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

[Bill Williams]

Grinder - I believe you are fundamentally missing my argument about Satan Rite theories. You can make an effort to understand it by locating the earliest reference to Mignini ( or Machiavelli) saying, "I never claimed that!"

 

[Bill Williams]

I laugh when you say this is a partisan position. This has NOTHING to do with Amanda and Raffaele's guilt or innocence. This is such a minor point. But it is the product of your own nitpicking obsession. None of the PGP, not even Machiavelli has joined you in this absurd argument.

In fact saying that Candace is lying or a mental midget says more about you than it does about Candace. 99% of the people reading her article understand exactly what Candace is saying. Perhaps you should look up the word implication. Are you stubborn or just dense?

im·pli·ca·tion: the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

There is something Grinder is not telling us about why he's so sour against Dempsey. It otherwise makes no sense.

I think she probably once cut him off in traffic, and this is simply road rage.

 

[xinonix]

Being as this is James' Randi's website, perhaps we should consider the role that a psychic may have played in this case.
Mignini consulted with a psychic before, and it looks like he did this again in 2007.
After the psychic told Mignini about the vision, Mignini knew what happened and proceeded to act with the confidence of a man who knows exactly what happened.
The psychic told him that Ms. Kercher was killed by a young couple and a Black man during a satanic ritual. His mission was to prove this happened in real life.

 

[Poppy1016]

There is something Grinder is not telling us about why he's so sour against Dempsey. It otherwise makes no sense.

I think she probably once cut him off in traffic, and this is simply road rage.

Is it possible to contact CD to ask for her clarification on this? When considering
all the false claims made against AK and RS, this point seems rather minor to me . MOO

 

[acbytesla]

There is something Grinder is not telling us about why he's so sour against Dempsey. It otherwise makes no sense.

I think she probably once cut him off in traffic, and this is simply road rage.

I don't get it either. It just can't be this point about the DNA and Starch. Grinder is a smart guy, but once he locks on to a point, he absolutely won't ever concede it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is it possible to contact CD to ask for her clarification on this? When considering
all the false claims made against AK and RS, this point seems rather minor to me . MOO

Anyone interested can contact her directly. That alone sets her apart from the rest.

 

[RoseMontague]

Is it possible to contact CD to ask for her clarification on this? When considering
all the false claims made against AK and RS, this point seems rather minor to me . MOO

I believe another poster said she had corrected it already. It's a minor point in my opinion. Some people see it as serious as Barbie's bleach receipt which she has never corrected. To me it is pretty much meaningless in the context of what organic material was identified on the blade.

 

[acbytesla]

I believe another poster said she had corrected it already. It's a minor point in my opinion. Some people see it as serious as Barbie's bleach receipt which she has never corrected. To me it is pretty much meaningless in the context of what organic material was identified on the blade.

I think the point should be, Did Dempsey's description materially alter the facts of what Conti and Vechiotti found as it regards to what inculpatory evidence was found on the knife. I don't see how anyone could actually argue that she did.

But of course that is not going to stop Grinder.

No offense intended Grinder.

 

[davefoc]

Dershowitz is an attention seeking moron....

Now there's something we can all agree on. I would have used a different word than moron. My word would have been asterixed by the JREF autofilter though.

 

[Grinder]

I laugh when you say this is a partisan position. This has NOTHING to do with Amanda and Raffaele's guilt or innocence. This is such a minor point. But it is the product of your own nitpicking obsession. None of the PGP, not even Machiavelli has joined you in this absurd argument.

In fact saying that Candace is lying or a mental midget says more about you than it does about Candace. 99% of the people reading her article understand exactly what Candace is saying. Perhaps you should look up the word implication. Are you stubborn or just dense?

im·pli·ca·tion: the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

I howl with laughter when attempt to respond. It doesn't say anything about me but rather your weak understanding of the case history and what Dempsey is attempting to do. There is no implication just a clear statement that DNA wasn't DNA but rather starch when it wasn't.

I don't need the one PGP posting here recently to join me.

If it were possiible to wager I'd bet everything I own that nowhere near 99% understand exactly what she means. I don't think you understand what her reason for writing the lie was.

Since we've been treated to pages of Vogt/Mach?Mignini something or another, without a peep out of you about nitpicking or accusing someone of denseness.

You are so partisan you can't see a lie for a lie.

 

[Grinder]

I believe another poster said she had corrected it already. It's a minor point in my opinion. Some people see it as serious as Barbie's bleach receipt which she has never corrected. To me it is pretty much meaningless in the context of what organic material was identified on the blade.

I think the point should be, Did Dempsey's description materially alter the facts of what Conti and Vechiotti found as it regards to what inculpatory evidence was found on the knife. I don't see how anyone could actually argue that she did.

But of course that is not going to stop Grinder.

No offense intended Grinder.

