Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

I think that the guilters have been selecting the BS CNN article by Selene that talks about the fine line between guilt and innocense, it is appearing very high on teh web se4arches

 

[carbonjam72]

How did you even FIND this article; In portuguese I mean?

It showed up on a simple google search for me, for news in the last 24 hours.

Plus I suspect the translation is not perfect, and lends it self to misinterpretation.

The article seems to make clear it is recounting Guede's version, not vouching for it as fact.

The point about attributing the crime to all three, MAY be a similar translation issue, at least possibly.

The consternation over the verdicts and the absence of coverage in the UK I think relates to the vast coverage before hand, and the relative paucity of coverage concerning the last acquittals, which I actually agree with.

Why haven't the UK made a stink about the total insanity of the case against Knox and Sollecito to begin with, and in light of Dr Gill and other international experts telling them all what garbage the case was?

Why have the lies and the suggestion, "oh we'll never know the truth" been allowed to go unchallenged, even promoted by the BBC? (sorry LPA).

I think the UK establishment is cowed by the tabloid culture, and fear of being "monstered". Its hard to be too critical of the media for fear of a backlash.

Whatever the cause, there is and was a serious sickness in the way this case was covered in the UK, in Italy, in the US, and the world.

 

[analemma]

I think that the guilters have been selecting the BS CNN article by Selene that talks about the fine line between guilt and innocense, it is appearing very high on teh web se4arches

The wackos must be clicking their butts off
It is now second

 

[carbonjam72]

The wackos must be clicking their butts off
It is now second

Is that CNN article by Selene, or Nadeau?

 

[Numbers]

I never said they should have been detained in prison. I said the arrest did not seem unreasonable that night. They should have been access to attorneys and released within no more than 72 hours. It would seem the Italian system violates ECHR rules. Italians allow suspects to be held a year without charges.

Well, I was responding to your statement, the relevant part being:

They weren't charged for one year. The question at hand is whether it was reasonable to detain them not charge them.

"Detain" means, generally, "precautionary detention" and there was a Nov. 8, 2007 hearing before Judge Matteini that resulted in a Nov. 9 motivation report ordering their precautionary detention for one year.

The arrest was based largely on the Nov. 5/6, 2007 coercive interrogation and the statements that Amanda Knox signed during that interrogation. She attempted to show to the police and other authorities that those statements were unreliable while she was in custody by giving the authorities written Memoriales 1 and 2 on Nov. 6 and Nov. 7, respectively. She was denied counsel while under interrogation and while in custody, contrary to the ECHR case-law, Salduz v Turkey (GC) and Dayanan v Turkey. She was denied a neutral (fair) interpreter, contrary to Baytar v Turkey. She was never informed of her right to remain silent or that by making these statements without counsel she was assuming the liability of a witness, all of which are requirements of Italian procedural law. Thus, her arrest, and that of the others (Sollecito and Lumumba) may be considered contrary to Italian law (which by treaty includes the final judgments of the ECHR as the supreme human rights law of Italy and the other CoE States). The ECHR has stated, in each relevant judgment, that one the purposes of providing counsel to a subject under investigation from the very first interrogation is to help assure that States and their agents (police and prosecutors) do not resort to coercion such as torture or inhuman and degrading treatment to force persons to make statements, but rely on proper police techniques. The arrests as well as precautionary detention of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were in bad faith, IMO. The final judgment of the CSC would appear to support this, although the motivation report will provide more detail on the human rights abuses, one may hope. Lack of such detail acknowledging the human rights abuses may provide grounds for an application to the ECHR.

 

[analemma]

Is that CNN article by Selene, or Nadeau?

Yes. CNN. I do not know which BS artist wrote it because I knew what it was and avoided clicking it.

Do you know which liar is responsible?

 

[Grinder]

Well, I was responding to your statement, the relevant part being:


"Detain" means, generally, "precautionary detention" and there was a Nov. 8, 2007 hearing before Judge Matteini that resulted in a Nov. 9 motivation report ordering their precautionary detention for one year.

We were discussing them being detained that night not for the next year. I believe the arrest was what was questioned (read Bill W). You are moving this 3 days from the 5th to the 8th. As stated repeatedly I did not nor do agree with the 1 year they sat in prison before being charged.

The arrest was based largely on the Nov. 5/6, 2007 coercive interrogation and the statements that Amanda Knox signed during that interrogation. She attempted to show to the police and other authorities that those statements were unreliable while she was in custody by giving the authorities written Memoriales 1 and 2 on Nov. 6 and Nov. 7, respectively. She was denied counsel while under interrogation and while in custody, contrary to the ECHR case-law, Salduz v Turkey (GC) and Dayanan v Turkey. She was denied a neutral (fair) interpreter, contrary to Baytar v Turkey. She was never informed of her right to remain silent or that by making these statements without counsel she was assuming the liability of a witness, all of which are requirements of Italian procedural law. Thus, her arrest, and that of the others (Sollecito and Lumumba) may be considered contrary to Italian law (which by treaty includes the final judgments of the ECHR as the supreme human rights law of Italy and the other CoE States). The ECHR has stated, in each relevant judgment, that one the purposes of providing counsel to a subject under investigation from the very first interrogation is to help assure that States and their agents (police and prosecutors) do not resort to coercion such as torture or inhuman and degrading treatment to force persons to make statements, but rely on proper police techniques. The arrests as well as precautionary detention of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were in bad faith, IMO. The final judgment of the CSC would appear to support this, although the motivation report will provide more detail on the human rights abuses, one may hope. Lack of such detail acknowledging the human rights abuses may provide grounds for an application to the ECHR.

I think the arrest at the time was not unreasonable. Clearly people are detained for periods of time worldwide that are later found not guilty at trial. Of course they should have been provided counsel. I think the interrogation was criminal but at the time I believe the PLE truly believed they had the killers and there was enough circumstantial evidence to arrest them. At the time the bozos thought the shoe prints in blood matched Raf's. I do not believe the PLE were framing the kids from day one.

 

[carbonjam72]

Journalism and Libel

Yes. CNN. I do not know which BS artist wrote it because I knew what it was and avoided clicking it.

Do you know which lyer is responsible?

Yes, that was Nadeau. Her bias is palpable. For example, she mentions that both Knox and Sollecito have "changed their stories", but fails to mention the pressure of police who would not accept what they were being told. Its guilt by insinuation, and I'd love to see her called out on it, legally.

Nadeau is a special kind of sick, and I truly wish she were sued civilly for her writing over the years, along with Tina Brown, CNN, the Daily Beast, and Lifetime movie network.

Selene is an altogether different kettle of fish. Very young, inexperienced, not a real journalist in any sense, because she is indifferent to fact and seems to intentionally promote things that aren't true. For example, she claims the climb to Filomena's second floor window was "impossible".

But Selene's articles have never reached a broad audience the way Nadeau's or Vogt's have, and I think that is mostly due to the outlets where they appear. Nadeau and Vogt get read only by virtue of where they get published. As journalists, they're appalling.

Selene seems to keep getting banned from wherever she posts, it just takes time for the low rent internet shacks she turns to, to catch on to the fact that she's kind of a nutter.

Selene has said she's moving on from the case, with no apologies. More than most hardcore guilters can say.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, that was Nadeau. Her bias is palpable. For example, she mentions that both Knox and Sollecito have "changed their stories", but fails to mention the pressure of police who would not accept what they were being told. Its guilt by insinuation, and I'd love to see her called out on it, legally.

Nadeau is a special kind of sick, and I truly wish she were sued civilly for her writing over the years, along with Tina Brown, CNN, the Daily Beast, and Lifetime movie network.

I don't think a medical analysis of Barbie Latza Nadeau works, or is fair. She stumbled upon a case- in the right place at the right time - and has had all the correct instincts in how to monetize this. To her obvious benefit.

She knows how to lace her reports with "guilt-like" stuff, leaving plenty of rhetorical retreat space of needed. I have not heard her recently, but she has a good instinct in knowing when to trot out the meme, "Knox knows something she's not telling us."

That is designed to keep the story alive, and keep Nadeau herself as the go-to person to explain what she means - which she never does - which is the point.

She ends her slutty little book with the reporters all sitting around doing post-mortems of the (then) latest verdict after one of the trials. She purposely, with malice aforethought relates how one of the former pro-innocnece reporters (who she does not name) comes into their circle....

