Headsup: Disney's Hulu - mafia tool?! First warning already sent to the Knox series production team about the hoaxes and mafia connections. The Daily Beast's badly duped Grace Harrington calls it "the true story of Knox’s wrongful conviction of the murder of her roommate". Harrington should google "rocco sollecito" for why Italians hesitate to talk freely.

Category: Media developments

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Italians Have For A Long Time Known How Depraved And Cruel The Final Struggle Was

Posted by Our Main Posters

An Exceptionally Vicious Attack

As you can see in the prosecutors’ scenario posted below, we did not translate and post quite everything.

Meredith’s final 15-minute death-struggle is not there.

Back in January of this year the Micheli Report described in great detail Meredith’s autopsy, the wounds on her body, and the horrific state of her room.

Please click here for more

Monday, November 16, 2009

The Actual State Of Play: The Status Now And What Is Coming Up

Posted by Michael

[above: Meredith’s family gets briefed on the proceedings and prospects last June]

The excellent pro-Meredith LA7 documentary that Nicky reported on below would have moved many Italians.

But, apart from some of the claims from Seattle, it is unlikely to have given them many surprises.

Those in Italy have often been able to watch the court proceedings directly, Amanda Knox’s seemingly misconceived stint on the stand included, and the Italian newspapers and networks have done a pretty exemplary job of the reporting. Those there who follow the case will have a highly informed and very accurate understanding of what the evidence points to - that it pretty well overwhelmingly points to the notion that the right defendants have been tried and the case against them is strong.

For non-Italians, though, arriving at a good take on the case has been very much tougher. UK and US followers have had to rely on far fewer media sources, and the biased ones have often drowned out the few good. Be it due to inherent prejudice within certain national media, jingoism, financial opportunism, a simple desire to sensationalize or turn what should be hard news into entertainment, language and cultural barriers, or sheer laziness, the reporting on this case has fallen very far short of the “duty” of the media to inform.

To make matters worse, the media have been affected by third-party influences. Most notably, the ostensibly pro-Amanda-Knox campaign has tended to muddy the waters with aggressive anti-Italy, anti-prosecutor and anti-investigator propaganda, and some highly peculiar takes on the real facts. The US media in particular has gone out of its way to provide them with a willing platform, and it has too often relied on the campaign for main information on the case.

It seems a sad day for the media and for truth in general when the public is left to rely largely on the families and representatives of the accused for their information. As Commissario Montalbano points out below, the PR campaign and the slanted reporting will actually have zero influence on the court. And we hear from the inside that it is likely to have zero influence on the US government, and in particular the State Department (the foreign office). But it certainly has left in its wake a pool of angry and confused people who think Italy is up to something nefarious. 

So, what is realistically the state of play for the accused, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? How strong is the case against them, what is the verdict in early December likely to be, and what are the prospects for appeal?

Bear in mind first that the elements of the case of the prosecution had jumped a large number of judicial hurdles on the way to trial for which there is no equivalent in the US and UK systems. Judge after judge after judge reviewed the emerging case, and Judge Micheli showed how formidable it was when he committed Knox and Sollecito to trial in October 2008

And the prosecution seems to have presented at trial a very robust case against the accused, within a very compelling overall framework, comprised of behavioral, witness, forensic, and circumstantial testimony, and self-incriminating testimony of the accused. The real strength of the case lies in the whole damning picture when all the elements are drawn together.

A defense explanation can be attempted for any one piece of evidence taken in isolation, and sometimes such pieces do seem weak. But when they are all brought together, the whole seems too much, too large a wall for any defense team to break down. A regular poster on the case summed it up with this metaphor. Imagine the case against the accused being a swimming pool. Now in that pool there are no sharks - but there are many dozens of piranha fish. They will strip you to the bone far faster and more effectively then any shark. This seems in essence what the response of the defenses now faces.

Convictions and sentences for both defendants early in December do seem to be more or less assured. 

So what does a well-informed and fair-minded native Italian who really understands the Italian legal system think of the chances of acquittal for the accused? Our frequent commenter Yummi, who writes from Italy, was asked about the prospects for a guilty verdict, and the likelihood of a prosecution appeal in the case of an acquittal. Yummi had this to say:

A trial in the Italian justice is an event in which the most important part is played by the written sentence (so called “sentence report”). The prosecution would give up the appeal only if the written motivations appear to them obviously unassailable, so to make it easy to predict a second failure. But in all other cases appeals by the prosecution are frequent, sometimes even on guilty verdicts. In this case an appeal by the prosecution would be real and almost certain in case of acquittal.

But it is extremely unlikely that AK and RS are found innocent in the first instance. Not because there is any proof 100% good, any single piece of evidence alone won’t be able to produce a guilty verdict, but even if the pieces of circumstantial evidence are not a decisive proof taken one by one, they are too many, and too systematic. There is practically no way to come out from such a web of physical indicators, the defendants are implicated.

Yummi is not alone in this view. Most tellingly, Amanda Knox and her family are said to have been warned by her Italian lawyers, Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Della Vedova,  to expect a guilty verdict. And Knox’s family are now more than ever talking about an eventual appeal in the US media. These are remarks by the mother of Amanda Knox. 

There’s been many people that have told us that’s not how it works. Just because you’re innocent, you’re not found innocent, at least…  at this first level, and that normally true justice doesn’t happen until the appeals process.

By ‘“first level” Edda Mellas means the current trial. In effect, she seems to believe that, in the Italian process, almost everyone is found guilty in the main trial, and the real business and the acquitting is done in the appeal. This happy talk about the appeal has been quite common from the Knox camp of late. This suggests that the supporters of Knox and Sollecito are expecting a guilty verdict and are now hanging all their hopes on that appeal.

Is it in fact correct that the appeals court is where the real business is done? In effect that it is almost automatic that Knox and Sollecito would be found guilty in the trial, and that then it’s almost a done deal that they will be freed on appeal?

First, it must be noted that we’ve heard similar happy talk before. Leading up to and during the early stages of the trial, the line was that Amanda will prove her innocence in the trial itself, most especially by getting up on the stand. That clearly hasn’t worked out that way, and as the trial is almost at an end, the supporters are turning their attention instead to characterizing the appeal process.

What is the reality of the appeal process? This is how our Italian watcher Yummi describes it:

Appeals are usually very similar to first degree trials in their overall figure. Basically it depends on what are the aims and strategies of parties in the appeal. If the outcome in the first degree is obvious, most likely it will be obvious in the appeal. Many appeals in Italy don’t take place just to overturn the first degree - i.e. the fact that a defendant is guilty often is not questioned - often they are made just to introduce minor corrections to the first sentence.

So what do the actual appeals statistics say? The statics on the success rates of appeals in Italy are in fact not good news for those convicted. 

• 70% of appeal cases end with the confirmation of the original verdict: 25% of these with a confirmation of the sentence at the original trial, and 45% with a reduction in the penalty.
• The other 30% of appeals cases end with 10% of them lapsing due to expiration, 8% for NDP procedural reasons and only 12% overturning the verdict.

So the reality is that only a mere 12% of all appeals result in the overturning of a guilty verdict. This seems very out of step with what Edda Mellas has been claiming. The facts of the matter in this case seem to be that (1) the returning of a guilty verdict at the end of the trial is very high, and that (2) there is a negligible chance of that guilty verdict being overturned on appeal.

The reality therefore is that things are not looking at all good for the defendants, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

And even worse, because there are three appeals, one each, they may really tear apart from one another now and on appeal go their different ways - as, seemingly, will Rudy Guede.

We are now coming to the end of what has been a very long sad tough process indeed, most of all for the family and friends of Meredith Kercher. I can only hope, that whatever the outcome, they are given the truth and repentance they seek. And that they finally are able to find some closure and truly lay their daughter to rest in peace.

The Kercher family on the second sad anniversary of Meredith’s death a few days ago expressed their heartfelt desire that eventually, finally, soon, they and the world can stop remembering Meredith as a victim and news item, and instead as a whole person - the truly wonderful person that she was.

It is my reading here that we will reach that point early in December of this year, in that Perugia courtroom.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Producer Of CBS Reports On The Case “Crazy, Desperate, Stupid, And/Or Unscrupulous” ?

Posted by The Machine

[click for larger image] 

Meet Joe Halderman. A CBS producer in New York. He now stands accused of blackmail.

None of the four US networks that have attempted coverage of Meredith’s case has a good record for impartial reporting, or anything remotely like a firm grasp of the prosecution evidence as actually presented.

Not one of them seems to be aware of the very careful pre-trial process or the very damning Micheli report. 

Nevertheless, the overall records of NBC, ABC and CNN seem to show some slight attempt at balance.

NBC produced two extremely good Dateline documentaries, which still represent the standard to beat. ABC has a reporter in the court in Perugia, Ann Wise, who we often quote on TJMK because her reporting is generally impartial and good.

And although CNN aired the one-sided Larry King Show last week, and the wild-eyed Jane Velez Mitchel panel discussion (now disappeared from YouTube) in which the lunatics appeared to be running the asylum, CNN did have some good reporting in the early days of the case, and we hear they will attempt to report better.

CBS undeniably is the worst of the worst.

CBS has repeatedly spread bias and misinformation and slimed Italian professionals and witnesses, and for that matter Italy itself, throughout the past two years.

Here is our post on one disaster of a CBS report. And here,  here,  here,  and here are our posts on another.

Joe Halderman of CBS (above) co-produced both of them.

Several weeks ago, Joe Halderman was arrested and charged with blackmail for apparently attempting to stiff CBS comedy host David Letterman for two million dollars.

Mr Halderman, a producer for the real-life crime show 48 Hours, entered his plea as he appeared in court in Manhattan on a charge of attempted grand larceny.

Speaking earlier, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said that the offence, if proven, was punishable by a prison term of five to 15 years. “Our concern here is extortion and that’s what we’re focusing on,” he said.

Mr Halderman was arrested following an undercover police “sting” operation at a New York hotel, during which he was allegedly recorded setting out his blackmail demands to Letterman’s lawyer.

Now it is being reported in New York that Joe Halderman’s story is taking a really bizarre turn.

One of the last 48 Hours stories that CBS Newsman and accused David Letterman blackmailer Joe Halderman worked on - airing just one month before he allegedly launched his plot to extort the late-night host - involved a ransom scheme…

It’s a run-of-the-mill true-crime tale of murder and deception, but it features one detail that seems strange in retrospect: The sister of one of the victims, who never got her brother’s remains from the Philippines after his murder, at one point received creepy anonymous e-mails from someone claiming to have her brother’s ashes, and offering to sell them to her….

The strange thing is, in the story Halderman reported, the ransom scheme goes haywire: The man behind the e-mail ends up attracting attention to himself and gets arrested for Rios’ murder….

We came across the weird synchronicity between Halderman’s day job and his after-hours scheming while going through his old 48 Hours segments and looking for signs that they may have been produced by someone crazy, desperate, stupid, and/or unscrupulous enough to engage in blackmail.

Hmmm. Apparently Joe Halderman is crazy, desperate, stupid, and/or unscrupulous enough to mislead a large segment of the American population about the real facts of Meredith’s murder.

Real crime seems a small step from there. 

Three others who Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau might also want to keep a close eye on are CBS junior producer Sara Ely Hulse, CBS reporter Peter Van Sant, and CBS consultant detective Paul Ciolino!

All have shown themselves extremely ignorant of the basic facts of the case.

Email exchanges with the obviously obsessively pro-Knox producer Sara Ely Hulse have suggested to us that, among many other key facts of the case, she was not aware of the following:

• Amanda Knox had a criminal record in Seattle.
• Amanda Knox had met Rudy Guede on a number of occasions.
• Amanda Knox was not questioned for 14 hours without an interpreter.
• A woman’s bloody shoeprint in Knox’s size was found on a pillow in Meredith’s room.

