Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

CJ how would you interpret this from the Cambridge Dictionary:

frame verb (MAKE GUILTY)

› [T often passive] informal to make a person seem to be guilty of a crime when they are not, by producing facts or information that are not true:
He claimed he'd been framed by the police.

Webster:

3a : to devise falsely (as a criminal charge)
b : to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured

Current usage - number one on Urban Dictionary:

Frame
To make a person appear as the perpetrator of a crime that he/she did not commit.

1913 Websters:
7. to manufacture false evidence against (an innocent person), so as to make the person appear guilty of a crime. The act of framing a person is often referred to as a frame-up.

Moore's bio:

Steve Moore was appointed an FBI Special Agent in 1983 at the age of 25. He served as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent for 25 years, retiring in 2008. Steve’s early career was spent in covert operations against white supremacist organizations in northern Idaho and the northwest. Later, he led the investigations of many high-profile crimes in LA, including the first ever conviction for an anthrax threat, the Buford Furrow shooting/murder spree at a Jewish Community Center and the interdiction of a planned attack on California’s second-largest oil refinery.

Steve was chosen to run the Los Angeles component of the 9/11 investigation and testified before the congressional “911 Commission.” In 2002, he was named head of Al Qaeda investigations for the Los Angeles FBI and within a year was tasked with creating and running a squad responsible for the investigation of all acts of terrorism against the U.S. in Asia and Pakistan. This was and is the largest territory covered by a single squad in the FBI. Bombings of U.S. Consulates, luxury hotels and military personnel were standard fare for the squad. He established liaison and worked closely with the CIA and U.S. State Department. Steve received three DOJ awards for excellence in investigations, and was nominated for the FBI Director’s “Outstanding Terrorism Investigation” award.

No Italy. Given this was written after his AK work you'd think he would mention it.

You should read Nina and Prato and compare.

Nina published her novel after the Massei report was published, which included the gold watch find, which apparently you missed for 6 years. She somehow finds a neighbor that had a fire that didn't make the papers in which a cat dies, the house is badly damaged but it is known that the fire started from a scarf thrown over a lamp. Not withstanding Dan O.'s vast knowledge of fire investigations, there is no way a fire starts from a scarf that ignites a fire that badly damages the house and scarf remnants are still there. Oh and a gold woman's watch was stolen.

Her account of Rudi's stay at the nursery doesn't match Prato's.

Maybe your arguments would have a little weight if you actually sourced rather than vague recollections which were severely diminished by the fact that the gold watch at Prato's was news to you.

 

[Grinder]

According to Ron Hendry:

On Tuesday, October 23, 2007, Maria [Diaz] is attending an annual grape harvest festival about an hour drive from Perugia when police arrive with bad news. They tell her that her home in Perugia had been ransacked by a burglar and damaged by fire. In addition her cat has been killed in the blaze.


Upon arriving back in Perugia, Maria also finds that her jewel box had been looted. She is most distressed by the loss of her mother’s gold watch which is an irreplaceable heirloom.

I don't know whether he got the information from Nina or another source.

From Nina's book almost word for word. Did he source his book? He can't be looked at as a neutral reporter.

 

[Mary_H]

According to Graham's article, IIUC, Mignini acknowledged that it might be true, since Rudy had the sort of background that police would normally approach for such services, but thought it not relevant to the case. Graham interpreted Mignini's concession as agreement that Rudy was an informant.

Mignini was also reported by Graham to believe that Rudy should have been in jail for previous crimes before he killed Meredith, but someone else screwed that up. (Wasn't that kind of Mignini's job?).

The interview was printed, IIRC, in the Sun about four months after the original Dec 09 convictions.

This is the article: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...red-Bob-Graham-Article-for-Mail-on-Sunday.pdf

Don't forget in reading it that Mignini is an opportunistic liar.

ETA: Bob Graham may be less than accurate, too, for that matter.

 

[Mary_H]

From Nina's book almost word for word. Did he source his book? He can't be looked at as a neutral reporter.

Yes, he says, "The Diaz break-in burglary will come to light well after the murder through Nina Burleigh’s shrewd investigative reporting and is published in her book on the murder," and she is in the bibliography.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Not withstanding Dan O.'s vast knowledge of fire investigations, there is no way a fire starts from a scarf that ignites a fire that badly damages the house and scarf remnants are still there.<snip>

Not to be picayune, but I disagree. Most of the damage could have been done by smoke. Do we have a record of the damage from the fire?

 

[Bill Williams]

From Nina's book almost word for word. Did he source his book? He can't be looked at as a neutral reporter.

It really depends on how Hendry came about not being a "neutral" reporter.

Did he come about forming an opinion, therefore foregoing neutrality, because he first applied his own discipline and only then came to a conclusion?

 

[davefoc]

... there is no way a fire starts from a scarf that ignites a fire that badly damages the house and scarf remnants are still there. Oh and a gold woman's watch was stolen.

...

I think that is still in the plausible range. A heavy scarf thrown over a lamp might provide enough insulation to raise the temperature enough to either cause ignition of the scarf or melting of the insulation on the wires in the lamp which might lead to a short and potentially an ignition or perhaps a catastrophic failure of the light bulb from over heating which leads to the ignition of a fire. If something is near the scarf, like the drapes the fire could transfer to the drapes and once they're on fire, the ignition of a serious fire seems very plausible. The scarf may not be completely destroyed because parts of it drop to the floor and are not easily ignited because the scarf is in a clump. There are a lot of unknowns here, maybe the lamp shade was particularly flammable. Or maybe this was an intentionally set fire where part of the scarf was soaked in an easily ignited substance, or maybe the fire investigators just made a mistake. They found the remnants of the scarf near the lamp and made a bad guess as to what ignited the fire. Or, of course, the whole story was just made up. I don't know and the scarf caused a fire does sound a little shaky to me too.

 

[Grinder]

Not to be picayune, but I disagree. Most of the damage could have been done by smoke. Do we have a record of the damage from the fire?

Sure. Nina describes the three story narrow house as being badly damaged. She wrote that her insurance company paid to fix the house which took three years to become habitable again. Sound like smoke? A partially burned scarf wouldn't do that much smoke damage. She writes that Diaz only began to suspect Rudi after the murder and the reports he had a habit of breaking into homes. At most there are only reports of two homes and in Perugia the second one was a staged burglary.

To date there is no record of this event except from Nina and then the telephone network results like Waterbury's.

She also wrote that at the nursery Rudi made pounds of pasta which Prato doesn't say.

She also wrote that they opened his pack at the nursery and then in the next paragraph writes they took his pack to the station and that's where it was opened.

Has anybody actually read this part of her book?

Now people should respond by saying wow that does smell funny and thanks for giving those details but I'm not holding my breath.

BTW - why are you up?

 

[Grinder]

It really depends on how Hendry came about not being a "neutral" reporter.

Did he come about forming an opinion, therefore foregoing neutrality, because he first applied his own discipline and only then came to a conclusion?

He was part of FOA the defense support network early on before you joined in.

 

[Grinder]

I think that is still in the plausible range. A heavy scarf thrown over a lamp might provide enough insulation to raise the temperature enough to either cause ignition of the scarf or melting of the insulation on the wires in the lamp which might lead to a short and potentially an ignition or perhaps a catastrophic failure of the light bulb from over heating which leads to the ignition of a fire. If something is near the scarf, like the drapes the fire could transfer to the drapes and once they're on fire, the ignition of a serious fire seems very plausible. The scarf may not be completely destroyed because parts of it drop to the floor and are not easily ignited because the scarf is in a clump. There are a lot of unknowns here, maybe the lamp shade was particularly flammable. Or maybe this was an intentionally set fire where part of the scarf was soaked in an easily ignited substance, or maybe the fire investigators just made a mistake. They found the remnants of the scarf near the lamp and made a bad guess as to what ignited the fire. Or, of course, the whole story was just made up. I don't know and the scarf caused a fire does sound a little shaky to me too.

Put "Nina Burleigh gold Diaz" into Google. Read the account.

 

[Kauffer]

I see that in her review of NvdL's book reviewer "Christina" twice spells the word "marvelous" with two l's. Is that a British spelling? Or does she need the services of a speed-editor like KrissyG?

Yes, it's typically two lls in British English.

 

[davefoc]

Put "Nina Burleigh gold Diaz" into Google. Read the account.

That didn't return a link to a Nina Burleigh article. I have read the account here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The part about the fire is very short and is attributed to Nina Burleigh without any additional comment.

 

[Grinder]

That didn't return a link to a Nina Burleigh article. I have read the account here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The part about the fire is very short and is attributed to Nina Burleigh without any additional comment.

Try again and go to her book where the section should is available.

Here this should do it for you.

Dave you really should read the original.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure. Nina describes the three story narrow house as being badly damaged. She wrote that her insurance company paid to fix the house which took three years to become habitable again. Sound like smoke? A partially burned scarf wouldn't do that much smoke damage. She writes that Diaz only began to suspect Rudi after the murder and the reports he had a habit of breaking into homes. At most there are only reports of two homes and in Perugia the second one was a staged burglary.

To date there is no record of this event except from Nina and then the telephone network results like Waterbury's.

She also wrote that at the nursery Rudi made pounds of pasta which Prato doesn't say.

She also wrote that they opened his pack at the nursery and then in the next paragraph writes they took his pack to the station and that's where it was opened.

Has anybody actually read this part of her book?

Now people should respond by saying wow that does smell funny and thanks for giving those details but I'm not holding my breath.

BTW - why are you up?

I know I don't really fully understand fire well enough to say that the whole scarf would have been reduced to cinders or not. I also know that you probably don't know either. I can imagine a scenario where the part of a scarf burned and the rest dropped to the floor and did not burn yet most of the room did burn.

While you're remark makes sense, I know of many things that makes sense but in fact are false.

 

[Grinder]

I know I don't really fully understand fire well enough to say that the whole scarf would have been reduced to cinders or not. I also know that you probably don't know either. I can imagine a scenario where the part of a scarf burned and the rest dropped to the floor and did not burn yet most of the room did burn.

While you're remark makes sense, I know of many things that makes sense but in fact are false.

Tesla did you read the part where Nina claims it took three years to repair the badly damaged house?

If the scarf starting the fire was something that could be used against the kids there is no way you or other PIP would believe it. Nina writes that the firemen reported to Diaz that the fire started when the burglar threw a scarf over the lamp. Do you really believe there is a way that that could be determined when the house was so badly damaged it took years to repair.

I find it hard to believe that Diaz and the fire are complete figments of Nina's imagination, but beyond that I don't believe the account. Perhaps a minor fire wasn't reported. I actually think the scarf part may be true but I don't believe the damage level she reports. Diaz didn't suspect Rudi until he was charged with murder and she read reports of his home burglaries. Now we know that at most he was involved in two that were reported at all (CT and the cottage) and the cottage was staged by official reports and CT was a home invasion.

Go read the link I provided Dave. Her book is full of hyperbole at a minimum. It's a novel.

One thing I would never have believed is that the police went and found her at a festival but they return the phones to F which would never happen here.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla did you read the part where Nina claims it took three years to repair the badly damaged house?

If the scarf starting the fire was something that could be used against the kids there is no way you or other PIP would believe it. Nina writes that the firemen reported to Diaz that the fire started when the burglar threw a scarf over the lamp. Do you really believe there is a way that that could be determined when the house was so badly damaged it took years to repair.

I find it hard to believe that Diaz and the fire are complete figments of Nina's imagination, but beyond that I don't believe the account. Perhaps a minor fire wasn't reported. I actually think the scarf part may be true but I don't believe the damage level she reports. Diaz didn't suspect Rudi until he was charged with murder and she read reports of his home burglaries. Now we know that at most he was involved in two that were reported at all (CT and the cottage) and the cottage was staged by official reports and CT was a home invasion.

Go read the link I provided Dave. Her book is full of hyperbole at a minimum. It's a novel.

One thing I would never have believed is that the police went and found her at a festival but they return the phones to F which would never happen here.

What does it matter how long it took to repair? Certainly you don't actually believe that people were working non stop to repair it do you? Far more likely, is that it took time to get her insurance claim processed and get paid and people pussy- footed around getting the job done including her.

 

[RoseMontague]

Tesla did you read the part where Nina claims it took three years to repair the badly damaged house?

If the scarf starting the fire was something that could be used against the kids there is no way you or other PIP would believe it. Nina writes that the firemen reported to Diaz that the fire started when the burglar threw a scarf over the lamp. Do you really believe there is a way that that could be determined when the house was so badly damaged it took years to repair.

I find it hard to believe that Diaz and the fire are complete figments of Nina's imagination, but beyond that I don't believe the account. Perhaps a minor fire wasn't reported. I actually think the scarf part may be true but I don't believe the damage level she reports. Diaz didn't suspect Rudi until he was charged with murder and she read reports of his home burglaries. Now we know that at most he was involved in two that were reported at all (CT and the cottage) and the cottage was staged by official reports and CT was a home invasion.

Go read the link I provided Dave. Her book is full of hyperbole at a minimum. It's a novel.

One thing I would never have believed is that the police went and found her at a festival but they return the phones to F which would never happen here.

Nina said...

Madu Diaz anecdote from my interview, January 2010

Her source appears to be a direct interview.

The archived street view version (Oct 2008) compared to the latest version (Nov 2014) shows improvements have been made since the October 2008 street view, at least to the building adjacent to Via del Canerino,26 (Rudy's address given in his interview). Nina gives the same street name but not the number for Diaz, if anyone has it let me know.

 

[acbytesla]

Nina said...



Her source appears to be a direct interview.

The archived street view version (Oct 2008) compared to the latest version (Nov 2014) shows improvements have been made since the October 2008 street view, at least to the building adjacent to Via del Canerino,26 (Rudy's address given in his interview). Nina gives the same street name but not the number for Diaz, if anyone has it let me know.

According to an email exchange I had with Nina, it was a direct interview and she said she saw the police report about the fire and the break in. I asked Nina if she would get back to me with some kind of proof of the interview and she was kind of annoyed that anyone would think she might have fabricated it. She never did...but frankly, I don't think she cared about any doubts that some anonymous guy wanted.

 

[RoseMontague]

According to an email exchange I had with Nina, it was a direct interview and she said she saw the police report about the fire and the break in. I asked Nina if she would get back to me with some kind of proof of the interview and she was kind of annoyed that anyone would think she might have fabricated it. She never did...but frankly, I don't think she cared about any doubts that some anonymous guy wanted.

Yep. Thanks for the info.

 

[Bill Williams]

He was part of FOA the defense support network early on before you joined in.

That doesn't answer the question as posed. Did he become part of the support network before or after doing his research? Like John Douglas said, if he'd found something incriminating, would he have suppressed it. IIRC Douglas said he'd look into this as long as the people doing the asking did not try to quibble with what he found.

You make it sound like just because someone has an opinion, validly formed, all of a sudden they become useless. Because I reject 9/11 conspiracies or because I accept the Al Gore version of the global warming crisis, does that mean I'm hopelessly biased? Isn't the issue the way I came to the bias?