Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

I've read the New York Times article. As Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini, I don't think it means what you think it means. Also, the article is just the author's KATE ZERNIKEs opinion.

There is no question that it means there is a question as to whether or not Nina crossed the line from reporter to advocate.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele are innocent and the facts are clear that they are. There may be certain parts of her book that was not as diligently checked as it should have been. But suggesting that Nina fabricated the story just because you can't find some official record to corroborate might also be wrong.

And sometimes official records are 1) incomplete, or 2) misleading, or 3) just plain wrong.

What are we to believe when official records are contradictory, as is apparently the case for when the prank bomb scare call was made to the Lana-Biscarini family?

Or when judges make up their own evidence in their motivation reports, as Massei and Nencini did?

Well here we have another straw man squared. It's not the official record alone it is any record. And if the call was made one day or another and the same with their visit at least there is a record.

I assume others have also looked for a trace of Madu Diaz also to no avail. I can't find anything for her much less the fire and cat death. Even so I have said in the past and now again that I believe she exists and something resembling Nina's description happened but Nina tends to frame these events to put the light she wants on them. She wrote that pounds of pasta were cooked when the testimony of Prato didn't say that.

She spun a story to make Rudi look as bad as possible by making assumptions and stretching facts in a way that you all would kill me for doing.

 

[acbytesla]

There is no question that it means there is a question as to whether or not Nina crossed the line from reporter to advocate.







Well here we have another straw man squared. It's not the official record alone it is any record. And if the call was made one day or another and the same with their visit at least there is a record.

I assume others have also looked for a trace of Madu Diaz also to no avail. I can't find anything for her much less the fire and cat death. Even so I have said in the past and now again that I believe she exists and something resembling Nina's description happened but Nina tends to frame these events to put the light she wants on them. She wrote that pounds of pasta were cooked when the testimony of Prato didn't say that.

She spun a story to make Rudi look as bad as possible by making assumptions and stretching facts in a way that you all would kill me for doing.

Seriously Grinder? Ms Diaz is on Twitter and lives in Perugia still. She has not been hiding and Nina's story was a best seller. Nobody even over at TJMK has questioned that her home was robbed and there was a fire. They question whether Rudy was the burglar. But so far, you are the ONLY one I've noticed that question this event. I think the fact that I have yet to read anything contradictory might offer proof that it happened.

 

[davefoc]

Dave, Strozzi, Bill please do me the favor of going to the 9:15 mark on the video and report what Moore says.

Bill what exactly do you believe about Diaz and the fire?

Curious how many have read Rudi's Skypes, diary and interview with the PLE.

Grinder, I have found myself participating a discussion that is perhaps not that interesting to most who are participating in this thread. I believe Moore said what you says he said and I even accepted that Moore says you said what he said in an earlier post. My original claim that you objected to was that I hadn't noticed people participating in this thread that had claimed that the police or the prosecutor had claimed the discovery of bleach receipts. You have now put forth evidence that Moore did make such a claim and Carbonjam put forth a claim where he suggested that it was possible that the police or the prosecutor had made such a claim. Based on this it remains possible that my original claim was correct, but if it was incorrect it remains of little significance I am afraid. I think now I should not have quibbled over such a small issue and this is my last post related to it. My apologies to you and the thread for initiating a topic that is probably of little general interest.

 

[Numbers]

....
Well here we have another straw man squared. It's not the official record alone it is any record. And if the call was made one day or another and the same with their visit at least there is a record.
....

No straw men were used or squared. Official records, or any records, need to be viewed with skepticism. So too someone's writings.

But one should distinguish what is offered as a plausible hypothesis and what is offered as confirmed fact.

 

[Numbers]

No straw men were used or squared. Official records, or any records, need to be viewed with skepticism. So too someone's writings.

But one should distinguish what is offered as a plausible hypothesis and what is offered as confirmed fact.

Here is a question about the prank caller to Ms. Lana and her response in her witness statement {Google translated}:

The anonymous caller of the phone call, had special accent or dialect?
This was a man, I assume between 30 and 40 years, with a slight inflection that made me think of a person of Indian nationality.

Now supposedly, as the police traced the call, the caller was an Italian who had just turned 17 years of age in October, 2007, Alessandro Capasso. So should we believe that Capasso was not the caller, or that Ms. Lana was mistaken in her assumptions about what she was hearing, perhaps because Capasso tried to disguise his voice?

The point I am trying to make is that records, even official records, should be subject to challenge, and the lack of official records may also be significant in certain circumstances (for example, in an interrogation). The writings of a journalist or author may or may not be more - or less - credible than an official record.

 

[Strozzi]

Dave, Strozzi, Bill please do me the favor of going to the 9:15 mark on the video and report what Moore says.

Bill what exactly do you believe about Diaz and the fire?

Curious how many have read Rudi's Skypes, diary and interview with the PLE.

Grinder, I watched the video which aired on March 6, 2014. Steve Moore is not in the interview. It is a "Media Mayhem" (program) interview with Jim Clement, a retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and an FBI-trained evidence collector with the FBI evidence response team. He is now a writer and producer for a TV program, "Criminal Minds".

Clemente said beginning at about the 9:15 mark on the video that Mignini claimed that there was a receipt showing that Knox bought bleach to clean up the crime scene. Clemente states that the receipt never made it into evidence. He said that if Mignini had such evidence it would have made it into trial. Clemente stated that the bleach receipt statement was a comment that Mignini made directly to the press to make it look like Knox tried to clean up the crime scene.

The relevant part referred to above begins at about 9:15 minute mark on the video. The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wiW2iphA4

 

[MichaelB]

New translation: Robyn Butterworth statement to police November 2, 2007 - http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Robyn-Butterworth-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, I watched the video which aired on March 6, 2014. Steve Moore is not in the interview. It is a "Media Mayhem" (program) interview with Jim Clement, a retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and an FBI-trained evidence collector with the FBI evidence response team. He is now a writer and producer for a TV program, "Criminal Minds".

Clemente said beginning at about the 9:15 mark on the video that Mignini claimed that there was a receipt showing that Knox bought bleach to clean up the crime scene. Clemente states that the receipt never made it into evidence. He said that if Mignini had such evidence it would have made it into trial. Clemente stated that the bleach receipt statement was a comment that Mignini made directly to the press to make it look like Knox tried to clean up the crime scene.

The relevant part referred to above begins at about 9:15 minute mark on the video. The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wiW2iphA4

Thanks for the effort but this is the Steve Moore vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LXNpYVmQY

Strangely it is also at 9:15.

There is no report of this alleged Mignini statement to the press. It never happened.

ETA - everyone should see what Clemente says at 9:15 - he says that the prosecutions expert says the knife couldn't have been the murder weapon - he says it was absolutely ruled out as the murder weapon by the prosecutions expert - total bull. Unbelieveable. And none of you will look because Clemente is one of your boys.

 

[Grinder]

Seriously Grinder? Ms Diaz is on Twitter and lives in Perugia still. She has not been hiding and Nina's story was a best seller. Nobody even over at TJMK has questioned that her home was robbed and there was a fire. They question whether Rudy was the burglar. But so far, you are the ONLY one I've noticed that question this event. I think the fact that I have yet to read anything contradictory might offer proof that it happened.

Are you guys for real? Who said she was in hiding. Do you have one of those magic eight balls that just makes this stuff up?

The only Twitter account for a Madu Diaz I can find is from Mexico.

If you read properly I too don't completely doubt that something happened but not the conclusion that this is yet another of Rudi's many crimes.

Please provide the link to her Twitter account?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, I have found myself participating a discussion that is perhaps not that interesting to most who are participating in this thread. I believe Moore said what you says he said and I even accepted that Moore says you said what he said in an earlier post. My original claim that you objected to was that I hadn't noticed people participating in this thread that had claimed that the police or the prosecutor had claimed the discovery of bleach receipts. You have now put forth evidence that Moore did make such a claim and Carbonjam put forth a claim where he suggested that it was possible that the police or the prosecutor had made such a claim. Based on this it remains possible that my original claim was correct, but if it was incorrect it remains of little significance I am afraid. I think now I should not have quibbled over such a small issue and this is my last post related to it. My apologies to you and the thread for initiating a topic that is probably of little general interest.

Dave I've given the vid url several times and he clear as day says that Mignini at the case closed presser made the claim. I'm not asking for you to accept it/ I'm asking for you to watch it and testify.

CJ made a claim with absolutely no backing. Dan O. said no mention of the bleach receipts surfaced until the 16th or 9 days later.

It is important when a source treasured by one side or the other dispenses inaccurate stuff.

 

[Grinder]

Here is a question about the prank caller to Ms. Lana and her response in her witness statement {Google translated}:



Now supposedly, as the police traced the call, the caller was an Italian who had just turned 17 years of age in October, 2007, Alessandro Capasso. So should we believe that Capasso was not the caller, or that Ms. Lana was mistaken in her assumptions about what she was hearing, perhaps because Capasso tried to disguise his voice?

The point I am trying to make is that records, even official records, should be subject to challenge, and the lack of official records may also be significant in certain circumstances (for example, in an interrogation). The writings of a journalist or author may or may not be more - or less - credible than an official record.

Of course they should be put to the test as should info from a true crime novel.

 

[Bill Williams]

So tell me, Bill, what does being "framed" mean to you?

Sigh.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course they should be put to the test as should info from a true crime novel.

Agreed. This, in principle, applies to all. The difference in the genres is the access those of us way up in the cheap seats have to them and their sources.

The assumption for reputable journalists is that they are accountable to their editor for their sources before they'd make it to print. True Crime, the reader is at the mercy of each individual author and their perceived reputation, but the genre is all over the map on that score.

Eventually, obsessed posters to internet forums develop their own set of sources and can eventually judge the authors for themselves.

 

[davefoc]

Dave I've given the vid url several times and he clear as day says that Mignini at the case closed presser made the claim. I'm not asking for you to accept it/ I'm asking for you to watch it and testify.

CJ made a claim with absolutely no backing. Dan O. said no mention of the bleach receipts surfaced until the 16th or 9 days later.

It is important when a source treasured by one side or the other dispenses inaccurate stuff.

OK Grinder, I had linked to that video earlier when I was making a similar point about Moore that you have made, I thought I remembered that Moore had said something like you said he said. When you said he said it I had every reason to believe since I find you credible and I had a vague recollection of him saying what he said you said.

At your request I have now watched the video and transcribed the sentence in question:

At the press conference five days later that's five days after the murder at the press conference he said we have a receipt showing that Amanda Knox the next morning after the murder purchased bleach at a local store and then we know she came back to the crime scene and cleaned it with bleach.

So it does appear that Steve Moore said what you said he said.

 

[Annella]

OK Grinder, I had linked to that video earlier when I was making a similar point about Moore that you have made, I thought I remembered that Moore had said something like you said he said. When you said he said it I had every reason to believe since I find you credible and I had a vague recollection of him saying what he said you said.

At your request I have now watched the video and transcribed the sentence in question:



So it does appear that Steve Moore said what you said he said.

Ask Frank. https://perugiashocks.wordpress.com/

 

[davefoc]

Ask Frank. https://perugiashocks.wordpress.com/

I saw on the page you linked to a list of false statements that were made consisting the Kercher murder case.

Grinder says that neither the police nor the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that bleach receipts had been recovered from Sollecito's apartment. I didn't see that Sfarzo was making a claim that PLE had claimed that bleach receipts existed, it seemed that Sfarzo was only making a claim that this particular false claim had been made by somebody, presumably the press.

Up to now I have taken Grinder's word for it that PLE had not claimed that bleach receipts had been recovered. But I decided to have a look for myself and went looking for a transcript of the "caso chiuso" press conference to see what was said there and I couldn't find one. I did learn that Mignini wasn't at that conference. Arturo De Felice, the Perugian chief of police ran the news conference. So does anybody have a link to a transcription of this news conference?

ETA: It seems unlikely that the PLE would have claimed that they had found receipts for bleach when they were out and about talking to merchants trying to figure out where the bleach came from.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm still amazed that in Italy a prank call gets an immediate response. here cops don't even come to a car wreck unless injury or more damage than $1500 (?). Maybe they went the next night and were there as the place was carpet bombed by phones. If they were there at that time and talking they wouldn't hear the phones land.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you keep supposing that the police might have been at Lana's house at the same time as the phones were being thrown into her garden. And if the only incident that Lana ever reported to the police was this prank call, then to my mind it's a virtual certainty that the police wouldn't have been going round to her house over 24 hours later, in the late evening, on a public holiday, to investigate that incident alone. They'd either have gone out to her house on the evening the call was made (31st October), or maybe in the daytime the following day, or not at all.

Secondly, I totally agree with your first sentence. That's why it makes more sense to me that the following might have happened:

1) Lana gets the bomb hoax prank call on the evening of 31st October
2) Lana calls the police on the evening of 31st October to report the call
3) The police response is to tell Lana that it's almost certainly a hoax, but for her to be vigilant anyhow
4) The police don't feel that this warrants a visit to Lana's house
5) The following evening (1st November), Lana hears noises from outside in the garden at around 10.20pm
6) Lana calls the police immediately (around 10.25pm on 1st November) to report the noises
7) The police decide that the two incidents taken together - coupled with Lana's obvious escalating worry/fright - now warrant a visit to her house
8) The police send a couple of officers out to Lana's house at around 10.30-10.45pm on 1st November
9) The officers who visit Lana's house conduct a rudimentary search of her garden and her house (the garden in relation to the noises heard some half-hour earlier that evening, and the house in relation to the prank call from the previous evening)
10) These officers fail to find either of the phones, which were by this time laying in Lana's garden - one of them on open grass.

 

[Strozzi]

Thanks for the effort but this is the Steve Moore vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LXNpYVmQY

Strangely it is also at 9:15.

There is no report of this alleged Mignini statement to the press. It never happened.

ETA - everyone should see what Clemente says at 9:15 - he says that the prosecutions expert says the knife couldn't have been the murder weapon - he says it was absolutely ruled out as the murder weapon by the prosecutions expert - total bull. Unbelieveable. And none of you will look because Clemente is one of your boys.

I agree with Grinder on this. As I watch or read interviews of journalists and "experts" with relevant professional training and experience I frequently see errors the journalist or expert makes about the case. The interviewer of Clemente referred to a "video of Knox doing a cartwheel" and Clemente did not correct her as he probably doesn't know the case that well.

 

[Planigale]

Or it may be part of an effort by the police and prosecutor to prejudice opinion against the defendants.

In the Monster of Florence, Preston and Spezzi claim (IIRC) that in Italian (major) criminal trials, it is not enough to simply find the defendant guilty; the reputation of the defendant must be destroyed. (That's a cultural and not a legal observation.) That seems to be what the police and prosecution attempted in this case.

I strongly agree with this impression. It may be because the judges are not sequestered, it has become a tool of the prosecution to make the accused look 'bad' even in was that are irrelevant to the case. Thus the continual drip feed of leaks to the press 'slut shaming' Knox. In all senses of the word slut. The accusations that she was poor with housework, poor with personal hygiene, promiscuous, a drug user, had sex with a drug user in exchange for drugs. All non evidence based. i am not even sure the infamous sex list that Knox compiled in prison after the false positive HIV test was ever presented in court or was just leaked to the press.

 

[Dan O.]

1) Lana gets the bomb hoax prank call on the evening of 31st October
2) Lana calls the police on the evening of 31st October to report the call
3) The police response is to tell Lana that it's almost certainly a hoax, but for her to be vigilant anyhow
4) The police don't feel that this warrants a visit to Lana's house
...

Is there support for Lana calling the police prior to Nov. 1?

I was really a fan of Rudy walking home around 10pm in bloody clothes covered by the sweatshirt around his waist, holding two cell phones belonging to the victim of his murderous rage, and one of the phones is giving him fits. He has tried a couple of times to turn the damn thing off resulting in it to try and dial out. Then the phone rings with an incomming MMS message. And right at that moment there are two patroll cars racing down the road with sirens blaring. Rudy panics and heaves the phones across the road into what he thought was a ravine and takes off running the other way. He sees the cops turn in near where he tossed the phones.....

But alas, that dream is shattered by better evidence. The new theory removes a huge part of the coincidence factor. The bomb threat call is almost incidental now. Something occured to set Lana on edge. In this instance it was the call the previous night but it could have been anything or even nothing if Lana was an edgy person. This long holiday weekend was a time to be with family so the kids would naturally be at their mother's house.

The new timing is something that now needs to be reconsidered. Without the police presence from shortly after 10pm, the window for disposing of the phones is extended. And, if the phones percipitous arrival in the garden is the prompt for Lana's call to the police, that forces the disposal time to be specifically later.