Thursday, December 8, 2016

Ms. Houle's Subtle Manipulations of the Netflix Documentary

The documentary "Amanda Knox" was not centered around the tragic death of Meredith Kercher, and that is what really irked Liz Houle. For her it was unthinkable to make a documentary about the woman accused of killing Ms. Kercher.

It's debatable that the directors of the documentary created a pro-Amanda movie. After all, most people came away from the documentary confirmed in their previous opinions. That includes Ms. Houle since she is still convinced that it is biased.

This subliminal perception Ms. Houle complained about is remininscent of Dr. Andrew Hodges logic. If a thing could be thought of a way that it could be misinterpreted as guilt, that is what guilters claim it means. So the accusation that there were subliminal messages is just another ridiculous attempt of creating guilt where there is none. And the definition of "subliminal messages" Ms. Houle used ignores that such such intrusions into a movie are too short to be seen consciously. They are mere blips like imperfections in a film. Her quote is her own subtle message that she can identify messages to be "evaluated, criticized, discussed, argued, and rejected." Reality is that she was merely asserting her own interpretations into the documentary. That is the subtle information she wanted stored in the readers' mind. Ms. Houle wanted to influence judgment, behavior, and attitudes.

Raffaele Sollecito was the lover who was charged with murder along with Amanda Knox. It's irrelevant who else she slept with. And the sound of her voice doesn't really have anything to do with whether she committed murder.

However much Ms. Houle wanted to excuse Nick Pisa for what he said, he still said it.

Whatever the relationship between Amanda and Raffaele is after this horrific experience, it doesn't prove their guilt.

And what does pigeons being referred to as flying rats have to do with anything? It was just a means of transferring from one segment to another in the documentary.

The directors of the documentary were not the ones who made the video that was used of Mignini entering the cottage on the day that Meredith was found murdered. Ms. Houle admitted as much with her description of that part. The directors were after all compiling a documentary, and this segment was a documentary video of the event.

The discrediting of evidence in the case has been adequately explained elsewhere. That was not what this documentary was about. Ms. Houle was certainly subjective as to why Mignini went into a "protective" mode clasping his arms in front of him. Has he since complained of the temperature in the studio? Didn't think so.

The supposition of Mignini driving slowly is ridiculous. Who cares what idiot motorcycle riders do? And it was Mignini's decision to talk about his (Roman) Catholic faith. Not the directors.

Whether it's Mignini or Ms. Knox driving, it's ridiculous to claim such farfetched conceptions of what any of that driving means. The directors merely wanted to show more variety than sitting the interviewees in front of a static blank backdrop.

As far as the "farfetched" glimpses of the Kercher family goes, they refused to participate or give their opinions about anything for the documentary. Why is it suspicious that the directors resort to public appearances to include the Kerchers? If the directors didn't mention the Kerchers at all, Ms. Houle would probably have criticized them for that instead. There is nothing subliminal (or subtle) about the Kerchers being distant and aloof. That's what they are.

And how did the directors of this documentary control how Stephanie Kercher's first press conference was recorded? What was silent about the message that the paparazzi were unprofessional doing a poor job of covering this event? Wasn't that what the directors said they set out to expose in the documentary?

Calling the focus on Stephanie Kercher the attempt to chop out John Kercher is ridiculous. It was Stephanie who was speaking and not her father.

What difference did it make that the news footage of Meredith's mother showed her unhappy and uncomfortable in the spotlight? Wasn't she unhappy over Meredith's death and uncomfortable with being in the spotlight of the news about the murder?

Is it the fault of the directors of the documentary that the paparazzi kept recording the removal of Meredith's body? The directors said they were going to present the role of the media in this case. They were certainly doing what they said they would do. And it is not unusual practice for directors to lead into another segment with scenes similar to it. There was nothing sinister about using this scene to lead into the interview with Nick Pisa.

The directors simply let Nick Pisa demonize himself talking about what he did in his reporting. He said himself that getting the story first was more important than making sure the story was factual. It the documentary "crucified" Nick Pisa in particular and the media in general, it was because he and they admit to creating the circus atmosphere in which the courts processed the case. Never mind how Mr. Pisa and the media made it appear all right to condemn Amanda Knox for things she didn't do. The guilters have their pet rulings to protect.

Justice for Meredith Kercher doesn't depend on injustice for Amanda Knox, but that's the subtle message Ms. Houle wanted to get across. As much misleading innuendos as Ms. Houle uses, she has no room for accusing the documentary of trying to deceive anyone.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Ms. Houle's Unreasonable Political Expectation

Liz Houle probably thinks that the acquittal of Amanda Knox was for political reasons rather than for the total lack of proof she had anything to do with Meredith Kercher's death. So Ms. Houle's logic is that Ms. Knox reneged on a political promise.

Ms. Knox didn't ask for Donald Trump's support, and even if she thanked him for it, she didn't make any political commitments to him even if his support really were of a political nature. As with everything Mr. Trump does, he has his own purposes for advocating her innocence. So even if there was political motivation on his part, that would be his business and not hers.

However grateful Ms. Knox may be for Mr. Trump in supporting her defense, she doesn't give up her own political opinions or the right to express them. It is not up to Ms. Houle or any other guilter to obstruct Ms. Knox's right to express herself. Donald Trump has expressed things that concerned Ms. Knox, and she has a right to say so.

Ms. Houle's Silly Demand For Apology.

Liz Houle is wrong about the Seattle Times article about Amanda Knox coming out on November 1st. It came out on October 31st. It started out about her Halloween costume for this year.

There was nothing in the article that disrespected Meredith Kercher unless talking about Ms. Knox at all is what Ms. Houle considered disrespect. Amanda Knox is a resident of Seattle, Washington who has been in the news for some time. People in her home town do have an interest in how her life has been after being exonerated from the wrongful accusation of murdering her roommate. It really isn't any of Ms. Houle's concern that the local newspaper decided to do an article about a local person.

And the Kercher family should not be involved either. The Kerchers don't even live in Seattle. Ms. Houle was probably irked because the Seattle Times treated Ms. Knox as a normal person. Ms. Houle certainly expressed her displeasure at Netflix broadcasting the documentary "Amanda Knox," but how does that give Ms. Houle the right to tell Netflix or the Seattle Times what they can do?

Ms. Houle's Lack Of Proportion

I think it is totally misleading to label Ms. Knox video-recording Ms. Kercher as bullying her. Meredith is seen grinning about the event. So what harm was Amanda really doing?

The prosecutors probably didn't want to use this video in the trial since it shows Ms. Knox showing a friendly interest in her roommate. The whole thrust of the case was the alleged rift between the two that led to violence. This video shows how ridiculous that was.

As for the "close-up" nature of the video, Amanda couldn't have gotten a good picture from a distance. She was videoing Meredith and not the scenary around her.

This is just another example of how Liz Houle blows a simple event out of all proportion.

Ms. Houle's Usual PR Complaints

It's hard to evaluate Liz Houle's comments about podcasters she doesn't name. She does cast aspersions on the public's general knowledge of the murder of Meredith Kercher, but she is really alluding to the case brought against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It's not for Ms. Houle to specify where the public should get its information about this case. Some websites do present the evidence to show the innocence of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, but that doesn't make the preferred website.

The constant guilter complaint about the PR firm Ms. Knox's father hired is ridiculous. There is no way a PR firm can dictate the "talking points" the news media will follow. Of course the media seemed to follow leaks from the police and the prosecution since they were sources which the PR firm Gogerty Marriott was not. The leaked information was usually inflammatory as the things Ms. Houle would talk about indicate. There was no reason to bring Ms. Knox's sex life into the court room, but the Italian Judiciary is of an inquisitory model. It gathers everything about a defendant whether relevant to the crime or not. Supposedly the judge is trained in determining what is important, but Mignini seemed to want to push Italian public opinion in his favor.

Guilters like Ms. Houle deny that the prosecutor Mignini ever considered Satanism being part of the case. The BBC documentary guilters recommend instead of the Netflix documentary stated that he did consider Satanism. It was only because the judge told him not to pursue that route that Mignini didn't use it in trial.

It would be interesting to know what the "fake PR stories" are. Ms. Houle didn't identify any, but she did refer to the ridiculous story she admitted Elis Prenga sold to a British tabloid. Ms. Knox disguised Mr. Prenga's name, but she didn't deny the event. She also didn't describe it as being anything as wild as Mr. Prenga embellished.

And I'm curious as to what the alleged podcasters said about there being full-time PR people on social media for both sides. It hardly seems worthwhile for the defense to do when it had no effect on the Italian court. The main gripe about the PR firm was that it kept the media from getting sensational quotes from Ms. Knox or her family.

Ms. Houle's Complaint About

I have to wonder how Liz Houle expected John Kercher to write about the prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito without anyone commenting about it. If Mr. Kercher were as neutral about the trial as guilters claimed, why did he interpose his own opinions while the process was still going on?

Also, Ms. Houle doesn't understand's website. She complained that only "pro-Amanda" books were listed below the entry for John Kercher's book, but if she had read the caption above those books, she could have seen that they were books that were also bought by customers who had bought "Meredith." The selection of books in that list was determined by the computer probably according to those books that were purchased the most. Shouldn't Ms. Houle be happy that those customers who decided Amanda and Raffaele are innocent were not forgetting the victim of the murder Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were exonerated from?