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

[Machiavelli]

Massei is saying that Mereidith would have been able to repel Rudy (armed with a knife-if he was by himself). That is not only not obvious or reasonable, it is just stupid and idiotic.

LOL. Massei finds something impossible to imagine. Dumb judge.

Double LOL. Rudy's DNA on the cuff means to Massei there was more than one attacker.

This is more than just stupid. Talk about an exaggeration. For a man full of could haves, might haves, maybe so's, and possible and even probables, he has an amazing penchant for not being able to imagine anything that could lead to innocence and makes a huge leap of faith based on this multiple attacker theory.

There is a ton of reasonable doubt here, Mach. More than reasonable, in my opinion.

You are changing the topic. I point out that I was talking about someone (Bill Williams) who made a claim that there was "evidence" of "one attacker only". This was the topic: "evidence of one attacker only".
Then I responded to your assertion where you answered "nope", as you were saying that, in your opinion, there was no logical difference between "evidence of single attacker only" and statements of experts saying some evidence was "compatible" with a single attacker. I said that you were wrong, that those two statement are totally different. I made an example of what the difference is, by considering when the same is applied to (defence experts') claims called "evidence" rather than "compatibility" with consensual sex.

Now you made an argument about reasonable doubt. Which is a totally separated topic. And imho has nothing to do with the point nor with the matter of autopsy evidence.

Anyway, I agree with Massei. He could have said more, mention further elements, and even be more convincing. Yet what he said is reasonable.
Massei did not say Meredith would have been able to repel a single attacker armed with a knife, he is saying that she would have attempted to do that. And there is evidence she was unable to make the attempt.
He is saying that Guede's DNA on her sleeve enforces the theory that there were mutiple attackers. And I agree. This element does indicate multiple attackers rather than just one. (it is one of the elements).
The core of Massei's reasoning is about the *disproportion* between defensive wounds, and the number and extension of the other wounds. This disproportion is a clue about multiple attackers.
The DNA on Meredith's sleeve is an additional element.
But then in this specific case, disproportion is even more indicating multiple attackers, when we consider the type of wounds and the other peculiar physical evidence (above all: the DNA inside the victim; the bruises on the victim's genitals; the way in which the victim was undressed; the way in which the knife was used to cut the bra and to threaten her pointing it to her face; the bra clasp forced, then cut and removed during the aggression; the bruises on her breast and on her hips).
Another element of his reasoning is that the knife wounds are inhomogeneous, and the whole set of wounds is inhomogeneous overall, showing different behaviors, different positions, different intents and different weapons.
Another peculiarity: bruises indicating that a hand was covering Meredith's mouth, to prevent her from screaming.
Moreover, the fact that Nara Capezzali's and Antonella Monacchia's testimonies are reliable, adds further weigth to the scenario (both witnesses told that Meredith could scream only once).

 

[Briars]

This is an extraordinarily poor and unscientific "argument", without a shred of merit. You are plain wrong. 100% wrong. Perhaps a basic science lesson (I'm not sure whether it would be correct to suppose that your "argument" is the product of little or no scientific training or education?) might help.

Here's why your "argument" is so stupendously wrong: Sound is transmitted through air by pressure waves, which are in essence* formed by "squeezing" the air in a rolling wave motion. The energy transmitted in sound pressure waves through air is therefore entirely bound in the energy of individual molecules within air (chiefly nitrogen and oxygen), which gain energy as they are "squeezed", then transfer it as they "unsqueeze" and the next molecule along "squeezes" in turn.

With me so far? I hope so! Now, here comes the first important bit: it's the difference between sound and light. Have you ever perhaps wondered why you can see someone from 500m away, but you can't hear what they might be saying in a normal conversational voice at that distance? It's chiefly because light is high-energy electromagnetic radiation, and sound is low-energy pressure waves in air. The reflected light emitting from the skin and clothes of the person hardly degrades or fades at all over the 500m distance, whereas sound pressure waves degrade a huge amount over the same distance.

So, the first point to notice is that sound waves degrade and fade much, much, much sooner than light. That's important, but we'll park that for now.

