Since Amanda, by her actions that day had been responsible for everybody except the postale police arriving at the cottage, a fact that is entirely unsupportive of her having an intention to hide the crime scene beyond Kercher's door, or any evidence at all, then it is not in any way credible to construe any comments she or Raffaele made with regard to Kercher's door closing habits as probative of anything. The break in had been discovered, Kercher's keys had been found in a garden. Kercher's room was going to be entered. But what possible reason could Amanda, even if guilty, have had in attempting to prevent the door being opened at that time?
Amanda's point with regard to Kercher's door was a nuanced one. She never disagreed with the view that the door being closed and locked was unusual and a matter of utmost concern. Nor did she not want it opened. She merely responded to the question that was asked and actually answered it more accurately than Romanelli. The nuance was not understood. Poor Raffaele, whose English was probably only slightly better than Amanda's Italian, was her default translator.