Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Hey G, I understand there's been some resistance to the attribution to Rudy of his neighbors burglary, feast & burning and cat death job. Also over details of Christian T (?) being threatened by Rudy in a burglary, and details of Rudy's Milan burglary.

It's one thing to say you're not sure it's true. But are you sugfesting the reporting of Dempsey, Burleigh, or graham is false?

Are you saying things they reported are false? Who bears the burden of proof, in your view?

Specifically I'm saying when the source does not footnote/cite their sources and there is absolutely no corroborating sources then it is questionable.

In the case of Rudi's alleged neighbor burglary no other source can be found even to verify Diaz was burgled.

If you read the Cristian testimony he doesn't actually say it was Rudi IIRC but could have been him. That only occurred after he saw the pictures in the paper. He alleged he had recognized Rudi in Domus IIRC and had him thrown out and did nothing further. He never went back to the police and filed a report.

Dempsey has been a bit loose with facts at times and a clear advocate since early on.

When questioned on the point about Diaz Tesla reported she made remarks about guilters and said she'd look for a copy of the police report but alas nothing has come to light. If writers make a contention not easily verified I think the burden is on them to produce it.

True crime novels allow for fiction and are not annotated.

 

[Grinder]

I guess the question is "what is rare". 1 in 10? 20? 30? 100? I have little doubt that occasionally there is staging of a crime scene. Just that there seems to be an absence of empirical evidence. I'm convinced that detectives often find themselves hypnotized by their own mistaken theories.

Citation please. Statistics.

Do a little research on your own and I think you'll find staged break ins are common enough to be mentioned often in investigative articles and courses of instruction.

Insurance fraud as mentioned seems to be number one.

I think is bizarre that you think staging is not a reasonable consideration in this case.

 

[acbytesla]

Citation please. Statistics.

Do a little research on your own and I think you'll find staged break ins are common enough to be mentioned often in investigative articles and courses of instruction.

Insurance fraud as mentioned seems to be number one.

I think is bizarre that you think staging is not a reasonable consideration in this case.

I have done a little research and as I said, there seems to be an absence of empirical evidence.

I don't think it is bizarre at all. While I think it is reasonable for investigators to consider staging maybe in any case, there was in fact little reason in this case to give it much thought, much less think that it was worthy even in the slightest.

 

[Grinder]

I have done a little research and as I said, there seems to be an absence of empirical evidence.

Citation! I've produced citations that make it clear staging is not obscure.

I don't think it is bizarre at all. While I think it is reasonable for investigators to consider staging maybe in any case, there was in fact little reason in this case to give it much thought, much less think that it was worthy even in the slightest.

Why not. Nothing taken. Glass on top of clothes. High window. Raf saying nothing was stolen when he couldn't really know.

What do you think is good evidence or indication of staging? A neon sign that says this was staged?

A good job of staging would leave NO evidence of it being staged.

ETA another cite -
It might be purely coincidence, but it's plausible that burglars may target houses where cats are present. People often leave open windows, doors, and even disable alarms because of the creatures. They present a potentially massive security risk. This may even prevent your insurance company from paying out in the event of a burglary, because you had your alarm turned off. And that may seem a little suspicious to some. It could even end up with a fraud investigation. People often stage burglaries to claim from insurance.

This should be red meat for the downstairs debate.

ETA 2 - a Typology of Staged Crime Scenes - ePublications@bond a good read Tesla

 

[Antony]

Citation please. Statistics.

Do a little research on your own and I think you'll find staged break ins are common enough to be mentioned often in investigative articles and courses of instruction.

Insurance fraud as mentioned seems to be number one.

I think is bizarre that you think staging is not a reasonable consideration in this case.

In what way bizarre? The alleged "staging" is pure conspiracy theory, aiming to dispose of facts (the evidence of an actual break-in) inconvenient to the prosecution. If we give credence to this, then the guilters can spin any story they like, by claiming that contrary evidence has been falsified to make the defendants look innocent.

It's quite nauseating how the prosecution and guilters fabricated and concealed evidence, and engaged in blatant manipulation of the press reporting - yet accuse the defendants of altering the crime scene and their supporters of running a PR campaign! All of it pure CT fantasy.

 

[carbonjam72]

Below is some info on upcoming trials left over in the case (Courtesy of TJMK). Not sure when the next session is in Raf/Gumbel Honor Bound case. Amanda's next case seems set for June 9. And the pests resistance (?) is Giuliano Mignini will take the stand against Oggi Magazine on June 16! Can't wait to hear the Mig in action, hope that one is televised, but I doubt it. Wonder if there's any interest in hearing Mignini continue to lie? PQ may be ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy, but I think he can handle a calendar.
---------------------------------

Knox and Sollecito have each been indicted in Florence BY PROSECUTORS on charges that bear no resemblance to UK or US slander or libel cases.

They are each essentially charged for lying to poison public opinion against officials, and Sollecito against the system, to try to win themselves illegal breaks at their murder trial and appeals. Knox in court in 2009, and Sollecito in his book in 2012.

The weekly magazine Oggi is also on trial for jubilantly publishing some of Knox’s numerous lies.

Yesterday in a Florence court a new court translation of the passages from Sollecito’s book fully quoted here were accepted by the presiding judge. They differed little if at all from what the prosecutor filed last year and brought the defenses no joy. Right now both the defenses seem stuck.

And on June 9th the calunnia trial against Knox will start in a Florence court. It would be smart for her to be there, as Sollecito usually is. As mentioned above, Knox is already indicted.

It is not clear who her lawyers will be. Sollecito had to field a new team. Ghirga and Dalla Vedova both helped Knox with her defamatory book and with her defamatory email to Judge Nencini in December 2013 in which Knox ludicrously claimed she had been tortured (for the mundane truth read here) and like Bongiorno and Maori they could feel they have conflicts here.

On June 16 Dr Mignini will testify in the Oggi trial in Bergamo north-east of Milan where Oggi is based against the editor Umberto Brindani and the reporter Giangavino Sulas for publishing illegal claims made in Knox’s 2013 book.

At that hearing Knox’s book may finally become the subject of charges on the same lines as Sollecito’s book. Italian legal opinion is not supportive of the pair or the sleazy moves that led to Cassation giving them a break

That break looks increasingly temporary now. Sollecito could face big fines and Knox could face up to six years. Brighter bulbs would have realized it is best not to confront Italian courts.

 

[carbonjam72]

In what way bizarre? The alleged "staging" is pure conspiracy theory, aiming to dispose of facts (the evidence of an actual break-in) inconvenient to the prosecution. If we give credence to this, then the guilters can spin any story they like, by claiming that contrary evidence has been falsified to make the defendants look innocent.

It's quite nauseating how the prosecution and guilters fabricated and concealed evidence, and engaged in blatant manipulation of the press reporting - yet accuse the defendants of altering the crime scene and their supporters of running a PR campaign! All of it pure CT fantasy.

I agree. Once you accept Amanda and Raf never left their apartment that night, there's no point in speculating about their "staging a crime scene". Its just silly. It never made any sense, and the prosecution refused to allow evidence testing that would refute their theory.

 

[carbonjam72]

Specifically I'm saying when the source does not footnote/cite their sources and there is absolutely no corroborating sources then it is questionable.
In the case of Rudi's alleged neighbor burglary no other source can be found even to verify Diaz was burgled.

If you read the Cristian testimony he doesn't actually say it was Rudi IIRC but could have been him. That only occurred after he saw the pictures in the paper. He alleged he had recognized Rudi in Domus IIRC and had him thrown out and did nothing further. He never went back to the police and filed a report.

Dempsey has been a bit loose with facts at times and a clear advocate since early on.

When questioned on the point about Diaz Tesla reported she made remarks about guilters and said she'd look for a copy of the police report but alas nothing has come to light. If writers make a contention not easily verified I think the burden is on them to produce it.
True crime novels allow for fiction and are not annotated.

The writers research may not be fully stated on every point, although Burleigh made a pretty fair effort I thought, going chapter by chapter.

But to say there is "no corroborating sources" listed, seems different than saying they don't exist.

And, suppose the book sells millions of copies? The author must be accountable and respond to a million readers? Geez, what do you expect for your $9.99? A private lunch?

 

[Grinder]

In what way bizarre? The alleged "staging" is pure conspiracy theory, aiming to dispose of facts (the evidence of an actual break-in) inconvenient to the prosecution. If we give credence to this, then the guilters can spin any story they like, by claiming that contrary evidence has been falsified to make the defendants look innocent.

It's quite nauseating how the prosecution and guilters fabricated and concealed evidence, and engaged in blatant manipulation of the press reporting - yet accuse the defendants of altering the crime scene and their supporters of running a PR campaign! All of it pure CT fantasy.

Anthony we are discussing what the cops saw and thought at the start.

Why not. Nothing taken. Glass on top of clothes. High window. Raf saying nothing was stolen when he couldn't really know.​

This has nothing to do with the PGP. It is what the PLE thought.

 

[acbytesla]

Citation! I've produced citations that make it clear staging is not obscure.

Was there any statistics In you citation? No, this is not enpirical.

Why not. Nothing taken. Glass on top of clothes. High window. Raf saying nothing was stolen when he couldn't really know.

What do you think is good evidence or indication of staging? A neon sign that says this was staged?

A good job of staging would leave NO evidence of it being staged.

It clearly wasn't insurance fraud. Remember nothing is missing. None of the people that lived in the house were in fact close enough to actually believe that they would be considered likely suspects in the case. I have also wondered why the idea that there was a small amount of glass on top of the clothes is really any kind of evidence of a staging. Not that there really is evidence of that fact.

So no, I don't believe that there was much reason to consider staging, especially once Rudy came into the picture.

Why would anyone think that insurance fraud was a possibility? Considering that none of the roommates probably had insurance on Meredith.
Please show me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Bill Williams]

Specifically I'm saying when the source does not footnote/cite their sources and there is absolutely no corroborating sources then it is questionable.

The writers research may not be fully stated on every point, although Burleigh made a pretty fair effort I thought, going chapter by chapter.

But to say there is "no corroborating sources" listed, seems different than saying they don't exist.

And, suppose the book sells millions of copies? The author must be accountable and respond to a million readers? Geez, what do you expect for your $9.99? A private lunch?

Of course it is questionable. Even with full citations it is questionable. The point of choosing the True Crime genre is to create a narrative that flows and serves a larger purpose, and the downside is that the reader, spending only $9.99, really does have limited access to how to solve the questions which naturally arise.

Even scholarly works with full citations cannot escape this - the few times I have done what amounts to exhaustive background by following-up on the author's citations/footnotes I've found they've been highly selective, too - and don't always provide the citation the footnote claimed!!!

In short, there are many reasons to question John Follain's narrative, mainly because as a narrative it is internally inconsistent. One does not need footnotes to spot this. The most glaring is that in his narrative he has Mignini at one point characterizing Amanda Knox as an actress and a liar, then one turns the page to find Mignini (in the narrative) arresting Lumumba merely on Knox's say-so!!

There are fewer reasons to question Dempsey's or Burleigh's narratives, but as True Crime formats - of course they are open to question. My judgement is that their narratives (all-be-they differing narratives, really!) have proven to be far-far more robust when compared with court documents and the like.

Corroborating sources for True Crime books do exist, either to confirm or deny; it's just that the author has not compiled them. What's compelling for me about John Follain is that his overall-narrative is to demonstrate that the PLE/PM were right to suspect Amanda Knox, and to a lesser extent Raffaele Sollecito. Whether that is factually true or not is open to question and YMMV.

Beyond that, Follain's narrative tends to demonstrate doubt in their guilt; regardless of the veracity of minutiae we can argue about endlessly. Even Barbie Latza Nadeau's ******* little book ends accepting their probable innocence, but that things like "the lamp" leave it open to question - as Nadeau has said ever since, "Amanda knows something she's not telling us."

That last point, "Amanda knows something she's not telling us," is Nadeau's way of compiling a narrative (in my view, a false one) that justifies keeping the questions coming - a la Vixen of this board. However, the purpose of Nadeau's narrative is not to solve the crime, it is to monetize her writing about it.....

..... a purpose that she alone of all the writers has been successful at.

There's an overall narrative, and that over-all narrative serves a purpose for each of the True Crime authors.

Certainly most on this board have enough background in the minutiae of the case to be able to spot the inaccuracies of any of them, as they arrive. But the True Crime genre is always questionable, it's just a matter of degree with each author.....

If writers make a contention not easily verified I think the burden is on them to produce it.

Absolutely.

 

[Bill Williams]

Below is some info on upcoming trials left over in the case (Courtesy of TJMK). Not sure when the next session is in Raf/Gumbel Honor Bound case. Amanda's next case seems set for June 9. And the pests resistance (?) is Giuliano Mignini will take the stand against Oggi Magazine on June 16! Can't wait to hear the Mig in action, hope that one is televised, but I doubt it. Wonder if there's any interest in hearing Mignini continue to lie? PQ may be ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy, but I think he can handle a calendar.
---------------------------------

It is absolutely hilarious to read Quennell trying to give legal advice to Amanda and/or Raffaele. Hoots.

Remember at the beginning of the Florence/Nencini trial when Quennell was saying that if Amanda did not attend the trial, Nencini would issue a warrant for her arrest???

Then at the end of the Nencini trial, even in provisionally convicting both, Nencini speficially said that Knox was "legally abroad."

Hoots. (How many times has he predicted pending charges against people like Bruce Fischer, et al.?)

The one reason I enjoy PQ is that he makes my prediciton record look good!

 

[Grinder]

Was there any statistics In you citation? No, this is not enpirical.

Okay you get to say it's rare and not produce proof but if I say it's not obscure and produce instructions for investigators, studies done on staged scenes etc. that's nothing.

It clearly wasn't insurance fraud. Remember nothing is missing. None of the people that lived in the house were in fact close enough to actually believe that they would be considered likely suspects in the case. I have also wondered why the idea that there was a small amount of glass on top of the clothes is really any kind of evidence of a staging. Not that there really is evidence of that fact.

In insurance fraud nothing actually needs to be missing as the "stolen" items may not have existed. Don't know what being "close enough" has to do with anything. Glass on top would mean that the stuff was tossed before the window was broken. I think they were wrong about it but it was a reason they considered it being staged. Anyway you like to ignore the "nothing was stolen" remark and what they perceived to be an odd selection of entry point.

So no, I don't believe that there was much reason to consider staging, especially once Rudy came into the picture.

Why would anyone think that insurance fraud was a possibility? Considering that none of the roommates probably had insurance on Meredith.
Please show me if I'm mistaken.

Ah once Rudi came into the picture but that's not what we are talking about. Attention goal post time to be moved. Idiotic remark about insurance on Meredith. One of the other motivators for staging is murder in the shared abode where an outside killer needs to be created.

Did you read that research paper on staged burglaries yet?

 

[Bill Williams]

One of the other motivators for staging is murder in the shared abode where an outside killer needs to be created.

Did you read that research paper on staged burglaries yet?

If there had been no murder - something Battistelli was unaware of when he first saw Filomena's room - then another motivator for a burglary-staging would be to mask damage to the room/window.

Who knows: maybe Battistelli thought that someone had broken the window, then staged everything else to avoid liability for the damage.

However, in this case, tragically, it was a break-in and a murder.

 

[Wattson]

Anthony we are discussing what the cops saw and thought at the start.

Why not. Nothing taken. Glass on top of clothes. High window. Raf saying nothing was stolen when he couldn't really know.​

This has nothing to do with the PGP. It is what the PLE thought.

Why is it suspicious for Raf to say nothing was stolen when the postal police thought the same thing (hence the staging theory)?

 

[Antony]

Anthony we are discussing what the cops saw and thought at the start.

Why not. Nothing taken. Glass on top of clothes. High window. Raf saying nothing was stolen when he couldn't really know.​

This has nothing to do with the PGP. It is what the PLE thought.

You could make a case for that at the time of the arrival of the police but everything changed when Meredith's corpse was discovered. Then it was a clearcut case of an aborted burglary, following a fatal confrontation between the intruder and one of the occupiers.

It's one thing for the PP to speculate, trying to make sense of a broken window along with valuable objects not being touched - but it's quite another for the prosecution to claim a "staged" break-in, with no supporting evidence, so that they could sustain their implausible narrative, and for judges to go along with their fiction.

ETA and it's "Antony", not "Anthony". No connection with a certain murder defendant with that surname.

 

[acbytesla]

Okay you get to say it's rare and not produce proof but if I say it's not obscure and produce instructions for investigators, studies done on staged scenes etc. that's nothing.