Here is the quote as it sits now

I fear we’ll see the rejected kitchen knife, wrapped with a bright red ribbon, brought back to court under melodramatic armed guard. Too large to fit victim Meredith Kercher’s wounds, it doesn’t match a bloody imprint on the victim’s bed. In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch.


It is totally different than saying contamination can't be ruled out.

Some poster (Chris said she had changed it from rye bread, which I don't think happened) saying it isn't there when one can check in a minute...

Vogt saying the "I was there" statement in some way makes Amanda guilty a least isn't a lie. A bad interpretation in my opinion, but not as lie.

If Dempsey changed anything she did it without noting the update which is bad reporting.

ETA - is there really anybody so dense that they believe there is no difference between saying we can not rule out contamination versus saying we examined the alleged DNA and it wasn't DNA it was starch?

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the quote as it sits now

I fear we’ll see the rejected kitchen knife, wrapped with a bright red ribbon, brought back to court under melodramatic armed guard. Too large to fit victim Meredith Kercher’s wounds, it doesn’t match a bloody imprint on the victim’s bed. In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch.


It is totally different than saying contamination can't be ruled out.

Some poster (Chris said she had changed it from rye bread, which I don't think happened) saying it isn't there when one can check in a minute...

Vogt saying the "I was there" statement in some way makes Amanda guilty a least isn't a lie. A bad interpretation in my opinion, but not as lie.

If Dempsey changed anything she did it without noting the update which is bad reporting.

ETA - is there really anybody so dense that they believe there is no difference between saying we can not rule out contamination versus saying we examined the alleged DNA and it wasn't DNA it was starch?

It's a pretty minor point Grinder. I was going to argue with the same points numerous posters have made but decided not to. My opinion is you have something against Dempsey and take every opportunity to point out any possible error she makes. OK, that is your opinion. I have read every book that I could get hold of in this case and Dempsey's is in my opinion by far the best. That is my opinion. I also think she is a fine writer and I read every thing she puts out. I could fall asleep snoring after reading Vogt. She tries so hard to be fair and it comes across as a half hearted attempt to present both sides. Probably because she is a die hard guilter. Just my opinion.

 

[RandyN]

There is something Grinder is not telling us about why he's so sour against Dempsey. It otherwise makes no sense.

I think she probably once cut him off in traffic, and this is simply road rage.

Ex Wife?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Tesla she lied. The DNA was not starch. Randy had told her that before she published the book. If people wish to call Vogt a liar then I will call Dempsey a liar. It is more possible that when Amanda said "I was there" she meant the cottage than the DNA was starch.

Do you really think Candace was trying to convince readers that a human DNA profile was extracted from starch? I don't. I think she assumes a degree of intelligence on the part of her readers, such that they can understand what she meant. She meant that starch, rather than human tissue, was found on the knife blade, ergo the DNA profile must have come from an extraneous contaminant.

Vogt, meanwhile, did her best to convince her readers that Amanda confessed to being at the crime scene in a secretly recorded conversation. That is a flagrant misrepresentation of what Amanda said and what she clearly meant.

If you can't see the difference, you have truly lost the plot.

As Mach hasd pointed out she used him for translations because she isn't that fluent in the language or wasn't when this started which just adds more mystery to why Penguin would sign her up unless she had something no other writer had to offer.

She had access to the dossier of police evidence, through me, and she made extensive use of it. She and her sister pored over the DNA test results and constructed an index that I use to this day. Candace emailed me many times to discuss details shown in the crime scene photos, to resolve the timing of phone calls, etc. She was as interested in all this stuff as the people here on JREF. Very few so-called reporters had any interest whatsoever, even though I tried to interest them. They were fixated on soundbites from people outside the courtroom, scuttlebutt about Amanda's personal life, exclusive interviews with key players, etc.

When Rinaldi did his presentation and announced that Guede's foot was far too big to have made the print on the mat, Nadeau and others breathlessly reported it as fact. They didn't have the reference material, or if they did, they didn't bother to check it. They didn't notice that Rinaldi's stunning conclusion was based on a flat-out lie in his measurements. I noticed. So did Candace. We discussed it at length.

Berkley signed Candace up because they want authors who delve into the direct facts of the case, instead of interviewing the cops and lawyers and cribbing from what other reporters have written, which is what most true-crime authors do.

 

[acbytesla]

I howl with laughter when attempt to respond. It doesn't say anything about me but rather your weak understanding of the case history and what Dempsey is attempting to do. There is no implication just a clear statement that DNA wasn't DNA but rather starch when it wasn't.

I don't need the one PGP posting here recently to join me.

If it were possiible to wager I'd bet everything I own that nowhere near 99% understand exactly what she means. I don't think you understand what her reason for writing the lie was.

Since we've been treated to pages of Vogt/Mach?Mignini something or another, without a peep out of you about nitpicking or accusing someone of denseness.

You are so partisan you can't see a lie for a lie.

Obviously we have a different perspective Grinder. That's ok. I read what Candace reported and I understood it. It didn't have to be explicit for me to understand it. Maybe deductive reasoning isn't your forte? While you are correct that Candace wasn't literally correct, I don't think it has to be.
A lie is deliberate attempt to deceive. The statement in question is not literally correct, it is materially correct however.

As for being partisan, I have made up my mind about Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence, but so have you. So I guess we are BOTH partisan. But I don't know Amanda, or any of her family or friends. I'm not a member of FOA. And nobody is paying me a penny.

Just because I've come to a conclusion doesn't mean I checked my brain at the door.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's a pretty minor point Grinder. I was going to argue with the same points numerous posters have made but decided not to. My opinion is you have something against Dempsey and take every opportunity to point out any possible error she makes. OK, that is your opinion. I have read every book that I could get hold of in this case and Dempsey's is in my opinion by far the best. That is my opinion. I also think she is a fine writer and I read every thing she puts out. I could fall asleep snoring after reading Vogt. She tries so hard to be fair and it comes across as a half hearted attempt to present both sides. Probably because she is a die hard guilter. Just my opinion.

I think Grinder should end all this debate about journalists and write a piece about his moronic crime theory. Than he can earn the prestigious award for worst article written about the case.

 

[Dan O.]

Dempsy wrote a condensed version of the truth which lost scientific accuracy. I challenge Grinder to write the full version of that truth in no more words than Dempsy used.

 

[Grinder]

It's a pretty minor point Grinder. I was going to argue with the same points numerous posters have made but decided not to. My opinion is you have something against Dempsey and take every opportunity to point out any possible error she makes. OK, that is your opinion. I have read every book that I could get hold of in this case and Dempsey's is in my opinion by far the best. That is my opinion. I also think she is a fine writer and I read every thing she puts out. I could fall asleep snoring after reading Vogt. She tries so hard to be fair and it comes across as a half hearted attempt to present both sides. Probably because she is a die hard guilter. Just my opinion.

Thanks for helping me make my point. It's all about being a partisan. The PGP love Follain, Garfano and Vogt while the PIP love Dempsey.

I've eread parts of her book and her blog and dislike her writing style as well as speaking ability.

I have pointed out errors in the past from her blog but was countered by people here saying blogs aren't journalism even though Dempsey refers to herself as a reporter.

I don't like any of the big three women covering the case. The Italian women reporter that was in the SBS Dateline show is good.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Do you really think Candace was trying to convince readers that a human DNA profile was extracted from starch? I don't. I think she assumes a degree of intelligence on the part of her readers, such that they can understand what she meant. She meant that starch, rather than human tissue, was found on the knife blade, ergo the DNA profile must have come from an extraneous contaminant.

Vogt, meanwhile, did her best to convince her readers that Amanda confessed to being at the crime scene in a secretly recorded conversation. That is a flagrant misrepresentation of what Amanda said and what she clearly meant.

If you can't see the difference, you have truly lost the plot.



She had access to the dossier of police evidence, through me, and she made extensive use of it. She and her sister pored over the DNA test results and constructed an index that I use to this day. Candace emailed me many times to discuss details shown in the crime scene photos, to resolve the timing of phone calls, etc. She was as interested in all this stuff as the people here on JREF. Very few so-called reporters had any interest whatsoever, even though I tried to interest them. They were fixated on soundbites from people outside the courtroom, scuttlebutt about Amanda's personal life, exclusive interviews with key players, etc.

When Rinaldi did his presentation and announced that Guede's foot was far too big to have made the print on the mat, Nadeau and others breathlessly reported it as fact. They didn't have the reference material, or if they did, they didn't bother to check it. They didn't notice that Rinaldi's stunning conclusion was based on a flat-out lie in his measurements. I noticed. So did Candace. We discussed it at length.

Berkley signed Candace up because they want authors who delve into the direct facts of the case, instead of interviewing the cops and lawyers and cribbing from what other reporters have written, which is what most true-crime authors do.

From what I recall, Andrea Vogt's "I was there" article came completely out of the blue as if it was a new revelation in the case, never before written about. It was clearly written to show that Amanda admitted being at the crime scene. I haven't read the article since it was written and don't care again, but that was pretty bad.

 

[RandyN]

I believe another poster said she had corrected it already. It's a minor point in my opinion. Some people see it as serious as Barbie's bleach receipt which she has never corrected. To me it is pretty much meaningless in the context of what organic material was identified on the blade.

Actually Sara Gino made this exact same claim about the starch. Perhaps CD got the idea from her. And SG simply got lost in translation. In the end it is a relatively minor issue.

Much more important is why no one appears to be reporting on the fatal flaws of disclosure and the truly non-scientific approach that is being upheld in this case which is certainly nothing even near to what DNA analysis and CSI should be. Italy has been caught fudging on the science and the only reason they have been caught is because the worlds eyes are now upon them. And yet there is no investigation, no reporting...nothing except for another bogus ridiculous claim by the Italian courts.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven but everyone seems to be yelling..."Look over there...a squirrel!"