Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:16 pm

ETA --

There were a number of laughs. These come to mind --

> Rudy's lawyer Biscotti chaffs at Americans criticizing the Italian justice system. "This courthouse was built in 1308, when Americans were living in caves and drawing pictures of animals on the walls."

> Pisa is boasting of the scoop when he posted a photocopy of Amanda's list of lovers compiled after her HIV diagnosis. "Where did you get that" he is asked. Pisa grins. "A reporter never reveals his sources," he says. His line brings down the house.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:32 pm

Peter Quennell kicks off his Netflix hate campaign --



http://heatst.com/world/questions-over- ... anda-knox/
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Zrausch » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

carlofab wrote:ETA --

There were a number of laughs. These come to mind --

> Rudy's lawyer Biscotti chaffs at Americans criticizing the Italian justice system. "This courthouse was built in 1308, when Americans were living in caves and drawing pictures of animals on the walls."



Haha. Better still...the courthouse was built on a cave from 20,000 years ago when the Italians were drawing pictures of animals on the walls and Americans hadn't even spontaneously generated into existence yet.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:43 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, we only got 7 days left until Amanda Knox Netflix.com is coming and course I am looking forward of it, and poor Ergon had fail his job that he never made a challenge to go against me. He was a coward lion and I give him 25hours and he never show up. Poor Ergon fail again, just like all of the TJMK site!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:50 pm

carlofab wrote:Peter Quennell kicks off his Netflix hate campaign --

http://heatst.com/world/questions-over- ... anda-knox/


To Carlo

Thanks Carlo for the information and poor Peter he want to join a hate campaign of hating himself. When is it, that poor man never learn anything into criminal law!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:50 pm

carlofab wrote:Peter Quennell kicks off his Netflix hate campaign --



http://heatst.com/world/questions-over- ... anda-knox/


The author really needs to take a closer look at Pisa's reporting on this case. There is good reason to label him a scumbag. The fact that Stephen Morse spoke out about this case in the past, does not show that he is a crackpot as Quennell would like his idiot followers to believe. It means that Morse was on the right side of history with his opinions.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:33 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
carlofab wrote:Peter Quennell kicks off his Netflix hate campaign --



http://heatst.com/world/questions-over- ... anda-knox/


The author really needs to take a closer look at Pisa's reporting on this case. There is good reason to label him a scumbag. The fact that Stephen Morse spoke out about this case in the past, does not show that he is a crackpot as Quennell would like his idiot followers to believe. It means that Morse was on the right side of history with his opinions.


I'm with you -- as usual -- on Stephen Morse, Bruce. I think Quennell's main point is that Stephen Morse is not a "neutral" producer. But WTF -- what about Andrea Vogt's BBC documentary? Nobody complained about her bias.

FWIW, the two directors in Q&A did not pretend to "not" have an opinion either. They reccomended Burleigh's "Fatal Gift of Beauty" to anyone seeking deeper understanding. But that didn't prevent them from allowing the major participants to have their say or present themselves as they wished. Personally I feel the film went too on easy Mignini, by dumping so much accountability on Pisa.

Nick Pisa makes no bones about his work. Curiously, he doesn't give the impression of ever having been a Knox hater or participating in an anti-Knox crusade. He appears to describe his achievement as recognizing a gravy train and climbing aboard for the ride. I suppose that qualifies as a scumbag, but I still consider him the moral superior of Guede, Mignini, and a lot of the others.

BTW -- among other omissions, there is also no mention of Amanda's conviction for slandering Lumumba in the picture. For simplicity's sake, I suppose, it simply doesn't exist.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Leone » Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:33 am

Here's something else for Quennell to chew on...

"Former Daily Mail journalist Nick Pisa seems similarly keen to indict himself, eagerly re-enacting for the camera his frenzied attempts to label “Foxy Knoxy” a psychopathic killer with a penchant for satanic sex games. "

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/s ... manda-knox
Leone
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:46 am
Location: London

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:47 am

Leone wrote:Here's something else for Quennell to chew on...

"Former Daily Mail journalist Nick Pisa seems similarly keen to indict himself, eagerly re-enacting for the camera his frenzied attempts to label “Foxy Knoxy” a psychopathic killer with a penchant for satanic sex games. "

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/s ... manda-knox


In fairness to Pisa, in the film he enthuses about being fed such juicy tid-bits by authorities, because the stuff was a reporter's dream and unexpected gravy train. He does admit it got to the point where some of it was simply made up. There was a breaking point at which a reporter in need of lunch money could simply fabricate with impunity because she was fair game.

Truthfully, the authorities ignited this because their evidence was weak and they wanted public support. I think Burleigh, or Candace Dempsey, said Mignini became increasingly nervous as the 2009 trial approached. He had been certain that long before trial either Amanda or Raffaele, one of them, would turn on the other, and the jig would be up. He could not understand why neither of them had done so. This meant he would have to try the case on the evidence, which he was experienced enough to know was pretty weak.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:34 am

carlofab wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
carlofab wrote:Peter Quennell kicks off his Netflix hate campaign --



http://heatst.com/world/questions-over- ... anda-knox/


The author really needs to take a closer look at Pisa's reporting on this case. There is good reason to label him a scumbag. The fact that Stephen Morse spoke out about this case in the past, does not show that he is a crackpot as Quennell would like his idiot followers to believe. It means that Morse was on the right side of history with his opinions.


I'm with you -- as usual -- on Stephen Morse, Bruce. I think Quennell's main point is that Stephen Morse is not a "neutral" producer. But WTF -- what about Andrea Vogt's BBC documentary? Nobody complained about her bias.

FWIW, the two directors in Q&A did not pretend to "not" have an opinion either. They reccomended Burleigh's "Fatal Gift of Beauty" to anyone seeking deeper understanding. But that didn't prevent them from allowing the major participants to have their say or present themselves as they wished. Personally I feel the film went too on easy Mignini, by dumping so much accountability on Pisa.

Nick Pisa makes no bones about his work. Curiously, he doesn't give the impression of ever having been a Knox hater or participating in an anti-Knox crusade. He appears to describe his achievement as recognizing a gravy train and climbing aboard for the ride. I suppose that qualifies as a scumbag, but I still consider him the moral superior of Guede, Mignini, and a lot of the others.

BTW -- among other omissions, there is also no mention of Amanda's conviction for slandering Lumumba in the picture. For simplicity's sake, I suppose, it simply doesn't exist.

Beware the person who claims to be "neutral" or "unbiased". Esp. beware of someone who claims to have dug deep into a case like this, but still claims to be remaining neutral.

Even as one's opinions coalesce into a bias (which is not the same thing as an "unfair bias") they should not try to hide it.

It's been 9 years (coming up in November). How one could not have a bias one way or another at this point is ridiculous. It's as Bruce says, at some point one needs to decide to be on the right side of history.

The truly delicious irony is when someone like Peter Quennell or Ergon claims that something like the documentary is tainted because, "the producer was not neutral". This stupid thinking extends into other areas of this case - esp. when they say things like Conti and Vecchiotti are "biased" because they lambasted Patrizia Stefanoni's DNA work.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Zrausch » Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:26 pm

Grinder practiced militant neutralism to be fair. Maybe they should have had him direct this film.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby MichaelB » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:40 pm

Hi Bruce, Sarah, everyone :)

Mignini and Kercher family spokesman and advisor Naseer Ahamad aka Ergon :::WeatherWhisperer::: is such a loathsome little man. I was a little concerned when I read Amanda was in Toronto for the premiere that he might stalk her like he did Frank. I wonder if the authorities had to be notified about him or if he's on some sort of watch list?

I have just caught up on the latest at his dot.nut hate site and my god, him and a couple of others are still at it. The man is a megalomaniac and chronic attention seeker. He's just shameless. Can you believe the stupid little press releases and he's still going on about his fake wiki smear site. :roll eyes: It's all he's got left to show after years of persecuting the innocent.

On another note, this documentary is terrific news. What a wonderful achievement. It'll be seen by millions and is like the final word on the case.

I'll be back when I've seen it.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:18 pm

MichaelB wrote:Hi Bruce, Sarah, everyone :)

Mignini and Kercher family spokesman and advisor Naseer Ahamad aka Ergon :::WeatherWhisperer::: is such a loathsome little man. I was a little concerned when I read Amanda was in Toronto for the premiere that he might stalk her like he did Frank. I wonder if the authorities had to be notified about him or if he's on some sort of watch list?

I have just caught up on the latest at his dot.nut hate site and my god, him and a couple of others are still at it. The man is a megalomaniac and chronic attention seeker. He's just shameless. Can you believe the stupid little press releases and he's still going on about his fake wiki smear site. :roll eyes: It's all he's got left to show after years of persecuting the innocent.

On another note, this documentary is terrific news. What a wonderful achievement. It'll be seen by millions and is like the final word on the case.

I'll be back when I've seen it.


There's more. Naseer Ahamad aka Ergon has just posted on PMF --

"BTW, I am told by one of the FOA who talked to the director at a screening in LA they wanted to interview the Kerchers but never heard back from them, presumably because they knew these were Knox supporters. They also sent a copy, and since they never heard back from them, 'assume they're OK with it'."

What I actually posted on our Heatstreet Exchange was --

"They asked the Kerchers to participate but got no response. BTW, you may wish to know they sent the Kerchers a copy of the film -- again with no response -- but they do have it and presumably have seen it."

http://heatst.com/world/questions-over- ... anda-knox/
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:43 am

Bill Williams wrote:
carlofab wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
carlofab wrote:Peter Quennell kicks off his Netflix hate campaign --



http://heatst.com/world/questions-over- ... anda-knox/


The author really needs to take a closer look at Pisa's reporting on this case. There is good reason to label him a scumbag. The fact that Stephen Morse spoke out about this case in the past, does not show that he is a crackpot as Quennell would like his idiot followers to believe. It means that Morse was on the right side of history with his opinions.


I'm with you -- as usual -- on Stephen Morse, Bruce. I think Quennell's main point is that Stephen Morse is not a "neutral" producer. But WTF -- what about Andrea Vogt's BBC documentary? Nobody complained about her bias.

FWIW, the two directors in Q&A did not pretend to "not" have an opinion either. They reccomended Burleigh's "Fatal Gift of Beauty" to anyone seeking deeper understanding. But that didn't prevent them from allowing the major participants to have their say or present themselves as they wished. Personally I feel the film went too on easy Mignini, by dumping so much accountability on Pisa.

Nick Pisa makes no bones about his work. Curiously, he doesn't give the impression of ever having been a Knox hater or participating in an anti-Knox crusade. He appears to describe his achievement as recognizing a gravy train and climbing aboard for the ride. I suppose that qualifies as a scumbag, but I still consider him the moral superior of Guede, Mignini, and a lot of the others.

BTW -- among other omissions, there is also no mention of Amanda's conviction for slandering Lumumba in the picture. For simplicity's sake, I suppose, it simply doesn't exist.

Beware the person who claims to be "neutral" or "unbiased". Esp. beware of someone who claims to have dug deep into a case like this, but still claims to be remaining neutral.

Even as one's opinions coalesce into a bias (which is not the same thing as an "unfair bias") they should not try to hide it.

It's been 9 years (coming up in November). How one could not have a bias one way or another at this point is ridiculous. It's as Bruce says, at some point one needs to decide to be on the right side of history.

The truly delicious irony is when someone like Peter Quennell or Ergon claims that something like the documentary is tainted because, "the producer was not neutral". This stupid thinking extends into other areas of this case - esp. when they say things like Conti and Vecchiotti are "biased" because they lambasted Patrizia Stefanoni's DNA work.

Distinguish bias from opinion. A bias implies wanting your take on events to be true, while an opinion is, or should be, free from one's own preferences. Being human, it is hard not to let one's opinions harden into biases, especially when they rest on points you think you have discerned by your own perception but, especially in a forum like this one, we should always try to resist the lure.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:39 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Distinguish bias from opinion. A bias implies wanting your take on events to be true, while an opinion is, or should be, free from one's own preferences. Being human, it is hard not to let one's opinions harden into biases, especially when they rest on points you think you have discerned by your own perception but, especially in a forum like this one, we should always try to resist the lure.

God I miss Grinder. How is the young lad these days?

Haven't been involved in a decent dictionary definition dust-up in months!

I any event, points taken. I've always thought that a bias was simply leaning one way, with no reason implied as why the lean is justified. If it is a justified bias then it's not an undue bias. Etc.

Opinions imply something uninformed - an impression. Then again you lot (meaning lawyers) write "opinions" which is shorthand for, "if you don't see it this way then you're a complete clot."

Maybe Grinder can jump in at any time!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:55 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
carlofab wrote:Peter Quennell kicks off his Netflix hate campaign
Distinguish bias from opinion. A bias implies wanting your take on events to be true, while an opinion is, or should be, free from one's own preferences. Being human, it is hard not to let one's opinions harden into biases, especially when they rest on points you think you have discerned by your own perception but, especially in a forum like this one, we should always try to resist the lure.


To Clive

First off I agree with you Clive and yes I know what it like to speak to the :devil: of why I am a polar bear of drinking soda! Who gets zero responds

Image

If Amanda said: I am a psycho path into sheep clothing. I am a psycho path of being a polar bear of drinking to much soda even I only drink diet soda of my living wages and it shame I am not stopping of it. Yeah I might need to have a soda right about now!!!

:coke: It what I love 4-life!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:49 am

Clive,

RE: "Distinguish bias from opinion. A bias implies wanting your take on events to be true, while an opinion is, or should be, free from one's own preferences. Being human, it is hard not to let one's opinions harden into biases, especially when they rest on points you think you have discerned by your own perception but, especially in a forum like this one, we should always try to resist the lure."

This is well said. Thank you.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:55 am

Clive,

And how would you categorize a deliberate and blatant distortion as when ...

I post on Heat Street: "[The filmmakers] asked the Kerchers to participate but got no response. BTW, you may wish to know they sent the Kerchers a copy of the film -- again with no response -- but they do have it and presumably have seen it."

And Naseer Ahamad reports this on PMF as --

"BTW, I am told by one of the FOA who talked to the director at a screening in LA they wanted to interview the Kerchers but never heard back from them, presumably because they knew these were Knox supporters. They also sent a copy, and since they never heard back from them, 'assume they're OK with it'."
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:19 pm

NEWSWEEK INTERVIEWS THE DIRECTORS

Newsweek : Your film isn’t necessarily out to solve the case of Meredith’s death. What did you want to achieve?

McGinn: Everyone else was trying to make this great big “whodunit.” A lot of the documentaries were proposing: “We’re going to have all of these experts. We’re going to rebuild the entire house on a soundstage. We’re going to show where every piece of evidence was.” It almost became this television punditry, breaking it down. We thought it would be interesting to get the first-person perspective and illuminate the story through the eyes of the very different people [involved]. The movie gives you more information than you’d get just by giving a list of facts, because it allows you to see the worldviews of these people and how they collide.

Do you think that’s why Amanda wanted to take part—because it was about the impact of the events? Presumably she could receive multimillion-dollar offers to tell her story but chose this.

Blackhurst: The first thing we should note is that no one would ever be paid to participate in a documentary. That would be unethical of us as filmmakers. What these people saw was that there’d been all these different versions of them presented in headlines, clickbait journalism and 140 characters that didn’t understand them as people. The way they were talked about was like they’d become characters in some Hitchcockian nightmare about a story like this. None of them—Mignini, Knox, Sollecito—felt the portraits that were being painted were representative of them as individuals.

McGinn: I think [this film is] really about each of these people having a very impactful thing happen in their lives and wanting to tell their side of it, and wanting the world to know how they feel. I think that’s a pretty natural instinct.

We seem to be obsessed with true crime at the moment— Making a Murderer , Serial , The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey —why do you think that is?

McGinn: One of the things we clicked onto in this story, we looked at the rise of social media and digital journalism—that plays a big role. If we look at the true crime stories that are fascinating to us now, they’re emerging in these new media landscapes. Podcasting became the perfect medium to tell this first-person story of someone investigating the Adnan Syed case; it gave you an outlet that didn’t exist previously to have an almost armchair detective story—Sarah Koenig trying to get to the bottom of the case. The medium of podcasting made it feel more personal [to the audience]. Certainly with Making a Murderer you see the way the blurring of the lines between tabloid and traditional news journalism has created these two pockets on each side of every story—people want to show that their opinion about a case is totally correct.

Blackhurst: The interesting thing about the JonBenet Ramsey case [in 1996] is that, one of the reasons these things are being made 20 years later is because there was no black-and-white conclusion. That scares people. They want to see things in black-and-white, they want to know who the bad guy is. In our film, Amanda says: “Not only do they want to know who the bad guy is but they also want to know that it’s not them or their next door neighbor.” That appeals to our base-level fears. We can’t imagine that a murderer would be the person we least suspect. But we also can’t imagine what it would be like to be an innocent person thrown in jail, or a loved one so tragically and senselessly taken from us. What we’re hoping is that people take a look at their role in commodifying these tragedies and how we are complicit in taking tragic events, where there may be some truth and fact out there, but how do they get left in favor of a narrative that is far more entertaining and fascinating?

Did either of you have any preconceptions of Amanda’s guilt or innocence beforehand? How did that affect the film?

McGinn: What we realized is that everyone on earth had preconceived notions about it and it depended where you were coming from. We went into the story not aiming to bring any baggage with us. What we found interesting was, when we’d hire people to make the movie, those people had differing opinions. The goal was to say that this movie has nothing to do with what anyone actually thinks. The reason the film was structured around the final Supreme Court verdict, and why it was the right time to bring the film out, is because there has been a final verdict. The point of the film is not to change anyone’s minds… it’s trying to show how these people’s lives [were affected]. People can take away their own impressions of these people and have their own opinion of guilt or innocence, if that’s what they want to focus on. Hopefully there’s a larger conversation that exists as well.

The film ends with the result of the Supreme Court decision. What would you have done if she had been found guilty?

McGinn: I don’t think we’ve ever been asked that. I don’t think we considered the different trajectories were that to take place. Regardless of how [the verdict went], we would have wanted to know, from a human side, what that felt like for the people involved. I think we would have continued to go until there was enough distance from the story that the whole thing could be seen with perspective.

Some might accuse you of giving Amanda a platform to play the victim by telling her side of the story, when Meredith is the tragic victim in this case. How would you respond to that?

McGinn: I would argue we wanted each of the people in the film to tell their stories—not just Amanda. Amanda’s on-screen time in the film is probably less than some of the other characters. It wasn’t about giving anyone a platform, it was about trying to understand how their personalities [were portrayed] led to what happened [in the media]… so much of the story became about Amanda Knox. So the only way to tell the big picture of what happened in this case was to frame it as the Amanda Knox story, because that’s what everyone else in the world [knew it as]. Certainly, at the time, it was important to include the victim and the victim’s family as much as we could. There’s an arc to the way the Kercher family is dealt with in the film; when they showed up in Perugia, you get this touching moment that humanizes Mignini, where Meredith Kercher’s mother asks to see her daughter one last time. That’s a sad and tragic moment, but also an intimate one that is full of universal human emotion.

Blackhurst: The story did become internationally about Amanda Knox and [people] forgot about the victim. But in becoming about Amanda Knox, it also did not become about Raffaele Sollecito, who was also faced with the same situation that Amanda was. All of these people have become victims in different ways, caught up in narratives created about them.

The Kerchers aren’t interviewed in the film. Did you ask them to participate?

Blackhurst: We did reach out to the Kercher family multiple times in 2015 and 2016. We didn’t hear one way or the other, so we decided to respect their position—they made it clear this is something that’s painful to talk about so maybe the less they have to talk about it the less times they’ll have to reopen the wound.

Do you want them to see the film?

McGinn: I don’t think it’s our place to say whether we’d like them to see it or not. That’s up to them. We’ve shared it with their Italian representation and we did that before we showed it to anyone publicly. We’d love to talk to them and if they change their mind and do an interview with us in the future, we’d love to tell their side of the story as well.

Where does Amanda go from here? Did you get the impression from her, having made this documentary, she’d just like to be anonymous? Or would you be unsurprised if, say, she signed a book deal?

Blackhurst: All of these people are trapped and defined by this: Amanda, the Kercher family, Mignini and Sollecito. They’re all accidental celebrities—none of them asked to be in this position.

McGinn: It’ll be interesting to see what each of them do going forward. I think most of them have kept a low profile since 2011. The fact that the media is still covering them does not necessarily mean they are trying to seek the spotlight. That’s important to remember.

http://www.newsweek.com/amanda-knox-doc ... our-502888
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby MichaelB » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:01 pm

carlofab wrote:Clive,

And would you categorize a deliberate and blatant distortion as when ...

I post on Heat Street: "[The filmmakers] asked the Kerchers to participate but got no response. BTW, you may wish to know they sent the Kerchers a copy of the film -- again with no response -- but they do have it and presumably have seen it."

And Naseer Ahamad reports this on PMF as --

"BTW, I am told by one of the FOA who talked to the director at a screening in LA they wanted to interview the Kerchers but never heard back from them, presumably because they knew these were Knox supporters. They also sent a copy, and since they never heard back from them, 'assume they're OK with it'."


I'm not surprised. Ergon :::WeatherWhisperer::: lies about everything. Most of it he just makes up as he goes along.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:02 pm

carlofab wrote:Clive,

And would you categorize a deliberate and blatant distortion as when ...

I post on Heat Street: "[The filmmakers] asked the Kerchers to participate but got no response. BTW, you may wish to know they sent the Kerchers a copy of the film -- again with no response -- but they do have it and presumably have seen it."

And Naseer Ahamad reports this on PMF as --

"BTW, I am told by one of the FOA who talked to the director at a screening in LA they wanted to interview the Kerchers but never heard back from them, presumably because they knew these were Knox supporters. They also sent a copy, and since they never heard back from them, 'assume they're OK with it'."

Need you ask? ;-)
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:54 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Distinguish bias from opinion. A bias implies wanting your take on events to be true, while an opinion is, or should be, free from one's own preferences. Being human, it is hard not to let one's opinions harden into biases, especially when they rest on points you think you have discerned by your own perception but, especially in a forum like this one, we should always try to resist the lure.

God I miss Grinder. How is the young lad these days?

Haven't been involved in a decent dictionary definition dust-up in months!

I any event, points taken. I've always thought that a bias was simply leaning one way, with no reason implied as why the lean is justified. If it is a justified bias then it's not an undue bias. Etc.

Opinions imply something uninformed - an impression. Then again you lot (meaning lawyers) write "opinions" which is shorthand for, "if you don't see it this way then you're a complete clot."

Maybe Grinder can jump in at any time!


I may have to offer my humble substitute for Grinder's combat by definition.

Here is a dictionary definition of "opinion"; it shows at least three distinct uses of the word:

Full Definition of opinion

1
a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem

2
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view

3
a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

I would suggest that what is sometimes considered "positive knowledge" - at least in the sciences - is really an opinion (a theoretical model applicable within some domain of nature or an application of such a model to a particular case) based on evidence, typically including prediction of new experimental results or observations, not contradicted by other credible evidence, which is formulated by relying on reasonable inference.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:04 pm

carlofab wrote:NEWSWEEK INTERVIEWS THE DIRECTORS

Newsweek : Your film isn’t necessarily out to solve the case of Meredith’s death. What did you want to achieve?

McGinn: Everyone else was trying to make this great big “whodunit.” A lot of the documentaries were proposing: “We’re going to have all of these experts. We’re going to rebuild the entire house on a soundstage. We’re going to show where every piece of evidence was.” It almost became this television punditry, breaking it down. We thought it would be interesting to get the first-person perspective and illuminate the story through the eyes of the very different people [involved]. The movie gives you more information than you’d get just by giving a list of facts, because it allows you to see the worldviews of these people and how they collide.

