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

[Grinder]

You have powerful friends on your side. The New York Times reviewer of "Waiting to be Heard" assesses Nick Pisa much the same.... see:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...in-wonderland/

This is describing Nick Pisa during the height of the tabloid frenzy....

Over dinner the British journalist explained to me how he did his job. He had no contract with any newspaper, but auctioned each story to the highest bidder. If a competing reporter offered a more dramatic story to editors, or one that could be written faster, he would be passed over. He was under significant pressure to sell stories, for he had to pay his own way to Perugia, and stayed at a cheap hotel in order to keep expenses down. He also admitted to me that he had no idea whether Knox was guilty and didn’t care one way or another.

Did you see the SBS Dateline interview with Pisa, Nadeau., Vogt and an Italian reporter?

Anyway, yes I read his stories all over the UK tabs. He was okay in general but admitted in the interview that he felt that information from the authorities had to be believed as did Vogt and Nadeau.

I really don't remember questionable quotes in any stories.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did you see the SBS Dateline interview with Pisa, Nadeau., Vogt and an Italian reporter?

Anyway, yes I read his stories all over the UK tabs. He was okay in general but admitted in the interview that he felt that information from the authorities had to be believed as did Vogt and Nadeau.

I really don't remember questionable quotes in any stories.

Wait a minute... how would you know if their quotes were questionable or not? I thought that was your whole point? What criteria do you use to be able to distinguish between questionable and unquestionable quotes from Pisa, Nadeau, Vogt, and yet assign all the quotes from Follain and Dempsey as questionable?

 

[Grinder]

Wait a minute... how would you know if their quotes were questionable or not? I thought that was your whole point? What criteria do you use to be able to distinguish between questionable and unquestionable quotes from Pisa, Nadeau, Vogt, and yet assign all the quotes from Follain and Dempsey as questionable?

Well if one reporter had quotes no one else had from conversations that were private rather than from statements or releases, that would be a sign. The novels you quote from don't even claim to have real quotes as the genre doesn't require it.

I dispute some of the reporting by Nadeau and Vogt but as I said earlier I don't recall any quotes they used that were made up. I could be mistaken and perhaps you could point me some examples of Nadeau and Vogt creating quotes.

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. The genre has been described as infotainment[1] and as factional[2]—a mix of fact and fiction.

Dempsey was advised to use the genre.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well if one reporter had quotes no one else had from conversations that were private rather than from statements or releases, that would be a sign. The novels you quote from don't even claim to have real quotes as the genre doesn't require it.

I dispute some of the reporting by Nadeau and Vogt but as I said earlier I don't recall any quotes they used that were made up. I could be mistaken and perhaps you could point me some examples of Nadeau and Vogt creating quotes.

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. The genre has been described as infotainment[1] and as factional[2]—a mix of fact and fiction.

Dempsey was advised to use the genre.

You continue to represent your position well.... I completely disagree with you in relation to the use of this genre in BOTH Dempsey and Follain, which is perhaps leaves even me surprised that I just typed that. So I'll agree to disagree and try to bite my tongue (my fingers?) every time you use that to slag and dismiss Follain and Dempsey, when you seem to accept Pisa, Vogt and Nadeau.

The biggest surprise is that we should be fighting more over this and we're not. I suppose it is because I am right and you are wrong......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Make Believe

Nadeau invoked unnamed experts to back up her claim with respect to the interpretation of mixed DNA: "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this. Who have you interviewed?" I am not saying what I think of her claim, but you can guess.

Andrea Vogt distorted the meaning of Amanda's, "I was there," conversation. It is not made up, but it might has well have been. What a pair of Showboats.

 

[Grinder]

You continue to represent your position well.... I completely disagree with you in relation to the use of this genre in BOTH Dempsey and Follain, which is perhaps leaves even me surprised that I just typed that. So I'll agree to disagree and try to bite my tongue (my fingers?) every time you use that to slag and dismiss Follain and Dempsey, when you seem to accept Pisa, Vogt and Nadeau.

The biggest surprise is that we should be fighting more over this and we're not. I suppose it is because I am right and you are wrong......

Bill I don't see what bothers you so much about them making things up but here's a quote from a Dempsey promo piece:

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.

While I don't care if she was working this from day one as her ticket to Hollywood, it is clear that she made stuff up.

Type Ann Rule and true crime comes up leading to her web site - True Crime author Ann Rule's official website

They make stuff up to fill in the voids in their woven tales - Dempsey makes it clear in her own statement.

It is difficult to accept quotes from authors that use a genre that uses fiction as an integral part of the style. You certainly don't believe that Follain has recordings of the police the night Amanda was interrogated, do you?

 

[Grinder]

Nadeau invoked unnamed experts to back up her claim with respect to the interpretation of mixed DNA: "There are mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Amanda's traces are higher than Meredith's. That implies mixed blood according to the dozens of forensics experts I've interviewed about this. Who have you interviewed?" I am not saying what I think of her claim, but you can guess.

The quote here is from Nadeau's own writing. She isn't making up a quote for someone else which is the specific Bill and I have been discussing.

Andrea Vogt distorted the meaning of Amanda's, "I was there," conversation. It is not made up, but it might has well have been. What a pair of Showboats.

Chris I said just up-thread that I had disputes with both Barbie and Vogt's reporting but not making up quotes. If you wish to use books written in a genre that permits embellishments including dialogue that is created by the author, as proof of what people were saying, what can I say?

To me Barbie is clueless and Vogt is contemptible but I don't think they made up quotes, which is what we were discussing.

 

[acbytesla]

The best thing a person can do if they are truly innocent but are under suspicion of a crime is to lawyer up and NEVER voluntarily go to the police station for an interview without one. In this current incarnation of the Knox case, there is no telling what legal shenanigans the prosecution could pull to re-imprison her b/c this case isn't about justice, it's about the prosecution team saving face.

I can't argue with this. But I truly believe that Amanda and Raffaele didn't believe that people could honestly believe that they had anything to do with this crime. Still, they ignored the warning signs. So I agree. 100%

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I don't see what bothers you so much about them making things up but here's a quote from a Dempsey promo piece:

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.

While I don't care if she was working this from day one as her ticket to Hollywood, it is clear that she made stuff up.

Type Ann Rule and true crime comes up leading to her web site - True Crime author Ann Rule's official website

They make stuff up to fill in the voids in their woven tales - Dempsey makes it clear in her own statement.

It is difficult to accept quotes from authors that use a genre that uses fiction as an integral part of the style. You certainly don't believe that Follain has recordings of the police the night Amanda was interrogated, do you?

I've read that promo piece before - and if I can be so bold while still enjoying our honeymoon (!) that promo piece does not support what you're claiming.

I guess I could put it like this to see what you say.... "Why would Follain invent dialogue that makes the prosecution look foolish, when his overall agenda is clear - to vindicate the prosecution?"

On that other matter I haven't compared Follain's recordings with my own. Then again, Follain does what he does best - he represents Ficarra's and Napoleoni's version of the interrogation, and he represents it well. It's just that the narrative, even as narrative, is completely unbelievable. Truly it reads like they treated her so well plying her with chamomile tea and cookies until she couldn't take all this good treatment; so she decided to blurt out Lumumba's name from nowhere so that she'd be able to politely refuse a second cup....

I don't know - suddenly it's not a big deal for me. You've explained yourself well. I disagree.

Everyone else seems to have pressed the "snooze" control over this....

 

[acbytesla]

She should make videos for YouTube every day of the trial, pointing out the flaws. But, she does such a poor job it will have to be someone else, hopefully not Anne B.

Welcome back Grinder. Hey, I like this idea. But I think she should take it one step further. She should do it in both English and Italian and I believe Amanda is also fluent in German. So if possible, do this in all three languages. Then the Italian people would get to hear in Amanda's own voice the flaws. And if Amanda did this, I know the Italian press would cover it. Oggi in particular would cover it.

 

[Grinder]

Welcome back Grinder. Hey, I like this idea. But I think she should take it one step further. She should do it in both English and Italian and I believe Amanda is also fluent in German. So if possible, do this in all three languages. Then the Italian people would get to hear in Amanda's own voice the flaws. And if Amanda did this, I know the Italian press would cover it. Oggi in particular would cover it.

Doing it in Italian and English is the way to go. I think they should have a very believable spokesperson do it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Doing it in Italian and English is the way to go. I think they should have a very believable spokesperson do it.

If they get Grinder to do it, at least you'll know no one is misquoted!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

While I don't care if she was working this from day one as her ticket to Hollywood, it is clear that she made stuff up.

Type Ann Rule and true crime comes up leading to her web site - True Crime author Ann Rule's official website

They make stuff up to fill in the voids in their woven tales - Dempsey makes it clear in her own statement.

Please give examples.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

to borrow the appropriate interjection from Bill Williams

The quote here is from Nadeau's own writing. She isn't making up a quote for someone else which is the specific Bill and I have been discussing.

Grinder,

Did you click on my Showboat link? Do you think that those dozens of experts are real? Sheesh!

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder,

Did you click on my Showboat link? Do you think that those dozens of experts are real? Sheesh!

COPYRIGHT!

 

[acbytesla]

Doing it in Italian and English is the way to go. I think they should have a very believable spokesperson do it.

I think Amanda should do it. But I think a script should be written and Amanda should practice them over and over again. I think she is believable. While I think she could have done better in the interviews, I wouldn't say it was bad. Practiced over and over again, i think she will come off very persuasive. What's more, the Italian and World press would pay much more attention if Amanda did it as opposed to someone else.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

Did you click on my Showboat link? Do you think that those dozens of experts are real? Sheesh!

Yes and ? The dozens of experts are not real. I think Barbie is an idiot. She made up the story that the experts existed and what they said, but she didn't have fake quotes.

Dempsey says in her PR that she emulates Rule and she says that she wove a story beyond the facts of the trial. It was all in the quote I provided.

She also mentions in another recounting of how she was advised on how to write her novel that no footnotes should be included. The book isn't annotated.

True crime novels are based on the facts of the case with filler to make them more exciting and readable.

 

[Grinder]

I think Amanda should do it. But I think a script should be written and Amanda should practice them over and over again. I think she is believable. While I think she could have done better in the interviews, I wouldn't say it was bad. Practiced over and over again, i think she will come off very persuasive. What's more, the Italian and World press would pay much more attention if Amanda did it as opposed to someone else.

Well you're sure right that Amanda doing it would get far more play. If it was well produced and she wasn't allowed to be dramatic and write her own material it could work. No mask of an assassin or other poetic descriptions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes and ? The dozens of experts are not real. I think Barbie is an idiot. She made up the story that the experts existed and what they said, but she didn't have fake quotes.

Dempsey says in her PR that she emulates Rule and she says that she wove a story beyond the facts of the trial. It was all in the quote I provided.

She also mentions in another recounting of how she was advised on how to write her novel that no footnotes should be included. The book isn't annotated.

True crime novels are based on the facts of the case with filler to make them more exciting and readable.

Some are more weighted to the first part of that last sentence than others.

 

[RandyN]

I have this vague memory that at some point the defense was allowed to do something in the Guede trial. I have started to search and found some things of interest. One is that the fast track trial is closed to the public and the other is testimony about Rudi. The PGP keep alleging that he was an okay guy but in court and under oath the testimony made him out to be less than okay.

Prosecutors accuse him of sexually assaulting Miss Kercher with the help of Knox and Sollecito in what may have been a kinky sex game gone horribly awry.
In the document, Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”, accused Guede of drinking too much, taking drugs and trying to steal the handbags of young women during nights out on the town.
“Rudy was often drunk. I know he took cocaine. Often he was off his head with the drugs that he was taking. And when he was like that he would be a nuisance to girls, he’d block their path and try to hassle them. When we were in crowded places he stole their bags,” Barrow testified, according to excerpts of his evidence printed in the Italian press.
Guede has previously complained that he has been falsely accused of being a drug dealer, a drug user and a criminal, and that instead he led a “tranquil and serene” life.
Guede’s separate, fast-track trial will start at the end of next week and could finish by October – before the judge has even ruled on whether there is enough evidence to send Knox and Sollecito to trial.
A quick trial limits the number of witnesses and kinds of evidence that can be submitted and if convicted defendants generally receive lighter sentences. Guede’s lawyers have said that their client will not make any admission of guilt, however. A fast-track proceeding is closed to the public, unlike a full trial.

Yes...Guede, Knox and Sollecito were all in court together in front of Micheli. But it was a strange situation IIRC. AK and RS were there for Micheli to decide if there was enough evidence to hold them for a normal trial. And Guede was there as a defendant already awaiting judgement in the fast track portion ...although that does not seem correct to me as I think about it. In any case they were together all in front one judge but the separate defendants lawyers did not interject into each others cases...Knox lawyers did not get to examine Guede nor did RS lawyers get to examine him...

This was when evidence and a case was still sketchy against AK and RS...this was when I think Stefanoni lied to the court and stated that the knife blade sample was of ample quantity of a couple hundred picograms when in fact it was 0 to 10 picograms...and she knew that without a doubt. Later she dodged that bullet by stating that she forgot her notes that day and was working from memory. Sure ...the one single lone LTN trace that is the only link for Knox and she happens to forget the sample size...and later we see her notes and gee whiz...she writes "too low" a half dozen times or more...

I contend the SC failed completely by utilizing Guedes case and conclusions and linking that to AK,RS case. They were unable to question Guede. Therefore the cases can not be linked together. If the SC has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that more than one person was involved then even the dumbest lawyers on earth would have asked what that proof was. Footprints? DNA? Fingerprints? Witnesses? Similar motives? And yet there is not one legitimate factual piece of evidence that comes close to linking AK or RS to Guede in any way at all. No phone calls, texts, skype...nothing. Except for one or two random brief meetings between Knox and Guede because of the boys downstairs or the bar where she worked.

And yes I agree 100% that someone ...maybe Knox and Raffaele together with the help of case experts like Grinder, and a few others as advisers and reminders...should blog daily during the trial. Perhaps they would fear to do this since they can be charged for interfering with the trial...but a free press in a free country should be able to easily handle this task.

A task not just important but critical! And I agree not important to the Italians or the appeal case but critical for the case that will need to be made against extradition. I am not as optimistic as some here. You cant see all this judicial madness...absolute crazy illogical conclusions right up and including the SC and not worry that nothing matters except conviction of perfectly innocent persons.

I nominate Grinder, and if he returned and was still up to speed LJ, and about 5 or 10 others...Kevin, Chris, Angloshark, Rose, Mary, DanO and at least 5 others who have this crap down. Add me if you need someone to set the fire and pour the gas on...;-)