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

[Grinder]

ETA: Btw, regarding the foot test, I leaned toward the one on the right but I waffled back and forth and it was hard to say.

To me the main point is that none of the footprints MATCH anybody's they are just compatible. If we were to use the same approach with fingerprints I'm sure the prints in the cottage were compatible with everyone on this thread as would be the footprints.

Much of the case was assembled by saying that this that and the other would be compatible with one or both of the kids therefore: GUILTY.

And to all those that contributed to me watching that horrid Coulter - a pox on your houses

 

[RoseMontague]

To me the main point is that none of the footprints MATCH anybody's they are just compatible. If we were to use the same approach with fingerprints I'm sure the prints in the cottage were compatible with everyone on this thread as would be the footprints.

Much of the case was assembled by saying that this that and the other would be compatible with one or both of the kids therefore: GUILTY.

And to all those that contributed to me watching that horrid Coulter - a pox on your houses

Coultergeist. She's here.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't really know to be honest with you, I'm almost afraid to look too closely into current court proceedings as the Corte Suprema di Cassazione quashing destroyed any lingering faith I had in Italian justice. They bought into a pack of lies on evidence that they never evaluated, with quotes taken out of context from documents they never read and they fully backed Mignini in both this case and the absurd 'Monster of Florence' debacle. They have to 'rule' on some 30k cases a year and are supposed to limit themselves to points of law for the obvious reasons above but they chose to quash Mignini's own conviction on corruption charges and put Amanda, Raffaele, their families and all those poor people supposedly part of, or covering up for, a satanic cult 'responsible' for this long dead suicide (that had nothing to do with the even longer inactive serial killer in Florence) through more hell and expense.

.... and look what's happened so far.

There's been two days' of hearings, one for only 1 1/2 hours. The second day concerned the Mafia guy, who the ISC said was part of the reason why Hellmann's acquittals needed to be set aside. The mafia guy needed more probing, because Hellmann's dismissal of him somehow failed to contribute to the "osmotic" evaluation of the horrible Kercher murder.

What happened? In 90 minutes he/she said exactly what he'd told previous courts. His brother had done the horrible deed during a botched robbery, and (oh by the way) the Sollecito's did not pay him to say this.

And there's no reason in the world advantageous to himself why he would say this.

Is he telling the truth? I haven't a clue.....

...... but cycle back to what's really real here. The ISC quashed acquittals partly on the basis of this mafia guy. He told a story, he's sticking to it, that's it.

What does Machiavelli and Mignini do in the meantime? Mignini publishes a letter to the editor denying he'd EVER suggested a Satanic rite as a motive for this crime. Machiavelli translates it for a hate website. Mignini tells other lies - now it's not a sex game gone wrong, as acc. to the ISC is another reason to osmotically set aside the acquittals, Mignini now claims it was a "sex-hazing"?

Aside from the fact that there's no evidence, nothing, zero, zilch, niente, nada..... nothing to even suggest it.... and Mignini even gets into the letter that Meredith feared the rent money was missing.... again, there's no evidence, nothing, zero, zilch, niente, nada..... nothing to even suggest it.... (save for Rudy Guede on that one....)

And Machiavelli joins in by translating it for an English language hate site in North America.

But back to the ISC. Why did not the ISC order retesting of the break-in. Why did it take Channel 5 in England to show, at the very window in question, that it was a slam dunk to break-in through that window? Why did the ISC not say that the proper osmotic understanding of why this was a lone killer begins with the fact that the break-in was doable, rather than what Mignini will write in a second letter?

Because Mignini will never write about something to do with this case that is actually testable.

Machiavelli will not translate it, and Andrea Vogt will not report it.

Did you ever suspect that the guilter universe was this small? The only question was how on earth did Mignini get the ear of the ISC to evaluate all the wrong things? Like the mafia guy? The trial has been underway for a week now, and what have we learned....

 

[Grinder]

From the Rose link:

Judge Paolo Micheli bought his whole package, sending one suspect, Rudy Guede, to jail for 30 years and committing Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for trial.

To the bitter disappointment of the two students accused along with Guede of killing their friend, he also refused them bail, warning that they “might kill again”.

Mr Mignini decided only a few days after Meredith died that the murder was the culmination of an orgy in which Amanda, Raffaele and one other person were involved. And in court on 19 October he explained in more detail what he meant.

How could a system let the same judge rule on Rudy and send the kids to trial while denying them release from jail while being tried?

 

[Bill Williams]

Nothing from any of these true crime novel writers can be trusted without independent corroboration particularly Barbie.

Yes, you've said that many times. The difference lies in those who are willing to back up their claims, those who are willing to be transparent and share sources.

That's how you evaluate them.

But I concede, Barbie is a tenuous source. However, you have to admit, she certainly knows how to monetize her participation in this horrid crime.

 

[MDDVS]

From the Rose link:

Judge Paolo Micheli bought his whole package, sending one suspect, Rudy Guede, to jail for 30 years and committing Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for trial.

To the bitter disappointment of the two students accused along with Guede of killing their friend, he also refused them bail, warning that they “might kill again”.

Mr Mignini decided only a few days after Meredith died that the murder was the culmination of an orgy in which Amanda, Raffaele and one other person were involved. And in court on 19 October he explained in more detail what he meant.

How could a system let the same judge rule on Rudy and send the kids to trial while denying them release from jail while being tried?

A system which assumes people are honest and never make mistakes until prove to the contrary.

 

[Kaosium]

.... and look what's happened so far.

There's been two days' of hearings, one for only 1 1/2 hours. The second day concerned the Mafia guy, who the ISC said was part of the reason why Hellmann's acquittals needed to be set aside. The mafia guy needed more probing, because Hellmann's dismissal of him somehow failed to contribute to the "osmotic" evaluation of the horrible Kercher murder.

What happened? In 90 minutes he/she said exactly what he'd told previous courts. His brother had done the horrible deed during a botched robbery, and (oh by the way) the Sollecito's did not pay him to say this.

And there's no reason in the world advantageous to himself why he would say this.

Is he telling the truth? I haven't a clue.....

...... but cycle back to what's really real here. The ISC quashed acquittals partly on the basis of this mafia guy. He told a story, he's sticking to it, that's it.

What does Machiavelli and Mignini do in the meantime? Mignini publishes a letter to the editor denying he'd EVER suggested a Satanic rite as a motive for this crime. Machiavelli translates it for a hate website. Mignini tells other lies - now it's not a sex game gone wrong, as acc. to the ISC is another reason to osmotically set aside the acquittals, Mignini now claims it was a "sex-hazing"?

Aside from the fact that there's no evidence, nothing, zero, zilch, niente, nada..... nothing to even suggest it.... and Mignini even gets into the letter that Meredith feared the rent money was missing.... again, there's no evidence, nothing, zero, zilch, niente, nada..... nothing to even suggest it.... (save for Rudy Guede on that one....)

And Machiavelli joins in by translating it for an English language hate site in North America.

But back to the ISC. Why did not the ISC order retesting of the break-in. Why did it take Channel 5 in England to show, at the very window in question, that it was a slam dunk to break-in through that window? Why did the ISC not say that the proper osmotic understanding of why this was a lone killer begins with the fact that the break-in was doable, rather than what Mignini will write in a second letter?

Because Mignini will never write about something to do with this case that is actually testable.

Machiavelli will not translate it, and Andrea Vogt will not report it.

Did you ever suspect that the guilter universe was this small? The only question was how on earth did Mignini get the ear of the ISC to evaluate all the wrong things? Like the mafia guy? The trial has been underway for a week now, and what have we learned....

Thanks for the summary, Bill. That could be good, it could be bad. I'm afraid to invest too much hope in the former however it's possible they're just jumping through the hoops the SC bought into from the prosecution appeal and realize, like Hellmann, there's simply no evidence to support a final murder conviction.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, you've said that many times. The difference lies in those who are willing to back up their claims, those who are willing to be transparent and share sources.

Really? Show me the proof of the dialogue in the police station that Follain provides. Add to that the pages of references in CD's book.

That's how you evaluate them.

But not you?

But I concede, Barbie is a tenuous source. However, you have to admit, she certainly knows how to monetize her participation in this horrid crime.

What does making money have to do with validity of reporting?

I'd say that it wasn't for a lack of effort that CD didn't get as much. Barbie was writing travel stories for CNN and other real publications and had done a few pieces on Berlusconi for Newsweek/The Beast.

CD was an unpaid citizen blogger that pitched her book by February 2008. I'd say she did quite well for herself considering her resume.

ETA - You made some reference to reading CD's early blogs but you didn't start following the case until 2011. If you didn't read them at the time with comments and comparing them to contemporaneous stories you can't fully appreciate them one way or the other.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, you've said that many times. The difference lies in those who are willing to back up their claims, those who are willing to be transparent and share sources.

Really? Show me the proof of the dialogue in the police station that Follain provides. Add to that the pages of references in CD's book.

You'll need to ask John Follain for the proof.

That's what I mean about the True Crime genre. Whenever Candace Dempsey has made a claim, and has been asked, she's been transparent and backed it up.

Follain has gone turtle. So the only "fact" that can be advanced is not the actuality of Marco Chiacchiera saying what Follain said he said, it's that Foallin claims it.

Ask Follain.

 

[acbytesla]

.... and look what's happened so far.

There's been two days' of hearings, one for only 1 1/2 hours. The second day concerned the Mafia guy, who the ISC said was part of the reason why Hellmann's acquittals needed to be set aside. The mafia guy needed more probing, because Hellmann's dismissal of him somehow failed to contribute to the "osmotic" evaluation of the horrible Kercher murder.

What happened? In 90 minutes he/she said exactly what he'd told previous courts. His brother had done the horrible deed during a botched robbery, and (oh by the way) the Sollecito's did not pay him to say this.

And there's no reason in the world advantageous to himself why he would say this.

Is he telling the truth? I haven't a clue.....

...... but cycle back to what's really real here. The ISC quashed acquittals partly on the basis of this mafia guy. He told a story, he's sticking to it, that's it.

What does Machiavelli and Mignini do in the meantime? Mignini publishes a letter to the editor denying he'd EVER suggested a Satanic rite as a motive for this crime. Machiavelli translates it for a hate website. Mignini tells other lies - now it's not a sex game gone wrong, as acc. to the ISC is another reason to osmotically set aside the acquittals, Mignini now claims it was a "sex-hazing"?

Aside from the fact that there's no evidence, nothing, zero, zilch, niente, nada..... nothing to even suggest it.... and Mignini even gets into the letter that Meredith feared the rent money was missing.... again, there's no evidence, nothing, zero, zilch, niente, nada..... nothing to even suggest it.... (save for Rudy Guede on that one....)

And Machiavelli joins in by translating it for an English language hate site in North America.

But back to the ISC. Why did not the ISC order retesting of the break-in. Why did it take Channel 5 in England to show, at the very window in question, that it was a slam dunk to break-in through that window? Why did the ISC not say that the proper osmotic understanding of why this was a lone killer begins with the fact that the break-in was doable, rather than what Mignini will write in a second letter?

Because Mignini will never write about something to do with this case that is actually testable.

Machiavelli will not translate it, and Andrea Vogt will not report it.

Did you ever suspect that the guilter universe was this small? The only question was how on earth did Mignini get the ear of the ISC to evaluate all the wrong things? Like the mafia guy? The trial has been underway for a week now, and what have we learned....

Thanks for the update Bill. Given the schedule and the almost cursory look at this case and that the next court date is in November, it looks as if everything is coming down to the DNA review. If 36I reveals nothing as I would expect it to, I can't see how they can change the Hellmann decision and still portray to the world that this process is fair.

Italy's system sure seems weird. They meet for two days and then wait a month??? Absolutely strange.

 

[Grinder]

A system which assumes people are honest and never make mistakes until prove to the contrary.

Don't you think that even in a system that does what you say would want to separate the two cases completely once separate trials become a reality.

After hearing the case against Rudy in which no party had a reason to argue for a single attacker or a real break-in, how could the judge not be influenced or at least not appear beyond the possibility of being influenced?

In essence the prosecution was able to make a partial case against the kids with no defense of them.

 

[Grinder]

You'll need to ask John Follain for the proof.

That's what I mean about the True Crime genre. Whenever Candace Dempsey has made a claim, and has been asked, she's been transparent and backed it up.

Follain has gone turtle. So the only "fact" that can be advanced is not the actuality of Marco Chiacchiera saying what Follain said he said, it's that Foallin claims it.

Ask Follain.

You have used Follain for proof of your points of view ad nauseam yet you now say he's not transparent. So YOU need to ask Follain for proof of the dialogue. If it's only what he claims why do you use them in making one of your insightful points?

You act as if some writer that you believe is pro guilt somehow should be regarded as providing insights if he writes something that agrees with your theories.

They write books to make money and maybe sell the rights for a movie.

CD learned at her little book club that true crime novels don't annotate. She doesn't. We don't even have an idea when she was actually there. She does whine that she spent "her own money" to travel to Perugia, as if that is even worth mentioning.

 

[acbytesla]

You have used Follain for proof of your points of view ad nauseam yet you now say he's not transparent. So YOU need to ask Follain for proof of the dialogue. If it's only what he claims why do you use them in making one of your insightful points?

You act as if some writer that you believe is pro guilt somehow should be regarded as providing insights if he writes something that agrees with your theories.

They write books to make money and maybe sell the rights for a movie.

CD learned at her little book club that true crime novels don't annotate. She doesn't. We don't even have an idea when she was actually there. She does whine that she spent "her own money" to travel to Perugia, as if that is even worth mentioning.

No offense Grinder, While I agree with many of your points, I sometimes think you are the grumpiest cynic I've ever encountered. Have fun....and GO DAWGS!!!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dueling resumes

CD was an unpaid citizen blogger that pitched her book by February 2008. I'd say she did quite well for herself considering her resume.

CD's resume includes a graduate degree in journalism, but Barbie never finished her undergraduate degree, IIRC. When I have asked CD for more information, she has provided it.

 

[Grinder]

No offense Grinder, While I agree with many of your points, I sometimes think you are the grumpiest cynic I've ever encountered. Have fun....and GO DAWGS!!!!

I don't consider not appreciating CD as a grump-o-meter. You joined this a little to fully appreciate criticism of CD.

Cynics are usually grumpy

CD's resume includes a graduate degree in journalism, but Barbie never finished her undergraduate degree, IIRC. When I have asked CD for more information, she has provided it.

CD has a some masters but little to no experience. Barbie went to S. Dakota St. IIRC and didn't graduate but did have a long, if not illustrious, writing history.

She made provide more information to insiders but that isn't what I call transparent.

I think it would be useful to know when and how long she was in Perugia. I would like to know who her main sources were and are. I'd like to know how much she relied on Frank as a source. I'd to know if she reads the transcripts in the original Italian. And I don't want to ask her. I want it to be transparent.

She apparently implies she received a masters from the U of Oregon in 1976 but I think it is poorly written Wiki. The U of Oregon is a mediocre to lousy school but so what. Her writing history for beginning in 1976 is lame. I'll bet she didn't sell her book on that resume but rather Seattle connections.

Here's her own about me intro:

Candace Dempsey is the award-winning Italian-American author of the MURDER IN ITALY: The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and an International Scandal. (Penguin: Berkley Books, 2010). It's about the brutal slaying of British student Merdith Kercher in Italy and her Amanda Knox, her accused American roommate. Candace's editor is Shannon Jamieson Vazquez. She is represented by the Andrew Stuart Agency in New York.

Really, she puts her agent and editor in her first paragraph of who she is?

 

[Bill Williams]

You have used Follain for proof of your points of view ad nauseam yet you now say he's not transparent. So YOU need to ask Follain for proof of the dialogue. If it's only what he claims why do you use them in making one of your insightful points?

You act as if some writer that you believe is pro guilt somehow should be regarded as providing insights if he writes something that agrees with your theories.

Grinder - please provide a reference for when I have ever said it is factual as to what Marco Chiacchiera is claimed to have said by Follain. Sheesh. In my opinion, you have not understood at all what I have posted. You keep shifting the goalposts.

I most definitely have NOT used Follain as proof for this. As for its factuality, I have no clue, really. What's at issue is Follain's availability in 2013 to buttress what he wrote. Same goes with Andrea Vogt who makes claims (like her unique interpretation of "I was there") and then disappears.

The issue is not "True Crime" writing per se, it is the availability of these various writers to be held accountable for what they've written. Dempsey, almost uniquely in this case, has always been available to be held accountable. That;s the issue.

What I have remarked on is how someone who writes as if knowing the very thoughts of the PLE, who writes backing the methods of the PLE - why would Follain write what he writes about Marco Chiacchiera - who Follain to the exclusion of all others claims recommended that Knox and Sollecito be let go after interrogation.

I have never offered that as factual. I am as doubtful about it as you are. The question is not to do with the factuality of the claim - the issue is: why would Follain write it? Unfortunately that's where it stops because Follain remains unaccountable for his writings.

The difference in these writers could not be more clear. If some similar issue turned up in relation to what Candace Dempsey has written, she has been more than willing to fill in the blanks.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't consider not appreciating CD as a grump-o-meter. You joined this a little to fully appreciate criticism of CD.

Cynics are usually grumpy



CD has a some masters but little to no experience. Barbie went to S. Dakota St. IIRC and didn't graduate but did have a long, if not illustrious, writing history.

She made provide more information to insiders but that isn't what I call transparent.

I think it would be useful to know when and how long she was in Perugia. I would like to know who her main sources were and are. I'd like to know how much she relied on Frank as a source. I'd to know if she reads the transcripts in the original Italian. And I don't want to ask her. I want it to be transparent.

She apparently implies she received a masters from the U of Oregon in 1976 but I think it is poorly written Wiki. The U of Oregon is a mediocre to lousy school but so what. Her writing history for beginning in 1976 is lame. I'll bet she didn't sell her book on that resume but rather Seattle connections.
Here's her own about me intro:

Candace Dempsey is the award-winning Italian-American author of the MURDER IN ITALY: The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and an International Scandal. (Penguin: Berkley Books, 2010). It's about the brutal slaying of British student Merdith Kercher in Italy and her Amanda Knox, her accused American roommate. Candace's editor is Shannon Jamieson Vazquez. She is represented by the Andrew Stuart Agency in New York.

Really, she puts her agent and editor in her first paragraph of who she is?

Normally, I'd discount anyone for being a Duck. And as much as I'd like to say that they don't provide a substantial education, I really can't (and believe me I'd like to) I hate Oregon more than any school in the PAC-12. It's really not a bad school at all.

I have actually read Candace's book. Have you? You use to say that you didn't read any of the books, so I'm not sure how you can really offer a valid opinion about any of these author's prose.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have used Follain for proof of your points of view ad nauseam yet you now say he's not transparent. So YOU need to ask Follain for proof of the dialogue. If it's only what he claims why do you use them in making one of your insightful points?

You act as if some writer that you believe is pro guilt somehow should be regarded as providing insights if he writes something that agrees with your theories.

They write books to make money and maybe sell the rights for a movie.

CD learned at her little book club that true crime novels don't annotate. She doesn't. We don't even have an idea when she was actually there. She does whine that she spent "her own money" to travel to Perugia, as if that is even worth mentioning.

No offense Grinder, While I agree with many of your points, I sometimes think you are the grumpiest cynic I've ever encountered. Have fun....and GO DAWGS!!!!

AcByTesla.... you took the words right out of my mouth. I can only speculate, but Grinder seems to go out of his way to diss people just for the sake of dissing them. Look how he uses the "her little book club" term. Talk about dismissive.

To my untrained ears Grinders beef sounds personal. But that's just me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Its program in journalism is just ducky

The University of Oregon was listed as among the top 50 programs in journalism in one such list. Go Ducks!

 

[acbytesla]

AcByTesla.... you took the words right out of my mouth. I can only speculate, but Grinder seems to go out of his way to diss people just for the sake of dissing them. Look how he uses the "her little book club" term. Talk about dismissive.

To my untrained ears Grinders beef sounds personal. But that's just me.

No I don't think it's personal at all. I think it is part of his character. Grinder is a smart guy who seemingly only thinks with his head and never his heart. He dissects the case as well as anything else. He's the guy who corrects everything and everyone. I think I know, because to a certain degree, I think that is me as well. Or at least it use to be. He is picky, he is ultra critical of Amanda and Raffaele even though he doesn't believe in their guilt. I've been very critical of Grinder's line regarding Amanda because I think his expectations and standards are not really fair. I'm sure he'd disagree with my assessment, but that is to be expected. Grinder is a good guy, but he's also a grumpy gus.