XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27 - MARCH 25, 2013

Main Discussion Forum

Moderators: Skeptical Bystander, Fly by Night

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Vivianna » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:35 am

I have no doubt that the PR campaign is using astroturfing as part of their tactics. There is a possibility some of the prolific pro-innocence commenters are genuine loonies with nothing else on their plate, but I don't think there are that many of them. This much persistent stupidity and ignorance is likely manufactured.

They've invaded Amazon reviews too, which is why some of the garbage books published on this case have more stars than properly researched books. However, Amazon also displays how many people thought certain reviews and comments were helpful and accurate, and they are not faring that well in that department. I imagine there are many who despise the reviews, but don't wish to antagonize the trolls directly, so they simply "dislike" their comments.

What I found the most disgusting was how they brought their inane tirades and shameless personal attacks into reviews of John Kercher's book. Considering the book is about Meredith and not so much about the case per se, this is an unforgivable sign of disrespect towards Meredith and her family. It also shows that for the PR campaign, there are no lines which can't be crossed.

I have a lot of respect for those of you who post comments because otherwise the rest of the public would never get a different perspective.
User avatar
Vivianna
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 12:00 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Catnip » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:37 am

The Machine wrote:The US media is the worst I've come across bar none. It defies belief that countless American journalists blindly supported Amanda Knox because she is American.

XXX.20 (Post 123404, on 02 December 2012)


It’s the Paleface Gambit, where the posse is rounded up like a jury on horseback and the big bad wolf outlaw is hunted down.

The outlaw is always an outsider.

In the old films they were always unshaven, wore big hats, had bullet belts for garters, and called the good guys “gringos”. The clean-cut (usually blue-eyed) guys with the polished star on their chest and their sidearm neatly holstered by their pressed trousers which were held up by a proper belt-and-buckle were obviously a completely different kettle of fish. There was no doubt who the winners were slated to be.

"The motive is as clear as if it were written in lights on a Times Square marquee."

[NineMSN], 01 December 2012: “Underwear model castrated journalist in NY hotel”
(This particular case involved “foreigners” and their “foreign” ways, so the media could print the prosecutor’s stance without a slime-strike being called in.)



It’s a football match. Even the reporters in Hellmann’s court were treating it like that,


Hugo wrote:(iii) My ignorant ill-informed suspicion is that Marriott PR may have gullible Seattle students working for pin-money, and supplied with software, to detect and attack comment strings on the case. They would of course instantly react to, and flag, any Harry Rag posts. Or then again, these people could be just obsessive maniacs. If you think of kcmookie and Jack Butler on the HuffPo strings, they've devoted implausible amounts of time -- considering what any normally functioning person's daily life is like -- for a year and more, posting scripted PR boilerplate, or if you will cookie-cutter, comments against anyone who speaks up for Meredith. And of course flagging Harry Rag wherever he appears. (The Shadow Knows!) So, are they maniacs, or are they paid by the hour? (Clue: There is no third option.)

XXX.19 (Post 123390, on 02 December 2012)


I’ve noticed that some locations are tumbleweed quiet, and others have been swarmed by the clockwork locusts, even though they have the same information in both places. That does suggest that a search-and-attack methodology is being employed and that it is not well-written.

“Not well-written” is, ironically, also a hallmark of the comment attacks themeselves. The boilerplate mentality shows through, and that, in turn, demonstrates a lack of sincerity.

Back in the back-office side of things, sitting on a pile of documentation and only releasing dribs and drabs of it, and what is released is manipulated or out of context, speaks to a consciousness of guilt. The inference is that the un-manipulated material and the unreleased material is perceived as being detrimental to the (advertising) “case” being built. (In actuality, the unreleased material could well turn out to be exonerating – there is always that possibility – but the posse is shooting itself in the foot by relying on its own judgment.)

There is no other reason to manipulate evidence or distort it except to hide the truth. To Hollywoodise it is unnecessary.

“What are digital manipulations? By definition, a manipulation involves either the addition of details that are not in the original image, or the deletion of essential details that were in the original image. Hollywood’s creative community thrives on these activities. Manipulations do not belong in a courtroom manifesting themselves in digital images being offered to the court as evidence.”

— Edward M Robinson,
Crime Scene Photography, 2nd edition, (2010)
[Elsevier, 2010], p 598.

ISBN 9780123757289


If the best evidence is evidence that needed “enhancement” (call it: “Voguing”, or “tarting up”, in the English political medium), then that is a tacit admission that the case is not strong, or even that it is running against the defendants.

If the case is that one interpretation of behaviour and words should prevail over another, then let that be the case, rather than trying to slime the “foreign” system or Preston’s dinner-table-story bête-noire prosecutor as if that “proves” the defendants are innocent (strictly: not guilty, which is a slightly different concept).

Someone may genuinely initially think something, but when that thinking persists in the face of the evidence, then the sincerity of the thinker is brought into question.

As Vivianna says:
Vivianna wrote:This much persistent stupidity and ignorance is likely manufactured.

XXX.20 (Post 123405, on 02 December 2012)



In any case, when telling a story, there are rules to be followed. Not following the rules generates a backlash. (In a nutshell, that is also what the legal system is.)

When Agatha Christie incorporated Lord Mountbatten’s suggestion as the key element for the ending of The Murder of Roger Akroyd (1926):

“some readers and reviewers felt aggrieved that her choice of the narrator as the murderer had broken the unwritten rules of crime fiction. Those ‘rules’ were addressed two years later when the Detection Club was formed by writers to maintain high standards about the use of evidence.”

— Mike Holgate,
Stranger than Fiction: Agatha Christie's True Crime Inspirations, (2010)
[The History Press, 2010], p 108.
ISBN 9780752455396


In the case of the Groupies/FOA/PR/gravytrain bandwagon/scammers, there is no agreement on what the “story” is supposed to be.

Even that script is not well-written.
Last edited by Catnip on Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6298
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:41 am

I see Doug Bremner's written a screenplay for our hero Frank. All we get to see is the "synopsis," but Bremner states that there is indeed a completed screenplay.

http://www.dougbremner.com/projects2.html

My favorite line:
The Frank Sfarzo Movie (synopsis) wrote:Commissario Monica Napoleoni, a ballsy beauty with a one track mind, arrives to take control of the crime scene.


Doug: Don't call us. We'll call you. :roflao:
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Catnip » Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:16 am

What was I saying about not well-written. :)
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6298
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby stilicho » Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:01 am

The Machine wrote:
brmull wrote:Bettina, like Trimble, seems to have had a significant run-in with the law which may have prejudiced her against the police in this case.


Nobody - including Bettina - has any excuses for thinking Knox and Sollecito are innocent. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that the FOA PR version of events is pack of lies. Having a run-in with the law doesn't mean that sadistic sex killers like Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Fred and Rosemary West, and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are innocent. I think it's sick that people like Bettina have actively supported two people who are clearly guilty of sexual assault and murder. If every juror were as stupid and as gullible as Bettina, most murderers, sex offenders and child abusers would walk free.


Most of those fooled by Knox and Sollecito suffer from the widespread belief that well-bred people are incapable of committing the most atrocious crimes. Hellmann wrote that into his decision by differentiating between Guede, on one hand, and Knox and Sollecito, on the other. Sollecito admitted in his book that he enjoys bestiality pornography but was disappointed that the film he was caught viewing did not realistically portray the sex act between the female actor and a pig. He also demonstrably lied about the vintage of his violent Japanese manga collection. He accused Knox of signing a statement implicating Patrick directly, and himself indirectly, some two and a half hours before he signed a similar statement breaking their mutual alibi.

Knox will likewise blame anyone but herself for her continued legal problems in her own upcoming book.

We don't have to wonder what kind of people Knox and Sollecito are. From their own words and continued denial of any personal responsibility we know they are unabashed liars capable of any kind of evil deeds. People need to read what they write and listen to what they say instead of looking at them and figuring that young white adults don't commit murder. We wouldn't even be talking about this case if they were physically ugly.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9408
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby TomM » Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:34 am

The Machine wrote:***
The US media is the worst I've come across bar none. It defies belief that countless American journalists blindly supported Amanda Knox because she is American.

Well, I did read the other day that China's official Communist Party newspaper printed an item as serious news that Kim Jong Un is regarded as the sexiest man in the world, not realizing that the source they were quoting from is a satirical piece from The Onion.

But still, I can't disagree with your assessment, especially on this case. I see it as part of a general decline of professionalism (from which no profession has been immune) in the pursuit of the dual aims of maximizing profit while minimizing the quality of the service or product provided. News-dispensing entities are now expected to be profit centers for holding companies that care very little about the quality of factual reporting and are interested only in the bottom line.

ETA: But according to some, the market can do no wrong.
Last edited by TomM on Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
TomM
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Location: Harbor, Oregon, US

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Jackie » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:08 am

brmull wrote:I see Doug Bremner's written a screenplay for our hero Frank. All we get to see is the "synopsis," but Bremner states that there is indeed a completed screenplay.

http://www.dougbremner.com/projects2.html

My favorite line:
The Frank Sfarzo Movie (synopsis) wrote:Commissario Monica Napoleoni, a ballsy beauty with a one track mind, arrives to take control of the crime scene.


Doug: Don't call us. We'll call you. :roflao:


Now the 5th tier parasites are trying to sell screenplays about the 4th tier parasites who are trying to sell screenplays?

It's official: I wish I'd never heard of any of these people.
Last edited by Jackie on Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:30 am

stilicho wrote:Most of those fooled by Knox and Sollecito suffer from the widespread belief that well-bred people are incapable of committing the most atrocious crimes. Hellmann wrote that into his decision by differentiating between Guede, on one hand, and Knox and Sollecito, on the other.


I'm beginning to suspect that John McAfee is Foxy Knoxy 2.0 -- The guy is an admitted liar on the run from the law and yet already he has countless groupies who believe his claims that the corrupt Belizean police are out to frame him.

He even has his own blog: whoismcafee.com

The media is treating the story as if it's some kind of joke and the victim, Gregory Faull, has been largely forgotten. There seems to have been a pathetic attempt to stage a robbery--a phone and laptop were stolen, but nothing else. Worst of all there is a growing resignation on the part of many pundits that the police will not be able to prove their case without a ballistics match to one of McAfee's guns. So the media is arbitrarily setting up ballistics as the equivalent of the bloody glove, or the double-DNA knife, as the measure of guilt. Wonderful.
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:34 am

Don't look now but Nathaniel Rich has found himself a new Frank, in the form of jellyfish grower Shin Kubota, who Rich insists may have discovered immortality.

Yep. It's "The Neverending Regeneration of Turritopsis."

The cover story in the NY Times magazine is 6500 words, and it's getting a lot of comment. I guess, being familiar with Rich's habit of playing fast and loose with the truth, I was more critical than most readers. Science journalist Paul Raeburn rips it apart pretty well:
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/11/firs ... secret-imm
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: Doug Bremner

Postby sherrel » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:58 am

brmull wrote:I see Doug Bremner's written a screenplay for our hero Frank. All we get to see is the "synopsis," but Bremner states that there is indeed a completed screenplay.

http://www.dougbremner.com/projects2.html

My favorite line:
The Frank Sfarzo Movie (synopsis) wrote:Commissario Monica Napoleoni, a ballsy beauty with a one track mind, arrives to take control of the crime scene.


Doug: Don't call us. We'll call you. :roflao:


Well I took a look at Bremner's current work in progress, Catania! You can view several scenes over at http://www.vimeo.com/frame015, the editor's home page (Marco Giannangelo). Four of the scenes are shown in thumbnails that you can click on. Once you click on one of the thumbnails, you will be taken to the Vimeo viewer, and at the top of that page (you have to scroll up), you can see the thumbnails of all five of the scenes that the editor uploaded. Catania! is still a work in progress, as it is evident that there is a lot of post production work yet to be done. Color grading needs to be completed and the actor's voices still need to be re-recorded and dubbed over (the current audio of the scenes contain too much ambient and room tone sound).

It appears that he did employ some pretty professional equipment. Even so, I'm not impressed, as the acting is unremarkable, including his son's. It appears that he is funding his projects through Kickstarter.com (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/147 ... production).

Just FYI for those who might be interested.

--> Edit
Incidentally, I wonder if the family that owns the Fromageries Bel cheese company would be interested in the fact that someone is using a name so very similar to their own The Laughing Cow cheese? Doug's production company is called Laughing Cow Productions.
  
“Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving.”
― Erma Bombeck
 
User avatar
sherrel
 
Posts: 78
Images: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:40 pm
Location: San Franciso Bay Area, California

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby hugo » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:48 pm

The Machine wrote:
brmull wrote:
The Machine wrote:
brmull wrote:Bettina, like Trimble, seems to have had a significant run-in with the law which may have prejudiced her against the police in this case.


Nobody - including Bettina - has any excuses for thinking Knox and Sollecito are innocent. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that the FOA PR version of events is pack of lies. Having a run-in with the law doesn't mean that sadistic sex killers like Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Fred and Rosemary West, and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are innocent. I think it's sick that people like Bettina have actively supported two people who are clearly guilty of sexual assault and murder. If every juror were as stupid and as gullible as Bettina, most murderers, sex offenders and child abusers would walk free.


I don't know, it's tough. Most murderers, sex offenders and child abusers don't have a PR campaign. I mean, George W. Bush got 62 million votes in 2004, after it should have been obvious to everybody that he hadn't a clue how to run a country.


I don't understand how any American can sneer at the legal systems of other countries when you consider how the US legal system failed Nicole Brown, Ronald Goldman and Caylee Anthony and the widespread abuse of human rights at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

The US media is the worst I've come across bar none. It defies belief that countless American journalists blindly supported Amanda Knox because she is American.


It is a bit of a downer if you recall the awesome reputation enjoyed by American journalism in the 1970s. Some of the reasons for the decline are bound to be economic, as TomM suggests. Investigation is expensive. And in this case, US papers, magazines and networks may think it unnecessary to keep proper reporters in Italy given the perceived demand for Italian news at home. So they send in 'visiting firemen' who don't know anything.

Some of it could be cultural, though. 'Swift-boating' political campaigns may have coarsened public debate into a shouting contest. The Marriott strategy does seem to follow that political model. Well, that stuff worked for Mr Bush, and it's a language that journalists understand -- and perhaps like, cos it's catchy.

Then again, some of it is ethical. TIME carried those stringer pieces by Nina Burleigh, and though she can write well enough in that TIME style she misled readers into thinking she did her own research, when actually her researcher and interpreter was Giulia Alagna, a friend of Knox and her family. So Burleigh only 'got' what the defendant's family wanted her to 'get'. Vargas and Battiste have similarly misled their viewers, pretending to act as reporters when they are onside advocates. That's really quite bad. US journalism does have an ethical code, and these people are simply ignoring it. To the point where Amanda Knox gets portrayed as a one-woman version of 'our troops', 'in harm's way.' Really bad.

Mind you, the British media haven't covered the case very well either, with one or two notable exceptions like John Follain. His Sunday Times Magazine piece of 13 January 2008 contains just a couple of minor errors; the rest still stands up perfectly well, and the whole case is there in outline. He knows the country, he was on the case from the first day, and he's done a proper job. That shouldn't be as exceptional as it is.
hugo
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby The Machine » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:59 pm

stilicho wrote:Most of those fooled by Knox and Sollecito suffer from the widespread belief that well-bred people are incapable of committing the most atrocious crimes. Hellmann wrote that into his decision by differentiating between Guede, on one hand, and Knox and Sollecito, on the other.


There have been countless cases of "well-bred" people committing atrocious crimes. Harmohinder Sanghera, a dental student, stabbed Sana Ali to death. Julia Davidson, a doctor, stabbed Fiona Wood to death. Alethea Foster, a hospital consultant, stabbed Julie Simpson 17 times. Doctor Harold Shipman killed hundreds of people. Clayton Weatherston, an Economics lecturer at the University of Utago in New Zealand, stabbed or cut his girlfriend, Sophie Elliot, 216 times and mutilated her body at her home.
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Fly by Night » Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:29 pm

hugo wrote:
The Machine wrote:
brmull wrote:
The Machine wrote:
brmull wrote:Bettina, like Trimble, seems to have had a significant run-in with the law which may have prejudiced her against the police in this case.


Nobody - including Bettina - has any excuses for thinking Knox and Sollecito are innocent. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that the FOA PR version of events is pack of lies. Having a run-in with the law doesn't mean that sadistic sex killers like Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Fred and Rosemary West, and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are innocent. I think it's sick that people like Bettina have actively supported two people who are clearly guilty of sexual assault and murder. If every juror were as stupid and as gullible as Bettina, most murderers, sex offenders and child abusers would walk free.


I don't know, it's tough. Most murderers, sex offenders and child abusers don't have a PR campaign. I mean, George W. Bush got 62 million votes in 2004, after it should have been obvious to everybody that he hadn't a clue how to run a country.


I don't understand how any American can sneer at the legal systems of other countries when you consider how the US legal system failed Nicole Brown, Ronald Goldman and Caylee Anthony and the widespread abuse of human rights at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

The US media is the worst I've come across bar none. It defies belief that countless American journalists blindly supported Amanda Knox because she is American.


It is a bit of a downer if you recall the awesome reputation enjoyed by American journalism in the 1970s. Some of the reasons for the decline are bound to be economic, as TomM suggests. Investigation is expensive. And in this case, US papers, magazines and networks may think it unnecessary to keep proper reporters in Italy given the perceived demand for Italian news at home. So they send in 'visiting firemen' who don't know anything.

Some of it could be cultural, though. 'Swift-boating' political campaigns may have coarsened public debate into a shouting contest. The Marriott strategy does seem to follow that political model. Well, that stuff worked for Mr Bush, and it's a language that journalists understand -- and perhaps like, cos it's catchy.

Then again, some of it is ethical. TIME carried those stringer pieces by Nina Burleigh, and though she can write well enough in that TIME style she misled readers into thinking she did her own research, when actually her researcher and interpreter was Giulia Alagna, a friend of Knox and her family. So Burleigh only 'got' what the defendant's family wanted her to 'get'. Vargas and Battiste have similarly misled their viewers, pretending to act as reporters when they are onside advocates. That's really quite bad. US journalism does have an ethical code, and these people are simply ignoring it. To the point where Amanda Knox gets portrayed as a one-woman version of 'our troops', 'in harm's way.' Really bad.

Mind you, the British media haven't covered the case very well either, with one or two notable exceptions like John Follain. His Sunday Times Magazine piece of 13 January 2008 contains just a couple of minor errors; the rest still stands up perfectly well, and the whole case is there in outline. He knows the country, he was on the case from the first day, and he's done a proper job. That shouldn't be as exceptional as it is.


Well said cl-)

This aspect of the murder of Meredith Kercher has certainly captured a lot of interest in the case; it's an excellent study in the nature of modern worldwide digital media.

I found it interesting that several of the major Seattle new outlets (namely KOMO & KING) were unable to bring themselves to publish, both on-air and online, the disfigured picture of Knox from the memoir cover when reporting news of the publication date. Instead, they went with "crying-at-airport-upon-return" photos to accompany the story.

So is the memoir cover a bit too doctored and smarmy for local tastes? Are some Seattleites are not yet prepared to abandon an image of the "innocent little kids" overseas? I guess Marriott/Knox do not really care for the book cover that HaperCollins has fabricated; the hoped-for cover shot got the axe!
User avatar
Fly by Night
******
******
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby The Machine » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:14 pm

Fly by Night wrote:This aspect of the murder of Meredith Kercher has certainly captured a lot of interest in the case; it's an excellent study in the nature of modern worldwide digital media.


The FOA PR campaign has shown how easy it is to manipulate and misinform people. It's not just rednecks like Michelle and Steve Moore or lunatics like Charlie Wilkes who have been duped, but lawyers and journalists. You would have thought these people who have bothered to do some fact-checking. I feel embarrassed for journalists when they get basic facts wrong in their articles and reports.
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby The Machine » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:23 pm

I'm currently discussing the case with Scottish Liberal Andrew Page on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/scottishliberal

He wrote a blog article last year saying he was pleased Amanda Knox had been acquitted:

http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/ ... -free.html

I've pointed out the significant factual errors in his piece.
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby DavidBerlin » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:14 pm

The Machine wrote:I'm currently discussing the case with Scottish Liberal Andrew Page on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/scottishliberal

He wrote a blog article last year saying he was pleased Amanda Knox had been acquitted:

http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/ ... -free.html

I've pointed out the significant factual errors in his piece.


The link to his post does not work and entering Knox in his Search engine yields nothing.
Perhaps you have convinced him!
DavidBerlin
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:14 pm
Location: Derry, Ireland

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby The Machine » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:48 pm

DavidBerlin wrote:
The Machine wrote:I'm currently discussing the case with Scottish Liberal Andrew Page on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/scottishliberal

He wrote a blog article last year saying he was pleased Amanda Knox had been acquitted:

http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/ ... -free.html

I've pointed out the significant factual errors in his piece.


The link to his post does not work and entering Knox in his Search engine yields nothing.
Perhaps you have convinced him!


He's taken the blog article down. He had no choice because he knows he got his facts wrong. It was the equivalent of first round knock-out. He needs to brush up on his debating skills if he hopes to appear on Question Time. Incidentally, I have a copy of his blog article. I won't let anyone squirm their way out of trouble that easily.

I'm still waiting for a certain dpreston to acknowledge his factual errors on PMF.
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby hugo » Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:32 pm

Andrew Page seems to be saying he took down the blogpost because the Groupies were pack-attacking TM on the comment string, as per usual. (I doubt they found that one by accident. It does look as if they're running bots which alert them to any appearance by Harry Rag, among other things.) That's plausible, but it may also be a bit of face-saving by Page because he, quite decently, had to keep conceding points to TM.

Page appears to have made the common 'liberal' mistake of swallowing Marriott's bait and thinking that the story was about an unfortunate and innocent woman traduced by the yellow press with their sexual innuendo. That bit of thinking, which is really a kind of non-thinking, because it is a mere Pavlovian response to a bell rung by a public relations company, without any basic critical assessment of information as to source, quality and motive, has infected senior editors and writers at the 'liberal' Independent and Guardian quite badly. They're idiots, because you always keep a check on who is telling you what, and why they might want to tell you that. (A slightly similar problem arose with some Western intelligence officers re Iraq's weapons programmes.) And a moment's thought should have indicated that gossipy stories in the Daily Mail or wherever had no effect at all on the Italian courts and had nothing to do with the case -- so somebody, somewhere, was using that issue as a distraction from something. (The murderer's family, through their PR agents, were using it as a distraction from the murderer's guilt. Duh.)

The worst British 'liberal' offender in that regard is the Guardian's Deborah Orr (not Deborah Ross, as I think David Berlin accidentally called her the other day -- Deborah Ross is someone else, on the Independent last I looked). To imagine that fluff-stories in the downmarket British press somehow count for more than actual evidence presented in court in the relevant jurisdiction is obstinate, parochial village idiocy. But because Orr presents it as a 'feminist' issue -- innocent woman traduced by sexist yellow press -- she gets away with it. (And so does the murderer.)
hugo
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby stilicho » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:05 pm

hugo wrote:Andrew Page seems to be saying he took down the blogpost because the Groupies were pack-attacking TM on the comment string, as per usual. (I doubt they found that one by accident. It does look as if they're running bots which alert them to any appearance by Harry Rag, among other things.) That's plausible, but it may also be a bit of face-saving by Page because he, quite decently, had to keep conceding points to TM.

Page appears to have made the common 'liberal' mistake of swallowing Marriott's bait and thinking that the story was about an unfortunate and innocent woman traduced by the yellow press with their sexual innuendo. That bit of thinking, which is really a kind of non-thinking, because it is a mere Pavlovian response to a bell rung by a public relations company, without any basic critical assessment of information as to source, quality and motive, has infected senior editors and writers at the 'liberal' Independent and Guardian quite badly. They're idiots, because you always keep a check on who is telling you what, and why they might want to tell you that. (A slightly similar problem arose with some Western intelligence officers re Iraq's weapons programmes.) And a moment's thought should have indicated that gossipy stories in the Daily Mail or wherever had no effect at all on the Italian courts and had nothing to do with the case -- so somebody, somewhere, was using that issue as a distraction from something. (The murderer's family, through their PR agents, were using it as a distraction from the murderer's guilt. Duh.)

The worst British 'liberal' offender in that regard is the Guardian's Deborah Orr (not Deborah Ross, as I think David Berlin accidentally called her the other day -- Deborah Ross is someone else, on the Independent last I looked). To imagine that fluff-stories in the downmarket British press somehow count for more than actual evidence presented in court in the relevant jurisdiction is obstinate, parochial village idiocy. But because Orr presents it as a 'feminist' issue -- innocent woman traduced by sexist yellow press -- she gets away with it. (And so does the murderer.)


I think his initial reaction is common among self-styled liberals and even among academics and journalists. If you only read the Marriott-inspired literature then you're convinced that Knox had been tragically railroaded by a fanatical prosecutor and imprisoned on the flimsiest of pretexts.

The two elements of the crime that convinced me otherwise were the accusation of murder against an innocent man (for which Knox is still responsible, even after her appeal) and the locked door in her home. The next most convincing evidence was nothing from the laboratory or police or medical examiner's reports. Instead, it was Knox's own words during her trial. To this day, many Groupies™ blatantly contradict her by arguing, among other things, that she did not know Guede, that the police provided her with Patrick's name, and that she was summoned to the police station in the middle of the night. Her own explanations for these (and several other) items point directly to her involvement in the murder and the attempted cover-up. It was her own words that eventually convinced more than two dozen Italian judges that she was guilty.

Finally, of course, there is the scientific evidence that depends on us believing that the police were both sloppy and accurate at the same time. It was the forensic results that led to the capture of Guede and then his own series of lies that condemned him. Yet the Groupies™ continue to argue that the police manipulated or accidentally contaminated the evidence--as long as it's the evidence against K&S. This abhorrent lack of consistency blares through the "fog of nonsense".

The only people who don't change their minds about the 'railroad job', when presented with the evidence, are those who wish to remain duped or are too scared of the consequences of having been proved wrong. A small but vocal minority are paid hacks, unstable individuals, or both.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9408
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Jackie » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:08 pm

hugo wrote:Just to repeat myself, British lawyers do not require a three-year undergraduate degree. Some have one, some don't. Goes like this, I think: first degree in whatever; one-year legal conversion course; two years articled to a law firm; exam. To repeat myself again, my nephew Tom's a solicitor, but his undergraduate degree was in history...


Yes, it seems lawyers trained in the UK fall into 2 classes: those holding 3 year law degrees from accredited universities; and those holding 1 year "diplomas" from 'non-academic' programs that, in 1979, were not affiliated with accredited universities.

I know lawyers who studied in England - One of them was a professor of mine in my second year of law school (she studied at Oxford). All of them studied law for 3 full years at an accredited university before earning their first law degree and going on to complete their articles and professional legal training courses.

Each of them completed at least one 'non-law' degree before entering law school, just like it's done on this side of the pond: with few exceptions, completion of at least one undergraduate degree is required in order to win admission to a law school in North America, where no one seems to back the idea that an undergraduate degree in history, sociology, engineering, etc., can be "converted" into a law degree through one year of study.

Most seem to believe (correctly, IMHO) that law is a field unto itself that requires students to spend at least 3 years - NOT 1 year - engaged in full time academic study under the tutelage of learned law professors (not lowly practitioners in a non-academic setting) in order to cover the fundamentals.

I have no idea who is hiding behind the name "anglolawyer" - some posters claim that it's a person who did an undergraduate arts degree in something like history or political science and then took a one year 'conversion course' in 1979 to earn a "diploma" called a "GDL" (Graduate Diploma in Law) from an institution that, in 1979, was not affiliated with an accredited university and was not entitled to grant "degrees".

Of what value, then, is a one year "conversion course"/ GDL?

I'm not aware of any bar association in the US that accepts the 1 year "diploma" as equivalent to a 3 year Juris Doctor degree.

In Canada, the "Federation of Law Societies" addresses the matter directly:

Image
Click on image to enlarge.

http://www.flsc.ca/en/nca/nca-resources/faqs/

"Competence" is in doubt; the need to "compensate for the shorter program" is recognized; they are usually required to "augment their knowledge in areas of law not covered during their...education".

Says it all.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby The Machine » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:43 pm

hugo wrote:Andrew Page seems to be saying he took down the blogpost because the Groupies were pack-attacking TM on the comment string, as per usual. (I doubt they found that one by accident. It does look as if they're running bots which alert them to any appearance by Harry Rag, among other things.) That's plausible, but it may also be a bit of face-saving by Page because he, quite decently, had to keep conceding points to TM.


He was reluctant to admit he got any facts wrong at first. I had to tweet him some verbatim quotes from his blog article.
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Jools » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:13 pm

TGcom24 (also part of the Mediaset group of companies) reports Mediaset-Channel 5 will air the film on Monday.

About the letters received from lawyers including the Kercher's:

MEDIASET: NO FORMAL NOTICE OR PETITIONS
Mediaset has not received neither formal notice or petitions” from the lawyers of Amada Knox on the airing of the film of the same name. The company in Cologno Monzese [Milan] explains: “Mediaset has only received a letter with an invitation from the lawyers requesting to transmit the film in accordance with the requirements of the law. Which is something Mediaset does with every program that goes on air”.

LAWYERS FOR FAMILY OF THE VICTIM SEND LETTER TO MEDIASET
They asked Mediaset that the fiction “respects” the memory of Meredith Kercher, lawyers Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna representing the family of the student murdered in Perugia. The lawyers have sent a letter to the company. Lawyers explain of “not knowing” the content of the film but point out that the judgment is still pending in the Supreme Court: “We ask, however, that the memory of Meredith and the sensitive data is respected, but also the sorrow and grieve of her family”.
http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/televisi ... le-5.shtml
User avatar
Jools
 
Posts: 4036
Images: 196
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Location: Spain

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby jar » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:09 pm

Jackie wrote:
hugo wrote:Just to repeat myself, British lawyers do not require a three-year undergraduate degree. Some have one, some don't. Goes like this, I think: first degree in whatever; one-year legal conversion course; two years articled to a law firm; exam. To repeat myself again, my nephew Tom's a solicitor, but his undergraduate degree was in history...


Yes, it seems lawyers trained in the UK fall into 2 classes: those holding 3 year law degrees from accredited universities; and those holding 1 year "diplomas" from 'non-academic' programs that, in 1979, were not affiliated with accredited universities.

I know lawyers who studied in England - One of them was a professor of mine in my second year of law school (she studied at Oxford). All of them studied law for 3 full years at an accredited university before earning their first law degree and going on to complete their articles and professional legal training courses.

Each of them completed at least one 'non-law' degree before entering law school, just like it's done on this side of the pond: with few exceptions, completion of at least one undergraduate degree is required in order to win admission to a law school in North America, where no one seems to back the idea that an undergraduate degree in history, sociology, engineering, etc., can be "converted" into a law degree through one year of study.

Most seem to believe (correctly, IMHO) that law is a field unto itself that requires students to spend at least 3 years - NOT 1 year - engaged in full time academic study under the tutelage of learned law professors (not lowly practitioners in a non-academic setting) in order to cover the fundamentals.

I have no idea who is hiding behind the name "anglolawyer" - some posters claim that it's a person who did an undergraduate arts degree in something like history or political science and then took a one year 'conversion course' in 1979 to earn a "diploma" called a "GDL" (Graduate Diploma in Law) from an institution that, in 1979, was not affiliated with an accredited university and was not entitled to grant "degrees".

Of what value, then, is a one year "conversion course"/ GDL?

I'm not aware of any bar association in the US that accepts the 1 year "diploma" as equivalent to a 3 year Juris Doctor degree.

In Canada, the "Federation of Law Societies" addresses the matter directly:

Image
Click on image to enlarge.

http://www.flsc.ca/en/nca/nca-resources/faqs/

"Competence" is in doubt; the need to "compensate for the shorter program" is recognized; they are usually required to "augment their knowledge in areas of law not covered during their...education".

Says it all.


I think you set too much store by a three year law degree. It doesn't really matter how one enters the profession. I know lawyers with law degrees who are pretty useless. I know lawyers who have entered the profession, without such a degree, and by sitting the governing body's examinations, who are very good. It is being in legal practice and being good at a difficult job which maketh the lawyer. It is a constant learning curve where you have to stay on top of the law, which is always changing, and if you don't know the law, can't hack the work and staying abreast, or are indolent, then you will be found out. Either that or you can find some area of law where the law is constant and the work is repetitive and undemanding - like dealing with e.g repossessions (which is just another form of debt collecting).

Incidentally a lot of lawyers specialise, which means that after a few years all that the specialist ever knew about the law outside their field of specialisation will be a fairly distant memory. This means, for the specialist, that a lot of the time spent getting their academic qualifications is ultimately wasted - but that's life and this is common to most professions where specialisation, or restricting one's area of practice, is a norm.
jar
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:31 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby hugo » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:00 am

You'd probably have to ask a head of chambers (at the bar) or a partner in a major firm of solicitors, but it's fairly predictable what they'd tell you, because they always employ a mix of people who've come into the profession by either route -- with an initial degree, or the other way. Talent and application will be the things that count.

I'd guess jar is right about specialisation (and it's the same in medicine) -- you forget most of what you learned in school because it doesn't come up in your particular line. The highest-earning lawyer I know is one of London's top patent barristers. Makes rock-star money, and you're not going to get the hang of that kind of thing in school -- you have to understudy on the job, watch the masters, and go out and do it.
hugo
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:42 am

This Good Morning America graphic of the Knox book suggests it will be available in regular and coffee-table size versions, and will be stocked in the fiction section next to Salman Rushdie. The spine will simply say "Amanda Knox" because after all if you buy this book you're really just buying a brand name. :giggle:
GMA Knox Book Graphic.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Please register or log in.
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby TomM » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:00 am

Law school and medical school are not at all comparable. Medical school is very heavy on learning and retaining a large fund of information, and internships and residencies do produce newly licensed persons who are capable of treating patients and practicing medicine when they are first licensed.

Law school prepares one to take the bar exam; it doesn't prepare people to practice law. The main purposes of law school are to teach a specialized vocabulary and to teach a method of analysis. Unless one plans to have a career restricted to being a law clerk, experience--preferably supervised--will be needed. It typically takes about five year's experience to become a minimally competent lawyer, although sometimes truly gifted person can manage it in two years or so.

The principal benefits of law school training are not forgotten and do not become obsolete.
User avatar
TomM
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Location: Harbor, Oregon, US

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby DavidBerlin » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:00 am

hugo wrote:
The worst British 'liberal' offender in that regard is the Guardian's Deborah Orr (not Deborah Ross, as I think David Berlin accidentally called her the other day -- Deborah Ross is someone else, on the Independent last I looked). To imagine that fluff-stories in the downmarket British press somehow count for more than actual evidence presented in court in the relevant jurisdiction is obstinate, parochial village idiocy. But because Orr presents it as a 'feminist' issue -- innocent woman traduced by sexist yellow press -- she gets away with it. (And so does the murderer.)


Yes, sorry, it was Orr not Ross. Here is the link to the article, which generated a lot of response:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -she-devil

But Hugo is spot on - Orr was playing the feminist card and that attitude still finds favour in knee-jerk responses. Attitudes that attempt to present Knox as victim are still distressingly common but increasingly threadbare as PMJ's focus on facts opens eyes and minds.
DavidBerlin
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:14 pm
Location: Derry, Ireland

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:09 am

TomM wrote:It typically takes about five year's experience to become a minimally competent lawyer, although sometimes truly gifted person can manage it in two years or so.


I've heard from people in various professions that it takes about five years on the job to become competent. Of course many people never become competent, and many people lose competence because they fail to keep up with their field.
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:19 am

stilicho wrote:The two elements of the crime that convinced me otherwise were the accusation of murder against an innocent man (for which Knox is still responsible, even after her appeal) and the locked door in her home. The next most convincing evidence was nothing from the laboratory or police or medical examiner's reports. Instead, it was Knox's own words during her trial. To this day, many Groupies™ blatantly contradict her by arguing, among other things, that she did not know Guede, that the police provided her with Patrick's name, and that she was summoned to the police station in the middle of the night. Her own explanations for these (and several other) items point directly to her involvement in the murder and the attempted cover-up. It was her own words that eventually convinced more than two dozen Italian judges that she was guilty.


Very good post. I read one person recently who said that it was Knox's speech at Sea-Tac that convinced them she was guilty. Looking at it again, it doesn't seem at all how an innocent person would act. But then people like Bill Williams just dismiss it as "Amanda being Amanda." That's why I tend to focus on the forensics.
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:12 am

DavidBerlin wrote:Yes, sorry, it was Orr not Ross. Here is the link to the article, which generated a lot of response:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -she-devil

But Hugo is spot on - Orr was playing the feminist card and that attitude still finds favour in knee-jerk responses. Attitudes that attempt to present Knox as victim are still distressingly common but increasingly threadbare as PMJ's focus on facts opens eyes and minds.


I can't figure out what Orr's niche is, other than shooting from the hip on subjects she knows little about. In that sense she's the same as every armchair expert on the net, just with a bigger platform. Whatever. She plagiarized Ann Wise, complete with the "6:52" error (should say 6:02):

Ann Wise wrote:Sollecito's phone was inactive from 8:42 p.m. until 6:52 a.m. the next day, while Knox's phone was quiet from 8:35 p.m. on Nov. 1 and didn't show any activity until 12:07 p.m. the next day, when she tried to call Kercher.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7131195&page=1

Deborah Orr wrote:Sollecito's phone was either turned off or simply inactive – it's hard to tell which, from conflicting reports of translated evidence – from 8.42pm until 6.52am. Knox's was off or unused after her text to Lumumba, until she called Kercher's phone at 12.07.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/05/amanda-knox-making-of-she-devil
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:03 am

brmull wrote:I see Doug Bremner's written a screenplay for our hero Frank. All we get to see is the "synopsis," but Bremner states that there is indeed a completed screenplay.

http://www.dougbremner.com/projects2.html

My favorite line:
The Frank Sfarzo Movie (synopsis) wrote:Commissario Monica Napoleoni, a ballsy beauty with a one track mind, arrives to take control of the crime scene.


Doug: Don't call us. We'll call you. :roflao:


I wonder what Mrs. Doug Bremner, an Italian, thinks about Doug's strange fantasies about Monica Napoleoni?
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:36 am

brmull wrote:
DavidBerlin wrote:Yes, sorry, it was Orr not Ross. Here is the link to the article, which generated a lot of response:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -she-devil

But Hugo is spot on - Orr was playing the feminist card and that attitude still finds favour in knee-jerk responses. Attitudes that attempt to present Knox as victim are still distressingly common but increasingly threadbare as PMJ's focus on facts opens eyes and minds.


I can't figure out what Orr's niche is, other than shooting from the hip on subjects she knows little about. In that sense she's the same as every armchair expert on the net, just with a bigger platform. Whatever. She plagiarized Ann Wise, complete with the "6:52" error (should say 6:02):

Ann Wise wrote:Sollecito's phone was inactive from 8:42 p.m. until 6:52 a.m. the next day, while Knox's phone was quiet from 8:35 p.m. on Nov. 1 and didn't show any activity until 12:07 p.m. the next day, when she tried to call Kercher.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7131195&page=1

Deborah Orr wrote:Sollecito's phone was either turned off or simply inactive – it's hard to tell which, from conflicting reports of translated evidence – from 8.42pm until 6.52am. Knox's was off or unused after her text to Lumumba, until she called Kercher's phone at 12.07.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/05/amanda-knox-making-of-she-devil


We were just talking about points raised in the media that are contradicted by Knox herself during her court testimony. Here's another one. Knox told the court that she did turn off her phone either to save her battery life or to avoid incoming calls from Patrick. She is not clear on why she turned it off but asserts more than once that she did.

What does Sollecito say in his book? Does he say that he turned his cell phone off? Or does he argue that he left it on?
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9408
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Jackie » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:39 am

jar wrote:
Jackie wrote:...

"Competence" is in doubt; the need to "compensate for the shorter program" is recognized; they are usually required to "augment their knowledge in areas of law not covered during their...education".
...


I think you set too much store by a three year law degree...


That's hard to read after burning through 3 years of my life and well over 100K on tuition, fees and books! LOL

I'm just trying to find an explanation for anglo's remarkable blunders.

Is it the person or the program?

Something is wrong.
Last edited by Jackie on Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby TomM » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:17 am

Jackie wrote:
jar wrote:
Jackie wrote:...

"Competence" is in doubt; the need to "compensate for the shorter program" is recognized; they are usually required to "augment their knowledge in areas of law not covered during their...education".
...


I think you set too much store by a three year law degree...


That's hard to read after burning through 3 years of my life and well over 100K on tuition, fees and books! LOL

***

There are benefits to being born sooner rather than later. In today's dollars, my three-year total was less than $35,000. I remember returning from Christmas vacation during my first year in law school; one of the members of the class had decided to drop out, but he also wanted to share his insights by announcing his decision in class. He thought opportunities for employment in the legal profession were too limited, and not worth the three-year, $7,500 investment getting a law degree entailed.

Money well spent, in my opinion.
User avatar
TomM
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Location: Harbor, Oregon, US

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Jackie » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:58 am

brmull wrote:
stilicho wrote:The two elements of the crime that convinced me otherwise were the accusation of murder against an innocent man (for which Knox is still responsible, even after her appeal) and the locked door in her home. The next most convincing evidence was nothing from the laboratory or police or medical examiner's reports. Instead, it was Knox's own words during her trial. To this day, many Groupies™ blatantly contradict her by arguing, among other things, that she did not know Guede, that the police provided her with Patrick's name, and that she was summoned to the police station in the middle of the night. Her own explanations for these (and several other) items point directly to her involvement in the murder and the attempted cover-up. It was her own words that eventually convinced more than two dozen Italian judges that she was guilty.


Very good post. I read one person recently who said that it was Knox's speech at Sea-Tac that convinced them she was guilty. Looking at it again, it doesn't seem at all how an innocent person would act...


Guilty or innocent, Knox is fantastic at coming up with statements (and behaviors) that could be construed as suggesting guilt without actually confirming it.

I found yet another example on page 370/ Kindle location 5346 of Follain where she is reacting to news that Guede's sentence has been reduced.

She "burst out" (to her mother): "Rudy's got nothing to do with me. I saw him twice, briefly. I hope that one day he'll say the truth at last and stop dragging me into this terrible thing. I've never pointed a finger at him, I've never accused him."

In the circumstances, is that something you'd say about a homicidal "black drifter" - that you didn't know from a hole in the ground - who had raped and killed your "friend"?! An appeal to fairness?!

And what happened to 'not knowing him' (per her first prison chat about Rudy with her Dad)?!

Hanging out in that tiny little cottage basement, smoking dope with a handful of people entails something a lot more social than 'seeing someone briefly' across a crowded square or some such - you're socializing with them in close quarters for an extended period of time. It was enough for Rudy to develop a fixation with her that lasted beyond his arrest, accoding to Follain.

It's almost as if she's saying: "I'm not blaming him, Mom, why is he blaming me? That's not the deal we had! It's not fair!"
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:51 am

Jackie wrote:She "burst out" (to her mother): "Rudy's got nothing to do with me. I saw him twice, briefly. I hope that one day he'll say the truth at last and stop dragging me into this terrible thing. I've never pointed a finger at him, I've never accused him."

In the circumstances, is that something you'd say about a homicidal "black drifter" - that you didn't know from a hole in the ground - who had raped and killed your "friend"?! An appeal to fairness?!!


Strange, isn't it.

I wonder if she also doesn't want to comment publicly on whether Rudy's sentence was long enough.
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:13 am

Jackie wrote:
brmull wrote:
stilicho wrote:The two elements of the crime that convinced me otherwise were the accusation of murder against an innocent man (for which Knox is still responsible, even after her appeal) and the locked door in her home. The next most convincing evidence was nothing from the laboratory or police or medical examiner's reports. Instead, it was Knox's own words during her trial. To this day, many Groupies™ blatantly contradict her by arguing, among other things, that she did not know Guede, that the police provided her with Patrick's name, and that she was summoned to the police station in the middle of the night. Her own explanations for these (and several other) items point directly to her involvement in the murder and the attempted cover-up. It was her own words that eventually convinced more than two dozen Italian judges that she was guilty.


Very good post. I read one person recently who said that it was Knox's speech at Sea-Tac that convinced them she was guilty. Looking at it again, it doesn't seem at all how an innocent person would act...


Guilty or innocent, Knox is fantastic at coming up with statements (and behaviors) that could be construed as suggesting guilt without actually confirming it.

I found yet another example on page 370/ Kindle location 5346 of Follain where she is reacting to news that Guede's sentence has been reduced.

She "burst out" (to her mother): "Rudy's got nothing to do with me. I saw him twice, briefly. I hope that one day he'll say the truth at last and stop dragging me into this terrible thing. I've never pointed a finger at him, I've never accused him."

In the circumstances, is that something you'd say about a homicidal "black drifter" - that you didn't know from a hole in the ground - who had raped and killed your "friend"?! An appeal to fairness?!

And what happened to 'not knowing him' (per her first prison chat about Rudy with her Dad)?!

Hanging out in that tiny little cottage basement, smoking dope with a handful of people entails something a lot more social than 'seeing someone briefly' across a crowded square or some such - you're socializing with them in close quarters for an extended period of time. It was enough for Rudy to develop a fixation with her that lasted beyond his arrest, accoding to Follain.

It's almost as if she's saying: "I'm not blaming him, Mom, why is he blaming me? That's not the deal we had! It's not fair!"


It's simply unbelievable as was Sollecito's stammering reply to Katie Couric when asked much the same thing. For someone alleging to have been wrongfully accused and then wrongfully convicted it is absolutely flabbergasting to hear these people emerge to argue that Guede's prison sentence was too harsh.

Note, too, that once again the Groupies™ are on a completely different wavelength. We could easily locate hundreds of cites where various Groupies™ have said that no punishment would ever be too harsh for Guede. Yet the "lovebirds" are on record saying rather the opposite.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9408
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:48 am

stilicho wrote:What does Sollecito say in his book? Does he say that he turned his cell phone off? Or does he argue that he left it on?


He says they both switched off their phones shortly after Knox texted Patrick (p18). He never gets around to explaining how the phones got turned back on (shifting magnetic fields, clever cat, etc.) Hellmann of course didn't care that the defense refused to answer the question seriously.
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby GreenWyvern » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:55 am

Off-topic:

Just in case you thought there was such a thing as privacy on the internet...

National Security Agency whistle-blower William Binney, who is described by Business Insider as one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in NSA history, and who worked for the Defense Department's foreign signals intelligence agency for 32 years, tells how the NSA already has on its database every email sent by every individual in the USA in the last 10 years.

If any person becomes of interest, they can immediately look up his whole email history, his social network, and probably a lot more information about him.

Binney says that's how they nailed Petraeus - the FBI could just look up all his private emails because they felt like it.


User avatar
GreenWyvern
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Mock Trial

Postby Catnip » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:31 pm

“a certain dpreston” – sounds like a disease; people are looking for a cure.

“degree courses” – courses were free, for a time, here. Halcyon days. Oh, well.

“Orr was playing the feminist card” – she’s not very ethical, then, playing cards when beds are burning; practicing to be the new Nero? She should be awarded an honorary first violin.

“She plagiarized Ann Wise” – this problem of plagiarism and unacknowledged sources is a plague. It reduces “reports” into blog posts about gossip, and newspaper stories become fictional stories. On a practical note, the error about the time may have been in the “press-pack” (the copy-paste source) and spread like a contagion. Forensically, that will be very useful for tracing the history of presspack sexual contact behind the scenes.

“an explanation for anglo's remarkable blunders” – he doesn’t know his hawk from a handsaw, nor his fishing lures either, but that’s understandable: listening ears draw out a shy tongue, and not having empathy entrains a lack of embarassment. It’s inevitable that he would be tempted to stick his doodle into the apple pie.

Talking of which, screenplays are an inappropriate medium of expression. Manga are more apt, of which here are some spontaneous suggestions:

  • Chombo ちょんぼ
  • Full-bore Leashman: School Years
  • Scapegoat Monkeyclimb
  • 長女の包丁, which, politely translated, might be rendered as “Lady Macbeth in the Library”
  • 仮の彼氏 (kari no kareshi) = temporary boyfriend
  • 縺れ (motsuré) = tangle, complications
  • うそがばれます (uso ga baremasu) = a lie comes to light

Etc.
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6298
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby Catnip » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:41 pm

If the NSA/FBI are the understudy for Earth-Cache, maybe they can retrieve that poem I wrote in 1998. The site it was on evaporated into the aether after one company bought another one out.

Oh wait, that was more than 10 years ago, and I’m not USese. Bummer.

On the other hand, imagine the historians and social scientists when they start poring over the released archives after expiry of the thirty-year rule: what a treasure trove!

Does it include tweets, and camera phone photos from war-zone prisons, and things?
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6298
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby GreenWyvern » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:03 pm

Catnip wrote:If the NSA/FBI are the understudy for Earth-Cache, maybe they can retrieve that poem I wrote in 1998. The site it was on evaporated into the aether after one company bought another one out.


You may be able to get your poem back from the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive. They have 150 billion web pages archived, going back to 1996.
User avatar
GreenWyvern
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby smacker » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:56 pm

brmull wrote:
stilicho wrote:The two elements of the crime that convinced me otherwise were the accusation of murder against an innocent man (for which Knox is still responsible, even after her appeal) and the locked door in her home. The next most convincing evidence was nothing from the laboratory or police or medical examiner's reports. Instead, it was Knox's own words during her trial. To this day, many Groupies™ blatantly contradict her by arguing, among other things, that she did not know Guede, that the police provided her with Patrick's name, and that she was summoned to the police station in the middle of the night. Her own explanations for these (and several other) items point directly to her involvement in the murder and the attempted cover-up. It was her own words that eventually convinced more than two dozen Italian judges that she was guilty.


Very good post. I read one person recently who said that it was Knox's speech at Sea-Tac that convinced them she was guilty. Looking at it again, it doesn't seem at all how an innocent person would act. But then people like Bill Williams just dismiss it as "Amanda being Amanda." That's why I tend to focus on the forensics.


AK being unable to explain where she was on the night of the murder strikes me as a stumbling block too.
User avatar
smacker
 
Posts: 2643
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: The King's Head, SW17

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:34 pm

brmull wrote:
stilicho wrote:What does Sollecito say in his book? Does he say that he turned his cell phone off? Or does he argue that he left it on?


He says they both switched off their phones shortly after Knox texted Patrick (p18). He never gets around to explaining how the phones got turned back on (shifting magnetic fields, clever cat, etc.) Hellmann of course didn't care that the defense refused to answer the question seriously.


This is an important claim, then, because both K&S argue they were too high to remember much of anything that night--except they both recall switching off their cell phones. This is because it really was an unusual action to take and it requires an explanation.

Nearly as importantly, it indicates that the journalists and the Groupies™ are simply not paying attention because you can find them, even today, arguing that the phones might just have been "inactive" and not switched off. That alternative is obviously important enough to them to continue to create a 'fog of nonsense' over the status of the phones. It fits in with the preconception that the police and prosecutors aren't terribly bright.

The follow-up question is naturally why they chose to simultaneously shut off their cell phones. Knox may have done it to dodge an incoming call from Patrick but Sollecito cannot obviously have had the same concern. Patrick wasn't his employer, after all.

How does anyone else see this? A key element? An unfortunate coincidence?
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9408
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby hugo » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:49 pm

Jackie wrote:
jar wrote:
Jackie wrote:...

"Competence" is in doubt; the need to "compensate for the shorter program" is recognized; they are usually required to "augment their knowledge in areas of law not covered during their...education".
...


I think you set too much store by a three year law degree...


That's hard to read after burning through 3 years of my life and well over 100K on tuition, fees and books! LOL

I'm just trying to find an explanation for anglo's remarkable blunders.

Is it the person or the program?

Something is wrong.


It is a puzzle. It's like the ending of A Bridge Too Far, when it's all gone horribly wrong, and Ryan O'Neal (as Maj-Gen 'Gentleman' Jim Gavin, 82nd Airborne) says, 'It was Nijmegen.' And Michael Caine (as Lt-Col. J.O.E. Vandeleur, Irish Guards, who later became my friend John's brigadier in 43rd Wessex Division) says, 'It was the narrow road, leading to Nijmegen.' And Edward Fox (as Lt-Gen Brian Horrocks, XXX Corps) says wearily, 'Oh, it was after Nijmegen.'

Well, if 'Nijmegen' is Chester College of Law, then it's probably not Chester. A Chester GDL seems to be a good way to start, and large well-known law firms send their trainees there to do that course. So it's 'the narrow road' before that (personality), or it's 'after' that (in-house training, post-qualification experience), or a combination. Because for a practising British lawyer to get the date of PACE wrong by ten years, not just putting it in the wrong year but the wrong decade and the wrong period of social history, is just jaw-dropping.

The only visible snag in the 'programme' is that Anglo squeezed it a bit. I thought two years from GDL to qualification was OK, but the Law Society thinks you should take three. (Total four years, to the three you'd need if you already had a law degree.) Of course some people squeeze it, I guess for financial reasons. I've no reason to doubt TomM's claim that talented people can qualify in two years -- but they'd better be talented.

PACE didn't exist when Anglo was training -- PACE being a very large example of how knowledge gained in law school can become obsolete -- so that's not a hole in his training or something he skipped, it's just that he wasn't paying attention after he qualified. And not only was he not paying attention to the law, he wasn't even paying attention to TV cop dramas, which continually mentioned PACE from 1984 on.

Still, y'know. John N. Mitchell (Fordham, '38), John Ehrlichman (Stanford, '51), G Gordon Liddy (Fordham, '57) and John Dean (Georgetown, '65) -- all JDs, all had the first-class three-year postgrad legal education that Jackie understandably, given the expense, sets such store by. All should have known better. All crooks. All went to jail.

And John Dean couldn't even speak English. In one of the hearings he was asked if he'd had a certain conversation by phone, and, if so, when, and he said, 'It was via a telephonic communication, but I wouldn't care to specicify [that's not a typo, that's 'specicify' with the accent on the second syllable, one of the world's worst recorded neologisms] as to the exact timescale.'
hugo
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby dgfred » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:44 pm

stilicho wrote:
brmull wrote:
stilicho wrote:What does Sollecito say in his book? Does he say that he turned his cell phone off? Or does he argue that he left it on?


He says they both switched off their phones shortly after Knox texted Patrick (p18). He never gets around to explaining how the phones got turned back on (shifting magnetic fields, clever cat, etc.) Hellmann of course didn't care that the defense refused to answer the question seriously.


This is an important claim, then, because both K&S argue they were too high to remember much of anything that night--except they both recall switching off their cell phones. This is because it really was an unusual action to take and it requires an explanation.

Nearly as importantly, it indicates that the journalists and the Groupies™ are simply not paying attention because you can find them, even today, arguing that the phones might just have been "inactive" and not switched off. That alternative is obviously important enough to them to continue to create a 'fog of nonsense' over the status of the phones. It fits in with the preconception that the police and prosecutors aren't terribly bright.

The follow-up question is naturally why they chose to simultaneously shut off their cell phones. Knox may have done it to dodge an incoming call from Patrick but Sollecito cannot obviously have had the same concern. Patrick wasn't his employer, after all.

How does anyone else see this? A key element? An unfortunate coincidence?



They always use the 'lovebirds' scenarios to explain it... not convincing IMO. They could have just turned the ringers off and then read any messages later on. When not busy b-(( .


BTW stil... are you enjoying 'Russell Mania'? Yay-) No rookie QB in the last 40+ years has had so many comeback TDs for wins. pp-(
dgfred
 
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: N.C., USA

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby hugo » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:08 pm

stilicho wrote:
brmull wrote:
stilicho wrote:What does Sollecito say in his book? Does he say that he turned his cell phone off? Or does he argue that he left it on?


He says they both switched off their phones shortly after Knox texted Patrick (p18). He never gets around to explaining how the phones got turned back on (shifting magnetic fields, clever cat, etc.) Hellmann of course didn't care that the defense refused to answer the question seriously.


This is an important claim, then, because both K&S argue they were too high to remember much of anything that night--except they both recall switching off their cell phones. This is because it really was an unusual action to take and it requires an explanation.

Nearly as importantly, it indicates that the journalists and the Groupies™ are simply not paying attention because you can find them, even today, arguing that the phones might just have been "inactive" and not switched off. That alternative is obviously important enough to them to continue to create a 'fog of nonsense' over the status of the phones. It fits in with the preconception that the police and prosecutors aren't terribly bright.

The follow-up question is naturally why they chose to simultaneously shut off their cell phones. Knox may have done it to dodge an incoming call from Patrick but Sollecito cannot obviously have had the same concern. Patrick wasn't his employer, after all.

How does anyone else see this? A key element? An unfortunate coincidence?


They both seem to have admitted switching off their phones -- so the phones weren't just 'inactive', they were, according to the defendants, switched off, almost simultaneously -- and neither of them can say why. Knox admitted that this was unusual, and even inconvenient, because like a lot of young people she used her phone as her watch. She just couldn't say why.

Well, of course not, because the simultaneous switch-off argues premeditation. It's surprising that the courts did not draw the logically necessary inference. If Knox and Sollecito had been black or Albanian, the inference would have been drawn infallibly.
hugo
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:24 pm

dgfred wrote:
stilicho wrote:....

This is an important claim, then, because both K&S argue they were too high to remember much of anything that night--except they both recall switching off their cell phones. This is because it really was an unusual action to take and it requires an explanation.

Nearly as importantly, it indicates that the journalists and the Groupies™ are simply not paying attention because you can find them, even today, arguing that the phones might just have been "inactive" and not switched off. That alternative is obviously important enough to them to continue to create a 'fog of nonsense' over the status of the phones. It fits in with the preconception that the police and prosecutors aren't terribly bright.

The follow-up question is naturally why they chose to simultaneously shut off their cell phones. Knox may have done it to dodge an incoming call from Patrick but Sollecito cannot obviously have had the same concern. Patrick wasn't his employer, after all.

How does anyone else see this? A key element? An unfortunate coincidence?



They always use the 'lovebirds' scenarios to explain it... not convincing IMO. They could have just turned the ringers off and then read any messages later on. When not busy b-(( .


BTW stil... are you enjoying 'Russell Mania'? Yay-) No rookie QB in the last 40+ years has had so many comeback TDs for wins. pp-(


I'm truly in thrall with Wilson and the way he conveys confidence to the whole team. I see a lot of raw talent and ability to make very quick and good decisions. Not only good for the team's stats and revenues but also it will make good players want to stay with the Seahawks and others to sign on to the programme.

The 'lovebirds' scenario doesn't work for the switched-off phones. Knox didn't say any such thing in the courtroom. She provided two other reasons (the battery and Patrick) that had nothing to do with Sollecito.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9408
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:23 pm

hugo wrote:....

They both seem to have admitted switching off their phones -- so the phones weren't just 'inactive', they were, according to the defendants, switched off, almost simultaneously -- and neither of them can say why. Knox admitted that this was unusual, and even inconvenient, because like a lot of young people she used her phone as her watch. She just couldn't say why.

Well, of course not, because the simultaneous switch-off argues premeditation. It's surprising that the courts did not draw the logically necessary inference. If Knox and Sollecito had been black or Albanian, the inference would have been drawn infallibly.


Not just 'young people'. I use mine as a watch to the point where I don't even wear one any longer. Both K&S appear to have understood that the 'inactive phone' excuse wasn't going to convince anyone except, perhaps, Hellmann:

Hellmann, 85 wrote:[The] turning off of the telephone cannot be considered as a definite circumstance.


In that simple sentence fragment, Hellmann paves the way to exclude any premeditation even though, by doing so, he argues that Knox misled the court during her testimony. I don't think anyone needs a one year legal diploma, a three year law degree, or even an IQ in the triple digits to understand what's wrong with that approach.

The interesting thing, right now, is what happens if this whole thing gets sent back for a retrial at the appeal level. Both K&S have confirmed they turned off their cell phones and they have provided no consistent reason for having done so. Perhaps it will be Sollecito's turn to take the stand and babble on about his 'beloved manga'.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9408
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -

Postby brmull » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:54 pm

Wondering ... Was Frank the anonymous "concerned citizen" who requested an investigation of the 182,000 euros spent on the crime scene re-enactment? He was definitely the first person to report the story of the investigation, which six months later has apparently gone nowhere.

Frank's Petition (Jan 2012):
"PRESIDENT, MINISTER, WE HAVE TO PAY FOR A VIDEO REQUESTED BY GIULIANO MIGNINI AND MANUELA COMODI?"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/reco ... gger-hero/
brmull
 
Posts: 2231
Images: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Murder of Meredith Kercher



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Boudicca, CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot] and 20 guests