First, lets start with the director Robert Dornhelm. He did a bunch of light fare in the late 1970's and all of the 1980s. In 1989, in the last days of the Ceausescu regime, a childhood friend of his, Dominic Paraschiv was shot. The doctor misidentified him, falsely accused of being involved in a massacre. The doctor being a member of the anti-communists tied him to a bed, posted a guard to let him die from his gunshot wound. As evidence mounted that he had the wrong man, the doctor stood by his original theory rather than admit the mistake. As the story broke, the international media was still in a hope and glory phase with the overthrow and no one wanted to carry story about a stone cold murder due to judicial incompetence. Dornhelm wrote a movie in tribute to his friend, and does a fantastic job in showing the banality of a the state killing Parashiv and how the media and the society all conspired in acts they would later regret. The analogy Parachiv / Knox, Timisoara massacre / Kercher murder, Clara Weber (the journalist who proved Parachiv was innocent) / Edda Mellas, Romanian anti-Communists / Italian Police, Doctor who originally misidentified Parachiv and lets him die / Mignini, the International Press / International Press is crystal clear. I can't read his mind, but perhaps, hopefully, Dornhelm hopes to do for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito what he was too late to do for Parachiv. I hope that Dornhelm sees that instead of another eulogy / tribute movie this time he will not let Mignini kill pull off his murder to cover his own mistake, this time he will get there before Parachiv dies.
But without question ater the death of Parachiv, Dornhelm is not the same man. The light comedies are gone. He makes the tribute movie to his friend. His very next movie is the story of Marina Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald's widow. That movie takes a conspiratorial view and is sympathetic to Oswald seeing Lee Harvey and Marina as pawns in a broader conspiracy. Over the next few years he does movies about Anne Frank, Spartacus; both victims of state violence, both tried and both guilty. He then does a movie about Michelle Brown. She was an early victim of identity theft. Her thief stole $50,000 in her name; she is accused and the authorities take a bad situation and make it worse. Eventually she becomes a leader in the credit protection acts but only after the US Senate acts, the police were none too helpful. I don't know Dornhelm's work too well, but I do not see a guy who is going to blithely assume that because the Italian police say something its true.
Next lets move onto Hayden Panettiere who has indicated she played Amanda as innocent. While she's not sure about the facts of the case herself and sees the facts as balanced, she is sure that Amanda Knox is no threat to society, never had malicious intent. She also doesn't believe Amanda got a fair trial (link to one interview). Marcia Gay Harden who plays Edda Mellas is appalled at the lies in the newspaper, what the prosecution leaked vs. what the actual case was (link to interview).
Further, Lifetime's brand is women getting screwed over by men. The natural villain for a Lifetime production, even knowing nothing else would be Mignini or Guede.
Its entirely possible I'm wrong. I've made some bad calls before from the crystal ball. And certainly I'd feel better if Candace Dempsey had written the screen play. But every indication I read is that the Guilters are fully justified in their freak out. I'm going to take the liberty to answer their string of questions they have raised.
Like Arline Kercher, Meredith’s mum, we wonder why only the name “Amanda Knox” appears in the title of the film when the victim is named Meredith Kercher. And finally, we wonder why, if Amanda Knox’s family and friends are unassociated with this project, as they claim to be, they are being given an hour of airtime directly following its scheduled showing? (Open letter on true justice protesting the movie)As I mentioned in my earlier article on Amanda Knox and the Shadow they repeat the silly point that the movie should be named after Meredith Kercher, even though the movie is about Knox not Kercher. I addressed this bizarre notion that Knox is not a person in her own right but only a negative image of Kercher in my shadow article. But to use the analogy from Dornhelm in this article, his movie is called, Requiem for Dominic, its named after the man accused wrongly not after the 80 people who died in the Timisoara massacre.
"What possible justification could there ever be for inflicting this kind of pain on the real-life, grieving family of Meredith Kercher?" Saving the life of two kids for one thing. Preventing this sort of injustice from occurring again for another thing.
"Does it enhance our understanding of this heinous crime in any way? No, it does not." Of course it does. Most people who see this movie will know little if anything about the crime and will know far more about it after the movie.
Does it serve to dissuade others from engaging in such acts? Do you believe there are large numbers of people contemplating rape, torture, murders that need to be dissuaded from this course of action through a movie or two? What an odd question.
And then they close with this accusation about a bunch of people they know nothing about. On the contrary, it breeds the kind of callous disregard for human life and lack of empathy that led to this gratuitous act of violence in the first place and that apparently characterizes those who have produced, directed and otherwise participated in the project. The group of people who signed this letter, PMF, delights with open glee in acts of cruelty frequently complementing one another on their success in acting with callous disregard for others. But ignoring that. No one has any idea what led to this act of violence in the first place. It may have been a disregard for human life, it may been lust, it may have been greed, or any of dozens of possible motives. We just don't know that's part of the problem with the case never having been investigated properly.
But, what we do know is the people who produced this movie are good people. I may not think much of Hayden Panettiere as an actress, but as a human being far from callous she's been active in Save the Whales for years. Just to prove how absolutely not callous she is in this video you can see her break down in sobbing tears when she fails to save some dolphins:
You can also hear her being interviewed where she is excited about being arrested by the Japanese because it would give publicity to the cause. She's been active in other environmental causes. And Dornhelm, as I mentioned is someone who changed his life in response to a human tragedy. Marcia Gay Harden who we also mentioned is extremely active in the Red Cross, and is on the board of Hearts of Gold which helps New York's homeless especially homeless children. Valentina Carnelutti who plays Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni has done wonders in fighting against sexual abuse of children. So again we see that the accusers of Knox just make up facts about others.
What I see are more good people, standing up for the truth and holding a light into the darkness that the Migninis of this world wish to create.
66 comments:
CD,
Another great blog. I think you have convinced me this movie will not be as bad as I've feared. It's in the news that Knox's lawyers are protesting so we will see what will happen with that.
I would protest the use of FOM. It seems to set up a battle of FOA vs. FOM. Amanda vs. Meredith. As a solid FOA I also consider myself FOM. I want the best justice that is possible for the family that remains in this debacle of a case. I think Meredith has not received the justice she deserves. I'm glad that Rudy Guede is in jail but many say he is likely to be out in a few short years.
I also don't think the people you are calling FOM are really friends at all. The Kercher's lawyer seems to be lying to them and after their money. They trusted the justice system and they were delivered the opposite.
I think you've made some solid points about the movie and the people involved. We'll find out in a few weeks. I disagree with it playing while the appeals are still ongoing either way.
Hi zooks --
Glad you liked. As for FOM, fair enough I replaced FOM with guilters.
As for the objection:
If you agree the movie is likely to be friendly
And you agree that Amanda is pursuing a two track strategy: legal and political
why object to the movie as part of the political front?
CD-Host
Another good blog.
Thanks for the background on Dornhelm. I’ve been vocal about my opposition to the film (actually, I oppose the film’s timing rather than the film itself) and in my passion I stooped to impute unsavoury motives on people I don’t know. Whether the film is fair or not or whether the producer’s motives are pure or not, to malign them based on nothing more than my assumptions about their motives was wrong of me.
This being said, I stand behind my opposition to the film’s timing.
In other posts that I’ve written about the topic, I’ve summoned imagery of Amanda and Raffaele sitting in jail cells as everyone in the whole wide world but them is free to act, talk, opine, agitate for (or against) in questions that will determine where they will be allowed to spend the next quarter century of their lives. The appeal is (knock wood) going well and I imagine them beginning to have the first hope in a very long time that they might be freed in time to actually enjoy some of their lives. I imagine myself sitting in that jail cell, allowing myself in unguarded moments to entertain dangerous fantasies about being able to spend the next Christmas with my family, or attending my nieces first soccer game, or maybe, God help me, having kids of my own someday. Enter Lifetime and the production of a film that 1) will air right in the middle of their appeal, 2) that will undoubtedly be seen by millions, and so, inevitably have influence on public opinion and, 3) that will be produced by people whose motives are unknown and who are unconstrained by any legal, ethical or even artistic limitations on what they choose to portray. In short, while Amanda and Raffaele can hope that the producers act responsibly or even, sympathetically, the fact is that the media has not been kind and the prospect of a film that might turn their unguarded daydreams into a real-life nightmare they will be damned to live for the next 25 years must, for them, be terrifying, appalling and, yes, heart wrenching in its potential for utter disaster.
I hope (I truly do) that Dornhelm has made exactly the kind of film that you suggest in your blog. The point is, however, that he is not required to. He (or anyone else) can put any spin on the story they like, without regard for balance, truth, intellectual or moral honesty. If, in fidelity to the memory of Dominic Paraschiv, Dornhelm wants to create a work that spotlights an injustice, he can do so; but if he wants to sell soap to guilters, he can sell soap to guilters.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I do not question (with some limitations) Lifetime’s right to make the film. I question, given everything that’s at stake for two young lives, the decency of it.
MEREDITH KERCHER'S name will be remembered long after Foxy is forgotten!!!
I object to this movie because
* it's grossly inaccurate and insulting to Meredith
* "Lifetime" or rather Deathtime lied to John Kercher about the movie
* disgusting "love" scene with Meredith's rapist and killer as if she had encouraged the black beast
* Foxy killer shown as jaunty gal of sunshine
It's splendid that Marcia Gay Harden does work for Red Cross. It's good Hayden tries to save dolphins and whales. It's great that one of the actresses fights child abuse.
I condemn this movie not to argue that the participants have no virtues, of course they do. I condemn their artistic product called a movie, because it's a lampoon that presents as possible fact what is fiction or nonsense. This movie is a slap in the face to Meredith Kercher.
If movie had been fictionalized, the names changed, and marketed in a stripped from the headlines fashion like Law 'n Order maybe it could pass muster. It insults the audience by purporting to be a true story of a real crime.
This movie does not help solve the real murder. It obscures the truth like CD-Host. Like Amanda, it's one lie after another, pretty much her bio. Give it credit for one thing, the movie does introduce the simple fact to the world that Meredith Kercher was murdered and Amanda Knox was found guilty in first instance trial in Italy. After that basic fact, if true to its trailer, this movie goes into Star Wars hyperdrive leaving planet Truth. In a galaxy far far away where the stars live.
Oh, and how cozy, how strange that the Knox/Mellas families get a full hour to pour out their opinions about the movie right after it airs, yet the innocent victim's family isn't allowed one comment? Despicable. Why is Dornhelm partnering with the Melloxes like this and so afraid to allow the Kerchers to speak? Their daughter is the primary cause of this entire case.
Meredith's quality and decency are what made her death the tragic loss that it was. Her murderers' waste of all their shining opportunities in life is the second tragedy, but it takes three of these sorry people and the contrast of the great privileges they were showered with in youth and which fell like water into the sands of their pettiness, sorriness, insolence, and wickedness, it takes their three life stories which are a miserable disgrace, much like this movie, to attain the gravity of Meredith's one good life.
The legal battle is not yet over and here is a movie depicting "the true story" or pretending to.
Right in the middle of this appeal which is analagous to contempt of court, to obstructing justice (timing is everything) flocks a cynical Dornhelm that CD-Host adores because like Dornhelm he finds fault with authority everywhere due to one personal tragedy.
Oh, it always begins and ends with Mignini, doesn't it Host? He's a villain in your book for doing his job and prosecuting criminals, with whom you so readily identify. You see him as the evil doctor in Ceauscescu incident when you are not worthy to wipe his boots. Well, you always pick the wrong analogy like your stinking Central Park Five, murderers and animals all despite another creep's DNA discovered on their mutual victim. Thanks to another rapist's lies, they walked. Can't wait to meet them at the mall, unless you're having them over for dinner. Pass the butter and the iron pipe.
Perverse men who strain to find wrongdoing among law enforcement while swallowing the camel that is killers, bludgeoners, thieves, where did you get this gene?
When the further forensics or divine justice reveals Knoxy for the troubled killer she is, you will see what Mignini is worth.
....okay, I've just changed my mind. I'll buy the popcorn.
The tragic death of Meredith Kercher has lead to a compounded tragedy in the unjust arrest, trial and incarceration of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It is strange that anyone would think the horrific murder of a girl in the prime of her life would be the subject of a movie, in fact I cannot think offhand of a single movie that focused solely on such a macabre topic, even horror films are wider in scope. I'm sure one or more might have been made, but I cannot see why the world needs any more.
The compelling story here is that that police came to the bizarre conclusion that the roommate of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox, conspired with her boyfriend of less than a week and a man whose only known contact was an introduction to murder her for no discernible reason. That they then took her into the back room to get her to say what they wanted and arrested her, and two other innocents without bothering to wait until they had any real evidence of the involvement of any of them.
This tragedy needs exposure, and I'm hoping this movie brings attention to the plight of these innocents while hopefully providing some artistic merit, though I'm not going to hold my breath about the latter. I did appreciate the background on Dornhelm, and hopefully he will highlight a similar theme of abuse of authority as he has in the past. If it is true that Lifetime is allowing exposure to the family of Amanda after the show, and perhaps even worked with them on the making of the movie I find that entirely appropriate.
Rudy Guede is the villain in Meredith Kercher's story, he has been convicted and found guilty in finality by the Italian Courts; whereas Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are victims of his senseless murder and assault as well. A movie focusing on this should be sympathetic to the plight of the two innocents imprisoned, being as they are in fact only at the second stage of the Italian legal system and in fact still considered innocent by Italian law.
If there are those--including the family of the victim--who have come to a premature conclusion regarding their guilt, they have absolutely no justification for expecting anyone to share those views, being as the accused are by law and moral right considered innocent until proven guilty. That should be the priority, that the movie should respect that fact, not cater to a misplaced sense of vengeance, especially when the decision of the first court is so controversial and so likely to be overturned eventually.
I will say I would rather the movie had stuck more strictly to the facts, as through the trailer I noted things like attendance at the memorial service that did not occur. I can roll my eyes at Hollywood for that one, however I recall earlier reports suggesting the movie would leave the actual murder a complete mystery, which is obviously not going to be the case with the scenes I saw that quite frankly I was hoping would be omitted. While I rather imagine the family will not be watching it, I do find it sickening that they must know that as many people around them that wish to will be viewing a graphic portrayal of their daughter's death.
Hello anonymous --
(part 1)
Thanks for bringing points to bear:
* it's grossly inaccurate and insulting to Meredith
I don't know about insulting nor grossly inaccurate. So far it seems rather accurate in so far as it presents the various views of the people. It doesn't put Massei on a pedestal but considers his views equally with Guede's. It tries to present the debate fairly, with in the confines of the fact that they likely have about 80 minutes excluding commercials and they need room for all sorts of product placements.
* "Lifetime" or rather Deathtime lied to John Kercher about the movie
I don't know much about that, and I suspect neither do you. I do agree John Kercher made that allegation.
* disgusting "love" scene with Meredith's rapist and killer as if she had encouraged the black beast
Wow. woman on the far right is Meredith's mother. I doubt Meredith shares your attitude about interracial couples. Excluding the color issue, Guede's sworn statements are that Meredith invited him in for date. Your entire theory of the case is that the break in was faked. She may very well have.
Foxy killer shown as jaunty gal of sunshine
Which most people agree she was. What evidence do you have that this upbeat personality is inaccurate?
I condemn this movie not to argue that the participants have no virtues, of course they do.
Well you understand that Peggy along with 25 signers at this point, made some quite explicit claims about their virtues. If you consider them falsified then you may want to ask why they erred here? Could it be that perhaps a tendency towards black and white thinking? A tendency towards jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence? A tendency towards excessive in group, us vs. them thinking? A tendency towards overgeneralizing behaviors?
You might want to explore that. Because given the group that made those claims, this is not an "of course".
This movie does not help solve the real murder.
I thinking helping to solve a murder directly is an unlikely byproduct of a movie, as well as a bit too much to ask. What it might do is help to avoid destroying additional lies in the aftermath. Were groups like Oxfam not providing clean water in Haiti another 400,000 people would have died in the aftermath of the quake due to Cholera. The fact that the death toll has been in the thousands and not the hundreds of thousands is a result of publicity and the effect that publicity has had on actions which prevented further harms. The publicity has done nothing to undue the building codes or the unusual magma movements that led the quake to be so damaging in the first place.
Oh, and how cozy, how strange that the Knox/Mellas families get a full hour to pour out their opinions about the movie right after it airs, yet the innocent victim's family isn't allowed one comment? Despicable. Why is Dornhelm partnering with the Melloxes like this and so afraid to allow the Kerchers to speak?
I think you are dead wrong on this one. My guess is that if the Kerchers were willing to come on stage and do a Q&A with the Knox/Mellas family it would be on a major network instantly. The reason the Kerchers aren't there is because they don't want to be there. There is nothing despicable about Lifetime talking to the families that want to be involved.
And Dornheim directed the movie, I don't know who decided on the documentary but Andrea Wong is at least up the right alley in who decided on the hour after post movie discussion.
Their [the Knox / Mellas family] daughter is the primary cause of this entire case.
You are assuming on the facts in dispute.
Thanks, as always, CD-Host.
The preview of the movie that I've seen appears to depict the murder of Meredith Kercher by 3 people. 1) the room is the wrong size. This was a tiny room, single bed wall to wall. 2) If four people had been in that room during Meredith's murder, they would all have been covered in blood and the crime scene would be very different than what it really was. The murder happened on the bed. It did not happen on the floor.
I have not yet seen the movie. The scene I refer to is out of context. But it does make me feel uneasy that the prosecution's erroneous conjecture is depicted when none of the evidence complies with it.
There is at least some element of sensationalism to this film and that is troubling.
The director's history I was not familiar with before reading your great article and that does give me some hope.
Thanks again.
(part 2)
The legal battle is not yet over and here is a movie depicting "the true story" or pretending to. Right in the middle of this appeal which is analagous to contempt of court, to obstructing justice (timing is everything)
I don't see the analogy. Just to pick an example, the Jared Lee Loughner shooting happened on January 8, 2011 (since there are non Americans reading this, this was a mass shooting where 19 were shot and 6 died). I've already seen dramatization and reenactments put together by news organizations. His trial hasn't even started.
A cynical Dornhelm that CD-Host adores because like Dornhelm he finds fault with authority everywhere due to one personal tragedy.
This is you jumping to conclusions. I don't know his work well enough to adore him. I like what I see so far. Hell yeah. Jared Lee Loughner may go down as the largest mass murder of the year. That's how many die every 20 minutes in the Afghan war. Authorities are much more dangerous, or about every hour in Iraq (and the worst of it is over in Iraq).
Oh, it always begins and ends with Mignini, doesn't it Host? He's a villain in your book for doing his job and prosecuting criminals,
No. He is a villain for the times when he stopped doing his job. When he crossed the line from organizing an investigation to massaging facts.
with whom you so readily identify. You see him as the evil doctor in Ceauscescu incident
I consider him a coward. His original decision to put a guard by the door was the right one. He acted on a reasonable suspicion in the public interest. It was his illegal prosecution, by trying to make Dominic bleed to death, and his unwillingness to admit his mistake when he could still fix the damage that caused the real harm.
And yes that is analogous to Mignini. It wasn't suspecting Knox or Sollecito that was the problem. It was unwillingness to confront the actual facts of the case that didn't support his conjectures. Had he released Amanda in mid November 2007 it would have been an error, but not an act of malice.
Well, you always pick the wrong analogy like your stinking Central Park Five, murderers and animals all despite another creep's DNA discovered on their mutual victim. Thanks to another rapist's lies, they walked. Can't wait to meet them at the mall, unless you're having them over for dinner. Pass the butter and the iron pipe.
Lets see a forced confession inconsistent with the physical evidence where another person confessed and the evidence is consistent with this other person. Yeah I'm happy with this analogy.
When the further forensics or divine justice reveals Knoxy for the troubled killer she is, you will see what Mignini is worth.
No I won't. The further forensics that is being looked at is the sort of things that should have been looked at in late '07 or early '08 if Mignini was investigating a crime and trying to see justice done. I don't believe in summary execution even if there are all sorts of dressing to make it look like something else.
anonymous --
On this blog we practice civility. We attack ideas, or policies. Personal attacks cheapen the debate. Your comment has been deleted.
You are welcome to post on the issues.
It is strange that anyone would think the horrific murder of a girl in the prime of her life would be the subject of a movie, in fact I cannot think offhand of a single movie that focused solely on such a macabre topic, even horror films are wider in scope.
Kaosium, you dear friend do not watch enough TV :-)
Let me pick some big ones:
Stewart's Anatomy of a Murder; A had raped B's wife and is found murdered; B is the prime suspect.
Murder in the First -- Murder in a prison of an informer.
The Fixer, true story about a defense attorney who gets a convicted murder, Yakov Bog out in Czarist russia.
Some you've heard of
Crime and Punishment
Of Mice and Men
Witness For the Prosecution
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Jane Fonda's They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
Barbara Stanwyck's Sorry, Wrong Number
Roxie Hart -- Great classic movie about a dancer who kills a man who is holding her career back.
The Boy from Lebanon -- this is about a failed murder.
Quai des Orfevres which may be the second best movie of the 40s (outside Casablana).
Trust me I'm just getting started.
And lets not forget classics like Elektra, a 3 parter which has been the subject of a dozen movies and plays for 2300 years. And lets say 200 movies approximately about David and Bathsheba which involves the murder of Uriah as a central plot point.
And of course Alpha Dog as a great example over on IIP of a recent one made before the case came to trial.
This tragedy needs exposure, and I'm hoping this movie brings attention to the plight of these innocents while hopefully providing some artistic merit, though I'm not going to hold my breath about the latter. I did appreciate the background on Dornhelm, and hopefully he will highlight a similar theme of abuse of authority as he has in the past. If it is true that Lifetime is allowing exposure to the family of Amanda after the show, and perhaps even worked with them on the making of the movie I find that entirely appropriate.
That's what my gut tells me. This is friendly not hostile. I wish, I wasn't having to go on my gut and had facts but....
If there are those--including the family of the victim--who have come to a premature conclusion regarding their guilt, they have absolutely no justification for expecting anyone to share those views, being as the accused are by law and moral right considered innocent until proven guilty. That should be the priority, that the movie should respect that fact, not cater to a misplaced sense of vengeance, especially when the decision of the first court is so controversial and so likely to be overturned eventually.
I agree with you 100% here.
Judging by your list, perhaps I didn't make my first point very well. I got the impression some thought the actual subject of the movie should be Meredith. Therefore spending much of the movie developing her character only to have her cut down by the rapacious trio.
In other words, the movie about Meredith and her murder, as opposed to Amanda Knox and her travails because of the murder. I haven't seen all the movies on that list, but are any of them [i]about[/i] the life and murder of a young woman?
I wasn't just talking about movies where someone gets murdered, or even movies in which a girl Meredith's age does get murdered, but a movie about a girl who we get to know and then we see murdered and that is what the story is [i]about.[/i] :)
That seemed to be a 'criticism' I've seen around, that the movie wasn't focused on Meredith. :)
Kaosium --
Oh I see what you are saying. That's the theme I addressed in my, Amanda Knox as the shadow that Amanda shouldn't exist in her own right but only as a negative image of Meredith.
Anyway, there are lots of movies about murder victim, but either the killer or the victim of both have to be interesting. There is nothing particularly interesting about Meredith Kercher. I can think of lots of moves that have a main character who gets murdered in the end:
All the King's Men (1946 and 2009) Huey Long
Malcom X
Talk Radio (Alan Berg)
Hate (George Lincoln Rockwell)
Oliver Stone's JFK
and just to throw a woman in there.
Sissi, l'impératrice rebelle
And reading that list you see immediately why the idea that the movie should be based on Meredith is ridiculous. Even if you knew for sure Amanda Knox did it then that still would be silly. The movie about the murders of Tammy Homolka, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French is called Karla because Karla Homolka is fascinating. 2 of the other 3 I had to look up their names to write the last sentence.
What is interesting about the Amanda Knox case is Amanda Knox, truly one of the most fascinating murder suspects in years. Though Mignini's fantastical obsessions help, a sort of Inspector Javert to her Jean Valjean. Without her no one ever knows anything about this case. There is a Chinese curse about interesting (may you live in interesting times) so interesting isn't always to your benefit and in Amanda's case it isn't.
But I've never understood how anyone can seriously propose that Meredith be the subject of a movie. What did Meredith do that we know of other than live the kind of life a million other people entering graduate programs did, and then be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
CD Host - thanks for your publishing your research on this movie. I remain uneasy about the principle of releasing a movie like this when the judicial process is far from over, but I am now cautiously optimistic rather than pessimistic over the effect it might have. I agree that this saga benefits from a two track approach - the real battle is in court, but the court of pubic opinion may count for something in the end as well, in spite of the Daily Mail.
Oops - pubic opinion might count for something, but not as much as public opinion.
Although I believe that Amanda and Raffale (and NOT Rudy Guede) are innocent, I do not care so much in regards to it hurting our "case" as much as what they've put in this movie! I feel VERY STRONGLY that it is WRONG that they would put a scene of Meredith's horrific murder and rape in the movie. I feel horrible for the parents It LITERALLY made me feel like I would throw up, and it still does every time I think about it. I grieve with them and I think that we should all cry out against this "wrong" for the parents, and for all. I'm not going to watch the movie because of this, even if I might be a bit curious at to how it's portrayed. Believe you me, the few trailers I've seen do not make Amanda look innocent as she does in real life. In the end, I know that honesty and justice will prevail. Worst case, it might not be until we get to heaven (or hell), but it will. There ARE good, and honest people in the world- in Italy, and in Brittan, and in America. All I desire is honesty. I'm on Meredith's side. :(
Les Miserables, what a sad story. If you want Mignini to drown himself in the Seine like Javert, good luck. His conscience is clear. It takes more than a hardwired little con like Amanda to give Mignini a crisis of conscience. He has seen her likes come and go dozens of times before, no rocket science.
I'd suggest you consider something a little more recent than Victor Hugo. Crime drama "NYPD Blue" exposed the psychological toll among big city policemen. It exposed the dark underbelly of violence and what such extreme ugliness does to the humanity of police forces who face it every day. If anything could corrupt morals, it would be this job-- living in the moral sewer of lowlifes.
CD-Host you should want to uphold law. You seem to revel in lashing out at police and prosecutors. They make mistakes, some are corrupt, but you have a lot of gall to point fingers at the very people who would risk their life for you.
You have a lot of chutzpah to tout Oxfam as some holy charity when they are big on political takedowns of the systems in countries they help out of poverty. Why do they also want to stick it to the governments in power, under the guise of helping the poor. Catholic Relief Services, Catholic charities, pentecostals and other Christian relief efforts do more good than Oxfam with less loss to corrupt government officials and yet without secretly brewing revolution. You with your hatred of all things authoritarian seem blind to the dictatorial Oxfam. I think you're an anarchist. I know you're the victim of a liberal brainwashing with a rather tenuous hold on commonsense.
Quoting great minds like Hayden Panettiere hardly improves your credit. "Amanda Knox is no threat to society." Hayden says it so it must be so, what a pretty Bandarlog.
Thank you michellesings.
You sound sincere and outraged by the crude vulgarity of this film despite your stand for Knox's innocence.
Your tender consideration for the victim's family is wholesome. I doubt the hardboiled producers of Lifetime movie will care, but at least you do.
George --
Hi, welcome to the blog. I think I might address something on political trials and how the two tracks play off against one another in the Internet age. I should mention that Mignini certainly believes in the political track he deliberately created an environment to get false testimony against the defendants, so he understands the value quite well.
______
Michelle --
Hi, welcome. You've been blessed by meeting Amanda in real life. For those of who haven't we don't have the opportunity to know how innocent she appears in real life.
Anyway you and your husband, keep up the good work. You have done a lot of great stuff and huge personal cost and a disagreement about political strategy doesn't diminish my admiration at all.
anonymous --
Les Miserables, what a sad story. If you want Mignini to drown himself in the Seine like Javert, good luck. His conscience is clear. It takes more than a hardwired little con like Amanda to give Mignini a crisis of conscience. He has seen her likes come and go dozens of times before, no rocket science.
I get your point, and no I don't think Mignini has the level of integrity of Javert. Javert obeys the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit; Mignini can't even do that. But as long as we are on the topic, remember what drove Javert to suicide was not an understand of his evil but a desire not to live in debt to a thief.
I'd suggest you consider something a little more recent than Victor Hugo. Crime drama "NYPD Blue" exposed the psychological toll among big city policemen. It exposed the dark underbelly of violence and what such extreme ugliness does to the humanity of police forces who face it every day. If anything could corrupt morals, it would be this job-- living in the moral sewer of lowlifes.
I agree with you and even worse than law enforcement is combat. We don't disagree there at all on the moral effects of this sort of work. I have no question how quickly or easily people can be morally compromised by criminals.
CD-Host you should want to uphold law.
I do want to uphold law. My complaints about Mignini are where he didn't uphold law.
You seem to revel in lashing out at police and prosecutors. They make mistakes, some are corrupt, but you have a lot of gall to point fingers at the very people who would risk their life for you.
Well that's not been my experience with them, nor many others. I would love to have a police force that people could be proud of knowing full well the truth, nothing would make me happier. And that's why I "lash out". The police need the law far more than do the civilians.
You have a lot of chutzpah to tout Oxfam as some holy charity when they are big on political takedowns of the systems in countries they help out of poverty. Why do they also want to stick it to the governments in power, under the guise of helping the poor. Catholic Relief Services, Catholic charities, pentecostals and other Christian relief efforts do more good than Oxfam with less loss to corrupt government officials and yet without secretly brewing revolution.
Well we disagree there. I like the political liberalism mixed in with the food. As far as cost efficiency, I don't know the statistics but that wouldn't be surprising. Many charities have very high administrative expenses.
You with your hatred of all things authoritarian seem blind to the dictatorial Oxfam. I think you're an anarchist. I know you're the victim of a liberal brainwashing with a rather tenuous hold on commonsense.
Anarchist no, I don't deny the need for the state. Nature is red of tooth and claw and societies need the ability to exercise collective violence to survive. I just wish that weren't so, and want to minimize collective violence as much as possible.
But you didn't come here to critique my politics.
wald1900 --
Hmmm I don't know what to make of your two posts. I figured you posted and then did change your mind and then on IIP you kinda changed back. So I"m not sure what to respond to. So I kinda waited and I'm still in the same place. We can drop it if you are on the fence now or you can just tell me what still live. Though I've spending longer on this here and IIP than I wanted to.
Let me just comment on your first paragraph of your first post. That was big of you! Responding to evidence is what separates the FOA from the guilters. That was awesome!
Ahhh....you mean the comment about the popcorn? Sorry, it was intended as a joke - an ill-advised response to the post that immediately preceded it. Please feel free to remove it if you’d like.
No, I am where I’ve always been on the topic.
You’ve been crossing swords on many fronts for most of the day and, frankly, from your series of posts it has been easier to divine what you don’t think than what you do think. Is it safe to summarize your position this way....
In the battle between the Knox / Sollecito fears concerning a dramatization of the Kercher murder in the middle of their appeal and Lifetime’s first amendment right to air whatever they want whenever they want, the first amendment wins. Period. End of story. With that as a given, let’s not get too upset about the Lifetime film as (given the director’s likely artistic bias and Lifetime’s core audience) it is more likely than not that the film will actually wind up helping Amanda and Raffaele.
I’m really not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I’m getting you wrong or have missing something important, please set me straight.
Assuming that I’m kind of close, then I can tell you that I’m uncomfortable with a line of reasoning that leads to a scenario in which it is okay for Amanda and Raffaele to continue doing time if it means that Lifetime’s first amendment rights are protected. You see, I’m not yet convinced that the right of Amanda and Raffaele to freedom from...let’s call it, “potentially prejudicial artistic expression during the course of an active appeal” and the safeguards of the first amendment are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Since I can’t get my head around this part, the second (“let’s not get too upset”) part just seems little more than a cynical anticlimax where we’ve taken a frown and done our very best turned it upside down (i.e. yeah, it sucks, but maybe it won't be that bad)
Wald --
Nothing wrong with a joke. I considered that a possible, response to anonymous given how strongly (she?) was. I've been reading stuff on both sides and its interesting because both sides are passionate that Lifetime doesn't have a right to speak on this issue. And as you mention my basic belief is that Lifetime has the same right to speak on this issue as you or I or PMF do. Peter gets the right to run his blog from the same place that Lifetime gets the right to make the movie. So you are right about the "period" part from both a moral and a legal standpoint.
I also would throw in, that even if Knox/Mellas had a much better case than they do, given who they would be suing (GE, Disney, Hearts) they would lose and would suck up huge amount of funds. So from a practical standpoint this lawsuit threat by her lawyers is ridiculous. I consider it bluster not serious. So my feeling is the legal discussion about "can they" should be off the table, there is nothing to discuss. You are right there.
I would aslo add that in Amanda's case even if it were practical I still think it would be inadvisable.
Amanda's strongest argument with her original trial has been Mignini's witness intimidation tactics. The calunia charges against her parents are so far over the line, that it allows you to make a good comparison between Mignini and those people who kill Americans in Pakistan and Afghanistan over Koran burnings. She throws that argument away if she makes a legal attempt to prevent Lifetime from speaking.
Assuming that I’m kind of close, then I can tell you that I’m uncomfortable with a line of reasoning that leads to a scenario in which it is okay for Amanda and Raffaele to continue doing time if it means that Lifetime’s first amendment rights are protected. You see, I’m not yet convinced that the right of Amanda and Raffaele to freedom from...let’s call it, “potentially prejudicial artistic expression during the course of an active appeal” and the safeguards of the first amendment are necessarily mutually exclusive.
That's the discussion I'm having with LondonSupporter over on IIP. I have yet to hear how they aren't mutual exclusive in the hands of a capable government.
