Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

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.

We're they only on top? The problem I have without visual evidence is understanding exactly what that means. I don't know what Meredith's room looked like before the window was broken and considering that even Filomena disturbed the room.

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

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.

This insurance point has taken us off course. The point is and has always been that the investigators allowed their imagination and not the evidence steer the investigation. None of Meredith's roommates were likely suspects, so yes, the idea of ignoring the fact that the burglary was real was and is moronic.Yet it became an essential part of their case.

The insurance point was a matter of Reductio ad absurdum

 

[Grinder]

We're they only on top? The problem I have without visual evidence is understanding exactly what that means. I don't know what Meredith's room looked like before the window was broken and considering that even Filomena disturbed the room.

This insurance point has taken us off course. The point is and has always been that the investigators allowed their imagination and not the evidence steer the investigation. None of Meredith's roommates were likely suspects, so yes, the idea of ignoring the fact that the burglary was real was and is moronic.Yet it became an essential part of their case.

The insurance point was a matter of Reductio ad absurdum

Since you have no idea what the room looked like or much of anything, your position on staging or not, is worthless.

The insurance point that I brought up, not your ridiculous insurance on Mez idiocy, was that it was the most frequent use of staged burglaries. I'd say your argument that there are no handy statistics on staged burglaries means they're so rare as not to be considered in our case is a much better example of Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Antony]

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.

The point is that no investigation was made to determine whether the break-in was genuine or not. So it's more of the pattern in this case: the prosecution never has to prove anything, and their assertions become accepted as fact by partisan judges and the online guilter cult.

And indeed, it seems the evidence shows a crime 100% consistent with a genuine break-in. So if it was staged, then it was done so expertly as to be indistinguishable. However, given that it implies the highly risky act of breaking a window at a time when there was a dead body inside, and no witnesses (not even Nara Capazelli) reported hearing it being broken late at night, then the "staging" has to be a bigger stretch to believe than the actual break-in.

 

[acbytesla]

Since you have no idea what the room looked like or much of anything, your position on staging or not, is worthless.

The insurance point that I brought up, not your ridiculous insurance on Mez idiocy, was that it was the most frequent use of staged burglaries. I'd say your argument that there are no handy statistics on staged burglaries means they're so rare as not to be considered in our case is a much better example of Reductio ad absurdum.

You're changing the responsibility of proof. I asked for the statistics demonstrating how commonplace they were only for you to present instructions to investigators that it sometimes happens. I'm not debating with you.

I suggest that the are not really common despite the instructions. That this is basic warning to investigators to consider all possibilities. Not that it really is that common.

I see little reason that the investigators or the prosecution to seriously believe that the crime scene was staged. That they jumped all over it like white on rice only demonstrates just how poor they were at their jobs.

 

[Grinder]

The point is that no investigation was made to determine whether the break-in was genuine or not. So it's more of the pattern in this case: the prosecution never has to prove anything, and their assertions become accepted as fact by partisan judges and the online guilter cult.

Hey I'm saying these guys did a good job. I'm not saying the Italian system works well. I'm only saying that it wasn't unreasonable for them to suspect staging. Once again, what would the evidence needed to show staging?

And indeed, it seems the evidence shows a crime 100% consistent with a genuine break-in. So if it was staged, then it was done so expertly as to be indistinguishable. However, given that it implies the highly risky act of breaking a window at a time when there was a dead body inside, and no witnesses (not even Nara Capazelli) reported hearing it being broken late at night, then the "staging" has to be a bigger stretch to believe than the actual break-in.

Now your moving to information they couldn't know at the beginning. Of course, no one heard the 8:45 glass breaking either. If Nara reported she heard breaking glass while having her tea, what would you say then? Why do you think the framers didn't get a witness to say the glass broke at midnight?

It doesn't take expertise to make it look real. They would have just gone outside and thrown the rock as a truck passed by and then gone inside and and opened the window. They could have opened the shutters from the inside and then shut the inner ones. Then toss a few things or better yet start stacking them in a bag.

A well done staging would leave no evidence of being staged. The best evidence would be such things as Raf's "nothing was taken" before he could know it. In insurance fraud new insurance or a recently added item are keys.

 

[Wattson]

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).
​

The postal police and Raf saw the same thing. I believe it was Battistelli that that concluded "this is no burglary" from viewing the lap top and camera (broken glass as well). I don't think it's suspicious at all that Raf said nothing was stolen. I would guess that most people would jump to that conclusion if valuables were sitting there in plain sight. As others have said, once the body was found the police should have rethought their position.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

She was in jail. Was this meeting easy to have?

No, it was a huge production. I flew over there in June 2010 and spent about 10 days with Chris Mellas. He got me approved as a visitor and I met Amanda in prison twice for about an hour each time.

 

[anglolawyer]

Grinder

Why would Raf, if involved in the staging, call attention to one of the giveaways - 'nothing was taken'? Put yourself in the position of the cops before replying.

 

[Grinder]

The postal police and Raf saw the same thing. I believe it was Battistelli that that concluded "this is no burglary" from viewing the lap top and camera (broken glass as well). I don't think it's suspicious at all that Raf said nothing was stolen. I would guess that most people would jump to that conclusion if valuables were sitting there in plain sight. As others have said, once the body was found the police should have rethought their position.

Yes but you weren't there and the police did think his remarks, the high window, the glass on top of clothes that had been tossed and the large rock made them think it was staged. You don't think they should have, but they did and that was the original point.

 

[Wattson]

Yes but you weren't there and the police did think his remarks, the high window, the glass on top of clothes that had been tossed and the large rock made them think it was staged. You don't think they should have, but they did and that was the original point.

My whole point is ... Raf saying nothing was stolen is not suspicious.

 

[Grinder]

My whole point is ... Raf saying nothing was stolen is not suspicious.

And they and I disagree. If I were asked I would have responded something like "I don't know", "I don't think so", "not that I noticed" or "didn't look like it" but not "no nothing was stolen". So it is reasonable to wonder why he answered that way.

 

[Grinder]

Here an online course of study for investigators:

Criminal Investigation, 8/e
Charles R. Swanson, University of Georgia
Neil C. Chamelin, Assistant State Attorney, Second Judicial Circuit
Leonard Territo, University of South Florida- Tampa
Burglary

Chapter Outline



I. OFFENDERS (See Slides 13-2, 13-3, and 13-4)

A. The nature of burglary has stayed the same over time, but how it is committed changes, largely as an influence of technological advances and architectural design.

B. While burglars may be classified according to a number of variables, such as preferences for premises to be attacked and types of property that they will, or will not, take, the most useful classification is skill.

1. While many professional burglars may commit only a few offenses a year, they are of considerable interest to investigators because of the large value of cash or property taken and their intimate knowledge of sophisticated fencing systems, which are often detected, and therefore investigated, only following the apprehension of a professional.

2. Amateur burglars often operate on the basis of impulse or react to suddenly presented opportunities.

II. THE LAW (See Slide 15-5)

A. The crime of burglary generally consists of the following elements:

1. breaking and

2. entering

3. a dwelling house or other building

4. belonging to another

5. with the intent to commit a crime therein.

B. Burglary and related offenses are classified as crimes against the habitation, dwelling, or building itself; no force need be directed against a person.

III. APPROACHING THE SCENE AND INITIAL ACTIONS (See Slide 13-6)

A. When responding to a burglary-in-progress call, uniformed officers should drive rapidly while avoiding excessive noise, such as the dramatic but unnecessary use of the siren.

B. When dispatched to a burglary-in-progress call, the uniformed officer working alone should attempt to coordinate his or her arrival time and position with the backup unit.

C. If a burglary has been committed and the police department has a canine unit, the uniformed officer at the scene should request its presence prior to entering the building.

IV. INVESTIGATIVE CONSIDERATIONS AT THE SCENE (See Slide 13-7 and 13-8)

A. Recognition of Burglary Tools

Most often when tools used int eh commission of a burglary are recovered at the scene, they will not be greatly differentiated from those found in many households.

B. Surreptitious Entries

Occasionally, the investigation of a burglary cannot establish a point of entry or exit.

C. Importance of the Time Factor

An important aspect of taking burglary reports is attempting to determine when the offense took place.

1. Typically, burglaries are reported from several hours to a number of days after they are committed.

2. Late reporting is largely attributable to the circumstances of businesses closed for the weekend and homeowners away for short trips or extended vacations.

V. SAFE BURGLARIES (See Slides 13-9, 13-10, 13-11 and 13-12)

A. Types of Safes

Safes can be divided into two distinct classes:

1. The fire resistant safe.

2. The money chest, which is intended to be burglar resistant.

B. Attack Methods for Safes

The methods covered in this section include the punch, pulling, the peel, the rip, blasting, drilling, burning, manipulation, the pry, and the carry-off.

C. Safe Evidence

The scenes of safe burglaries are usually rich with physical evidence. Broken parts of screwdrivers, pry bars, drill bits, and other equipment offer the possibility of making a fracture match with the remaining portion in the suspects’ possession.

VI. RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY (See Slides 13-13, 13-14 and 13-15)

A. Earlier in this chapter this chapter it was noted that residential burglaries were primarily committed during the day, with the front door being the point of attack.

1. Black homeowners are victimized at a higher rate than any other group.

2. The younger the head of a household is, the more likely that the residence will be burglarized.

3. The losses associated with residential burglaries are not intrinsically significant.

VII. INVESTIGATING CRIMINAL FENCES AND OTHER OUTLETS FOR STOLEN PROPERTY (See Slides 13-16, 13-17, 13-18 and 13-19)

A. Criminal "fences" or "receivers" are persons who knowingly purchase stolen property at a fraction of its cost and then resell it at a considerable profit, but still at a "really good deal" price to the consumer.

B. There are numerous types of fences.

1. Amateurs.

2. Store owners and individuals who often only but the goods for which they have placed an order with the thief.

3. Professionals.

4. Occasional or opportunistic fences.

5. Providers of illicit goods and services.

6. Technology proficient thieves and fences who do their business on the internet.

D. From a policy view, the police know that the more that receiver markets can be disrupted or eliminated, the greater the likelihood that there will be some reduction in burglary and other offenses whose profits depend on the availability of these illicit markets.

E. Police "sting" operations are an effective means of combating fences, identifying active criminals, penetrating criminal organizations, and recovering property.

VIII. STAGED BURGLARIES
A. A simulated or staged crime scene is one that an offender has contrived or altered to mislead investigative efforts.

B. Staging a crime necessarily involves adding, moving, or removing evidence from a crime scene with the hope that the criminal investigator will not uncover the truth of events.

C. Research on staged crimes has been limited; however a study published in 2000 on this subject found that:

1. Crime scenes were most commonly staged to conceal homicides or homicide related activity.
2. Burglary was staged in 52% of the cases investigated.

3. The most commonly altered element at staged crime scenes was a window left open or purposefully damaged (48%).

4. An astonishing 20% of the cases studied involved a current or former law enforcement officer as the actual perpetrator.

IX. THE INVESTIGATOR’S CRIME PREVENTION ROLE (See Slides 13-20 and 13-21)

A. Reducing the Risk of Residential Burglary

While at the scene of a burglary, investigators should tell those victimized the precautions they can take to decrease the likelihood of their being "hit" again.

B. Reducing the Risk of Commercial Burglary

Many of the suggestions for preventing residential burglaries also apply to businesses.


Breaking news - It turns out staging is more frequent for murders.

I guess this course covers things that almost never happen.

 

[Wattson]

And they and I disagree. If I were asked I would have responded something like "I don't know", "I don't think so", "not that I noticed" or "didn't look like it" but not "no nothing was stolen". So it is reasonable to wonder why he answered that way.

It doesn't make an ounce of sense. Why would someone take the time (and huge risk) to stage a burglary and then not steal anything? And then, point it out to the police? It's just as asinine as spending hours cleaning all traces of ones self in the murder room and then leaving the bath mat.

 

[acbytesla]

VIII. STAGED BURGLARIES
A. A simulated or staged crime scene is one that an offender has contrived or altered to mislead investigative efforts.

B. Staging a crime necessarily involves adding, moving, or removing evidence from a crime scene with the hope that the criminal investigator will not uncover the truth of events.

C. Research on staged crimes has been limited; however a study published in 2000 on this subject found that:

1. Crime scenes were most commonly staged to conceal homicides or homicide related activity.
2. Burglary was staged in 52% of the cases investigated.

3. The most commonly altered element at staged crime scenes was a window left open or purposefully damaged (48%).

4. An astonishing 20% of the cases studied involved a current or former law enforcement officer as the actual perpetrator.

Breaking news - It turns out staging is more frequent for murders.

I guess this course covers things that almost never happen.

Actually, that isn't what that says. What it says is that when there are "staged crime scenes burglary is the most common theme among staging scenarios. Not an actual statistic on how often a crime scene is staged.

 

[Kauffer]

Grinder

Why would Raf, if involved in the staging, call attention to one of the giveaways - 'nothing was taken'? Put yourself in the position of the cops before replying.

Minimally, Romanelli and Battistelli said exactly the same thing as Raffaele. And all of them were wrong. Money was stolen, as were the phones, which Battistelli was holding!

But incredibly, it was an unconvincing hypothesis that a burglar has killed a woman and decided not to take larger items of property with him because a) He had other things on his mind, like escaping and not being caught in the street with the booty under his arm, and b) Who would be stupid enough to keep or to sell property stolen from the house of a woman you've just slaughtered?

 

[Grinder]

It doesn't make an ounce of sense. Why would someone take the time (and huge risk) to stage a burglary and then not steal anything? And then, point it out to the police? It's just as asinine as spending hours cleaning all traces of ones self in the murder room and then leaving the bath mat.

Hah goal posts in motion. They effed up. Or as you all say they staged it to look like an interrupted burglary. They of course HAD to point out the break-in as that was the point of staging it. Look, look someone broke in. Mez is murdered. Must have been the guy that broke in. Not to mention they wouldn't have much to call for without it. Hey, I would have left the door open or the balcony door unlocked and then with great wailing admitted I may have forgotten to lock it after returning from Gubbio.

I don't disagree with the overall assessment you're making but we were talking about initial impressions by the police. Of course their cleaning theories are loony tunes.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder

Why would Raf, if involved in the staging, call attention to one of the giveaways - 'nothing was taken'? Put yourself in the position of the cops before replying.

Minimally, Romanelli and Battistelli said exactly the same thing as Raffaele. And all of them were wrong. Money was stolen, as were the phones, which Battistelli was holding!

I gave the quote from Masseiin which Raf tells one of the PP's that "nothing was stolen"

Anglo maybe Raf tanked it because he nlonger wanted to be part of Amanda's master plan

Quite obviously if he had staged it was a eff up and he let on that he knew something he couldn't know.

But incredibly, it was an unconvincing hypothesis that a burglar has killed a woman and decided not to take larger items of property with him because a) He had other things on his mind, like escaping and not being caught in the street with the booty under his arm, and b) Who would be stupid enough to keep or to sell property stolen from the house of a woman you've just slaughtered?

As my stats have shown staged burglaries are most often used to cover up murders. Who would be stupid enough to carry cell phones from the murdered girl with him and not remove the batteries or turn them off?

You believe he took the credit cards, F's makeup and the phones but wouildn't take a camera?

 

[Bill Williams]

Minimally, Romanelli and Battistelli said exactly the same thing as Raffaele. And all of them were wrong. Money was stolen, as were the phones, which Battistelli was holding!

But incredibly, it was an unconvincing hypothesis that a burglar has killed a woman and decided not to take larger items of property with him because a) He had other things on his mind, like escaping and not being caught in the street with the booty under his arm, and b) Who would be stupid enough to keep or to sell property stolen from the house of a woman you've just slaughtered?

The clincher for me that there was no staging of a break-in, or at the very least a staging that involved Amanda Knox is......

...... that Knox reported that the door was open when she first arrived (alone) at 10:30 am. Why on earth would a guilty Knox stage a break-in, break a window AND say the front door was wide open?

Would not a guilty Knox simply report to anyone who would listen that the door was appropriately locked? (Wiping her brow that it was her, and not the police, who'd found the mistake they made after cleaing/staging - leaving the front door wide open?) Therefore a locked door, that and that more than anything else would draw attention to the staging.

The truth of the matter is as the March 27, 2015, Supreme Court of Italy determined. The obvious crime at the cottage did not involve AK and RS, and the subsidiary crimes they were charged with to buttress the absurdity did not exist.

There is simply no narrative involving a staging, esp. one that involves AK and/or RS, which allows all the evidence to line up.

 

[Grinder]

Actually, that isn't what that says. What it says is that when there are "staged crime scenes burglary is the most common theme among staging scenarios. Not an actual statistic on how often a crime scene is staged.

Tesla you produce nothing and misread most everything.

What I said it said was that most stagings were associated with murders pointing out that insurance fraud wasn't number one - I had been wrong (back off Anglo, if I see that in your signature line there will be hell to pay).

I've admitted that I don't have access to crime stats you want but I offer the fact that an online course in investigations makes number 8 (that's the same as VIII, Tesla) staged burglaries that they aren't rare and a part of a basic course.

When I put "staged burglaries are rare" in da Google...not one hit.

Where are you Vixen?

 

[Grinder]

The clincher for me that there was no staging of a break-in, or at the very least a staging that involved Amanda Knox is......

...... that Knox reported that the door was open when she first arrived (alone) at 10:30 am. Why on earth would a guilty Knox stage a break-in, break a window AND say the front door was wide open?

She would need to provide an entrance scenario for the killer.

Once again we move away from the issue of the police reasonably considering staging at the beginning. Staging is not infrequent to point of not considering it and there were factors mentioned numerous times that made it reasonable for them. Whether one of the PP said it didn't look like a burglary because valuable were still there doesn't mean Raf saying "nothing was stolen" isn't a tell for them.

Please Vixen come back