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

[Bill Williams]

Andrea Vogt was the reporter for a Seattle newspaper covering the murder and the trial. She fell in with PMF early, but tried to give a balanced approach to her articles. The former inhibited the latter in my opinion.

Vogt is a journalism graduate that had written at least one book and was writing freelance from Germany and Italy. She was in court for most of the hearings.

Andrea Vogt is virtually a founder of PMF... in fact, when Peggy bragged that she got her reports direct from the courtroom on a daily basis, my opinion is that she was getting them straight from Vogt.

Calling Vogt "too deferential to the police and prosecution" is akin to saying that The Presidents of The United States adhere too closely to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States! To my way of thinking Vogt made up her mind before hearing the defence case - she was as much as anyone caught up in the whore-mongering of Knox.

Barbie Nadeau is "objective" by contrast. At least Barbie had the sense in Dec 2009 to say while on air with CNN, "The prosecution case was weak, but the case presented by the defence was weaker. This could very well be overturned at appeal."

Candace Dempsey is a journalism school grad who'd just started a blog and started following the case. Very early she realized there was something terribly wrong with the 'investigation' and chose to buck the trend in the media at the time which had judged them guilty and was looking for juicy details the police and prosecution were more than happy to provide, regardless if there was any truth to them. She wrote a book called "Murder in Italy" which was an early look at the investigation and the first trial, and by far the most accurate and balanced look at the time. In retrospect she may have been too deferential to the police and prosecution, which was just an attempt at fairness herself and she could hardly know how it would all turn out with the appeals court.

Candace had just begun writing a "readers" blog. She picked upon the story and became a spokesperson for the pro Amanda position very early on. She has never disclosed when she actually was in Perugia but it seemed she stayed in Seattle but had "sources" the PGP always thought started with Chris Mellas, Amanda's step-father. She also seems to formed a relationship with Preston and Frank Sfarzo. Both of those people were part of FOA (friends of Amanda)

By February of 2008 she was pitching a book and never missed an opportunity to promote it. She campaigned relentlessly to get the PIP fans to vote her book some obscure award. She wrote the book in the true crime genre which precludes the need for footnotes.

Candace's blog was filled with inaccuracies including the most recent mention of the DNA being starch. I've pointed these out in the past and the response is that it is just a blog so it need not be accurate, just opinions.

She long ago gave up any appearance of any sort of objectivity.

You can look at her speech at a FOA forum at Seattle University before the first appeal and judge a bit for yourself.

When Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in fact are innocent, what does "objectivity" look like? Does it look like convicting them of some lesser crime?

It is clear what you think of Dempsey. What I'd like to know is where you got this notion of "objectivity" from?

 

[davefoc]

In my opinion, that was the result of incompetence. They are very good at finding the tiny bits and pieces that could point to guilt, and they could probably have found a lot on the computers if they had wanted to. They didn't have the know-how.

I haven't read much about the hard drive issue. I was an electrical engineer that worked around computers for most of my career. I had quite a bit of experience with installing 3.5 inch and 2.5 inch drives. It was fairly easy to wreck either type of drive by putting the connector in wrong and powering the drive up. The keying mechanism wasn't particularly robust and it could be missing entirely. Usually there was a red stripe on the cable that indicated which side pin one was on, but it was possible to build the cable backwards and it was possible to mix up which side of the drive pin one was on. My guess has been that the people that investigated the drives in this case made a mistake like that.

There are a few problems with my theory. The first is that one would expect the police department to have employed somebody very familiar with hard drives removal and replacement procedures, so it seems like an unlikely error for somebody charged with the responsibility of analyzing these drives. Secondly, if the technician had made a mistake there are many companies that could recover the data on the drive, I am not sure why they wouldn't have immediately been turned over to a company like that. Thirdly, if I had just screwed up a drive by one for one of the reasons that I mentioned above I would have probably gotten another person to assist me with more experience and/or I would have been careful to an extreme to make sure I didn't screw up again but these technicians screwed up two out of three drives that they were charged with analyzing as I understand it.

I also think the police deserve some criticism for playing with the computers before an image was made of the drive contents but I cut them some slack on this one. It might not be obvious to everybody how important getting the drives in exactly the state they were last used by a suspect and perhaps they thought they could get relevant information off the computers before the drives were removed to make an image.

I don't know if any of the above is relevant to this issue. Maybe somebody with more knowledge can explain what really happened. Right now, although I see some reasons to doubt it, my guess is that the police destruction of the hard drives was an accident. Not turning the drives over to a company that could recover the data from a failed hard drive looks like it might have been an extreme example of NIH in practice.

ETA: I agree on the point about finding a lot on the computers if they knew how. It seems likely in the extreme that if Sollecito was in to any kind of sex games, sex and/or violent rituals, Manga comic book fantasy role playing, group sex, etc. that there would be some kind of indication of this on his computer. ETA2: Or for that matter some kind of indication of it some where in his life.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>There are a few problems with my theory. The first is that one would expect the police department to have employed somebody very familiar with hard drives removal and replacement procedures, so it seems like an unlikely error for somebody charged with the responsibility of analyzing these drives. Secondly, if the technician had made a mistake there are many companies that could recover the data on the drive, I am not sure why they wouldn't have immediately been turned over to a company like that. Thirdly, if I had just screwed up a drive by one for one of the reasons that I mentioned above I would have probably gotten another person to assist me with more experience and/or I would have been careful to an extreme to make sure I didn't screw up again but these technicians screwed up two out of three drives that they were charged with analyzing as I understand it.<snip>

ETA: I agree on the point about finding a lot on the computers if they knew how. It seems likely in the extreme that if Sollecito was in to any kind of sex games, sex and/or violent rituals, Manga comic book fantasy role playing, group sex, etc. that there would be some kind of indication of this on his computer.

That's what I was thinking (your last paragraph). Even if they found nothing, they could always plant something (on all of the computers), if they had kept them intact. I don't think they as far into the framing mindset at the beginning as they were six weeks later.

Your second paragraph (above) says it all.

 

[davefoc]

delete

 

[Skeptic Tank]

No.

If you can't be bothered to use your own time and effort to find out, tough - I'm certainly not going to give you mine.

Lol

Just to let you know... the reason I come to this thread is not just that I find the case fascinating, if that were my only motivation I'd just listen to the audiobooks and watch videos, read articles, etc (which I'm doing, too) - the reason I also come to this thread is that I find it interesting to see what other people whom I can actually have a back and forth with, think about the case and the personalities involved.

I enjoy seeing the case and elements about it through the perspective of other people. So it wasn't just that I wanted a little blurb I could find on the web easily, to explain who those two people were, I was interested in hearing what YOU thought of them and their role in all of this.

 

[Mary_H]

delete

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just an interjected question:

Sorry to interject a question here, but does anyone know what validity the assertion made by Peter Quennell has, regarding

"involvement of the formidable Carabinieri shows how Italian Justice will not be leaned upon"?

Is this something that he alone asserts? Or is there truth in it?

One never knows and thus has to take everything with a grain of salt, until someone can enlighten one. I had assumed this was just the standard, normal protocol, with no further agenda - just business as usual. But apparently Italy may be making a grand statement?

Much thanks. SMK

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Grinder]

I just don't understand you Grinder. There was a time when I thought the two innocents were probably guilty. I think I kept an open mind regarding this for quite some time. My mind is not open any more. The evidence persuaded to come to a conclusion. I am convinced that Candace came to the same conclusion. This DOESN'T mean that Candace became "dishonest" in her reporting. Can't one provide accurate reporting without giving up their right to logically analyze and come to their own conclusion?

Sure but that's not what she did or what she is doing. She keeps the pro PIP propaganda coming. The DNA wasn't starch and no one ever said it was.

You came late and didn't follow her back in 2008 and 2009.

I'll bet you haven't taken the time to watch her presentation at SU.

 

[acbytesla]

I haven't read much about the hard drive issue. I was an electrical engineer that worked around computers for most of my career. I had quite a bit of experience with installing 3.5 inch and 2.5 inch drives. It was fairly easy to wreck either type of drive by putting the connector in wrong and powering the drive up. The keying mechanism wasn't particularly robust and it could be missing entirely. Usually there was a red stripe on the cable that indicated which side pin one was on, but it was possible to build the cable backwards and it was possible to mix up which side of the drive pin one was on. My guess has been that the people that investigated the drives in this case made a mistake like that.

There are a few problems with my theory. The first is that one would expect the police department to have employed somebody very familiar with hard drives removal and replacement procedures, so it seems like an unlikely error for somebody charged with the responsibility of analyzing these drives. Secondly, if the technician had made a mistake there are many companies that could recover the data on the drive, I am not sure why they wouldn't have immediately been turned over to a company like that. Thirdly, if I had just screwed up a drive by one for one of the reasons that I mentioned above I would have probably gotten another person to assist me with more experience and/or I would have been careful to an extreme to make sure I didn't screw up again but these technicians screwed up two out of three drives that they were charged with analyzing as I understand it.

I also think the police deserve some criticism for playing with the computers before an image was made of the drive contents but I cut them some slack on this one. It might not be obvious to everybody how important getting the drives in exactly the state they were last used by a suspect and perhaps they thought they could get relevant information off the computers before the drives were removed to make an image.

I don't know if any of the above is relevant to this issue. Maybe somebody with more knowledge can explain what really happened. Right now, although I see some reasons to doubt it, my guess is that the police destruction of the hard drives was an accident. Not turning the drives over to a company that could recover the data from a failed hard drive looks like it might have been an extreme example of NIH in practice.

ETA: I agree on the point about finding a lot on the computers if they knew how. It seems likely in the extreme that if Sollecito was in to any kind of sex games, sex and/or violent rituals, Manga comic book fantasy role playing, group sex, etc. that there would be some kind of indication of this on his computer. ETA2: Or for that matter some kind of indication of it some where in his life.

You nailed the issue exactly. Dan O and I have written extensively how this could have been done innocently because of the cable situation you speak of. In fact,that is exactly what it was blamed upon. But the absurdity is that they did this to 4 Computer hard drives in a row.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sure but that's not what she did or what she is doing. She keeps the pro PIP propaganda coming. The DNA wasn't starch and no one ever said it was.

You came late and didn't follow her back in 2008 and 2009.

I'll bet you haven't taken the time to watch her presentation at SU.

"PIP propaganda"!!? Wow. There's a "balanced" term!

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry to interject a question here, but does anyone know what validity the assertion made by Peter Quennell has, regarding

"involvement of the formidable Carabinieri shows how Italian Justice will not be leaned upon"?

Is this something that he alone asserts? Or is there truth in it?

One never knows and thus has to take everything with a grain of salt, until someone can enlighten one. I had assumed this was just the standard, normal protocol, with no further agenda - just business as usual. But apparently Italy may be making a grand statement?

Much thanks. SMK

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

[qimg]http://truejustice.org/ee/images/perugia/frontpage104/10400.jpg[/qimg]

He makes it up as he goes along, smk, always implying the proprietary stance that shows what an insecure loser he is. It's ridiculous. It's a MILITARY POLICE Force. It is not respected, it's feared.

These two articles put the lie to his claim that Italy has "an extremely small court system."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-italy-justice-idUSBRE83409E20120405
http://www.thelocal.it/20130621/italys-judicial-system-in-critical-situation-oecd

Who is trying to "lean on" Italian Justice, anyway?

 

[Grinder]

"PIP propaganda"!!? Wow. There's a "balanced" term!

Bill if you are sincere then you really are lost. You charge Vogt with being Mignini's press agent. Is that balanced?

She refers to the judge in charge as Dr. No

She says Rudy left enormous amounts of DNA.

Oh and she claims Best True Crime 2010 Editor’s Choice and Reader’s Choice awards. She keeps foisting this on the readers. Do you have any idea what that award means or what group it comes from?

Is that one reader you Bill See if it were many readers it would be readers' choice.

I along with others here firmly believe that Amanda was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that the case with Curatolo and Nara is a joke. I don't think that it is impossible that one or both were involved in the crime but it clearly wasn't proven.

The fact she has a master's from Oregon doesn't impress me.

 

[Mary_H]

Sure but that's not what she did or what she is doing. She keeps the pro PIP propaganda coming. The DNA wasn't starch and no one ever said it was.

You came late and didn't follow her back in 2008 and 2009.

I'll bet you haven't taken the time to watch her presentation at SU.

At your urging, I just watched it. What's the problem? Do you see that it was titled "The Case for Innocence?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcGYrufLupA

(Candace goes from 11 minutes to 30 minutes)

ETA: It seemed to me she was mostly just giving background on the case.

 

[The Third Man]

I haven’t been keeping up to date with developments in this case, I was wondering whether someone could bring me up to speed on the following:

Did Sollecito ever account for the 5.32am activity on the mobile phone and computer the morning after the murder or is he still sticking to the not waking until 10.30am version of events?

Did he change his account regarding being on the computer after 9.15pm on the night of the murder?

Did either Knox or Sollecito give a reason why they both turned their mobile phones off at the same time?

Are both prosecution and defence now agreed that Meredith died in the 9-10pm timeframe?

Any info would greatly appreciated

 

[Grinder]

At your urging, I just watched it. What's the problem? Do you see that it was titled "The Case for Innocence?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcGYrufLupA

(Candace goes from 11 minutes to 30 minutes)

ETA: It seemed to me she was mostly just giving background on the case.

Thanks for taking the time. Yes, I think being part of a forum entitled "the case for innocence" compromises her journalistic integrity beyond how much it was already compromised. The event was put together by FOA.

I won't have time to review it again but as I recall she made statements that couldn't be shown to be true.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill if you are sincere then you really are lost. You charge Vogt with being Mignini's press agent. Is that balanced?

When has Vogt ever written something which was not lock step as-if from Mignini, even to the point of taking Mignini's view when compared with other judicial folk who actually convicted the pair, like Massei?

What's "balanced" got to do with it? Once again it's like watching a baseball umpire call a strike on a batter, and then accusing the umpire of not being "balanced"!

 

[Kaosium]

Vogt is a journalism graduate that had written at least one book and was writing freelance from Germany and Italy. She was in court for most of the hearings.



Candace had just begun writing a "readers" blog. She picked upon the story and became a spokesperson for the pro Amanda position very early on. She has never disclosed when she actually was in Perugia but it seemed she stayed in Seattle but had "sources" the PGP always thought started with Chris Mellas, Amanda's step-father. She also seems to formed a relationship with Preston and Frank Sfarzo. Both of those people were part of FOA (friends of Amanda)

By February of 2008 she was pitching a book and never missed an opportunity to promote it. She campaigned relentlessly to get the PIP fans to vote her book some obscure award. She wrote the book in the true crime genre which precludes the need for footnotes.

Candace's blog was filled with inaccuracies including the most recent mention of the DNA being starch. I've pointed these out in the past and the response is that it is just a blog so it need not be accurate, just opinions.

She long ago gave up any appearance of any sort of objectivity.

You can look at her speech at a FOA forum at Seattle University before the first appeal and judge a bit for yourself.

Let me put it this way, Vogt was a reporter earning her paycheck by covering the case. As a result she was expected to report what the police and prosecution said without commentary. I don't fault her for that, however her relying on the 'Forensics Moderator' of PMF who had no real qualifications in the field for 'expert analysis' is something (amongst other things) that should embarrass her to this day. She had different standards she had to adhere to being paid by a newspaper to cover a story.

Candace Dempsey on the other hand had the opportunity to be more of an investigative journalist and get to the actual truth of the matter. In this case there are only two basic outcomes: either Raffaele and Amanda were involved, or they were not. Either the truth was mostly with the defense, or it was mostly with the prosecution. It is perfectly ethical to come to the conclusion that one 'side' is more likely to have the truth of the matter, in fact it's almost certain to be the case in an instance like this. That she chose to cultivate sources that others eschewed is to her credit not detriment. She did not start advocating anything, she investigated and came to the determination Amanda and Raffaele were innocent and then advocated because she realized it was the right thing to do.

As for mistakes, everyone makes them, it's part of being human, especially when dealing with highly complex subjects.

 

[Bill Williams]

I haven’t been keeping up to date with developments in this case, I was wondering whether someone could bring me up to speed on the following:

Did Sollecito ever account for the 5.32am activity on the mobile phone and computer the morning after the murder or is he still sticking to the not waking until 10.30am version of events?

Did he change his account regarding being on the computer after 9.15pm on the night of the murder?

Did either Knox or Sollecito give a reason why they both turned their mobile phones off at the same time?

Are both prosecution and defence now agreed that Meredith died in the 9-10pm timeframe?

Any info would greatly appreciated

From "Honor Bound", page 22: "I'd been up several times in the night - listening to music, answering e-mail, making love - and wanted only to go back to sleep."

This is in a small paragraph where he relates that his father had called at 9:30 am on Nov 2 to make sure the two were up and ready to go to Gubbio.

Sollecito also relates that Knox got up, he escorted her to the door and when she left for her shower at the cottage, he went back to bed. On her return, he was up and making coffee.

As for the turning off of the phones the previous evening, Sollecito says on page 18. This is after Jovana's visit.... "The evening was ours, and we couldn't have been happier. We switched off our cell phones, finished watching Amelie and discussed what to make for dinner.

The assumption, I believe, is that they did not want to be disturbed. He also reports that his dad was told not to call him that night as the stepmother told dad, "Don't bother them," and advised to send a text instead. That was the reason why the dad was unaware that Raffaele had switched off his phone - the text arrived next morning when the phone was back on. Although Raffaele doesn't say it in the book, that must have been at 5:32 am.

So the long and the short of it, Raffaele writes that he was mostly asleep all night, but in fact did do all those things during brief periods of being awake....

I have no idea where the Florentine prosecutor is on T.O.D.

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks for taking the time. Yes, I think being part of a forum entitled "the case for innocence" compromises her journalistic integrity beyond how much it was already compromised. The event was put together by FOA.

I won't have time to review it again but as I recall she made statements that couldn't be shown to be true.

I didn't notice that.

Once again, though, Candace did not have the same responsibility as a paid journalist. People are on their own when they read articles vs. blogs and choose what to believe.

Nevertheless, I think she was a better investigator than any of the paid media journalists, and I don't think she ever willingly was not truthful in any way.

 

[yimyammer]

Well, no. I recommend watching it again.


It doesn't disturb me. You said Guede entered through the door. Now this one makes little sense. Could you explain it better?

Nevermind, I deleted my question after I discovered Grinder provide a link a few posts after the one I quoted, thx G