• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's plain enough to me that Selene Nelson is a perfectly sincere but not terribly bright person whose purchase on this whole affair is that Knox is the beneficiary of a PR whitewash by a corrupt American media, in which she finds echoes of the WMD hype before the Iraq war. She's hardly alone in viewing the episode through this distorting lens. In any case, she clearly doesn't have much of a career either behind or ahead of her.
 
Last edited:
Sergei Walankov said:
It's plain enough to me that Selene Nelson is a perfectly sincere but not terribly bright person whose purchase on this whole affair is that Knox is the beneficiary of a PR whitewash by the American media, in which she sees echoes of the WMD hype before the Iraq war. She's hardly alone in viewing the episode through this distorting lens.
Click to expand...

But she's from Brighton :p. She is a good looking Chelsea Hoffman using the case to get some traction as a blogger.
 
Grinder said:
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.



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

According to ECHR case-law, persons are arrested on the basis of "reasonable suspicion" which is not simply being a "suspect" meaning, hey, let's put 2+2=5 and arrest this person.

There actually needs to be some forensic and police work done. There was no establishment of a staged break-in by evidence. Likewise, the rest of the "suspicions" are hypotheses without evidence. They could have interviewed Amanda about the specific questions. When in the interrogation they asked her questions and she answered truthfully, they did not accept the answers. They threatened her and hit her. That is illegal.

That is bad faith. That is not "reasonable suspicion".
 
analemma said:
No dispute from this quarter.
But is it ALWAYS the worst possible tabloid trash?
Click to expand...

Usually yes it is. It's the worst portuguese tabloid. They make their living with disinformation and feeding the appetite for salacious news. They also don't have any problem inventing news. Recently they had to pay thousand of euros to Cristiano Ronaldo (the football player) after being sued for violation of his privacy.
 
Grinder said:
. . .

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


Grinder, thank you for this succinct summary of what the PLE perceived at the crime scene upstairs and with the text message and glimps of Raffaele's shoe sole in the interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6. If one takes this information by itself it seems to indicate justifiable suspicion that the two were involved.

But this is not the only information the PLE had hour by hour as they gathered evidence over the four-day period from the discovery of the crime until the interrogations and arrest of the suspects. They had much more evidence at their disposal which they did not factor in their equation - either because lab results were not yet complete, or which they just ignored: prints, DNA, downstairs blood patterns, cell phone records, witness statements including exculpatory statements from Curatolo and the shopkeeper, etc, etc. which conflicts with the evidence that the breaking was staged or that the two were involved.

For example, the police observed what may be human matter on or near the inside surface of Filomena's broken window. The police had it, in the sense that they observed it in situ, and if it had been processed and verified to be human would have been an indication that someone entered through the window. Their failure to process is is inexcusable. They were lazy or worse. They had evidence like this that conflicted with their initial assumptions.

Their assumptions are only reasonable if the evidence suggesting it is looked at in isolation. The break-in reasonably appears to be staged only if the police simultaneously willfully ignore conflicting evidence in plain sight. The basis for their assumptions are False and they had the ability to thoroughly collect conflicting (exculpatory) evidence and failed.​
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Grinder, thank you for this succinct summary of what the PLE perceived at the crime scene upstairs and with the text message and glimps of Raffaele's shoe sole in the interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6. If one takes this information by itself it seems to indicate justifiable suspicion that the two were involved.

But this is not the only information the PLE had hour by hour as they gathered evidence over the four-day period from the discovery of the crime until the interrogations and arrest of the suspects. They had much more evidence at their disposal which they did not factor in their equation - either because lab results were not yet complete, or which they just ignored: prints, DNA, downstairs blood patterns, cell phone records, witness statements including exculpatory statements from Curatolo and the shopkeeper, etc, etc. which conflicts with the evidence that the breaking was staged or that the two were involved.

For example, the police observed what may be human matter on or near the inside surface of Filomena's broken window. The police had it, in the sense that they observed it in situ, and if it had been processed and verified to be human would have been an indication that someone entered through the window. Their failure to process is is inexcusable. They were lazy or worse. They had evidence like this that conflicted with their initial assumptions.

Their assumptions are only reasonable if the evidence suggesting it is looked at in isolation. The break-in reasonably appears to be staged only if the police simultaneously willfully ignore conflicting evidence in plain sight. The basis for their assumptions are False and they had the ability to thoroughly collect conflicting (exculpatory) evidence and failed.
Click to expand...

Careful using "in situ" with Grinder!!! :p

Regardless of the source, the comment attributed to Marco Chiacchiera in "A Death in Italy," proportedly said to both Mignini and Napoleoni at a crucial junction of the case (pre-arrest), that they be let go and observed....

..... regardless of who said it - the tragedy in the early morning hours of Nov 6th are clearly that if someone was sensing a coming-judicial-train-wreck....

.... and didn't say something, then the PLE are worse than any innocenter ever imagined. Same goes for the early judges, probably up until Massei's court. (Chieffi's and Nencini's courts are a whole different kettle of fish!)

The willful selection of what evidence is relevant and what isn't is representative of an issue that even Judge Massei had to confront in his motivations report - suspect-centred investigations.

Whatever else this horrid miscarriage of justice was (note: past tense), it was that. From the start. To eye-ball Filomena's room and conclude right there, right then a staging was the building blocks of the problem. Investigative myopia to the extreme.

Think Eastern Airlines 401 - crashed in Florida some years ago. It was basically a controlled flight into the ground. The whole cockpit crew became glued to a 50-cent light which did not light-up: the light which was supposed to indicate that the landing gear was down and locked.

Every one of them focussed in on that light, so much so that the plane simply descended in a controled fashion into the everglades. Not one of the flight officers noticed.

Now - flight rules on such problems require at least one of the flight crew to NOT focus-in on the presenting problem in the cockpit.

What the PLE foisted upon Italians in general, tragically to the Kerchers who still believe they're waiting for the truth, and to AK and RS and their families was a controled flight into the ground. No one was watching the other instruments which would have saved them 7 1/2 years of misery.

So, could True Crime writer John Follain have inadvertently spilled the beans - if I were Marco Chiacchiera, I'd be contracting right this instant with La Stampa, or Porta a Porta, with a program called, "Io so cosa è andato storto e perché è andata male."
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Grinder, thank you for this succinct summary of what the PLE perceived at the crime scene upstairs and with the text message and glimps of Raffaele's shoe sole in the interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6. If one takes this information by itself it seems to indicate justifiable suspicion that the two were involved.
Click to expand...

your welcome

But this is not the only information the PLE had hour by hour as they gathered evidence over the four-day period from the discovery of the crime until the interrogations and arrest of the suspects. They had much more evidence at their disposal which they did not factor in their equation - either because lab results were not yet complete, or which they just ignored: prints, DNA, downstairs blood patterns, cell phone records, witness statements including exculpatory statements from Curatolo and the shopkeeper, etc, etc. which conflicts with the evidence that the breaking was staged or that the two were involved.
Click to expand...

Nothing Curatolo or Quintavalle told the police in any way gave them an alibi or reduced the possibility they were involved.

For example, the police observed what may be human matter on or near the inside surface of Filomena's broken window. The police had it, in the sense that they observed it in situ, and if it had been processed and verified to be human would have been an indication that someone entered through the window. Their failure to process is is inexcusable. They were lazy or worse. They had evidence like this that conflicted with their initial assumptions.

Their assumptions are only reasonable if the evidence suggesting it is looked at in isolation. The break-in reasonably appears to be staged only if the police simultaneously willfully ignore conflicting evidence in plain sight. The basis for their assumptions are False and they had the ability to thoroughly collect conflicting (exculpatory) evidence and failed.
Click to expand...

We don't know what the crack interrogators had in terms of knowledge of there being evidence or that it indicated a break in. It certainly was possible that someone had cut themselves while staging. Rose maintains there are marks on the wall but certainly not footprints and not indisputable.

Do you believe they were framing Raf and Amanda from the very beginning? The 3rd? The 4th?

I continue to default to incompetence. They thought they had the case solved and arrested the perps.
 
Bill Williams said:
Regardless of the source, the comment attributed to Marco Chiacchiera in "A Death in Italy," proportedly said to both Mignini and Napoleoni at a crucial junction of the case (pre-arrest), that they be let go and observed....

..... regardless of who said it - the tragedy in the early morning hours of Nov 6th are clearly that if someone was sensing a coming-judicial-train-wreck....
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that this ever happened or anyone said it. Perhaps it will be verified but to date it's just a line of fiction. One writer using a form that allows fabrication is not evidence at all, period. It is the same Nadeau saying she discussed the forensic with a dozen experts. Or Nina saying Rudi started a fire and killed his neighbors cat. CT did testify but wasn't totally convincing.

When things are corroborated then I will believe them.
 
Grinder said:
There is no evidence that this ever happened or anyone said it. Perhaps it will be verified but to date it's just a line of fiction. One writer using a form that allows fabrication is not evidence at all, period. It is the same Nadeau saying she discussed the forensic with a dozen experts. Or Nina saying Rudi started a fire and killed his neighbors cat. CT did testify but wasn't totally convincing.

When things are corroborated then I will believe them.
Click to expand...

Me too. Right now it is not a matter of "belief". The only fact is that Follain wrote it.

Still, if I were Chiacchiera I'd quote Follain if and when people start heading for the lifeboats.
 
Grinder said:
Nothing Curatolo or Quintavalle told the police in any way gave them an alibi or reduced the possibility they were involved.
Click to expand...

Curatolo testified at the first appeal that he was asked by the cops the next day if he had seen anything and said he had not. He explained that's because people like him don't talk to cops (pretty silly considering his history). Do we have transcripts of that testimony?
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Curatolo testified at the first appeal that he was asked by the cops the next day if he had seen anything and said he had not. He explained that's because people like him don't talk to cops (pretty silly considering his history). Do we have transcripts of that testimony?
Click to expand...

Rose I was imprecise in my post at least as a stand alone quote.. The post was in response to the contention that Curatolo's and Quintavalle's early interviews (before the 5th) somehow gave the kids an alibi or made their involvement impossible or improbable and I was trying to say what they told the cops had no exculpatory value.
 
RoseMontague said:
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.
Click to expand...
Selene is a close friend of one of the British brats, I can't recall which.
 
Grinder said:
What does that mean?
Click to expand...
She is a friend of one of Meredith's British friends in Italy. CJ72 might know more. It means she has a personal interest as opposed to many who don't. It also means, if true, that at least one of Meredith's friends believe or believed Amanda and Raffaele are murderers.
I think that covers it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom