Saturday, January 09, 2016

How A Major Media Controversy In The US Augurs Well For The Imminent Reframing Of The “Knox Case”

Posted by Our Main Posters

1. The Wisconsin Case Now In Dispute

1. The Netflix Report

In mid December a pay-per-view documentary about a murder case in Wisconsin was put online.

Millions of people in the US and elsewhere have paid up and watched the 10-hour Netflix report. Convinced that they are experts now on the whole case, hundreds of thousands of Americans have signed petitions to the President and the State Governor requesting that the convicted Steve Avery be released.

Some viewers have even taken to berating and threatening the investigators and the prosecution both online and in telephone messages and texts.

Their take seems to be of the investigators and the prosecution corruptly making many, many things up during the investigation and trial. Their supposed motive was to cover their tails in a previous case where Steve Avery was indeed wrongly convicted, for which they could now face court and loss of jobs.

Furthermore some reports claimed that a juror had said the jury felt intimidated and were never convinced of guilt.

2. Reaction Of US Media

A growing wave of reports and articles have been aired and published online in effect saying most of the hardest evidence was left out.

The lead prosecutor has been quoted as saying “90 percent of the evidence” against Avery and a relative convicted as an accomplice was not even mentioned in the report.

So a wave of fact-checking is going on.

Even though it is still early days here and here are Time Magazine. Here is the Los Angeles Times. Here is the New York Times. Here is On Milwaukee’s website. Here is the International Business Times.

Several TV documentaries contradicting the Netflix report are reportedly already in the works. See the reports here and here and also here.

And the juror has now denied that the jury was intimidated and did not do an honest job. So far, all the jurors seem to be standing by their verdict, in the face of a lot of heat.

Oh and on those petitions which Netflix stirred? President Obama’s spokesman has said it is not a Federal case so he will not intervene, and the Governor of Wisconsin has said he will not intervene either, as the state has good justice systems in place.

So they will ignore opinion that was deliberately muddled for commercial ends, and instead leave matters to the courts.

2. Parallels To Reporting Of The “Knox Case”

The parallels to the Perugia case are in fact immense.

The prosecution case in 2009 was extremely persuasive and the entire jury (panel of judges) voted for guilt. They sat through the very tough and convincing 1/4 of the trial that was held behind closed doors.

A majority of Italians still believe that Amanda Knox led a cruel pack attack on Meredith and (to Guede’s and Sollecito’s seeming considerable shock) landed the fatal stab in Meredith’s neck.  They watched Knox on the stand for two days, in fact doing herself great harm.

In contrast, almost the entire American media followed the Netflix route.

Main media have struggled to report the trial for language and local-staff reasons, and the Associated Press carried by 2000 media outlets actively misled. Main media presented almost no reporting of the very painstaking judicial checking by ten judges that preceded the case ever going to court.

Main media have still not translated not even one major document (the Wiki and two PMFs and TJMK have translated hundreds of documents now and are still not done) and have left hundreds of evidence points unaddressed.

Main media have also misreported the overturning of the Hellmann outcome and the Nencini appeal. They have especially misrepresented the supposed complete Marasca-Bruno reversal for the Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court.

As lawyers for Dr Mignini and three of our main posters (James Raper, Machiavelli and Catnip) have shown, in fact the Fifth Chambers (a) should not even have had the case; (b) broke two laws, (c) misinterpreted a few elements of the evidence, (d) left literally hundreds of evidence points out, (e) went against strongly established Italian legal precedents, and (f) even ridiculed plain hard science.

And even so, they still placed Knox right at the scene of the attack at the time, and Sollecito probably so. Accessories before or after the crime. Felons in their view in fact.

So here’s a prediction on what Americans will see in the media soon on this case.

The widespread media reaction against Netflix will be reflected in a major correction in the main media against the serious under-reporting and misreporting of the Perugia case.

We have some idea of what is already in the works. Stay tuned.


Tweet This Post


I watched the Making a Murderer series on Netflix and it is indeed riveting viewing. I was also aware it was a fairly one sided account. I’m looking forward therefore to seeing the new accounts when they come out.

I think there is a major difference between the Avery case and Knox case however, Knox gained her sympathy in the US in particular because of the Gogerty Marriott media campaign. We can all accept that this was based wholly on outright lies and obfuscation, gleefully promulgated by paid shills.

The worst of the damning evidence which shows the prosecution up horrendously in the Avery (and Dassey) case, is taken directly from police interview videos and actual evidence items. Unless the new programmes can show that Netflix or the defence doctored videos or tampered with evidence, then I think most right thinking people would have an issue regarding guilt beyond reasonable doubt in these cases.

