This is the image which the Kercher family itself prefers to be used of Meredith – Stephanie Kercher some time ago sent messages to various blogs to that effect.
There’s no such thing as a Knox “camp”
Sorry but there is and I’ve been on the end of it.
Initially, a dialogue is struck up and they’re quick to say “I just look at the evidence and the lack of evidence and see that two young college students got caught up in a whole lot of BS thrown at them and thrown in the court room where judges and jurors had misplaced their BS detectors.”
Sounds eminently reasonable, no? A dispassionate soul, keen to just know the truth and non-truth of a matter, disliking BS, taking on board inconvenient truths and all quite gentlemanly.
Except when you do put an inconvenient truth to them, such as the anomaly between Knox’s and Sollecito’s account of their time that evening.
For those who’ve forgotten, she was in one room at the police station, he in the other. He said he’d been alone at home that night – she said she’d been with him all night. Confronted by his alibi, admittedly per the police officer questioning her, she did not hotly insist that the police were talking BS, which she would have done had she really spent the night at his place, but instead she scrambled to come to terms with his “betrayal” of her.
It’s all in the court record.
Now, once you begin putting things like that to Knox supporters, it very, very quickly descends to something else and this is verbatim: “This article by J. Higham is very deceitful,” or “Some sort of perversity must have taken residence in J. Higham’s head.” Now this is an entirely different thing – direct ad hominem without supporting evidence and the natural reaction is WTF?! I thought we were dispassionately discussing the issues a moment or two ago?
A “discussion” or a “debate’ is where one side puts this or that and the other side counters that argument with theirs. One thing I haven’t been accused of is strawmanning or misrepresenting their position but I do draw the line when this happens:
Yesterday I ran a post on Knox and Sollecito at 11:00, UK time. There is then a ten hour window between the post, when Americans are asleep and our midnight here when I am asleep as a rule. There were a few comments until the end of that time frame and even on to 01:00 [morning].
Suddenly, all hell broke loose and let me list the times of many of these – 01:05, 01:36, 01:59, 03:35, 04:32 and so on through the night. Sorry but I have to work and can’t afford these sudden influxes and anyway – WTF were they about?
One was about how bad Guede was as a person – it went on and on and on and I’m waiting for the bottom line. The bottom line was that as he’s such a bad person, his crime was a spur of the moment thing and therefore his crime alone.
Whoa! Hang on a minute. The Supreme Court in the Guede case was pretty scathing about him, it’s true and no one denies he was part of the whole thing but they also made it clear that he was not alone, that there were others involved. So this elaborate build to a lone Guede simply doesn’t wash.
And on that point itself, one of the Knox supporters sent me a quote from the Supreme Court which you’d have to conclude meant the SC didn’t buy that there was more than one. However, I checked with TJMK and PMF as to that quote and was shown the whole quote in which the SC very much did conclude there had been more than one.
Now that was straight-out disinformation by a Knoxer. If I did not have the court record to check back on – and I don’t have it but TJMK and PMF do – if I hadn’t been into the minutiae of this case, perhaps like you, if I couldn’t be a***ed to follow it, I’d have taken what looked like a legit quote onboard as “the truth”.
That was the point where I saw the underhanded tactics of the Knox supporters and wondered why. When one wrote to me: “James are you capable of having an original thought regarding this case or it’s just whatever TJMK says?” I saw how they twist things around. Ordinarily, “original thought” is a fine thing to have – on many issues and in many situations.
It’s anything but desirable in a legal matter.
In fact “original thought” is very much a liability there but people are so sensitive to criticism as a rule that I’m supposed to say: “Of course I have original thought,” to which they can say: “Ah and is all this you’ve written about AK your original thought?”
The Knox supporters read, in this, as extensions of the defences themselves, trying to catch people up by legerdemain, skipping over inconvenient truths, never answering questions directly and I’ve put that alibi anomaly many times and never had it adequately answered. What I have had in reply is: ‘You sound just like a member of the prosecution.” Isn’t that interesting, that projection onto me of precisely what they’re up to.
And that’s what they’re trying on – to reduce this to a squabble between two badly behaved little boys, each point-scoring. They’re quite happy with that scenario if it negates the evidence put in the various posts at this site and by extension, at TJMK and PMF. In fact, they’re not interested in James Higham in the least but in getting at TJMK and PMF who have answers for every point they make. If you doubt that, look at Harry Rag’s answer to Bob M.
Bob M had written:
“Amanda did not tell a pack of ‘lies’. She told one story of her presence with Raffaele at his apartment and a coerced, confused story of being there when Lumumba was supposedly present with the victim. Amanda recanted her accusation, Lumumba was later cleared of any involvement,and Amanda reiterated her presence with Raffaele in his apartment for the entirety of the night of Nov. 1, 2007.” he knows I’ve neither altered nor left out anything in his comment on that.”
Harry Rag replied:
“Raffaele Sollecito claimed in his witness statement that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the night of the murder. Here is the relevant part of witness statement:
“The first of November I woke up about 11.00, I had breakfast with Amanda, then she went out and I went back to bed. I then met up with her at her house around 13.00-14.00. In there was Meredith who left in a hurry about 16.00 without saying where she was going.
Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did.
We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.
I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.
At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I made a joint. Had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate.
About 23.00 my father called me on my house phone line. I recall Amanda was not back yet.
I web surfed on the computer for two more hours after my father’s phone call and I only stopped when Amanda came back in, presumably about 01.00. I don’t remember well how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same as when we said goodbye before dinner. I don’t remember if that evening we had sex.”
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. They both gave the police at least three different accounts. In other words, they told the police a pack of lies.”
I would add, looking at Knox’s stories, that the very fact that she even changed her story as to who was where, in the light of evidence showing her current story at the time couldn’t be right, even as Bob M concedes: “ Amanda recanted her accusation, Lumumba was later cleared of any involvement,and Amanda reiterated her presence with Raffaele in his apartment” – that that, accusing an innocent man without the least compunction, speaks volumes about Ms Knox.
True it doesn’t confirm guilt in itself, not alone, not without the 140 other points of evidence and more and the Knox defence lawyers, realizing that if they separated each single piece of evidence and allowed it no relation to the others – if you could pour doubt on each single piece in turn, then the cumulative effect would be to cast doubt on the whole, which can then be stated, a priori, at the beginning of any discusssion.
Lawyer Cardiol wrote:
“A key focus-avoidance ploy is to confuse the issue by isolating each element of evidence from every other element and flood discussion of each element with real and imagined reasons-to-doubt the significance of each element.
By doing so, perception of the location of Reasonable Doubt, in the mind of the designated Finder(s)-of-Fact, may be displaced so far away that they conclude that Guilt cannot be reached, and that the Defendant(s) are Not Guilty beyond a doubt that is a Reasonable Doubt.
This defense ploy is being employed more and more in criminal trials, and is much employed in Meredith’s case, or as it has become, Amanda Knox’s case. The Supreme Court of course will totally ignore such legal nonsense.”
And how did they explain away the changed stories? They created “coercion”, police cruelty and intimidation, which has been dealt with many times and will be dealt with again in this series of FAQs.
Very, very difficult to deal with people who have almost the entire American media, a PR firm, the defence lawyers themselves who are professionals at this legerdemain in tow, plus the Knox supporters who sniff around for minor blogs like mine or in fact anyone who doesn’t buy the Knox narrative, who prefers the court record.
Predictable that the Knox camp relies heavily on Hellman who is the very subject of illegality and procedural improprieties in the current appeal to the Court of Cassation.
Why are we even having this dispute in the blogosphere?
It’s a question some of the readers at this blog have raised. One wrote yesterday: “Can we have another Katie Holmes post?” The intent of that comment was clear.
And that’s the thing. To quote a fellow blogger, Tom Paine: “Not only does he [Higham] blog about a wide range of subjects, sometimes individual posts cover a lot of ground! His is a magpie mind and nothing human is alien to him.”
Absolutely. I am not an anti-Knox blogger per se or an anti-NIST WTC7 blogger or an anti-Obama blogger in itself. This blog is pro-real art, anti-PoMo, anti-parachutee, pro-fine jazz, it has co-authors and in short, it has a life outside of Amanda Knox.
However, it can’t let falsehood go unchallenged and in fact, that is the whole point of this blog. Without attacking those things, the raison d’etre of the blog disappears.
Readers might change the question around a bit: “How far do you feel that anything the Knox camp writes or that you write or that TJMK writes or PMJ will make the slightest difference to the verdict[s]?
That’s a good question. People do read these posts and make their minds up and it is probably that more than anything which is the point. Of course we can’t directly influence the verdict and nor should we. The days of Pulitzer blogging never really got off the ground although when many blogs or megablogs speak these days speak with one voice, politicians do tend to take notice but they’re politicians and Giovanni Galati is a prosecutor and knows us not from Adam [and Eve].
Personally, I’m quite comfortable with that.
However, equally, I’m not standing by whilst mistruths and disinformation is put out by Knox supporters or by any supporters for that matter, including those for justice for Meredith.
The proof is in the pudding. If I thought for one moment that those wanting justice for the Kercher family were indulging in “cherry-picking” or putting one over us, using misleading quotes, indulging in a campaign of mistruth, they’d not see this blogger for dust and I’m sure that’s so for BR Mull, Ernest Werner and other people who are appalled the way this Knox case has been handled and mired in mistruths by the Knox PR machine and the American press.
And that is the essential difference between the Knox camp and people such as ourselves. The Knox camp has a narrative coming out of CCHQ, they’re well organized, they invent and support lines which just aren’t so [covered in this series of FAQs], whereas we’re a bit like John Kercher and his family – if it looked in the least as if Knox and Sollecito were not guilty, we’d most certainly not be putting our time and effort behind this.
It’s the same very deep anger felt by Dr. Galati – he has no personal stake in this, nor do we. The Kercher family do and so do Knox and Sollecito, very much so.
So why is he so angry, Dr. Galati? Because he sees gross injustice and lies going on here.
That’s why this series will go on.
Knox supporters have shown that they are heavily into tactical assault and are perfectly happy to waste everyone’s time. I have neither the time nor the inclination for that after last night [or this early morning] but I do have any amount of time for debunking points made by them, when shown to be wrong.
Therefore, this series will go this way:
Comments are left on but, unlike on the blog in general, they’re restricted, in these pages only, to those arguing from the trial court record and from the investigation, plus neutrals and/or regular readers here. Knox trolls are welcome, to the point that their details can be put on the black ban list. If that’s harsh, it is brought on by their tactics which I’m now sick to death of.
I’ll still quote them and not in a cherry picking way and then post the answers to them. They need have no qualms on that score. For example, the point about the strange phone calls after 9 p.m. is one which really does need looking at in detail and I shall do. It shall be posted on. Some of the issues of the DNA will be looked at from the Knox point of view and an attempt made to answer them.
That’s the way I see this thing going.