Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[SMK]

From the other thread, Otto said: "I'm not particularly interested in Dougie Preston and his problems after interfering with a serial murder investigation in Italy. It's shameful that he is piggy backing on the murder of Meredith Kercher to further his cause."

In fact, the article written by CPJ outlined the fact that Mignini was found guilty of illegally wiretapping journalists. Douglas Preston and Frank Sfarzo were not the only people to complain (as cited by this artcle). Also Giangavino Sulas, Umberto Brindani, Joe Cottonwood, and Mario Spezi complained of intimidation and harrasment.

From the article:
In October 2009, when Spezi was attending a preliminary court hearing in one such indictment, he read a statement in his defense, the journalist told CPJ. The statement was sharply critical of Mignini, Spezi told CPJ. Soon after the hearing, the prosecutor indicted Spezi for "offending the honor and prestige of a judge"--a criminal charge that carries up to five years in prison if convicted.

Exactly.......20 of Mignini's indictments were thrown out....he was sentenced to 16 months in prison....not just some Doug Preston rumor....And one can see that the slander charges against Knox and her parents mirror the charges against Spezi.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think so. I read an article about the wonderful classical education MK had as a little girl. I think she was quite classical, and was simply "going along with" the student life in Perugia. Poor thing, she never got to get beyond it....makes me furious at that selfish Rudy....:furious:

So furious you could spit? LOL

Look at this:

As Battistelli stood by, Filomena Romanelli fluttered past him into her room and walked around it, nervously moving objects around, checking for missing belongings. She was shaking with the sense of violation: someone had emptied her closets, strewn clothes around on the floor, moved shopping bags, even thrown her laptop on the floor. But her jewelry was still intact in tiny velvet bags and little boxes, all the gold bracelets and necklaces and earrings safe.

Burleigh, Nina (2011). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 522-525). Broadway. Kindle Edition.

I never seen her laptop described like this. I saw it decribed as she'd set up on it's side, but it was laying flat when she got there and there was glass on it. Which might make sense if it was over by the rock, but we'll never know.

But see what I mean about artistic license? Either SHE'S right and someone threw it, and I just never heard that before and what I read was wrong. which is it?

 

[Nova]

I think salem was saying that it's okay to cite certain sources, but with the caveat understood by ALL WHO read that if it's not the "X,Y,Z" type of source, don't take it as fact without sleuthing of your own. I think it's impossible for every post to contain a vetting of every source, as we pull our memories from many sources to compose each and every sentence we type. if we cite things, the readers are welcome to look at the source and evaluate it for themselves. For example, in the political realm in the US, CNN is seen as a partisan joke for new political reporting. If you heard it from Rush Limbaugh, it's doubtful that progressives or democrats will give it much weight. There are people here who think you can't believe anything President Obama says, nor do they believe the Koran or the bible. So you can't please everyone with your source.

I don't think we can dismiss any source out of hand because they might prove some useful information. For example, that TJMK site, I think it's a joke personally, but I believe I wound up getting RG's italian MOT from there. Which brings me to my next point. The majority of our debates are rooted in information that has been translated to us by reporters, bloggers, and well-meaning sleuthers from other websites. So it's almost impossible to say that we even have the correct information or translation of something. I am very grateful that these people made the effort, but I have also heard that the PMF's verision of the MOT report contains some meaningful errors.

I'm not sure what you do in a case like ours, where EVEN THE POLICE leaked false information to the media, where even the forensic investigator withheld and then discounted her own findings (as to bloody footprints). So I think we can just do the best we can, judge sources for ourselves, but it's pointless to debate the sources. Esp since, as I've said, this case has bloggers who have more facts on it than the media.

Great post and well worth repeating.

I want to be clear that I wasn't saying Ms. Burleigh's word should be taken as gospel just because she has impeccable credentials.

I have spent considerable time in academia and I promise you that in that world, NOBODY is considered too big to be subjected to critical analysis. What I don't understand is the relegation of legitimate journalists and academics to some sort of second tier of information. Their work is subjected to peer review, which in many cases is more rigorous than the attention paid to court testimony and rulings.

 

[wasnt_me]

I completely agree, Nova. I am perplexed, as well.

 

[SMK]

So furious you could spit? LOL

Look at this:

As Battistelli stood by, Filomena Romanelli fluttered past him into her room and walked around it, nervously moving objects around, checking for missing belongings. She was shaking with the sense of violation: someone had emptied her closets, strewn clothes around on the floor, moved shopping bags, even thrown her laptop on the floor. But her jewelry was still intact in tiny velvet bags and little boxes, all the gold bracelets and necklaces and earrings safe.

Burleigh, Nina (2011). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 522-525). Broadway. Kindle Edition.

I never seen her laptop described like this. I saw it decribed as she'd set up on it's side, but it was laying flat when she got there and there was glass on it. Which might make sense if it was over by the rock, but we'll never know.

But see what I mean about artistic license? Either SHE'S right and someone threw it, and I just never heard that before and what I read was wrong. which is it?

Yes, it makes one wonder.....:waitasec: I would HOPE, as Burleigh is teaching at the renowned Columbia U school of Journalism, that she would know better than to take license with such an important fact. Where is she getting this from?

 

[wasnt_me]

Okay, the way she describes the scene before they knock the door down, she gives it a totally different atmosphere than I think I've seen. she says that Ak told the PPolice that MK locked her door when she took a shower. then she says that the PP was reluctant to want to break down MK's door, and he didn't even think there was a crime. Then she says RF got all upset and suddenly said that no matter what AK said, Mk never locked her door.

Okay. Now if what this author writes is true, that puts a reasonable opinion of why RF and Ak contradicted each other. Ak was telling the truth. RF, because she wanted to make the PP feel urgency of breaking down that door, said AK was lying. I totally understand if RF did that, and I might have too. I might have said to hell with that, what will get this man to break down this door? And from this book, it also seems as if AK said MK locked her door BEFORE RF got there. So the PP probably repeated that, and RF, wanting the door broken down, said it was a lie.

Either that, or this author has her facts wrong. Anyone here know the other version of how this happened with the door locking debate they had?

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, it makes one wonder.....:waitasec: I would HOPE, as Burleigh is teaching at the renowned Columbia U school of Journalism, that she would know better than to take license with such an important fact. Where is she getting this from?

Well, it just occured to me to say that it must be like when someone makes a movie of a factual event. Not everything in the movie is real or fact or something the screen writer could have known. I DO have to keep in mind that this is not the Motivational report, even though she seems to have more unbiased facts than it did! :twocents:

However, I guess some others might read it with impunity. who knows.

 

[Nova]

OMG! You're gonna have me up till 6am, falling asleep reading with tidbits like that. and knowing me, I'll miss all the good stuff because I was so tired and sleepy, but still trying to read.

No, the pros are all you said. It's just I prefer a strict more newsy or factual voice when I'm reading nonfiction. Like she said something that made me upset, really. It was something about men osbessed with internet tuning into the the case for titilation. I didn't like that stereotype, but you know how I am about stereotypes....


The story titillated men habituated by Internet to the real possibilities of group sex and the slithery catfight.

Burleigh, Nina (2011). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (Kindle Location 394). Broadway. Kindle Edition.

I don't really know how she knows this above. It's just I get strict about people taking a creative license to facts, that's all.

I do like her time line at the beginning.

I didn't know that RG had broken into 2 nurseries. All of his activities happened on the weekends, if the crimes were all indeed his. MK's happened on a Thursday? But it was a holiday weekend, so that counts as weekend to me. starting sept 27th. So he moved back there in July. If nothing else can be linked between sept and July, then he allegedly had a month long spree before MK.

Well, one has to admit that the sex-games-gone-wrong theory sounds more like something from a film than from real life.

Remember that the theory assumes AK conspires with her boyfriend of one week and a friend of a friend she had only met briefly. And this conspiracy is hatched in an hour or less. That's movie stuff, as when the pizza boy barely gets in the door before his clothes are off and he and the homeowner are rolling around on the floor.

 

[wasnt_me]

The homeowner and the pizza boy, nova?

I'm going to guess you're taking an artistic license in your example as well!

:innocent::angel::hand:

 

[emyr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by emyr
But a drugged up, going to-the disco hours later, proven to be a guy that fell asleep on the toilet with a crap in it, Rudy was the person who was MORE rational? He was the one to choose the more rational way to break in, but Amanda was not?

Perhaps he is the murderer who is not rational and made a mistake about the best way to break in because he was not operating on all cylinders.

Otto replies:
Guede didn't break in. He walked in through the front door, just like Knox.

Your hypothesis is that he walked in through the front door because it was unlikely (and not rational) that he broke in through the window in Filomena's room. But you believe Amanda chose this unlikely room to stage a fake break-in because she is a murderer and therefore is not a rational thinker. However, we know Rudy is a murderer, so that makes him not a rational thinker. Why do you find it more likely that Amanda is the one making poor, irrational decisions, as compared to Rudy?

 

[Nova]

Yes, it makes one wonder.....:waitasec: I would HOPE, as Burleigh is teaching at the renowned Columbia U school of Journalism, that she would know better than to take license with such an important fact. Where is she getting this from?

Even the best journalists are no better than the accuracy of their sources. (I'm not saying Burleigh is wrong here. I have no way to judge.)

 

[wasnt_me]

For people who say Rafe should have been able to knock down the door:

Luca Altieri, a friend of Romanelli’s boyfriend, who had arrived on the scene with him, agreed to break down the door. Luca was a big young man. Six hard kicks and a shoulder, he estimated later, broke it down.

Burleigh, Nina (2011). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 530-532). Broadway. Kindle Edition.

And he did this AFTER whatever Rafe tried to do.

 

[Nova]

Okay, the way she describes the scene before they knock the door down, she gives it a totally different atmosphere than I think I've seen. she says that Ak told the PPolice that MK locked her door when she took a shower. then she says that the PP was reluctant to want to break down MK's door, and he didn't even think there was a crime. Then she says RF got all upset and suddenly said that no matter what AK said, Mk never locked her door.

Okay. Now if what this author writes is true, that puts a reasonable opinion of why RF and Ak contradicted each other. Ak was telling the truth. RF, because she wanted to make the PP feel urgency of breaking down that door, said AK was lying. I totally understand if RF did that, and I might have too. I might have said to hell with that, what will get this man to break down this door? And from this book, it also seems as if AK said MK locked her door BEFORE RF got there. So the PP probably repeated that, and RF, wanting the door broken down, said it was a lie.

Either that, or this author has her facts wrong. Anyone here know the other version of how this happened with the door locking debate they had?

That does make sense.

I can accept that AK may have been wrong about MK's habits.

But how could RF possibly know that MK "never" locked her door. Was RF trying the handle every few minutes and keeping a log? That's the sort of negative that is meant in the phrase, "You can't disprove a negative."

 

[SMK]

Okay, the way she describes the scene before they knock the door down, she gives it a totally different atmosphere than I think I've seen. she says that Ak told the PPolice that MK locked her door when she took a shower. then she says that the PP was reluctant to want to break down MK's door, and he didn't even think there was a crime. Then she says RF got all upset and suddenly said that no matter what AK said, Mk never locked her door.

Okay. Now if what this author writes is true, that puts a reasonable opinion of why RF and Ak contradicted each other. Ak was telling the truth. RF, because she wanted to make the PP feel urgency of breaking down that door, said AK was lying. I totally understand if RF did that, and I might have too. I might have said to hell with that, what will get this man to break down this door? And from this book, it also seems as if AK said MK locked her door BEFORE RF got there. So the PP probably repeated that, and RF, wanting the door broken down, said it was a lie.