The seemingly extremely amateurish detective Paul Ciolino was responsible for conducting the farcical experiment in Perugia in the first CBS documentary linked-to above where he could not even get the STREET right before claiming this was a railroad job from hell.

And reporter Peter Van Sant channeled some of the worst libels about Prosecutor Mignini - baseless claims about satanic sects and so on - without even being able to spell Prosecutor Mignini’s name properly!

It seems to us very odd that both Sara Ely Hulse and Paul Ciolino appear to be members of the Free Amanda Knox Facebook group. Does CBS have any guidelines at all on ethical matters or standards of reporting?

On second thoughts…. Do we REALLY have to ask?

Above: CBS reporter Peter Van Sant who repeated online unfounded libelous smears about Prosecutor Mignini

Above: Junior CBS producer Sara Ely Hulse, an obsessed Knox fan who participated in CBS’s two fiascos.

Above: CBS consultant Paul Ciolino who ran a farcical test in Perugia and also slimed prosecutor and police

Above: Indecisive CBS producer Doug Longhini who with Joe Halderman produced CBS’s two fiascos

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Justice V Jingoism: UK’s Sky News Tells Us They Are Seeing Hypocrisy

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for the report.

Sky News (controlled from NYC when last we looked! by Rupert Murdoch, above, on Sixth Avenue) says what a lot of Europeans are thinking.

A lot of New Yorkers too. A mean-spirited and dishonest PR campaign and a lazy dishonest media have colluded for far too long on this case.  And on too many similar examples.

It is quite different in the US when it comes to foreign treatment of one of their own citizens.

Amanda “˜Foxy’ Knoxy, is the young American woman now on trial in Italy for the murder of the British student Meredith Kercher.

I was astonished to see her whole family, parents and children, invited on [ABC’s] Good Morning America and treated with cloying sympathy for all the world as if they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.

Sky News and the other Murdoch vehicles (the London Times, for example) have been among the MOST dispassionate about the case and among the MOST compassionate about Meredith.

Good on you, Rupert. For this, we salute you.

Friday, July 31, 2009

Prosecutor Mignini Describes What Actually Happened At The Session With Knox Ending 5:45 AM

Posted by Peter Quennell

Linda Byron is an investigative reporter for a TV station in Seattle.

Her investigative exclusives seem almost exclusively to consist of long and unchecked quotes from the FOA camp together with two or three spaniel-eyed questions.

Which then become yet another shrill report on Seattle TV about what those dastardly Italians are doing to poor Knox. A typical report of hers can be seen here (try later if they are still hiding it).

These are a few of the facts of the case that Linda Byron seems NOT to have mastered.

• That the Italian process of justice is actually very fair and very cautious, is tilted much more to the defense than in the UK and US, and requires prosecutors to jump through a number of hoops before they ever get their case to trial.


• That a judge in Perugia last January issued an impressive 106-page report which explains in great detail why he decided Guede was guilty and why a great deal of evidence suggests that Knox and Sollecito might be too.


• That there are TWO senior and respected prosecutors on this case, not just one, that the victim’s family has expressed full confidence in them, and that neither prosecutor has ever made any claims about a satanic motive here.


• That the prosecution has just presented a formidable case with the help of Italy’s equivalent of the FBI and Scotland Yard, and the defenses seem to be gaining little traction in bringing it down or offering alternatives


• That almost every prosecutor in Italy runs into administrative charges at some time in their career, they are so easy to file, and the charges against Mr Mignini always did look politically motivated and frivolous and likely soon to evaporate.


• That the sliming of Mr Mignini has not been a success, that the FOA campaign in Italy has not been a success, and that Amanda Knox on the stand doesn’t seem to have been much of a success either.

And that above all there is a REAL victim here at the heart of this sad crime, known by the name of Meredith Kercher. And that her poor family is suffering for real here -  though of course many miles away from Linda Byron.

So. Instead of good journalism at long last in her latest report, what does Linda Byron have to offer?

No surprises here. Yet more of the sliming of Mr Mignini (this is an acrobat version).

“There are many parallels between the Monster of Florence case and the Knox case, I mean there are shocking parallels,” said American crime writer Doug Preston.

Preston says Mignini believes the monster was no lone psychopath, but part of a satanic sect. He suggested an eerily similar motive for Kercher’s murder, which took place on November 1, 2007.

“Which is right before the Italian day of the dead, and that this was some kind of satanic ritualistic ceremony that they were engaged in. That they killed Meredith Kercher as part of this satanic ceremony,” said Preston….

“He decides right up front with almost no evidence based on his gut feeling or intuition that you’re guilty and then sets out to prove it,” said Preston.

Actually, there seem to be no parallels whatsoever between the Florence and Perugia cases. For example Amanda Knox was interrogated only for two rather short periods - and Mr Mignini was not even present at the first of them.

And Mr Mignini was quite tangential to the Monster of Florence case. He was actually investigating a drowning to the west of Perugia. And when Preston and his partner interfered in Mr Mignini’s case in a particularly harebrained manner, a sharp response was inevitable.

Linda Byron invited Mr Mignini to provide a response to the heated claims in her piece. Either the response was completely over her head, or she did understand it and tried to bury it - it is ONLY only available in Italian, via a link, with a second link to Yahoo’s awful cut-and-paste translator.

Here now is Mr Mignini’s entire response put into good English, not by Yahoo, but by two of our own excellent native-Italian speakers.

Dear Ms Byron,

I hope we will be able to meet and discuss sometime in person, since some of the issues you have examined, specifically the Florentine proceedings against myself and Dr Giuttari, are way too complex to be described in just a few words. I will try to give a short answer here.

To begin with, there is no relationship between the events that are the subject of Spezi’s and Preston’s book and the murder of young Ms Kercher beside the fact that I am the one person dealing with both the Narducci proceedings (connected to the Monster of Florence case) and the Meredith Kercher murder.

These two are totally different events, as well as wholly unrelated to each other, and I am not able to see any type of analogy.

Furthermore, while the precautionary custody order for Spezi has been voided by the Tribunale del Riesame of Perugia, exclusively on the grounds of insufficient elements of proof, the precautionary custody order for Knox was firmly confirmed not only by the Tribunal of Riesame in Perugia,, but above all by the Sixth Section of the Court of Cassazione, which has declared the matter decided and closed.

About the “sacrificial rite” issue, I have never stated that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “sacrificial rite”.

It should be sufficient to read the charges to understand that the three defendants have been accused of having killed Ms Kercher in the course of activities of a sexual nature, which are notoriously very different from a “sacrificial rite”.

The Monster of Florence investigations have been led by the Florentine magistrates Adolfo Izzo, Silvia della Monica, Pierluigi Vigna, Paolo Canessa and some others.

I have never served in Florence. I have led investigations related to the case since October 2001, but only with regard to the death of Dr Francesco Narducci, and just a superficial knowledge of those proceedings [Dr Narducci drowned or was drowned] would suffice to realize that I never spoke of a “sacrificial rite” which in this case doesn’t make any good sense.

About the defense lawyer issue.  Mr. Preston was heard as a person claiming information about the facts (in effect a witness), but after indications of some circumstances against him surfaced, the interview was suspended, since at that point he should have been assisted by an attorney, and since according to the law the specific crime hypothesis required the proceedings to be suspended until a ruling on them was handed down.

All I did was to apply the Italian law to the proceedings. I really cannot understand any problem.

In the usual way, Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code.

But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations, that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful. According to Article 374 of the penal proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations.

Since I didn’t do anything other than to apply the Italian law applicable to both matters, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you are talking about.

Secondly, I have told you that explaining the nature of the accusations against me is a complex job.

In short, it has been alleged that I have favored Dr Giuttari’s position, who was investigated together with two of his collaborators for a (non-existent) political forgery of a tape recording transcription of a conversation between Dr Giuttari and Dr Canessa.

The latter was giving vent to his feelings, telling Dr Giuttari that the head prosecutor in Florence (at the time) was not a free man in relation to his handling of the Monster investigations.

A technical advisor from the prosecutor’s office in Genoa had tried to attribute that sentence to Dr Giuttari, without having previously obtained a sound test from him, only from Dr Canessa.

I decided, rightly and properly, to perform another technical test on that tape for my trial (I have a copy of it, and the original transcripts of the recording).

I had the technical test performed by the Head of the Sound Task Force of the RIS Carabinieri in Rome, Captain Claudio Ciampini.

If Giuttari had lied, Captain Ciampini would have certainly said so. But his conclusions from the analysis were that that sentence had been pronounced by Dr Canessa. And by the way, this is clearly audible.

I then deemed it appropriate to interrogate the technical adviser from Genoa, in the sphere of the investigations led by me, since the people under investigation were thoroughly but inexplicably aware of the development of the investigation of Dr Giuttari.

The technical advisor from Genoa had made some absolutely non-credible declarations, and I had to investigate him.

The GUP from Genoa, Dr Roberto Fenizia, by means of a non-contested verdict on 9 November 2006, acquitted Dr Giuttari and his collaborators, because the alleged crimes had never occurred.

Therefore, I am accused for doing a proper and due investigation, without even the consideration that I have spared some innocent people from a sentence. I leave any further evaluation up to you.

As for the phone tappings, they had been fully authorized or validated by the GIP. [Those charges are now thrown out.] Explain to me how they can be considered wrongful. I haven’t been able to understand this yet.

This is the story of that case in short, and I am certain the truth will prevail.

None of us is guaranteed not to be subjected to unjust trials, especially when sensitive and “inconvenient” investigations have been conducted.

When accusations are serious and heavy in Italy, a magistrate that has been investigated or charged suffers heavy consequences.

There are appropriate bodies in charge to intervene according to the current laws, but the Florentine penal proceeding so far hasn’t affected me at all, perhaps because everybody ““ and specifically those professionally working on the matter - have realized that such penal proceedings have been anomalous, to use a euphemism.

As to my possibility to appeal any conviction, the Italian law provides for it, and I don’t need to say more.

I will make some closing remarks on the different jurisdictions.

Indeed there are differences between the [UK and US] common law jurisdictions and those of continental Europe, including the Italian one, which like any other jurisdiction has its flaws but also its merits, of which I “˜m becoming more aware as I carry on.

Furthermore, both jurisdictions are expressions of the juridical culture of the Western world, and this is something that shouldn’t be disregarded.

I don’t think I need to add anything else, except that these issues would need to be discussed in a personal conversation in order to delve further into the matter.

Sincerely

Giuliano Mignini

No wonder Linda Byron seemed to want to bury this letter. Does anybody now not think that the charges against Mr Mignini are quite ludicrous?  Preston’s and the Florence prosecutor’s both? 

Mr Mignini seems to be suggesting to Linda Byron to hop on a plane to Italy and to try getting her facts straight once and for all. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that one.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

National Public Radio Joins The Fair And Objective Wing Of The US Media Coverage

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for the report.

This audio report from Barbie Nadeau on PBS may have reached the widest US audience on the case ever.

The program that included it is listened-to by an audience that can be in the many millions. It is broadcast late in the afternoon, when people are either commuting in their cars or at home preparing the dinner.

Talk radio is pretty big in the US as so many people have to spend hours in their cars. Meredith’s case seems a natural for more radio commentary.

We hope that it is the fair and objective wing that predominates.

Main-media reporting on the trial on Saturdays consists of one report from each reporter present quite late in the day Perugia time. We will be posting the best of it then.

Time Weekly Joins The Fair And Objective Wing Of The US Media Coverage

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for the report.

The reporter on this short but fair piece on the case is Nina Burleigh. She may also do a book on the case at the request of her publishers.

We mentioned Nina Burleigh and her book here.

And we’re pleased she is in the fair and objective wing.  For a crazy contrast, you might want to check out CBS.

Or, of course, maybe not….

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Prominent Political Commentator Takes Strong Exception To American Reporting

Posted by Peter Quennell

Clicka above for the report.

There is a political angle here. The fiery and controversial right-wing broadcaster and writer Ann Coulter regularly takes potshots at the more-liberal New York Times.

But her takes on the case and the problems the Knox PR campaign and the biased component of the media (which is most of it) are creating are definitely well-informed.

Her reference to the Duke lacrosse case is of course satirical. The New York Times took a notoriously wrong position on that case, and stuck with it to the end.

Friends in Italy, please note?

Ann Coulter is THE most prominent and influential American commentator so far on this case. She is much more prominent than CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell.

Her column is syndicated in about 500 American newspapers. And she is on TV here every night.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Website-Only Seattle PI May Be Going To Make It

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for media commentator Peter Kafka’s analysis.

The Seattle PI website still carries some of the best US reporting from Perugia on the case, by Rome-based Andrea Vogt. 

The home-based reporting, blogging and editorials have been rather more of a mixed bag.

Kafka thinks that the Seattle PI’s owner Hearst’s figures dont quite add up yet, but he would like to see things work out.

If the Seattle PI pulls it off, other US papers may follow this route.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Il Messaggero Gets A German Case-Watcher’s Point Of View

Posted by Peter Quennell

We have a number of readers in Germany, and of course Rudy Guede was arrested there.

So a German perspective is of some interest. Click above for Il Messagero’s interview with journalist Anke Helle in Italian. See Catnip’s translation of it below.

Saturday, 09 May 2009

by LUIGI FOGLIETTI

Many are the journalists, both from within Italy and also belonging to the foreign press, who have been accredited to the Court of Assize to follow the case where Amanda and Sollecito are standing in the dock.

Each journalist has their own opinion, very different to that of their colleagues’, and depending, in some part, on nationalities. The innocentisti form the greater part of the US contingent, leaning in favour of Amanda, while the colpevolisti are the majority party amongst the British, perhaps in part to uphold and dignify the memory of the young victim.

Practically divided right down the middle are the Italians who see Raffaele as either incapable of doing bad, or as an accomplice of, and hag-ridden by, Amanda, his then girlfriend.

So now a calmer and more objective opinion could come from Anke Helle, 27 years old, a journalist from Focus TV (a German TV show based in Munich in Bavaria) and sociology graduate of Trento University, who comes from a country that is neutral in this case.

What are they saying in Germany about this murder?

“The case is well enough known in my country, and I am convinced that their interest is above all in Amanda because the case is being followed above all by the scandal mags, and that genre requires a beautiful woman who is intriguing and a touch diabolical.

Naturally, in following the case attentively and with curiosity, they haven’t yet settled on the identify of the guilty party. We are still at the interrogative stage, in fact ““ my colleagues who are following up the case, are directing the attention of their readers to the question whether Amanda, so beautiful and intriguing, could really be the authoress of such a horrendous crime”.

And what do they say about Raffaele?

“They are more detached about him, and play up the doubt that the “˜boyfriend’, so sweet, affectionate and thoughtful, could really be complicit in such a murder”.

And Rudy?

“As for him, unfortunately being already assured of a sentence, they are not that interested in him except to say and write that “˜a person’ is already in prison, without even quoting his name”.

And what do they think about the investigations and the case?

“As far as regarding the unfolding of the investigations and of the case in general, in Germany it is being seen in the usual light that reinforces the perception that, in Italy, things are done “the Italian way (all’italiana)”.

And what do you think?

“Having come to know your country well, I love it and appreciate everything about Italian life, so I don’t agree with these criticisms, which, in any case, don’t come from any hostile preconceptions, but only from a very lightly held attitude.

As for the facts, initially I was thinking that Amanda could be innocent, now I’m not so sure”.