Dempsey if a journalist at all, is only just barely. Nina has been shown to have inaccuracies in her novel.
But it is hilarious that I'm accused of the fallacy of authority for quoting mainline dictionaries but you can even begin to quote song and verse from books that aren't even sourced.
I read it that Nencini was repeating a defense assertion and then saying if they were right about his well known pattern then he wouldn't use that well known MO for a stage. Even if I misread it why in the world in the maze of things he totally got wrong would you believe this one. Do you have any evidence that the court was ever informed of the police knowing his MO? I followed the trials and don't remember a Vogt, Nadeau, Dempsey, Burleigh, Pisa, or anybody reporting the police or prosecutors discussing the known MO. So if Nencini did say what you think he said then he disclosed a very significant sensitive item.
Yes that has been known for a long time. It was in the Massei Report.
The doubt is that Nina's account of the alleged break in, fire, severely damaged house and dead cat was accurate. Since the watch was known years before the Nina claim, that very fact is part of why I doubt Nina.
You like the authority thing don't you? Moore AFAIK had no experience in Italy at all and spent very little time in the FBI dealing with this type of crime. He was a pilot and did some lead on anti-terrorism before going to work at Pepperdine. Did Moore detail the workings of the Rudi/PLE arrangement? How much was he paid? Whom did he inform on?
Well when they bust you, you might just figure it out. They would sell their story for plenty and it's not like they aren't known to be criminals after the Rudi caper got them.
Proof that he wasn't destitute, no. Do you have proof that he was? It's just so hard to keep track of all the FOA PIP theories.
Rudi knew the nursery was available because he had just stolen 2000 Euro there circa Oct. 13 but didn't pay his rent and was destitute. Or he didn't know the place but found it by walking around Milan looking for the unlocked door. When you read the Prato interview you will learn the door opened with a push and all the staff knew it.
You have him stealing things all over Perugia, working as an informant for the PLE but making little or no money. Being a fence doesn't make one well off. You and one other seems to think there is a significant barrier to entry in the fencing business. Some guys steal. Some guys sell. Some do both.
I'm guessing you haven't read Rudi's interview either where he lists his job history.
Just trying to hit the hilights.
1. The issue I have with your emphasis on definitions and citing dictionary definitions, is that i don't always agree with your definitions, or your interpretations of the dictionary definitions you cite. Simply stating your interpretation, isn't necessarily what has actually been written. (I believe you had this issue with Chris C and others, a few posts up-thread).
Its not your appeal to authority that I sometimes have trouble with, its your interpretation of authorities you appeal to.
2. If Nencini is using the assertion that police would have recognized Rudy's MO as proof that Rudy did not stage the break-in, then Nencini must be accepting and relying on that view, in order to support the conviction against Amanda and Raf. If its not true, then Nencini (in Nencini land) would be arguing that Rudy could not be precluded from staging the break-in Nencini assumes to have occurred.
So the question remains, where did Nencini get this from? He had to have heard it from somewhere. On this point, I think we are in agreement.
3. I think your argument here for doubting Nina's reporting is circular, and unfounded.
4. Regarding Moore, I do not "appeal to authority". I rely on experience. I trust Chris C or Dr Gill more on DNA evaluation than I do Ergon, Vixen or Mach. That's not an appeal to authority, its sorting the wheat from the chafe. At some point if I truly want to understand the issue, I have to do my homework and slog through the argument, background and data.
For shorthand though, and to save time, I do look to credibility as an indication of how much to trust some info when I hear it, as I think we all do. Dismissing Moore's experience, and IIRC, experience in Italy too, is like the guilter's delight in bashing Moore and Jim Clemente, as though their guilter fantasies have any merit. We're short on data here. But your skepticism isn't more convincing to me than Moore's experience and expert opinion, even though I don't know the full basis for his opinion. WHo do you trust, and how far? I'm willing to try out the theory and see if it works, and I think it fills in a lot of holes.
Its fine to disagree, but you haven't proved anything, just loudly doubted.
5. You assume that Rudy informs, and there is then a bust, and its obvious who Rudy finked on. Could that be a scenario? Yes. Must that be the scenario? Obviously not. You seem to like to reduce the world to simple scenarios, then argue against your own assumptions. Why should anyone else feel bound by your assumptions?
6. I'll just comment generally, that I'm reflecting on what gets reported, testified to, concluded by judges, or supported by evidence, and to the comments and opinions posters express. Its a limited data set, so we can't get everything we need in every point. I say let's make the most of what we do know, not just dismiss everything out of hand when we encounter gaps.
Whatever happened to CoulsdonUK? He/she certainly went out in a blaze of glory just before the acquittals.
