investigation for getting their story out, even if not accounted for in an itemized way. (Don't you just know it.)
B. The office used its considerable influence with media to get priceless publicity [that's not a strong enough word] for free.
The way I have come to understand it, the Pubblico Ministero faced an enormous economic and public confidence crisis in Perugia with a savage murder that made international news cycles within hours of the discovery.

I think money would have been a secondary consideration in that situation.

From what I've read, they succeeded in restoring the tourist and student trade within a year after the crime.

As for truth and good crime scene investigation, they don't look so successful.
You make an excellent point. Who really runs 'PR campaigns?' Who actually has PR departments, or at least people trained to speak with the press and represent something? Institutions do, businesses, the military, government, politicians who run 'PR campaigns' practically non-stop, including a big one every so often known as 'election season.'

The police do, they have the ear of the press and speak with the weight of authority. Parents of accused murderers generally don't have any experience dealing with the media and don't have any weight in the debate except to be viewed with pity or suspicion for anything they do. It's not necessary to print anything they say for any story. It comes with the automatic assumption of many it will be biased in favor of their offspring; whereas there's a huge bias in the eyes of many in assuming the police and the prosecution will automatically speak the truth.

So how could it help all that much if they hire a local guy to answer the phones, schedule some appearances, give them some tips so they don't look stupid on TV like those unversed with the venue often do? How can that overcome the power of the police and prosecution with plenty of press experience all working as a team and under orders? Especially police and prosecution more than willing to start investigations on and charge reporters that irritate them with crimes?


Only if it turns out what they're saying is the truth and what the police and prosecution was saying is false.

It took a while though.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 11:17 PM   #277
codyjuneau
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 575
Your choice

Those who still believe Raffaele and Amanda are guilty might ask themselves which of the following two options they would prefer:

a) Their daughter returning home at night to a lit, warm, cottage inhabited by her roommate and the roommate's boyfriend.
or
b) Their daughter returning home at night to a dark, cold, empty cottage.

We know which option is safe and which isn't. There is a reason we know. The simple truth is that if Amanda and Raffaele had been at the cottage that night Meredith would still be alive because Rudy would have chosen to break into some other building.
codyjuneau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 11:20 PM   #278
codyjuneau
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 575
I wonder

A question to ponder:

If Rudy had threatened Meredith with a knife but then escaped rather than assault her do you think the police would have arrested him when Meredith reported it?

Rudy's previous encounters indicate not.
codyjuneau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 07:12 AM   #279
bucketoftea
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 202
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Oh yes, I've seen alot of verrry upset people. I'm so glad for Amanda. She deserves payment for what she's been put through.
Who is upset? Why?
bucketoftea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 07:15 AM   #280
bucketoftea
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 202
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Why would you expect that to be the work of a group?
Yes. Why?
bucketoftea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.