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

Status
Not open for further replies.
davefoc said:
I sympathize with your attempt to get a higher grade. You will recall that you lost some points last time for not conceding sooner that based on a literal reading that Grinder was right. However since that time you have made it clear that you agree that based on a literal reading Grinder is correct. That is a point in your favor. I think this together with Grinder's relentless beating of the dead horse should make you hopeful about your chances for an improved grade.

You asked two questions:
1. Is anyone actually mislead by CD?
Perhaps a few. It seems like most of the people who would care enough about the case to be reading through the minutia would realize that while the original forensic investigation might have had issues, one of their problems wasn't that they were confusing human DNA with starch.

2. Do you think that CD is deliberately clouding the results of the Conti Vechiotti review of Item 36?
Perhaps just a bit, but mostly no. She used some hyperbole to ridicule the original investigators which just by itself may cloud the issue a bit in favor of the defense view, but mostly as I alluded to in answer number 1, I suspect that most readers saw her comment as humorous hyperbole.

By the way, speaking of grades how did I do with my efforts to your challenge?
Click to expand...

Well put, however...

I do know there was one instance where it was harmful for somebody (I have no way of knowing who) to have implied the independent experts determined it was starch: a lady known as Nancy Grace (whose show I've never watched and have only heard and read about) used that to mock Conti-Vecchiotti and 'discredit' their findings.

Upon reflection, I do think Grinder has a point here. While I also think it was hyperbole, and and at the same time shorthand for a greater truth, the literal minded may well have thought that was their contention. Those like Nancy Grace who are looking for reasons to think Raffaele and Amanda guilty, or those who contend their innocence as deluded or dishonest, find it there.
 
Mary_H said:
Nobody knew each other or had any connections before the case.
Click to expand...

Come on Mary, a couple of these guys on more than one occasion accused me of having something against from some earlier time. In fact, you made the most disgusting of all suggestions, which I won't repeat but Spokealoo was involved.

That more important point is that many here have a relationship with her that isn't transparent to people that just might be reading here.

That's "Sharky."
Click to expand...

What is sharky about saying that he said he founded FOA and I believe him?


It seems to me that anyone who writes in support of the case for innocence is part of the so-called PR effort. And no misleading is necessary.
Click to expand...

Really who else would you put in that group? Preston? Is there another journalist that participated in a "case for innocence"?

She is not acting as a reporter or journalist.

I feel your frustration on this one, Grinder. Of course the knife and the bra clasp should never have been in. Unfortunately, that has not prevented them from being in, nor has the massive discussion of the facts about DNA and lab procedures.

Bottom line, though, didn't Conti and Vecchiotti say they found starch and no DNA?
Click to expand...

Nope. They said the reading of the DNA had problems but it didn't matter because the procedures and protocols weren't followed to eliminate the possibility of contamination. They found additional DNA which is being reported to be Amanda's. They and others found starch near the handle as well.


Good point. When I first started to think there might be a connection between Vogt and Machiavelli, I was taken aback, but then I remembered that there are lots of connections in both camps. That's kind of how the game is played.
Click to expand...

Nothing to add but just wanted "good point" repeated again :p

What makes her a fraud?

And why is it wrong to write a book, promote it and hope to get a movie deal?
Click to expand...

She has pretended to be a reporter and journalist when she has been an advocate for innocence from early early on.

I my opinion she immediately went for the money. She basically doesn't do anything but promote. Barbie's current Beast articles don't seem to mention the book at all. Even her lead-off role in the "Case for Innocence" forum had a picture of her book.

Bruce F is openly an advocate and wrote his book as such. I don't think CD is open about her slant and more.
 
Kaosium said:
Well put, however...

I do know there was one instance where it was harmful for somebody (I have no way of knowing who) to have implied the independent experts determined it was starch: a lady known as Nancy Grace (whose show I've never watched and have only heard and read about) used that to mock Conti-Vecchiotti and 'discredit' their findings.

Upon reflection, I do think Grinder has a point here. While I also think it was hyperbole, and and at the same time shorthand for a greater truth, the literal minded may well have thought that was their contention. Those like Nancy Grace who are looking for reasons to think Raffaele and Amanda guilty, or those who contend their innocence as deluded or dishonest, find it there.
Click to expand...

It appears I may have missed some of this back and firth on grades.

I ask sincerely why it appears that being literal minded is a negative. When someone writes about something as serious as this case, I think they should not fool around with the facts.

DO NOT WATCH NANCY GRACE, EVER! :p

Part of my focus on this point has been precisely that when an advocate like CD makes a clearly false statement when taken as it was written weakens all arguments by advocates. `In her speech at Seattle U she says Amanda had only one contact with Rudy when most everyone admits it was more. Why does it matter that Rudy came in Le Chic a couple of times and said hello? Why always try to diminish.

I do not believe that anything about this case needs to be exaggerated in the kids' favor to make the case they weren't proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.
 
Skind said:
To my knowledge, it was collected and presented to Knox in court, as Raffaelle supposedly had it on display.

Of course, that could all be bumpf from SomeAlibi. The photo from TMoMK could easily be from a unrelated case. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Sollecito's_Knives
Click to expand...

"Supposedly" is the operative word here. The knife in the photo at the top is the same one that appeared in a couple of news articles, which described it as a prop used in a demonstration rather than a piece of evidence collected during the investigation.

I see that the source for this claim is indeed SomeAlibi.

The folding knives shown below it are knives actually taken from Raffaele's apt.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
"Supposedly" is the operative word here. The knife in the photo at the top is the same one that appeared in a couple of news articles, which described it as a prop used in a demonstration rather than a piece of evidence collected during the investigation.

I see that the source for this claim is indeed SomeAlibi.

The folding knives shown below it are knives actually taken from Raffaele's apt.
Click to expand...

Yep, they changed the heading. Here is a link, go to image 7 "Amanda Knox is shown a knife which the prosecution used to help illustrate the murder of Meredith Kercher"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...elic-student-orchestrated-satanic-murder.html
 
Knives and swords and manga, oh my

Nick Squires wrote in December of 2009, "But police checks on his background revealed a darker side to Sollecito, who had a lifelong obsession with knives and swords, which he collected, and always carried a flick-knife in his pocket." What the heck was he talking about? Swords? I never heard that one before. Owning two pocket knives is an obsession? I have a bunch of x-acto knives. Does that mean that I am going to go out and slash some model boats?
 
halides1 said:
Nick Squires wrote in December of 2009, "But police checks on his background revealed a darker side to Sollecito, who had a lifelong obsession with knives and swords, which he collected, and always carried a flick-knife in his pocket." What the heck was he talking about? Swords? I never heard that one before. Owning two pocket knives is an obsession? I have a bunch of x-acto knives. Does that mean that I am going to go out and slash some model boats?
Click to expand...

You would not believe how many rulers I have.
 
halides1 said:
Nick Squires wrote in December of 2009, "But police checks on his background revealed a darker side to Sollecito, who had a lifelong obsession with knives and swords, which he collected, and always carried a flick-knife in his pocket." What the heck was he talking about? Swords? I never heard that one before. Owning two pocket knives is an obsession? I have a bunch of x-acto knives. Does that mean that I am going to go out and slash some model boats?
Click to expand...

That was the point I was trying to make. I have a half a dozen pocket knives that aren't cooking knives and I can tell you unequivocally that I am not obsessed with knives. Not sure how I ended up with this many..but oh well. They are tools, that allow you cut a piece of twine, tape, a box, a piece of fishing line, clean a fish. I've used it to whittle sticks into tent poles for camping. My dad gave me a pocket knife at age 10. My dad always had one in his pocket and I have carried one almost my entire life. I carry a Spyderco knife in my pocket almost all the time similar to the one that Raffaele has for at least a dozen years, don't think it is the same model though. I have never thought it was for protection or to threaten someone.
 
Grinder said:
Come on Mary, a couple of these guys on more than one occasion accused me of having something against from some earlier time. In fact, you made the most disgusting of all suggestions, which I won't repeat but Spokealoo was involved.
Click to expand...

I did not know other people had accused you of having connections from before the case. I was joshing you because I wanted to get at what is causing you to have such a major cow about this issue.

That more important point is that many here have a relationship with her that isn't transparent to people that just might be reading here.
Click to expand...

People came together once they knew each other through the case. Sharky has openly shared that he let Candace have access to the case materials he had. What's the harm in that?

You are welcome to join Facebook and be my friend. Nobody is being secretive, but we have to be careful because some of the guilters are dangerous and have made threats. You can find out a lot about the supporters on PMF, too. ;)

What is sharky about saying that he said he founded FOA and I believe him?
Click to expand...

I think you missed my little joke. I wasn't talking about you.

Really who else would you put in that group? Preston? Is there another journalist that participated in a "case for innocence"?
Click to expand...

I said "anyone" not "any journalist." I would put you and me in that group, for example, inasmuch as this thread has 2,430 posts but 67,411 views.

She is not acting as a reporter or journalist.
Click to expand...

Let us agree to disagree on that.

Nope. They said the reading of the DNA had problems but it didn't matter because the procedures and protocols weren't followed to eliminate the possibility of contamination. They found additional DNA which is being reported to be Amanda's. They and others found starch near the handle as well.
Click to expand...

Okay.

Nothing to add but just wanted "good point" repeated again :p
Click to expand...

You've made more than a few in your time. :)

She has pretended to be a reporter and journalist when she has been an advocate for innocence from early early on.

I my opinion she immediately went for the money. She basically doesn't do anything but promote. Barbie's current Beast articles don't seem to mention the book at all. Even her lead-off role in the "Case for Innocence" forum had a picture of her book.

Bruce F is openly an advocate and wrote his book as such. I don't think CD is open about her slant and more.
Click to expand...

Candace did not "come out" as an advocate until after her book was published. Then she was open about it, e.g., at the SU forum. Again, as many people have suggested, it is not biased to be pro-innocence when it represents the truth.

Barbie has a job, while Candace is a freelancer. And really, how much money do you think she's made off the book?
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
"Supposedly" is the operative word here. The knife in the photo at the top is the same one that appeared in a couple of news articles, which described it as a prop used in a demonstration rather than a piece of evidence collected during the investigation.

I see that the source for this claim is indeed SomeAlibi.

The folding knives shown below it are knives actually taken from Raffaele's apt.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought. Another lie.
Who would guess the author of the lie is SA, that maniac known for poorly faked photos.
The fake wiki is just a mendacious black PR effort.
 
halides1 said:
Nick Squires wrote in December of 2009, "But police checks on his background revealed a darker side to Sollecito, who had a lifelong obsession with knives and swords, which he collected, and always carried a flick-knife in his pocket." What the heck was he talking about? Swords? I never heard that one before. Owning two pocket knives is an obsession? I have a bunch of x-acto knives. Does that mean that I am going to go out and slash some model boats?
Click to expand...

I don't think we have good information on this. If Raf only owned a couple of "flick" knives the defense has done a piss poor job of putting the facts out there.

I remember articles that had quotes about his knife habit. They said he carried a knife at all times and that he picked a knife to go with his outfit. I'm not going to search for the story but perhaps someone else remembers it.

I'm sure you could contact someone that can provide the facts.

Or Mary, maybe on FB? ;)
 
Katody Matrass said:
Just as I thought. Another lie.
Who would guess the author of the lie is SA, that maniac known for poorly faked photos.
The fake wiki is just a mendacious black PR effort.
Click to expand...

While I can understand why mistakenly strong PIP's would exaggerate for the benefit of the kids, I can't grasp why the PGP people feel the need to misrepresent at best and lie at worst about evidence etc.

Remember when SA went to Sharon what's her name's (I know it just don't want to use it, bet no one will complain if I call her an opportunistic hack) comments section and was totally schooled?

Don't know about the photo's, but remember the looking into Curatolo's eyes and seeing an honest man and then giving him a Euro or two before buying the plastic flowers to put on the gate.
 
Grinder said:
Don't know about the photo's, but remember the looking into Curatolo's eyes and seeing an honest man and then giving him a Euro or two before buying the plastic flowers to put on the gate.
Click to expand...

It was here at JREF. SA presented photos from his ghastly crime tourist excursion. He darkened in photoshop the pics of the villa terrace and claimed his flash photos of the window show the natural night illumination. In fact the window is in the dark and the terrace is lit by street lights. It was really lame.
SA is a spineless liar.
 
Grinder said:
I don't think we have good information on this. If Raf only owned a couple of "flick" knives the defense has done a piss poor job of putting the facts out there.

I remember articles that had quotes about his knife habit. They said he carried a knife at all times and that he picked a knife to go with his outfit. I'm not going to search for the story but perhaps someone else remembers it.
Click to expand...

I have too Grinder. But is it the job of their Defense teams to play "whack a mole" with the press? There have been so many lies spread by the press in this case, that dealing with every one of them is kind of a full time and impossible job especially when you read all the tabloid rags, especially the ones that are willing to print rumors.
 
acbytesla said:
I have too Grinder. But is it the job of their Defense teams to play "whack a mole" with the press? There have been so many lies spread by the press in this case, that dealing with every one of them is kind of a full time and impossible job especially when you read all the tabloid rags, especially the ones that are willing to print rumors.
Click to expand...

It's been 6 years and like it or not, part of life today in these kinds of situations is yes, one must do the work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom