Friday, June 18, 2010

Why UK Media Deniers Like The Independent’s Amy Jenkins Come Across As Bigoted And Nasty

Posted by The Machine

“I can’t personally prove that Amanda Knox is innocent but I would bet every penny I own that she is.”

Bet away, Amy Jenkins.

The meme that Amanda Knox was being railroaded or framed was not too difficult to whip up in the United States.

Amanda Knox was not the first to get some Americans exercised over the notion that foreign meanies were picking on an American “just because he or she is American”.

Historically there have been a few cases for real. And it was easy to research the US dimensions of Meredith’s case in Seattle, and much harder to research the London, Leeds and Perugia dimensions. London, Leeds and Perugia are over there and in Perugia the language is Italian.

But in London it is much easier to research Meredith, and to nail down the truth about this case.

Meredith was an exceptional person, with a very bright future ahead. And Amanda Knox probably had underlying issues even before she left Seattle, she was certainly on drugs and quite possibly an addict, she was running desperately short of money in Perugia, she quite possibly thought she had been fired because of Meredith, and in her relations with Meredith (and the other two girls in the flat) she was already like oil and water.

Meredith’s family have given some interviews with reporters who won their trust (you can see an image of one in this post) and people who knew Meredith in London and Leeds have talked about her with reporters who won their trust (you can see several in this post).

So it is always a real shock to read those stridently anti-evidence, anti-prosecution, anti-Italy, and frankly anti-Meredith pieces being pushed by a BRITISH journalist. .

There have been maybe half a dozen British media deniers so far, and the online comments below their reports usually point out in spades how they got many many hard facts wrong. With the exception of the frankly peculiar Peter Popham of The Independent, toward whom not even one good journalist seems to have respect, they are then heard from on the case no more.

But their pieces hurt, and they do real damage. They are hurtful to Meredith’s friends, they have to be very hurtful to her family, and they are hurtful to Italy, the cause of justice, the memory of Meredith, and (in terms of equal and opposite reaction) to Amanda Knox herself. In Italy they do her no good whatsoever.

One of the WORST was this recent article in The Independent by the London-based freelance writer Amy Jenkins.

False claim: Amy Jenkins’s qualifications

Usually she writes about lifestyle, and particular about her own, concerning which she seems to have endless fascination - her articles are usually riddled with “I’ and “me” throughout. The photo below, with her kid for a prop, was actually posted with one of them.

Needless to say, these pieces don’t require very much in the way of research.

Here are some of the non-qualifications for Amy Jenkins to, all of a sudden, for the very first time, focus her attention on a foreign crime.

She appears to have no history of criminal research and no special knowledge of the law (she dropped out of law school in the first year)

She has never stepped foot inside the courthouse in Perugia or attended any of the many court sessions.

She hasn’t had full, if any, access to the the prosecution’s 10,000 plus pages of evidence.

She obviously hasn’t read the Micheli report of January 2009 or the Massei report of March 2010.

She seems not to have a clue who the true victim Meredith Kercher really was or reached out to any of the very handy UK sources.

In other words, Amy Jenkins knows almost nothing about the real facts of the case. She seems to be knowledgeable ONLY about the list of spurious facts disseminated by the FOA, the PR campaign, and the adolescent bunch of Knox groupies..

Any even half-competent journalist would surely have enough common sense and cynicism not to accept what they are told without question, and would independently check all their facts to make sure they are accurate and reliable. She didn’t.

Any even half-competent journalist would also make sure to research all dimensions of a story before settling for a point of view - especially for a very strident, inflammatory, libelous and hurtful one. She didn’t.

False claim: “No forensic evidence”

If any proof was needed that Amy Jenkins knows almost nothing about the case, she provides it right up front by bizarrely and erroneously claiming that that there is no forensic evidence.

If she had actually bothered to read the judges’ sentencing report, which has been available to the public since 4 March, she would have known about all of this forensic evidence:

The double DNA knife which had Knox’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade.

The detailed medical reports that led the judges to conclude that Meredith must have been stabbed with two different-sized knives.

The evidence of countless forensic experts who testified that Meredith was attacked by multiple attackers.

The five instances of Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations of the cottage.

Knox’s DNA had united with Meredith’s blood into one single streak on the basin and bidet which means they were deposited simultaneously.

Knox’s bare bloody footprints which were revealed by luminol in the hallway.

Three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room which were revealed by luminol.

According to two imprint experts, the woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body matched Knox’s foot size. It was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

Rudy Guede’s visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the cottage which means he couldn’t have staged the break-in in Filomena’s room or gone into the blood-spattered bathroom.

The abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp which proves that Guede and Sollecito were both involved in the stripping of Meredith and her sexual assault.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat which matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possible belong to Rudy Guede.

The forensic and other evidence against Sollecito also implicates Knox. Computer, mobile-phone and forensic evidence provided irrefutable proof that Sollecito’s and Knox’s alibis were false and that they had lied repeatedly to the police.

False claim: “There was no motive”

Actually there were PLENTY of possible motives for Knox at minimum starting a violent taunting of Meredith, and the Miss Represented website suggested a while back that both Sollecito and Knox may have fantasized it.

And while Amy Jenkins seems to think that the prosecutors have to prove a motive in order to secure a conviction, prosecutors in America, Britain and Italy DON’T have to prove a motive. One of the reasons for this is that no-one apart from the murderer or murderers ever really knows for definite why they killed their victim.

Judge Massei suggested the motive was “erotic sexual violence” and that Knox and Sollecito were acting under the influence of drugs, but he could have advanced no firm conclusions and his reasoning and verdict would still remain intact.

False claim: “No previous trouble with the law”

One of the reasons why Amy Jenkins thinks Amanda Knox is innocent is because Knox had no previous legal record. This is argument is quite frankly ridiculous. There have been countless murders throughout history committed by people with no previous record. And in fact Amanda Knox DID have a record.

Perhaps the reason why Amy Jenkins claimed Knox had no previous record was to highlight Rudy Guede’s alleged criminal background?

It seems to be totally obligatory for all Innocenisti journalists to sooner or later refer to Rudy Guede as a “drifter” and a “drug dealer” and to claim that “his DNA was all over” Meredith or the crime scene. Amy Jenkins is no exception:

“Rudy Guede was a drifter and a minor drug dealer. He was on the run and his DNA was all over the murder scene.”

These two sentences are straight out of the FOA’s handbook. The same terminology has been parotted over and over again by Innocentisti journalists. It seems so obvious that the PR campaign and/or the FOA are spoon feeding these gullible journalists with lines.

Amy Jenkins is clearly ignorant of the fact that Rudy Guede had lived in Perugia since the age of five, and he had his own apartment. Also that he didn’t have a criminal record for drug dealing or any other crime at the time of Meredith’s murder. And also that his DNA was NOT all over the crime scene - there were in fact very few traces..

Amanda Knox is the only one of the three who had a record at the time of Meredith’s murder. She was charged with hosting a party that got seriously out of hand, with students high on drink and drugs throwing rocks into the road, forcing cars to swerve. She was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after the incident: Crime No: 071830624.

Raffaele Sollecito also had a previous brush with the law. He was stopped by the police and found to be in possession of a small quantity of drugs.

False claim: “Amanda Knox had no lawyer or interpreter”

Amy Jenkins further betrays her ignorance of the case by making the following claim: “She was interrogated with no lawyer and no translator present. She made a phony confession.”

Precisely as in the US or UK, the police weren’t required to provide Knox with a lawyer in the first (quite short) interrogation, because she was being questioned as a witness then, and not as a suspect.

And in fact Knox WAS provided with an interpreter, Anna Donninio. Anna Donninio’s testimony was widely reported-on by the British and American media. In fact Knox herself spoke about her interpreter when she testified at the trial. She says it right here in the video - she actually says the interpreter was trying to help her..

This was very widely reported. If Amy Jenkins had followed the case in the media, she would have known about this. Ten minutes in the archives of The Independent would have turned this fact up.

False claim: “Amanda Knox’s confession was phony”

Amy Jenkins claims that Knox made a phony confession. Hoever it did not escape the judges’ and jury’s attention that Knox’s several confessions contained significant elements of the truth.

Knox claimed that she was in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder, which was corroborated by Antonio Curatolo.

She claimed that there were three people at the cottage when Meredith was killed: herself, Raffaele Sollecito and Diya Lumumba.

The police were already suspicious of Knox and Sollecito, but they were not aware that there was a third person.

Knox knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted before the results of Dr. Lalli’s autopsy report were presented to the court on 8 November 2007.

Knox knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted by an African man.

Knox claimed that she heard Meredith screaming. Nara Capezalli and Antonella Monacchia testified that they heard a loud scream on the night Meredith was murdered.

Knox stated she heard thuds and this would explain how Meredith received wounds to her skull. The prosecutors believe that Meredith was banged against the cupboard.

And Amy Jenkins has completely ignored the fact that Amanda Knox made a false and malicious accusation against an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, and NEVER withdrew it while he was inside..

Knox admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison, in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

She and her mother both KNEW that her accusation was inaccurate and unjust and that she was responsible for it. However, she didn’t recant the allegation the whole time that Lumumba was in prison.

False claim: “Knox was charged because of frivolous behavior”

Amy Jenkins here willfully misrepresents the prosecution’s case by suggesting that they they thought Knox was guilty simply because she turned a cartwheel at the police station:

“she turned an inappropriate cartwheel. In a Catholic country, it’s clearly not such a leap to go from there to stabbing your room-mate in the neck during a violent sexual assault ““ because that’s the leap the prosecution made.”

So the anti-Catholic venom surfaces here. This bigotry is so common among the deniers.

Knox wasn’t found guilty because of an “inappropriate” cartwheel and it is not mentioned anywhere in the judges’ sentencing report.

Jenkins reveals a simplistic and superficial knowledge throughout of Italian law. “If convicted of this “slander” the Italians will add six years to her sentence.”

This claim is simply not true. Six years is the maximum sentence. It’s not automatic.

False claim: “It was all because of a need to save face”

“However, at this point the rumour mill about Knox and her boyfriend had been in full flood for 18 days and the authorities had already put Knox behind bars…. To save face, Knox and her poor boyfriend had to be somehow levered into the frame.”

So the anti-Italy venom surfaces here. This bigotry is so common among the deniers.

Amy Jenkins didn’t even attempt to provide any counter arguments to the mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito. Instead she put forwards a silly conspiracy theory:

The notion that several police departments in Perugia and Rome, the three interpreters, and more than TWENTY different judges, including the judges of the Italian Supreme Court, are involved in some huge, sinister conspiracy to frame two innocent people (one of whom is Italian) so that they can all of them save face, is utterly preposterous - and almost certainly it is libelous.

Diya Lumumba was released from prison because unlike either Knox or Sollecito he had an airtight alibi and there was absolutely no forensic evidence linking him to the crime scene. But if the authorities simply wanted to save face they could have kept him in prison instead.

It’s unforgivable for Amy Jenkins or any other journalist for that matter to get basic facts wrong about the case when they can read official court documents.

There is some very bad news on the horizon for David Marriott and the FOA: the judges’ sentencing report will soon be published in English - and very widely disseminated.. They won’t find it so easy to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible, lazy, bigoted journalists like Amy Jenkins in the future.

If Amy Jenkins has even the slightest decency, she will apologize to Meredith’s family and friends.

Posted by The Machine on 06/18/10 at 06:44 PM in The officially involved, The wider contexts, Hoaxers from 2007, More hoaxers

Comments

Ah, the Welsh Candeece Dempsey.

Posted by bucketoftea on 06/18/10 at 09:39 PM | #

Wow.

It is amazing how low the standards are for journalists nowadays - I am looking for work and I could do a better job than this because I can and do read widely. It was my understanding that journalists “double source” everything, and if they get two conflicting views they try to “double source” both sides of the argument. I’ve never read the Indy, and guess what, other than heading over there now to leave a comment recommending Ms Jenkins researches her articles in future, I won’t be reading the Indy in the future.

You are right, Machine, this type of journalism may be totally worthless, but it’s existance causes great pain to those affected by the true story. An apology, both personal and in print is the very least the family and friends of Meredith deserve.

I am looking forward to the publishing of the sentencing report in English - there are no doubts in my mind that the judges have made a very thorough analysis of the evidence and that the verdict is well supported, when those who haven’t been able to access this document because of the language see it in English they really will have to start afresh and deal with hard evidence and facts that will no longer be “hidden” from the English speaking world.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 06/18/10 at 10:28 PM | #

What a “journalist”! What a tedious research she did!

I guess she could just have said “I canâ€™t personally prove that Amanda Knox is innocent but I have just a gut feeling she is”.

Ridiculous. You are right, Innai, the standards for being a “journalist” are just a shame. Well, at least we are starting to have a long list of what not to read!!!

Posted by Patou on 06/18/10 at 11:25 PM | #

Hopefully, once the Massei report has been translated to English it will quell these pseudo-journalists like Amy Jenkins and Candace Dempsey and they can go back to writing about Sunday lunch and remedies for diaper rash, topics more in line with their intelligence and abilities.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 06/19/10 at 03:56 AM | #

How can you railroad a runaway train?

Posted by mimi on 06/19/10 at 09:20 AM | #

I am actually reminded of a rather brilliant book called “Bad Science” by Dr. Ben Goldacre. Therein he describes how, when a big science story comes along, the science correspondants tend to get sidelined and a more “general” writer takes the story - the result being something that can, at times, be way off the mark, and is normally much more of a sensation.

If the Indy had had an Italian speaking journalist who had some knowledge of the Italian judicial system write this piece would it have received 500 plus comments? Maybe, but if it were a cool, compassionate, factual piece it would not have grabbed so much attention.

The Indy is not in the best financial situation as far as I understand, over a year ago Guido posted this:
http://order-order.com/2009/05/06/guidos-plan-to-save-the-indy/
Now, Guido is a bit of a character and all, but I think he makes the point that the Indy is struggling quite well.

Personally I like to read a well researched and well written analysis of a story, but the MSM/DTP seem to think that sensationalism will sell their publications….I think this piece is an example of that.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 06/19/10 at 10:09 AM | #

When I read her article on the Independent website wrote a very long and nasty message in the comments section. How she can be allowed to write for a paper such as the Independent is baffling, she should rather be reporting for the Sun or the Mirror newspapers! Shame on her!

Posted by tempusfugit on 06/19/10 at 10:29 AM | #

Hi tempusfugit. We had a London reader email us a while back that the London newspaper scene explains a lot.

Essentially, he said, there are too many newspapers and they fall into three tiers. The Times in the top tier, the Sun and Mirror etc in the bottom tier, and the Guardian, Independent etc in the middle tier, shooting for the snooty “foreigners are wogs” element within the middle class.

If the Mirror, Sun etc take one position, then pretty confidently expect to see the Independent or Guardian soon take another.

The emailer wrote us to explain the really bizarre commenting on the case by the Independent’s Peter Popham. Amy Jenkins’s perverse piece might actually have been suggested by an editor.

UK tabloid coverage has been rather good. So in this case the “lower classes” end up being more accurately informed on Meredith’s case than the snooty part of the middle!

The reader always did intend to do a post for us on this. It would be very nice if someone did. Similar situations exist in the US media. Blogs are just killing these guys..

**********

Added: Now I’ve read the rather astounding piece by Guido that Innai linked to just above. Wow. Double wow. We don’t want to see them all fold, but until some do… expect more Amy Jenkinses, not less?!

This comment below the Guido post really made me laugh: “Bloggers are only experts in the field they talk about whereas professional journalists are experts at re-arranging the words of press releases.”

So true… Some still are quite brilliant but the Amy Jenkinses debase them all. She and Popham are actually helping to kill the Independent.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/19/10 at 02:42 PM | #

A lot of the UK national papers are struggling at the moment. Many lost readership because they failed to challenge the previous administration and there have been many cases in the last 5 years where professional journalists didn’t even bother re-arranging the words of press releases, many have lost readership to the free daily press (eg the Metro), and to the internet.

There seems to be an air of desperation, no-one has figured out a way to ensure survival in what is a very competitive business. Very recently The Times went behind a paywall in an attempt to make Â£ from their internet “paper” - the jury is still out on how that is working - many other publications are said to be waiting and watching, and they may follow The Times’ example.

As I think has been said many times on this site the DTP’s best hope of survival is quality: high calibre jouralists providing in depth, well researched articles. The public want to be informed not treated to scandal and sensation. The tabloid press can deal with that, let the broadsheets provide quality.

Amy Jenkins’ article is a perfect example of what not to do. Journalists do need to wake up to the fact that the public can access the internet and do “follow up” reading on their topics - I truly hope that some Indy readers do do that, and find themselves here, where they can find a more balanced view of all aspects of this horrific crime.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 06/19/10 at 06:40 PM | #

Hi Innai. Intensely interesting.

“As I think has been said many times on this site the DTPâ€™s best hope of survival is quality: high calibre jouralists providing in depth, well researched articles. “

This is the strong core thinking in both of NYC’s great journalism schools: Columbia U and New York U.

I’ve been told there that the Seattle P-I paper edition could EASILY have been saved if it had not been seriously debased by nitwits like Candace Dempsey.

The P-I editor supported her, but the P-I press-room just despised her deadening incompetence - and as it turned out, they were right.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/19/10 at 08:15 PM | #

6/19/10
The Machine, thank you for a sea of truth.
Factual, lucid. Thank you very much. Let the tide roll in.

Your heading of “No Previous Trouble with the Law” reminded me of something I’ve never been sure about. I thought I read that AK beat up a little boy to protect her sister, Deanna, when they were young. I may be wildly mistaken, but would like to know if this is true or false. It wouldn’t qualify as trouble with the law, but it might indicate a violent nature.

Your post was a pleasure to read, a recap of the vital issues.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/19/10 at 09:00 PM | #

Amy Jenkins was caught lying a few years ago. She claimed that George Clooney called her and asked to be in one of her films. His publicist denied he ever spoke to her. She is a fantasist with ego issues. I am just about sick and tired with people like her.

Posted by Janus on 06/20/10 at 01:55 AM | #

Googling “Amy Jenkins” and “George Clooney” turned up this which was posted on the Secret Scotland forum in 2005. (“This Life” canceled after 2 seasons was a BBC series about junior lawyers.)

*************

Elephant Juice, featuring Daniela Nardini (not the subject of this article), premiered at the Edinburgh Film Festival. Miramax backed the film and the company that produced Four Wedding and a Funeral had produced it.

As the film was screened, the head of Miramax turned to the producer and whispered “You’ve just set my company back ten years”. It was so bad, Miramax refused to release it, and broke all links with the company that produced it.

The film was written co-produced by Amy Jenkins, and she’s the kind of opportunist that makes me think I should throw away all (the rest of) my scruples. With a film that never reached the screen, a novel described as “an insult to fiction” and blatant hijacking of ‘This Life’s’ success, this self-confessed promiscuous drug-taker has amassed over a million in the bank, and a lifestyle to match.

Lest you think this a little unkind, in interviews, she would refer to herself as ‘writer’ of this life, however credits show her referred to as the creator, and there were 11 writers. Series 1 was based on her original outline, and she contributed to some of the scripts, based on her own experiences. However, by the time of the series’ success during season 2, she had no involvement.

Her mastery of self-promotion has to be admired.

Final item. For her later books, she announced that George Clooney had said he was interested in playing a leading role in any film of her book. Later enquiries to Mr. Clooney’s agents produced surprise, and suggestions of a publicity stunt on someone’s part. It was also noted that the characters in the book were in the region of half of Mr. Clooney’s age.

Wonder where she is, five years after that was written? (I did take a quick look, but didn’t come up with anything new, or accurate).

Out of curiosity, I had a flick through Amazon to see if there were any reviews. I’m not suspicious but they were all glowing, hinting at not being able to understand why the first reviews were bad. Hmmm….

*************

Hmmm indeed. Maybe taughtt a few lessons by CD? And as for that self-confessed promiscuous drug taker… that sure solves why she sympathizes with AK.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/20/10 at 07:53 AM | #

Janus, Peter, thank you for that background.
I think the term “gobsmacked” is appropriate here.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 06/20/10 at 10:58 AM | #

I think Peter has a different google to me, or he’s just better at it! I tried, but came up blank. Thanks for confirming my vague memory, Peter.

Posted by Janus on 06/20/10 at 11:21 AM | #

I am also getting heartily sick of the “no motive” line. Ask these idiots “what was Ted Bundy’s motive? What was Jeffrey Dahmer’s motive? What about those kids at Columbine?”

Let me know what they say. I would love to know.

Posted by Janus on 06/20/10 at 12:42 PM | #

I agree, Janus.

Motive does not have to be proved. So whether or not there is an obvious motive is a moot point. I think, however, that a documented motive helps people to understand and follow the case (any case, not just Meredith’s).

As children learning to speak we all started learning about the world around us by asking simple questions: what?, how?, why?. “What?” and “How?” can be answered by evidence in the most part. “Why?” requires something descriptive that supports the evidence, normally suggested by the prosection or it requires an admission and explanation from those involved.

In this case there has been no admission, no explanation and thus the prosecution have had to explain as best they can in line with the evidence, however, we may never be able to answer the question “why?” unless those convicted decide to speak out. It is somewhat worrying that someone who writes for a national paper seems not to understand this.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 06/20/10 at 02:08 PM | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Jenkins

<snip> She is the daughter of the late political journalist Peter Jenkins and the stepdaughter of The Guardian columnist and author Polly Toynbee.

Peter George James Jenkins (11 May 1934 â€“ 27 May 1992) was a British journalist and Associate Editor of The Independent. During his career he wrote regular columns for The Guardian, The Sunday Times and The Independent.

...any questions as to how or why she gets this crap published??

Posted by mojo on 06/21/10 at 10:50 AM | #

Mojo, “...any questions as to how and why she gets this crap published?”. Another way to put it would be: How much did David Marriott buy her opinion?

Posted by tempusfugit on 06/21/10 at 04:26 PM | #

tempus…marriott may have paid her, but how did she get it published. i am shocked by this crap appearing in the indy….

totally OT - but i’ve been following the holloway case since day one…now i see this on nancy grace (I know, it’s a dirty job, but…) did i miss something?? or is this a different case?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1006/21/ng.01.html

<snip> GRACE: To Gloria Allred, joining us out of L.A. Gloria, it`s a whole different ballgame. You try cases all over the world. Most recently, you were over in Italy, working on a case, that I know if anyway. Gloria, they don`t have the same procedures that we have here. This same judge may very well be on the case for a long time as a fact finder. Now he`s dissed the judge!

Posted by mojo on 06/22/10 at 03:35 PM | #

6/22/10

Thanks, Mimi, for pointing out how MK’s Halloween makeup with fake blood might naturally have been assumed to be the source of spots in the bathroom. That’s an excellent point. It makes more sense than AK’s claim of “a lot of blood” based on a faded smear on bathmat, a drop or two on faucet and bidet in a household of women. Even menstrual issues made sense, nothing alarming.

Only Luminol revealed a large amount of blood. To me the visible blood in the bathroom never seemed startling, and AK did mention seeing MK’s vampire makeup still on MK’s skin after the parties were over. AK might reasonably have believed a cleanup of the costume stuff had left drips in the bathroom.

I’ve seen red lip gloss and globs of girls’ beige makeup smeared on sinks, doorknobs, spilled on the floor, splashed on white blouses, wiped on lightswitches, smeared on caps of bottles, wiped across mirrors and everything a girl touches when applying makeup, especially if interrupted. Beauty can be a messy business. AK didn’t use much daily makeup but she had recently painted her face like a cat and had cleaned that off.

I believe Foxy was still affected by the cleanup of large amounts of real blood, and had lost her sense of proportion when describing the tiny droplets and smears to police. Such spots could have easily been construed to be from costume makeup, but her guilty vision of the real thing was foremost in her mind.

All this time there have been so many photos of MK in that vampire costume but I never put 2 and 2 together, preferring not to think of her in that outfit, although realizing its symbol of blood on the neck was correct.

OT, I trust June’s been a good month for you anyway this year.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/22/10 at 06:10 PM | #

With regards to make up “fake blood” I’ve always found it to be a very different texture (and in many cases colour!) to real blood. Even the stuff bought in for use in medical and emergency services training. Knox said she touched the blood spots and felt they were hard/dry - in my experience the fake stuff tends to get thicker and a bit “sticky”, but it doesn’t really dry.

I do, however, agree, that it is a possible explanation for Knox being a little blasÃ© about the blood spots, but if so, why was she so worried? An interesting point to think on, thank you for bringing it up.

Lola, sorry, it was not my intention to demeen this site with politics, there are many blogs out there that deride our press and broadcast media for their political bias, if you really want to get into a discussion on that I’m sure a quick “google” will find places you can really get your teeth into the topic. I’d start you off with a suggestion you look into the reporting of the aforementioned Ms Toynbee and also the jobs pages in the Guardian, alternatively you could just look at today’s reporting.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 06/23/10 at 06:38 PM | #

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The Aviello Story Seems To Show The RS & AK Defenses All But Concede Guilt Of All 3

Or to previous entry Commentary by The Most Widely-Read English-Language Website In Italy