Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

What? They got a tour of the evidence Amanda found.

I do find it interesting when commentators - especially pro-guilt ones - fail to comprehend just what a game changer to the situation it was when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage with the phones.

Up until that moment, Knox/Sollecito (and Romanelli) were concerned that there had been a break-in at the cottage, that there was some visible blood, that Kercher's room was uncharacteristically locked, and that Kercher was not answering either of her phones (her Italian phone was switched off, and her UK phone was just ringing then diverting to voicemail).

Those were the circumstances as they appeared to Knox, Sollecito and Romanelli. They were increasingly concerned for Kercher, as things were clearly out of the ordinary, but there was still no objective reason to believe that she had come to any harm. The situation was, however, strange enough and worrying enough to warrant calling the police - especially as a clear crime (the break-in) had been committed.

But everything changed the moment the Postal Police arrived. As far as the Postals themselves were concerned as they walked up the drive to the cottage, they were just returning a handset to an Italian woman. When they talked with Knox and Sollecito, however, it quickly became clear to all that this was a hugely worrying (and ominous) development. The Postals, plus Knox/Sollecito/Romanelli, now knew that the two mobile phones belonging to Kercher - who was missing, and whose bedroom door was locked - had somehow found their way into a random woman's garden on the outskirts of the city: somewhere where Kercher herself was very unlikely to even have been, far less to have abandoned/dropped her phones there.

It was the arrival of the Postal Police which escalated this situation enormously. There was simply no innocent explanation as to why Kercher's phones would have been found in that location, and when that was coupled with the pre-existing concerns over Kercher's whereabouts, it now pointed towards something bad having happened to Kercher.

I wish people would at least try to place themselves in the position of Knox or Sollecito (or Romanelli) on the morning/lunchtime of 2nd November 2007. People should remember to consider only the information and context that was available/present at each given time - and not to use (as is all too easy if one isn't thinking critically) the benefit of hindsight. Simply put: the minute before the Postal Police arrived with their new information, there was concern and worry about Kercher and her whereabouts, linked to the condition of the cottage and the inability to contact Kercher. The minute after the Postal Police arrived with their new information, it was now reasonable to objectively suspect that Kercher might have come to some harm, and it was now reasonable to break down her door to find out what was inside her locked bedroom.

 

[Bill Williams]

I do find it interesting when commentators - especially pro-guilt ones - fail to comprehend just what a game changer to the situation it was when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage with the phones.

Up until that moment, Knox/Sollecito (and Romanelli) were concerned that there had been a break-in at the cottage, that there was some visible blood, that Kercher's room was uncharacteristically locked, and that Kercher was not answering either of her phones (her Italian phone was switched off, and her UK phone was just ringing then diverting to voicemail).

Those were the circumstances as they appeared to Knox, Sollecito and Romanelli. They were increasingly concerned for Kercher, as things were clearly out of the ordinary, but there was still no objective reason to believe that she had come to any harm. The situation was, however, strange enough and worrying enough to warrant calling the police - especially as a clear crime (the break-in) had been committed.

But everything changed the moment the Postal Police arrived. As far as the Postals themselves were concerned as they walked up the drive to the cottage, they were just returning a handset to an Italian woman. When they talked with Knox and Sollecito, however, it quickly became clear to all that this was a hugely worrying (and ominous) development. The Postals, plus Knox/Sollecito/Romanelli, now knew that the two mobile phones belonging to Kercher - who was missing, and whose bedroom door was locked - had somehow found their way into a random woman's garden on the outskirts of the city: somewhere where Kercher herself was very unlikely to even have been, far less to have abandoned/dropped her phones there.

It was the arrival of the Postal Police which escalated this situation enormously. There was simply no innocent explanation as to why Kercher's phones would have been found in that location, and when that was coupled with the pre-existing concerns over Kercher's whereabouts, it now pointed towards something bad having happened to Kercher.

I wish people would at least try to place themselves in the position of Knox or Sollecito (or Romanelli) on the morning/lunchtime of 2nd November 2007. People should remember to consider only the information and context that was available/present at each given time - and not to use (as is all too easy if one isn't thinking critically) the benefit of hindsight. Simply put: the minute before the Postal Police arrived with their new information, there was concern and worry about Kercher and her whereabouts, linked to the condition of the cottage and the inability to contact Kercher. The minute after the Postal Police arrived with their new information, it was now reasonable to objectively suspect that Kercher might have come to some harm, and it was now reasonable to break down her door to find out what was inside her locked bedroom.

With all due.....

Not exactly right, LJ. Amanda and Raffaele were concerned enough to give it a go to see if Meredith's door could be forced.

The nuance you are missing is that the postal police never made the connection that Meredith being without her phones, meant anything in particular. Indeed, neither Amanda nor Raffaele (apparently) put two plus two together either.

It was Filomena and Filomena-alone who made the connection..... not because of the condition of the cottage, but because Meredith's door was locked PLUS she was without her phones.

What happened next is that Filomena had a difficult time communicating to anyone her concern, indeed the postal police virtually refused to help from that point. Filomena, by all accounts, had to browbeat her male companions to break-down the door - and tragically, all of Filomena's instincts were correct.

Whatever miscommunication that happened between Filomena and Amanda before that is because of two things. One is that Amanda did not speak the language, and the interpreter she trusted (Raffaele) had no way of knowing, really, why Filomena was so upset/insistent.

 

[Vixen]

So you are suggesting that this was a premeditated murder.That they thought ahead, trying to create some kind of alibi?

You could theorise that suppose two perps decide to simultaneously turn off their phones, in order to commit a crime in peace, then it is quite feasible they will put on an anodyne movie before going out, as an "alibi" for later.

Just sayin'.

 

[Vixen]

Presumably that's the way you also feel about the Eagle Squadron pilots who helped defend London during the blitzkrieg. Perhaps the way you also feel about the young Americans at Normandy Beach who saved England's ass from Hitler, in general.

There is a remarkable consistency with regard to anti-Americanism on the part of the faulty reasoners who find themselves on the wrong side of this case.

Relax, js202. Britain's cynical youth also laughed heartily at John Travolta every time he opened his mouth in 'Grease". It's nothing personal.

We are an irreverent lot. We know Americans don't get irony. So don't worry, too much. We understand.

 

[acbytesla]

They killed because you were bored by Amelie? Beats the prosecution theories, I guess ...

Of course I was joking. I was suggesting that any heterosexual male would be bored watch in that movie and the supposed homicidal rage was the result of pure boredom.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

You could theorise that suppose two perps decide to simultaneously turn off their phones, in order to commit a crime in peace, then it is quite feasible they will put on an anodyne movie before going out, as an "alibi" for later.

Just sayin'.

An alternative approach is to base theories upon evidence, rather than piling one highly burdensome conjecture upon another so that the facts might be argued to fit with what you're determined to believe.

 

[Grinder]

I asked before to no avail why turning off their phones would make any sense. If they planned out the crime with alibi and all in mind, they would have left their phones on and at Raf's. The phones could have been pinged and shown that they were at home and if not answered, they were busy . Instead of leaving after a movie why not start a couple hour program and since they were able to come and go to the plaza why not drop by Raf's and stop and restart the show?

Although Mignini called her astute and the PGP do to at times how could the kids be so dull on so many issues?

 

[acbytesla]

You could theorise that suppose two perps decide to simultaneously turn off their phones, in order to commit a crime in peace, then it is quite feasible they will put on an anodyne movie before going out, as an "alibi" for later.

Just sayin'.

You could, but why? Why would 2 students with ZERO history of violence of any kind decide to kill a friend? Remember Amanda and Raffaele knew each other all of 8 days!

None of the judges thought this was a premeditated crime. So why do you? The only motive that you suggest is some kind of thrill kill. This is really about the rarest kind of murder there is. And when it does happen the perps have known each other for a lot longer than 8 days.

 

[LondonJohn]

You could theorise that suppose two perps decide to simultaneously turn off their phones, in order to commit a crime in peace, then it is quite feasible they will put on an anodyne movie before going out, as an "alibi" for later.

Just sayin'.

"Just sayin'", huh?

Very interesting.............................

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Let's wargame this one then, shall one? At some time before 6:27pm, Amanda and Raffaele determine that they're going to spend the evening murdering Meredith, perhaps in cahoots with some random half-stranger. So they decide their first order of business is to devise exquisitely subtle ways to throw people off the scent - not something that would actually record computer activity at what is supposed to be the time of the crime, since that would be too obvious by half.

With that in mind, the decision is made to start running an anodyne French arthouse film on Raffaele's computer, notwithstanding that Amanda does in fact believe she'll be spending the later part of the evening at work at this stage. No doubt this is sort of contingency plan, just in case the opportunity to murder Meredith should happen to present itself later in the evening, entirely unforeseeable though that may be at this point. Certainly the film is not being run for any reason so fantastical as that Amanda might want Raffaele to see it.

Do I have all that right? Or are you just going to ignore the glaring contradictions in what you've just proposed and move on to some other absurdity?

