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

[Grinder]

Keep in mind that Feinstein is quoting another "inmate" or guard where human dynamics may not be the best environment. There were many people that liked Amanda in prison, and there were some who hated her. If you read her book she describes her time in prison as not the best. I'm not saying Feinstein made it up, but she is quoting another prisoner. Do you know the other prisoner? This really doesn't give you a good idea of how that person is a normal environment. Maybe there was something "else" going on. Maybe the prisoner just wanted the attention....and maybe there was another reason the two people didn't get along. Maybe the other woman was a bitch who treated Amanda badly? Even if this was not in prison, can you really expect Amanda to get along with everyone?

Like also social interactions. No one is perfect and sometimes two people just don't mesh. So? Another prisoner didn't like Amanda? Film at 11.

Maybe Maria is a paranoid loon and nothing ever happened at her place. I had a neighbor that had 7 "break-ins" in a short period of time. She seemed to have lost the same heirloom ring once in Eastern WA and then again here in Seattle.

While Sharon did have the bit about the fellow prisoner the bulk of the story was told by a guard.

 

[Dan O.]

How hard is it for the defenses to hire a PI? Can they access police reports? Can they ask Napolini when she is on the stand? Cant they call witnesses? Like the Milan officer responsible for releasing Guede? He seems to have some responsibility in MK death IMHO. Something in this whole RG affair seems impossibly hidden or unavailable for some reason.
Meanwhile snake in a plane (sex on a train) makes it into court...WTF?

So that I don't single out any one entity...(hello reporters, book authors, crime shows too?) This is a huge missing part of the story that is also likely the key to revealing the motivation for this whole crazy affair of a fraudulent case. And yet no one knows where this gold watch is? Why not? We know about sex on a plane but nothing about a neighbor who was robbed of a gold watch? How did the burglar enter? Where is this data? Why is no one tracking this down? Or did someone or several someones and they got turned down? Well...that is the story then isn't it.

We get bits and pieces from Preston and Burleigh and Candace...but honestly the story they told along with Fisher, and Mark Waterbury who also wrote very good books on this case is not a complete story by any means. In fact these are now rather dated books. I left out the defendants books because frankly while I enjoyed both, these two have just a part of the story too. While locked in jail they missed most of the crazy behind the scenes details...the media mess, the internet mess, the crazy science mess...and sadly I think their lawyers missed most of that too. Or else they would have rented the house and done the break and enter example on tape. They would have done certified sound tests. Hired a pathologist to review the TOD data available...

Maybe You are onto something there. The defense has to set their priorities. They don't have infinite resources so they take the path most prommising in their opinion. Many of the side issues are of interest to the followers of the case and there is a small possibility that their investigation could turn up something that is relevant.

Would a subscription based true crime investigation unit work? Would people be willing to pay a small user fee to be part of a group that gets to discuss where the investigation should go, questions to ask witnesses, evidence to track down? The group would offer its fact finding expertise to defense and even prosecutors (assuming they are looking for the truth and not just digging for dirt) in exchange for access to the raw case data and the opportunity to suggest areas to research. The group would also be a training ground to develop and hone the skills of actual experts where they are needed for a case.

 

[Grinder]

If it is Feinstein's you're mentioning, it didn't "make news". It was solely a talking point for those who obsessively blog about this on any of the sides. The hater sites regularly block anything by hate-talk... and Feinstein's blog became one of the few "meeting places" for the two sides.

It was there where I first heard about "sex on a train." I'd said that AFAIWC the break-in was a real break-in and that there'd been no clean-up, and someone responded with, "How does it feel to defend a little slut who had sex on a train?"

I am not sure what sex on a train has to do with a break in....

But the thing never "made news" outside of the narrow universe of about 6 websites.

You didn't hear about sex on the train until November of 2011 but you know how the tabs covered the story , wow.

Do you know who Egan is?

I read a couple three of his blog posts. Do you have a link to the story you mentioned above by him?

Funny that you say all these reporters were making stuff up and yet when I'm skeptical about a specific story that "wasn't covered by the local press" that is somehow to be questioned.

And there was no mixing up of Bill Williams. You were the one that thought Hellmann was right about Amanda being guilty of calunnia.

 

[Bill Williams]

You didn't hear about sex on the train until November of 2011 but you know how the tabs covered the story , wow.

That is correct.

Do you know who Egan is?

Yes.

I read a couple three of his blog posts. Do you have a link to the story you mentioned above by him?

Yes.

Funny that you say all these reporters were making stuff up and yet when I'm skeptical about a specific story that "wasn't covered by the local press" that is somehow to be questioned.

I didn't say they were "making things up." That is your interpretation of the true crime genre in general. I was implying that there are various kinds of authors who write in the true crime genre who, when later asked, DO back up their assertions. Candace Dempsey is one, and I have yet to find an assertion she makes which she has not backed up in some when when asked.

True, then the fight is on, but the fight is on for differing reasons.

And there was no mixing up of Bill Williams. You were the one that thought Hellmann was right about Amanda being guilty of calunnia.

The only reason I went to Sharon Feinstein's blog to begin with was because about three or four people actually DID mix up the Bill Willamses.

And that last sentence is true. Do you care to provide the more full exposition of my journey through that? Or is the point just to let it stay there to make some other point which is not all together obvious.... that last sentence is strangely in "true crime" format. Technically true, but with no citation or more full explanation of the point's development. It's like the way Follain writes his account. If it were like Dempsey, she'd make answer..... just saying.

 

[Grinder]

Randy. I shall be brief.




Adding: I checked ph numbers for Diaz in Via del Canerino Perugia. Niente. I would have phoned la Signora Maria myself. Dang it!

Well I'm pleased that a sketchy story may be proven to be correct. I hope that the story is verified as any GOOD lawyer on the case would.

This case has been infested with questionable "facts" from both sides. The watch was known to be found years before the story was told to Nina and published in her book. We know that the conversation of the police in the police station was not recorded (unless they funds of a different color) and yet Follain wrote a dialog.

Yes Bill writing footnotes and sourcing a book is work, but when writing something of historical nature that people will use to discuss what really happened should be documented.

I repeat that I hope the story of the cat/fire/snacking are shown to be accurate and true.

I cheered when C&V came back with their report. I'm still waiting to read the RIS analysis.

And Anglo, did you ever take the time to explain why Mignini would have chosen to quote the tab story on the noise ticket rather than the actual police report?

I am the one that over the years has linked or copied and pasted the actual report when the PGP come here or if something they say is brought over here indicating that it was something more than a ticket. I've linked the court records of the case to show that she didn't go to court but rather just paid the ticket.

While I hope the watch story becomes proven as Nina wrote it, I will continue to question what may turn out to be factoids on both sides.

 

[Bill Williams]

The difference between the Chiacchiera story and the old lady is that we know Burleigh's source - the old lady herself. We can reasonably believe Burleigh has not made it up. Of course, the old lady might be an attention-seeking fantasist but if she is, she's not a very successful one. What happened to that watch? That's the question.

This is perhaps the one time I will defend Grinder in his innate criticism of the true crime genre.

When asked, Candace Dempsey will talk about her sources. When asked (and I am not one who has) John Follain will not - or so it seems.

He includes a little tidbit in his true crime version that Marco Chiacchiera counselled on the morning of Nov 6 NOT to arrest the three - Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba - but have them released and observed closely. Napoleoni and Mignini rejected that advice.

That's Follain's assertion. Does he ever say where he gets this from? Not that I can find. On the face of it it is an incredibly titillating tidbit... Wow, if true it's an insight into how things went wrong?

But there's really no more to be known about it than that Follain asserts it - hence the limitation of the true crime format. Fact or factoid? Only John Follain knows. Perhaps even Marco Chiacchiera knows. If the story is at all correct, then both Napoleoni and/or Mignini should know, unless it was not that important to them to remember.

Where Grinder errs is in assuming that this is being claimed as an iron-clad fact. The problem with the true crime format is that there's no way of knowing. The advantage of the true crime format is as Candace Dempsey writes.... it gets the overall story out there in popular-"novel" fashion.

I happened across an early manuscript of one of the true crime accounts, and saw a bit of the "structure" of how it was put together, this one did have brief notes to sources - a device for the author to remember what is intended to be written in that place. Whether or not this is how all true crime authors proceed I don't know, but this one (seeing the structure behind the assertions) was brilliant.

The deficiencies of Follain's work is for all to see. As far as the Chiacchiera thing is concerned, there is no real reason to know if Follain is correct, or (as Grinder is always on guard for) simply invented it out of thin air.

My own fantasy on that point is that Mignini offered this to Follain as a deal in not prosecuting him along with Curt and Edda for defamation for what Follain quoted about them in the Telegraph. Imagine, the person being quoted being charged with a crime, but the author of the piece AND the publisher conveniently missed out. Mignini said, in my fantasy, "If you say not another word about that bastard Chiacchiera, I'll not have you charged with defamation in the 'slap on the head' matter."

See I can do conspiracy!

 

[Bill Williams]

And Anglo, did you ever take the time to explain why Mignini would have chosen to quote the tab story on the noise ticket rather than the actual police report?

Because Mignini was presenting his case in True Crime format!

 

[anglolawyer]

Well I'm pleased that a sketchy story may be proven to be correct. I hope that the story is verified as any GOOD lawyer on the case would.

This case has been infested with questionable "facts" from both sides. The watch was known to be found years before the story was told to Nina and published in her book. We know that the conversation of the police in the police station was not recorded (unless they funds of a different color) and yet Follain wrote a dialog.

Yes Bill writing footnotes and sourcing a book is work, but when writing something of historical nature that people will use to discuss what really happened should be documented.

I repeat that I hope the story of the cat/fire/snacking are shown to be accurate and true.

I cheered when C&V came back with their report. I'm still waiting to read the RIS analysis.

And Anglo, did you ever take the time to explain why Mignini would have chosen to quote the tab story on the noise ticket rather than the actual police report?
I am the one that over the years has linked or copied and pasted the actual report when the PGP come here or if something they say is brought over here indicating that it was something more than a ticket. I've linked the court records of the case to show that she didn't go to court but rather just paid the ticket.

While I hope the watch story becomes proven as Nina wrote it, I will continue to question what may turn out to be factoids on both sides.

No is the answer. I have spent no part of my time looking into the rock throwing party or the hazing or any of the other irrelevant crap because it's irrelevant and I am content to get what I know from reading posts here. The old lady, the cat and the watch are different. They are relevant to Rudy's criminal career. From Burleigh we have a name, a date, an address and confirmation via acbytesla that she, a reputable writer, stands by her story. You also wanted Malcolm Moore's first hand account of the press conference in duplicate for some reason as if there were no such thing as journalism and also, I might add, ignoring that his report was filed long before anybody knew the significance those text messages would should have taken on.

I believe Burleigh. I do not believe Follain re Chiacchera because while I suspect he had a reasonable source, the story is too self-serving not to have been made up by the copper.

 

[kwill]

Maybe You are onto something there. The defense has to set their priorities. They don't have infinite resources so they take the path most prommising in their opinion. Many of the side issues are of interest to the followers of the case and there is a small possibility that their investigation could turn up something that is relevant.

Would a subscription based true crime investigation unit work? Would people be willing to pay a small user fee to be part of a group that gets to discuss where the investigation should go, questions to ask witnesses, evidence to track down? The group would offer its fact finding expertise to defense and even prosecutors (assuming they are looking for the truth and not just digging for dirt) in exchange for access to the raw case data and the opportunity to suggest areas to research. The group would also be a training ground to develop and hone the skills of actual experts where they are needed for a case.

Interesting. A sort of crowd-sourced data-gathering/sifting approach. The crowd pays for the privilege of seeing what the lawyers see, the lawyers get access to a whole raft of expert eyes on various aspects of their case, and the defendant doesn't have to pay gargantuan sums of money for a cogent, complete, fact-based defense.

Are you picturing a small (like, 15-20 people) group that's somehow vetted in terms of expertise?

 

[Desert Fox]

It is to prudes DF. Personally, while I know that Amanda didn't have sex on a train, it wouldn't bother me for one second if she had. I have had friends that have bragged about joining the mile high club. I can see having sex on a train. Sounds like fun. My guess is that it happens a lot. I wonder how many of them were also homicidal? Probably no more than the percentage of people that have never had sex on a train.

There is NO correlation between being sexually uninhibited and violence. NONE. I challenge anyone to find a single peer reviewed article in a psychiatric journal that says it is.

If Amanda is anything like accurate in her writing, I call her a sex positive type. I want sex to go beyond something done in dark corners. I want people willing to talk about it.

I am 45, almost 46 years old, and can remember a certain resentment against the previous generation. What happened to my generation. Why the hell did we become prudes.

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting. A sort of crowd-sourced data-gathering/sifting approach. The crowd pays for the privilege of seeing what the lawyers see, the lawyers get access to a whole raft of expert eyes on various aspects of their case, and the defendant doesn't have to pay gargantuan sums of money for a cogent, complete, fact-based defense.

Are you picturing a small (like, 15-20 people) group that's somehow vetted in terms of expertise?

This is how much I am willing to pay the lawyers to see what should be freely available if they want any help figuring out this case:

$0​

 

[acbytesla]

Nina Burleigh's reply to my request

As I have said before, I was corresponding to Nina Burleigh asking for any information to corroborate her story about Rudy Guede's neighbor.

Here is the email. I of course, deleted her email and mine.

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:10:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Maria Mandu Diaz and the gold watch
From: xxxx
To: xxxxxx

Dear

I have the transcript of our interview w Mrs Madu Diaz in front of me.

It's long, and in it she reads from the police report and the fire report, in addition to talking at length about what happened to her house.

Now, please, who are you? and what exactly will you do with this document if I send it to you?

I find it outrageous that people think i would "embellish" and invent stories like this. I am a professional journalist, have been for 30 years, and - as much as the interested crazies insist - I have no dog in this hunt.

I could have cared less who committed the crime and when I got there, I assumed Amanda Knox was guilty. My research, diligent, thorough and professional as per my years of training, turned up a very different set of facts.

Thanks for your interest.

Nina Burleigh

I also asked her precisely where Ms. Diaz lived since she said Ms. Diaz was Rudy's neighbor. (I wondered what this meant, next door two blocks away)

Her reply was this.

Mrs. Madu Diaz lived exactly next door, but perpendicular to his building, as I recall. The street sort of ends at his building and hers faces the end of the street at a right angle from his.

 

[Grinder]

Maybe You are onto something there. The defense has to set their priorities. They don't have infinite resources so they take the path most prommising in their opinion. Many of the side issues are of interest to the followers of the case and there is a small possibility that their investigation could turn up something that is relevant.

Would a subscription based true crime investigation unit work? Would people be willing to pay a small user fee to be part of a group that gets to discuss where the investigation should go, questions to ask witnesses, evidence to track down? The group would offer its fact finding expertise to defense and even prosecutors (assuming they are looking for the truth and not just digging for dirt) in exchange for access to the raw case data and the opportunity to suggest areas to research. The group would also be a training ground to develop and hone the skills of actual experts where they are needed for a case.

Interesting. A sort of crowd-sourced data-gathering/sifting approach. The crowd pays for the privilege of seeing what the lawyers see, the lawyers get access to a whole raft of expert eyes on various aspects of their case, and the defendant doesn't have to pay gargantuan sums of money for a cogent, complete, fact-based defense.

Are you picturing a small (like, 15-20 people) group that's somehow vetted in terms of expertise?

A great idea that will be squelched by the lawyers. We have much of the court records on electronic file now but only lawyers can access the full featured aspects.

I would like to see every bit of every case with the exception of information about vulnerable people (children and abused people) available online for everyone. Without trying to pick on anybody I think the way the system works now allows one lawyer to go against another lawyer and they both know that neither will produce the perfect case or near perfect case which makes them both more comfortable.

The idea is great and I think Anglo's encouragement for Amanda and RAf to release everything in the files is a good start.

 

[kwill]

This is how much I am willing to pay the lawyers to see what should be freely available if they want any help figuring out this case:

$0​

I somehow expected you might say that.

But isn't the perfect the enemy of the good here? I mean, if what should be freely available to the whole world isn't, (and I don't know why it isn't, so pls help me out with that), what is wrong with setting up a system that could be a manageable, efficient use of resources?

Or are you just saying you personally aren't interested?

 

[Grinder]

As I have said before, I was corresponding to Nina Burleigh asking for any information to corroborate her story about Rudy Guede's neighbor.

Here is the email. I of course, deleted her email and mine.



I also asked her precisely where Ms. Diaz lived since she said Ms. Diaz was Rudy's neighbor. (I wondered what this meant, next door two blocks away)

Her reply was this.

Thanks you have increased the reliability of the account immensely.

Anglo I don't have an interest in the noise ticket per se but someone indicated that Mignini introducing it via a DM story made sense which doesn't work for me. I can't see such a story being allowed in court here without the reporter being in court.

Don't you think that the defense should have pursued the watch story much as you have followed the text deletion aspect. In a sense the PLE seem to have deleted the watch story as well. The defense should have those police reports and should have interviewed the woman.

Was there any evidence that more than one person was involved? How did he enter? What was taken besides the watch? Why would the police release the watch when it was found in a bag of stolen items?

 

[Bill Williams]

I do not believe Follain re Chiacchera because while I suspect he had a reasonable source, the story is too self-serving not to have been made up by the copper.

If I read you correctly, you mean that it is Chiacchiera being self serving, not Follain. If at all true, then he would be the second one trying to plan the seeds of "an out" just in case the prosecution went south - which, acc. to Cassazione, it has not.

The other is Patrizia Stefanoni, who produced a DNA report which really could support guilt or innocence. It supported guilt only in the sense that Judge Massei ruled that it did... it supports innocence in any reasonable-minded DNA expert who recognizes it for what it is - crap science.

It is perhaps on this forum (JREF) where nearly ALL the discussion of Follain's reporting of Chiacchiera's alleged comments comes from. But this is crowd-sourced investigation, after all.

 

[anglolawyer]

I somehow expected you might say that.

But isn't the perfect the enemy of the good here? I mean, if what should be freely available to the whole world isn't, (and I don't know why it isn't, so pls help me out with that), what is wrong with setting up a system that could be a manageable, efficient use of resources?

Or are you just saying you personally aren't interested?

I am not not interested. I am exasperated at the failure of the defendants and/or their teams to get the case papers out there. This is starting to take shape as the resource which ought to have existed long before now. For lurkers out there, there is a similar looking one prepared by anonymous guilters. It is full of lies. Use the one I linked to for the facts.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks you have increased the reliability of the account immensely.

Anglo I don't have an interest in the noise ticket per se but someone indicated that Mignini introducing it via a DM story made sense which doesn't work for me. I can't see such a story being allowed in court here without the reporter being in court.

Don't you think that the defense should have pursued the watch story much as you have followed the text deletion aspect. In a sense the PLE seem to have deleted the watch story as well. The defense should have those police reports and should have interviewed the woman.

Was there any evidence that more than one person was involved? How did he enter? What was taken besides the watch? Why would the police release the watch when it was found in a bag of stolen items?

I see the similarity. The watch may well have been hushed up just like the text, the segment of Amanda's text (which came out when it was too late to make any difference), the CCTV coverage of Raf's street that 'showed nothing', the EDFs and many other things besides, all of which have the one thing in common.

Did the police lift any prints at the lawyers office? Nothing about it in the testimony MichaelB linked. I bet the guy who did all those weird things left some. It's normal when investigating a theft to try to locate the owner of the supposedly stolen property. Without the loser's evidence it is pretty much impossible to prove theft. The lawyer didn't even know whether it was his colleague's laptop that showed up in Milan and the little old lady does not appear to have been shown the watch either.

Rudy is a lucky guy. So much so he might be signing on here and joining the discussion soon. If not here then surely one of the Placing Rudy First sites.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not not interested. I am exasperated at the failure of the defendants and/or their teams to get the case papers out there. This is starting to take shape as the resource which ought to have existed long before now. For lurkers out there, there is a similar looking one prepared by anonymous guilters. It is full of lies. Use the one I linked to for the facts.

All for the sake of a "the".

themurderofmeredithkercher.com is an anonymous site that has as its claim that it is drawn from actual court transcripts. That's it as for claims - for someone to make the claim that there's legitimacy to "being drawn from actual court transcripts" is a bit like me saying that I draw my information from reading every issue of the local newspaper since the beginning of time, including the classifieds and social calendar section.

Truly, I wish guilters/haters would do something else other than anonymous bellyaching that amounts to nothing.

(BTW - does Edward McCall's fake-wiki above take a guess as to Time of Death?)

The other thing that guilters/haters seem to do is to advertise this as a complex crime, and sometimes chime in with a conspiratorial-sounding claim that only Amanda Knox has secret info that can clear it up.

My question: who benefits from this claim that it is a complex crime that in essence cannot be understood? No wonder they do not even attempt the basics, like starting with a T.O.D. and build a comprehensive timeline from that. Heck, I am growing weary of the CNN "Breaking News" about missing Malaysian MH#370.... where investigator after investigator asks for precisely these things....

"It's no good having a theory as to what happened to MH370 unless one builds it around the time of last known contact, and builds a credible timeline from there."​

Back to 2007.... guilters/haters resist this like the plague.... why? Because for them it is so much fun to sluttify Amanda Knox. Like Mignini tried to do at trial when he quoted from tabloids, when Seattle police reports were available to him......

All for the sake of a "the". If one wants to figure out what happened to the victim here, Meredith Kercher, one goes to the site recommended by anglo-lawyer.

If one wants to keep it confused, unknowable, but boy oh boy it's fun to say slutty things, one goes to Edward McCall's site.

Who is Edward McCall? Does his site say?

Enough said.

 

[Grinder]

If Marriott would rehire me I'd be ordering the troops to stop arguing with hopeless people like Heather Orth and start tweeting the good wiki site as well as putting it in comment sections even old ones that still take comments.

I'd also put together some examples of the differences between the sites showing where the dark side's has errors. I would back each and every claim with the source of the facts and quote directly from court docs wherever possible. Every claim by my team would be backed by solid proofs.

I haven't been there lately but if those comparisons are there my team would not just post links but at a minimum key sections of the differences.

I would also have everyone on the executive team start sending emails to those in the media that are still associated with the case.

I'd have the Italian team doing it in Italian and to Italian media.

I would spend no time demeaning McCall or any individuals, just the facts ma'am, just the facts.