Lets take some example. The book that talks most effectively about why Amanda said the stuff she did on November 5th is Alexander's How to Break a Terrorist. That's a book by an inexperienced interrogator which gives the "why torture is a bad idea" which essentially amount to the fact you get crappy information full of silly lies from scared people during interrogations. He believes that as an interrogator you need to keep your subjects calm enough to give you valuable information. Its a terrific book.
But right now today, we have people who are awaiting trials on terrorism charges who were interrogated either using Alexander's methods or other methods. Some of them were interrogated by Alexander. How is that book not potentially prejudicial?
(part 2 to follow)
(part 2 respons to Wald)
Or lets make it broader. Many of those people had female interrogators. Coco Fusco just published a great book on the use of sexual humiliation by female interrogators as a US tactic to get information, did she have the right to do that? This involves thousands of detainees as this has become a core US tactic due to its effectiveness. And given that the women who have been trained in these tactics are likely to enter (or have entered) mainstream police forces and the FBI, these tactics are likely to be used domestically for the next 2 generations. I don't see how this isn't a matter of public interest.
The way I see it, under speech codes as a government I can take any issue I don't want discussed, call it X. Create a case about X where information on X would bias the court. Done. I've now gone from a situation where I have an absolute right to free speech to one where I have a partial right.
Since I can’t get my head around this part, the second (“let’s not get too upset”) part just seems little more than a cynical anticlimax where we’ve taken a frown and done our very best turned it upside down (i.e. yeah, it sucks, but maybe it won't be that bad)
And here you are misreading me. What I would say is, this doesn't suck at all. I think it is hugely to her benefit given that she is pursuing a political strategy. Basically the strategy has been to make it clear to the appeals court that this case is not going to be quietly swept under the rug. That the case is staying in the public eye. She's getting about a 1/2 dozen books a year about her case. She's got possibly as many as two other movies in the works. Monster of Florence (Tom Cruise & George Clooney) is getting a high budget picture, which will put focus on Mignini's methods. And that's before the tell-all autobiographies.
The judges on the appeals court know, this may very well be the case they are famous for. They looking at a weak circumstantial case, which ignoring the details amounts to "we think Amanda and Raffaele are BSing about some stuff, but don't really have enough evidence to convict". The Italian justice system is already being attacked in Europe and in the Italian press. This is a case which reflects negatively on the justice system in America. Think about how much coverage Knox gets when say ten million people a week worldwide are seeing Monster of Florence and wondering what else this Mignini guy has been up to.
Everyone knows that the second she's out of jail she's on a plane back to the USA essentially never to return, so she's poses zero risk to public safety.
That's not a bad hand to be holding. Right now she's been beat by Mignini hates her and the Italians couldn't get their hands on the CIA agents they really wanted so she was convenient. Take away the public interest and you have an entirely different world. Maybe she's just another of the millions doing time for, "well she probably did something, so what the hell". Maybe she pleads to something small and is out already. Maybe she's too much of an embarrassment after the premature announcement of "case closed" and so 3 months into it, she gets shanked in a prison bathroom and "bleeds out before we could save her". Who knows?
But once she decided to play the hand for a political strategy: any coverage that is not definitely negative is to her advantage. And this movie is very likely positive, and if not then very likely neutral. I can understand not wanting a political strategy, most defendants don't use one; I wouldn't use one. But ultimately the person doing the time and her family picked a political strategy.
So no I don't think of this as a negative, I think of it as a huge positive.
Sorry on Alexander I wrote "That's a book by an inexperienced interrogator"
I meant That's a book by an experienced interrogator
hello everyone
CD-Host,
so you are criticizing PMF again. Buzz off. They are not a hate blog, they hate lies. You came out commenting after merely two weeks of reading about Meredith's murder. PMF has delved for three years into the minutiae of the case, and right now there's not much happening with the facts of the case, so why complain they aren't talking about it? There's nothing happening. Everyone is waiting for the Rome labs to re-examine the knife and bra clasp for DNA, and that hearing is May 21.In the interim we have this stupid sci-fi movie with Hayden Panettiere, not much substance.
PMF will talk about what they darn well please. Just because you are madly in love with Foxy and desire succulent morsels of nothing from which you can declare her innocent, doesn't mean they have to keep you amused with fresh facts so that you can backboard off them and contradict. Maybe you can then find some French Revolution or French connection or French Miserables to draw parallels to the Knox debacle. Maybe there's something to that French connection.
Anoymous --
so you are criticizing PMF again. Buzz off.
Well here is our relationship.
they analyze an article of mine. They don't cross post because that would require integrity.
I go to their blog to respond. They freak out. FUs everywhere.
From there they violate basic internet norms of civility and start with attacks against uninvolved 3rd persons. Which have degenerated into multiple crimes at this point.
Delete everything about uninvolved 3rd parties and learn how to debate ideas and not people and your group won't get talked about as human garbage. Commit crimes, engage in harassment and you are unworthy of respect.
So lets be clear about who started this. And who continued this. I have been remarkably restrained in my dealings with this group.
They are not a hate blog, they hate lies.
Then respond to lies them, factually calmly and rationally.
You came out commenting after merely two weeks of reading about Meredith's murder.
Yes I did.
PMF has delved for three years into the minutiae of the case,
Really. What minutiae have they investigated? I don't see PMF taking the lead on the DNA analysis. I don't see PMF taking the lead on doing background research on suspects. I don't see PMF taking the lead on the computer forensic. It was Frank, not PMF who discovered the blood on the knife 2 weeks back. Which point of the appeal are they investigated the minutia of?
and right now there's not much happening with the facts of the case,
Sure there is. There is a 6 point appeal going on. There are substantial questions being raised about the autopsy as the core of the appeal. In the last few months an entirely new political angle has opened up.
so why complain they aren't talking about it?
Because what they do talk about is either catty or truly hateful. There is a saying "Big people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, small people talk about people." What does PMF talk about?
Thinking up childish names for your opponents? Trying to find embarrassing information, partially quoting it and then misrepresenting it. How is that honoring to Meredith? How is that fighting against "lies"?
(part 1, part 2 to follow)
There's nothing happening. Everyone is waiting for the Rome labs to re-examine the knife and bra clasp for DNA,
Baloney there is a lot happening. Take a look at the innocentisti are doing. They are, to the best of their ability analyzing the new evidence. For example the fact the knife wasn't cleaned. And now that the autopsy is the center of the defense why hasn't PMF worked out a strong defense of the Mignini / Massei timeline? Too busy telling fart jokes?
In the interim we have this stupid sci-fi movie with Hayden Panettiere, not much substance.
Absolutely. And here was another example where PMF made allegations that you wouldn't even stand behind in a public letter that were falsified. Did they retract them?
PMF will talk about what they darn well please.
Yes and I think they should. OTOH what they choose to talk about subjects them to criticism. When they cross the line from free speech to criminal behavior or at the very least grossly immoral and unethical behavior they get talked about in less than polite terms. If you want to stop being talked about as a hate board, then stop acting like one.
You don't see a focus on mocking Michael Harris, or Peggy on IIP. They focus is on saving Amanda and Raffaele.
Just because you are madly in love with Foxy
I'm not in love with Amanda Knox. I don't know here, never met her, never even exchanged an email.
And that kind of cheap, silly, insult. A blatant lie, which you know to be a blatant lie is the problem with PMF. How much more clear cut does it have to get for you. Stop a second, don't get defense and ask yourself who taught you that sort of technique was appropriate?
and desire succulent morsels of nothing from which you can declare her innocent, doesn't mean they have to keep you amused with fresh facts so that you can backboard off them and contradict.
If they don't have fresh facts, or fresh analysis. Then disband or table? Why have hundreds of messages a week about nothing?
But of course there are fresh facts.
And just to throw out another example. Around the time I was composing my response (Doug L. Clement) who goes by DougPDX on PMF (I'm not outing him, which I disapprove of, he apparently is out)
Sent a sexually profane letter to Michele Moore, because he objected to her husband's analysis of the evidence. I assume the sexual profanity is meant as a form of intimidation and harassment, a rape threat.
That sort of behavior is common from PMF at this point. Why would you think people think highly of a community that encourages that sort of behavior?
It was Frank, not PMF who discovered the blood on the knife 2 weeks back.
Actually that should read:
It was Frank, not PMF who discovered the dirt on the knife 2 weeks back. The point was that the knife hadn't been cleaned as per the prosecution's claims in Massei.
CD,
If a PMF poster sent a sexually harrassing letter to Michelle Moore as you claim, that's very distressing and uncalled for. I'm very sorry to hear it. If it's as extreme as what you said, a rape threat, that is dreadful. I hope you are somewhat exaggerating to make a point. I know nothing of the matter. I would condemn anything of that nature, and it's possible the poster already regrets having sent it.
You seem very quick to call things "crimes" that sound to me like verbal sparring rather than real slander or libel. It's easy for any of us to lapse into tactlessness with internet open to every word and hasty thought.
Michelle Moore is a lovely person with deep Christian faith whom I admire from that standpoint. Her strange choice of a murderous college woman as a cause to champion astounds me. She is drawing conclusions from media reports and that's what most posters must rely on. Not many of us are on site with our own plastic bags and tweezers gathering evidence to process in our private labs. We rely on documents, on the skilled experts across the ocean. It's unreasonable you should expect case followers to do background checks on suspects. That's impossible.
The main thing is, what part do you say Amanda played in the crime? You weigh in proclaiming her not 100% innocent, but you seem loathe to explain clearly what role you think she played in Meredith's death. For someone who thinks PMF is wrong to say Knox is guilty, you certainly don't clarify your position about this most basic issue.
anonymous --
If a PMF poster sent a sexually harrassing letter to Michelle Moore as you claim, that's very distressing and uncalled for.
Good so something is uncalled for in your book. Now this letter was a little more threatening because the man was using his real name. The intent crossed over from "I don't like you" to "I'm going to get you". But lets assume that sexual harassment were posted on PMF. Michelle and Steve are regularly personally insulted on PMF. Harassment and intimidation is a group activity one that PMF encourages, facilitates, trains people in and sends them out to do more of.
OK so you personally like Michelle, or personally feel that sexual harassment in email is over the line. But you ducked the big issue. Why would PMF being encouraging that behavior? The day after Doug did it, you see no sign of condemnation on PMF and another round of "hey lets make fun of Michelle". So as far as I can tell, while you object PMF does not meaningfully object rather they approve and support his actions.
Now there is a certain irony of course because many of the people on PMF argue that Amanda is fully guilty of murder, even if she only aided in the acts that eventually led to murder. Which by that logic makes everyone on PMF guilty of sexual harassment. Now I don't personally hold to that standard, I think there is a difference between Jools/H9/Michael's involvement and Doug's involvement here. That being said, lets not kid ourselves that they were active in furthering his actions. I think of PMF as being very much like the two men convicted in the Big Dan rape who did nothing more then cheer the rapists on and encourage them (for lurkers. Gang rape of a woman. 2 men had forcible intercourse, 2 men held her down but didn't have intercourse, at least 4 men provided additional encouragement with 2 being convicted). They made the same argument, "I'm not a rapist I never laid a hand on Cheryl".
Same bullshit Peggy pulled with me. "I'm not encouraging violence or anything, but if you are up for it here is where his kids live...". Your "I condemn it" on an outside blog doesn't mean much. They applaud, they encourage it, they fully support it. They want it to happen. The very same way racists hate sites, "oh we don't encourage anyone to bomb synagogues. We just discuss how to make bombs in an abstract sort of way and we always do it in separate threads from the ones where we talk about how Jews are trying to take over the world".
(part 2)
anonymous --
OK I liked having to break to keep that other post separate.
I hate to focus on any other point but...
It's unreasonable you should expect case followers to do background checks on suspects. That's impossible.
Actually no its not. That's precisely the kind of work the innocentisti do themselves. Where do you think that post came from that explained why Apple's documentation on NSWindow had any connection to Raffaele's alibi. That is the kind of thing the innocentisti do. I don't know anything about DNA that's relevant, so I helped out where I could. I'd like to do another walk though on how hard it is to open a hard drive "by accident".
Heck to pick someone from yourside, SomeAlibi went to Perugia to film some of the various paths trying to argue that the maps were deceptive. That's talking about the case. That's the sort of thing PMF should be doing lots of. Instead its an exception.
Just think if Jools took her talent for digging up crap about people who really are tangential and applied it to the primaries in this case. Why don't we have full backgrounds on the original judges, on the appeals judges? What about the records of the 8 officers that were in the room with Amanda for the November 5th statement. Do they have spotless records of loads of complaints?
One of my next posts is going to be on SCO v. IBM where the sort of massive investigation over many years done by people at large took place. It can happen and it did happen. Though again in this case only one side (the pro-IBM side).
CD,
I won't duck the big issue, but you did.
Here it is: I don't approve of anybody being outed, including you, nor threatened with lawsuits or anything hurtful in meatspace as you call it. If any of us spread slander, we are fools and may pay the price. God spare us all. I'm not one of these people who desires to sue and to drag into court over idea wars. I hope I've remained free from libel in my postings. Don't we all.
I think PMF wants quality behavior from all their posters. They are a very dignified and intelligent crowd. Sure, they lapse into colloquial style and gregarious joshing, sometimes they sting a bit, they are truthful, and the truth hurts. Sometimes they may insult the dimbulbs on other sites (this habit is catching) but rarely do they move into dangerously crude and disgusting remarks. Well, if they do, maybe it takes the thinskinned to feel it, I take a lot of blog postings with a grain of salt and try to see through to the basic argument they're making. Naturally they're fierce in defending Meredith who was cruelly wronged. That's why PMF exists.
They have openly posted in the past on the rare occasion that it came up as an issue, that they do not approve of anything low and indecent in the way of personal messages of a vile and odious nature. They reaffirm the rules of decency when infractions arise. They pronounce their policies by example, and they decry nasty debased language or obscenity. They allow a lot of leeway for personal expression within the confines of decency. They do not approve of harrassment nor train posters to do it.
Since I am not a registered member of that board, I cannot say anything directly to them. I have sent a message of disapproval about your outing to someone familiar with their site. You seem to relish the part of divisive mischiefmaker, when not parading as wounded misunderstood genius.
It is good you tried to share the intricacies of Raffaele's computer activities with PMF and thus with lurkers and Meredith Kercher enthusiasts. The computer language is way beyond me. I am angry that the hard drives were fried and that so much info was lost, although I see it as being a loss to the prosecution and you to the defense.
I asked you a simple question--what part do you think Amanda played in Meredith's death?
I asked you a simple question--what part do you think Amanda played in Meredith's death?
First off this isn't the big issue. The big question is "do I believe beyond the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Amanda Knox committed second degree murder". and that's "hell no". She's already been tried the question is whether she should be acquitted at this point. Everything else is academic.
But it answer your question, I don't have a clue how or why Meredith died. I don't have a timeline that makes sense. I don't have a motive. I don't have any idea who was present at her death. I have tons of evidence that's been tampered with enough to make it all questionable. The evidence conflicts, there is extensive evidence of prosecutorial misconduct including evidence tampering which puts more of the evidence in doubt and likely created these conflicts. So whatever theory I pick must be in spite of the some of the evidence and thus I have to guess.
None and it was all Rudy seems increasingly likely and if I had to pick now rather than a few weeks back that's what I would lean towards. The innocentisti have been doing a great job convincing me of the lone wolf killer theory over the last few weeks and in a forthright convincing moderate way addressing concerns and doubts and debating the interpretation of evidence from a position of goodwill, or simply correcting me when I was wrong about the evidence. The kind of conversation that you claim PMF is interested in I did have with them.
I guess if you want the most likely theory involving Amanda, it was a drug killing over money, and Amanda was sideways involved. For example something like she let them in and was aware of the killing. Meredith dating a drug grower and the frequency of dealers killing other dealers over money vs. sexual murders involving girls is something I can't overcome. Plus there is the missing money from Meredith.
Their are too many discrepancies in most sexual murder angles, I can't rule out the prosecution's sexual murder. If she is jealous of Meredith she is not a psychopath which means she doesn't play lead horse in a rape, torture murder. There are about a dozen other theories depending on how you play with the variables:
Rudy is a psychopath sexual sadist, Amanda highly masochistic female with a rape fetish.... There are ways to make it not totally impossible. None have much evidence.
I can't rule out my original theory that this was a manslaughter based on an escalating argument. Barbie Nadeu's speedball theory I can't rule out.
And then there is the Filomena legal angle with Rudy theories. I don't buy them but at least they explain the police conduct.
This is just like Jack the Ripper. Lots of possible theories but we'll never know.
I hope I've remained free from libel in my postings.
You haven't. The post I had to delete was pretty awful. Many of the posts I've allowed have contained all sorts of untrue, unfair and frankly rude statements.
I think PMF wants quality behavior from all their posters. They are a very dignified and intelligent crowd.
Oh please. Should I pull up a day's posts at random and do an accounting? Dignified? I've been on dignified boards, posters would never ever, make an ad hominem and if someone else did it they would be castigated. And frankly the f word wouldn't be on every 3rd post.
They are one of the least dignified boards about a serious discussion I've ever seen. My 11 year old on her social networking sites would never consider engaging in the sort of behavior you see on PMF.
Sure, they lapse into colloquial style and gregarious joshing, sometimes they sting a bit, they are truthful, and the truth hurts. Sometimes they may insult the dimbulbs on other sites (this habit is catching) but rarely do they move into dangerously crude and disgusting remarks. Well, if they do, maybe it takes the thinskinned to feel it, I take a lot of blog postings with a grain of salt and try to see through to the basic argument they're making. Naturally they're fierce in defending Meredith who was cruelly wronged. That's why PMF exists.
they are truthful, and the truth hurts.
Bull. They deliberately intentionally with foreknowledge lie as a way of attempting to advance their cause. They unquestionably have done so about me and statements I have made. They unquestionably have done so on subjects where I know the original source.
and they decry nasty debased language or obscenity.
Should we do on obscenity word count on that blog?
They do not approve of harrassment nor train posters to do it.
Really. Then why does Jools still have an account? Why is that when Karen Parker Pruett (someone I never met and didn't even know about until 2 days ago) had PMF came up on her sight the first comment out of her mouth was the harassment they engaged in. What is going after Kurt's friends other than harassment? When Jools started to setup an attack against my 11 year old Michael's comment was "good work". How much more clear cut can you get?
If they weren't harassing people they wouldn't be outing people. They would be having respectful dialogue on new developments. There wouldn't be any of the heat there is in this case.
Take a look at this thread. Wald thinks I am 100% dead wrong on the Lifetime movie, and BTW has had to hear me post on it over on IIP. And not one time has he said the slightest thing that is defamatory, insulting, rude or anything other an a respectful disagreement by people assured of one another's good will. That's what the debate should be like.
I have to do two updates
With regard to Doug comment he was first mentioned in sending an obscene email to Michelle Moore yesterday. Everyone now agrees it happened. PMF kicked him off.
Skeptical stated, "I have been very clear about where I stand on the question of sending threatening, vulgar messages to people who happen to be on the other side of this issue. I don't care how offensive they are, and to me Michelle Moore is very offensive (especially with regard to Meredith and her family), there is just no possible justification for this kind of behavior. "
So first off, well done Skep in actually taking a stand against 1 incident. As far as I can tell every innocentisti believes they have been on the receiving end of threatening behavior from PMF. I'm not sure what separated this incident from all the other incidents that are celebrated on PMF but stopping 1 while starting 95 is better than stopping 0 while starting 100.
So maybe since I objected to Michelle's email last night. What's the policy in harassing Kurt's friends, in real life, as a way of "defending Meredith".
CD-Host,
Thank you for answering my question about Knox's involvement. Bottom line, correct me if necessary: you think she's technically innocent because the prosecution didn't make a strong enough case to convict her. At first you thought she was peripherally involved, yet after hearing from the innocentisti side you now tend to think she's completely innocent and that Rudy Guede was a lonewolf killer. Thank you for clarifying.
Speculation: A girls' cat spat turned quickly into face slapping, hair grabbing and head bashing against wall as Amanda grappled with Meredith, then Raffaele and Rudy jumped in to aid Fox by grabbing Meredith's arms, throwing her on the bed and mashing her throat to shut her up. Amanda ran into kitchen to tend nosebleed, grabbed a knife, showed no disposition to back off, so Raf got into the anger and he and Guede continued to pin Meredith's arms to stop Meredith slapping back at the Fox while Fox ran to kitchen sink for wet cloth to stop nosebleed. This blood and pain made her madder. She came back waving knife to scare Meredith and prick her and force her to say "I'm sorry, I'm sorry" and to pay her back for tearing out Foxie's earring. By then Meredith had said some angry stuff to the guys who wanted to punish her (Guede by the intimate fondling, just to take advantage of the female more than hate) and since all three were inebriated, their actions were clumsy. Raf drew his knife, not to be outdone by his girlfriend, and the two guys wrenched her off the bed, wrestled her around into a kneeling position on the floor (blood spatter on closet suggested she was on her knees when finally cut, prob. cut from behind). Amanda inflicted the first tentative cuts to her throat after they'd squeezed her neck probably. Fox tried to squeeze with her strong little hands. They may have first tied something around Meredith's neck to strangle her, or laid a pillow over her face to smother her while she was still on the bed but that blocked the visual thrill of seeing her face contorted and suffering. Strangling to death takes time and their emotions couldn't stand it, so they just took the knives and cut her. When Meredith felt the first cut she let out the bloodymurder scream which so frightened them that they cut her again quickly, this time deeper to silence her. The cuts happened within seconds of each other, then they all three ran terrified out of the house.
This is an imagined scenario.
It's great that Wald and many others allow you to agree to disagree with them, but my guess is it's about small matters within the larger frame of "but we all think she's innocent." Veer from that too long and see what happens, nor is it possible for a site to take a strong stand for one position while allowing constant battering from people who hold the opposite position. Neither fish nor fowl, not palatable. A blog can't be all things to all men and retain any integrity or shape of its own.
PMF accepts irrefutable arguments for innocence, but they must be irrefutable. They can easily spot what is simply an attack on them without merit. If strong evidence arises for Knox's innocence, they will accept it out of intellectual honesty.
It's good you challenge sites to higher standards and cleaner tone. I'm sure the moderators agree with you on that but when they're working with dozens or hundreds of varied individuals it's hard to control every paragraph of input. It's very difficult. It takes time and precious energy from unpaid moderators. I think there's a tendency to become lenient with those in support of our ideals. The PMF mods have done a superhuman job of being firm with rules but not rigid and harsh with commenters, a very fine line to walk. They have made hard judgment calls and I respect them more for that.
(part 1)
Your characterization is close. I'm 85% comfortable. I'd phrase the legal innocence stronger and the factual situation more as "I don't know".
Speculation: A girls' cat spat turned quickly into face slapping,...
The first half sounds like a reasonable theory of the homicide. So let me stick to that. That's the sort of theory I believed a month ago. That still conflicts with some evidence, I'd still ask for the timeline with respect to that theory, how do you make the autopsy shake out?
But my big point is, I would say that's a manslaughter not a murder. So if I had video of exactly that situation I'd still think the case was wrongly decided and acquit. Further 3.5 years of hard time for a first time offensive on a manslaughter is plenty. So even if I knew for certain your situation was true I think we'd look at things quite differently.
wrestled her around into a kneeling position on the floor (blood spatter on closet suggested she was on her knees when finally cut, prob. cut from behind). Amanda inflicted the first tentative cuts to her throat after they'd squeezed her neck probably. Fox tried to squeeze with her strong little hands. They may have first tied something around Meredith's neck to strangle her, or laid a pillow over her face to smother her while she was still on the bed but that blocked the visual thrill of seeing her face contorted and suffering. Strangling to death takes time and their emotions couldn't stand it, so they just took the knives and cut her. When Meredith felt the first cut she let out the bloodymurder scream which so frightened them that they cut her again quickly, this time deeper to silence her. The cuts happened within seconds of each other, then they all three ran terrified out of the house.
Visual thrill, too scared to strangle, worried about the noise from the scream but not the fight... That part doesn't make as much sense. What is Raffaele's state of mind during this for example? Why is he going along with it? Why is Rudy going along with a murder if all he wanted to do was rape?
Can you walk through this making sense of motives and states of mind? What are they trying to achieve?
It's great that Wald and many others allow you to agree to disagree with them, but my guess is it's about small matters within the larger frame of "but we all think she's innocent."
Well actually when Wald met me I was in the middle, believing something like your scenario. Read the old posts I thought: aggravated sexual assault, manslaughter, obstruction... Heck I didn't think Miss Responsibilities scenario which was a semi-premeditated rape/torture/murder was out of the question. I found her arguments logical.
The scenario I don't believe at all is Massei's. And that IMHO is a middle position. The two groups responded differently to that doubt.
(part 2)
Veer from that too long and see what happens, nor is it possible for a site to take a strong stand for one position while allowing constant battering from people who hold the opposite position.
Sure it is. I can use this blog as an example. My two successful threads ever.
one was on a BS case on the excommunication of a Canadian women who was mentally ill. The regulars on that thread believed she was rightfully kicked out. After an unbelievable large number of posts I managed to get from the Canadian women some evidence supporting her positions and constructed a chain of events. The posters on that thread mostly were of the opinion that church's should not follow due process with respect to church discipline.
The pastor was a good guy, the woman a nut and therefore he was right. They probably did 600 posts all but the ones that were nothing but insults remained on this blog for a discussion that lasted something like 4.5 months.
I think you know me well enough to know what I would think of the she's bad / he's good therefore he's right to break process argument.
___
The other is a series of threads over 2 years. Long investigation into an Ohio mega-church with a string of complaints. Prosecutorial abuse, faked evidence.... but as I looked into this in detail what I found was:
a) They had worked out a good system of checks and balances.
b) They had tremendous concern for making sure the rights of the accused were protected.
c) There had been some problems in the early 1990s and rather than cover then up the church underwent structural reform to make sure they wouldn't happen again.
d) They were genuinely concerned with anyone who years later felt they had mistreated. They understood that when they were disciplining there would be complaints. But if years later people still had a grudge, they saw that as a failing and wanted to see if there was anything could do.
e) They welcomed outside oversight and suggestions.
So here I was having investigated this church and found no sign of abuse. An example I've given to other similar churches in how they should do things. Most of the posters had completely unrealistic expectations and continued to believe they were awful.
(part 3)
Neither fish nor fowl, not palatable. A blog can't be all things to all men and retain any integrity or shape of its own. PMF accepts irrefutable arguments for innocence, but they must be irrefutable.
What is an irrefutable argument for innocence? I can't construct an irrefutable argument that I didn't I didn't kill Meredith Kercher.
They can easily spot what is simply an attack on them without merit. If strong evidence arises for Knox's innocence, they will accept it out of intellectual honesty.
The issue is not guilt or innocence. Its the prosecutions case. You are shifting the burdon of proof. But we have a good case in point, the autopsy is strong evidence for her innocence. And I don't see PMF addressing it.
They should have a whole section of the website dedicated to that autopsy proving Mignini's conjecture that the Medical Examiner botched the autopsy. We should see pictures and diagrams of Meredith's stomach, all kinds of stuff about the analysis of materials removed from her stomach which proves that this food was pushed from the small intestine back into the stomach the way need it to be. Was there cholecystokinin, the chemical your body releases on chyme (what comes out of the stomach) as it enters the small intestine? If there is no cholecystokinin Mignini is wrong about the time of death and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have a 3rd party alibi. I don't think you get more clear cut in terms of evidence then the autopsy. Where do I read about Meredith's stomach contents on PMF?
Look at the way Charlie on FOA has pictures, diagrams, articles about the footprints. Original video from the evidence collection....
It's good you challenge sites to higher standards and cleaner tone. I'm sure the moderators agree with you on that
I'm not. I see no evidence for it. Can you show me evidence of places where Michael or Skep or H9 or Bard are working to raise the tone in general as opposed to working to lower it? Where I can see evidence of this work.
but when they're working with dozens or hundreds of varied individuals it's hard to control every paragraph of input.
No its not. Its easy. "We debate ideas not people here. Posts on individuals will be deleted". But lets exclude the work. I've given you examples of them encouraging it, and spending time and effort making sure there is more of it.
I think there's a tendency to become lenient with those in support of our ideals.
I agree. Its one of the reasons to have processes and to watch that tendency. I was less lenient when Dude (innocentisti) made a personal attack against Harry Rag then I have been with you, for exactly that reason.
(a bit off topic if you are reading this out of context)
But I've been having a little stress lately from a hate site. And since you are all checking this out for signs of libel.
Jools you made my night. You are a moron. You have linked to my work profile a dozen times. Didn't notice that I'm 3000 miles away at that time of that hearing and have never been an elementary school teacher? "Yeah quality research from PMF, we can't even read the documentation we steal."
Hate to tell ya but there are a lot of people with my name. One of them even did a murder, maybe that's who I am. I have to admit you had me a little freaked out when you got lucky the first time. This was great. haha love-it love-it. Some cyber stalker.
Oh please post more about my troubles as a teacher in Trenton school district. My lifelong desire to teach young children smashed against the rocks in 2002. The agony of defeat. That guy: wrong age wrong color, wrong place, wrong job, wrong time frame. Julia you are a pathetic joke.
You couldn't have done anything nicer for me then that little attack. Yep Michael you do do research.
____
And Some Alibi in answer to your question take a look at Michael's response when Jools first got lucky.
BTW for readers that sort of thing is not allowed I'm going to card myself in a few days and delete it. But I wanted the bozo patrol to see it.
Wow, made my night.
You made my night too!
They won't believe you of course, your 'denial' is even more proof of your 'guilt!' Guilt, guilt, guilt, all they think about is guilt! :)
You join a noble fraternity of Bruce Fisher who they think is a camera man in Seattle for ridiculous reasons. They were saying Steve Moore investigated financial crimes somewhere like Guam and found out they had the wrong Steve Moore, Violent Crimes Unit and anti-terrorism instead; elite evaluation. They called him a helicopter pilot instead as if that was a pejorative, though it's just one of his many skills.
Then there's LondonJohn who they won't believe lives in London for really weak reasons, even after he took a picture and posted it at their request, after all he might have had someone else take it and e-mailed it to him, a shadowy network for purposes unknown! They are suspicious. He's guilty of something, they know it!
They found someone near Brisbane named Kevin Lowe who was associated with a school with a funny name, so it had to be him! The more embarrassing, the better evidence it's someone they hate. If he denies it they know it's true, he's lying to hide his guilt! It all comes back to guilt!
You now, you must be guilty too! You must have forged that work history so they could find it later to try and cover up your guilt! It was all part of your sinister plot, but they found your out! These are crack investigators, they know Raffaele and Amanda are guilty even without evidence, how could you hope to escape their wizened scrutiny? They know you are guilty of something!
Guilt, guilt, guilt, it always comes down to guilt!
:)
Sollange asked some reasonable questions and was immediately bullied by the Machine with a list that had nothing to do with the questions she was asking. What about Time Of Death? Amanda lied. What about the bathmat print? Amanda lied. What about the sloppy evidence collection? Amanda lied. What about reasonable doubt? Raffaele lied. See there, no reason for concern.
It is getting harder to find a good place for a discussion of this case that takes place in real time with both sides of the case able to present arguments and post pictures, documents, and videos to support the arguments they want to make.
JREF's Holy MA has been exposed as a big lie, in my opinion. It is like writing exceptions to the Ten Commandments. Thos shalt have the right to appeal a suspension (Unless I decide I don't want to be bothered). What a joke. In any case I don't know if Sollange reads here but to follow is a human translation of the section of Raffele's appeal dealing with the TOD issue (on next post due to size restrictions).
TOD quote from RS appello:
"...all the consultants of the prosecution and the experts, whilst acknowledging the interpretive difficulty of using the gastric contents for thanato-chronological* purposes, identified the time of death with respect to the typology and quantity of gastric contents and to the composition of the last known meal as follows:
* Dr. Lalli: at a distance of not more than 2-3 hours from the consumption of the last meal (see errate corrige [Latin: correction of error] on 15.2.2008, acquired during the trial hearing, and p. 47 of the stenotyped record from the hearing of 3.4.09);
* Prof. Bacci and Dr. Liviero: at a distance of 2-3/3-4 hours from the last meal which was consumed in a discontinuous way from 18.00 and ended at about 20.00 on 1.11.07, as demonstrated by the fact that the stomach was full and the duodenum empty, indicating that gastric emptying had not yet begun (p. 64 hearing 4.4.09; p. 32 hearing 18.4.09);
* Prof. Umani Ronchi: at a distance of 3-4 hours from the last meal (p. 30 hearing 19.9.09).
On the basis of these specifications it can be stated that, even taking into account the widest range indicated by the majority of the consultants, the time of death would be no later than 22.50 on 1.11.2007.
However, it is possible from a scientific point of view to further restrict such a range using the gastric contents, in terms of size (500 cc.) and composition (pastry, mozzarella, vegetables, apple slices), and comparing this with the last meal eaten by the victim as reported by witnesses: the time of death would in this way be placed, based on forensic criteria of maximum reliability (on account of the individual and converging viewpoints of the various consultant and experts), at a distance of 2-3/3-4 hours from the start of the consumption of the last known meal (18.30-19.00 on 1.11.2007) and thus at about 21.30-22.00.
The identification of the time of death as 21.30-22.00 on 1.11.2007 finds confirmation:
* in the correspondence, in terms of quantity (500 cc. or about a kilo of food) and quality (pizza with mozzarella and vegetables, and apple slices), between food consumed during the last meal on 1.11.2007, and the stomach contents of the body;
* in the absence in Meredith’s stomach of fragments of food different to those described by her friends as having been consumed during the meal on 1.11.2007;
* in the empty duodenum, which (having been properly closed by ligation as can be seen in the autopsy) is indicative of the fact gastric emptying had not yet started;
* in the uncertainty about the nature of the vegetable fragment found in the distal third of the oesophagus, never subject to product analysis and which can reasonably be assumed to be a slice of apple."
anonymous --
I want you to take a look at Kaosium's comment. Board that are "dignified" "focus on evidence" "avoid personal attacks" don't generate that kind of response.
Kaosisum --
The conspiracy goes deeper. The work profile they tag too (which interestingly was just auto copied from another site) has a after reference in it to someone whose vouching for the authenticity of it. And that person has a link with lots of references. This means a complex multi party conspiracy to make Mignini's disciples look bad. David Marriott strikes again with his PR machine.
Doesn't he understand that prison is in Amanda's best interests and all this obscuring of the evidence, defaming the Italian court and its Spanish assistants ultimately is not even in her interests? Its difficult working in the trenches having to overcome the FOAKer BS all the time. Its a good thing crack investigators are on it. People who selflessly find the truth.
So in honor of Meredith Kercher I will confess. I'm really 10 years younger, black and in an entirely different industry. I had a body double working in California. Oh but the body double was white.... hmmm my coworkers were all blind. Damn that David Marriott is tricky.
Rose --
Fantastic post. I had forgotten how detailed the appeal was on this. Because one of the arguments they make is "well why wasn't this raised in court". And Massei makes reference to it too but finds Mignini;'s theory that the food was pushed back into the stomach justified based on no evidence, the typical for Massei.
As for Solange reading here, I don't think so. Its hard to know. PMF on the one hand has been misquoting me (something they didn't used to do) and then linking here where the actual quote appears. But the responses are all based on the misquotes. Which I think implies that either:
a) They are well trained.
b) They aren't reading the original and noticing.
I'm kinda going with (a) because they even once quoted the context to prove their misquote was correct and people still agreed.
Besides we are mocking PMF right now, which I know Solange wouldn't like. Solange if you are reading feel free to ask.
As for where to go. I'm trying IIP. JREF obviously does not want the Knox thread. Would you want to bring your site back to life to host? I don't have any good ideas.
I think its kinda up to the guilters more than the innocentisti. They only have the one place and that's clearly not going to allow any discussion as the latest with Solange proves: doubt is thoughtcrime. They are the ones that ran away. That may be permanent. It may be that the guilty case is simply so weak that they don't want to expose it anywhere to a thorough testing. Possibly what happened in October is the PMF leadership realized that, and had to change cult structures.
I got called part of the PR conspiracy the other day, I was so chuffed! That took forever! I'm rather jealous of how quickly you catapulted to that exalted status, all it took was one word, I didn't think of that! :P
Yes, the conspiracy runs deep indeed. I thought the whole flap over Bruce Fisher and the 'recruitment' of Steve Moore was instructive. Bruce had said something about getting an FBI agent involved, and later on Michelle Moore posted something about 'having heard from Bruce.' Then Steve Moore starts going on television saying his wife watched a show on Amanda Knox and asked him to look into it, he got the crime scene info and how the evidence was collected and freaked, he knew what those pictures meant.
However the crack investigators were deeply suspicious. They thought it meant that Bruce Fisher and Steve Moore were lying! Bruce must have recruited Steve Moore with nefarious means! It could only have happened that way! After all, when they started saying it, Michelle Moore took down her posts where she said Bruce had gotten contact with her. That could only mean one thing! A cover-up! Everyone's lying! Everyone's guilty!
Of course the obvious answer was that it would be silly to 'lie' over a story, and if Steve Moore was asking around for crime scene info, it might just come to Bruce Fisher's attention and he might pursue it. Michelle Moore might just freak out when she found her facebook page trashed and people taking old posts out of context and take it down.
But then they wouldn't be lying! Then they wouldn't be guilty! Not a single one of them was able to ferret out the truth. It surprised me not a whit when Bruce Fisher recently confirmed it had happened more or less like that on JREF.
Did you know at one time they were keeping track of 'Enemies of Italy?' I think they wanted Mignini to slap a few more bloggers with suits like he did Steve Shay and Joe Cottonwood. You may be next on the list! :)
Here's something I found helpful in determining whether Amanda had any peripheral involvement in the murder: there's no evidence of that either. If she had some involvement it would have come out at the interrogation, instead of nonsense about Patrick, whom she knew worked all night as she was told not to come in. They broke her to get that gibberish they fed her.
She was arrested because they thought she'd collaborated with [i]Patrick[/i] in the murder, that's what all their mistaken information pointed to they thought. What are the odds they just happened to put the screws to this otherwise unlikely candidate for one mistaken theory, only to have her fit into another crazy theory?
CD-Host,
You got hysterical and claimed Jools had set up your 11-year-old child for attack. I knew that was balogney and I was shocked you would say it. I can only ascribe it to some wild emotional rant you were on, making exaggeration your mantra. You were mad because Jools outed you, when I later learned she had merely connected the dots and your online connections to real name were available for computer savvy. I think you're computer savvy to the max and are working under assumed names, assumed identities, everything is a false trail. I bet your three weeks in jail was about refusal to ante up fines or comply with The Man, in a way typical of your vendetta against authority. So Jools got some internet research wrong, big deal. As you say, she did find your real "identity" (which I question, I think you're a female). If JB is your real name and identity, then she did get the major issue correct. You seem to fail at the major issue quite often.
Like now you wanna run to IIP. Well, go. You are wrong to confuse true crime discussion groups with church politics. I was impressed by the Ohio church that held to the gentlest policies towards the sheep they had disciplined, would that we all could feel such love. As for your batting against the Canadian church with their mentally ill member, who for all you know could have been demon possessed, maybe you would have been better off to leave that church to their own decision. In either case, you only struggled with both these online wrestling matches for at the longest two years. PMF has been battling for three years and more. Time alone changes the fabric of a situation, but you're too rash to know that.
You also are in error to dream of some beautifully neutral intellectual paradise where ideas are bandied about and debated in cool, bloodless style like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. PMF comes very close to it, allowing for the warmth of human emotion and even frailties, but returning to the focus of factual discussion of their murder case. Without that central focus, the entire project would collapse into detours of irrelevance, or worse, petty faultfinding. Unity is vital. You dream of some Utopia debate school. That might work with some subjects, but true crime debate has a goal of drawing a conclusion over guilt or innocence, not jumping to a conclusion but after long consideration coming to some conclusion. There's no point in arguing for arguing's sake which means until the cows come home. If an opinion of guilt has been decided by the majority of posters, they don't have to apologize for it. They have the right to run their site as they see fit, from the very beginning for that matter. Openness to opposing viewpoints has a purpose early on, but to continue to allow specious arguments from newcomers which are often dissent for the purpose of confusing and time wasting, is to not learn from the past.
I am supportive of every Christian as far as their Christian faith goes. In matters of mind and soul, I go with the facts that fit my mind best, and the soul life is separate from the spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can divide the soul from the spirit. In this murder case, I find more intellectual truth in the PMF camp. There's no such thing as all Christians voting alike or all Christians agreeing if they were on a jury. Their verdict does not dismantle their Christian faith. So I part company with you over the Knox issue, and wish you well with your Christian walk. Michael on PMF sums you up as being an attention seeker and just wanting to smear PMF and despite your intelligence which I admire, I think that's the bottom line. Adieu.
Anonymous 10:43 -- that was hilarious! A beautifully written bit of parody/satire that will have me chuckling for the rest of today. Brilliant!
Kaosium --
I was respond to so much that I let that helicopter comment pass me by. A helicopter is by all accounts the most difficult vehicle to pilot. For example if he got it in the military then 9 weeks of dedicated training, then 6 more weeks of combat training and then 70/150 hrs of logged time before he got his license. And depending on his year then he goes on to get night combat training, which kicked the whole program up to a full year. I can think of anything shameful about that.
She was arrested because they thought she'd collaborated with [i]Patrick[/i] in the murder, that's what all their mistaken information pointed to they thought. What are the odds they just happened to put the screws to this otherwise unlikely candidate for one mistaken theory, only to have her fit into another crazy theory?
Very low but non zero. I'm not disagreeing that botched robbery or other variants of lone wolf are much more likely. And Patrick I don't find incriminating, I think her explanation for that is entirely plausible. But they did look into her SMS messages because they were starting to doubt her and they were starting to doubt her because story about the robbery wasn't adding up and.... And what we are left with is a pile of smoke that never got cleaned up but there may be something there.
Again my standard of reasonable doubt is 98%.
I think, may be wrong here you typically are willing to do probability arguments. So let me start with my comments about the case in terms of probability and see if we agree that far evidence and the very unlikely. Because if we agree on that nomenclature in terms of probability it might make the rest of this easier. Fair?
Anonymous @10:43, I realize it's commonplace on some boards, such as Perugia Shock, but I've always wondered: why post under 'anonymous?' You're already anonymous with a pseudonym, who needs double-anonymity? Just curious, nothing untoward intended.
I think one thing to keep in mind about a board's unwillingness to allow debate or dissent is it simply prove its ideas are unable to withstand scrutiny. It is hardly 'time-wasting' or 'confusing' if the arguments of the majority have merit, if they don't then it is those views that are 'specious.' I note there's not a single board dedicated to the idea that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent that disallows different views about the case, the only boards dedicated to the case that are, happen to be the only two that have come to the conclusion of guilt.
That suggests to me that the only true reasons that dissent is squelched quickly at those sites is they know inherently the argument for guilt can no longer hold its own. A premature decision was made with incomplete and inaccurate information and now they circle the wagons looking suspiciously at any deviance from the party line.
However, now the appeal is coming, and no one at PMF has a clue or is permitted to post on what kind of case the prosecution will try to make. Massei is 'so last year' now, and without the DNA evidence they may have to make an entirely different case. Thus at this point it has become irrelevant in the debate, living in the erroneous past under conditions that no longer exist.
However, I agree, they can run their site any damn way they desire, I just find it curious they'd want to run a pointless one. Sitting on a megaton of info and a desire to affect the coverage of the case you'd think they'd want to present the most palatable picture they could were someone to come looking for information about the murder--perhaps even reporters.
Yet they punt that all away in the name of conformity to a set of theories no longer even relevant. I don't get it, who would think of them as anything but outdated as this point? Not being able to discuss the case leaves them with little to talk about save cyclic outbreaks of hate orgies and irrelevancies the rest of the time. How do you suppose that combination comes off to the uninitiated?
anonymous --
Lets remember context here. You were arguing that PMF was a place of ration decorum where the facts and logic of the case were rationally considered. I offered a counter theory that they were a fundamentally a hate group with cultish tendencies. Lets call your theory A and my theory B.
If A were true, you would expect to see rational arguments and facts about the case as new information developed. If B were true you might expect to see some level of facts and argument, apologetics essentially but a hesitancy to engage with the facts and logic fully.
I pointed to the example of the autopsy discussion where there were substantial doubts and a key point in both the appeal and the online discussion. Yesterday Michael bravely declared "Therefore, what imperative is there for us to carry out further investigations and why? We have nothing to prove. The way I see it, it's up to [FOA person] and his bunch to carry out investigations since it is they that are challenging the status quo." Point proven the leadership has spoken. PMF is not about investigating the case.
If A were true you would expect to dispassion. If B were true you would expect to see vilification. I think you could pick any day at random and see vilification.
If A were true you would expect to see an anxious desire to engage with credible opponents. Rose's frustration at not having a good place to debate the case being a perfect example of what you expect to see. If B were true you would expect to see a desire for isolation and separation.