On to the second important bit: What happens to sound when it hits a solid object (especially when compared with light)? In order for sound pressure waves to be "reflected" off a surface, it needs to hit a very smooth, flat surface in order for the air to "bounce" off the surface in an orderly waveform pattern. If the surface is not smooth, the "reflected" sound will get progressively distorted from the original sound pressure wave. In addition, the very act of hitting a solid surface degrades the power of a sound pressure wave substantially. This is a very different situation from light, where a highly-mirrored surface can reflect light radiation with virtually no loss, degradation or distortion. As a further factor, most sound pressure energy is lost if the wave hits the surface "head-on", as opposed to a more glancing contact (which would of course not reflect the wave, but merely deflect it by a small angle).

Furthermore, if the surface encountered by the sound pressure waves is a) rough-textured and b) not flat, a vast majority of the sound energy will be lost in the collision. That, for example, is why sound recording studios can use material similar to cardboard egg boxes to line the walls and ceiling in order to almost eliminate sound reflection.

So the second conclusion is that sound pressure waves cannot be reflected without a very significant loss of energy, even if they are reflecting off a smooth, flat surface. When one adds in trees and other foliage, the loss of energy from any reflection would be very large indeed.

In summary, sound cannot be "amplified" in a canyon. That is a specious and totally incorrect supposition. I am guessing that it may be predicated on a mistaken and incorrect assumption that sound pressure waves might behave in a similar way to electromagnetic light radiation. Whether such an erroneous comparison is responsible or not, the fact that remains is as follows: any sound pressure waves emitted within Meredith Kercher's room on the night of the murder - even if her window was open (and there is no evidence to suggest that it WAS open, since it was found closed) - would have hugely degraded in strength by the time they had radiated out to the valley below, reflected back up past the cottage again, and arrived at Sig.ra Capezzali's window.

In short, the elderly lady (and the other "ear-witnesses") were either a) honestly mistaken, or b) they heard something (a shout or scream perhaps) from directly on the road or the parking lot, or c) they are fantasists or liars. What they DIDN'T hear was a scream originating from within Meredith Kercher's room, let alone one loud and piercing enough to wake someone through double-glazed windows.


* The real mechanism is actually a bit more complicated than this, but my slightly simplified description is accurate insofar as it allows for a robust description of the properties of sound pressure waves in air.

What a long winded bag of hot air. The cottage is close with nothing standing in the way of the apartment. The higher position of the Nara's is important to understand how it all worked You are right though maybe sound also traveled out bedroom door or out the faulty front door swinging open. It may even have traveled out the broken window, no strike that!! So take that trip to Perugia so you too can hear sounds from below the cottage , better than a text book anyday.

 

[RoseMontague]

Massei says this about the statement, "I was there." I regard Massei as the current "Finder of fact."



This is ALL Massei writes. If, according to Ms. Vogt, it is factual that the "I was there" statement to Amanda's mother (secretly recorded) was tantamount to a confession, why does Massei make no further reference to it?

You see, I am not accusing Ms. Vogt of lying. I have no doubt that the prosecution at the Massei trial spun this, taking the secretly recorded conversation with her mother out of context, as a confession.

If it was a confession, why does Massei make no further mention of it? If it was a confession, Massei would make mention of it as a reason to find Knox guilty. With this fact, he does no such thing. It's amazing you argue the way you do about it.

I get the feeling that this bothers you more than it does Ms. Vogt. My feeling is that if pushed, she'd recant and not make a big deal out of it. If she was a true journalist, she would concede that reporting is an inexact science and "facts" are fluid, esp. when one only reports on one side of the case.

All I am asking, really, is on this one point - does Ms. Vogt agree with Judge Massei now (today), or doesn't she?

I agree with you Bill. Massei really doesn't say either way, Micheli doesn't even mention it that I can see, we know how Hellmann feels about it, and the Italian ISC is corrupt. Maybe you should ask Mach to back up his "all these judges" claims.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are changing the topic. I point out that I was talking about someone (Bill Williams) who made a claim that there was "evidence" of "one attacker only". This was the topic: "evidence of one attacker only".

Wait a minute, Machiavelli. Andrea Vogt wrote that the "I was there" statement by Amanda Knox, secretly recorded by the PLE in conversation with her mother, was a confession that she'd been at the cottage the night of the murder.

No one else other than those who wish harm to Amanda Knox believe that. I have posted for you Massei's own rendering of this - if it HAD been a confession, Massei would have used that as further reason to convict. He did not.

And now you're bringing up "multiple attackers"?

Andrea Vogt ALSO reported on multiple attackers, as if Guede's trial proved the extra attackers were Sollecito and Knox. She should have know, and reported, that this is finding someone guilty at a trial in which they had no representation - Guede's fast track trial.

If you want to get into that, fine. But one thing at a time, please. If asked today, would Vogt recant about the "I was there" comment and what it meant?

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with you Bill. Massei really doesn't say either way, Micheli doesn't even mention it that I can see, we know how Hellmann feels about it, and the Italian ISC is corrupt. Maybe you should ask Mach to back up his "all these judges" claims.

I'd rather he stopped defending Andrea Vogt on the indefensible. My big wonder is what Vogt herself would say.

 

[RoseMontague]

Now you made an argument about reasonable doubt. Which is a totally separated topic.....

Anyway, I agree with Massei. He could have said more, mention further elements, and even be more convincing. Yet what he said is reasonable.

No surprise that you agree with Massei and find him reasonable. Massei is an idiot and a liar. I can talk about whatever I want to talk about related to this discussion. You can respond or not, your choice.

 

[Machiavelli]

If a journalist knows there is another side to the story and fails to mention it in their report then they are in fact editorializing. Only an idiot (like the judges) would believe she meant the "I was there" to mean she was at the cottage during the murder. Vogt may also be an idiot so I give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Actuall I think the other way around: only an idiot would locate "I was there, I can't lie" in her discussion with her family as "at Raffaele's apartment".
Btw think at the statement "I can't lie". It means her parents were asking her to lie. To lie about what? About being at Sollecito's apartment?

Popham was not the only one that reported the phrase Satanic ritual in connection to the prosecution claims. Barbie Nadeau says this several times in her book. And even judge Micheli mentions Mignini's claims of a ritual murder.

Unfortunately not. He was not alone. He doesn't understand a word of Itlian so he copied it from some British tabloid.
And I'm afraid many others did the same.
But this is no excuse. Nor for them nor for you.
Mignini did not describe any cult-driven ritual as motive for murder. He mentioned possible suggetion by the Halloween atmosphere for a "sexual party" (he actually only said "it is not unrealistic" for people obsessed with violence and sex, to be prone to take inspiration also from Halloween atmosphere and from sexual manga).

On Guede's handwritten statement, are you a handwriting expert?

No, but similarities are very obvious. The fact that it's the same handwriting is just obvious. Unless you have a very professional forgery work, that's obviously his handwriting.

I don't take it as a given that he wrote it, in fact I still have doubts about it.

If you were a reporter, you should have evidence to say otherwise.

On the HIV test, were you present at the testing and can certify the result as positive? Personally, I don't think it can be proven at this point that they faked it, but I would not put it past them.

Who is "them"?

 

[Mary_H]

1. Bill Williams asked Vogt to "recant" one specific piece of information which he called "false" (saying he is sure of that), on which he claimed the truth was different (meaning that it was proven what the truth was) and said such truth it was "clear".

2. Fron your quote, the title of the quoted article is correct (anyway, the newspaper and not the journalist is the one responsible for the title, you should know that). Moreover, Vogt does not "act like it is new news", she only reports from legal documents (which might be news); she does not report that the defence "clarified" - and, now it is proven, correctly so - maybe because the defence did not clarify; they only claimed an explanation (as they have to do on anything) while such explanation did not "clarify" and did not sound convincing to any judge, neither to the public, nor to Vogt.

My goodness, your English is suddenly vastly improved -- wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

What you are implying is that Vogt never read any of the coverage about the quote before she wrote the 2011 article. She did not read the 2007 Telegraph article cited earlier by Grinder, which states, "However, Knox's lawyers have said she was referring to being at her boyfriend's house," or many others that covered the same topic.

You're telling me that someone as informed as Andrea would write this about the quote, "Though not raised during her first trial," without looking into WHY it was not raised at the first trial and then explaining it to her readers. You have as high an opinion of Andrea's investigative skills as I have of her ability to tell the whole truth.

Everyone informed about the case knew the quote had been disregarded for the first trial. Yet in 2011 Andrea plays on uninformed people's ignorance, hoping that if she leaves out four-year-old details, she will persuade new readers that there was something to Amanda's statement, when she knew full well there was not.

3. What I find more astonishing anyway, is this pointing the finger agains Vogt talking about "unbalanced report". And I say this not because of the merit of the judgement itself; anyone can have their opinion on who makes the best balanced report (but you need to know the topic); but here, ths criticism to Vogt about "balanced reporting" comes from people who did not raise an eyebrow when a CNN anchor woman reported that the Perugians were angry "with the police". It seems you were not too outraged that Popham wrote that Mignini talked about a Satanic ritual; that MSNBC had the Koxes as regular guests to comment on the case; that all US media failed to report the existence of tens or hundreds of pieces of evidence and witnesses (who ever reported of Meredith's girlfriends? Luminol footprints? etc.); that Spezi and Preston reported that Mignini was the Prosecutor in the MoF investigation; that the US network did not report about Knox's claim of false memory syndrome, about her statement "I stand by what I said" or about her dec 17th interrogation, nor about Vecchiotti's "everything is possible...", and so on....
You concept of "balanced reporting" is really astonoshing. No outrage against bloggers/journalists who wrote about fake HIV tests, or who falsely wrote that Mignini was guilty of abuses (without even mentioning anything about the true proceedings and their true context, nature and conclusion), or that 100 instances of Guede's DNA were found in the murder room (or that it was found "everywhere"), no outrage for what was falsely claimed about Stefanoni....
So you point instead your finger against Vogt and you ask her - only her - to be "more balanced", to recant something, which btw is true according to all judges.

As someone very close to the prosecution, yet also capable of reading and researching all news coverage of the case, Andrea does know the topic. Hence, she should report everything she knows. When she doesn't (as with the quote about Amanda being there), she is not being balanced.

 

[LondonJohn]

What a long winded bag of hot air. The cottage is close with nothing standing in the way of the apartment. The higher position of the Nara's is important to understand how it all worked You are right though maybe sound also traveled out bedroom door or out the faulty front door swinging open. It may even have traveled out the broken window, no strike that!! So take that trip to Perugia so you too can hear sounds from below the cottage , better than a text book anyday.

Ah, well I could have written something shorter along the lines of this:

"Any argument that sound can be "amplified" in a canyon is laughably wrong, utterly at odds with even basic scientific knowledge, and demonstrative of rather nasty confirmation bias".

But I thought that a fuller explanation with reasoning might be more appropriate. However, your response above - particularly the first sentence of it of course - shows me that you're probably not interested in the practice of closely-reasoned arguments, and perhaps prefer bald, declarative statements with no supporting evidence. You've amply shown me that I should have run with the pithier but unsupported paragraph instead. My mistake.......

 

[Machiavelli]

Wait a minute, Machiavelli. Andrea Vogt wrote that the "I was there" statement by Amanda Knox, secretly recorded by the PLE in conversation with her mother, was a confession that she'd been at the cottage the night of the murder.

No one else other than those who wish harm to Amanda Knox believe that.

"no one else than those who wish to harm her would belive that". What an interesting tautology.
So any judge, or any person, who thinks that this statement, "I was there" most likely, indicates at the cottage, that this is just the most reasonable translation (what makes sense in the context of the discussion, "I can't lie" etc..), well that person must be a person who "wishes to harm Amanda".
The judges are motivated to read this statement in a certain way not because it may be the most probable meaning in the context but because they wish to harm Knox. So even the Kerchers, basically read it that way because they wish to harm Knox.
By your definition, no one else except those who wish to harm Knox would "believe" anything except than she meant that she was at Sollecito's.

I have posted for you Massei's own rendering of this - if it HAD been a confession, Massei would have used that as further reason to convict. He did not.

These "if" reasonings are no argument. Judges and magistrated do leave out pieces of evidence from their arguments and motivation reports. That's not a proof that they don't exist.
And anyway, that's not a proof that the defence argument exists, or that it is the truth.

If asked today, would Vogt recant about the "I was there" comment and what it meant?

Vogt did not make theories or arguments. She just reported, brought pieces of information. Those pieces of informations are true (also according to the Cassazione).

 

[RoseMontague]

Actuall I think the other way around: only an idiot would locate "I was there, I can't lie" in her discussion with her family as "at Raffaele's apartment".
Btw think at the statement "I can't lie". It means her parents were asking her to lie. To lie about what? About being at Sollecito's apartment?

Too funny. You take this ridiculous argument even further than the idiots at the isc.
Unfortunately not. He was not alone. He doesn't understand a word of Itlian so he copied it from some British tabloid.
And I'm afraid many others did the same.
But this is no excuse. Nor for them nor for you.
Mignini did not describe any cult-driven ritual as motive for murder. He mentioned possible suggetion by the Halloween atmosphere for a "sexual party" (he actually only said "it is not unrealistic" for people obsessed with violence and sex, to be prone to take inspiration also from Halloween atmosphere and from sexual manga).

I consider it progress that you admit to even this much. I'll bookmark this one.
No, but similarities are very obvious. The fact that it's the same handwriting is just obvious. Unless you have a very professional forgery work, that's obviously his handwriting.

Then you are giving your opinion on this, then. It is not a fact. I rarely agree with your opinion and I am not convinced.
If you were a reporter, you should have evidence to say otherwise.

I am not a reporter here. I am giving my opinion on a discussion forum.
Who is "them"?

Those corrupt Italian cops, prosecutors, and judges. And their little dog, too.

My responses are highlighted above.

 

[Mary_H]

Of course, what you write makes a lot of sense. Take for example point #2. Based on "all the evidence" of the "previous behaviour" of the "people involved", assumes that you have collected a dossiers with a list of criminal records and behaviours (and biographies) of the medical staff of Umbria Health Care system working at the Capanne prison. Of course you did. Of course it makes a lot of sense...

Well, if you want to talk about criminal records, then let's talk about who has been prosecuted in their own country for misconduct and who has not.

By the way, you think it was the medical staff? I think it was the cops.

The Guede's letter is obviously not only his handwriting, but also obviously written in his own personal language (it is weitten by a native French speaker); an anyway you don't have a shred of evidence to say it's not true. It is just proven that Guede could not be arrested before, self evident under the law (even Charlie Wilkes admitted that). You are also unable to bring any shred of evidence that Stefanoni denied an alleged defence request to disclose EDF files. But it doesn't matter to you. You "believe", based on your ideas about people and behaviors, and there is nothing to actually discuss whtn it's about belief.

I can't argue with that, oh ye who wants Amanda to be guilty more than anything in the world.

We have provided pages and pages of evidence to support our claims. The fact that PGP won't read them does not mean they're not there.

 

[Machiavelli]

My goodness, your English is suddenly vastly improved -- wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

What you are implying is that Vogt never read any of the coverage about the quote before she wrote the 2011 article. She did not read the 2007 Telegraph article cited earlier by Grinder, which states, "However, Knox's lawyers have said she was referring to being at her boyfriend's house," or many others that covered the same topic.

What? Vogt was in the courtroom, when Mignini made the argument, in the 2008 preliminary hearing and in the 2011 trial. What has the Telegraph to do with that? She is supposed to report events, what she deems important about events, not to quote the Telegraph.

You're telling me that someone as informed as Andrea would write this about the quote, "Though not raised during her first trial," without looking into WHY it was not raised at the first trial and then explaining it to her readers. You have as high an opinion of Andrea's investigative skills as I have of her ability to tell the whole truth.

Everyone informed about the case knew the quote had been disregarded for the first trial. Yet in 2011 Andrea plays on uninformed people's ignorance, hoping that if she leaves out four-year-old details, she will persuade new readers that there was something to Amanda's statement, when she knew full well there was not.

The discussion with her mother was an argumet from the preliminary hearing, and was used by Mignini to keep Knox under cautionary custody. That was the original purpose of the piece of evidence. It is a pice of evidence with an inherent lower standard. But it is a pice of evidence nonetheless.

As someone very close to the prosecution, yet also capable of reading and researching all news coverage of the case, Andrea does know the topic. Hence, she should report everything she knows.

That's delusion. Nobody report everything they know. Any journalist or writer would write only a small fraction of what they know. A journalist selects and reports what they deem important. If they report what they honestly believe important, they are honest.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, if you want to talk about criminal records, then let's talk about who has been prosecuted in their own country for misconduct and who has not.

Well, let's talk. About Mario Spezi, maybe, you mean. Or about Frank Sfarzo. Or about Sollecito's defence expert Pascali.
If you are thinkin about Mignini, well legally he was not: there has been a prosecution and a trial, however they were found to be illegitimate (by a Florentine appeal court), they were annulled, not just the trial but also the prosecution and the investigation, and legally they don't exist any more.

By the way, you think it was the medical staff? I think it was the cops.

I don't think, I know it was the medical staff.
And I know it couldn't be anyone else. I also know that the prison police can't have absolutely anything to do with medical tests.
(Even Amanda herself wrote about what the doctor told her).

I can't argue with that, oh ye who wants Amanda to be guilty more than anything in the world.

We have provided pages and pages of evidence to support our claims. The fact that PGP won't read them does not mean they're not there.

Actually you have proven your inability to even read or understand what you handle and quote.

 

[Mary_H]

Machiavelli's argument goes like this:

If you're playing Go Fish, and you ask Mach for all of his Jacks, he thinks it's OK to turn over two Jacks but hold on to the third, just to prevent your opponent from making a match.

Lyin' and cheatin'. That's what that is.

You got it. It's a whole system of people who need a 12-Step Program about personal responsibility.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vogt did not make theories or arguments. She just reported, brought pieces of information. Those pieces of informations are true (also according to the Cassazione).

My opinion is that if you believe this then you are no journalist. Journalists pass on theories and arguments from all sides, and it is clear that Ms. Vogt was only interested in passing on one side of the story.

Are you saying that Ms. Vogt genuinely believes that the recorded conversation IS an admission by Amanda that she'd been at the cottage, not Raffaele's?

Well, Vogt then needs to report that Judge Massei disagrees. Did you read the sum total of what Judge Massei wrote in his motivations - and as of right now, Judge Massei is the sole finder of fact in this regard?

I know that YOU Machiavelli will post nothing except things that represent the prosecutions' case. What is at issue is why A. Vogt wrote nothing but things favourable to the prosecution's case? By this she fails to report the findings of fact on various subjects and issues that are suggestive of innocence.

For instance, has Vogt ever writting about "no mixed blood," found at the cottage?

Has she ever written about no forensic presence of Amanda Knox in the murder room?

And finally, why do I get the feeling that we're suddenly talking to Mach 2?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>That's delusion. Nobody report everything they know. Any journalist or writer would write only a small fraction of what they know. A journalist selects and reports what they deem important. If they report what they honestly believe important, they are honest.

We rest our case.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, let's talk. About Mario Spezi, maybe, you mean. Or about Frank Sfarzo. Or about Sollecito's defence expert Pascali.

Well, it hardly counts if the prosecuted is doing the prosecuting!

If you are thinkin about Mignini, well legally he was not: there has been a prosecution and a trial, however they were found to be illegitimate (by a Florentine appeal court), they were annulled, not just the trial but also the prosecution and the investigation, and legally they don't exist any more.

Then you should not be so quick to assume the prosecutions against the people you mentioned above will not at some point legally not exist any more.

I don't think, I know it was the medical staff.
And I know it couldn't be anyone else. I also know that the prison police can't have absolutely anything to do with medical tests.
(Even Amanda herself wrote about what the doctor told her).

So now there WAS an HIV test?

Do you know how many violations of WHO guidelines you just accused the Capanne medical staff of?

 

[Machiavelli]

Who is "them"

.
Those corrupt Italian cops, prosecutors, and judges. And their little dog, too.

You need to re-write your statement. You should include:
1. the medical staff of the Umbria Health Care system, those who performed the HIV tests and told Knox the results.
2. Knox's defence attorneys; those who - allegedly - did not complain about illegal or fake HIV tests, nor about alleged 05:45 interrogation by the prosecutor (as she tells in her book)
3. the State of Italy, namely its consitutional powers (the Judiciary, expressed by the CSM and the Supreme Court)
4. all those countries, international organization and powers who signed treaties, enforce them and deal with with such Italian constitutional powers.

 

[Mary_H]

What? Vogt was in the courtroom, when Mignini made the argument, in the 2008 preliminary hearing and in the 2011 trial. What has the Telegraph to do with that? She is supposed to report events, what she deems important about events, not to quote the Telegraph.

The discussion with her mother was an argumet from the preliminary hearing, and was used by Mignini to keep Knox under cautionary custody. That was the original purpose of the piece of evidence. It is a pice of evidence with an inherent lower standard. But it is a pice of evidence nonetheless.<snip>

This makes it even more shameful that Vogt did not tell the whole truth in the 2011 article, but left readers to infer that Knox's statement was important evidence against her.

Sensationalism, yellow journalism, pure and simple. Andrea's been living in Italy too long.