Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mike1711]

No, I think Sollecito was shown Knox's statements. Knox seemed to think so or she wouldn't have started gabbling about fish blood being on his hands.

What is beyond dispute is that Sollecito has privately share a different narrative with Knox than that share publicly - which is why she stated the police lied to her.
Now I think that private narrative will include Knox and Sollecito being shown each others statements, but since the narrative is private obviously I can't know.

Tesla's claim was that the narrative HAD to stay private to avoid calunnia suits, I demonstrated that was not so

So, in essence, you're just guessing.

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately the akc.com transcript of Ficarro has missing sections. It does seem along with Mach's tweets from the defamation suit to cast much doubt on the long time PGP factoid that Amanda was told explicitly Raf had pulled the alibi before she gave her statement about PL.

 

[Bill Williams]

Unfortunately the akc.com transcript of Ficarro has missing sections. It does seem along with Mach's tweets from the defamation suit to cast much doubt on the long time PGP factoid that Amanda was told explicitly Raf had pulled the alibi before she gave her statement about PL.

Aside from everything else, this alone casts doubt on anything John Follain wrote - Follain having written the guilter-primer on why they think Amanda Knox was guilty. Either the PLE lied to Follain and he blindly recorded their case, or he himself embellished. Either way this cannot be a good time for him - albeit that he's long since disappeared.

 

[acbytesla]

Aside from everything else, this alone casts doubt on anything John Follain wrote - Follain having written the guilter-primer on why they think Amanda Knox was guilty. Either the PLE lied to Follain and he blindly recorded their case, or he himself embellished. Either way this cannot be a good time for him - albeit that he's long since disappeared.

Do you really think this having any effect on Follain, Bill? I don't. I think that is wishful thinking. This case is not news any more. Virtually no one cares but us. 7 years ago this might have drawn attention. Today it's almost irrelevant. It's like the newspapers that print falsehoods and lies on the front page and retractions on page 20.

 

[Grinder]

Aside from everything else, this alone casts doubt on anything John Follain wrote - Follain having written the guilter-primer on why they think Amanda Knox was guilty. Either the PLE lied to Follain and he blindly recorded their case, or he himself embellished. Either way this cannot be a good time for him - albeit that he's long since disappeared.

Are you now agreeing that his accounts of the conversations inside the police station are not credible?

Since I have little use for true crime novels, I haven't read Follain except snippets. What parts are you now discounting?

 

[Grinder]

Do you really think this having any effect on Follain, Bill? I don't. I think that is wishful thinking. This case is not news any more. Virtually no one cares but us. 7 years ago this might have drawn attention. Today it's almost irrelevant. It's like the newspapers that print falsehoods and lies on the front page and retractions on page 20.

I agree and have no idea what exactly he would be embarrassed about.

 

[Welshman]

Previously Vixen was asking why PIP regard the evidence against Guede as valid but not the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. I have further points to make on this :-

1) The quality of the evidence used against Guede and that used against Amanda and Raffaele was completely different. This is the evidence used against Guede
Blood fingerprints belonging to Guede
Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s vagina
Shoeprints in blood matched the shoes owned by Guede
Guede’s DNA was found in normal quantities in the room
Guede fled Italy
Guede had cuts on his hand

This is the knife which was used as evidence against Amanda and Raffaele :-

Not matching the wounds. The knife was too big to have caused the wounds
It did not match a bloody outline on the bed
It had no blood
When C + V tested the knife it was negative for
the human species which meant the knife did not contain Meredith's biological
material.
The circumstances surrounding the collection of the knife are highly suspect. The knife was picked at random from Raffaele's kitchen with no other knives taken from the kitchen or the cottage. How werethe police were able to tell this knife was the murder weapon without
collecting the other knives? When the knife was collected, the police officers
who took the knife had no information on the size of the knife wounds and the
knife was not measured prior to collection to compare the knife with wounds on
Meredith. A justification used for taking this knife was that it was unusually
clean. C + V found starch on the knife which demolished the argument the knife
was unusually clean.
The prosecution claimed two knives were used.
There were numerous problems with this claim. Why were the prosecution only
claiming this when it was shown the knife did not match the wounds and not
claiming this from the beginning? Why were the prosecution unable to show how
Meredith's wounds were compatible with the use of two knives? How could
Raffaele's knife be one of two knives when it was not compatible with any of
the stab wounds?
If the knife was used in Meredith's murder, why did the prosecution oppose opening the knife and the defense teams of Amanda
and Raffaele had no objection to opening the knife?
In an interview Mignini was asked how Amanda could have carried out the murder without leaving forensic traces. He said Amanda directed the murder from outside the room. How was Amanda was supposed to have stabbed Meredith if directing the murder from the corridor?
How was a knife from Raffaele's apartment used in the murder if the crime was not pre-meditated. Massei argued that Meredith's murder was not pre-meditated. To explain how the knife was used, Massei argued the knife was carried out by Amanda in her handbag. There were no cuts in Amanda's handbag which carrying the knife would have caused. No one heard Amanda mention she was carrying a knife and no witnesses saw this knife.
If the knife was used to stab Meredith, why did the defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele want to see Stefanoni's files and wanted independent experts to examine the knife?
The length of the blade was 17cm and length of the fatal wound was 8cm. The defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele argued the knife was plunged several times to inflict the fatal wound and it is highly unlikely that in a frenzy a 17 cm knife would go exactly 8 cm several times.