 

[Kauffer]

You could theorise that suppose two perps decide to simultaneously turn off their phones, in order to commit a crime in peace, then it is quite feasible they will put on an anodyne movie before going out, as an "alibi" for later.

Just sayin'.

Why turn the phones off? How does it help? Phones left on at the flat are evidence they were there, which would have helped them if they really were out to murder.

 

[Samson]

Relax, js202. Britain's cynical youth also laughed heartily at John Travolta every time he opened his mouth in 'Grease". It's nothing personal.

We are an irreverent lot. We know Americans don't get irony. So don't worry, too much. We understand.

You Brits are also able to concoct the most inane puerile drivel and pass it off as comedy, alongside your claims to being one up on humour. Each case on its merits.....either side of the Atlantic.

 

[Kauffer]

Relax, js202. Britain's cynical youth also laughed heartily at John Travolta every time he opened his mouth in 'Grease". It's nothing personal.

We are an irreverent lot. We know Americans don't get irony. So don't worry, too much. We understand.

I'm British too, but don't include me in your group.

 

[Anode]

I asked before to no avail why turning off their phones would make any sense. If they planned out the crime with alibi and all in mind, they would have left their phones on and at Raf's. The phones could have been pinged and shown that they were at home and if not answered, they were busy . Instead of leaving after a movie why not start a couple hour program and since they were able to come and go to the plaza why not drop by Raf's and stop and restart the show?

Although Mignini called her astute and the PGP do to at times how could the kids be so dull on so many issues?

I agree completely and have for many years. It makes no sense whatsoever. If you are going out to commit a crime and you don't want to be traced then why even bring your phone with you? You're not going to turn it on. Leave it at home pinging so that you can at least feign an alibi. Bring a burner if you think you really need one. (Not that I have any experience in these matters. )

If you've just watched a romantic movie at home with your 8 day new lover, turn your phones off before you jump in the sack so that nothing interrupts you. It makes all the sense in the world.

And by the way, accepting that they turned their phones off so that they couldn't be traced implies premeditation and not a heated fight turned bad over rent money or poo in the toilet...

 

[Bill Williams]

You could theorise that suppose two perps decide to simultaneously turn off their phones, in order to commit a crime in peace, then it is quite feasible they will put on an anodyne movie before going out, as an "alibi" for later.

Just sayin'.

An alternative approach is to base theories upon evidence, rather than piling one highly burdensome conjecture upon another so that the facts might be argued to fit with what you're determined to believe.

The "suspect-centric" way of doing it, like the Chieffi court, and the Nencini court which followed, is to start with the assumption that the police/prosecutors are bringing the right people in front of you.

Your "suspect-centred" task, then, is not to look for evidence. Judge Chieffi from the 2013 ISC said it best - the trial judge is only there to see if these "burdensome conjectures"can be assembled into a further burdensome whole. Do they fit together "osmotically"?

Chieffi as much as outright said it - the existence of any one item of evidence is not dependent on its actuality, it is only if it can fit with other elements to assemble a "guilt scenario".

 

[LondonJohn]

With all due.....

Not exactly right, LJ. Amanda and Raffaele were concerned enough to give it a go to see if Meredith's door could be forced.

The nuance you are missing is that the postal police never made the connection that Meredith being without her phones, meant anything in particular. Indeed, neither Amanda nor Raffaele (apparently) put two plus two together either.

It was Filomena and Filomena-alone who made the connection..... not because of the condition of the cottage, but because Meredith's door was locked PLUS she was without her phones.

What happened next is that Filomena had a difficult time communicating to anyone her concern, indeed the postal police virtually refused to help from that point. Filomena, by all accounts, had to browbeat her male companions to break-down the door - and tragically, all of Filomena's instincts were correct.

Whatever miscommunication that happened between Filomena and Amanda before that is because of two things. One is that Amanda did not speak the language, and the interpreter she trusted (Raffaele) had no way of knowing, really, why Filomena was so upset/insistent.

My interpretation is that Knox and Sollecito were concerned about Kercher's whereabouts, and were worried about her door being locked in the context of a break in and some visible blood.

I think they thought something might have happened to Kercher, which is why they were worried. But I strongly suspect that they only made a limited attempt to open Kercher's door - had it opened with very little force required (and very little physical damage to the door or frame), that would have served their purposes very well at that time. I believe that the facts that a) the door clearly wouldn't give easily, and b) the frame had started to crack at that point, resulted in them abandoning the attempt to open the door at that point.

In other words, I believe that Sollecito would have well been capable of breaking the door down (causing damage in the process), but that he and Knox consciously decided not to do so, since they really had no idea what might or might not be behind that door. For all they knew at that point, despite their concerns, Kercher might have gone out, got drunk and slept over on a friend's sofa.

I still say that when the Postals arrived with news of the phones' discovery in Lana's garden, this totally changed the game. Now everyone suddenly knew not only that were things suspicious in the cottage and Kercher could not be located or contacted, but also that Kercher's two mobile handsets had been found - apparently thrown away - in a random garden on the outskirts of the city. This new fact could not be reasonably ascribed to Kercher simply having gone out and staying over at a friend's house. Therefore, the new fact, when added to the existing facts, led to the clear conclusion that Kercher had - to some degree - been the victim of foul play.

And I maintain that it's this which caused the swift escalation in the situation, leading to the forcible breaking down of Kercher's door. It also explains why it's reasonable to suppose that while Knox and Sollecito might have been getting concerned about Kercher prior to the Postals' arrival, they could/would not have been sufficiently alarmed as to forcibly break down the door. On that matter, I actually think that Knox has herself undergone a degree of ex post facto rationalisation when she uses words such as "panic" in her recollection (since she now knows exactly what was behind that door all that time......).

 

[Grinder]

And by the way, accepting that they turned their phones off so that they couldn't be traced implies premeditation and not a heated fight turned bad over rent money or poo in the toilet...

Well Nencini and Massei got it wrong. Had they just checked with the Rag, Peggy (on the r*g) or Peter the Perv they would have gotten it right.

One of the keys to the PGP is that they cheer on completely inconsistent scenarios for the crime. Hell, Massei changed Curatolo's testimony to fit phantom disco buses, truly unbelievable.

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's wargame this one then, shall one? At some time before 6:27pm, Amanda and Raffaele determine that they're going to spend the evening murdering Meredith, perhaps in cahoots with some random half-stranger. So they decide their first order of business is to devise exquisitely subtle ways to throw people off the scent - not something that would actually record computer activity at what is supposed to be the time of the crime, since that would be too obvious by half.

With that in mind, the decision is made to start running an anodyne French arthouse film on Raffaele's computer, notwithstanding that Amanda does in fact believe she'll be spending the later part of the evening at work at this stage. No doubt this is sort of contingency plan, just in case the opportunity to murder Meredith should happen to present itself later in the evening, entirely unforeseeable though that may be at this point. Certainly the film is not being run for any reason so fantastical as that Amanda might want Raffaele to see it.

Do I have all that right? Or are you just going to ignore the glaring contradictions in what you've just proposed and move on to some other absurdity?

Not to mention the very obvious other factor: if they'd premeditated some sort of crime, and were setting up the Amelie movie online in order to construct some sort of alibi, then why wouldn't they have left their mobile phones in Sollecito's apartment, switched on, as a further attempt at a location alibi?

Sollecito in particular was very computer/tech savvy. He would undoubtedly have known of the crude location-tracking capabilities of the GSM mobile network. Knox and Sollecito (per this bonkers "premeditated crime" theory) were trying to lay down a track of evidence to "show" that they were in Sollecito's apartment at the time of the crime. Why wouldn't they have chosen to use their mobile phones and the phones' location as another component of this false alibi? They would have had no need whatsoever to actually have their phones with them while carrying out this crime, after all.

ETA: Oops! I see others had already addressed this issue with clarity and depth before I replied!

(Oh, and for Vixen - who would appear to be a big fan of BBC4 - "Downfall" is just finishing on BBC4 right now. I highly recommend it. Confusingly, however, the subtitles on this version all appear to be about the last days of the Nazi hierarchy, rather than about .org and .net )

 

[Strozzi]

The "extensive drug use" of Raf is recorded in Amanda's own fair hand, in her list of sex contacts, implying intravenous use, as of course, needles are a prime source of HIV spread.

It is also a fact - evidence captured in text messages - Amanda contacted Mez persistently re Halloween plans and Mez snubbed her.

Defence? Fair comment, m'Lud.

Vixen, how did Mez snub her? It was Holloween evening and Mez and her British girlfriends were drunk elsewhere flirting and bumming drinks from guys. Le Chic was a small, quiet place compared to the action the British girls were prowling for.

 

[Strozzi]

You could, but why? Why would 2 students with ZERO history of violence of any kind decide to kill a friend? Remember Amanda and Raffaele knew each other all of 8 days!

None of the judges thought this was a premeditated crime. So why do you? The only motive that you suggest is some kind of thrill kill. This is really about the rarest kind of murder there is. And when it does happen the perps have known each other for a lot longer than 8 days.

Vixen gets a thrill from tormenting people. She doesn't need facts - innuendo is her currency.