Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I keep wondering why you don't just bite the bullet and learn Italian.

LOL. People that speak English and Italian keep telling me they will help. Roteoctober will be working on this one.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

Yes, it's 072 from the Dec. 18 series, attached.

Ah, the forum resizes the photo... I'll post it elsewhere and provide a link.

Here's a link to the full resolution photo:

https://truck.it/p/Cs4Jy4MvNf

Thanks, Charlie. The link shows what Dan O is talking about quite clearly, although it may have been moved (again). Also the best shot of the contents of Amanda's bag I have seen, still not seeing the vibrator, I wonder if it was "confiscated" by the cops. Why wouldn't they spray the bag as well, I wonder?

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

LOL. People that speak English and Italian keep telling me they will help. Roteoctober will be working on this one.

Oh, you can't count on anyone else. It's dog eat dog around here. Actually I see you as not just an Italian speaker but an Italian lawyer one day.

[Rolfe]

Excuse me, I have no intent to derail and this is a one-off post. Someone posting in this thread sent me a PM which I seem to have carelessly deleted, asking about the availability of certain documents. (Rose, was it you?)

The answer to the question is in post 5 in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=250919

Rolfe.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Excuse me, I have no intent to derail and this is a one-off post. Someone posting in this thread sent me a PM which I seem to have carelessly deleted, asking about the availability of certain documents. (Rose, was it you?

Rolfe.

Yes. Thanks for this.

[Dan O.]

Why would anyone delete their received messages? They must be hiding something.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Why would anyone delete their received messages? They must be hiding something.

Wanna bet?

[halides1]

I reread the section of the Fatal Gift of Beauty dealing with the high rise going up in Spoleto. The "anarchoterrorist" was Michele Fabiana (Burleigh, p. 137), and he and the Spoleto Five had ties to lawyer Paolo Brocchi, whose laptop was stolen by Rudi Guede. Fabiana was placed in solitary for eighteen months and was under house arrest for years waiting for a trial.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Why would anyone delete their received messages? They must be hiding something.

"This is sarcasm, right?" asks Sheldon Cooper

[Grinder]

So Follain says Raf had the following Manga Comic: MPD-Psycho: In the Labyrinths of the Mind

I can' find any reference to this issue on the web. Is the name correct or is an error by Follain? (Anglo, parts of the book are on the web so I'm reading the web not a book )

Also F claims that Laura dubbed the kids the "lovebirds". Would this ruin the meme that Bongiorno or the FOA coined the phrase/

Also, he says Meredith communicated with Stephanie that she had had an argument with Amanda. Do we believe this from F?

I don't believe that was introduced at trial. This could mean that S made it up or it became a false memory at a later date. It does raise the question for me as to whether or not the Kerchers may have real or imagined evidence not allowed in the trial.

[Grinder]

dupe

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Grinder

So Follain says Raf had the following Manga Comic: MPD-Psycho: In the Labyrinths of the Mind

I can' find any reference to this issue on the web. Is the name correct or is an error by Follain? (Anglo, parts of the book are on the web so I'm reading the web not a book )

Also F claims that Laura dubbed the kids the "lovebirds". Would this ruin the meme that Bongiorno or the FOA coined the phrase/

Also, he says Meredith communicated with Stephanie that she had had an argument with Amanda. Do we believe this from F?

I don't believe that was introduced at trial. This could mean that S made it up or it became a false memory at a later date. It does raise the question for me as to whether or not the Kerchers may have real or imagined evidence not allowed in the trial.

In John Kercher's book his condensed version of his daughter's evidence at trial deals with only two points: first, about how Meredith was looking forward to her year in Italy and second, about how Meredith would definitely have fought off her attacker(s). Loc. 2525.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Grinder

So Follain says Raf had the following Manga Comic: MPD-Psycho: In the Labyrinths of the Mind

I can' find any reference to this issue on the web. Is the name correct or is an error by Follain? (Anglo, parts of the book are on the web so I'm reading the web not a book )

Also F claims that Laura dubbed the kids the "lovebirds". Would this ruin the meme that Bongiorno or the FOA coined the phrase/

Also, he says Meredith communicated with Stephanie that she had had an argument with Amanda. Do we believe this from F?

I don't believe that was introduced at trial. This could mean that S made it up or it became a false memory at a later date. It does raise the question for me as to whether or not the Kerchers may have real or imagined evidence not allowed in the trial.

I wouldn't believe anything Follain says. This piece of human excrement has done everything in his power to smear an innocent woman he has never met, who has never done him any harm. This is the guy who re-wrote Amanda's short story to make it sound like an attack on a woman instead of what it was, which was a guy punching his brother. I hope someday Amanda sues him for all he is worth, and I bet she will win if she does.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I wouldn't believe anything Follain says. This piece of human excrement has done everything in his power to smear an innocent woman he has never met, who has never done him any harm. This is the guy who re-wrote Amanda's short story to make it sound like an attack on a woman instead of what it was, which was a guy punching his brother. I hope someday Amanda sues him for all he is worth, and I bet she will win if she does.

Whoa there partner. We have people here that base huge parts of their theories on Follains "inside" info including word for word quotes of what the police were saying to each other before and after the interrogation and arrest.

You saying Follain isn't reliable?

Frankly it is part and parcel of the "True Crime Novel" genre and all book readers be aware!

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Whoa there partner. We have people here that base huge parts of their theories on Follains "inside" info including word for word quotes of what the police were saying to each other before and after the interrogation and arrest.

You saying Follain isn't reliable?

Frankly it is part and parcel of the "True Crime Novel" genre and all book readers be aware!

I take a middle position. Follain may well be a POS for all I know but the book is useful in many ways. Of course, it requires caution but it has a chronological approach to the legal process and some handy facts e.g. Bongiorno criticising Mignini for not scheduling Raffaele for questioning which is good to drop in every time someone claims he exercised his right to remain silent (and must therefore be guilty). Also, when I read that Mignini, alone in his office in Dec 2007 with no journos present or tapes running, was puzzled that they hadn't cracked and confessed I don't believe that is just made up out of nothing.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I take a middle position. Follain may well be a POS for all I know but the book is useful in many ways. Of course, it requires caution but it has a chronological approach to the legal process and some handy facts e.g. Bongiorno criticising Mignini for not scheduling Raffaele for questioning which is good to drop in every time someone claims he exercised his right to remain silent (and must therefore be guilty). Also, when I read that Mignini, alone in his office in Dec 2007 with no journos present or tapes running, was puzzled that they hadn't cracked and confessed I don't believe that is just made up out of nothing.

Anglo, with all due respect (interesting expression), the problem is what parts to believe and what parts to throw out. I can't remember if he annotates his book and if so how completely.

Let's take the Mignini example. Obviously, there is no evidence of this other than Mignini recalling it and telling someone. I'm guessing this is a Follain exclusive. If so, Mignini at some time well after the fact told Follain of this thought at that time. Mignini made himself look reasonable and thoughtful at a time that people accused him of cooking up wild and crazy scenarios.

TM says that no one has direct quotes of Mignini saying satanic ritual and I will believe that until shown the quotes. However, I have no doubts that he beliieved something like that and that the press didn't make it up at the time.

I believe that people that took interest late do benefit from the books but they shouldn't believe any "exclusive" that isn't backed by something solid like taped interviews.

Sharon Feinstein wrote a piece that I believe you commented on that I believe was bs. But at least she gave the names of the sources and went back to them when challenged.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I take a middle position. Follain may well be a POS for all I know but the book is useful in many ways. Of course, it requires caution but it has a chronological approach to the legal process and some handy facts e.g. Bongiorno criticising Mignini for not scheduling Raffaele for questioning which is good to drop in every time someone claims he exercised his right to remain silent (and must therefore be guilty). Also, when I read that Mignini, alone in his office in Dec 2007 with no journos present or tapes running, was puzzled that they hadn't cracked and confessed I don't believe that is just made up out of nothing.