Do you think that’s why Amanda wanted to take part—because it was about the impact of the events? Presumably she could receive multimillion-dollar offers to tell her story but chose this.

Blackhurst: The first thing we should note is that no one would ever be paid to participate in a documentary. That would be unethical of us as filmmakers. What these people saw was that there’d been all these different versions of them presented in headlines, clickbait journalism and 140 characters that didn’t understand them as people. The way they were talked about was like they’d become characters in some Hitchcockian nightmare about a story like this. None of them—Mignini, Knox, Sollecito—felt the portraits that were being painted were representative of them as individuals.

McGinn: I think [this film is] really about each of these people having a very impactful thing happen in their lives and wanting to tell their side of it, and wanting the world to know how they feel. I think that’s a pretty natural instinct.

We seem to be obsessed with true crime at the moment— Making a Murderer , Serial , The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey —why do you think that is?

McGinn: One of the things we clicked onto in this story, we looked at the rise of social media and digital journalism—that plays a big role. If we look at the true crime stories that are fascinating to us now, they’re emerging in these new media landscapes. Podcasting became the perfect medium to tell this first-person story of someone investigating the Adnan Syed case; it gave you an outlet that didn’t exist previously to have an almost armchair detective story—Sarah Koenig trying to get to the bottom of the case. The medium of podcasting made it feel more personal [to the audience]. Certainly with Making a Murderer you see the way the blurring of the lines between tabloid and traditional news journalism has created these two pockets on each side of every story—people want to show that their opinion about a case is totally correct.

Blackhurst: The interesting thing about the JonBenet Ramsey case [in 1996] is that, one of the reasons these things are being made 20 years later is because there was no black-and-white conclusion. That scares people. They want to see things in black-and-white, they want to know who the bad guy is. In our film, Amanda says: “Not only do they want to know who the bad guy is but they also want to know that it’s not them or their next door neighbor.” That appeals to our base-level fears. We can’t imagine that a murderer would be the person we least suspect. But we also can’t imagine what it would be like to be an innocent person thrown in jail, or a loved one so tragically and senselessly taken from us. What we’re hoping is that people take a look at their role in commodifying these tragedies and how we are complicit in taking tragic events, where there may be some truth and fact out there, but how do they get left in favor of a narrative that is far more entertaining and fascinating?

Did either of you have any preconceptions of Amanda’s guilt or innocence beforehand? How did that affect the film?

McGinn: What we realized is that everyone on earth had preconceived notions about it and it depended where you were coming from. We went into the story not aiming to bring any baggage with us. What we found interesting was, when we’d hire people to make the movie, those people had differing opinions. The goal was to say that this movie has nothing to do with what anyone actually thinks. The reason the film was structured around the final Supreme Court verdict, and why it was the right time to bring the film out, is because there has been a final verdict. The point of the film is not to change anyone’s minds… it’s trying to show how these people’s lives [were affected]. People can take away their own impressions of these people and have their own opinion of guilt or innocence, if that’s what they want to focus on. Hopefully there’s a larger conversation that exists as well.

The film ends with the result of the Supreme Court decision. What would you have done if she had been found guilty?

McGinn: I don’t think we’ve ever been asked that. I don’t think we considered the different trajectories were that to take place. Regardless of how [the verdict went], we would have wanted to know, from a human side, what that felt like for the people involved. I think we would have continued to go until there was enough distance from the story that the whole thing could be seen with perspective.

Some might accuse you of giving Amanda a platform to play the victim by telling her side of the story, when Meredith is the tragic victim in this case. How would you respond to that?

McGinn: I would argue we wanted each of the people in the film to tell their stories—not just Amanda. Amanda’s on-screen time in the film is probably less than some of the other characters. It wasn’t about giving anyone a platform, it was about trying to understand how their personalities [were portrayed] led to what happened [in the media]… so much of the story became about Amanda Knox. So the only way to tell the big picture of what happened in this case was to frame it as the Amanda Knox story, because that’s what everyone else in the world [knew it as]. Certainly, at the time, it was important to include the victim and the victim’s family as much as we could. There’s an arc to the way the Kercher family is dealt with in the film; when they showed up in Perugia, you get this touching moment that humanizes Mignini, where Meredith Kercher’s mother asks to see her daughter one last time. That’s a sad and tragic moment, but also an intimate one that is full of universal human emotion.

Blackhurst: The story did become internationally about Amanda Knox and [people] forgot about the victim. But in becoming about Amanda Knox, it also did not become about Raffaele Sollecito, who was also faced with the same situation that Amanda was. All of these people have become victims in different ways, caught up in narratives created about them.

The Kerchers aren’t interviewed in the film. Did you ask them to participate?

Blackhurst: We did reach out to the Kercher family multiple times in 2015 and 2016. We didn’t hear one way or the other, so we decided to respect their position—they made it clear this is something that’s painful to talk about so maybe the less they have to talk about it the less times they’ll have to reopen the wound.

Do you want them to see the film?

McGinn: I don’t think it’s our place to say whether we’d like them to see it or not. That’s up to them. We’ve shared it with their Italian representation and we did that before we showed it to anyone publicly. We’d love to talk to them and if they change their mind and do an interview with us in the future, we’d love to tell their side of the story as well.

Where does Amanda go from here? Did you get the impression from her, having made this documentary, she’d just like to be anonymous? Or would you be unsurprised if, say, she signed a book deal?

Blackhurst: All of these people are trapped and defined by this: Amanda, the Kercher family, Mignini and Sollecito. They’re all accidental celebrities—none of them asked to be in this position.

McGinn: It’ll be interesting to see what each of them do going forward. I think most of them have kept a low profile since 2011. The fact that the media is still covering them does not necessarily mean they are trying to seek the spotlight. That’s important to remember.

http://www.newsweek.com/amanda-knox-doc ... our-502888


I question whether Mignini falls into the category of accidental celebrity. He was in charge of the case, including the police investigation. It was under his watch that the false and misleading reports from the police and other Italian authorities were communicated to the media - and that includes the tabloids. It is likely he was the source or authorized such communications to the media. The definitive Marasca CSC panel motivation report includes a statement that an aim of the rushed and incompetent investigation was to satisfy the pressures of the international press. And Mignini was already well-known, at least in Italy, because of his strange prosecutions and accusations in the Monster of Florence case, which resulted in his being prosecuted for abuse of power. The abuse of power case ended only because the Italian statute of limitations prevented Mignini from a final (justifiable) conviction.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:06 pm

Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Distinguish bias from opinion. A bias implies wanting your take on events to be true, while an opinion is, or should be, free from one's own preferences. Being human, it is hard not to let one's opinions harden into biases, especially when they rest on points you think you have discerned by your own perception but, especially in a forum like this one, we should always try to resist the lure.

God I miss Grinder. How is the young lad these days?

Haven't been involved in a decent dictionary definition dust-up in months!

I any event, points taken. I've always thought that a bias was simply leaning one way, with no reason implied as why the lean is justified. If it is a justified bias then it's not an undue bias. Etc.

Opinions imply something uninformed - an impression. Then again you lot (meaning lawyers) write "opinions" which is shorthand for, "if you don't see it this way then you're a complete clot."

Maybe Grinder can jump in at any time!


I may have to offer my humble substitute for Grinder's combat by definition.

Here is a dictionary definition of "opinion"; it shows at least three distinct uses of the word:

Full Definition of opinion

1
a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem

2
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view

3
a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

I would suggest that what is sometimes considered "positive knowledge" - at least in the sciences - is really an opinion (a theoretical model applicable within some domain of nature or an application of such a model to a particular case) based on evidence, typically including prediction of new experimental results or observations, not contradicted by other credible evidence, which is formulated by relying on reasonable inference.

I know Grinder. I've worked with Grinder. Grinder is a friend of mine.

Very few people do it like Grinder! (I'm trying to channel my best Lloyd Bentsen.......)
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:11 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Distinguish bias from opinion. A bias implies wanting your take on events to be true, while an opinion is, or should be, free from one's own preferences. Being human, it is hard not to let one's opinions harden into biases, especially when they rest on points you think you have discerned by your own perception but, especially in a forum like this one, we should always try to resist the lure.

God I miss Grinder. How is the young lad these days?

Haven't been involved in a decent dictionary definition dust-up in months!

I any event, points taken. I've always thought that a bias was simply leaning one way, with no reason implied as why the lean is justified. If it is a justified bias then it's not an undue bias. Etc.

Opinions imply something uninformed - an impression. Then again you lot (meaning lawyers) write "opinions" which is shorthand for, "if you don't see it this way then you're a complete clot."

Maybe Grinder can jump in at any time!


I may have to offer my humble substitute for Grinder's combat by definition.

Here is a dictionary definition of "opinion"; it shows at least three distinct uses of the word:

Full Definition of opinion

1
a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem

2
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view

3
a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

I would suggest that what is sometimes considered "positive knowledge" - at least in the sciences - is really an opinion (a theoretical model applicable within some domain of nature or an application of such a model to a particular case) based on evidence, typically including prediction of new experimental results or observations, not contradicted by other credible evidence, which is formulated by relying on reasonable inference.

I know Grinder. I've worked with Grinder. Grinder is a friend of mine.

Very few people do it like Grinder! (I'm trying to channel my best Lloyd Bentsen.......)


I take your comment as a compliment. I am sure I could not really substitute for Grinder's unique approach.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:22 pm

Numbers wrote:
I take your comment as a compliment. I am sure I could not really substitute for Grinder's unique approach.

There are 4 or 5 PGP I'd love to have coffee with outside the glare of online stuff.

Of course, there are a lot more PIP people I'd love the same.

Grinder - has a standing invite. I quite like the guy. Top 2 or 3 to have coffee with regardless.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:51 pm

Nigel just posted this on FB with more clips from the movie --

http://www.today.com/video/amanda-knox- ... 4736963822
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby LondonJohn » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:17 pm

carlofab wrote:Nigel just posted this on FB with more clips from the movie --

http://www.today.com/video/amanda-knox- ... 4736963822



Interesting and illuminating.

On a related note, I see that the fricking madman Quennell has made a post on .net which is at once sinister, grandiose and more than a little amusing:

"Several of us have over 50 of these (reviews of the Netflix "Amanda Knox" film) bookmarked already, to post against.
It would help immensely if damning paras could be quoted here. Those paras we will take down, mostly in 1-2 lines with a link if that helps at all."


Of course, what makes it all the more amusing and ironic is the way in which so many pro-guilt commentators make the (ludicrous and incorrect) claim that the majority of the pro-acquittal/pro-innocence online commentary is conducted by a choreographed cabal acting as an "attack group", some or most of whom are in the pay of Knox's PR representation. In reality, the only choreographed campaigns are being waged by a small cadre of pro-guilt obsessives, who are clearly devoting significant amounts of time and other resources to their efforts.

These people seriously, SERIOUSLY need psychological help. I am deadly serious in my assertion that the majority of the hard-core pro-guilt commentators have deep and troubling mental health issues, which are manifesting themselves at least in part through their obsessive and near-militaristic commitment not only to the pro-guilt campaign in general, but also (and more worryingly from a mental health perspective) to the "taking down" of anyone who does or says anything with a pro-acquittal flavour and who is in the public eye (especially, of course, potential opinion-formers such as journalists and film-makers).
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby LondonJohn » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:39 pm

Numbers wrote:I question whether Mignini falls into the category of accidental celebrity. He was in charge of the case, including the police investigation. It was under his watch that the false and misleading reports from the police and other Italian authorities were communicated to the media - and that includes the tabloids. It is likely he was the source or authorized such communications to the media. The definitive Marasca CSC panel motivation report includes a statement that an aim of the rushed and incompetent investigation was to satisfy the pressures of the international press. And Mignini was already well-known, at least in Italy, because of his strange prosecutions and accusations in the Monster of Florence case, which resulted in his being prosecuted for abuse of power. The abuse of power case ended only because the Italian statute of limitations prevented Mignini from a final (justifiable) conviction.



I entirely agree with this premise. I think Mignini wanted to be a celebrity. I think he immediately realised that the extraordinary national and international attention that quickly came to focus on the Kercher case - within 24 hours of the discovery of the body - offered him an amazing personal platform to demonstrate his flair, his lofty moral conscience, and his fantastic (in his head...) sleuthing skills. I think that the same applies to many of the other law enforcement characters in this sad case, and even some of the presiding judges. But I think Mignini was the epitome of this phenomenon. He could have acted soberly, quietly, with no fanfare, and with care. He could have talked to nobody outside of law enforcement about this case until it was at least beyond the appeal stage. He could have taken care and time to investigate diligently, thoroughly, exhaustively and objectively before even starting to draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence (and directed other investigators to do the same). He did none of those things. He loved courting the media. He was obviously desperate to "solve the case" with breathtaking speed ("Wow! Bow down before the amazing Holmes-like brilliance of the mighty Mignini!"). He was also extremely keen to reverse his damaged reputation (both personal and professional) after the MoF fiasco.

Of all the nasty, improper and incompetent characters involved in this case, I am in no doubt that Mignini carries the most blame. The case was entirely in his hands. He not only botched it in a most disgraceful way; he also directed a fundamentally incompetent and unfit-for-purpose police investigation (and then contributed in the conspiracy to deceive and misdirect about the flawed investigation); he also appointed his Rome-based "friend" Stefanoni - instead of the more local police or Carabinieri units - to carry out both the lab DNA work (in which, it turns out, she was utterly unqualified and inexperienced, and didn't even realise how unqualified and inexperienced she was....) and, inexplicably, the crime scene investigation work (which may stand as the singular worst example of CSI work that most experts have ever seen or experienced); he also acted grossly improperly in the way that Knox and Sollecito were placed in the frame, interrogated in an unlawful manner on 5/6 Nov 2007, and held without access to legal representation; he also held briefings with journalists almost from Day 1, in which he leaked material which was extremely damaging to Knox and Sollecito (much of which was subsequently shown to be either partially or wholly incorrect); he also headed up a prosecution in court which was based on "evidence" that he clearly ought to have realised was utter junk, but which he presented as Gold Standard (who can forget his gushing praise of Curatolo, for example, or his description of Stefanoni as perhaps one of the leading forensic scientists in the whole world....). And there's much more.

IMO, Mignini is a disgrace. He needs proper investigation. But, Italy being such a broken state with a fundamentally unfit-for-purpose (and unaccountable) judiciary, that will almost certainly never happen. I hope the man cannot sleep well at night, at least.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:14 pm

Here's an interesting statement from a federal (US) judge on the Norfolk Four case wrongful convictions (excerpt is from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html}:

Two former sailors convicted of rape and murder nearly two decades ago are innocent, a federal judge said Monday, adding the “no sane human being” could find the men guilty.

U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. said in an opinion that “by any measure,” the evidence shows Danial Williams and Joseph Dick did not commit the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, though they pleaded guilty to it.

“Stated more simply, no sane human being could find them guilty,” Gibney said.

Williams and Dick are two of the so-called “Norfolk Four,” ex-sailors who have long claimed that police coerced them into falsely confessing. The four men, who were all stationed at the Navy base in Norfolk, Virginia, drew national attention when their innocence claims were backed by dozens of former FBI agents, ex-prosecutors and novelist John Grisham.

In 2009, then-Gov. Tim Kaine freed Williams, Dick and Derek Tice because of doubts about their guilt but allowed their convictions to remain. The fourth man, Eric Wilson, had already been released.

Tice’s conviction has already been overturned. DNA evidence matched a fifth man, Omar Ballard, who confessed to committing the crime alone. He is serving a life sentence.

Gibney’s decision Monday is merely a procedural step that allows Williams’ and Dick’s innocence claims to move forward. But their attorneys said they hope the judge’s strongly worded opinion will convince the state to join them in ensuring the men’s convictions are overturned.


I think the same conclusion ... that no sane person would find them guilty ... applies to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Kercher rape/murder case.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby LondonJohn » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:36 am

I totally agree. In fact, I coincidentally posted something on the ISF thread with exactly this sentiment just last night :)
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:55 am

Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/
european neighbour
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:49 am

Here is a good article on the Netflix documentary:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/ama ... er-w442408
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:54 am

european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:03 am

How can you people post review after review after review which lauds the documentary?

Haven't you heard that Peter Quennell and his God are panning the documentary? Can't you people manage some balanced reporting on the reaction to it?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby LondonJohn » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:20 am

Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "



That immediately jumped out at me too. Either this journalist is lying or mistaken, or (as we all reasonably suspect) the police and PM homed in on Knox breathtakingly early on - by late on 3rd November. It makes a mockery of the continuing claims of pro-guilt commentators (and others such as Mignini) that Knox was simply a witness - the same as every other housemate or friend of Kercher's - by the time she came in for the infamous 5th/6th November interrogation.

I have long been persuaded that the police "knew" Knox was heavily involved from a ridiculously early point, and that from then on they went fishing for evidence to support this belief - employing disgraceful levels of tunnel vision and confirmation bias in the process. And I am further persuaded that the police's conclusion was that Knox was heavily involved, and that Sollecito was lying (about him and Knox having spent that whole evening/night alone together in Sollecito's apartment) to cover for Knox, with whom he was infatuated. And I believe it's a near-certainty that the police arranged and choreographed the 5th/6th November interrogation (perhaps at short notice, after learning that Knox's mother was arriving in Perugia on the 6th and would probably take Knox back to the US quickly) in a specific way: firstly, get the meek, pliable, infatuated, lying Sollecito in for interrogation, and "persuade" him that Knox was not worth lying for (and of the serious consequences for him if he continued to lie). Once Sollecito "buckled" (which I suspect the police/PM thought would be easy), the police would have gone out with all their sirens blaring to pick up Knox (having tipped off the media beforehand, of course), and get her in turn to "buckle" and tell them exactly how the murder had gone down, and who else was involved. I believe the police/PM probably "knew" Lumumba was the missing link in advance of Knox's interrogation, and that they were probably surveilling his house in advance. Once Knox "buckled" and named Lumumba, the police would go out again with sirens blaring and with the media in tow to complete the final piece of the jigsaw.

Caso chiuso.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:59 am

LondonJohn wrote:
Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "



That immediately jumped out at me too. Either this journalist is lying or mistaken, or (as we all reasonably suspect) the police and PM homed in on Knox breathtakingly early on - by late on 3rd November. It makes a mockery of the continuing claims of pro-guilt commentators (and others such as Mignini) that Knox was simply a witness - the same as every other housemate or friend of Kercher's - by the time she came in for the infamous 5th/6th November interrogation.

I have long been persuaded that the police "knew" Knox was heavily involved from a ridiculously early point, and that from then on they went fishing for evidence to support this belief - employing disgraceful levels of tunnel vision and confirmation bias in the process. And I am further persuaded that the police's conclusion was that Knox was heavily involved, and that Sollecito was lying (about him and Knox having spent that whole evening/night alone together in Sollecito's apartment) to cover for Knox, with whom he was infatuated. And I believe it's a near-certainty that the police arranged and choreographed the 5th/6th November interrogation (perhaps at short notice, after learning that Knox's mother was arriving in Perugia on the 6th and would probably take Knox back to the US quickly) in a specific way: firstly, get the meek, pliable, infatuated, lying Sollecito in for interrogation, and "persuade" him that Knox was not worth lying for (and of the serious consequences for him if he continued to lie). Once Sollecito "buckled" (which I suspect the police/PM thought would be easy), the police would have gone out with all their sirens blaring to pick up Knox (having tipped off the media beforehand, of course), and get her in turn to "buckle" and tell them exactly how the murder had gone down, and who else was involved. I believe the police/PM probably "knew" Lumumba was the missing link in advance of Knox's interrogation, and that they were probably surveilling his house in advance. Once Knox "buckled" and named Lumumba, the police would go out again with sirens blaring and with the media in tow to complete the final piece of the jigsaw.

Caso chiuso.

When I was trying to prove the police deleted Lumumba's message from Amanda's phone, I spoke to the Daily Telegraph journalist who covered the case and reported that at that famous press conference the spokesperson let slip they had found messages from Lumumba on her phone. Anyway, he told me there was widespread incredulity at Lumunba's arrrest and, bumping into Mignini one morning, he asked him whether he was sure about Patrick. Mignini tapped his nose, figuratvely or literally, and said they had a huge file on Lumumba, implying he wss not the person everybody imagined. Except - he was! :::lol:::
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:07 am

Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "



It's a very quick jump from:
1. They can't fool smart people like us - this was a "staged" break in,
to - 2. Someone with a key must be involved,
to - 3. One of the flatmates must be involved.
to - 4. That weird American girl must be involved.
My guess is that they were already at step 4 on the day the body was discovered.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:22 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "



It's a very quick jump from:
1. They can't fool smart people like us - this was a "staged" break in,
to - 2. Someone with a key must be involved,
to - 3. One of the flatmates must be involved.
to - 4. That weird American girl must be involved.
My guess is that they were already at step 4 on the day the body was discovered.


It's quite possible the order of statements was, in the actual case, reversed:


1. People with weak alibis can be accused and convicted easily, "solving" the case and bringing credit to the police and prosecutor.
2. That American girl must be involved -- her alibi is weak. And Mignini, our ultimate boss in the investigation, wants her targeted.
3. She, as one of the flat-mates, has a key.
3. The break-in was therefore staged.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:55 am

LondonJohn wrote:
Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "



That immediately jumped out at me too. Either this journalist is lying or mistaken, or (as we all reasonably suspect) the police and PM homed in on Knox breathtakingly early on - by late on 3rd November. It makes a mockery of the continuing claims of pro-guilt commentators (and others such as Mignini) that Knox was simply a witness - the same as every other housemate or friend of Kercher's - by the time she came in for the infamous 5th/6th November interrogation.

I have long been persuaded that the police "knew" Knox was heavily involved from a ridiculously early point, and that from then on they went fishing for evidence to support this belief - employing disgraceful levels of tunnel vision and confirmation bias in the process. And I am further persuaded that the police's conclusion was that Knox was heavily involved, and that Sollecito was lying (about him and Knox having spent that whole evening/night alone together in Sollecito's apartment) to cover for Knox, with whom he was infatuated. And I believe it's a near-certainty that the police arranged and choreographed the 5th/6th November interrogation (perhaps at short notice, after learning that Knox's mother was arriving in Perugia on the 6th and would probably take Knox back to the US quickly) in a specific way: firstly, get the meek, pliable, infatuated, lying Sollecito in for interrogation, and "persuade" him that Knox was not worth lying for (and of the serious consequences for him if he continued to lie). Once Sollecito "buckled" (which I suspect the police/PM thought would be easy), the police would have gone out with all their sirens blaring to pick up Knox (having tipped off the media beforehand, of course), and get her in turn to "buckle" and tell them exactly how the murder had gone down, and who else was involved. I believe the police/PM probably "knew" Lumumba was the missing link in advance of Knox's interrogation, and that they were probably surveilling his house in advance. Once Knox "buckled" and named Lumumba, the police would go out again with sirens blaring and with the media in tow to complete the final piece of the jigsaw.

Caso chiuso.

There is another explanation..... this could be classic post hoc reasoning.

One journalist is informed early on of (presumably) one policeperson's theory, which becomes, " How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body?"

This is not evidence that "they" had come to this conclusion. It is also not a stretch to imagine that a single cop thought this, told a reporter, and the reporter simply noted it.

With all due respect, this shows the smoke but fails to pinpoint the fire.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:02 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, it almost time of Amanda Knox documentary and we only got until 12 hours left until it will be ready at 9/30/16 at 12am and it is 12:02pm of right now. I won't be watching until TGIF at night time instead of crime wave and talk about it into the Documentary and I want to keep it that way for a long journey of crime wave. So here is that article on GMA of Good Morning America!!!

https://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-speak ... ries.html#
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:08 am

Bill Williams wrote:
LondonJohn wrote:
Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "



That immediately jumped out at me too. Either this journalist is lying or mistaken, or (as we all reasonably suspect) the police and PM homed in on Knox breathtakingly early on - by late on 3rd November. It makes a mockery of the continuing claims of pro-guilt commentators (and others such as Mignini) that Knox was simply a witness - the same as every other housemate or friend of Kercher's - by the time she came in for the infamous 5th/6th November interrogation.

I have long been persuaded that the police "knew" Knox was heavily involved from a ridiculously early point, and that from then on they went fishing for evidence to support this belief - employing disgraceful levels of tunnel vision and confirmation bias in the process. And I am further persuaded that the police's conclusion was that Knox was heavily involved, and that Sollecito was lying (about him and Knox having spent that whole evening/night alone together in Sollecito's apartment) to cover for Knox, with whom he was infatuated. And I believe it's a near-certainty that the police arranged and choreographed the 5th/6th November interrogation (perhaps at short notice, after learning that Knox's mother was arriving in Perugia on the 6th and would probably take Knox back to the US quickly) in a specific way: firstly, get the meek, pliable, infatuated, lying Sollecito in for interrogation, and "persuade" him that Knox was not worth lying for (and of the serious consequences for him if he continued to lie). Once Sollecito "buckled" (which I suspect the police/PM thought would be easy), the police would have gone out with all their sirens blaring to pick up Knox (having tipped off the media beforehand, of course), and get her in turn to "buckle" and tell them exactly how the murder had gone down, and who else was involved. I believe the police/PM probably "knew" Lumumba was the missing link in advance of Knox's interrogation, and that they were probably surveilling his house in advance. Once Knox "buckled" and named Lumumba, the police would go out again with sirens blaring and with the media in tow to complete the final piece of the jigsaw.

Caso chiuso.

There is another explanation..... this could be classic post hoc reasoning.

One journalist is informed early on of (presumably) one policeperson's theory, which becomes, " How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body?"

This is not evidence that "they" had come to this conclusion. It is also not a stretch to imagine that a single cop thought this, told a reporter, and the reporter simply noted it.

With all due respect, this shows the smoke but fails to pinpoint the fire.


But have you taken into account VQA Giobbi's testimony on how the police identified Amanda Knox as a suspect very early in the investigation, when she was observed by him to have wiggled her hips when putting on shoe protectors before entering the downstairs flat with him? This would have been on or before Nov. 3, I believe.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:05 am

New Rolling Stone review with new promo --

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/ama ... er-w442408
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:10 am

Bruce --

PMF is suggesting that you should receive a writing credit on "Amanda Knox".

That's okay with me. When I decided it was time to learn more about this case, I was fortunate to choose your (first) book on Amazon.

PMF --

“It seems like Bruce Fisher should be given writing credit on the new documentary... since the documentary and Morse's comments seem surprisingly close to a post Fisher wrote just before the trio of filmmakers arrived in Perugia to start their project:

https://aklwei.wordpress.com/2016/09/29 ... -campaign/
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:36 am

Numbers wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Numbers wrote:
european neighbour wrote:Between the many excellent reviews we read about the netflix docu I recommend this one from a colleague of PISA about the beginnings:
http://lifestyle.one/grazia/news-real-l ... r-netflix/


An excerpt from the article european neighbour has pointed out:

"Then something happened which I've thought about countless times since. An Italian journalist told us the police already had a suspect: 'the American housemate', as they called Knox. How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body? "



It's a very quick jump from:
1. They can't fool smart people like us - this was a "staged" break in,
to - 2. Someone with a key must be involved,
to - 3. One of the flatmates must be involved.
to - 4. That weird American girl must be involved.
My guess is that they were already at step 4 on the day the body was discovered.


It's quite possible the order of statements was, in the actual case, reversed:


1. People with weak alibis can be accused and convicted easily, "solving" the case and bringing credit to the police and prosecutor.
2. That American girl must be involved -- her alibi is weak. And Mignini, our ultimate boss in the investigation, wants her targeted.
3. She, as one of the flat-mates, has a key.
3. The break-in was therefore staged.


I think the staged break in thing started very very early - in the first 15 or 20 minutes after arrival - as it often does in cases which get screwed up.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Sarah » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:28 pm

carlofab wrote:Bruce --

PMF is suggesting that you should receive a writing credit on "Amanda Knox".

That's okay with me. When I decided it was time to learn more about this case, I was fortunate to choose your (first) book on Amazon.

PMF --

“It seems like Bruce Fisher should be given writing credit on the new documentary... since the documentary and Morse's comments seem surprisingly close to a post Fisher wrote just before the trio of filmmakers arrived in Perugia to start their project:

https://aklwei.wordpress.com/2016/09/29 ... -campaign/


Hi Carolfab,

It's not astonishing that Stephen Robert Morse has been in contact with advocates. He was with a group of IIP advocates in Perugia when he made those comments to Nick Pisa, who happened to walk by. Several of us have been in contact with him to provide him information from the time he started writing about the case. That doesn't change that he is an independent journalist. Very cool to see Bruce and Ray Turner (who wrote the Architects article together) get the credit from PMF though. :)
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:03 pm

I read both Bruce's books. I thought they were both great.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:12 pm

Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:There is another explanation..... this could be classic post hoc reasoning.

One journalist is informed early on of (presumably) one policeperson's theory, which becomes, " How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body?"

This is not evidence that "they" had come to this conclusion. It is also not a stretch to imagine that a single cop thought this, told a reporter, and the reporter simply noted it.

With all due respect, this shows the smoke but fails to pinpoint the fire.


But have you taken into account VQA Giobbi's testimony on how the police identified Amanda Knox as a suspect very early in the investigation, when she was observed by him to have wiggled her hips when putting on shoe protectors before entering the downstairs flat with him? This would have been on or before Nov. 3, I believe.

Giobbi's testimony is still 20/20 hindsight. Is there a better source on or soon after Nov 3 than a newspaper report where it simply is not clear if what is being reported is the reporter's mishearing?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:20 pm

carlofab wrote:Bruce --

PMF is suggesting that you should receive a writing credit on "Amanda Knox".

That's okay with me. When I decided it was time to learn more about this case, I was fortunate to choose your (first) book on Amazon.

PMF --

“It seems like Bruce Fisher should be given writing credit on the new documentary... since the documentary and Morse's comments seem surprisingly close to a post Fisher wrote just before the trio of filmmakers arrived in Perugia to start their project:

https://aklwei.wordpress.com/2016/09/29 ... -campaign/

We all should fear Bruce Fischer. Truly. I am suddenly quite afraid of his power. In a normal t-shirt he is quite mild mannered. But when he gets those striped Shirts on, he swings through the Maelstrom of Perdition like the architect of Armageddon he is. And I've met the guy!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:32 pm

Sarah wrote:
carlofab wrote:Bruce --

PMF is suggesting that you should receive a writing credit on "Amanda Knox".

That's okay with me. When I decided it was time to learn more about this case, I was fortunate to choose your (first) book on Amazon.

PMF --

“It seems like Bruce Fisher should be given writing credit on the new documentary... since the documentary and Morse's comments seem surprisingly close to a post Fisher wrote just before the trio of filmmakers arrived in Perugia to start their project:

https://aklwei.wordpress.com/2016/09/29 ... -campaign/


Hi Carolfab,

It's not astonishing that Stephen Robert Morse has been in contact with advocates. He was with a group of IIP advocates in Perugia when he made those comments to Nick Pisa, who happened to walk by. Several of us have been in contact with him to provide him information from the time he started writing about the case. That doesn't change that he is an independent journalist. Very cool to see Bruce and Ray Turner (who wrote the Architects article together) get the credit from PMF though. :)


You are absolutely right. Why would it be shocking for an investigative journalist to speak to a group of advocates? His job as a journalist is to weigh all the information he collects and cross check it accordingly. When he did so, he concluded as we did that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent.

Of course, PMF/TJMK pushes the idea that anyone who believes in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele must be working together in some grand conspiracy to fool the world. To be fair, most of the guilters figured out that they were on the wrong side of the argument and they moved on. The remaining few look really silly as they continue to make the same tired claims.

It is not shocking that those who know that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, based on the actual evidence, sound similar when speaking about the case. We are on the same page with Stephen Robert Morse because we speak the truth about the case, not due to some wild conspiracy theory. Morse's opinions sound similar to ours because they are similar to ours. The reason being that our opinions are based on the facts. We have been presenting the truth since early 2010. It's nice to know that the truth will now be presented on Netflix. Many people will now see for the first time just how bad the reporting was on this case.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:08 pm

ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

Hey everyone, it almost time of Amanda Knox documentary and we only got until 12 hours left until it will be ready at 9/30/16 at 12am and it is 12:02pm of right now. I won't be watching until TGIF at night time instead of crime wave and talk about it into the Documentary and I want to keep it that way for a long journey of crime wave. So here is that article on GMA of Good Morning America!!!

https://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-speak ... ries.html#


Thank you so much for this Tom. I was not aware that Amanda was on ABC this morning.

This is a very good time for all of us. Not too long ago there was reason to fear this day might never come , but here we are. After seeing this clip I'm pretty sure she's going to be just fine and the world will be a better place for that. Lots of good wishes, Tom.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:22 pm

carlofab wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

Hey everyone, it almost time of Amanda Knox documentary and we only got until 12 hours left until it will be ready at 9/30/16 at 12am and it is 12:02pm of right now. I won't be watching until TGIF at night time instead of crime wave and talk about it into the Documentary and I want to keep it that way for a long journey of crime wave. So here is that article on GMA of Good Morning America!!!

https://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-speak ... ries.html#


Thank you so much for this Tom. I was not aware that Amanda was on ABC this morning.

This is a very good time for all of us. Not too long ago there was reason to fear this day might never come , but here we are. After seeing this clip I'm pretty sure she's going to be just fine and the world will be a better place for that. Lots of good wishes, Tom.

:::thumbs up:::
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:41 pm

carlofab wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

Hey everyone, it almost time of Amanda Knox documentary and we only got until 12 hours left until it will be ready at 9/30/16 at 12am and it is 12:02pm of right now. I won't be watching until TGIF at night time instead of crime wave and talk about it into the Documentary and I want to keep it that way for a long journey of crime wave. So here is that article on GMA of Good Morning America!!!

https://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-speak ... ries.html#


Thank you so much for this Tom. I was not aware that Amanda was on ABC this morning.

This is a very good time for all of us. Not too long ago there was reason to fear this day might never come , but here we are. After seeing this clip I'm pretty sure she's going to be just fine and the world will be a better place for that. Lots of good wishes, Tom.


To Carlo

Oh your welcome Carlo for this information and course I am looking forward of seeing this and it sure had been a long time of watching this. I do have a kindle and I am going to use my kindle to watch this at 7pm tomorrow. Plus I want to keep it good into another topic that I left, and I am going to post my reviews into an essay on this link!!!

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3439

If you or anyone going to talk about the documentary, and give out reviews. Let do it on that link of what I give you right about now, and right now I am going to read another chapter in my kindle novel called: Walk me home and I am going to bed and goodnight Carlo!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:23 pm

Uh-oh ... Amanda may be in more legal trouble. Ergon says she didn't have Meredith's permission to film her and use it in the movie.

"Netflix's Knox documentary had a few seconds of video of Meredith Kercher, screen shots here. They were taken by Knox without Meredith's permission. US law allows photographers to take pictures of people in public places, though publishing them might be a little more problematical. What ever."
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:38 pm

carlofab wrote:Uh-oh ... Amanda may be in more legal trouble. Ergon says she didn't have Meredith's permission to film her and use it in the movie.

"Netflix's Knox documentary had a few seconds of video of Meredith Kercher, screen shots here. They were taken by Knox without Meredith's permission. US law allows photographers to take pictures of people in public places, though publishing them might be a little more problematical. What ever."


What Ergon seems to miss is the fact that the short video shows a friendship between Meredith and Amanda. His comment about legal trouble is ignorant, but no surprise of course.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:25 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
carlofab wrote:Uh-oh ... Amanda may be in more legal trouble. Ergon says she didn't have Meredith's permission to film her and use it in the movie.

"Netflix's Knox documentary had a few seconds of video of Meredith Kercher, screen shots here. They were taken by Knox without Meredith's permission. US law allows photographers to take pictures of people in public places, though publishing them might be a little more problematical. What ever."


What Ergon seems to miss is the fact that the short video shows a friendship between Meredith and Amanda. His comment about legal trouble is ignorant, but no surprise of course.



Relying on Ergon for legal advice is like relying on Bernie Madoff for investment advice.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:20 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
carlofab wrote:Uh-oh ... Amanda may be in more legal trouble. Ergon says she didn't have Meredith's permission to film her and use it in the movie.

"Netflix's Knox documentary had a few seconds of video of Meredith Kercher, screen shots here. They were taken by Knox without Meredith's permission. US law allows photographers to take pictures of people in public places, though publishing them might be a little more problematical. What ever."


What Ergon seems to miss is the fact that the short video shows a friendship between Meredith and Amanda. His comment about legal trouble is ignorant, but no surprise of course.



Relying on Ergon for legal advice is like relying on Bernie Madoff for investment advice.

What is truly bizarre is their apparent attitude that 9 years later, they play a role in protecting Meredith. I wish they would quit hijacking a murder victim's memory. It is as Andrea Vogt said when Belcastro went to a Florence court to attempt a prosecution of Masonic judges - they prevent the Kerchers from moving on from a definitive acquittal.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:44 am

Book Recommendation

Three False Convictions, Many Lessons: The Psychopathology of Unjust Prosecutions
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1909976350/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk

by David C Anderson & Nigel P Scott

Image

From Amazon.com: A new perspective on the roles of psychopathology, confirmation bias, false confessions, the media and internet (amongst other causes) of unjust accusations. Putting lack of empathy at the fore in terms of police, prosecutors and others, it considers a wide range of other psychopathological aspects of miscarriages of justice.

By looking at three high profile cases, those of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (Italy), Stefan Kiszko (UK) and Darlie Routier (USA) -- the authors show that motive forces are a mind-set in which psychopathy (what they term 'constitutional negative empathy') may be present and the need to reinforce existing supposition or lose face plays a part.

Darlie Routier is still on Death Row in Texas despite overwhelming evidence that her conviction for killing her own child is false, whilst Knox, Sollecito and Kiszko have been vindicated by the highest judicial authorities and telling evidence. The authors show how and why unfounded rumours still persist in the Knox/Sollecito case and advance a new theory that the Routier killings were the work of a notorious serial killer.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1909976350/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Sarah » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:50 am

Netflix Original Documentary - Amanda Knox
https://www.netflix.com/title/80081155
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:16 am

Sarah wrote:Netflix Original Documentary - Amanda Knox
https://www.netflix.com/title/80081155


Just finished watching it. Brilliant! I have so many priceless screenshots. :D

And I hope Quennell and Ergon have a huge stock of loo paper handy about now as I have a feeling they will be spending an inordinate amount of time in their respective bathrooms. <Cheers>
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:21 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:Book Recommendation

Three False Convictions, Many Lessons: The Psychopathology of Unjust Prosecutions
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1909976350/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk

by David C Anderson & Nigel P Scott

Image

From Amazon.com: A new perspective on the roles of psychopathology, confirmation bias, false confessions, the media and internet (amongst other causes) of unjust accusations. Putting lack of empathy at the fore in terms of police, prosecutors and others, it considers a wide range of other psychopathological aspects of miscarriages of justice.

By looking at three high profile cases, those of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (Italy), Stefan Kiszko (UK) and Darlie Routier (USA) -- the authors show that motive forces are a mind-set in which psychopathy (what they term 'constitutional negative empathy') may be present and the need to reinforce existing supposition or lose face plays a part.

Darlie Routier is still on Death Row in Texas despite overwhelming evidence that her conviction for killing her own child is false, whilst Knox, Sollecito and Kiszko have been vindicated by the highest judicial authorities and telling evidence. The authors show how and why unfounded rumours still persist in the Knox/Sollecito case and advance a new theory that the Routier killings were the work of a notorious serial killer.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1909976350/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk


I notice that there is already a guilty comment in the reviews of the book. . . .Cannot get away from them.
It is also never about the crime, about Meredith, or about anybody else involved in the case. . . .It is alway about Amanda
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby geebee2 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:08 am

I just watched the Netflix documentary.

Quite a lot of original footage I never saw before, so a different perspective.

It didn't go into the burglary evidence at all, or time-of-death evidence, which really settled the case.

But tells the human story very well, not just Amanda, but Raffaele and the Kerchers.

Mignini is also heavily featured, and remains an enigma. Nick Pisa is unapologetic.

I commend the film-makers, well done.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5154
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby mjlaris » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:34 am

I just finished watching the Netflix documentary. It was very good and really did tell the human side of the story. I saw some video and hear some recordings that I had not seen or heard before. Amanda Knox came off as very impressing. I have heard is said that when you travel through hell that you are either burned to a crisp or refined to gold. Amanda certainly traveled through hell and has most certainly been refined to gold. Nick Pisa did not come off as repulsive as I expected and did make some valid comments on society today. The Italian police come off as completely incompetent and Mignini as an unrepentant publicity hound and misogynist. It is my sincerest hope that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito can somehow recover from all this and live a happy life.
mjlaris
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:01 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:44 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:There is another explanation..... this could be classic post hoc reasoning.

One journalist is informed early on of (presumably) one policeperson's theory, which becomes, " How could they have reached such a dramatic conclusion just a day after finding Meredith's body?"

This is not evidence that "they" had come to this conclusion. It is also not a stretch to imagine that a single cop thought this, told a reporter, and the reporter simply noted it.

With all due respect, this shows the smoke but fails to pinpoint the fire.


But have you taken into account VQA Giobbi's testimony on how the police identified Amanda Knox as a suspect very early in the investigation, when she was observed by him to have wiggled her hips when putting on shoe protectors before entering the downstairs flat with him? This would have been on or before Nov. 3, I believe.

Giobbi's testimony is still 20/20 hindsight. Is there a better source on or soon after Nov 3 than a newspaper report where it simply is not clear if what is being reported is the reporter's mishearing?


Whether or not Giobbi's testimony is true in whole or in part - and he certainly shows, in his testimony that the bloodstain on the wall by the light switch in the downstairs flat was due to a cat with a bleeding ear jumping against the wall, a tendency to substitute absurd speculation for fact - it is the testimony of an agent of the Italian State. The ECHR, in judging the case, would consider his testimony in that light. Similarly, any statement from a police officer to media that Amanda was a suspect prior to the events of the Nov. 5 interrogations, where there is objective evidence it was made before those interrogations, shows that Amanda was a suspect before the interrogations began, and not as a result of any statement she made during the interrogation. It is that simple.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Charlotte » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:39 am

Surely this documentary will open doors for a more detailed documentary/series about this case. I smell a new opportunity for Blackhurst, McGinn and Morse! :) TJMK must be livid lol
Charlotte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:54 am
Location: London

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:26 am

Rotten Tomatoes says 100% of the people who watched, liked it.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amanda_knox
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Charlotte » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:27 pm

Right at the beginning of the documentary Mignini admits that he suspected that amanda was guilty when she came to the cottage to look at the knifes and to see if anything was missing. Surely this is proof that the ECHR should be given. Amanda was a suspect from the very day after merediths murder.
Charlotte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:54 am
Location: London

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:45 pm

Charlotte wrote:Right at the beginning of the documentary Mignini admits that he suspected that amanda was guilty when she came to the cottage to look at the knifes and to see if anything was missing. Surely this is proof that the ECHR should be given. Amanda was a suspect from the very day after merediths murder.


It is with immense satisfaction to hear his own words - Mignini's - muse about a woman who during one of the trials said to him:

1) During the trial there was a woman who....

2) She said I was the Devil.....

3) You are evil.

He really did seem to sit for a minute with the comment. Gotta hand it to the guy, he actually seemed to entertain that it was this for which he, himself, might face the final judgement from which there is no appeal.

Which, by the way, were the words he ended with intending them for Amanda and Raffaele. But he actually seemed to be considering it for himself.

I could see it in his eyes - especially with his body language, arms closed across his own chest.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:59 pm

Charlotte wrote:Right at the beginning of the documentary Mignini admits that he suspected that amanda was guilty when she came to the cottage to look at the knifes and to see if anything was missing. Surely this is proof that the ECHR should be given. Amanda was a suspect from the very day after merediths murder.

+1

We need Machiavelli to explain to us that, in Italy, suspecting someone does not make then a suspect.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:33 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, I just want to announce right now that I official had finish watching Amanda Knox Documentary and in my own words. I am going to give you my detail into another cat phase of TMJ style and yes it going to be in the color of red and I am going to re copy it into the real documentary of being entertainment! So please enjoy reading this and talk to you soon everyone!!!



Master Piece of through Innocent Entertainment

In my own words of this wild game of let say: It all started since Halloween 2007 and it a day of horror or not a crime of horror even it the day after or 2 days later of unknown and it gets spooky of horror and it get into a storyline of Nick Pisa, who wanted to become just like me? Yep my friend we both might act like brothers even I never had a brother even he might not have one too. But we are both different. I had a blog. But I shut it down even trying to change my career into talk radio of let say: I am the next Rush Limbaugh of mocking a president even let face it. I never supported a president since 2002-2022 and it 2016! Wow that like 20yrs in the making of being a bad habit person of who I am and who I am for into a living and it going to be that way. Until a new man or woman come forward of being a president, or I never learn anything and what else with me & Nick Pisa! Well he a journal and I am a reader of reading a novel. So yes we are different into crime. But then came Guilano Mignini and he was a man of loving Sherlock Holmes and yes I do too loves Sherlock Holmes even it is mystery from the past & future of time zone, beside it a crime of mystery, and what else would be said about Guilano Mignini, that he believes of god into being catholic and I too am catholic as well, even I am more Irish of Ireland style and it were my Dad history came from through Ireland and mostly my dad family came from Ailesbury Clinic cork of Ireland. So are we here to talk about family of history. No! But let stick to the facts that Amanda was a Xena Warrior and course I am a fan of Xena Warrior and I love Xena and I did enjoy watching and I got all 6 season of Xena on Dvd and I still watch it. But I don't mind of a remake even sure why not? It not going to kill you. But what bother the most is that Guilano Mignin hates to see the kissing of crime wave and it bother him even yes my cousin Sarah was a kissing person, just like Amanda and what if my cousin was convicted of this crime. Yes I would go to Italy even I push the limit of it, because she my Guardian Angel and I call her by that of her innocent and I won't listen and course I am terrible as well! Just like Nick Pisa and even Nick want to be the star of fame. I would be in the same spot light. But I never got that chance of it into Italy, even I don't speak well at Italy language. I only know Ireland language even it my dad history. But on other hand Rome was my mom history of France. Raffaele was a shy boy and a guy of being to shy of unknown even yes both Raffaele and Amanda kissing of a love connection and I it romance of love, and I don't have a problem of it. I am ok with it. Dr. Stefano Conli & Dr. Carla Vecchiotti really had shown the real proof of evidence and when one of them said: 2 unknown men. Oh no once again yes, oh no it can't be TMJ is right. Course I was right! I knew the 2 men and sure don't trust TMJ. Oh really don't trust me? Rudy did said: Amanda was never there and she had nothing to do with it. Oh ok yes Nick he change his story. But using a potty is what he did and it trace his DNA all over the crime scene and a lot of DNA, and if I was the police or pro evidence of crime scene to committed the crime of unknown to prove the guilt or not the guilt. We would all thank me right now. Hmmmmmmm yes Nicky I am talking to you!!!!! You know I really did enjoy the evidence of crime scene and prove the facts of unknown, and the whole case was a master piece of true love or let just say: The innocent is the master piece and it something we all got to watch even yes a master piece! Let all right this down. Should we, because if we are reading a novel of let say: Hey let go to Barnes and Noble and yes I am a fan of it, and it who I am or what I am of reading a novel. So that is were I am going leave my review and I thank you all for reading this and talk to you soon everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:39 pm

https://www.netflix.com/title/80081155

Our organization has been providing the facts about the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito case for over six years. It is incredibly gratifying to see the truth finally being presented on a much larger scale.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org, http://www.amandaknoxcase.com
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Samson » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:42 am

ScifiTom, your review gets right to the point. " Amanda was never there". How will professor Guede discuss this statement as an historian?
We must always study what people say before the police are proposing they know what really happened.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:13 am

Samson wrote:ScifiTom, your review gets right to the point. " Amanda was never there". How will professor Guede discuss this statement as an historian?
We must always study what people say before the police are proposing they know what really happened.


To Sam

You're exactly right that my reviews does get to the right point of crime scene, even more into it. I would love how will professor Guede discuss this case or statement or his historian issue. But with the whole point of view. If the police did use the facts of my way instead, they should gone to the Disco dancing style where Rudy was and here that picture right now!!!

Image

Let look at it, even yes Rudy holding 2 hot babes with him while there a man behind him, even he might be a bar tender or a bar worker into the disco place. I really think it was 2 men vs 1 woman into the crime scene. But Yes Rudy got sick to take the bull crap in the potty while the other man went rampage of eager even yes Rudy was over everything through DNA from Meredith room and the bathroom, and it explain excellent. But who was the other man. Was it the mob man. One guy in the jail said: Amanda was innocent and he said it had something to do with the mob man, and later on he killed himself, of being hurt of bad judgement!!!

You know I am more into of getting the action of right view or I am the next Rush Limbaugh of radio waves. I know I talk good review into radio waves and I mock a president of why I talk to myself for 3hours from the evening time zone! That all Sam and talk to you soon Sam!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:31 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:https://www.netflix.com/title/80081155

Our organization has been providing the facts about the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito case for over six years. It is incredibly gratifying to see the truth finally being presented on a much larger scale.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org, http://www.amandaknoxcase.com

To add insult to the injury that both Mignini and Pisa received in that documentary.......

...... the damning words are from their own mouths. At the end, Pisa tries to feign that he'd known they were innocent all along, but it was really the police who had led him on. (Rats deserting a sinking ship.) Pisa even makes a virtue out of not bothering to fact-check, "If you did that someone else would run the story and they'd get the pay-day."

But there can be no question from this point. Mignini even runs through his own tortured logic of why Amanda had to be suspected from the git-go: the covering of the body, eyeballing a staged break-in (with investigation of whether not it was), Amanda freaking out about being shown knives back at the cottage..... can there be ANY doubt that when they were interrogated, and when Raffaele "broke"....

That their rights should have kicked in? I'd love to hear someone argue that the whole police theory of the crime rebooted to an empty-sheet when Raffaele's interrogation started.

Oh right - there was Machiavelli, who argued that there was a legal condition amounting to, "almost suspected."

Which brings to mind the other thing that was wrong with this 9 year odyssey - the people who made excuses for Mignini; or even when he was out of the picture, the people who saw this case only as a referendum on the "honour" of the Italian system.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:29 am

I saw the documentary late last night.
1. I liked the format - interviews interspersed with history of the case - 4 key players interviewed with the same backdrop,
2. I found Pisa a bit sympathetic. He has a job - take leaks generated from the Italian legal system and turn them into headlines. I don't think that he believes AK and RS are guilty. The hard question Pisa was never asked is whether he suppressed stories that might cast doubt on the prosecution's case in order to preserve access to leaks from the police and the prosecution.
3. Mignini was obviously a victim of confirmation bias - set off by his assumption that the break in was "staged" and his interpretation of Amanda's behavior. He has 4 daughters so I am sure he made comparisons between the behavior of his daughters he observes (which may not be the same as their behavior when he isn't around) and the behavior of this American from Seattle. With his pipe, he fancies himself a kind of modern Sherlock Holmes - I wonder if he has read Chesterton's "Father Brown" series - as a Catholic in my teen years, I enjoyed the stories of this Catholic priest investigating crimes - maybe I will give him a copy when I am in Perugia next week (if he gets fascinated by it, he may decide on an early retirement). What was surprising about Mignini was the conclusion - he did not make table pounding arguments for her guilt but devolved into a "if she is innocent........; if she is guilty........" set of musings. If pressed, I doubt that even he really believes that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. They left out a lot of key stuff (e.g, TOD - which I think is critically important) but they had only 90 minutes.
5. The "botched investigation" theme is powerful. I have always thought it was one of the best ways to start the argument for our side of the case because it was something every person playing with a full deck of cards had to agree on. But, to be fair, mistakes are made in virtually all investigations. The real issue is the intelligent analysis of what emerges from a flawed investigation. Even though the body temperature wasn't taken until 11 hours after the body was discovered, there was still overwhelming evidence for a TOD before 10 p.m. And Lumumba could have been cleared much, much earlier - probably even before his arrest.
6. Amanda was great. This experience robbed her of some of her best years and she will struggle to make sense of it. She seems to be processing it in a constructive fashion and hopefully will turn it into a path forward.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:43 am

Nice take, erasmus.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:54 am

carlofab wrote:Nice take, erasmus.

Absolutely.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby mjlaris » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:57 am

I agree, Erasmus's analysis is the same as mine. Amanda was very powerful in her interview. It is very hard for me not to hate Mignini for taking those young years away from both Amanda and Raffaele. He took what should have been a wonderful time away from these young people. Amanda seemed to be a real free spirit before all this but Mignini killed that spirit long before it's time. That Amanda has turned out as she has is a testament to her strength of character.
mjlaris
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:01 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:35 pm

I think the Netflix documentary is outstanding. This is how the story needs to be presented to the masses at this point in time. The documentary doesn't bore people with every little detail that we have all debated endlessly for years. The time for that has passed. The pace and tone are nearly flawless. The decision by the filmmakers to present the story in 90 minutes was the right one if you ask me. People have short attention spans and they also have many other things they can be doing. I think the documentary will keep most viewers on the couch from beginning to end

The few detractors who remain will continue to nitpick every little detail of the case, but the world has already passed them by.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:40 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:I think the Netflix documentary is outstanding. This is how the story needs to be presented to the masses at this point in time. The documentary doesn't bore people with every little detail that we have all debated endlessly for years. The time for that has passed. The pace and tone are nearly flawless. The decision by the filmmakers to present the story in 90 minutes was the right one if you ask me. People have short attention spans and they also have many other things they can be doing. I think the documentary will keep most viewers on the couch from beginning to end

The few detractors who remain will continue to nitpick every little detail of the case, but the world has already passed them by.

There are still conspiracists arguing the Lindbergh baby-kidnapping. There are conspiracists who believe Amelia Earhart was kidnapped by the Japanese and became Tokyo Rose on the radio during WWII.

Great company for Peter Quennell and God.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:12 pm

Speaking of conspiracies, maybe others noticed this:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:52 pm

If this is what she says in the movie, she appears to have misspoken.

She testified at trial that she only knew how to delete received messages, not ones she sent. It was her reply to Patrick they found on the phone. She says that in her book too.

I seem to recall some confusion even at trial about whether the message was to or from Patrick.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:00 pm

carlofab wrote:If this is what she says in the movie, she appears to have misspoken.

She testified at trial that she only knew how to delete received messages, not ones she sent. It was her reply to Patrick they found on the phone. She says that in her book too.

I seem to recall some confusion even at trial about whether the message was to or from Patrick.

Well, there's more to it than that but whatever. I don't want to go over it all again. I'll just say I believe the cops deleted that message, very possibly on Mignini's orders.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:39 pm

It is in the English portion of Amanda's trial testimony that she says, "I'm not a technical genius, so I didn't know how to delete the messages I sent. I think she said that she deleted messages because the phone had limited space. This is all from memory, but look up her English trial testimony on You Tube if you want to look into this more.

OTHER NEWS --

The BBC has a new interview with Raffele in which they ask -- in light of frequent complaints from the Kerchers -- if it isn't "insensitive" to release yet another documentary on this subject.

Raffaele says the police and prosecutors agree and want to forget about this "because the shame for it is on them."

For his part, Raffele says he is not yet ready to let go of the past because he is still trying to rebuild his image and his life, and he needs to at least partially recover legal expenses.

I have to say that Amanda and Raffaele have been quite decent and discreet about not reminding the press that in fact they were both sued by the Kerchers.

Maresca represented the Kerchers' civil lawsuit at trial and made some scathing, and totally groundless, attacks on the character of Amanda especially that were clearly damaging to the defense. The Kerchers have the world's sympathy for the tragic loss of their daughter. At the same time they sued two innocent people and lost, and want to forget about that. For them to suggest it "insensitive" for Amanda and Raffaele to speak out about their ordeals is not quite fair. If they had cared enough to look into their daughter's death with an independent investigator rather than trusting the police, they would likely not have participated in what turned out to be a travesty of justice against not just Amanda and Raffele, but their own daughter as well. Without the active cooperation of the Kerchers, Mignini would have had a much more difficult time of it. If the focus had been placed where it belonged, it is possible that Meredith's killer would not have gotten off so easy.

The guilters also played a significant part in the injustice, which could explain why they are also unwilling to let this go. To admit they were wrong would be to admit responsibility for a great deal of mischief and damage. They are fundamentally incapable of entertaining such thoughts about themselves.

Ultimately much of "Amanda Knox" is about us -- how we are so quick to judge and condemn -- and just as quickly want to forget, without consequences, when we are proven wrong.

BBC Interview --

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37512113
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:54 pm

User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:40 am

carlofab wrote:It is in the English portion of Amanda's trial testimony that she says, "I'm not a technical genius, so I didn't know how to delete the messages I sent. I think she said that she deleted messages because the phone had limited space. This is all from memory, but look up her English trial testimony on You Tube if you want to look into this more.

http://injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewt ... bd8653edbe
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby LondonJohn » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:03 am

carlofab wrote:If this is what she says in the movie, she appears to have misspoken.

She testified at trial that she only knew how to delete received messages, not ones she sent. It was her reply to Patrick they found on the phone. She says that in her book too.

I seem to recall some confusion even at trial about whether the message was to or from Patrick.



I've written on this before, and IMO there's a clear and simple explanation for all this.

In 2007, when you received an incoming text message alert on your phone, you opened the message with a simple click and read the message. Below the message on the screen were commands that corresponded to the two buttons just below the bottom left and right of the screen. Almost always, those two command options were "delete" and "reply". It was therefore extremely easy, quick and intuitive to delete an incoming message that you'd just read. Likewise, even if you wanted to reply to the message, it wasn't hard at all to click on "delete" rather than "reply", and then to compose a new text message to the person to whom you wanted to reply. The net result was that it was easy and quick to minimise the number of retained text messages in your inbox folder.

By contrast, deleting sent texts in 2007 took much more time, effort, and a deeper understanding of how to navigate your way round your phone. When you sent a text message, the phone would send the message then automatically return to the home screen (usually just showing the network name and the time/date). If you wanted to delete a sent message, you'd have to access the phone's menu, navigate into the "messages" option then the "sent messages" folder, then select the message you wanted to delete, then select "delete" from the lower-screen command options. There was often also an option to auto-delete all sent messages after sending, but in order to activate this option, you'd have to have an even greater understanding of your phone and you'd have to go through the "general settings" sub-menu to do so.

The upshot of all this is that it was very common in 2007 for people to have small text inboxes on their phones (i.e. messages received), but increasingly large "sent" folders. And I strongly believe this was exactly the situation with Knox. It's very possible that she was in the habit of replying to received text messages by simply selecting "reply", in which case the received message would also have been retained and stored on her phone unless/until she later went through the relevant menu options to delete it. But her general claim to have, as a rule, deleted incoming messages but not having the required understanding to be able to delete sent messages, is IMO entirely reasonable, on the grounds that I've explained here.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:05 am

There are lots of reasons for thinking the cops deleted the message, aside from the fact that Amanda has now said on at least 4 occasions that come to mind that she was shown Lumumba's message (one is in her trial testimony, carlofab). One of them, which IMO implicates Mignini, is that Patrik's message is set out in the 1.45 'confession' but is missing from the 5.45 version. This is of a piece with the suppression of the words 'buona serata' at the critical Matteini hearing. Another one is De Felice announcing at the infamous press conference that they found messages from Patrik on her phone, meaning either that he 'mis-spoke' too or that they really did.

The Netflix doc may or may not get round (I am only half way through it) to informing the viewer they found the knife on the morning of the arrests. That is, they had a crime theory involving Lumumba killing Meredith but they went looking for the murder weapon in Raffaele's kitchen drawer rather than at Lumumba's apartment or Le Chic.

The cops, knowing Amanda to be guilty (those eyes) considered themselves entilted to operate henceforth under section 1 of The Dirty Tricks Act. Plus, having presented themselves to the world's media as saviours of the city and heroes of law enforcement, they weren't going to let a complete lack of evidence or the odd inconvenient detail like Patrik's message spoil their moment in the sun.

There! I said I wouldn't get sucked in ...
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:57 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:There are lots of reasons for thinking the cops deleted the message, aside from the fact that Amanda has now said on at least 4 occasions that come to mind that she was shown Lumumba's message (one is in her trial testimony, carlofab). One of them, which IMO implicates Mignini, is that Patrik's message is set out in the 1.45 'confession' but is missing from the 5.45 version. This is of a piece with the suppression of the words 'buona serata' at the critical Matteini hearing. Another one is De Felice announcing at the infamous press conference that they found messages from Patrik on her phone, meaning either that he 'mis-spoke' too or that they really did.

The Netflix doc may or may not get round (I am only half way through it) to informing the viewer they found the knife on the morning of the arrests. That is, they had a crime theory involving Lumumba killing Meredith but they went looking for the murder weapon in Raffaele's kitchen drawer rather than at Lumumba's apartment or Le Chic.

The cops, knowing Amanda to be guilty (those eyes) considered themselves entilted to operate henceforth under section 1 of The Dirty Tricks Act. Plus, having presented themselves to the world's media as saviours of the city and heroes of law enforcement, they weren't going to let a complete lack of evidence or the odd inconvenient detail like Patrik's message spoil their moment in the sun.

There! I said I wouldn't get sucked in ...


To Clive

Hey Clive, come on do we need to suck it into a whole new level of let say: DX style rock the house. Opps I bet poor Vince McMahon can't take it on me on that one. That poor soul man, just like Peter Quennell. But in reality life style. What the police did was sloppy Joe of the nonsense through dna and it was a mess crime scene of that they got the killer Rudy Guede and what more worst is this that they not only think Amanda would be guilty of (those eyes) I am not going to buy guilt through (those eyes) The reason they buy the guilt is from kissing on being shown in camera!!!

Beside they play the game of silly nonsense, and it plan stupidedia of them doing it, and yes I know what it means even it does mean comfort, they just want to play dirty. I think different that it was 2 men committed the crime scene one got sick and that was Rudy while the other unknown man ran away and Rudy cover the towel of over a blanket and it was a mess and ran away as well. Amanda saw (The door was wide open) How about that (The door was wide open) Now that is true facts of crime even it being done and said into of it!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:05 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, once again for a second time zone that I am going to watch it again. The Fans Said: Not again TMJ TMJ Said: Oh Yes! I am going to watch it again of Amanda Knox Documentary!

Yep everyone I am going to be a He- :devil: of watching Amanda Knox documentary for a second time zone and poor Peter Quennell, Ergon or any member of the TJMK can do nothing about it, and it going to be a :jaw-dropping: moment!!!

P S I am going to have a Popeye with 4 Chicken Finger & French Fries dinner while watching Amanda Knox documentary. It is another time zone for dinner time at 6:30pm!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:35 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:There are lots of reasons for thinking the cops deleted the message, aside from the fact that Amanda has now said on at least 4 occasions that come to mind that she was shown Lumumba's message (one is in her trial testimony, carlofab). One of them, which IMO implicates Mignini, is that Patrik's message is set out in the 1.45 'confession' but is missing from the 5.45 version. This is of a piece with the suppression of the words 'buona serata' at the critical Matteini hearing. Another one is De Felice announcing at the infamous press conference that they found messages from Patrik on her phone, meaning either that he 'mis-spoke' too or that they really did.

    < ..... sinister deletia ..... >

There! I said I wouldn't get sucked in ...

It's a good thing you can't get sucked in about the lamp. I've always wondered if the lamp is the key to blowing this incompetent investigation wide open?

No one has been able to make sense of the lamp. Not on Ground Report, nowhere.

It's a good thing you cannot get sucked into this, or that no one would be stupid enough to try to pry a comment from your clenched teeth.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:21 pm

carlofab wrote:Amanda on Nightline --

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-li ... d=42486591


She is an excellent speaker
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:43 pm

User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:45 pm



The Italian Supreme Court completely screwed themselves when they concluded that multiple killers committed the crime when finalizing Guede's conviction. So they were left with no choice other than to write a confused motivation report when exonerating Amanda and Raffaele. If Nick Pisa is too stupid to understand what actually took place, after spending years writing about this case, then he is clearly a man who has his head stuck up his ass. Article to follow. The Architects of the Foxy Knoxy Myth needs an update.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:55 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:


The Italian Supreme Court completely screwed themselves when they concluded that multiple killers committed the crime when finalizing Guede's conviction. So they were left with no choice other than to write a confused motivation report when exonerating Amanda and Raffaele. If Nick Pisa is too stupid to understand what actually took place, after spending years writing about this case, then he is clearly a man who has his head stuck up his ass. Article to follow. The Architects of the Foxy Knoxy Myth needs an update.



I agree. In the USA, findings in the Guede case would never be used as collateral estoppel in the Knox/Sollecito case (I always thought this was one of the best arguments against extradition is push came to shove). It is quirk in the Italian system which led them to tie themselves into a knot in processing the case - this is one area in which they could learn something from our system.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:20 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:


The Italian Supreme Court completely screwed themselves when they concluded that multiple killers committed the crime when finalizing Guede's conviction. So they were left with no choice other than to write a confused motivation report when exonerating Amanda and Raffaele. If Nick Pisa is too stupid to understand what actually took place, after spending years writing about this case, then he is clearly a man who has his head stuck up his ass. Article to follow. The Architects of the Foxy Knoxy Myth needs an update.



I agree. In the USA, findings in the Guede case would never be used as collateral estoppel in the Knox/Sollecito case (I always thought this was one of the best arguments against extradition is push came to shove). It is quirk in the Italian system which led them to tie themselves into a knot in processing the case - this is one area in which they could learn something from our system.


My understanding is that the participation of Amanda and Raffaele was mutually stipulated to as fact by prosecution and defense without evidence or argument at Rudy's trial. If true, his "acting with others" was a stipulation or uncontested fact rather than a finding.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:13 am

carlofab wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:


The Italian Supreme Court completely screwed themselves when they concluded that multiple killers committed the crime when finalizing Guede's conviction. So they were left with no choice other than to write a confused motivation report when exonerating Amanda and Raffaele. If Nick Pisa is too stupid to understand what actually took place, after spending years writing about this case, then he is clearly a man who has his head stuck up his ass. Article to follow. The Architects of the Foxy Knoxy Myth needs an update.



I agree. In the USA, findings in the Guede case would never be used as collateral estoppel in the Knox/Sollecito case (I always thought this was one of the best arguments against extradition is push came to shove). It is quirk in the Italian system which led them to tie themselves into a knot in processing the case - this is one area in which they could learn something from our system.


My understanding is that the participation of Amanda and Raffaele was mutually stipulated to as fact by prosecution and defense without evidence or argument at Rudy's trial. If true, his "acting with others" was a stipulation or uncontested fact rather than a finding.


The stipulation - if approved - becomes equivalent to a finding. My impression is that it was certainly not a contested issue. The big problem is that the issue was never really tested by the adversary process at all in the Guede trial. In the Knox/Sollecito trial, Massei admitted that the forensic evidence on the multiple versus single assailant issue was inconclusive but he ruled that there must have been multiple assailants largely because of the victim's prowess at martial arts. He neglected the fact that - at the competitive level - matches are based on weight classes because of the inherent and enormous advantage of someone Rudy's size and strength over someone the victim's size and strength. He also ignored the surprise issue and the possibility that there was a disorienting head injury early in the conflict. In this area, I think he was a victim of confirmation bias having already mentally concluded that AK and RS "must have been involved". The record discloses very substantial evidence and testimony that the crime could readily have been committed by a single perp.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:50 am

erasmus44 wrote:
carlofab wrote:My understanding is that the participation of Amanda and Raffaele was mutually stipulated to as fact by prosecution and defense without evidence or argument at Rudy's trial. If true, his "acting with others" was a stipulation or uncontested fact rather than a finding.


The stipulation - if approved - becomes equivalent to a finding. My impression is that it was certainly not a contested issue. The big problem is that the issue was never really tested by the adversary process at all in the Guede trial. In the Knox/Sollecito trial, Massei admitted that the forensic evidence on the multiple versus single assailant issue was inconclusive but he ruled that there must have been multiple assailants largely because of the victim's prowess at martial arts. He neglected the fact that - at the competitive level - matches are based on weight classes because of the inherent and enormous advantage of someone Rudy's size and strength over someone the victim's size and strength. He also ignored the surprise issue and the possibility that there was a disorienting head injury early in the conflict. In this area, I think he was a victim of confirmation bias having already mentally concluded that AK and RS "must have been involved". The record discloses very substantial evidence and testimony that the crime could readily have been committed by a single perp.

A fast-track trial is the same as a regular Italian trial, except for the evidence phase which is missing. All "facts" are those agreed to by both prosecution and defence, so in that sense they are all, by definition, stipulations.

But in Italian law, that makes them no less a "judicial fact" than anything arrived at through a trial where the evidence phase is intact. In the Rudy-trial, there is no cross-examination - if the defence insisted on that right, then (I assume) they'd simply slip back into a regular trial with the evidence phase.

As per Tae Kwon Do - my experience of it is that it is NOT segregated into weight classes. It is segregated into belt colours. In theory, size and weight difference should not matter. (This perhaps varies with different schools of the discipline.)

IIRC Meredith had a yellow belt, the first promotion above an entry-level white belt. A white belt is what you get simply by joining and implies no skill at all. Although I really have no idea what the promotion in Meredith's case was about, the Tae Kwon Do I know initially focusses heavily on falling the proper way - falling to maximize one's chances of getting up. Getting a yellow belt by no means signifies one has mastered that skill, but just that one has begun to "fall" knowing they should roll and try to land the roll on the balls of one's feet.

Typically it is way up at the brown or blue-belt level that one has demonstrated mastery of how to fall so as to be able to quickly get up.

But then again, different styles of Tae Kwon Do emphasize different things. With that said, Judge Massei using Meredith's yellow belt as a reason to discount a single attacker - when 8 of 9 experts say the forensics cannot rule out a single attacker - ranks up there with other stupid rationales judges made in the 5 trials.....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:08 am

Which belt is it where they give you a knife?
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:36 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Which belt is it where they give you a knife?

Point taken.

Although the elite black belts put on demonstrations, where they were being attacked by other black belts who had rubber knives.

Every once in a while an attacker would tire of the humiliation of being spun in the air, landing on his back, helped up by the expert, who proceeded to very politely hand the knife back to him, which had somehow been taken in the confusing melee.

Once, after that, the expert was returning to his start position and the attacker didn't return to his - he simply plunged the knife between the expert's shoulder blades. Thankfully.... the rubber kicked in.

The Sensei proceeded to use that as a humiliating lesson at the expense of the expert, who spent the next months practising.....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron