Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
I asked someone yesterday about Bob Graham and the informant theory and got the low down.

Bob Graham went to Milan and interviewed del Prato who told him the Milan police let Rudy go. Bob then went to Biscotti who told him Rudy wasn't charged for it. So Bob came up with the informant theory and liked it so much he told everyone about it.

Then it turns out in 2014 Rudy was indeed charged and convicted and del Parto testified the police told her they only let him go because they didn't know what to do with him. They couldn't detain someone with no criminal history for weeks on end over a stolen laptop and phone.

Also I'm a little disappointed in Nina's book and seeing how she appears to have fabricated the "cooked up pounds of pasta" story regarding the first break in at the nursery.
 
MichaelB said:
I asked someone yesterday about Bob Graham and the informant theory and got the low down.

Bob Graham went to Milan and interviewed del Prato who told him the Milan police let Rudy go. Bob then went to Biscotti who told him Rudy wasn't charged for it. So Bob came up with the informant theory and liked it so much he told everyone about it.

Then it turns out in 2014 Rudy was indeed charged and convicted and del Parto testified the police told her they only let him go because they didn't know what to do with him. They couldn't detain someone with no criminal history for weeks on end over a stolen laptop and phone.

Also I'm a little disappointed in Nina's book and seeing how she appears to have fabricated the "cooked up pounds of pasta" story regarding the first break in at the nursery.
Click to expand...

Just adding to the story here; was it Nina (and/or Dempsey?) who also claimed there was a phone call from Perugia to Milan, asking that Rudy be let go? There was a Milan police officer quoted by name who said something like, "these things happen". Wish I had it in front of me.

I'm intrigued by this line of inquiry and glad you followed it.

However, is it fair to ask how reliable is your source who gave you the "low-down"? Why should we trust them over Nina and Candace Dempsey? Have you tried to ask Nina and Candace for their version? Or even Bob Graham?

I'm open to dropping the 'informer theory', but this info doesn't sound sourced yet.
 
To Vixen, we are still waiting for your response to the refutation of your failed logic regarding DNA distribution. Lol
 
MichaelB said:
I asked someone yesterday about Bob Graham and the informant theory and got the low down.

Bob Graham went to Milan and interviewed del Prato who told him the Milan police let Rudy go. Bob then went to Biscotti who told him Rudy wasn't charged for it. So Bob came up with the informant theory and liked it so much he told everyone about it.

Then it turns out in 2014 Rudy was indeed charged and convicted and del Parto testified the police told her they only let him go because they didn't know what to do with him. They couldn't detain someone with no criminal history for weeks on end over a stolen laptop and phone.

Also I'm a little disappointed in Nina's book and seeing how she appears to have fabricated the "cooked up pounds of pasta" story regarding the first break in at the nursery.
Click to expand...

carbonjam72 said:
Just adding to the story here; was it Nina (and/or Dempsey?) who also claimed there was a phone call from Perugia to Milan, asking that Rudy be let go? There was a Milan police officer quoted by name who said something like, "these things happen". Wish I had it in front of me.

I'm intrigued by this line of inquiry and glad you followed it.

However, is it fair to ask how reliable is your source who gave you the "low-down"? Why should we trust them over Nina and Candace Dempsey? Have you tried to ask Nina and Candace for their version? Or even Bob Graham?

I'm open to dropping the 'informer theory', but this info doesn't sound sourced yet.
Click to expand...

Michael thanks for this and all your efforts.

As we all can see a writer that is PI gets far more latitude for error than a PG
one.

Here's the relevant Prato statement:

Then they told me... The police I remember that the laptop,
the computer he had had been stolen from a legal studio in Perugia and
so he had previous but they let him go, the police woman who had come
who had turned up at the nursery school told me this, that they let
him go because they didn’t know what to do with him, in the sense that
probably there was nowhere to keep him and so they let him go, Mr
Guede.


While there are some details I question in Prato's I can see no reason she would get this wrong. Having Perugia call is nuts as they wouldn't know he was in the station for trespass. I might have been that Milan checked with Perugia to see if Rudi was wanted. But from Nina's and Dempsey's POV having the PLE call fit with meme they favored.

It is humorous to watch NVL et al. get skewered by one and all but pointing out issues with any PI book brings a torrent of vitriol. It is further humorous to read that questioning alleged facts in a book is an insult and only fellow writers have that privilege.

Any work that is published for the public may be challenged by the public. That doesn't mean an author needs to respond but silence indicates the absence of an answer :p

Graham's piece was only published on IIP AFAIK. Sort of a self published book article.

ETA - why would NB or CD be more reliable than Prato who was there? Why is it okay to contact writers to clarify "innocence" information but not to clarify other "innocence" statements?
 
Last edited:

The topic of this thread is not each other, nor who each other might be in real life. Please keep to the topic of the thread.

I would also suggest you all refresh your memories as to the content of the Membership Agreement which you signed up to. If I may, let me direct your attention to rule 8 and and rule 12 in particular.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
List Nina's Flubs Please

Grinder said:
Michael thanks for this and all your efforts.

As we all can see a writer that is PI gets far more latitude for error than a PG
one.

Here's the relevant Prato statement:
Then they told me... The police I remember that the laptop,
the computer he had had been stolen from a legal studio in Perugia and
so he had previous but they let him go, the police woman who had come
who had turned up at the nursery school told me this, that they let
him go because they didn’t know what to do with him, in the sense that
probably there was nowhere to keep him and so they let him go, Mr
Guede.


While there are some details I question in Prato's I can see no reason she would get this wrong. Having Perugia call is nuts as they wouldn't know he was in the station for trespass. I might have been that Milan checked with Perugia to see if Rudi was wanted. But from Nina's and Dempsey's POV having the PLE call fit with meme they favored.

It is humorous to watch NVL et al. get skewered by one and all but pointing out issues with any PI book brings a torrent of vitriol. It is further humorous to read that questioning alleged facts in a book is an insult and only fellow writers have that privilege.

Any work that is published for the public may be challenged by the public. That doesn't mean an author needs to respond but silence indicates the absence of an answer :p

Graham's piece was only published on IIP AFAIK. Sort of a self published book article.

ETA - why would NB or CD be more reliable than Prato who was there? Why is it okay to contact writers to clarify "innocence" information but not to clarify other "innocence" statements?
Click to expand...

Grinder,

Tesla wrote that his email exchange with Nina had her reading off of her transcription of her interview with Prato. Am I mistaken, or is the quote you provided above obviously not the same as from Nina's transcript of her own interview with Prato and upon which her reporting was based?

Your defense of Prato's statement (from where?), that you can see no reason for her to get it wrong, sounds eerily similar to Massei's (?) conclusion that he can see no reason for Nara to testify to her reported scream, if it weren't true.

While I'm grateful Micheal for digging into this question, and I absolutely want to know more, an anonymous source is not a trump card on credibility over Nina Burleigh and Candace Dempsey. I gather you disagree. Fine.

But an anonymous source is in no way similar to a professional journalist like Nina Burleigh. The difference between journalists is not who is pro-innocence or pro-guilt, but one of professional standards.
If you want to accuse Nina of fabricating the 'pounds of pasta' story at the nursery, or any other offense you claim to perceive, have at it.

But make no mistake, you almost certainly are not demonstrating what you think you are. You continue to misrepresent and skew information, as I'm willing to bet a closer examination on any of your purported points would quickly expose.

This issue seems to come up frequently in your posts. You take things that are similar, assert they are identical, and assign views to others that you yourself have created.

Tell you what. Make a list of Nina's "mistakes", ask Michael for help if you like. Let's have a look at what you think she got wrong, and what support you have for your beliefs. (HINT: Your beliefs are not their own support).
 
The thread is back on moderated status until we can clean up the latest batch of breaches of the MA.

As requested, we will be enforcing the MA strictly this time.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
The thread has been returned to normal status. Thank you for your anticipated compliance with the Membership Agreement in all future posts to this thread.

ETA: It took two attempts, but it really is no longer a moderated thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It was a black cat, was it not?
Click to expand...

This is an excellent example of guilt by innuendo. Fibres were seen? (Some were documented for some documentation seems to be missing and hence doubtful.) One cannot tell by eye if they are hairs let alone human hairs (they could be cat hairs or more likely sheep hairs), they could be cotton or nylon fibres.

Some fibres were found not to be human hair. It is unclear if the others were found to be human - there is no documentation of this - one would need documented microscopic examination with a photomicrograph documenting the characteristics of human hair.

As documented in the reference previously given, there is a poor match between the colour of an individual hair and an individuals hair colour. Even recognising the colour of an individual hair is difficult. There was no formal comparison done between suspects and found fibres, one cannot conclude that the fibres found relate to any individual.

No mitochondrial DNA analysis of the hairs was done.

What does this say about the quality of the forensic science investigation? No proper analysis of the fibres, (even if not human hair they might have been matches for the clothes of the assailant(s). No mitochondrial DNA analysis. Just like there was no analysis of the probable semen stain (if this had been Sollecito's most people posting here would favour a conclusion of guilt). I have never understood why those who believe Sollecito / Knox to have been guilty tried to defend grossly incompetent and inadequate forensic investigations.
 
Planigale said:
This is an excellent example of guilt by innuendo. Fibres were seen? (Some were documented for some documentation seems to be missing and hence doubtful.) One cannot tell by eye if they are hairs let alone human hairs (they could be cat hairs or more likely sheep hairs), they could be cotton or nylon fibres.

Some fibres were found not to be human hair. It is unclear if the others were found to be human - there is no documentation of this - one would need documented microscopic examination with a photomicrograph documenting the characteristics of human hair.

As documented in the reference previously given, there is a poor match between the colour of an individual hair and an individuals hair colour. Even recognising the colour of an individual hair is difficult. There was no formal comparison done between suspects and found fibres, one cannot conclude that the fibres found relate to any individual.

No mitochondrial DNA analysis of the hairs was done.

What does this say about the quality of the forensic science investigation? No proper analysis of the fibres, (even if not human hair they might have been matches for the clothes of the assailant(s). No mitochondrial DNA analysis. Just like there was no analysis of the probable semen stain (if this had been Sollecito's most people posting here would favour a conclusion of guilt). I have never understood why those who believe Sollecito / Knox to have been guilty tried to defend grossly incompetent and inadequate forensic investigations.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of your points here. It indicates either an incompetent forensic investigation or perhaps they thought they already had everything they needed to convict. And in fact they did.

On a different note, it seems like it may be a little quiet around here for awhile. It looks like pretty much everyone has been suspended except for you and I? And I hardly ever post...
 
Anode said:
Agree with all of your points here. It indicates either an incompetent forensic investigation or perhaps they thought they already had everything they needed to convict. And in fact they did.

On a different note, it seems like it may be a little quiet around here for awhile. It looks like pretty much everyone has been suspended except for you and I? And I hardly ever post...
Click to expand...

Just gone to visit the forum management see what you mean.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Just adding to the story here; was it Nina (and/or Dempsey?) who also claimed there was a phone call from Perugia to Milan, asking that Rudy be let go? There was a Milan police officer quoted by name who said something like, "these things happen". Wish I had it in front of me.

I'm intrigued by this line of inquiry and glad you followed it.

However, is it fair to ask how reliable is your source who gave you the "low-down"? Why should we trust them over Nina and Candace Dempsey? Have you tried to ask Nina and Candace for their version? Or even Bob Graham?

I'm open to dropping the 'informer theory', but this info doesn't sound sourced yet.
Click to expand...

I dont have the time either...but as I recall it was the ex-FBI guy, Moore, who had found this out through some connections in Italy.
 
I wonder how long the suspension is for? I was hoping to read the "regular's" reactions to the upcoming motivations report, which is due by around June 28.
 
Anode said:
I wonder how long the suspension is for? I was hoping to read the "regular's" reactions to the upcoming motivations report, which is due by around June 28.
Click to expand...

Gosh. I check in and not many are here. I went to FMF and it appears the suspensions are for 3 days so the regulars should be back in time to discuss the upcoming motivations (unless it is deposited within the next two days and in that case I will discuss though I probably would not be described as a regular - maybe an irregular?)

Now on to read AAH to see what has been posted which resulted in mass suspensions.
 
christianahannah said:
Gosh. I check in and not many are here. I went to FMF and it appears the suspensions are for 3 days so the regulars should be back in time to discuss the upcoming motivations (unless it is deposited within the next two days and in that case I will discuss though I probably would not be described as a regular - maybe an irregular?)

Now on to read AAH to see what has been posted which resulted in mass suspensions.
Click to expand...

AAH?
 
Grinder said:
From Nina's book almost word for word. Did he source his book? He can't be looked at as a neutral reporter.
Click to expand...

When the suspensions are lifted, I would love to see the list of neutral sources that you have. Ron Hendry's articles were posted on Injustice in Perugia. It's not difficult to see which side of the debate he was on. Research led him to end up where he was.

Look at the experts that worked with the side of innocence in the advocacy effort. Then compare that list to the people that were supporting the pro-guilt side of the debate.

Steve Moore - retired FBI agent
Jim Clemente - retired FBI agent
Ron Hendry - retired forensic engineer
Saul Kassin - professor of psychology
Mark Waterbury - scientist and engineer
Chris Halkides - professor of biochemistry
Greg Hampikian - DNA expert

I am sure I have missed a couple in the pro-innocence list above. Sorry, I don't have a pro-guilt list of experts to offer. They didn't have any. If you find one, let me know.

Please, anyone here, post up the neutral sources. I would love to see them.

The truth is there are no neutral sources at this point. One side simply looks far more credible than the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom