Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

And then on 23 May the specific Quote Massei is referring to...

Once again thanks but the quotes Bill attributes to the Massei report still aren't there.

 

[RoseMontague]

I much appreciate your efforts but none of the articles mentions Curatolo that I can see.

CD is not a reliable source for me as she doesn't annotate. She appears to have relied on others for material without doing due diligence.

I am not saying he didn't testify in those cases and in fact tend to believe he must have since the PGP haven't contested it but I've never seen proof of it.

Curatolo should not be considered as he didn't come forward and in fact told detectives he had seen nothing (proven liar) and he was admittedly high (or low) on heroin in addition to getting the scene wrong.

Considering that it is mentioned in the appeal documents that he testified in two previous cases then it would seem to me to be you don't trust Dempsey as to the names of the victims? Why would she make the names up? What could she possibly accomplish by doing that? I understand wanting a cite, but unless you think the defense lawyers lied in the appeal then this is getting a little silly. Just my opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks again I truly appreciate your store of information.

Bill gave us quotes that don't exist in your translation, really nothing close. The quote I gave from Massei was about certification.



As I said earlier it appears these quotes by Massei were just made up. Always willing be shown that they actually were made.

Actually very close. The advantage of the true crime approach is that it can convey meaning. But with no footnotes it requires the anal among us to pooh-pooh it as an approach and demand long primary extracts.

No problem. Meaning nonetheless conveyed. Massei in fact disallowed independent review on Stefanoni's and her boss's say so. Read his report. If the media reports about the SC motivations report arr correct, which is what started this thread, that's the SC's reasoning too. That's the point.

The SC is saying that Migini and co. have no reason to lie. In fact the SC seems to have joined with guilters that the burden of proof is now reversed because of this assumption that if you arr going to claim that the PLE is even mistaken, it is now up to you to prove it.

The rest of the world operates by the opposite standard. It is up to law enforcement to prove that there was no contamination by demonstrating the step by step following of accepted protocols.

The SC in Italy seems to have just ruled that not only are you not allowed to question someone like Stefanoni about protocols, you are now judicially required to take her word for it that she has not withheld stuff even when it looks like she has.

That's what now seems to be the law of Italy - that even rsising questions about law enforcement will earn you a calunnia or defamation charge.

 

[RoseMontague]

Once again thanks but the quotes Bill attributes to the Massei report still aren't there.

I read Massei and came to a similar conclusion. Massei decided to believe Stefi. Did you read the stuff in Massei about the scratch on the knife? The defense experts didn't see it and neither did the prosecution expert that examined it. But Massei decided to believe Stefi because she explained she saw it in a different light and held it just right.

Did Bill use quote marks or was he paraphrasing as I did?

 

[Bill Williams]

Considering that it is mentioned in the appeal documents that he testified in two previous cases then it would seem to me to be you don't trust Dempsey as to the names of the victims? Why would she make the names up? What could she possibly accomplish by doing that? I understand wanting a cite, but unless you think the defense lawyers lied in the appeal then this is getting a little silly. Just my opinion.

You've made the point far better than I. It is quite justifiable to distrust a true crime approach because of lack of citations, but to write it off all together is, as you say, silly.

We've had this conversation before on JREF - not a bsd conversation anout the nature of sources. But there comes a point...

 

[Bill Williams]

I read Massei and came to a similar conclusion. Massei decided to believe Stefi. Did you read the stuff in Massei about the scratch on the knife? The defense experts didn't see it and neither did the prosecution expert that examined it. But Massei decided to believe Stefi because she explained she saw it in a different light and held it just right.

Did Bill use quote marks or was he paraphrasing as I did?

Whereas it's fair game to paraphrase, it gets a little tiresome that when someone is aware of this from past exchanges, the conveyed meaning is ignored and some other non sequitor is thrown in.

The point is that the SC seems to have just stated an opinion that if a PM says it and enters it as evidence (like calling Stef to the stand) you have to have more reason to say they might have been fiddling with the dials other than accepted protocols.

You might hurt their feelings. Or worse, that protecting their reputations is more important than perhaps innocents serving long sentences for something they did not do.

Reputation comes first.

 

[Grinder]

Considering that it is mentioned in the appeal documents that he testified in two previous cases then it would seem to me to be you don't trust Dempsey as to the names of the victims? Why would she make the names up? What could she possibly accomplish by doing that? I understand wanting a cite, but unless you think the defense lawyers lied in the appeal then this is getting a little silly. Just my opinion.

First of all I don't think CD knows. She would make things up or believe someone because it's a good story and she was selling her book six months into the case, even though it wasn't to be published until later.

If you could provide the appeal in either language, that would satisfy my interest.

Since I haven't seen the appeal cite and for some reason no one has provided it, I believe my request is less than silly. When you combine this with Massei quotes that don't exist, even less silly.

I think it is reckless to throw around falsehoods over and over from either side and I will retain that position forever.

 

[Grinder]

Actually very close. The advantage of the true crime approach is that it can convey meaning. But with no footnotes it requires the anal among us to pooh-pooh it as an approach and demand long primary extracts.

No Bill not close. True Crime Novels don't convey the truth but rather a screenplay. The writers make stuff up, for example dialog.

You quoted Massei and it the quotes weren't in Massei. In Italy I'm pretty sure that's a crime

No problem. Meaning nonetheless conveyed. Massei in fact disallowed independent review on Stefanoni's and her boss's say so. Read his report. If the media reports about the SC motivations report arr correct, which is what started this thread, that's the SC's reasoning too. That's the point.

Okay make the point whatever you want.

The SC is saying that Migini and co. have no reason to lie. In fact the SC seems to have joined with guilters that the burden of proof is now reversed because of this assumption that if you arr going to claim that the PLE is even mistaken, it is now up to you to prove it.

How do you know they are saying that?

 

[Grinder]

I read Massei and came to a similar conclusion. Massei decided to believe Stefi. Did you read the stuff in Massei about the scratch on the knife? The defense experts didn't see it and neither did the prosecution expert that examined it. But Massei decided to believe Stefi because she explained she saw it in a different light and held it just right.

Did Bill use quote marks or was he paraphrasing as I did?

If you read the Massei report, Massei gives an answer to why he's similarly confident in those two things about Stefanoni - in fact it is the reason why Massei denied the request for a C&V-like independent review.

How did Massei come to these realizations? He writes that he simply asked Stefanoni herself.... then he asked Stefanoni's boss who runs the lab. "Do you have contamination?" "No, we've never had contamination." Massei: "I then officially don't know why the defence is complaining! I should tell the defence this information and they'll see the light and withdraw their complaints. Stefanoni assures me all is on the up and up."

Quote marks

 

[Bill Williams]

No Bill not close. True Crime Novels don't convey the truth but rather a screenplay. The writers make stuff up, for example dialog.

You quoted Massei and it the quotes weren't in Massei. In Italy I'm pretty sure that's a crime

I'm to the point where rather than continuing this thread, I'd gladly do 20 years.

Repetition does not make the point stronger.

How do you know they are saying that?

I don't. I can't read Italian. Yet most of the press reports in English are saying this. It is no accident, to me anyway (an avid true crime reader) that the SC's point, as offered by the newspieces, actually does line up with Massei's reasoning about why he disallowed an independent analysis of the DNA.

And that is... to repeat just so I can strengthen my claim through sheer repetition.... that one does not need to evaluate the truth or falsity of forensic claims when coming from the PM or their witnesses (Stefanaoni) because you can just ask Mignini or Stefanoni directly - did you falsify results or allow contamination?

The answer in which Massei decided to disallow independent testing, was Stefanoni's. She would not lie and it would be the height of impudence to ask her to follow international protocols.

Read Massei. That's HIS point. It's what (apparently, but as yet to be seen by a non-Italian like me) the ISC is saying too. The reason they seem to be ruling against the legality of the appointment of C&V is not because of their findings, but because Stefanoni had already assured us her work was correct. And that last point is potentially the "law or procedure" which Hellmann violated in ordering a review of her work.

And she STILL hasn't handed over the raw files. And guilters STILL ask the innocentatii to prove contamination; rather than simply insist that accepted protocols be proven as followed by the prosecution.

The guilters are on to something that I am not. Apparently in Italy is is actually a reverse burden than anywhere else. If you accuse someone in authority for mucking up, it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to the authority to even demonstrate they'd followed protocols.

Even asking that they produce raw results seems to be a potential ground for them pressing calunnia or defamation at the suggestion!

 

[Grinder]

You've made the point far better than I. It is quite justifiable to distrust a true crime approach because of lack of citations, but to write it off all together is, as you say, silly.

We've had this conversation before on JREF - not a bsd conversation anout the nature of sources. But there comes a point...

Bill not only do you use uncited sources you put quote marks around dialog as if it were from their mouths. Your paraphrases are much more than just a way of conveying it is a form of prevarication.

How did Massei come to these realizations? He writes that he simply asked Stefanoni herself.... then he asked Stefanoni's boss who runs the lab. "Do you have contamination?" "No, we've never had contamination." Massei: "I then officially don't know why the defence is complaining! I should tell the defence this information and they'll see the light and withdraw their complaints. Stefanoni assures me all is on the up and up."

"I don't know why the defense is complaining!" You think that is just a little paraphrase and I'm anal to call you on it?

I should tell the defence this information and they'll see the light and withdraw their complaints. Stefanoni assures me all is on the up and up." Once again, do you think that is just a little paraphrasing?

People come here and read this stuff and believe you. They think the judge actually said those words because you put them in quotes here. If Follain does it in his fiction crime novel the reader should know it's made up, but here you need to make it clear.

 

[Grinder]

Read Massei. That's HIS point. It's what (apparently, but as yet to be seen by a non-Italian like me) the ISC is saying too. The reason they seem to be ruling against the legality of the appointment of C&V is not because of their findings, but because Stefanoni had already assured us her work was correct. And that last point is potentially the "law or procedure" which Hellmann violated in ordering a review of her work.

I repeat because you refuse to admit that you put quotes allegedly from Massei that are not from Massei and then you act as if I should just get the point as it is probably what he was thinking or told his wife when going to sleep or whatever fanatsy you and Follain share.

I have not read in the recent coverage what you allege above. I may well have missed it because the early reports seem quite sketchy and I'm waiting for better. Please refer me to one or more of these reports where the SC is saying that calling for independent experts was wrong because Stef had said she did a good job.

I believe that the SC says that Hellmann let the independent experts make his decision which is a violation of Italian law

 

[yimyammer]

Just watched a clip form the TODAY show, Ted Simon was included.

The clip starts out stating a totality of the case has to be looked at...not just the lack of DNA or the lack of any motive...

I thought yes, or the lack of many things. A totality of what? a heroin junkie's groggy memory and serial witness words? a little old ladie in her bathroom who can hear people walking on rocks through double pane glass?

totality of the case... I'm stuck on this term!

while Maresca refuses to let Rudy Guede be drilled in public on his lying? a budget crisis from Nov 5/6 only that prevented recording the interrogation to be legal, and at least fair?

Totality of the entire case or just the totality of the prosecutions side of things?

The extent of glee expressed by PGP's in this case is sickening, I don't understand how they can be so certain of their guilt and not be the least bit concerned about a wrongful conviction.

From what I have been reading, it doesn't sound like a damn thing discussed here will even matter to the Italian Courts. It's really astonishing.

Either everything we PIP have been lead to believe is completely wrong or there is amazing travesty of justice going on here

 

[Bill Williams]

I repeat because you refuse to admit that you put quotes allegedly from Massei that are not from Massei and then you act as if I should just get the point as it is probably what he was thinking or told his wife when going to sleep or whatever fanatsy you and Follain share.

I have not read in the recent coverage what you allege above. I may well have missed it because the early reports seem quite sketchy and I'm waiting for better. Please refer me to one or more of these reports where the SC is saying that calling for independent experts was wrong because Stef had said she did a good job.

I believe that the SC says that Hellmann let the independent experts make his decision which is a violation of Italian law

Yet you seem to "get it".

I think at this point I will wait for an English translation before engaging you any more. We have a habit of talking past one another. I have this feeling that from now on no matter what I said or type, you'll think I'm lying. Good for you.

See you then.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

squad cars with sirens, and all that jazz

First of all I don't think CD knows. She would make things up or believe someone because it's a good story and she was selling her book six months into the case, even though it wasn't to be published until later.

One incident in particular in an earlier incarnation of this thread contradicts your claim. Back in 2010 we debated the detour (I called it a parade) that the police took on 6 November 2010. I asked Ms. Dempsey for her sources, and she provided them in great detail. Kaosium remembers this exchange also. I have asked Ms. Dempsey for clarification on other occasions, and I always got back more information than I bargained for.

 

[Bill Williams]

One incident in particular in an earlier incarnation of this thread contradicts your claim. Back in 2010 we debated the detour (I called it a parade) that the police took on 6 November 2010. I asked Ms. Dempsey for her sources, and she provided them in great detail. Kaosium remembers this exchange also. I have asked Ms. Dempsey for clarification on other occasions, and I always got back more information than I bargained for.

I have the same experience. Yet one point I'll concede is that unless the true crime author, whichever one is in question at the time, is not engaged in social networking then most people will not have access.

I am slapping my head to remember, but at one time even John Follain seemed responsive to queries. Again, even though I disagree with his version of "true crime", he was (then) responsive and gave back more than one bargained for.

It's fair game, I guess, to dismiss the genre all together. The name itself sounds horrible. However, Candace Dempsey somewhere discusses at length why she chose the genre among others. Unlike Raffaele or Amanda, she's not in a position of providing much first hand commentary.... with exceptions. However what sold me on the genre was when she told someone what her project was about and she was getting bogged down in making sure everything was sourced. That "someone" then suggested the true crime approach as a way to get the narrative out, and then leave it to others who were interested to source it if need be.

Take it for what it is. Don't believe it uncritically because, afterall, it is (within its covers) unsourced. But don't just dismiss it with the wave of a hand because of the limitations of the genre.

My 4 cents, because we've been around this block so many, many times.

 

[Grinder]

One incident in particular in an earlier incarnation of this thread contradicts your claim. Back in 2010 we debated the detour (I called it a parade) that the police took on 6 November 2010. I asked Ms. Dempsey for her sources, and she provided them in great detail. Kaosium remembers this exchange also. I have asked Ms. Dempsey for clarification on other occasions, and I always got back more information than I bargained for.

Please ask her for the cites about the other murder cases Curatolo was a witness in. This should be a quick turn around. The more information the better. I'd like to know exactly what he testified to and if he came out months after.

As I've said for years, as a person that started reading about this from day one I felt and feel that CD became a FOA proponent early on and some of her reporting left me being unsure of its veracity. When her book came out and was of the True Crime genre that deepened my feelings about her work.

I believe that you have collaborated with her for stories and perhaps her book as well as with the FOA. I think that's great but colors your opinion a bit.

 

[Grinder]

In February 2008, I pitched Murder in Italy at the Whidbey Island Writers’ Conference. By then I had many sources in Italy and the U.S. and was working on the Amanda Knox case 24/7. At Whidbey I met thriller writer William Dietrich, a Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter, and he gave me tips on how to research a crime tale. He referred me to his agent, Andrew Stuart, who sold Murder In Italy to Penguin/Berkley Books.
Also at Whidbey I met Erik Larson, the author of The Devil in the White City, and he advised me to write Murder in Italy in chronological order, focusing on Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. That’s what I did.
Instead of just reproducing the courtroom drama, I used the testimony to weave a complete tale, a la Ann Rule of Seattle, my favorite crime writer. The book unfolds like a movie, starting with a happy Italian Halloween. I divided it into three acts, ending with Amanda and Raffaele’s conviction.

Hello she was "pitching" the book three months after the murder before they had even been charged.

 

[Kestrel]

In February 2008, I pitched Murder in Italy at the Whidbey Island Writers’ Conference. By then I had many sources in Italy and the U.S. and was working on the Amanda Knox case 24/7. At Whidbey I met thriller writer William Dietrich, a Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter, and he gave me tips on how to research a crime tale. He referred me to his agent, Andrew Stuart, who sold Murder In Italy to Penguin/Berkley Books.
Also at Whidbey I met Erik Larson, the author of The Devil in the White City, and he advised me to write Murder in Italy in chronological order, focusing on Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. That’s what I did.
Instead of just reproducing the courtroom drama, I used the testimony to weave a complete tale, a la Ann Rule of Seattle, my favorite crime writer. The book unfolds like a movie, starting with a happy Italian Halloween. I divided it into three acts, ending with Amanda and Raffaele’s conviction.

Hello she was "pitching" the book three months after the murder before they had even been charged.

But long after Amanda and Raffaele had been jailed and it was absolutely clear that they would be charged with the crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Please ask her for the cites about the other murder cases Curatolo was a witness in. This should be a quick turn around. The more information the better. I'd like to know exactly what he testified to and if he came out months after.

As I've said for years, as a person that started reading about this from day one I felt and feel that CD became a FOA proponent early on and some of her reporting left me being unsure of its veracity. When her book came out and was of the True Crime genre that deepened my feelings about her work.

I believe that you have collaborated with her for stories and perhaps her book as well as with the FOA. I think that's great but colors your opinion a bit.

I would if I thought that the point were worth pursuing, but I am not sure that it is yet (it might be worth looking in to this matter if it leads to a fresh way to discredit Curatolo). We have linked to each other's blog entries, but that is the extent of any collaboration.