Pretty much everyone involved in this case are human beings (I think) That means they are susceptible to all human failings from arrogance, overreaching, confirmation bias, laziness, greed etc. I'm curious, how do we review the quality of journalism? Is Candace and Nina better than Follain and Vogt? What about the countless others that have written or commented on this case. Who came by their stories honestly? Who might have exaggerated just to have their copy picked up by the Daily Mail, etc.
Where did the bleach receipts story originate? I think it first appeared in the November 19, 2007 article in the London Times courtesy of Owens.
Was it fed to the reporters from the police/prosecution? Or did it come from someone else? The PLE has been accused of leaking many of these false stories to the press. But you have to wonder, how many of these stories might not have come from say Mignini or De Felice, but from others tangentially involved with the case?
I believe for example most of the story about Mrs.Diaz burglary because Nina said she interviewed the woman. I can't imagine that Nina made her up. But that doesn't mean that Mrs Diaz didn't embellish her story somewhat.
It's also clear to me that some of the reports are exercises in creative writing. The article in the Daily Mail regarding the noise ticket is a case of that. The author weaves a story around the police incident report citing an unnamed party goer for the color.
Any way, it would be interesting to look closely at the quality of the reporting and understand just how this went off the rails.
I haven't read Follain's book, but I recall a comment on it, criticizing Follain for printing that Amanda's Facebook page indicated her interest: Men. But the only choices on Facebook for interested in, was "men" or "women". So Follain saying Amanda was interested in "men" on her Facebook page seems pretty clearly designed to create an artificially salacious aura.
Another example I'd read, IIRC, is where one of the police says "this was no break-in", and Follain notes something like 'Amanda and Raf remained silent'. That type of reporting is designed to cast suspicion where none is warranted. Its not legitimate journalism, it's a kind of tabloid rag slander journalism.
Vogt's writings and Nadeau's also had their own biased slant, I think that's clear.
Nina on the other hand has said she was not on anyone's side. On several points I found Nina's book inaccurate, for example when she writes that Amanda was "jealous" of Meredith over her boyfriend, or god knows what else. I think that's Nina's prejudice being projected through her writing. Whether that's a deliberate error in hopes of avoiding litigation by supporting the litigious Mignini's line of 'jealousy run amok', or an actual belief of Nina's I can't say. I think she meant it, I just don't agree that its true.
When Nina went to interview Del Prato I believe, regarding Rudy's previous break-ins, IIRC, Nina said she was only the second journalist to have visited and done the legwork she considered 'reporting 101'.
To lump all journalists together as writing with equal quality and reliability, just seems deliberately obtuse.
btw, Jim Clemente referring to Raf's kitchen kjnife being excluded because it didn't match the wounds on Kercher, it was pretty clear to me he was referring to the wounds that were consistent with a single knife. The 3rd major wound to the neck, was said (by Moore and Clemente) to be consistent with any sharp object including a shard of glass. To suggest that it was a lie to say Raf's kitchen knife was not compatible with Kercher's wounds, is again, just being obtuse. I think its obvious what Jim Clemente meant, and it consistent with the prosecution's view. (Because the prosecution concedes for Raf's knife to have been used in the murder, it had to be a second knife - precisely because it didn't match the other wounds).
.