The evidence against Guede was solid and irrefutable whilst the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele had no credibility. How is this difference in evidence explained if Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder with Guede?

2) http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10793345#post10793345 my post here was designed to rebut the notion the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele. If the prosecution had solid and credible evidence against Amanda and Raffaele they would not have had to resort to the tactics described in my post. The prosecution did not resort to these tactics with Guede which indicated the evidence against Guede was solid and credible. How is this difference explained if Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder with Guede?

3) http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10485386#post10485386 As can be seen from my post PGP constantly lie. Vixen habitually lies in her posts. If there was solid and credible evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, PGP would not have to lie to argue their case. I have never come across anyone who has lied about the evidence against Guede which indicates there was solid and credible evidence against Guede and it is not necessary to lie to argue the case for guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder with Guede?

4) The bra clasp was collected in highly suspicious circumstances. The prosecution were maintaining a shoe print in Meredith’s room matched Raffaele’s shoes. His family proved this wrong. It is very suspect the bra clasp conveniently turns when a piece of evidence collapses. The prosecution did not have to resort to finding new evidence against Guedewhen a piece of evidence collapsed.

5) Guede’s defense were never able to rebut the evidence against Guede whilst the lawyers of Amanda and Raffaele were able to rebut the evidence used against them.

 

[Grinder]

There was a second knife taken from his flat.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Testimony-of-Armando-Finzi.pdf

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you now agreeing that his accounts of the conversations inside the police station are not credible?

I think you're referencing Follain's unique claim that Marco Chiacchiera counselled Napoleoni and Mignini to release the three after those interrogations, rather than start the ball rolling to the judicial tragedy of the next 7 1/2 years. The only reason to grant that credibility in the first place is because it runs counter to the overall narrative of the first 1/3 of the book, that the PLE were right to suspect Knox and Sollecito. (Even if the next 2/3s of the book is about why the case feel apart against them at trial, even the trial which convicted them!)

In light of the way the PLE presented themselves at the recent trial against Knox for (calunnia? defamation?) it certainly is warranted to now doubt ANYTHING in Follain's book, even stuff which runs counter to a narrative-positive for the PLE.

I'll let you be the first to get in the jab - why did ANYONE pay him ANY attention at all. You see, it's not the True Crime nature of his book - you and I can have a wonderful debate about that genre.....

..... it's that when his footnote-less claims are put against what his own home-field bunch are now saying (Ficarra. et al.), it's clear his "A Death in Italy" needs to be reassigned from non-fiction to fiction. Almost complete fabrication.

So do I now doubt Follain? I thought I doubted him a lot before this! Yet now even the people whose then-thoughts he claimed he was passing on, are themselves well on their way to a differing narrative than what is found in "A Death in Italy."

That part is true, so what is left to defend?

Since I have little use for true crime novels, I haven't read Follain except snippets. What parts are you now discounting?

The better question is this - which parts do what remains of the PLE now discount, given that they themselves are subject to cross-examination and have lost their case against Knox about the hitting episode.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you really think this having any effect on Follain, Bill? I don't. I think that is wishful thinking. This case is not news any more. Virtually no one cares but us. 7 years ago this might have drawn attention. Today it's almost irrelevant. It's like the newspapers that print falsehoods and lies on the front page and retractions on page 20.

I don't know the man, so don't know if he cares.

Yet the highlight of his career is that he claimed to author "the definitive account" of the horrible murder which started all this.

He should be thanking his lucky stars that Michael Winterbottom didn't choose his book to make a film about this. Winterbottom chose Barbie Nadeau's book, and got Kate Beckinsale to make Nadeau look like a coke-sniffing, bed-hopping tabloid-hack who needed to read Frank Sfarzo's blog to know what the hell was going on.

How would Winterbottom have portrayed John Follain? Well, look at the way Winterbottom portrayed Nick Pisa - except that so few people saw the movie the comparison falls rather flat.

Still - can you imagine the way Winterbottom would have handled Mignini charging the parents with defamation for what Follain wrote, and Follain and his publisher escape prosecution!? Does the term "Mignini-toady"come to mind?

That this is NOT having an effect on Follain is a good thing, for Follain. He wrote garbage, and was rewarded for it by escaping prosecution for what Mignini claimed was the parents' defamation.

Follain would do well to self-purchase all remaining of his books and burn them out of self-defence now, and consider it a draw.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't know the man, so don't know if he cares.
Yet the highlight of his career is that he claimed to author "the definitive account" of the horrible murder which started all this.

He should be thanking his lucky stars that Michael Winterbottom didn't choose his book to make a film about this. Winterbottom chose Barbie Nadeau's book, and got Kate Beckinsale to make Nadeau look like a coke-sniffing, bed-hopping tabloid-hack who needed to read Frank Sfarzo's blog to know what the hell was going on.

How would Winterbottom have portrayed John Follain? Well, look at the way Winterbottom portrayed Nick Pisa - except that so few people saw the movie the comparison falls rather flat.

Still - can you imagine the way Winterbottom would have handled Mignini charging the parents with defamation for what Follain wrote, and Follain and his publisher escape prosecution!? Does the term "Mignini-toady"come to mind?

That this is NOT having an effect on Follain is a good thing, for Follain. He wrote garbage, and was rewarded for it by escaping prosecution for what Mignini claimed was the parents' defamation.

Follain would do well to self-purchase all remaining of his books and burn them out of self-defence now, and consider it a draw.

Exactly! You and I know more than a few people who have written all kinds of false and misleading info on this case and yet they don't care and they continue to do it. And they're not even paid! It's very possible, even probable that pecuniary concerns hold a far stronger motivation for Mr. Follain.

 

[Grinder]

I'll let you be the first to get in the jab - why did ANYONE pay him ANY attention at all. You see, it's not the True Crime nature of his book - you and I can have a wonderful debate about that genre.....

..... it's that when his footnote-less claims are put against what his own home-field bunch are now saying (Ficarra. et al.), it's clear his "A Death in Italy" needs to be reassigned from non-fiction to fiction. Almost complete fabrication.

Bill, all TCN are novels. The reason the genre isn't properly footnoted etc. is that the novel format allows for fabrication of details.

• nov·el1
• ˈnävəl/Submit
• noun
• a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, all TCN are novels. The reason the genre isn't properly footnoted etc. is that the novel format allows for fabrication of details.

• nov·el1
• ˈnävəl/Submit
• noun
• a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.

We've been around this block so many times I'm bored to tears with it. I understand your position about the true crime genre. I really do. I've read every one of your posts about it over the years.

The genre does not allow for fabrication of details. Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" is classified as such, as is Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood."

Look it up. "True crime is a non-fiction literary and film genre in which the author examines an actual crime and details the actions of real people." I agree fully that the weakness of the genre is when it is in the hands of someone like John Follain. There's a difference between the genre itself and actual lying.

 

[Grinder]

We've been around this block so many times I'm bored to tears with it. I understand your position about the true crime genre. I really do. I've read every one of your posts about it over the years.
The genre does not allow for fabrication of details. Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" is classified as such, as is Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood."

Look it up. "True crime is a non-fiction literary and film genre in which the author examines an actual crime and details the actions of real people." I agree fully that the weakness of the genre is when it is in the hands of someone like John Follain. There's a difference between the genre itself and actual lying.

• In Cold Blood was an instant success, and today is the second-biggest-selling true crime book in publishing history, behind Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 book Helter Skelter about the Manson murders.

Capote was disappointed that the book failed to win the Pulitzer Prize.[1] Critics have also noted that parts of the book, including important details, differ from the real events.​

When details differ from real events what is that called? When Vixen does it many here scream liar, liar.

When a writer does it, I call the book a novel (fiction) based on real events. Many, many novels are based in part on real events but make up details to make the book more readable, for example the Diaz caper by Nina.

Relying on a TCN for factual information when uncorroborated and lacking documentation is a fool's errand.

 

[Bill Williams]

• In Cold Blood was an instant success, and today is the second-biggest-selling true crime book in publishing history, behind Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 book Helter Skelter about the Manson murders.

Capote was disappointed that the book failed to win the Pulitzer Prize.[1] Critics have also noted that parts of the book, including important details, differ from the real events.​

When details differ from real events what is that called? When Vixen does it many here scream liar, liar.

When a writer does it, I call the book a novel (fiction) based on real events. Many, many novels are based in part on real events but make up details to make the book more readable, for example the Diaz caper by Nina.

Relying on a TCN for factual information when uncorroborated and lacking documentation is a fool's errand.

That last sentence...... absolutely. Yet when someone says, "John Follain writes that......." people can still do their on thinking about it. The important thing is that when someone says, "Chiacchiera counselled to let Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba go...", that THAT claim be cited. As Follain's. I've never understood the criticism when it is cited that way. Your mileage obvious varies, and you've worn out an odometer making the same point again and again.

It's just disingenuous, though, to misname the genre as "true crime novel", and then go on about the problems with novels.

It is also disingenuous to say that the criticism of Capote's book could have been cured with footnotes. Bugliosi wrote a 1600 page book called, "Reclaiming History," about the Kennedy assassination - a tour de force considering that he refused to use a word-processor and kept his "cites" manually on index cards.

Still, "Reclaiming History" probably was just as accurate as "Helter Skelter", even though the former had footnotes coming out of his ya-ya.

I don't think I've met anyone as intransigent as this phobia of a literary genre - well defined, and well practised over the years. It is non-fiction. If someone starts writing fiction, then it's not within the true-crime genre to begin with.

Your reasoning has always been circular - you first redefine it as by-definition fiction, then lo and behold come to the conclusion that it is fiction.

The genre is non-fiction. There's good representations of it, there are bad representations of it. There are cheap knock-offs, and there are people like Follain.

 

[Grinder]

There is a difference between a book and novel. The definition of novel is fiction which includes books based on real events. The idea that Follain's account of the police interaction in the station was accurately described because Follain's overall POV was anti kids and PG never made sense. To quote the novel, as you have done over and over to make points about what really happened when the form allows fiction is my issue.

The expression "intransigent as this phobia of a literary genre" is ridiculous and meaningless. I have no fear of TCN's, I just don't rely on books that include uncorroborated details, specifically when those very details are at the heart a point being made.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a difference between a book and novel. The definition of novel is fiction which includes books based on real events. The idea that Follain's account of the police interaction in the station was accurately described because Follain's overall POV was anti kids and PG never made sense. To quote the novel, as you have done over and over to make points about what really happened when the form allows fiction is my issue.

The expression "intransigent as this phobia of a literary genre" is ridiculous and meaningless. I have no fear of TCN's, I just don't rely on books that include uncorroborated details, specifically when those very details are at the heart a point being made.

But there you go again, predetermining the outcome of a non-fiction genre, by first defining it as fiction. It's not a fiction genre, it's not a novel-genre, it is a non-fiction genre, that has some of its adherents succumbing in cases to tabloidization and fictionalization of events...... and in that case, they are just bad at it.

If you go back, I do not believe I said Follain accurately described anything. The cite was always that his claim about Chiacchiera went against his overall bias.... and therefore more likely because he was writing it against his own bias. For year,s Grinder, you have misrepresented my view of it.

But no matter. Ficarra's testimony at the recent defamation trial where Knox was acquitted more than shreds the guy; if Follain is the issue and not the assigning of him to any genre - just yet - the people whose story he chronicled - the PLE - are no longer with him on major issues. The choices are not good ones for themL

1) they originally lied to Follain, and are now changing their story now that they are under oath
2) he got it wrong about what they were telling him

His book belongs in the garbage bin regardless of what genre he intended it.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

you guys still at it!

 

[Vixen]

• In Cold Blood was an instant success, and today is the second-biggest-selling true crime book in publishing history, behind Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 book Helter Skelter about the Manson murders.

Capote was disappointed that the book failed to win the Pulitzer Prize.[1] Critics have also noted that parts of the book, including important details, differ from the real events.​

When details differ from real events what is that called? When Vixen bagels does it many here scream liar, liar.

When a writer does it, I call the book a novel (fiction) based on real events. Many, many novels are based in part on real events but make up details to make the book more readable, for example the Diaz caper by Nina.

Relying on a TCN for factual information when uncorroborated and lacking documentation is a fool's errand.

FIFY. My accounts are always strictly accurate AFAIAA.

 

[Vixen]

There is a difference between a book and novel. The definition of novel is fiction which includes books based on real events. The idea that Follain's account of the police interaction in the station was accurately described because Follain's overall POV was anti kids and PG never made sense. To quote the novel, as you have done over and over to make points about what really happened when the form allows fiction is my issue.

The expression "intransigent as this phobia of a literary genre" is ridiculous and meaningless. I have no fear of TCN's, I just don't rely on books that include uncorroborated details, specifically when those very details are at the heart a point being made.

IMV Follian's book is one of the best on the market. In any book, one or two errors are bound to creep in.

I wrote to Encyclopaedia Britannica a few times about their errors. They replied they would correct them.