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

[Grinder]

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.

The independent experts in the first appeal trial reported that the DNA of Meredith allegedly found on the knife could well have been contamination because proper protocols and procedures were not followed.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Then not than. Tsk tsk.

Please what is my theory?

ETA - In my article the DNA of Meredith alleged to be on the knife is the single most important physical circumstantial evidence. The case may hinge on whether this DNA is improperly kept in. Improperly because contamination could not be ruled out.

 

[toto]

glass shards on top of clothing

I was reading the Supreme court ruling and came upon this passage:

the objective fact that a significant portion of the glass shards was on top of rather than underneath the clothing (as was documented in the photographs and recorded video images)​

Is this true? I thought there wasn't any visual documentation.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

Go Dempsey!

 

[RoseMontague]

I was reading the Supreme court ruling and came upon this passage:

the objective fact that a significant portion of the glass shards was on top of rather than underneath the clothing (as was documented in the photographs and recorded video images)​

Is this true? I thought there wasn't any visual documentation.

No, not true.

 

[acbytesla]

I was reading the Supreme court ruling and came upon this passage:

the objective fact that a significant portion of the glass shards was on top of rather than underneath the clothing (as was documented in the photographs and recorded video images)​

Is this true? I thought there wasn't any visual documentation.

I've never understood why whether or not there was some glass on top of some clothes means anything. If Filomena had clothes scattered around and a window was broken from outside, wouldn't you expect there to be shards of glass on top of the clothes? What am I missing??

 

[toto]

No, not true.

But they were the Supreme court's words, not quoting the prosecution. Rather shoddy.

 

[toto]

I've never understood why whether or not there was some glass on top of some clothes means anything. If Filomena had clothes scattered around and a window was broken from outside, wouldn't you expect there to be shards of glass on top of the clothes? What am I missing??

Well I might expect it, but I am terrible at leaving clothes on the floor. Don't know about Filomena! I was just annoyed that the Supreme Court ruling could not be more precise. There are a few errors in the document that even the Truejustice translators had to point out (not this one though).

 

[Kaosium]

I've never understood why whether or not there was some glass on top of some clothes means anything. If Filomena had clothes scattered around and a window was broken from outside, wouldn't you expect there to be shards of glass on top of the clothes? What am I missing??

They got a statement from (or about) Filomena saying she was 'tidy.'

Therefore she couldn't have left clothes on the floor. Thus they must have been strewn about by the 'stagers' before the window was broken.

 

[RoseMontague]

They got a statement from (or about) Filomena saying she was 'tidy.'

Therefore she couldn't have left clothes on the floor. Thus they must have been strewn about by the 'stagers' before the window was broken.

Actually that was one of the PMF errors in translation. The actual Italian would read something along the lines of an organized memory of where she left things.

 

[acbytesla]

They got a statement from (or about) Filomena saying she was 'tidy.'

Therefore she couldn't have left clothes on the floor. Thus they must have been strewn about by the 'stagers' before the window was broken.

Thanks

 

[RoseMontague]

The funny thing is is that the photographic evidence shows glass under the clothes and not on top. I have pointed several pieces you can see at the edges where the clothes and floor meet.

 

[acbytesla]

The funny thing is is that the photographic evidence shows glass under the clothes and not on top. I have pointed several pieces you can see at the edges where the clothes and floor meet.

Leave it to an Italian court to believe anecdotal testimony over photographic evidence.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

Thanks Charlie. That attention to the actual evidence in the case comes across in her book. Just one reason I like it. It's one thing to quote Rinaldi and quite another to look at the prints yourself and make your own analysis. Rinaldi is an idiot.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks Charlie. That attention to the actual evidence in the case comes across in her book. Just one reason I like it. It's one thing to quote Rinaldi and quite another to look at the prints yourself and make your own analysis. Rinaldi is an idiot.

Rinaldi is a shill. Saying whatever is necessary for a paycheck.

 

[Supernaut]

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.

Awesome®, CW!

Grinder, I'm waiting for a comparably awesome® post from your good self.

 

[Supernaut]

Dershowitz is an attention seeking moron. There are very few people that I have heard discuss this case publicly with less knowledge about the case.

it's safe to say that Dershowitz is the definitive scheister lawyer, immoral and unscrupulous, and that this predisposes him to glomming on to any and all publicity, where-ever he can find it.

Bleech. ETA >> I mean, blech, I think.

 

[xinonix]

If you believe that something is a fact, when you state it , it is not a lie.
Apparently Mignini had faith in what the psychic told him. Therefore it was easy for people to believe that he was telling the truth.
I think it was that other lawyer, Manuela Commode who refused to work with Mignini if he continued to say that there was a satanic cult, or ritual involved with the case. Perhaps the next time the body of a victim of a satanic ritual is found, she will think that she should have listened to Mignini.
I suppose Mignini thought that whether the motive was a satanic ritual or a sex game gone wrong, the result was the same, so he would compromise. Perhaps Manuela Comoedi convinced Magnini that a woman dying in a sex game was something that occasionally happens in Italy, so the jury was more likely to buy that.
Now, as soon as Mignini hears about suspects that could be the people in the vision, he thinks ,aha! they must be a culprit that was in the vision.
Patrick was the wrong Black guy, but he was kept locked up until they found Rudy's fingerprints.
If you were a cop assigned to this case, would you try to force Amanda + Raffaele to confess because some other cops said that Amanda did not sound like she was telling the truth, or behaving inapropriately, if you had no evidence or witness?

 

[xinonix]

If you believe that something is a fact, when you state it , it is not a lie.
Apparently Mignini had faith in what the psychic told him. Therefore it was easy for people to believe that he was telling the truth.
I think it was that other lawyer, Manuela Commode who refused to work with Mignini if he continued to say that there was a satanic cult, or ritual involved with the case. Perhaps the next time the body of a victim of a satanic ritual is found, she will think that she should have listened to Mignini.
I suppose Mignini thought that whether the motive was a satanic ritual or a sex game gone wrong, the result was the same, so he would compromise. Perhaps Manuela Comoedi convinced Magnini that a woman dying in a sex game was something that occasionally happens in Italy, so the jury was more likely to buy that.
Now, as soon as Mignini hears about suspects that could be the people in the vision, he thinks ,aha! they must be a culprit that was in the vision.
Patrick was the wrong Black guy, but he was kept locked up until they found Rudy's fingerprints.
If you were a cop assigned to this case, would you try to force Amanda + Raffaele to confess because some other cops said that Amanda did not sound like she was telling the truth, or behaving inapropriately, if you had no evidence or witness?

 

[Dan O.]

I was reading the Supreme court ruling and came upon this passage:

the objective fact that a significant portion of the glass shards was on top of rather than underneath the clothing (as was documented in the photographs and recorded video images)​

Is this true? I thought there wasn't any visual documentation.

Not true by the photographs and video that we have been able to see. I suppose there is a secret video along with that secret photo collection at only the prosecution and supreme court judges are able to see that shows the truth.

The truth is that there should have been glass on top of cloths as well as under the clothes. Under the theory that Rudy tossed the rock through the window, climbed in and proceeded to search for stashed cash, glass would get on the floor and clothing from the initial shattering of the window, the clothing would be moved by Rudy's feet steping into the dark room and knocking clothes out of the closet in his search and further glass would fall out of the window onto the clothes directly below by the window blowing open and closed in the wind after the front door is left open.