I’m really looking forward to seeing what comes out just to balance things up but the terrible errors made by the prosecution will remain, unless, as I say above, there is evidence of defence tampering.

I haven’t signed any petitions but, regardless of the pro prosecution evidence that was missing from the Netflix series, the errors in prosecuting the case that were made were bad enough for me (assuming they aren’t shown to be defence tampering) to have had a reasonable doubt in both cases had I been on the jury.

Posted by davidmulhern on 01/09/16 at 05:00 PM | #

Thanks davidmulhern. Showing that the media bias and public perception were WORSE in the Knox case, and that Curt Knox’s really dishonest PR played a huge role, would be, I presume, fine by all of us!

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/09/16 at 05:20 PM | #

Absolutely would be fine Peter, nay stupendously enjoyable!

I found another case that I’m sure you’re familiar with, Bob Durst, very compelling. Andrew Jarecki directed the film All Good Things in 2010 regarding the case but the follow up HBO six parter, The Jinx, was much better because Durat himself participated in it.

Watching Durst be interviewed, the parallels with Knox are startling. From his utter coldness when talking about the crimes (he got away with three murders, despite openly admitting dismembering one victim) to talking about himself in the third person, the levels of disassociation are jaw dropping. A clear psychopath in the Knox mould and, like her, not nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

At one point the interviewer asks him why he thought Police were dragging a lake beside his old house and he says “they were looking for body parts”. Not looking for a body but looking for parts! This from a man who had admitted dismembering and throwing in the sea another victim. Schoolboy error you might say.

Anyway, I’m not trying to make the comments section here be like some kind of rotten tomatoes review page for American TV series but The Jinx is excellent to gain insight into a living, breathing psycopath who, thus far, has got away with it.

I wait with bated breath the outcome of Guede’s interview later this month.

Posted by davidmulhern on 01/09/16 at 10:29 PM | #

Just checked and Durst is in custody awaiting trial. Has been since March 2015!

Posted by davidmulhern on 01/09/16 at 10:35 PM | #

Robert Durst’s trial on the Federal gun charge is scheduled to start in New Orleans January 11, 2016, davidmulhern.

Posted by Ergon on 01/10/16 at 01:01 AM | #

Yes of course it may take a while but I am convinced that justice will prevail and Knox will go down one way or the other. I still believe that Sollecito is the weak link and eventually a conviction will come home to these two murderers. Oh sure Knox was found not guilty (That’s not innocent either) but time will work on her. Even now she is looking old and haggard. The sooner the better for this lying bitch and all her supporters.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/10/16 at 01:42 AM | #

Thanks Ergon.

Posted by davidmulhern on 01/10/16 at 03:41 AM | #

Biased reporting has always existed. The worry for me is that people are happy to be spoonfed ‘facts’ and accept them as absolutes. What happened to enquiring minds, the value of informed debate? I haven’t seen the program but I’m pleased it has caused a bit of a furore and brought sloppy, ill researched reporting to the public conscience. We are all fickle and hate more than anything to think that someone, somewhere has deliberately duped us. I think that AK and RS should be worried by this upcoming trend and the scrutiny which may fall on them, particularly after Guede has his say.

Posted by YorkshireLass on 01/10/16 at 03:53 AM | #

Well said indeed YorkshireLass.

I thoroughly recommend searching the programme out if you get the chance.

Posted by davidmulhern on 01/10/16 at 04:04 PM | #

TV series “Making a Murderer” has recently come onto my radar. I googled to get up to speed and I believe Avery is guilty of Teresa H’s murder. Whether he committed the rape of Penny B years earlier for which he has been exonerated (by the DNA from one pubic hair) and due to the work of the Innocence Project, who knows?

Steven Avery’s birthday is July 9th like Amanda Knox.

I hope there is international media outrage eventually at the irresponsible reporting that demonized Italy’s prosecution of Knox.

Steven Avery destroyed his 16-year-old nephew of low intelligence named Dassey, who was found guilty of participating in the monstrous treatment of Teresa at Avery’s disgusting persuasion.

In involving his own nephew in his crime, Avery proves he is evil, manipulative, cunning. He sought to draw other parties into his crime. Why? That way he’ll be able to later cast blame on the poor nephew (or Raffaele in another theory). Alternatively he might borrow the pity and affection of his nephew’s loved ones who realize the nephew’s fate is now tied with Avery’s. 

In Avery there are echoes of Knox drawing in others to the deed, others she can later lean on or use as tools to divert blame from herself. The master manipulator may hope to draw from the family resources of their duped allies like Raffaele.

The criminal likes to garner the riveted attention of the vulnerable ally’s family.

Avery, after exoneration for the rape for which he served 18 years, tried to talk the bewildered rape victim (Penney, who felt awful that her eyewitness testimony had caused him wrongful prison time) into buying him a house in one telephone conversation. Perhaps this is why he pretended to easily forgive her when she first reached out to apologize to him and his parents. Very smooth, he saw an angle.

The main desire in criminals of this ilk seems to be (perhaps due to a lack of courage, or worse, pure evil?) to bring down someone else into the same mire as Avery has done to his ruined nephew.

The criminal will later use his foolish ally as a mirror in which to watch his own struggles when the ally faces the same legal battles. Partners in crime share the burden psychologically.

If prison embittered Avery and he was wrongfully convicted for the original rape, the murder he committed after his release is a terrible terrible outcome. Because with his lawsuit against the Wisconsin county for millions, and national attention clamoring for his innocence, he might have recovered all and ended well like the suffering Job.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/11/16 at 06:09 AM | #


Even a small country can sometimes act tough. Please see the news

I do not know the inside details but surely no PR machine was set up to fight the case!

Posted by chami on 01/11/16 at 03:33 PM | #

My first thought when I heard about this was: who would believe the media?

You’d have to see all the evidence, to decide anything, wouldn’t you?

Apparently, some have compared Avery’s nephew with Amanda Knox.

No comparison is apt.  Amanda Knox knew exactly what she was doing when she confessed to being at the scene of the crime, and then, from there, falsely accused Patrick Lumumba of murder.

Posted by JohnQ on 01/12/16 at 04:49 PM | #


It’s not clear from your post whether you actually watched all ten episodes of the Avery programme but I strongly suspect from the content of your post that you haven’t watched many, if any, of them.

I would honestly suggest that you watch it in its entirety and then revisit your post. You may be surprised just how much you change your mind.

I’m very aware that the programme is somewhat one sided and I look forward to seeing the counter narrative if and when a balancing programme is done.

As I explained in my earlier post however, much of the information produced in the programme is irrefutable and straight from court documents/videos.

There is no doubt remaining about the earlier rape he was wrongfully imprisoned for incidentally, none whatsoever. If you watch the programmes, you’ll see precisely why.

Posted by davidmulhern on 01/13/16 at 02:09 AM | #

@Hopeful,  in regards to your view on the Avery case you reall do need to see the Netflix doc in order to assess the evidence.  Avery was disgustingly railroaded for the rape and DNA evidence proves a serial rapist guilty of this attack.  Avery spent 18 years behind bars when a confession would have freed him!  He refused to cop to something he didn’t do.  A cousin he had a falling out with was married to a local sheriff and literally this is all the sherries dept needed to gun for him.  It was when Avery was well on his way to winning a $36 million civil suit that the disappearance and murder of a lady photographer happened, the timing was literally days apart!  It is not difficult to believe that one death was preferable to paying $36 million.  For starters, the key to the murdered woman’s car was found in Averys home days after the room had been searched so that was clearly planted, and this was a major part of the so called evidence against him.  Unfortunately, being convinced by the prosecution here is no different from being convinced that Guede acted alone.  This is a major embarrassment for America and international views on their legal system and I can but hope that the clearly innocent Avery and his nephew are released!  The police interviewing of the nephew was harrowing, particularly in light of the fact that he is mentally slow!

Posted by MHILL4 on 01/13/16 at 02:42 PM | #

The one juror for the Avery case who agreed to speak for the record said “I don’t think people get it,” the juror added. “They don’t see the whole picture. It’s a big vicious circle. They’re blinded. They’re not seeing the whole picture.” That’s because people did not sit through the actual trial and hear all of the evidence.”

Posted by Ergon on 01/13/16 at 10:45 PM | #

@Ergon,  unfortunately, if the evidence shown to the jurors is itself planted in the first place, not even the jury is in the position to come to the right conclusion.  In the Avery case, one woman’s life was simply less important than the loss of $36 million.

Posted by MHILL4 on 01/14/16 at 01:49 PM | #

Thanks Hopeful, davidmulhern, MHILL4, Ergon, and others.

It’s the startling fact of the two media camps that seem to me most relevant for us, and also how the cops and prosecution will look when further investigations are done.

We’ve seen over the years how the Italian justice system and media are very mild compared to those of the US. Victims fare much better in the US and perps often fare much worse. PR can be everything in the US; in Italy it barely rears its head.

The report on the Investigation Discovery channel (with NBC Dateline help) on evidence that Netflix left out could air before the end of the month; but no heads-up on their website yet.

Here are some more links pro-Avery/anti law enforcement:

Here’s one that seems to be on the fence after a close look.

