• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Best said:
Who were the original leakers?
Click to expand...
.
Good question.

As we see above, Chris Mellas said around the time that the double-translated diary initially appeared that the family had nothing to do with it.

My impression is that neither Repubblica, nor the Telegraph, nor Sky News were contacted by the family or by persons close to the family asking where the leak came from, nor were the authors of these articles dragged through the mud for publishing it.

Yet when Nadeau published an extract of the same double-translation, Anne Bremner (one of the "smartest persons" in Washington State, according to her own website) contacted Nadeau about it. And we see Nadeau getting lambasted on blogs like this about something which predates her article by a year.

Strange.
 
Matthew Best said:
You think? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:) To be honest I'm past thinking I know anything about the case for sure. My impression at the moment is that very small sections were available at first. The release of the diary wholesale does seem to be entirely the work of the defence. What impresses me is the speed with which all this got going. Six and a half weeks after the murder and we were already into multiple sections of the diary having been released by her lawyers.
 
Kermit said:
My impression is that neither Repubblica, nor the Telegraph, nor Sky News were contacted by the family or by persons close to the family asking where the leak came from, nor were the authors of these articles dragged through the mud for publishing it.
Click to expand...
As posted a few minutes ago, the Telegraph report their source as being Luciano Ghirga. If so, I'm not surprised they weren't.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
As posted a few minutes ago, the Telegraph report their source as being Luciano Ghirga.
Click to expand...
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1572744/Suspects-DNA-on-Meredith-Kerchers-clothes.html

Good research, Shuttit. Now, that article basically says that Ghirga made at least two releases (some people prefer leaks) of Amanda's diary in the weeks after the crime.

Will all of the posters who were dragging Nadeau through the mud, now repost their comments, replacing the name "Barbie Nadeau" with "Luciano Ghirga"?
 
shuttlt said:
Does anybody know what happened to quotes like this:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641295262?f=rss

Allegedly from the bugged conversation with her mother?

Lots of quotes of this in the papers in late '07. I don't recall having read much in the way of direct quotes from the bugged conversations.
Click to expand...
.
The FOA response to that quote is that if you take those words in the larger context of the conversation, Amanda was saying that she couldn't lie, that she was indeed in Raffaele's place. I know that that explanation sounds a bit semantically awkward.

I think that there are other family conversations which will prove more difficult in the judge's report, like the prison conversation between Amanda and her mother concerning the first middle-of-the-night phone call, which Amanda claims to have forgotten.

We may see (conjecture on my part) that Amanda comments something to the effect that there was so much going on in the house at that moment, when in fact she was in theory alone with Raffaele, not yet having called the 112 (the Italian 911) emergency number.

The truth is that the timing of the call may in fact be exactly when the police were already buzzing about, puzzled by their mission to investigate a lost phone, yet wondering why there was so much hullaballoo about a missing roommate and a locked door, with Italian roommates and boyfriends arriving.
 
shuttlt said:
Does anybody know what happened to quotes like this:

Allegedly from the bugged conversation with her mother?

Lots of quotes of this in the papers in late '07. I don't recall having read much in the way of direct quotes from the bugged conversations.
Click to expand...

Hi shuttlt et al,
Speaking of bugged conversations I noticed that Frank has updated his Motivations posts to include some references to them. I took the liberty of copying these over,

"Another conversation Amanda had with her parents in jail is particularly suspicious. According to the transcript in Italian made by the translators of the GUP, Amanda tells her parents to have heard on TV the first news of a knife that was found with some traces on it, and she says "I'm very, very worried about this thing of the knife... Because there's a knife at Raffaele's place."
Massei notes that his own translators have read it differently. According to them Amanda says I'm worried about this thing of the night. Why did they come at night?
Massei thinks the first version makes sense and the one offered by his own translators doesn't. They even skip the name of Raffaele, which appears in the transcript in English but not in their translation in Italian.
By consequence this is an indication that the DNA test on the blade must be reliable."

and,

"In another moment of the conversation she says I was there. By relating the sentence to other things she says, it looks like she was admitting to be there, at the crime house rather than at Raffaele's."
 
Kermit wrote:

But if Chris Mellas knew about the diary being leaked back then, why didn't he / the Knox-Mellas clan / the FOA when FOA was set up, go after the original leakers and translators and publicisers of the double-translated text?

"Go after" who? And how exactly? Amanda's family does not have any control over what the authorities say or give to the media. But Amanda did not write anything like what was attributed to her in these articles.

Why all the emphasis on only dragging Barbie Nadeau through the mud about this for using this words a year after they first appeared in different media channels, were debated about extensively, and were also commented upon by the Knox-Mellas clan (as per Chris Mellas' own posts on Internet boards)?

I wasn't aware that Nadeau was quoting something that had already been published in English. But the focus of the FOA page is on the bad translation. This is presented as a direct quote, and it sounds deeply incriminating. Our purpose was to set the record straight. After a few weeks, I de-linked it from the site but left it on the server so I could refer to it in discussing the case.

This error was pointed out to Nadeau. She was given an opportunity to correct her article, but she insisted it was an accurate quotation from a different diary, and her article is still on the Daily Beast website as originally published.

Where did you find that annotated image from La Repubblica, BTW?
 
Shuttit wrote:

To be honest I'm past thinking I know anything about the case for sure. My impression at the moment is that very small sections were available at first. The release of the diary wholesale does seem to be entirely the work of the defence. What impresses me is the speed with which all this got going. Six and a half weeks after the murder and we were already into multiple sections of the diary having been released by her lawyers.

The last entry in the diary was on Nov. 29, and Kermit posted a jpeg from the La Repubblica website describing the contents of the diary on Nov. 30. I didn't realize it had gotten to the media so soon after being seized.

Amanda's actual writing describes the idea of Raffaele slipping out to commit the murder only to dismiss it as implausible: "I just highly doubt all of that." But the La Repubblica article claims she seriously proposed it as a possibility. Was that the work of her own attorneys?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I, Kermit, wrote: "Why all the emphasis on only dragging Barbie Nadeau through the mud about this for using this words a year after they first appeared in different media channels, were debated about extensively, and were also commented upon by the Knox-Mellas clan (as per Chris Mellas' own posts on Internet boards)?"

Charlie replied: I wasn't aware that Nadeau was quoting something that had already been published in English. But the focus of the FOA page is on the bad translation. This is presented as a direct quote, and it sounds deeply incriminating. Our purpose was to set the record straight. After a few weeks, I de-linked it from the site but left it on the server so I could refer to it in discussing the case.

This error was pointed out to Nadeau. She was given an opportunity to correct her article, but she insisted it was an accurate quotation from a different diary, and her article is still on the Daily Beast website as originally published.

Where did you find that annotated image from La Repubblica, BTW?
Click to expand...
.
The Repubblica article is still accessible here: Link to Repubblica article on Amanda's diary 30-11-2007

(the annotations are mine own fast translation of the Repubblica article)

The article doesn't have a signing author, so if you wish to complain about it, (it's the same poor translation - only in Italian - as what Nadeau published) you can contact La Repubblica here:
SCRIVETECI
Per scrivere al direttore di Repubblica.it - Vittorio Zucconi
• [email protected]
Per scrivere alla redazione di Repubblica.it
• [email protected]
In caso di problemi o errori, si prega sempre di indicare l'indirizzo URL completo
Per scrivere alla redazione di Repubblica
• [email protected]
Per scrivere alla rubrica delle lettere
• [email protected]
================================

The Telegraph translated the Repubblica's article (or perhaps had its own sources) for the next day's edition, 1 December 2007.
Malcolm Moore signed it.
Link to Malcolm Moore's article on Amanda's diary
He's now in China, but you can contact him on his blog:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/malcolmmoore/
================================

Nick Pisa's Sky News article on Amanda's diary from 27 February 2008 can be found here: Nick Pisa's article on Amanda's diary

He has a number of emails, try this one: [email protected]
================================

You say: "This error was pointed out to Nadeau. She was given an opportunity to correct her article"

Yeah, I understand that Anne Bremner tried to impress herself upon Nadeau. But why didn't Bremner also "point out" the errors made by the original purveyors of this news? Now's FOA's opportunity, with the links provided above.

That was definitely not news that sneaked past us at the time. There were alot of comments about the double-translated diary, with Chris Mellas chiming in too. I can't believe that FOA now says that they first heard of this translation in Nadeau's article a year later.
 
Kermit writes:

Yeah, I understand that Anne Bremner tried to impress herself upon Nadeau. But why didn't Bremner also "point out" the errors made by the original purveyors of this news? Now's FOA's opportunity, with the links provided above.

That was definitely not news that sneaked past us at the time. There were alot of comments about the double-translated diary, with Chris Mellas chiming in too. I can't believe that FOA now says that they first heard of this translation in Nadeau's article a year later.


I can only speak for myself. I knew that a distorted and damaging translation of Amanda's diary had been published in Italy, but I didn't realize it made its way back into the English-language media before Nadeau wrote her story for the Daily Beast. Also, I did not get a complete facsimile of Amanda's manuscript until late in 2008.

Thank you for providing this information and the links.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
lane99 writes:

However we can leave that aside for the moment, as it appears you may be under a misapprehension. What makes you think there was no blood found inside? Because there are numerous reports that there WAS blood found inside.

I'm not aware that they found blood inside the bag. Two samples from the bag were subjected to DNA testing. The first was a bloodstain on the outside of the bag (Sample 166-Trace A), which turned up Guede's DNA along with Meredith's. The second was of some material found inside the bag, described as follows:

All'interno della borsa e stato rinvenuto un materiale granulare di colore giallo-marrone che pur non costituendo una traccia biologica nell'accezione comune del termine, e stato comunque raccolto e trattato per l'estrazione del DNA eventualmente presente in esso. Tale materiale e stato come traccia B.

This produces a clear Google translation:

Inside the bag was found a granular material of yellow-brown but is not a biological trace in the common meaning of the term, however, was collected and processed for extraction of DNA possibly present in it. This material was as trace B.

Sample 166-Trace B revealed only Meredith's DNA.
Click to expand...


Well, I've seen more than one report that says blood- the victim's blood- was found inside the purse. Here's just a couple:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641303615

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1577375/Meredith-Kercher-killed-during-bungled-theft.html
 
Lane, maybe they did find blood inside the purse. I'm going by the document describing the DNA test results, which only mentions the outside of the purse and this granular material.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
The last entry in the diary was on Nov. 29, and Kermit posted a jpeg from the La Repubblica website describing the contents of the diary on Nov. 30. I didn't realize it had gotten to the media so soon after being seized.

Amanda's actual writing describes the idea of Raffaele slipping out to commit the murder only to dismiss it as implausible: "I just highly doubt all of that." But the La Repubblica article claims she seriously proposed it as a possibility. Was that the work of her own attorneys?
Click to expand...

Not that any of this stuff has the remotest bearing on the case. But you should acknowledge more than just ShuttIt's and Kermit's sleuthing. You write this:

"I didn't realize it had gotten to the media so soon after being seized."

Her diary didn't go anywhere on its own. It was provided to the media by people representing AK. This is the only worthwhile point in all this discussion of her diaries and how the public came to know what she wrote.

If you are here representing FOA, I'd recommend focusing on something other than who (mis)quoted her. None of that information is going to be of any consequence at her appeal.

The first thing that set off alarm bells about your advocacy group was the ever-shifting interrogation times represented in the media. The second thing was why AK knowingly allowed Patrick to rot in prison for weeks after she knew he was innocent.

Those are a couple of things you might want to work on to burnish the FOA image a little. There is still an advocate linked to your group promoting a 53-hour interrogation. All quibbling aside, this is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. ( Source: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html ) I've done a bit of fundraising myself and the one thing that turns potential donors into hostile detractors is overstating the case. (That's a marketing euphemism for misleading or lying to them).

I don't think I even need to tell you that excoriating the media is an absolute no-no. If you don't like Nadeau's reporting style then don't buy the book. It's that simple.
 
I've asked Bruce at injusticeinperugia for clarification on the duration of the interrogation.
 
lane99 said:
Well, I've seen more than one report that says blood- the victim's blood- was found inside the purse. Here's just a couple:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641303615

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1577375/Meredith-Kercher-killed-during-bungled-theft.html
Click to expand...

You'll find many news reports from the past saying all sorts of things that aren't true or are incorrect. There was no blood 'inside' the purse. The articles are wrong. Primary sources should be the trial testimony, the Micheli Report and the Massei Report. Those sources render old newspaper stories obsolete.
 
shuttlt said:
I've asked Bruce at injusticeinperugia for clarification on the duration of the interrogation.
Click to expand...

Especially since we found out that she blurted out that Mr Lumumba murdered her roommate a mere 1.75 hours after the police heard her boyfriend throw her under the bus. I've been in board meetings that last longer than that, without food or water I might add, and the torture was simply unbearable. Once or twice I nearly accused my former employer of murder.
 
Fulcanelli said:
She must have been listening to you Charlie ;) Barbie Nadeau strikes back:
Click to expand...

I'll print out in full the portions relevant to the media spin:

"Of the handful of American journalists in Perugia in late 2007 and early 2008, none got access to the Knox family without certain guarantees about positive coverage.
.....
Very quickly, Marriott lost control of the situation. As he spoon-fed the Knox-approved message to American outlets that couldn’t afford to send correspondents to Italy, those of us on the ground in Perugia began passing his contradictory e-mails around as entertainment during the long days in the court. In one instance, Marriott confirmed to me that ABC News had paid for Amanda’s parents to fly to Perugia in exchange for exclusivity. When I confronted my friend Ann Wise, an ABC producer based in Italy, she quickly passed on the leak. ABC got a denial from him that he had ever told me this—despite the fact that I had an e-mail to prove it. Similarly, in the spring of 2008, he told me that the Knoxes would not give interviews, and then Rachel Donadio of the New York Times had a sit-down with Amanda’s father, Curt Knox. Marriott told me that Rachel must have door-stepped Curt in Perugia; she confirmed that Marriott had set up the interview for her."

In the whirlwind of innuendo or outright lies, their own PR consultant isn't immune. Is there a single honest person promoting AK's innocence in this whole troubling scenario?

Has halides1 yet informed FOA that he is not an expert on DNA forensics and that their sly suggestion that he is is wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom