Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

I see no point in moving on to other cases until people understand that discussion forums and blogs are poor mechanisms for gathering and organizing the facts of the case. What I can do in responding to questions is due mostly to the fact that I started a private wiki to organize the available facts.

Unlike the two fake wikis on this case that are viewable to the public, my intent was to create a neutral repository of all the facts. To that end, the first two posters from here invited to use that wiki were chosen for their ability to research the facts. One was learning pro guilt and the other was leaning pro innocence. Only one actually signed on and that one didn't make any contributions.

The true wiki concept works. You can see how it has helped me organize the facts mostly on my own. I can envision how it can be so much more as a group project. I just don't know how to convince the skeptics and non-believers.

I like the term discussion forums.
Is fake wiki a catch all term for all collations outside of the wikipedia founders' site?

 

[carbonjam72]

Prank call date discrepancy

.
Thanks for the link RW.

From the testimony:


So they were specifically instructed by the police to go to the station the next day to report the bomb threat phone, and while getting ready, they found one of Meredith's cell phones. That simply could not happen if the call was made on Oct 31.

And they had the police report that was made when they took the phone to the police station :



What I find curious is the fact that the excuse/explanation for the bomb threat phone call limits what dates it could be used with. I presume using up bonus minutes means using them up before the end of the month, which precludes Nov 1. Is it possible the excuse was fabricated and set in stone before anyone realized it was incompatible with the Nov 1 date that the phone call actually occurred?

Like RW, I also find it curious the police only searched outside the home if the call actually mentioned a bomb in the toilet. The call is either being taken seriously or not. By the fast response I would assume it is being taken seriously. If seriously then the toilet/bathroom should be checked, if not taken seriously why check anything?

I still would like to know exactly what time the bomb threat phone call was. According to Lana's testimony:


'Nine and a half, ten' (although later she uses 'ten' when estimating the police arrival time). Why, if the record of the actual bomb threat call was known, did they not use that to establish the time of the call?

Also, if the call was between 9:30 and 10, and Lana phoned the police immediately, and the police arrived within 10 to 15 minutes (an admirable response time), and they left about 20 to 30 minutes later, then the police left Lana's place some time between 10 pm and 10:45. Why no reports nailing this time down? It makes me curious because the car that broke down directly in front of the cottage that night did so more or less in the middle of that time range. Was it a real break down? I would love to know what work the mechanic had to do to get it running again after he got it back to his garage.

Cody
.

The problem with the fake call coming on Nov 1, is that it puts police in the exact location that Rudy would have to pass by on his way home, and when he called Kercher's bank, and then tossed the phones in Lana's garden, at about 10:15 on Nov 1.

Perhaps Rudy saw the police at Lana's house, and then tossed the phones because he knew the phones connected him to the murder he had just committed? But then what did he do with Kercher's credit cards and bloody money?

Or did Rudy just walk up to the police outside Lana's on Nov 1 at 10:15, in his wet & bloody clothes covered by his sweatshirt, and ask for directions home, or chit chat about who won the latest incomprehensible sporting event?

If there is a phone record from the prank caller's phone records documenting a halloween prank call on Oct 31, then the call can't have come on Nov 1.

And Lana, her daughter and daughter's husband (or son), did they all confirm the date of Nov 1?
Seems to be something of an unresolved mystery here. Not knowing who made the prank call left a lot of room to speculate. But knowing who the caller is, and having a record of the call which appears to create a conflict with the version provided by the recipients of the call is just weird, and definitely worth following up, imo.

Also btw, my cell phone does not flip on the 1st of the month, but in the middle of the month. Couldn't a monthly allotment of minutes flip on Nov1, instead of Oct 31? Are all EU phone contracts tied to a rigid calendar month?

 

[carbonjam72]

A Justice Librarian?

I see no point in moving on to other cases until people understand that discussion forums and blogs are poor mechanisms for gathering and organizing the facts of the case. What I can do in responding to questions is due mostly to the fact that I started a private wiki to organize the available facts.

Unlike the two fake wikis on this case that are viewable to the public, my intent was to create a neutral repository of all the facts. To that end, the first two posters from here invited to use that wiki were chosen for their ability to research the facts. One was leaning pro guilt and the other was leaning pro innocence. Only one actually signed on and that one didn't make any contributions.

The true wiki concept works. You can see how it has helped me organize the facts mostly on my own. I can envision how it can be so much more as a group project. I just don't know how to convince the skeptics and non-believers.

I think Bruce is offering you a job? I hope you'd consider it too.

 

[Dan O.]

I like the term discussion forums.
Is fake wiki a catch all term for all collations outside of the wikipedia founders' site?

wiki^WP

 

[Numbers]

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/merediths-cell-phone-helps-pinpoint-time-of-death/



So phones were tossed after 10 pm, possibly as late as after 10:13 pm.

The police should have documented when Ms. Lana called, what the complaint was, and when they went to her residence and searched her garden. I don't know if such evidence (police records) were presented at the trial.

I think that the (slight) fabrication was that the police were called about a prank bomb scare; I believe (hypothesize) they were called because someone in the Lana family saw or heard something being thrown in the garden after 10 pm Nov. 1. Perhaps the Lana family member thought there was a connection to the prank bomb call (if that indeed happened, either on Oct. 31 or Nov. 1).

.....

Were the phones tested for finger prints? ....

.

......

Like RW, I also find it curious the police only searched outside the home if the call actually mentioned a bomb in the toilet. ....

Also, if the call was between 9:30 and 10, and Lana phoned the police immediately, and the police arrived within 10 to 15 minutes (an admirable response time), and they left about 20 to 30 minutes later, then the police left Lana's place some time between 10 pm and 10:45. Why no reports nailing this time down? ....

Cody
.

Also why not get the police officers who attended the incident to give evidence or include their statement one would expect that they would have documented their time of attendance, what they did and when they left. That would have been a contemporaneous record as opposed to someone recalling it later. There are some odd things around all this. The conflicting report of the date between the admission of the individual who made the call (presumably identified through phone records that should have documented the time and date of the call both from the senders and the recipients records (why not entered in evidence?), and that given in the Knox case.
....

I wish to thank all above for their additional points which help support my hypothesis that the bomb threat prank was (even if some such prank did occur) used by the police and prosecution as a coverup for what must have really happened.

The timing given by Ms Lana for the prank call and the arrival of police at her place would indeed suggest that Rudy Guede came by and threw the phones in her garden at about the time the police were there. That's not credible.

Why were the police searching the garden extensively if the threat was to bomb the toilet? (I assume that the Lana home has indoor plumbing.) What were the police looking for in the garden? If someone had planted a bomb in the toilet (and it was indoors), there would have been signs of a break in. But the testimony as I understand it claims the search was (primarily or only?) outside in the garden.

The police did not testify about this incident IIUC and the police documentation about it was not shown in court IIUC. Why not? Perhaps the police search of the garden was not at about 10:15 pm, but was later, after the Lana family called police about something being tossed into their garden? And when the Lana family found the phones the next day, they took them to the postal police without the need to be asked on the night of Nov. 1 to report to the postal police on Nov. 2; the Lana family recognized that the cell phones were, at a minimum, lost phones that police needed to return.

We don't know, of course, what discussions the police and prosecutor had with the Lana family before Ms. Lana's testimony.

 

[codyjuneau]

I wish to thank all above for their additional points which help support my hypothesis that the bomb threat prank was (even if some such prank did occur) used by the police and prosecution as a coverup for what must have really happened.

The timing given by Ms Lana for the prank call and the arrival of police at her place would indeed suggest that Rudy Guede came by and threw the phones in her garden at about the time the police were there. That's not credible.

Why were the police searching the garden extensively if the threat was to bomb the toilet? (I assume that the Lana home has indoor plumbing.) What were the police looking for in the garden? If someone had planted a bomb in the toilet (and it was indoors), there would have been signs of a break in. But the testimony as I understand it claims the search was (primarily or only?) outside in the garden.

The police did not testify about this incident IIUC and the police documentation about it was not shown in court IIUC. Why not? Perhaps the police search of the garden was not at about 10:15 pm, but was later, after the Lana family called police about something being tossed into their garden? And when the Lana family found the phones the next day, they took them to the postal police without the need to be asked on the night of Nov. 1 to report to the postal police on Nov. 2; the Lana family recognized that the cell phones were, at a minimum, lost phones that police needed to return.

We don't know, of course, what discussions the police and prosecutor had with the Lana family before Ms. Lana's testimony.

.
LOL, I think you are onto something here Numbers. Lana must have had an outhouse in the garden!

Cody
.

 

[Dan O.]

Another tidbit on the fake bomb threat call

From the testimony of Filippo Bartolozzi 2009-09-25

GM:
One question, one last question: you have identified the author of the phone call that occurred at the home of Mrs. Lana on the evening of the first?
FB:
So it was detected or the night or the next day, I do not remember exactly when, however, was also identified through the acquisition of print-outs and all1 aid of the Flying Squad of Terni, Terni was a gentleman, though resident in Terni, who had made the phone call at 22.30 to the L Lana Elizabeth.
GM:
But for reasons that were the reasons?
FB:
The motivation was a prank call, he made a prank call ...
GM:
​

 

[Dan O.]

I think Bruce is offering you a job? I hope you'd consider it too.

A public wiki would require more resources to insure security and meet legal requirements such as copyright laws than I can provide. I had been thinking about requesting setting up such wikis for these forums on IS and since this subject is off topic for this thread, I have created a thread in forum management feedback for discussion.

 

[carbonjam72]

A public wiki would require more resources to insure security and meet legal requirements such as copyright laws than I can provide. I had been thinking about requesting setting up such wikis for these forums on IS and since this subject is off topic for this thread, I have created a thread in forum management feedback for discussion.

Is Bruce's wiki public? I thought it was privately curated, but open to the public? I thought that's what was being implied, to come help organize info at IIP? Maybe I misunderstood?

By the way, the copyright protections for web site operators under DMCA (digital millennium copyright act?) are huge. Can ask others, but IIUC, its like virtual immunity.

 

[Dan O.]

Is Bruce's wiki public? I thought it was privately curated, but open to the public? I thought that's what was being implied, to come help organize info at IIP? Maybe I misunderstood?

Bruce is building a publication in a wiki like skin. It is an excelent resource for the MK/AK case but does not allow the depth or alternate points of view that a more open wiki would. The other fake wiki is a propaganda site with little regard for facts. A more open wiki on a neutrally moderated site would allow the alternate points of view and all of the facts to be organized and presented. My allegiance is to the search for the truth. Since the facts are so unbalanced in this case it is commonly percieved that I am on a particular side. For that reason, I would not be perceived to be a neutral curator of the facts in this case.


Please take the general wiki discussion to the forum management thread.

 

[Numbers]

.
LOL, I think you are onto something here Numbers. Lana must have had an outhouse in the garden!

Cody
.

You may have spotted the error in my hypothesis. Outhouses may be much more common in Italy than in the rest of Western Europe.

 

[carbonjam72]

You may have spotted the error in my hypothesis. Outhouses may be much more common in Italy than in the rest of Western Europe.

Does Amanda have a court session today over the libel/defamation charges or some such? I thought it was scheduled for Jun 9?

Anyone heard anything?

 

[LondonJohn]

I wish to thank all above for their additional points which help support my hypothesis that the bomb threat prank was (even if some such prank did occur) used by the police and prosecution as a coverup for what must have really happened.

The timing given by Ms Lana for the prank call and the arrival of police at her place would indeed suggest that Rudy Guede came by and threw the phones in her garden at about the time the police were there. That's not credible.

Why were the police searching the garden extensively if the threat was to bomb the toilet? (I assume that the Lana home has indoor plumbing.) What were the police looking for in the garden? If someone had planted a bomb in the toilet (and it was indoors), there would have been signs of a break in. But the testimony as I understand it claims the search was (primarily or only?) outside in the garden.

The police did not testify about this incident IIUC and the police documentation about it was not shown in court IIUC. Why not? Perhaps the police search of the garden was not at about 10:15 pm, but was later, after the Lana family called police about something being tossed into their garden? And when the Lana family found the phones the next day, they took them to the postal police without the need to be asked on the night of Nov. 1 to report to the postal police on Nov. 2; the Lana family recognized that the cell phones were, at a minimum, lost phones that police needed to return.

We don't know, of course, what discussions the police and prosecutor had with the Lana family before Ms. Lana's testimony.

Bongiorno!

I'm not altogether sure what you're proposing as a plausible alternative narrative for this whole area, but here's one from me:

1) The bomb threat hoax actually took place on the evening/night of 31st October/1st November - the night before the murder. The police may have come to the house but found nothing amiss.

2) Guede threw the phones into the garden at around 10.20pm on the night of the murder, Perhaps one or both of them made a noise as they landed, alerting Lana.

3) Lana called the police again, to say there were strange noises in her garden. The police came out and conducted a cursory search of the garden in the dark, but failed to find either of the phones.

4) The following morning, Lana and her family went out to the garden to conduct a better search in the light of day. They soon found the UK handset, which was lying in plain view, and subsequently found the Italian handset when it rang (almost certainly on account of an incoming call from Knox).

5) The police (and PM) decided to conflate the bomb threat story from the night before with the "noise in the garden" story from the night of the murder, in order to conceal their incompetence in having failed to find the phones. After all, had they found the phones at, say, 10.45pm on the night of the murder, the investigation might have taken a significantly different turn.


This narrative also helps to explain how/why Lana and her family were apparently actively looking around in the garden the following morning. If this had just been about a prankster call saying there was a bomb in the toilet, there would seem to be little reason to search the garden. If, on the other hand, there had been a second incident, on the night of the murder, involving strange noises coming from the area of the garden, then there would obviously have been a far strong reason for checking the garden in the light of day the following morning.

 

[MichaelB]

New translation: Jade Bidwell witness statement to police on Nov 2, 2007 http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jade-Bidwell-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

RWVBWL, I saw your question last week. You were asking about when the downstairs guys will be translated? I'm not sure exactly, hopefully soon. I want to see what Bonassi said about how he left his bed.

Here's a few things I noticed that seem to have moved on November 2. More before and after pics here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-photos-before-and-after/

 

[Kauffer]

New translation: Jade Bidwell witness statement to police on Nov 2, 2007 http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jade-Bidwell-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

RWVBWL, I saw your question last week. You were asking about when the downstairs guys will be translated? I'm not sure exactly, hopefully soon. I want to see what Bonassi said about how he left his bed.

Here's a few things I noticed that seem to have moved on November 2. More before and after pics here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-photos-before-and-after/

Thank you, Michael.

The Bidwell statement is a good example of why some perspectives on the case need to change. She hardly knew Kercher and had never visited her at the cottage. Yet a dominant meme in the case seems to be that all the so called "British friends" were an homogenous group with Amanda as an outlier in Kercher's world.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

Tesla wrote that his email exchange with Nina had her reading off of her transcription of her interview with Prato. Am I mistaken, or is the quote you provided above obviously not the same as from Nina's transcript of her own interview with Prato and upon which her reporting was based?

Your defense of Prato's statement (from where?), that you can see no reason for her to get it wrong, sounds eerily similar to Massei's (?) conclusion that he can see no reason for Nara to testify to her reported scream, if it weren't true.

You have confused Prato with Diaz. The issue Tesla discussed with Nina had to do with Diaz and the cat killing fire.

The quote from Prato is from an interview/statement made to the PLE during the first trial. Prato’s transcript from Nina has never been discussed here, but I would deduce she has one. To my knowledge none of her transcripts of interviews have seen the light of day.

Since you had this confusion, I’m guessing that you would want to revise the Nara comparison. Whereas Nara only emerged late, made claims of hearing things she probably couldn’t have, notwithstanding Briars’ dogs, had the days confused and neglected to mention to the police she had heard a terrifying scream in a timely manner, Prato called the police on Rudi and later when interviewed by LE said that the Milan police woman told her they had released him because “they let him go because they didn’t know what to do with him” I see no reason to think she is lying or mistaken.

While I'm grateful Micheal for digging into this question, and I absolutely want to know more, an anonymous source is not a trump card on credibility over Nina Burleigh and Candace Dempsey. I gather you disagree. Fine.

But an anonymous source is in no way similar to a professional journalist like Nina Burleigh. The difference between journalists is not who is pro-innocence or pro-guilt, but one of professional standards.

As for Nina and her reporting, there is an interesting article about her coverage of the case from the NY Times. The focus is whether she became too much of an advocate and lost her credibility as a neutral reporter. The article states that Nina went in this direction:
Mr. Guede was a Dickensian character, a poor immigrant from Ivory Coast adopted, then rejected, by one of Perugia’s richest families. His bloodied footprints had been found around Ms. Kercher’s body, and he had been convicted before the Knox trial began. Prosecutors argued that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito had acted with him.
But Burleigh focused on Mr. Guede’s crimes in the weeks before Ms. Kercher’s murder. He had broken into a nursery school, a law office and another apartment, in each case, making himself at home: turning up the heat, preparing a meal, taking a few things — and if confronted, defending himself with a chair or a quick excuse.

The article is available so you can draw your own conclusions but it reads that Nina told the writer the above. She clearly had a POV and agenda and wrote her novel to back her own theory or view.

Read the section on Tramontano . She tells the story out of sequence making it appear Napoleoni knew of this home invasion before the murder. She has the event and a call to the police (done by CT's girlfriend), a conversation with Napoleoni and then seeing Rudi at Domus and Merlin a few days later.

 

[Grinder]

I would say that Guede cannot admit to the break-in because that would completely undermine his claim that he was invited in by Ms. Kercher and his claim that he had consensual sexual contact with Ms. Kercher. If he admitted to the break in, nobody would have ever believed those claims. (Not that very many people do anyway)

Guede only 'admitted' things he had to in order to try to explain away the forensic evidence that he knew or reasonably expected would be found, and he did so in order to try to make his forensic presence appear innocent in nature. That is, he made up a story to explain away his presence in order to avoid being held responsible for his crimes, but he couldn't admit to the break in because that would demolish his 'innocent' presence tall tales.

From the very first Skype calls, could be the second one found on a youtube, and his German diary he maintains that he heard a doorbell and that MK answered it. It makes no sense to me that he insists on the bell rather than saying he heard nothing or he could have said he heard breaking glass but thought it was just something in the kitchen. Why would he have come up with the bell story as a resident wouldn't use a bell so that wouldn't point to AK?

Taking the time to read much of Rudi's stuff, I also noticed that he early on and throughout insisted that he hadn't ejaculated even though in one of the Skypes says that the "male sperm" reported to be found couldn't be his. To me this assures that the stain can't be Rudi's semen or his story would have included enough fooling around to cause him to ejaculate.

 

[Grinder]

Bongiorno!

I'm not altogether sure what you're proposing as a plausible alternative narrative for this whole area, but here's one from me:

1) The bomb threat hoax actually took place on the evening/night of 31st October/1st November - the night before the murder. The police may have come to the house but found nothing amiss.

2) Guede threw the phones into the garden at around 10.20pm on the night of the murder, Perhaps one or both of them made a noise as they landed, alerting Lana.

3) Lana called the police again, to say there were strange noises in her garden. The police came out and conducted a cursory search of the garden in the dark, but failed to find either of the phones.

4) The following morning, Lana and her family went out to the garden to conduct a better search in the light of day. They soon found the UK handset, which was lying in plain view, and subsequently found the Italian handset when it rang (almost certainly on account of an incoming call from Knox).

5) The police (and PM) decided to conflate the bomb threat story from the night before with the "noise in the garden" story from the night of the murder, in order to conceal their incompetence in having failed to find the phones. After all, had they found the phones at, say, 10.45pm on the night of the murder, the investigation might have taken a significantly different turn.


This narrative also helps to explain how/why Lana and her family were apparently actively looking around in the garden the following morning. If this had just been about a prankster call saying there was a bomb in the toilet, there would seem to be little reason to search the garden. If, on the other hand, there had been a second incident, on the night of the murder, involving strange noises coming from the area of the garden, then there would obviously have been a far strong reason for checking the garden in the light of day the following morning.

Could someone post the links to the relevant testimony?

from what I read here it seems the call had to be made the 31st. The boy came over that night to make his mom feel okay. Hard to believe the police actually would visit a house to check for a toilet bomb but it's Italy where police drive out to return phones which would never happen here.

I would think the PLE conspiracy people would question the PP returning the phones to the cottage. The rest of the prank call story doesn't seem important to the murder, unless Napoleoni was there when the phones came flying in and she recognized Rudi's full court passing style.

 

[acbytesla]

You have confused Prato with Diaz. The issue Tesla discussed with Nina had to do with Diaz and the cat killing fire.

The quote from Prato is from an interview/statement made to the PLE during the first trial. Prato’s transcript from Nina has never been discussed here, but I would deduce she has one. To my knowledge none of her transcripts of interviews have seen the light of day.

Since you had this confusion, I’m guessing that you would want to revise the Nara comparison. Whereas Nara only emerged late, made claims of hearing things she probably couldn’t have, notwithstanding Briars’ dogs, had the days confused and neglected to mention to the police she had heard a terrifying scream in a timely manner, Prato called the police on Rudi and later when interviewed by LE said that the Milan police woman told her they had released him because “they let him go because they didn’t know what to do with him” I see no reason to think she is lying or mistaken.




As for Nina and her reporting, there is an interesting article about her coverage of the case from the NY Times. The focus is whether she became too much of an advocate and lost her credibility as a neutral reporter. The article states that Nina went in this direction:
Mr. Guede was a Dickensian character, a poor immigrant from Ivory Coast adopted, then rejected, by one of Perugia’s richest families. His bloodied footprints had been found around Ms. Kercher’s body, and he had been convicted before the Knox trial began. Prosecutors argued that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito had acted with him.
But Burleigh focused on Mr. Guede’s crimes in the weeks before Ms. Kercher’s murder. He had broken into a nursery school, a law office and another apartment, in each case, making himself at home: turning up the heat, preparing a meal, taking a few things — and if confronted, defending himself with a chair or a quick excuse.

The article is available so you can draw your own conclusions but it reads that Nina told the writer the above. She clearly had a POV and agenda and wrote her novel to back her own theory or view.

Read the section on Tramontano . She tells the story out of sequence making it appear Napoleoni knew of this home invasion before the murder. She has the event and a call to the police (done by CT's girlfriend), a conversation with Napoleoni and then seeing Rudi at Domus and Merlin a few days later.

It seems as if you think that as a reporter that Nina shouldn't have an opinion. I think Nina's perspective is legitimate. She saw the evidence and how the stories surrounding Amanda etc. we're mostly bogus. And to her, this was the story. Do you think that is wrong Grinder?

 

[carbonjam72]

Nina Burleigh is tops, IUAM

You have confused Prato with Diaz. The issue Tesla discussed with Nina had to do with Diaz and the cat killing fire.

The quote from Prato is from an interview/statement made to the PLE during the first trial. Prato’s transcript from Nina has never been discussed here, but I would deduce she has one. To my knowledge none of her transcripts of interviews have seen the light of day.
Since you had this confusion, I’m guessing that you would want to revise the Nara comparison. Whereas Nara only emerged late, made claims of hearing things she probably couldn’t have, notwithstanding Briars’ dogs, had the days confused and neglected to mention to the police she had heard a terrifying scream in a timely manner, Prato called the police on Rudi and later when interviewed by LE said that the Milan police woman told her they had released him because “they let him go because they didn’t know what to do with him” I see no reason to think she is lying or mistaken.



As for Nina and her reporting, there is an interesting article about her coverage of the case from the NY Times. The focus is whether she became too much of an advocate and lost her credibility as a neutral reporter. The article states that Nina went in this direction:
Mr. Guede was a Dickensian character, a poor immigrant from Ivory Coast adopted, then rejected, by one of Perugia’s richest families. His bloodied footprints had been found around Ms. Kercher’s body, and he had been convicted before the Knox trial began. Prosecutors argued that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito had acted with him.
But Burleigh focused on Mr. Guede’s crimes in the weeks before Ms. Kercher’s murder. He had broken into a nursery school, a law office and another apartment, in each case, making himself at home: turning up the heat, preparing a meal, taking a few things — and if confronted, defending himself with a chair or a quick excuse.

The article is available so you can draw your own conclusions but it reads that Nina told the writer the above. She clearly had a POV and agenda and wrote her novel to back her own theory or view.
Read the section on Tramontano . She tells the story out of sequence making it appear Napoleoni knew of this home invasion before the murder. She has the event and a call to the police (done by CT's girlfriend), a conversation with Napoleoni and then seeing Rudi at Domus and Merlin a few days later.

1. Yes, I agree I confused Prato for Diaz in tesla's post of his email exchange with Nina. I also agree with you that Nina undoubtedly has her own original interview notes with Del Prato as well, since that's what she does: actual journalism.

I disagree with you that she has an obligation to fully publish her work product. It's hers and her employers, their work, their effort, it belongs to them. Although I do agree it could have great value to the public and people interested in trying to follow the best available research, if they chose to share it. (I believe this is a current defect in copyright law, but that's a different thread topic, so lets not go there).

2. I believe you mistake Del Prato's being told by a police woman, with what actually occurred in regard to the matter the police woman was relating. The police woman could have gotten an inaccurate or incomplete story, relayed it to Del Prato, and Del Prato could have repeated that story in complete honesty, yet still have been factually incorrect as to events that she herself did not directly witness.

I believe this issue is called "HEAR-SAY"? Del Prato does not appear to have directly witnessed the events culminating in Rudy's release from police, but she did apparently get told a version by the police lady. The issue would seem to be how to confirm the police lady's version. I think Nina also quoted a police officer from Milan (a man, and by name IIRC) saying Rudy got released after a call with Perugian authorities, and that "these things happen". I think that's a different nuance in the story. I don't feel obligated to accept your conclusions on this point, thanks.

The comparison to Nara is correct, imo. You're using bare testimony itself, as justification for a claim of an unwitnessed fact, without any supporting cooboration, and the presence of conflicting accounts.

3. I remember reading this article from the NY Times, but I don't recall the interpretation you wish to impose. You seem to have some issue with Nina unrelated to her actual writing. I think every writer takes a position on something where the facts lead them to a conclusion. It's a whole other motivation to say someone is fabricating stories (as Michael B suggested with Nina's 'pounds of pasta' account from the nursery school), or altering time lines to provide an intentionally (or unintentionally) misleading understanding of the pattern of fact.

Look, I think you're projecting your own inclinations onto Nina, and everyone else. That's not a knock, I think its common. It takes real care to discount our own prejudices in any situation, Not at all a clear assessment, IUAM. Ok, now go ahead and express your outrage at the mere suggestion.

I don't know which account you're referring to regarding Tremantano, but I'll try to take a look at both. I agree this is relevant, and revealing regarding Rudy, and the police. (IIRC, Napoleone was only recently promoted to head of homicide at the time of the Kercher case, and IIRC it was her first case? - but I may be wrong on this).