I don't see this as a debate Grinder. I'm not keeping score. I have read "the instructions", but that offers little in describing how rare something actually is.

In insurance fraud nothing actually needs to be missing as the "stolen" items may not have existed. Don't know what being "close enough" has to do with anything. Glass on top would mean that the stuff was tossed before the window was broken. I think they were wrong about it but it was a reason they considered it being staged. Anyway you like to ignore the "nothing was stolen" remark and what they perceived to be an odd selection of entry point.

There has to be a reason to consider insurance fraud. Such as actual insurance policies, claims and beneficiaries. As for glass on top, I thought the clothes were on the bed..we're they in a drawer? If the window shatters covering the room with glass, I always imagined that of course the glass would be on top.

Ah once Rudi came into the picture but that's not what we are talking about. Attention goal post time to be moved. Idiotic remark about insurance on Meredith. One of the other motivators for staging is murder in the shared abode where an outside killer needs to be created.

Did you read that research paper on staged burglaries yet?

The remark about insurance on Meredith is not idiotic. The point is that you are suggesting that "staging was a real possibility". I say that is nonsense, not as a reasonable thing to consider, only that it had very little merit. Just like the entire case. No to the research paper. I guess I missed the link for that.

 

[Grinder]

Why is it suspicious for Raf to say nothing was stolen when the postal police thought the same thing (hence the staging theory)?

Ah Raf told them nothing was stolen.

"It is not understood where he could arrive at the categorical assurance he expressed to the Carabinieri: "No, there has been no theft‛."

Raffaele Sollecito therefore could think that, saying there had been nothing stolen (which was true and shortly would actually be checked out) would not compromise the aim of the staged scene and would also gain additional credibility in the eyes of the carabinieri – as indeed there had been no theft – and that in little time this fact would be confirmed anyway: might as well, then, say immediately that there was no theft.

In addition, when Raffaele Sollecito was showing Romanelli’s room to Fabio Marsi, he said: "very strange, nothing has been taken, there’s still a portable computer and a digital camera‛ (page 124).
​

 

[Grinder]

You could make a case for that at the time of the arrival of the police but everything changed when Meredith's corpse was discovered. Then it was a clearcut case of an aborted burglary, following a fatal confrontation between the intruder and one of the occupiers.

It's one thing for the PP to speculate, trying to make sense of a broken window along with valuable objects not being touched - but it's quite another for the prosecution to claim a "staged" break-in, with no supporting evidence, so that they could sustain their implausible narrative, and for judges to go along with their fiction.

ETA and it's "Antony", not "Anthony". No connection with a certain murder defendant with that surname.

Sorry about the spelling

Look if people want to ignore Raf's comments, the glass they thought they saw and a less than ideal (in their opinion) entry point, fine.

As I've pointed out a staged burglary need not differ from a real one. For the ILE a couple little "mistakes" are plenty.

What evidence would you expect the police to find for a staged burglary?

Neon sign? Rock on the outside and glass on the inside?

It is demanded that evidence it was staged be provided but my repeated requests for what it would be are ignored.

 

[Grinder]

There has to be a reason to consider insurance fraud. Such as actual insurance policies, claims and beneficiaries. As for glass on top, I thought the clothes were on the bed..we're they in a drawer? If the window shatters covering the room with glass, I always imagined that of course the glass would be on top.

What did Amanda say in her email about reading really slowly?

The clothes were tossed around and the glass being on top didn't make sense to the cops. If the window is broken and then the clothes and other thing are moved around the glass should fall off. I'm saying that is what they saw not what they captured in photos.

I don't know if F had renters or not but our discussion about insurance fraud was in relationship to staged burglaries.

The remark about insurance on Meredith is not idiotic. The point is that you are suggesting that "staging was a real possibility". I say that is nonsense, not as a reasonable thing to consider, only that it had very little merit. Just like the entire case. No to the research paper. I guess I missed the link for that.

Another miss huh? It was and is idiotic. If Amanda and Raf had murdered Mez they might well of thought as the only key holders around they needed to provide entree,

You have a difficult time letting what you know now not affect what it was like for the PLE at that time. About time for you to bring up motive and what good kids they obviously were.