Either that, or this author has her facts wrong. Anyone here know the other version of how this happened with the door locking debate they had?

For the reasons I have stated, I do not think the author has her facts wrong.

I also noticed, in her explanation of WHY and HOW RS and AK "changed their stories", a VERY reasonable explanation.

I see now the whole mix-up, the excitement of the Polizia, of Mignini, with the natural confusion of the 2 kids. I see how it all unfolded, and I am glad that Burleigh's text is getting the reviews and coverage it is at places like Salon.com, because it will sway opinion, not of "the crowd", but of the thoughtful and intelligent. I think this is important. I just hope everyone reads fast, before the verdict comes in. I hope Hellman reads it...

 

[SMK]

For people who say Rafe should have been able to knock down the door:

Luca Altieri, a friend of Romanelli’s boyfriend, who had arrived on the scene with him, agreed to break down the door. Luca was a big young man. Six hard kicks and a shoulder, he estimated later, broke it down.

Burleigh, Nina (2011). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 530-532). Broadway. Kindle Edition.

And he did this AFTER whatever Rafe tried to do.

See? I told you the book would illuminate things!:great:

 

[Nova]

For the reasons I have stated, I do not think the author has her facts wrong. I also noticed, in her explanation of WHY and HOW RS and AK "changed their stories", a VERY reasonable explanation. I see now the whole mix-up, the excitement of the Polizia, of Mignini, with the natural confusion of the 2 kids. I see how it all unfolded, and I am glad that Burleigh's text is getting the reviews and coverage it is at places like Salon.com, because it will sway opinion, not of "the crowd", but of the thoughtful and intelligent. I think this is important. I just hope everyone reads fast, before the verdict comes in. I hope Hellman reads it...

You've sold me! Will buy back my copy as well as w_m's if we both don't like it?

All kidding aside, I don't own (or want) a Kindle. Can I download it and read it off my PC?

 

[SMK]

You've sold me! Will buy back my copy as well as w_m's if we both don't like it?

All kidding aside, I don't own (or want) a Kindle. Can I download it and read it off my PC?

LOL, right, I will owe you and W_M big time...yikes....

but actually, I am not sure...you know what you might do? Go on Google Books, and type in "The Fatal Gift of Beauty" Nina Burleigh. You should be able to find a preview, and I mean of at least 5 or 6 of the Chapters....

OR TRY THIS: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_pc_mkt_lnd?docId=1000426311

 

[wasnt_me]

That does make sense.

I can accept that AK may have been wrong about MK's habits.

But how could RF possibly know that MK "never" locked her door. Was RF trying the handle every few minutes and keeping a log? That's the sort of negative that is meant in the phrase, "You can't disprove a negative."

Yes, I can accept that AK could have been wrong. and that's what I dislike about qualified statements in general. You can't disprove a negative and you can't "always" live up to the "always," either.

 

[wasnt_me]

For the reasons I have stated, I do not think the author has her facts wrong.

I also noticed, in her explanation of WHY and HOW RS and AK "changed their stories", a VERY reasonable explanation.

I see now the whole mix-up, the excitement of the Polizia, of Mignini, with the natural confusion of the 2 kids. I see how it all unfolded, and I am glad that Burleigh's text is getting the reviews and coverage it is at places like Salon.com, because it will sway opinion, not of "the crowd", but of the thoughtful and intelligent. I think this is important. I just hope everyone reads fast, before the verdict comes in. I hope Hellman reads it...

You know Mig is reading it, so hopefully there's nothing sue-worthy in it.

 

[SMK]

Nova:
and here is a "no kindle" Kindle link...in other words, read kindle on your PC: and IT IS FREE...


http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_pc_mkt_lnd?docId=1000426311