If A were true you would expect to see detailed analysis of the experts. I'll pick my own example what I did with windowserver.log issue, which is really complicated. I tried to write a document that an interested but non expert person could follow arguing why
a) Why Apple's NSWindow documentation should be the authoritative source for understanding this piece of the appeal.
b) What to look for in this documentation if you wanted to wanted to do the investigation yourself.
c) A series of links and diagrams so that you could objectively determine if my piece was correct based on uninterested 3rd parties.
IIP, FOA, Chris's site, Rose's site are filled with that sort of stuff. Thousand upon thousands of pages.
The opinions of the experts analyzed in detail.
If B were true, you would expect to see detailed lists of who "the good guys are" and who "the bad guys are" when it comes to experts. All evidence would be evaluated through the prism of who the speaker was. Are they on the team of the good guys and thus what they say is true, or on the team of the bad guys and thus what they say is false.
Etc...
(part 2 to follow)
(part 2)
I offered purposes of PMF's actual argumentation techniques which include: vilification, profanity, threats, harassment, intimidation.... You don't think Jool's intent was harassment or intimidation. Then what was it. What legitimate argument was Jools trying to advance. Explain that to me.
Because if it was an analysis of professional credentials then what Jools discovered were that professional credentials were far in excess of what I claim here. Here I just claim to be a tech guy with no particular background information given. What she found was actual professional experiencing building event logging systems, in both a professional and managerial position. So if the intent was to conduct an analysis of speakers, you would have expected her to say "well actually he checked out". That still be grossly immoral, invasive and show a complete lack of ethics but at least it confirm the argument that they were conducting an investigation and not just acting in a cult like manner to threaten those people in the group with the sort of harassment they can expect if they leave the group.
So now that we've proven that her intent was not to actual check my professional credentials, what was her legitimate intent? You tell me? You badgered me with your question. Your turn. Give me some ethical thing that she was doing.
(rest of questions in next part)
CD,
I lost a long spiel to you, so this may sound choppy. First: peace
I don't know Jools' intent in outing you. I repeat I disagree with your outing since you wanted to remain anonymous. It wasn't my call as I'm not PMF. I lurk there and learn. They are a treasured source of info on Meredith's case. They argue facts. They have doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, and other great thinkers that I like to read. It improves my mind. Michael and Machine and Catnip and Skep and SA and many others have nipped some of my fuzzy thinking in the bud. I'm grateful.
Jools may have had harrassment as motive, it was probably that. But only after you goaded PMF. You came on too strong, too fast, and tried to drive a wedge in. Your attitude was observed as being hostile to PMF philosophy that Amanda killed Meredith. You want to reshape PMF to your ideal of a dispassionate college debate or a place for all comers. I may be wrong about PMF's neutrality, but I think they side with Meredith Kercher and the prosecution, and are examining evidence as honestly as they can, evidence that proves this. You hop around like a butterfly from topic to topic, you need to slow down, regroup, get your theory of the crime more polished, read but don't criticize until you have a much better grasp of things. Then change your name and your attitude especially and return to PMF for the neutral dialogue you crave. If that fails, go elsewhere. With your skills, you could even set up your own site.
Your images suggest you feel deep down you are
+a Portuguese Jew
+a rape victim
+a macho Mack the Knife
+a Jean ValJean
Frankly this worries me. And to suggest PMF is like evil thugs applauding your intellectual rape is straitjacket territory. You should also not bring a minor child into discussions. As computer smart as you are, you know this. You sow good seed with Biblical scholarship, you'll get a harvest off this.
I go to PMF and TJMK for intellectual stimulation, for facts in the case. I don't know what posters are born again, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists. I see Christians supporting Amanda. I differ with them. You're a case in point. I see you threatening PMF and I don't like it. You cry foul because "they harrassed me first". Well, maybe they did. Did you really go there to debate or to push your angle? It's not like you don't have any public outlet for your ideas, you could start a blog of your own. Stop trying to re-make PMF.
Song I heard at lunchtime: Jesus on the Mainline, tell him what you want. Also, He's a heavy load bearer, roll your burdens on Him. Lord I stretch my hands to thee, if thou withdraw thyself from me, where shall I go, where shall I go?
A Christian always has a hiding place from the wind, a covert from the tempest. Peace. Peace and strength. peace
Jools may have had harrassment as motive, it was probably that. But only after you goaded PMF. You came on too strong, too fast, and tried to drive a wedge in.
Thank you for admitting that the intent was harassment. That was honest.
I presented a defense of an article they were critiquing that was a pure internet dispute about some events in a foreign country. Jools attempted to organize harassment activities towards my real life. That's essentially like throwing a punch in what was a civil disagreement. That's not a minor thing.
But importantly then a one off activity. Jools and others on the site, have done this to lots of people. And when its done, leadership approves it. That makes it policy. I.E. one of the functions of PMF is to engage in organized harassment.
Now I never goaded PMF, till that point. I really didn't know much about OMF. I wrote an article which was typical innocentisti stuff. They responded and I went to debate.
The unhinged emotionalism of PMF converted what should have been a civil exchange. Or perhaps no exchange into a war. But there were not two sides at first, the record is clear on that.
Your attitude was observed as being hostile to PMF philosophy that Amanda killed Meredith.
Of course it was! I was was disagreeing with them. That's what I was there to do. If the policy is no disagreement allowed then they should say that in the membership agreement. Many church sites have a statement of faith you need to agree to before you post (for example Theopedia). They should have had a statement of faith.
And if they felt I was in violation. Then there should have been a quiet banning. A sorrowful goodbye and some reasonable followup to make sure that as much as possible the parting was on the best terms possible given the circumstances.
You want to reshape PMF to your ideal of a dispassionate college debate or a place for all comers.
No I wanted to engage with a group of people who were engage with my article. I want to reshape all of human society into a place for dispassionate debate. Which has advanced during my lifetime.
When I was young "fighting" was much more acceptable then it is today. "That upsets me" is no longer considered an excuse for violent attacks.
(part 2)
I may be wrong about PMF's neutrality, but I think they side with Meredith Kercher and the prosecution, and are examining evidence as honestly as they can, evidence that proves this.
You do see the contradiction there? People who are examining evidence honestly don't need an agenda. They simply examine the evidence and look for best fit theories. If they are engaging in apologetics they aren't examining the evidence to determine the truth, they are examining the evidence to determine its utility in arguing for a particular desired outcome.
So what I think you are saying is they are apologists for the prosecution, and allow debate in so far as it advances their apologetic. Which is fine. There are lots of boards that do that. Just say that. And stop being so emotional about the whole thing. To quote Socrates, "Then rhetoric, as would appear, is the artificer of a persuasion which creates belief about the just and unjust, but gives no instruction about them".
You hop around like a butterfly from topic to topic, you need to slow down, regroup, get your theory of the crime more polished,
Why do I need a theory of the crime? I don't argue about the crime, I argue about the case. What actually happened is mostly irrelevant to an argument about the case. I've made this point before in our discussion when you have tried to state the the most important thing is a theory about the crime. I don't have one. I don't particularly care. If there is still reasonable argument about the crime, then by definition the prosecution failed to prove their case. And in 2011 that, not what happened on Nov 1, 2007 is what is really important.
read but don't criticize until you have a much better grasp of things. Then change your name and your attitude especially and return to PMF for the neutral dialogue you crave.
Honestly. I got it on JREF. And I may get it here.
If that fails, go elsewhere. With your skills, you could even set up your own site.
What do you think you are posting on?
I got called part of the PR conspiracy the other day, I was so chuffed! That took forever! I'm rather jealous of how quickly you catapulted to that exalted status, all it took was one word, I didn't think of that! :P
Well congratulations on making the list! I'm not sure which word I've said, so many to piss them off. You mean "wormfood" or something else? But yes they did instantly hate me. BTW is "Mr. Library Card" you or Kevin?
Yes, the conspiracy runs deep indeed. I thought the whole flap over Bruce Fisher and the 'recruitment' of Steve Moore was instructive....
Interesting story. I don't know why PMFers have so much confidence in the deductive skills of PMF given how many of their theories are provably false or silly.
What's interesting though is there are firms that can organize something like what they speculate David Marriott pulled off. For example Berman and Company but they charge around ten million+. So they are paying Gogerty Marriott a heck of a complement saying they can do it for say ten thousand. And I'm sure David hears this and is like, "If I could create fake political movements you think I'd be taking the Knox/Mellas account instead of say the Eli Lilly account?"
I have to finish that post on SCO v. IBM which is sort of a comparable situation. SCO also thought that the political movement they were dealing with was all astroturf, a conspiracy organized by IBM. But at least IBM has the resources....
Did you know at one time they were keeping track of 'Enemies of Italy?' I think they wanted Mignini to slap a few more bloggers with suits like he did Steve Shay and Joe Cottonwood. You may be next on the list! :)
Oh Peter's threatened me with that several times. He's even told me he gave my name to Mignini, I kinda believe him. I guess for the next time I'm in Perugia? Because I guess there is no way I could possibly live without the Cathedral of San Pietro or something?
Anyway have a good night.
I posted this over on IIP public. Since there is traffic from PMF coming here I'll repost as well:
Solange305 --
I see what's happening. I don't know if you read IIP or church discipline. I think Sarah and Bruce would welcome you on IIP. And I guarantee you, you are also welcome to raise the issues at Church Discipline where in over 4 years of running the blog I haven't banned anyone.
Donnie -- I notice you basically got yourself excommunicated and I assume same goes for you on IIP and obviously Church Discipline is wide open.
CD-Host,
As you have reached out to Solange and offered this site, I would like to address her indirectly here.
I am sooooooo hoping Solange will stay at PMF because she is lively and I have followed her conversations with the others for months now. I saw so much enlargement of her outlook, so much wonderful give and take. It seems she has a lot of real life experience and yet youth and courage and drive. She seems to have been learning the fine points of debate and how to hone her arguments. The sometimes heated reactions from fellow PMF bloggers is very difficult to field sometimes, but just watching this tennis match between Solange and her board I have learned a lot. I don't think I'm as brave as she is to dare the "fat's in the fire" moments. That's why I lurk.
Solange, today's discussions need to be shelved until everybody calms down. Two or three days at least. It's amazing the difference a day makes. It will all come right in the end. Please stay on, if at all possible.
A fellow learner.
Cd-Host thanks if you post this, I know it's at variance with your goals of trying to get Solange to move to IIP, but she needs consolation and encouragement more than either board.
anonymous --
I told you I don't censor for content. I meant it. You are genuinely free to disagree with me here.
Here are my thoughts:
The documentary after was very friendly and makes a strong case for innocence. The movie itself was definitely more mixed.
On the plus side the movie exposes the core of the defense:
a) The physical evidence is weak
b) Amanda and Raffaele's statements were the result of them being very scared in interrogation.
c) The prosecution is engaging in wild speculation.
d) Further their behavior after the murder seems natural, not forced.
Mignini comes off as enraged that Amanda made him look bad.
A few points about the movie pro and con
i) Amanda seems genuinely concerned on November 2nd about Meredith (+)
ii) The movie has forensic evidence showing the bra cut off hours later (-)
iii) HIV faked issue is explored, they definitely hint that this was intentional. (+)
iv) They misunderstand the whole rock thing in the movie (0)
v) Mignini engages in wild speculation throughout the whole thing.
2 things of note about the documentary.
a) They do a great job on the multiple piercings issue. Amanda's claim about thinking the blood in the bathroom is from her ears makes sense.
b) They have Barbie agreeing that amanda called raf after she notices blood; which I don't think is really her opinion.
Post a Comment