Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #20

[Allusonz]

Franks latest blog for those that are interested

"We certainly didn’t believe anything two murderers like Amanda and Raffaele said. We believed you, dear Monica, Marco, Rita, Lorena, Stefano, Armando…, our dear friends and colleagues (because, yes, we, judges and cops, are peers). We are enchanted by the sweet voice and considered manners that you show to the judge, we are amazed by your sense of legality, we are fascinated by your large culture. What do you want us to believe? That the pair called the 112 after the police arrived?

That she threw her sweatshirt soaked in Meredith’s blood?

That you surprised them doing the laundry?

That they smelled of blood?

That there was glass on Filomena’s clothes?

That she spontaneously accused Patrick?

That when you found the knife it smelled of bleach?

That there was a bleach receipt?

That you used the gloves?"

http://perugiashock.com/2011/09/20/conquered-by-this-theory/#comments

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Franks latest blog for those that are interested

http://perugiashock.com/2011/09/20/conquered-by-this-theory/#comments

Allusonz,

It makes in interesting contrast to Andrea Vogt's latest article, in which she wrote, "And therein lies the crux of the Amanda Knox case. There may be just enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury that, regardless of the whole truth, Knox's precise role in the murder has not been proven solidly enough for a clean conviction."
Ms. Nadeau wrote in Newsweek, "The experts say the DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime was compromised by shoddy police work."

 

[js202]

Ya. I was going to choose Bob Dylan from 1966, but I thought it was a little too mainstream for an avatar.

A person of exceptional taste, quite obviously.

 

[Allusonz]

Allusonz,

It makes in interesting contrast to Andrea Vogt's latest article, in which she wrote, "And therein lies the crux of the Amanda Knox case. There may be just enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury that, regardless of the whole truth, Knox's precise role in the murder has not been proven solidly enough for a clean conviction."
Ms. Nadeau wrote in Newsweek, "The experts say the DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime was compromised by shoddy police work."

Sorry am not a big fan of her inept journalism but that is simply MOO

 

[SunD]

Allusonz,

It makes in interesting contrast to Andrea Vogt's latest article, in which she wrote, "And therein lies the crux of the Amanda Knox case. There may be just enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury that, regardless of the whole truth, Knox's precise role in the murder has not been proven solidly enough for a clean conviction."
Ms. Nadeau wrote in Newsweek, "The experts say the DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime was compromised by shoddy police work."

Did you know Andrea Vogt went to same University where Sarah Palin got her journalism degree? Surprising right?

 

[otto]

Did you know Andrea Vogt went to same University where Sarah Plain got her journalism degree? Surprising right?

I see we're at the point of criticizing journalists that have presented fair and balanced reporting rather than sweeping criticisms of Italy's judicial system. How about that Bruce Fisher/Ground Report guy ... is he a favorite when it comes to "journalism"?

 

[js202]

I see we're at the point of criticizing journalists that have presented fair and balanced reporting rather than sweeping criticisms of Italy's judicial system. How about that Bruce Fisher/Ground Report guy ... is he a favorite when it comes to "journalism"?

You want to talk nonsense? This most recent piece Vogt has written could not be further from "fair and balanced." She proceeds from the assumption of guilt and does not specify the recent evidence breakthroughs.

Last time I checked, professional journalists at least tip their hats to neutrality. Especially in a case as controversial as this one, Vogt has proven herself an amateur at best. The woman is an idiot, and emblematic of the sort of "reporter" who led less discerning observers to assume guilt in the first place.

 

[SkewedView]

You want to talk nonsense? This most recent piece Vogt has written could not be further from "fair and balanced." She proceeds from the assumption of guilt and does not specify the recent evidence breakthroughs.

Last time I checked, professional journalists at least tip their hats to neutrality. Especially in a case as controversial as this one, Vogt has proven herself an amateur at best. The woman is an idiot, and emblematic of the sort of "reporter" who led less discerning observers to assume guilt in the first place.

To be fair, many of the pro-innocence writers are just as biased if not worse. Kettle & potting this issue doesn't seem too productive to me. My personal policy is to criticize the content directly and ignore the identity of the writer.


ETA: I should also add that proceeding from an assumption of guilt is standard behavior when it comes to those accused of crimes, not just amongst journalists, but amongst the general population. I wish that presumption of innocence was more than just an ideal, but human nature dictates otherwise.

 

[emyr]

I see we're at the point of criticizing journalists that have presented fair and balanced reporting rather than sweeping criticisms of Italy's judicial system. How about that Bruce Fisher/Ground Report guy ... is he a favorite when it comes to "journalism"?

Fair and balanced reporting that states that Americans let people get away with murder in Italy all the time and then points to a refusal to prosecute a military pilot, a national guardsman (who shot an Italian while trying to rescue someone in IRAQ), and a CIA station chief? And then holds up the Amanda Knox case as a possible equivalent miscarraige of justice? Really?

And yes, I would take Fisher's reporting with a grain of salt. No arguments. What's clear is that Vogt has an agenda, just as much as Fisher does.

 

[SunD]

I see we're at the point of criticizing journalists that have presented fair and balanced reporting rather than sweeping criticisms of Italy's judicial system. How about that Bruce Fisher/Ground Report guy ... is he a favorite when it comes to "journalism"?

Thing is, Andrea Vogt hasn't presented fair and balanced reporting. As for "the Ground Report guy" at least he admits his bias rather than feign some sort of false objectivity.

 

[SunD]

To be fair, many of the pro-innocence writers are just as biased if not worse. Kettle & potting this issue doesn't seem too productive to me. My personal policy is to criticize the content directly and ignore the identity of the writer.


ETA: I should also add that proceeding from an assumption of guilt is standard behavior when it comes to those accused of crimes, not just amongst journalists, but amongst the general population. I wish that presumption of innocence was more than just an ideal, but human nature dictates otherwise.

It would be one thing if Andrea Vogt was simply biased, but it goes beyond that. The biggest example is the "mixed blood" line she has oft repeated, which is falsehood perpetuated her and Barbie Nadeau for god knows how long. In the Australian documentary, Andrea starts spouting off how how she has not heard a reasonable explanation for how Knox's DNA and Meredith's DNA were mixed in different areas of the cottage, as if this is a huge sign of guilt. I'm sorry, this woman has been writing about the case for 4 years now and can't figure this one out on her own? Mixed DNA of two people that lived int he same house? This isn't exactly hard science.

So I do like to have a little fun with the fact that she went to the same school as Sarah Palin, though I will admit it's not really that relevant. There's enough of a foundation to show she's done a horrible job without resulting to those ad-homs. I admit. But sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

[SkewedView]

It would be one thing if Andrea Vogt was simply biased, but it goes beyond that. The biggest example is the "mixed blood" line she has oft repeated, which is falsehood perpetuated her and Barbie Nadeau for god knows how long. In the Australian documentary, Andrea starts spouting off how how she has not heard a reasonable explanation for how Knox's DNA and Meredith's DNA were mixed in different areas of the cottage, as if this is a huge sign of guilt. I'm sorry, this woman has been writing about the case for 4 years now and can't figure this one out on her own? Mixed DNA of two people that lived int he same house? This isn't exactly hard science.

So I do like to have a little fun with the fact that she went to the same school as Sarah Palin, though I will admit it's not really that relevant. There's enough of a foundation to show she's done a horrible job without resulting to those ad-homs. I admit. But sometimes I just can't help myself.

The problem is that the vast majority of journalists out there are just as fast and loose with the facts. Just look at how many missing persons and cold case threads here that have to deal with the frustration of a media that is unreasonably careless with the facts. I personally haven't found her to be any worse than the average in today's 'speed and flash is everything' mass media.


ETA: Then again, I'm utterly cynical when it comes to my expectations of the media, to the point that I don't trust anything that any of them say without independent verification from multiple sources. And even then I've still been misled plenty of times.

 

[SunD]

The problem is that the vast majority of journalists out there are just as fast and loose with the facts. Just look at how many missing persons and cold case threads here that have to deal with the frustration of a media that is unreasonably careless with the facts. I personally haven't found her to be any worse than the average in today's 'speed and flash is everything' mass media.


ETA: Then again, I'm utterly cynical when it comes to my expectations of the media, to the point that I don't trust anything that any of them say without independent verification from multiple sources. And even then I've still been misled plenty of times.

I would not protest the inference you've made that Vogt's reporting is emblematic in an epidemic of sloppy and stupid journalism that exists in crime cases the world over .

 

[js202]

To be fair, many of the pro-innocence writers are just as biased if not worse. Kettle & potting this issue doesn't seem too productive to me. My personal policy is to criticize the content directly and ignore the identity of the writer.


ETA: I should also add that proceeding from an assumption of guilt is standard behavior when it comes to those accused of crimes, not just amongst journalists, but amongst the general population. I wish that presumption of innocence was more than just an ideal, but human nature dictates otherwise.

Well, the assertion was that Vogt is fair and balanced. This is ludicrous on its face. She is pro-guilt.

I'm not sure who you mean by pro-innocence journalists. Although I greatly respect the work that Bruce Fisher, for example, has done, I do not consider him a journalist. I assume that he does not have AP credentials. Nor does a writer like Fisher reach the same broad, international audience as someone like Vogt, Pisa or Nadeau.

Lastly, at the end of the day, let's not lose sight of the fact that one side is right in this matter, and the other is wrong. To rational observers, something was always fishy in the official version of this case. Post C&V, writers like Vogt, Pisa and Nadeau do not have a leg to stand on. Certainly they deserve to be called out for a piece as stupid and one-sided as the one recently penned by Vogt.

 

[otto]

You want to talk nonsense? This most recent piece Vogt has written could not be further from "fair and balanced." She proceeds from the assumption of guilt and does not specify the recent evidence breakthroughs.

Last time I checked, professional journalists at least tip their hats to neutrality. Especially in a case as controversial as this one, Vogt has proven herself an amateur at best. The woman is an idiot, and emblematic of the sort of "reporter" who led less discerning observers to assume guilt in the first place.

Sollecito, Knox and Guede have been found guilty of murder and the Sollecito/Knox case is under appeal ... yet you criticize a journalist that proceeds from an assumption of guilt? Why? That is a fact of the case. Should journalists publish "let's pretend that the verdict is not yet in ..."?

 

[otto]

Fair and balanced reporting that states that Americans let people get away with murder in Italy all the time and then points to a refusal to prosecute a military pilot, a national guardsman (who shot an Italian while trying to rescue someone in IRAQ), and a CIA station chief? And then holds up the Amanda Knox case as a possible equivalent miscarraige of justice? Really?

And yes, I would take Fisher's reporting with a grain of salt. No arguments. What's clear is that Vogt has an agenda, just as much as Fisher does.

I thought the article made an interesting comparison between Knox and other people from the US that should have been tried for crimes in Italy but who got away with murder.

 

[SunD]

Sollecito, Knox and Guede have been found guilty of murder and the Sollecito/Knox case is under appeal ... yet you criticize a journalist that proceeds from an assumption of guilt? Why? That is a fact of the case. Should journalists publish "let's pretend that the verdict is not yet in ..."?

If you know what presumption she is coming from, then you're admitting she's editorializing and not doing "fair and balanced" reporting.

A report is allowed to editorialize, even if sloppily done like Andrea Vogt. But then let's not also pretend she's somehow objectively reporting at the same time.

 

[otto]

Well, the assertion was that Vogt is fair and balanced. This is ludicrous on its face. She is pro-guilt.

I'm not sure who you mean by pro-innocence journalists. Although I greatly respect the work that Bruce Fisher, for example, has done, I do not consider him a journalist. I assume that he does not have AP credentials. Nor does a writer like Fisher reach the same broad, international audience as someone like Vogt, Pisa or Nadeau.

Lastly, at the end of the day, let's not lose sight of the fact that one side is right in this matter, and the other is wrong. To rational observers, something was always fishy in the official version of this case. Post C&V, writers like Vogt, Pisa and Nadeau do not have a leg to stand on. Certainly they deserve to be called out for a piece as stupid and one-sided as the one recently penned by Vogt.

The journalist is not pro-anything. She is reporting the facts that Sollecito, Knox and Guede are guilty of murder.

 

[otto]

I would not protest the inference you've made that Vogt's reporting is emblematic an epidemic of sloppy and stupid journalism that exists in crime cases the world over .

Is she really a poor journalist, or is this a case of wanting to shoot the messenger? She reported that the convicted murderers may get off on a technicality or avoid justice like many others. How is that untrue?

 

[otto]

If you know what presumption she is coming from, then you're admitting she's editorializing and not doing "fair and balanced" reporting.

A report is allowed to editorialize, even if sloppily done like Andrea Vogt. But then let's not also pretend she's somehow objectively reporting at the same time.

The trio were convicted. That is not a presumption.