..... now wondering if Knox is guilty after all. Why? Acc.to Nadeau, "it's the lamp."

Nadeau has played this like a fiddle, leveraging her slutty little book to a major motion picture - which by all accounts is a flop! She has had no less than Kate Beckinsale play her in a film..... even as that film portrays Nadeau as a money grubbing, coke-snorting, sleep-around hypocrite who is doing exactly what the students in Siena (Perugia) are doing, but doing it in better hotel rooms on an expense account.

Is Nadeau sick for allowing that film to be made or did she just cash the cheque - and go off reporting as CNN's point person on the latest Italian liner to run aground?

She's not sick. She's a keen monetizer.

 

[Numbers]

We were discussing them being detained that night not for the next year. I believe the arrest was what was questioned (read Bill W). You are moving this 3 days from the 5th to the 8th. As stated repeatedly I did not nor do agree with the 1 year they sat in prison before being charged.




I think the arrest at the time was not unreasonable. Clearly people are detained for periods of time worldwide that are later found not guilty at trial. Of course they should have been provided counsel. I think the interrogation was criminal but at the time I believe the PLE truly believed they had the killers and there was enough circumstantial evidence to arrest them. At the time the bozos thought the shoe prints in blood matched Raf's. I do not believe the PLE were framing the kids from day one.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

1. "...being detained that night not for the next year."
2. "...the arrest at the time was not unreasonable."
3. "At the time the bozos thought the shoe prints in blood matched Raf's."

Which night? Nov. 5, the night the coercive interrogation began? They were arrested based on documentation on Nov. 6. The evidence used to justify the arrest were the statements that were the product of the interrogation of Amanda Knox. The interrogation that was conducted against Italian law and ECHR case-law.

Grinder, do you believe that staging an illegal interrogation, which includes gathering a large number of police for overnight duty, and denying a person there lawful rights to counsel, to silence, to be falsely treated as a witness when actually a suspect (against ECHR case-law: Bursco v France) is a reasonable way to proceed in the investigation of a case?

What would have been the justification for arresting Patrick Lumumba if not the statements signed by Amanda?

What would have been the justification for arresting Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito on Nov. 5, 2007, before the start of the illegal interrogation?

Raffaele's shoes were found to be "compatible" with shoe prints in blood in the murder room. The shoes were obtained, IIUC, before his formal arrest.

What may be the confusion here is the gathering of evidence, including DNA profiles, from persons who may be under some suspicion, or should be evaluated to be excluded, and a suspect-oriented approach which amounts to manufacturing evidence.

There is a difference between "suspicion" or a need to exclude from "reasonable suspicion" which is a preliminary indication based upon sufficient investigation to provide an objective person with a belief that a case should proceed with an arrest. There is a difference between hypothesizing someone is guilty, and deciding this is true because it has been hypothesized, and on the contrary, searching for evidence to objectively confirm or deny the hypothesis. Conclusions reached without evidence, such as the "staged" break-in, should not be confused with evidence. I repeat the ECHR case-law guidance, but with emphasis added:

69. A “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence has been committed presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence (Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, § 88; Erdagöz v. Turkey, § 51; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, § 32). Therefore, a failure by the authorities to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts of a case in order to verify whether a complaint was well-founded disclosed a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (Stepuleac v. Moldova, § 73; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, § 674)

 

[RoseMontague]

Selene is an altogether different kettle of fish. Very young, inexperienced, not a real journalist in any sense, because she is indifferent to fact and seems to intentionally promote things that aren't true. For example, she claims the climb to Filomena's second floor window was "impossible".

Can anyone find some of her previous articles (before she started writing about the case)? I made a brief attempt to when I saw one of her tweets but didn't see anything.

 

[analemma]

Can anyone find some of her previous articles (before she started writing about the case)? I made a brief attempt to when I saw one of her tweets but didn't see anything.

PQ must have a script clicking that article.

 

[Grinder]

Can anyone find some of her previous articles (before she started writing about the case)? I made a brief attempt to when I saw one of her tweets but didn't see anything.

Obviously you found this and it would appear she has just started being a whatever she is. From Brighton, Sussex.

 

[RoseMontague]

Obviously you found this and it would appear she has just started being a whatever she is. From Brighton, Sussex.

Fairly new blog there. Lot's of folks have blogs. Journalist? I'm not sure I would call her that based on what little I have seen.

 

[Grinder]

There is a difference between "suspicion" or a need to exclude from "reasonable suspicion" which is a preliminary indication based upon sufficient investigation to provide an objective person with a belief that a case should proceed with an arrest. There is a difference between hypothesizing someone is guilty, and deciding this is true because it has been hypothesized, and on the contrary, searching for evidence to objectively confirm or deny the hypothesis. Conclusions reached without evidence, such as the "staged" break-in, should not be confused with evidence. I repeat the ECHR case-law guidance, but with emphasis added:

Quote:
69. A “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence has been committed presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence (Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, § 88; Erdagöz v. Turkey, § 51; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, § 32). Therefore, a failure by the authorities to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts of a case in order to verify whether a complaint was well-founded disclosed a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (Stepuleac v. Moldova, § 73; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, § 674)​

On the night of the 5th the PLE thought the break in was staged for several reasons including "nothing missing", what they thought was an illogical entry point, and what appeared to them a phony tossing of the room. They thought they had a match for the bloody shoe prints. Though Raf's interviews have never been released I don't doubt that he wasn't clear or articulate about the evening. At the time they thought Raf had call the Carabinieri after the PP had arrived. They had a text (Anglo thinks both incoming and outgoing) that they interpreted to mean "don't come to work" and "okay see you in a little while" which would she was lying about being at Raf's all night. They were the ones that found the crime.

There is a difference between "suspicion" or a need to exclude from "reasonable suspicion" which is a preliminary indication based upon sufficient investigation to provide an objective person with a belief that a case should proceed with an arrest. There is a difference between hypothesizing someone is guilty, and deciding this is true because it has been hypothesized, and on the contrary, searching for evidence to objectively confirm or deny the hypothesis. Conclusions reached without evidence, such as the "staged" break-in, should not be confused with evidence.

Are you suggesting Amanda wasn't a suspect? Sounds much like what the PLE said about the interview until she made her statement.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

CSI for Real

Rogel Koppl wrote, "Risinger et al. paint a vivid portrait of the daily operation of cognitive bias in forensic analysis:

In light of this, consider the forensic scientist who takes poor notes during an examination and prepares a skimpy report, but then goes back to “spruce them up” shortly before trial. Even assuming the most honest of intentions, that examiner is inviting errors to infiltrate his conclusions and his testimony. The error potential of the original skimpy report, which leaves much to be supplied from memory, facilitates the creation of testimony more consistent with assumptions and later acquired expectations than would be the case with a more detailed and complete contemporaneous account. Reconstructive errors are given room to manifest themselves during the “spruce-up” stage.¹⁷"

I am posting this in reference to Stefanoni's false claim about obtaining a positive quantification of DNA in 36B (this point may have also been discussed in the "Math on Trial" thread at IIP, if my memory serves me correctly). Perhaps her misstatement was an unintentional error that was brought about because she had been able to obtain an electropherogram from this sample, but at the very least, it still reflects poor scientific ethics.

 

[MDDVS]

A curious article in a Portugese newspaper, responds reasonably well to google translate.

It concludes:

One gets the sense that there are British citizens first and second class. This case has passed and there was no scandal, no special television broadcasts. Now imagine if this case had happened in Portugal and want to PJ either the MP or the judges had done the same research, given the same charges and had been given such contradictory judgments. The scandal would be huge and the country would certainly be accused of being the Third World.

Are the Portugese aspiring to reach the status and respect Italy has, er, earned?


The article seems to think PR did the trick in getting acquittals.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/domingo/detalhe/amanda_knox_historia_de_um_crime_perfeito.html

It's important to note that this newspaper is the worst possible tabloid trash.

 

[MDDVS]

It showed up on a simple google search for me, for news in the last 24 hours.

Plus I suspect the translation is not perfect, and lends it self to misinterpretation.

The article seems to make clear it is recounting Guede's version, not vouching for it as fact.

The point about attributing the crime to all three, MAY be a similar translation issue, at least possibly.

The consternation over the verdicts and the absence of coverage in the UK I think relates to the vast coverage before hand, and the relative paucity of coverage concerning the last acquittals, which I actually agree with.

Why haven't the UK made a stink about the total insanity of the case against Knox and Sollecito to begin with, and in light of Dr Gill and other international experts telling them all what garbage the case was?

Why have the lies and the suggestion, "oh we'll never know the truth" been allowed to go unchallenged, even promoted by the BBC? (sorry LPA).

I think the UK establishment is cowed by the tabloid culture, and fear of being "monstered". Its hard to be too critical of the media for fear of a backlash.

Whatever the cause, there is and was a serious sickness in the way this case was covered in the UK, in Italy, in the US, and the world.

No misintrepretation. It's really as bad as it sounds (yes, I'm portuguese). I'm trying to see if it's possible to take some action against the provably false statements they make in this "article".

 

[Bill Williams]

Quote:
69. A “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence has been committed presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence (Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, § 88; Erdagöz v. Turkey, § 51; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, § 32). Therefore, a failure by the authorities to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts of a case in order to verify whether a complaint was well-founded disclosed a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (Stepuleac v. Moldova, § 73; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, § 674)​

On the night of the 5th the PLE thought the break in was staged for several reasons including "nothing missing", what they thought was an illogical entry point, and what appeared to them a phony tossing of the room. They thought they had a match for the bloody shoe prints. Though Raf's interviews have never been released I don't doubt that he wasn't clear or articulate about the evening. At the time they thought Raf had call the Carabinieri after the PP had arrived. They had a text (Anglo thinks both incoming and outgoing) that they interpreted to mean "don't come to work" and "okay see you in a little while" which would she was lying about being at Raf's all night. They were the ones that found the crime.

Then this.....

Are you suggesting Amanda wasn't a suspect? Sounds much like what the PLE said about the interview until she made her statement.

This reply to Numbers actually expresses well the dilemma of trusting ANYTHING the PLE said about why they brought Raffaele in for a late night, Nov 5th "interview"/interrogation.

The only unknown is what they expected Knox to do if/when Raffaele was brought in. One cop said he ordered both brought in! But it was also reasonable to expect Knox would come along, either that, it was reasonable that a "flying squad" would have gone and grabbed her out of Raffaele's bed in the middle of the night..... as they eventually did when they broke down Lumumba's door.

Be that as it may, the duality/dilemma is expressed well here. The PLE had to have BOTH narratives ready, both available for immediate roll-out depending on how it played:

1) because on Nov 2nd (as Mignini was later to say) the break-in was obviously a staging, they thought they had a match for shoe prints, they thought Raf had called 1-1-2 AFTER the postals' arrival..... therefore they are suspects when being brought in late Nov 5th,

2) but, the PLE had to have available that Amanda (or Raffaele for that matter) was not a suspect until she blabbed about Lumumba, because of the SMS texts.... therefore they weren't suspects until Amanda formally signed the 1:45 am statement.​

Both narratives had to be in play and available. It's actually still unclear, post-exoneration, which narrative each individual PLE participant will take into their own court cases, if it ever gets that far.

Charge the lot of them with calunnia, and see what happens when they testify. That is, unless there is some sort of prosecutorial immunity....

 

[carbonjam72]

Can anyone find some of her previous articles (before she started writing about the case)? I made a brief attempt to when I saw one of her tweets but didn't see anything.

I'm not sure there are any. I think she works at a marketing firm of some sort. These "articles" may be her first efforts at "journalism".

My guess is they probably are, because they are so overtly unethical its unimaginable any publisher at any level would actually pay for this shoddy work.

I've heard various accounts of her being friends with one of the British friends of Meredtih, but haven't seen any convincing confirmation of a connection. I really don't know what her connection is to the case.

She claims she started out believing in innocence. I think she's bedazzled with fantasies of guilt, and being manipulated by creepy older men like PQ. Just my guess. I can't explain her advocacy in rational terms. She writes articulately, but foolishly and apparently dishonestly.

It smacks of being a paid hack, but makes no sense. She says she isn't paid for her articles. So what then? Why do it? I'm stumped. I don't get Ergon either.