He may have useful information about what the authorities said and did, because he ingratiated himself with them. But I would never trust him or rely on him for accurate information about anything. He has shown that he will lie, explicitly, when it serves his purpose, which more than anything else is to defame the character of Amanda Knox.

[Grinder]

Hey watch this video of Follain (creepy guy MOO)

Link

Note the picture of Raf first side almost no beard second shot heavy growth - was that photo shopped?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Grinder

So Follain says Raf had the following Manga Comic: MPD-Psycho: In the Labyrinths of the Mind

I can' find any reference to this issue on the web. Is the name correct or is an error by Follain? (Anglo, parts of the book are on the web so I'm reading the web not a book )

Honor Bound (p. 65) says that Raffaele was given a collector's copy of "Urotsukidōji" which he had not removed from its wrapper, horror Manga not being his thing. He described it as a "series of highly sexualized horror stories with lots of blood..."

Follain is the master of misstatements and half-truths. I tried to list all of them one time, but I gave up.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

He may have useful information about what the authorities said and did, because he ingratiated himself with them. But I would never trust him or rely on him for accurate information about anything. He has shown that he will lie, explicitly, when it serves his purpose, which more than anything else is to defame the character of Amanda Knox.

Have you some examples of these explicit lies?

I also find him useful on the virgins, to whom he clearly had access, and the formation of whose prejudices one can detect very clearly e.g. in his account of their account of the day at the Questura on 02 Nov.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Have you some examples of these explicit lies?

In one article he wrote Follain noted that Amanda checked "men" in the "interested in" category on her MySpace page. Is it possible that he was ignorant of the fact that this is how MySpace deals with sexual orientation? Mmm....let me think.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Anglo, with all due respect (interesting expression), the problem is what parts to believe and what parts to throw out. I can't remember if he annotates his book and if so how completely.

Let's take the Mignini example. Obviously, there is no evidence of this other than Mignini recalling it and telling someone. I'm guessing this is a Follain exclusive. If so, Mignini at some time well after the fact told Follain of this thought at that time. Mignini made himself look reasonable and thoughtful at a time that people accused him of cooking up wild and crazy scenarios.

If you, Follain and Mignini think this story reflects well on him you can count me out. It fits much better with the idea that he had Raffaele arrested as a cynical and improper tactic to strengthen his hand. The idea may have come to him at some time between 1.45 and 5.45 on 06 Nov. It fits with the seizure of the knife on 06 Nov and the return to the apartment on 18 Dec.

Quote:

TM says that no one has direct quotes of Mignini saying satanic ritual and I will believe that until shown the quotes. However, I have no doubts that he beliieved something like that and that the press didn't make it up at the time.

Who is TM? Didn't Mignini see satanism in Amanda repeatedly putting her hands to her head when giving the 5.45 statement? He even recorded that in the document.

Quote:

I believe that people that took interest late do benefit from the books but they shouldn't believe any "exclusive" that isn't backed by something solid like taped interviews.

Sharon Feinstein wrote a piece that I believe you commented on that I believe was bs. But at least she gave the names of the sources and went back to them when challenged.

You are right there are no footnotes in Follain, nor in any of the books I think. And that they must all be treated with caution or, in the case of Barbie, a low flame. Actually, even her book has some useful stuff in it like the birthday party in a bar somewhere attended by, among others, Micheli and some of the cops and journos. It's less interesting what happened at the party than that it happened at all. And her crime theory is entertaining and instructive. At least she attempts one. Good for her!

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by halides1

In one article he wrote Follain noted that Amanda checked "men" in the "interested in" category on her MySpace page. Is it possible that he was ignorant of the fact that this is how MySpace deals with sexual orientation? Mm....let me think.

I guess that's what sells newspapers. But maybe you or Charlie can do better and come up with some proper lies.

[Welshman]

When it comes to the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele, it is alleged they were very affectionate with each other and did childish things such as pulling faces in the police station which was seen as insensitive and indicated they did not care about Meredith. Was Amanda questioned about this in court and did the prosecution ever use this against Amanda and Raffaele and was it mentioned in the Massei report? Was there just one incident or several instances where Amanda were supposedly affectionate with each other in the police station.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by Grinder

TM says that no one has direct quotes of Mignini saying satanic ritual and I will believe that until shown the quotes. However, I have no doubts that he beliieved something like that and that the press didn't make it up at the time.

Satanic ritual, no. Halloween ritual, yes (according to the Micheli report). Not direct quote, but no reason to distrust the judge referencing it. Are these two mutually exclusive? To me, either one is indicative of how far-fetched Mignini's theories were.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Whoa there partner. We have people here that base huge parts of their theories on Follains "inside" info including word for word quotes of what the police were saying to each other before and after the interrogation and arrest.

You saying Follain isn't reliable?

Frankly it is part and parcel of the "True Crime Novel" genre and all book readers be aware!

I trust Burleigh the most as she does cite almost every part of her book, so we know where and from whom she got her info.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I take a middle position. Follain may well be a POS for all I know but the book is useful in many ways. Of course, it requires caution but it has a chronological approach to the legal process and some handy facts e.g. Bongiorno criticising Mignini for not scheduling Raffaele for questioning which is good to drop in every time someone claims he exercised his right to remain silent (and must therefore be guilty). Also, when I read that Mignini, alone in his office in Dec 2007 with no journos present or tapes running, was puzzled that they hadn't cracked and confessed I don't believe that is just made up out of nothing.

I take an even more "middle" position!

There is a principle of what's known as "source criticism", the vetting of documents, that suggests that if something is said in a narrative that is in line with the overall thesis of the argument, then take the statement with a little grain of salt as to gleaning specifics from it, because it is presented mainly as the theme of the author's, not necessarily what really happened.

Yet, if the author includes something that runs against the grain of their overall narrative, then there is perhaps more "truth" to it as an event in and of itself. This is on the grounds that it would be more likely that the author included it because it really happened, rather than included it simply to bolster the narrative; because that's what it does not do.

The overall narrative of Follain's book can be summarized into three chapters - chapters which he does not delineate himself - but which are there nonetheless:

Chapter 1 - Why the police and PM were right to focus on Amanda Knox
Chapter 2 - The case against Amanda Knox breaks down into chaos when before the courts
Chapter 3 - The lingering bad feeling towards Amanda Knox by some of those who had been at arms'-length from the details of the horrible murder.

That's the real summary of Follain's book. It begins as an apology for the police and PM, then quite accurately describes how the case breaks down when tested in court (while Follain still manages to take some cheap shots at Amanda Knox, particularly about whether or not she wore underwear - what's THAT about John!!!), and then descends into privileged access to the British friends and Meredith's family who are still bitter towards KNox - regardless of the outcome of the trials.

There. You've now read Follain.

[halides1]

Follain claims to have access to Amanda's diary in his discussion of Amanda’s intimate life (which I do not believe). He is wrong to describe Raffaele’s voice as feeble (p. 65) in his call to the Carabinieri, and he leaves the mistaken impression that his call occurred after the arrival of the Postal Police (p.67, Amanda and Raffaele are “necking and embracing” when the Postal Police arrive. Follain says that their testimony was that they arrive at 12:30, and he does not contradict that.). His claim that Ms. Patrizia Stefanoni’s team had a strong international reputation (p. 100) is risible. Supposedly (pp. 101-102), Stefanoni took reference swabs from the Perugian officers, but I have never seen any reference DNA samples from them.

His description of Raffaele before Judge Matteini does not square with other accounts. He mistakenly believes that luminol is a confirmatory test for blood. He implies that two parallel marks on a pillowcase might be Amanda’s shoe print, a point that a defense expert witness (Vinci) thoroughly demolished.

p. 45, Follain brings up Raffaele and a claim about watching pornographic DVDs that also had violence. “One administrator discovered to his disgust that one of the films had scenes showing a woman having sex with an animal.” I refer you to Raffaele's book on this matter.

p. 276, Amanda makes a statement about the vibrator. “She made a gesture to indicate it was about four inches long.” Follain criticizes Amanda by proxy for responding to things that were brought up in testimony. I think he is a hypocrite for not criticizing why they were brought up in the first place. Also, Dempsey reported that the vibrator was only about an inch long. Raffaele also commented on it, but I have forgotten what he said.

p. 386, According to Follain, the first time Amanda apologized to Patrick was in November of 2010. I think that this is at best highly misleading. There is an apology to the court on or about 30 November 2007.

p. 375, “bare, bloody footprints”

p. 377, “no lone attacker could have undressed her…”

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I take an even more "middle" position!

There is a principle of what's known as "source criticism", the vetting of documents, that suggests that if something is said in a narrative that is in line with the overall thesis of the argument, then take the statement with a little grain of salt as to gleaning specifics from it, because it is presented mainly as the theme of the author's, not necessarily what really happened.

Wiki - Source criticism, as the term is used in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author and/or redactor of the final text. The term "literary criticism" is occasionally used as a synonym.
Biblical source criticism originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of Classical antiquity (Homer's Iliad in particular) to his own investigation into the sources of the Book of Genesis. It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "the Higher Criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel.

I different take than yours I'd say.

Quote:

Yet, if the author includes something that runs against the grain of their overall narrative, then there is perhaps more "truth" to it as an event in and of itself. This is on the grounds that it would be more likely that the author included it because it really happened, rather than included it simply to bolster the narrative; because that's what it does not do.

Bill, Follain is not a scholar. He wrote a true crime novel for profit. His job was to get people to buy the book. If he wrote it totally one sided, it is less likely the book would succeed.

Your taking parts for your arguments and promoting them here and elsewhere prove the point.

He is not a scholar so anything that goes against his thesis doesn't mean it more likely to be true only that it would sell, be titillating. You get excited about what Nappy said in the police station, but doesn't mean it's accurate only good writing to sell.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by halides1

p. 375, “bare, bloody footprints”

p. 377, “no lone attacker could have undressed her…”

The second page number should also be 375. These pages are the part of Follain's book where he is summarizing (and to a certain degree interpreting) Massei. He also interprets Massei as saying that the call to the Carabinieri did indeed occur prior to the arrival of the Postal police.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Have you some examples of these explicit lies?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=5142

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=5142

Thanks. I recall that post.

That is indeed pretty reprehensible and would be regarded as a serious contempt of court in the UK, where pre-trial reporting is strictly controlled (rightly imho). Follain shows what things would be like if it wasn't.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Wiki - Source criticism, as the term is used in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author and/or redactor of the final text. The term "literary criticism" is occasionally used as a synonym.
Biblical source criticism originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of Classical antiquity (Homer's Iliad in particular) to his own investigation into the sources of the Book of Genesis. It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "the Higher Criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel.

I different take than yours I'd say.



Bill, Follain is not a scholar. He wrote a true crime novel for profit. His job was to get people to buy the book. If he wrote it totally one sided, it is less likely the book would succeed.

Your taking parts for your arguments and promoting them here and elsewhere prove the point.

He is not a scholar so anything that goes against his thesis doesn't mean it more likely to be true only that it would sell, be titillating. You get excited about what Nappy said in the police station, but doesn't mean it's accurate only good writing to sell.

Whatever.

What you miss about source criticism is that it is also a tool for discovering the various biases of the various layers of tradition. You should actually study it one day. Wikipedia is a good start.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

What you miss about source criticism is that it is also a tool for discovering the various biases of the various layers of tradition. You should actually study it one day. Wikipedia is a good start.

Bill I don't think I missed it. It is a technique for scholarly work analysis. True crime books are not scholarly in the same sense as Biblical studies. As you say source criticism is a tool for biases in traditions which hardly applies to Follains book.

Rather than a dismissive 'whatever' perhaps pointing out the traditions you are uncovering with source criticism in his book would be a more satisfying tack.

The idea that Follain has such a strong bias that he would put it ahead of book sales doesn't work.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by halides1

Follain claims to have access to Amanda's diary in his discussion of Amanda’s intimate life (which I do not believe). He is wrong to describe Raffaele’s voice as feeble (p. 65) in his call to the Carabinieri, and he leaves the mistaken impression that his call occurred after the arrival of the Postal Police (p.67, Amanda and Raffaele are “necking and embracing” when the Postal Police arrive. Follain says that their testimony was that they arrive at 12:30, and he does not contradict that.). His claim that Ms. Patrizia Stefanoni’s team had a strong international reputation (p. 100) is risible. Supposedly (pp. 101-102), Stefanoni took reference swabs from the Perugian officers, but I have never seen any reference DNA samples from them.

His description of Raffaele before Judge Matteini does not square with other accounts. He mistakenly believes that luminol is a confirmatory test for blood. He implies that two parallel marks on a pillowcase might be Amanda’s shoe print, a point that a defense expert witness (Vinci) thoroughly demolished.

p. 45, Follain brings up Raffaele and a claim about watching pornographic DVDs that also had violence. “One administrator discovered to his disgust that one of the films had scenes showing a woman having sex with an animal.” I refer you to Raffaele's book on this matter.

p. 276, Amanda makes a statement about the vibrator. “She made a gesture to indicate it was about four inches long.” Follain criticizes Amanda by proxy for responding to things that were brought up in testimony. I think he is a hypocrite for not criticizing why they were brought up in the first place. Also, Dempsey reported that the vibrator was only about an inch long. Raffaele also commented on it, but I have forgotten what he said.

p. 386, According to Follain, the first time Amanda apologized to Patrick was in November of 2010. I think that this is at best highly misleading. There is an apology to the court on or about 30 November 2007.

p. 375, “bare, bloody footprints”

p. 377, “no lone attacker could have undressed her…”

Halides

I meant to come back to you on these. I thought of checking them but the thought of trying to cross reference your page refs. to my location refs. puts me off. Looking at them first off I thought - they're not lies, but, assuming they don't look any better in context, I agree it's a pretty bad list.

Maybe I am not bothered so much by any of these because I don't necessarily accept what he says as fact. I do generally accept stuff he is very unlikely to have invented (such as hearing dates, what Bongiorno said about Mig not calling RS etc). I certainly do not regard as nailed down fact his reconstruction of events in the Questura nor of thoughts inside Mignini's head but, equally, I don't regard his account of these things as worthless. He has a story about Mignini showing up during the interrogations, for example, and although he doesn't give a time he implies it was quite early. I don't find that meaningless. As someone has observed, he seems to have finagled his way into the good graces of the prosecutors and cops and may have got some useful stuff out of them, even if it is only how they might want the world to see things, which I also regard as valuable intelligence.

I'm steering clear of the 'source criticism' controversy. I'll re-enter the debate when it gets back round to poo or pooh.

[Grinder]

Over at .org Mull has posted a picture of an outline of Meredith, it is behind a show button.

Perhaps someone here knows how to get the original source. Looking at the picture two of three ICSI are wearing booties but the third has street shoes on. Once again protocol missed by them.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Over at .org Mull has posted a picture of an outline of Meredith, it is behind a show button.

Perhaps someone here knows how to get the original source. Looking at the picture two of three ICSI are wearing booties but the third has street shoes on. Once again protocol missed by them.

Do you have a particular need for that source? The photos were displayed on the screen during the trial and photographers were there to take pictures. They are undoubtably out there.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Do you have a particular need for that source? The photos were displayed on the screen during the trial and photographers were there to take pictures. They are undoubtably out there.

That shot has appeared at IIP before now.

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Whatever.

What you miss about source criticism is that it is also a tool for discovering the various biases of the various layers of tradition. You should actually study it one day. Wikipedia is a good start.

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Do you have a particular need for that source? The photos were displayed on the screen during the trial and photographers were there to take pictures. They are undoubtably out there.

Just wanted to look at others from the series. Never ceases to amaze me how badly the ICSI did.

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

That shot has appeared at IIP before now.

Thanks.

[Grinder]

Does anybody know the immigration status of Koko? Was he able to reenter Italy after his "vacation" in November - December of 2007 without issue?