Here are some more links anti-Avery/pro law-enforcement.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/14/16 at 11:04 PM | #

@davidmulhern and MHILL4 No I’ve seen none of the documentary about Avery. I believe Netflix is omitting major stuff. There may have been some evidence tampering and shady police action, but I doubt it rises to the level of police having murdered Teresa Halbach to frame Avery and avoid the big payout.

Evidence that convinces me Avery did kill Halbach:

Dassey’s clothes had extensive bleach stains on them. His mom asked why. He said he’d been helping Avery clean the garage floor.

Halbach’s DNA was on the bullet fired from Avery’s gun which hung above his bed.

Avery admitted purchasing handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described used on Halbach. Purchase was made 3 weeks before murder.

Luminol found blood spots in the garage.

(much of this info is from The Federalist website.)

Victim’s car key found in Avery’s residence had DNA of his sweat on it.

Avery called Auto Trader and specifically requested Halbach to take pix on day she was murdered. He called her 3 times the day she died.

Less direct evidence but as study in character:

*Avery poured gas on a cat and threw it into bonfire.

*He threatened a female cousin at gunpoint.

*He is alleged to have raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family according to a story in Post Crescent (behind paywall).

*Dassey said Avery had molested him and beat him, that he was afraid of Avery (thus compliant in helping him kill Teresa?)

*After police interview, Dassey told his mom, “I even told them about Steven touching me.”

Netflix’s aim was to make sensational series and make lots of money, somewhat like Lifetime movie about Knox that starred Hayden Panettiere. Think of all the info about Meredith’s murder that movie left out. I realize the Netflix series was much longer than a movie, but it had to omit many telling details against Avery to make his story half-way plausible.

If his incarceration for the earlier rape was in error, I feel incredible sorrow for him.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/14/16 at 11:25 PM | #

There’s a good article called Netflix and Shill in Taki’s Magazine.

It’s advising the Avery supporters that they may need to dial it back a bit.

Posted by pensky on 01/14/16 at 11:33 PM | #

“...a judge in Florence ruled Thursday that the comments did not constitute slander”. How can that be? If her comments were untrue surely they were slanderous?

Posted by Odysseus on 01/15/16 at 01:17 PM | #

Hi Odysseus

The charge was actually calunnia which has a higher bar. This was about the comments Knox made on the stand at trial, about being forced by investigators to finger Patrick.

She did not do well on the stand in Italian eyes - those she impugned had said the exact opposite at length several months before - and served three years for essentially the same crime. In the court of public opinion those impugned seemed to have won.

The AK book impugns more people and the bar is lower there, so we’ll see. Sollecito’s book trial should finish soon. Neither book was in Italian of course.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/15/16 at 02:13 PM | #


I think I know what you mean about a higher bar but surely it’s downright illogical to find her guilty of calunnia against Lumumba but not guilty of slandering police when she claimed they coerced her to accuse him!

I know it’s a forlorn hope to expect joined-up thinking from any judiciary, anywhere, but they are actually supposed to be well educated and perspicacious, venerable and wise, etc. How come simple logic escapes them?

Posted by Odysseus on 01/15/16 at 06:09 PM | #

Here’s a new article on the Avery case which might be acceptable to everyone. In effect it nudges the US justice system in the direction of the Italian one (which itself is being re-engineered again).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/19/16 at 04:25 PM | #

Not that we have a dog in the Netflix fight, other than media doing truth-bending. But Netflix is encountering a series of rebuttals in the Avery case and the promised big ones are still ahead.

The latest rebuttal is of a dismissed juror who has had a lot of attention for claiming there was pressure in the jury.

Richard Mahler, who has become the most controversial juror on the 2007 Teresa Halbach murder trial and was excused after one day of deliberations, revealed that after the first day, the jurors voted and seven believed Steven Avery was not guilty.

Another juror argued no such vote took place.

And one juror told a third story, saying there was an informal vote with three saying Steven was not guilty.

Mahler was allegedly intimidated by fellow juror Carl Wardman. “He made me feel uncomfortable and interfered with my duty in an indirect way,” Mahler explains, hinting that Wardman’s disposition may have also gotten to other members of the jury.

“Something didn’t seem right that he wasn’t taking notes in court, that he wasn’t participating,” Richard says. “I figured something was fishy. In my opinion, his mind was already made up.”

When In Touch approached the 70-year-old at his home on Jan. 7, he exploded. “It’s all b———-,” Wardman snarled, “He’s guilty, that’s it.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/24/16 at 05:23 AM | #
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 West Memphis Three: Another Instance Where A Strong Pro-Guilt Case Is Being Garbled For Profit

Or to previous entry Dupe Watch: Professional Fraud Exposer Benjamin Radford Himself Gets Seriously Duped

    Follow On Twitter
    Click To Get There