Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

It remains the case that no corroborating evidence, source, report, news article etc. has been located. Nina's account at best is filled with hyperbole.

The hoops that need to be jumped through are impressive. According to Nina the house was badly damaged, it started with a scarf on a lamp, the cat died, a gold watch was stolen, it took three years to repair the house and she only thought of Rudi as the burglar after his picture and story were in the paper as a house burglar even though there actually were no house burglaries as the story was told until Hellmann.

So the damage was small enough to leave the scarf evidence but serious enough to take years to be habitable again. Nina said the house was "nearly destroyed" yet people here try to make it out that a scarf would survive. NEARLY DESTROYED! She then writes "the little house became habitable after three years of work" no mention of waiting for insurance or anything else of that nature - THREE YEARS OF WORK!

Another mistake in her book is she said the temp was in the mid forties P. 136 on Nov. 1st when in fact it was in the mid fifties. No big deal but she has much sloppiness in the book.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city just for Rose to check

No journalist should be insulted when asked for sources. You were anonymous but no source only a defensive response.

 

[Grinder]

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?

Here you go Bill. This is Hendry in his own words. If reading news reports is doing research well then...

He became a FOA PIP first before applying his car crash expertise to the case. He was not an expert in crime, murder cases or anything of that nature.

Since my retirement in January, 2008 I have been casting about for something of interest to study and perhaps write about and offer to a magazine or newspaper for publication. During much of 2009, I was doing internet research on the Toyota unintended acceleration problem and the controversial Cameron Todd Willingham execution for the fire deaths of his children.

I switched over to looking into the murder of Meredith Kercher in December, 2009 after Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had been convicted of her murder. My initial interest was to look into it enough to satisfy myself that both were guilty as charged despite all the news reports in this country which questioned their guilt. Then I could get back to the other two internet investigations.

I immediately found numerous news articles about the Kercher crime over the internet. Also, bits and pieces of factual information along with a few crime scene photos and videos could be found at several web sites. After having accumulated and reviewed several hundred articles, photos, and other information, I came to the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele were wrongfully charged of involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

At that point I found myself unable to move on to something else. Somehow I thought I might be able to help the two in their quest for freedom. So I worked up four articles on the break-in aspect and sent them to Bruce Fisher for consideration for his website. Bruce agreed to publish the articles. After further discussion, Bruce and I agreed that it would be beneficial if I did an in depth analysis of the photographic and video evidence of this case.
​

oopsie. Looks like he did his work with an end in mind.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here you go Bill. This is Hendry in his own words. If reading news reports is doing research well then...

He became a FOA PIP first before applying his car crash expertise to the case. He was not an expert in crime, murder cases or anything of that nature.

Since my retirement in January, 2008 I have been casting about for something of interest to study and perhaps write about and offer to a magazine or newspaper for publication. During much of 2009, I was doing internet research on the Toyota unintended acceleration problem and the controversial Cameron Todd Willingham execution for the fire deaths of his children.

I switched over to looking into the murder of Meredith Kercher in December, 2009 after Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had been convicted of her murder. My initial interest was to look into it enough to satisfy myself that both were guilty as charged despite all the news reports in this country which questioned their guilt. Then I could get back to the other two internet investigations.

I immediately found numerous news articles about the Kercher crime over the internet. Also, bits and pieces of factual information along with a few crime scene photos and videos could be found at several web sites. After having accumulated and reviewed several hundred articles, photos, and other information, I came to the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele were wrongfully charged of involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

At that point I found myself unable to move on to something else. Somehow I thought I might be able to help the two in their quest for freedom. So I worked up four articles on the break-in aspect and sent them to Bruce Fisher for consideration for his website. Bruce agreed to publish the articles. After further discussion, Bruce and I agreed that it would be beneficial if I did an in depth analysis of the photographic and video evidence of this case.
​

oopsie. Looks like he did his work with an end in mind.

This still does not answer the question. Even with his stated intent, do you know the man well enough to claim he would have hidden anything that did not help "the two" in their quest? Is there any indication in his work, that this is remotely a factor.

Think Stefanoni hiding the raw data....

 

[Strozzi]

Here you go Bill. This is Hendry in his own words. If reading news reports is doing research well then...

He became a FOA PIP first before applying his car crash expertise to the case. He was not an expert in crime, murder cases or anything of that nature.

Since my retirement in January, 2008 I have been casting about for something of interest to study and perhaps write about and offer to a magazine or newspaper for publication. During much of 2009, I was doing internet research on the Toyota unintended acceleration problem and the controversial Cameron Todd Willingham execution for the fire deaths of his children.

I switched over to looking into the murder of Meredith Kercher in December, 2009 after Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had been convicted of her murder. My initial interest was to look into it enough to satisfy myself that both were guilty as charged despite all the news reports in this country which questioned their guilt. Then I could get back to the other two internet investigations.
I immediately found numerous news articles about the Kercher crime over the internet. Also, bits and pieces of factual information along with a few crime scene photos and videos could be found at several web sites. After having accumulated and reviewed several hundred articles, photos, and other information, I came to the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele were wrongfully charged of involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

At that point I found myself unable to move on to something else. Somehow I thought I might be able to help the two in their quest for freedom. So I worked up four articles on the break-in aspect and sent them to Bruce Fisher for consideration for his website. Bruce agreed to publish the articles. After further discussion, Bruce and I agreed that it would be beneficial if I did an in depth analysis of the photographic and video evidence of this case.
​

oopsie. Looks like he did his work with an end in mind.

Actually, Grinder, he started his work with a different end in mind.

What I highlighted in yellow in the 4th paragraph above is Hendry's statement of his initial expectation when he first started looking at this case - that he anticipated finding evidence to satisfy himself that the defendants were guilty as charged, in spite of news reports that questioned their guilt. That is what he went into the exercise expecting to see. His forensic analysis of photos and records caused him to change his view.

His statement in the later (6th) paragraph which is highlighted in yellow that he later thought his analysis might convince others of the defendants innocence came later after he reviewed the evidence. Not before. What came before was his assumption that the defendants were guilty as charged.

Grinder, maybe the two highlighted statements cancel each other out. If that math works, Hendry was neutral. Ya' think?

 

[carbonjam72]

Professionals, Amateurs, and then there's us...

Originally Posted by acbytesla
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.

It remains the case that no corroborating evidence, source, report, news article etc. has been located. Nina's account at best is filled with hyperbole.

The hoops that need to be jumped through are impressive. According to Nina the house was badly damaged, it started with a scarf on a lamp, the cat died, a gold watch was stolen, it took three years to repair the house and she only thought of Rudi as the burglar after his picture and story were in the paper as a house burglar even though there actually were no house burglaries as the story was told until Hellmann.

So the damage was small enough to leave the scarf evidence but serious enough to take years to be habitable again. Nina said the house was "nearly destroyed" yet people here try to make it out that a scarf would survive. NEARLY DESTROYED! She then writes "the little house became habitable after three years of work" no mention of waiting for insurance or anything else of that nature - THREE YEARS OF WORK!

Another mistake in her book is she said the temp was in the mid forties P. 136 on Nov. 1st when in fact it was in the mid fifties. No big deal but she has much sloppiness in the book.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city just for Rose to check

No journalist should be insulted when asked for sources. You were anonymous but no source only a defensive response.

With all due respect, the only hoop that needs to be jumped through, is to obtain a copy of the police report that Nina says she saw, and talk to Diaz or see Nin'a notes or records to otherwise confirm. The police report is available, and so presumably is Mrs Diaz. There are no other hoops.
Unless you think Nina has somehow fabricated her reporting.

The fact you think Nina is obligated to respond to every anonymous request to document her reporting, is I'm sorry to say, just really special.

Simply put, you have an exaggerated sense of your (our) own importance.
Why should Nina take any of us seriously? What next, will she be debating Ergon or PQ? As wacky as they are, our standing is similar.

Chris H could challenge Nina on DNA info. Moore or Clemente could challenge her on crime scene analysis. Some professional reporter or journalist could challenge her on the basis of a report, because they are professionals.

But not us. We don't matter. We're the peanut gallery. Its pure narcissism to think otherwise.

Nina has no obligation to respond to us at all. Nina's interaction with Tesla seems generous in the extreme, and she still got insulted!

I'm just amazed how free you feel to smear legitimate professionals. (Doesn't mean they are always right, but suggesting they are fabricating sources is about as bad an accusation as you could make. And on what basis do you make it? Bupkis, that's what. Jesus man, take a breath. (Not you, Ergon).

 

[Bill Williams]

What I highlighted in yellow in the 4th paragraph above is Hendry's statement of his initial expectation when he first started looking at this case - that he anticipated finding evidence to satisfy himself that the defendants were guilty as charged, withstanding news reports that questioned their guilt. That is what he went into the exercise expecting to see. His forensic analysis of photos and records caused him to change his view.

His statement in the later (6th) paragraph which is highlighted in yellow that he later thought his analysis might convince others of the defendants innocence came later after he reviewed the evidence. Not before. What came before was his assumption that the defendants were guilty as charged.

Grinder, maybe the two highlighted statements cancel each other out. If that math works, Hendry was neutral. Ya' think?

That's what I thought. Surely someone has to demonstrate undue bias before people like Hendry are handwaved away, just because they have come to a conclusion. There is no reason, really, to handwave away someone like Stefanoni, until it is demonstrated she had put her thumb on the scale..... and had perhaps lied in court. And than complained about full disclosure to the point of refusing to do it.

Stefanoni shows the hallmarks of undue bias.

 

[Bill Williams]

With all due respect, the only hoop that needs to be jumped through, is to obtain a copy of the police report that Nina says she saw, and talk to Diaz or see Nin'a notes or records to otherwise confirm. The police report is available, and so presumably is Mrs Diaz. There are no other hoops.
Unless you think Nina has somehow fabricated her reporting.

The fact you think Nina is obligated to respond to every anonymous request to document her reporting, is I'm sorry to say, just really special.

Simply put, you have an exaggerated sense of your (our) own importance.
Why should Nina take any of us seriously? What next, will she be debating Ergon or PQ? As wacky as they are, our standing is similar.
Chris H could challenge Nina on DNA info. Moore or Clemente could challenge her on crime scene analysis. Some professional reporter or journalist could challenge her on the basis of a report, because they are professionals.

But not us. We don't matter. We're the peanut gallery. Its pure narcissism to think otherwise.

Nina has no obligation to respond to us at all. Nina's interaction with Tesla seems generous in the extreme, and she still got insulted!

I'm just amazed how free you feel to smear legitimate professionals. (Doesn't mean they are always right, but suggesting they are fabricating sources is about as bad an accusation as you could make. And on what basis do you make it? Bupkis, that's what. Jesus man, take a breath. (Not you, Ergon).

Ouch. But essentially true. We are all way, way up in the bleachers trying to elbow our way down a few rows for a better view.

Sad, but true. Seriously.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Smoke damage usually makes a place unlivable for quite a while. No, I haven't read her book. Bob Graham reported on the fire in the article I linked, which I think was written in 2009.

BTW - why are you up?

I don't know!

 

[Mary_H]

From perugiamurderfile.net:

Juror13
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:22 pm
Posts: 1Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:31 pm
Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -

As Malvern says above, there's a new ebook out called DECEIT. It's the first of many narratives on the topics surrounding this case. Would love to know what you think. Unfortunately the Amazon page has turned into a war of name calling and just ugly behavior and really all we want are people's respectful and honest thoughts about this case without going off the rails. So I'm hoping some of you can chime in. Thanks guys Here's a link to a brief excerpt and the book:

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... r-mystery/

 

[Grinder]

Actually, Grinder, he started his work with a different end in mind.

What I highlighted in yellow in the 4th paragraph above is Hendry's statement of his initial expectation when he first started looking at this case - that he anticipated finding evidence to satisfy himself that the defendants were guilty as charged, in spite of news reports that questioned their guilt. That is what he went into the exercise expecting to see. His forensic analysis of photos and records caused him to change his view.

His statement in the later (6th) paragraph which is highlighted in yellow that he later thought his analysis might convince others of the defendants innocence came later after he reviewed the evidence. Not before. What came before was his assumption that the defendants were guilty as charged.

Grinder, maybe the two highlighted statements cancel each other out. If that math works, Hendry was neutral. Ya' think?

As if often the case the discussion gets side tracked -

Here is where it started:

Originally Posted by Mary_H View Post
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.

Grinder -

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

So my point was he was on the FOA IIP team which he is. Bill W changed it to the validity of his stduies which I didn't I comment on.

As to your point he didn't do his forensic car crash stone through windows and other new to him work until deciding from news reports they were innocent and didn't publish on a neutral site or actual media outlet but rather IIP.

 

[acbytesla]

It remains the case that no corroborating evidence, source, report, news article etc. has been located. Nina's account at best is filled with hyperbole.

The hoops that need to be jumped through are impressive. According to Nina the house was badly damaged, it started with a scarf on a lamp, the cat died, a gold watch was stolen, it took three years to repair the house and she only thought of Rudi as the burglar after his picture and story were in the paper as a house burglar even though there actually were no house burglaries as the story was told until Hellmann.

So the damage was small enough to leave the scarf evidence but serious enough to take years to be habitable again. Nina said the house was "nearly destroyed" yet people here try to make it out that a scarf would survive. NEARLY DESTROYED! She then writes "the little house became habitable after three years of work" no mention of waiting for insurance or anything else of that nature - THREE YEARS OF WORK!

Another mistake in her book is she said the temp was in the mid forties P. 136 on Nov. 1st when in fact it was in the mid fifties. No big deal but she has much sloppiness in the book.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city just for Rose to check

No journalist should be insulted when asked for sources. You were anonymous but no source only a defensive response.

I've been in homes Grinder that have been totaled...and found things on the floor that you would have thought would be totally burned and yet there they were.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that so much of this is about descriptions, that are not likely to mean the same thing to the person saying them as they would to the person listening. Kind of like the word "framing".

 

[Numbers]

That's what I thought. Surely someone has to demonstrate undue bias before people like Hendry are handwaved away, just because they have come to a conclusion. There is no reason, really, to handwave away someone like Stefanoni, until it is demonstrated she had put her thumb on the scale..... and had perhaps lied in court. And than complained about full disclosure to the point of refusing to do it.

Stefanoni shows the hallmarks of undue bias.

At the risk of starting another 10 page discussion of semantics, I will suggest that while neutrality may be a positive in evaluation of a controversy, or the evidence in a court case, the aspects of neutrality that are desired include (but may not be limited to) honesty and objectivity. Under Italian law, the prosecutor is obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence (that is, evidence that demonstrates or tends to demonstrate innocence) that the prosecution obtains as well as their evidence against a defendant. That is, ideally the prosecution would be honest and objective enough to follow the law. (There are similar procedural requirements in the US.)

With respect to the various experts who have spoken out - apparently pro bono - essentially supporting the defense in this case, based on my understanding (I have a technical background but have never been a forensics specialist), the presentations are honest and objective. In comparison, the prosecution presentations appear conclusory. Where is the detailed description of the window break-in from the prosecution that explains the observations recorded in the crime scene photographs? A detailed and technically reasonable explanation was provided by Hendry. (There was also a defense expert who provided testimony on the break-in at the trial.)

 

[Grinder]

With all due respect, the only hoop that needs to be jumped through, is to obtain a copy of the police report that Nina says she saw, and talk to Diaz or see Nin'a notes or records to otherwise confirm.

If you go look at what Tesla reported quite a while ago Nina said Diaz was reading off a police report and that Nina would see if she could find it. Alas nada.

The police report is available, and so presumably is Mrs Diaz.

And how would you know either is available? Please try hard to think about a fire in a mid sized town that resulted supposedly from a burglar starting it, killing a cat and severely damaging the house and yet not one word found on the web. I've looked, I'm sure Tesla and others here have and of course you wouldn't respond without checking the web.

There are no other hoops. Unless you think Nina has somehow fabricated her reporting.

I demonstrated that she has errors (temp) and saying the pack was opened at the nursery and then saying it was opened first at the police station. Maybe KrissyG did her editing as well. The fire story doesn't hang together. A fire doesn't start from a scarf and almost destroy a three story house and leave bits of the scarf that show that's how it started. Mary thought maybe smoke damage but no severe and three years.

The fact you think Nina is obligated to respond to every anonymous request to document her reporting, is I'm sorry to say, just really special. Simply put, you have an exaggerated sense of your (our) own importance.

I didn't ask it was Tesla but it remains the case that a journalist should not shrink from providing sources. I've dialed up NY Times reporters and had discussion about a story. I talk with local reporters all the time and they are happy to give background.

Why should Nina take any of us seriously? What next, will she be debating Ergon or PQ? As wacky as they are, our standing is similar.

Cough, cough do I have allergies? No there is a straw man in the forum. Tesla asking one reasonable question after three years the book was out isn't remotely similar to debating the PGP leaders.

Chris H could challenge Nina on DNA info. Moore or Clemente could challenge her on crime scene analysis. Some professional reporter or journalist could challenge her on the basis of a report, because they are professionals.

Your self esteem issues are sad. There is no reason a regular person can't ask about sources.

Nina has no obligation to respond to us at all. Nina's interaction with Tesla seems generous in the extreme, and she still got insulted!

Tesla didn't insult her and if you're implying I did that could only be if she read here. If so, she can produce the sourcing material. Do you ever actually read the source material or do you just reply on the compiler sites?

I'm just amazed how free you feel to smear legitimate professionals. (Doesn't mean they are always right, but suggesting they are fabricating sources is about as bad an accusation as you could make. And on what basis do you make it? Bupkis, that's what. Jesus man, take a breath. (Not you, Ergon).

If you read upstream you would find that I thought Diaz probably existed and had some sort of fire event but that Nina had exaggerated it and framed the story to fit with the Rudi crime wave meme. You don't read the original stuff and base most everything on you authority figures. Sad.

 

[Grinder]

Smoke damage usually makes a place unlivable for quite a while. No, I haven't read her book. Bob Graham reported on the fire in the article I linked, which I think was written in 2009.

Please. Severely damaged. Three years to repair. It's not consistent with smoke damage.

 

[Grinder]

I've been in homes Grinder that have been totaled...and found things on the floor that you would have thought would be totally burned and yet there they were.

In your capacity as a computer salesman? Really you have the widest experiences. Were the items on the floor so flamable a lamp would ignite them and were they the items that started the fire that "totaled" the house?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that so much of this is about descriptions, that are not likely to mean the same thing to the person saying them as they would to the person listening. Kind of like the word "framing".

Well three years to make habitable, severely damaged and the fire started from a scarf over a lamp are as clear as the definition of frame.

How did the totaled house fire start.

 

[Strozzi]

At the risk of starting another 10 page discussion of semantics, I will suggest that while neutrality may be a positive in evaluation of a controversy, or the evidence in a court case, the aspects of neutrality that are desired include (but may not be limited to) honesty and objectivity. Under Italian law, the prosecutor is obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence (that is, evidence that demonstrates or tends to demonstrate innocence) that the prosecution obtains as well as their evidence against a defendant. That is, ideally the prosecution would be honest and objective enough to follow the law. (There are similar procedural requirements in the US.)

With respect to the various experts who have spoken out - apparently pro bono - essentially supporting the defense in this case, based on my understanding (I have a technical background but have never been a forensics specialist), the presentations are honest and objective. In comparison, the prosecution presentations appear conclusory. Where is the detailed description of the window break-in from the prosecution that explains the observations recorded in the crime scene photographs? A detailed and technically reasonable explanation was provided by Hendry. (There was also a defense expert who provided testimony on the break-in at the trial.)

I repeatedly studied Hendry's analysis of the break in early on when I just started learning about this case. One aspect that I noted was his analysis of the TV antenna cable that hung loosely along Filomena's bedroom wall below her windowsill. Hendry pointed out that photos show a snag in the cable and discoloration on the cable that could have been caused by being snagged by the bottom of a shoe as the perpetrator climbed in the window. Snagging a shoe on the TV cable there would tug the cable tight. It was connected (anchored) to a heavy, medium-sized TV placed on top of the armoire. The pull on the cable would have caused it to dislodge any stack of clothes stored on top of or in front of the cable as it ran across the top of the armoire, causing folded clothes to fall together in an intact folded pile to the floor immediately in front of the armoire, as is seen in photos made by the police in Filomena's room.

To see the snag of and discoloration on the antenna cable described by Hendry, see the 6th photo down on the following page: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry2------b.html

Hendry, an engineer by training, spent his life analyzing accident evidence. He analyzes how people and items move.

 

[Bill Williams]

At the risk of starting another 10 page discussion of semantics, I will suggest that while neutrality may be a positive in evaluation of a controversy, or the evidence in a court case, the aspects of neutrality that are desired include (but may not be limited to) honesty and objectivity. Under Italian law, the prosecutor is obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence (that is, evidence that demonstrates or tends to demonstrate innocence) that the prosecution obtains as well as their evidence against a defendant. That is, ideally the prosecution would be honest and objective enough to follow the law. (There are similar procedural requirements in the US.)

With respect to the various experts who have spoken out - apparently pro bono - essentially supporting the defense in this case, based on my understanding (I have a technical background but have never been a forensics specialist), the presentations are honest and objective. In comparison, the prosecution presentations appear conclusory. Where is the detailed description of the window break-in from the prosecution that explains the observations recorded in the crime scene photographs? A detailed and technically reasonable explanation was provided by Hendry. (There was also a defense expert who provided testimony on the break-in at the trial.)

The preferable thing would be to do all this double-blind.

 

[Bill Williams]

As if often the case the discussion gets side tracked -

Here is where it started:

Originally Posted by Mary_H View Post
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.

Grinder -

So my point was he was on the FOA IIP team which he is. Bill W changed it to the validity of his stduies which I didn't I comment on.

As to your point he didn't do his forensic car crash stone through windows and other new to him work until deciding from news reports they were innocent and didn't publish on a neutral site or actual media outlet but rather IIP.

Great - you get to move one row down up here in the cheap seats.

You still have not answered my question about perhaps showing that he was unduly biased, aside from the genetic fallacy hand waving him away because of his associations?

Do you have any evidence that he went off the rails? Other than he once might have had coffee with Bruce Fischer and also thinks that those who posit multiple attackers are not thinking this through properly?

 

[Grinder]

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.

I remember this piece was so bad it was not allowed to be published and is PIP piece.

They include burglaries, break-ins and robberies and occasions when he carried a knife on his mini crime-wave. On at least one occasion he was named as a suspect who broke into an elderly to the three-storey property that killed a pet catand caused more than £30,000 worth of damage.
􀀃
Guede who burned my home because I had seen him always staring at it in the days before it happened. The police never did anything

Ah but he never was charged, ever. According to Nina, Diaz only thought of Rudi after the murder charges. Graham is trying to prove Rudi should have been in jail which has been a FOA meme for a long long time.

Funny she told Nina he was always on his phone outside and that he was nice to her dog.

The 60-year-the middle of another burglary. During the incident, in Milan, he was found to be carrying a 10-inch kitchen knife and was also in possession of a horde of stolen goods.he had been identified by other victims. But, on each occasion, he was released without charge.

Let's see. What victims had identified him by the 1st of Nov?

Chris Mellas step-father, who is currently in Perugia ...
the incidents in which Guede is known to have been involved. The Italian legal system says he is part of a separate case and we can only mention him in vague generalities. It is bizarre because it
is an important aspect of the overall story.

CT and Diaz were part of the Massei trial as was the lawyers' loot.


In copying and pasting the pdf produced squares I deleted - for the complete quotes you will have to go there yourselves.

This piece was not published.

 

[acbytesla]

In your capacity as a computer salesman? Really you have the widest experiences. Were the items on the floor so flamable a lamp would ignite them and were they the items that started the fire that "totaled" the house?



Well three years to make habitable, severely damaged and the fire started from a scarf over a lamp are as clear as the definition of frame.

How did the totaled house fire start.

I've been in two houses that suffered serious fire damage. I am by no means an expert on this subject Grinder and I'm not representing myself as one. As for a wide range of experiences....I'm not sure I would say that. My mom's house suffered serious fire damage as did a good friend's home.

But if anything, it is you that is the one representing yourself as the person who understands and is an expert about everything. I think your logic is just too certain for my tastes. I KNOW I don't understand completely what happened from the descriptions of what happened. You're the one who expects people to be precise in their language. But if you're honest about this you would acknowledge that people are generally not as precise as you would like them to be. I certainly don't expect them to be.