Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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

"Once again we move away from the issue of the police reasonably considering staging at the beginning."

Rightly so. It has not been established when "the beginning" was. Besides, this has been talked to death.

I am quite sure each and every policeperson, postal or Carabinieri, or prosecutor or detective, had their own "beginning". It simply makes no sense to talk about "the police" writ large, as if they were all thinking the same things and were of one mind immediately from the arrival of the postals.

 

[Kauffer]

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.



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?

He wouldn't take a camera, no. The risks far outweigh the potential meagre reward. What could he do with it or a laptop? Any association established later with anything taken is going to connect him to the murder. He could take cash - obviously. He could conceivably have taken any jewellery - once you pop out the stones and melt the metal, nothing is traceable and it's easy to do. He took the phones for other reason than profit and should have disconnected the batteries - that was a mistake. The credit cards went along with the cash, but he couldn't be found with them. But he's not going to turn out the other rooms after the slaughter anyway. He is in flight mode.

 

[Wattson]

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.

No need to say "nothing was stolen".

I'm not saying they should never have suspected a staged break-in using the other so called "evidence" but I'm willing to bet the police thought nothing of Rafaele's comments until they were cobbling together their case weeks maybe months down the road. They used the same approach guilters use, which was to take anything they said and did and twist it to make them look guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

But I do agree.... Vixen, we need you!

 

[Kauffer]

No need to say "nothing was stolen".

I'm not saying they should never have suspected a staged break-in using the other so called "evidence" but I'm willing to bet the police thought nothing of Rafaele's comments until they were cobbling together their case weeks maybe months down the road. They used the same approach guilters use, which was to take anything they said and did and twist it to make them look guilty.

I think this is probably right. What was said in front of Matteini or even Ricciarelli about Raffaele's comment, if anything?

 

[anglolawyer]

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

snip

But Amanda effed up too. She told F nothing was stolen. So you're a cop and you're lying in bed at night thinking dispassionately about the case. You think you would conclude:

1 they were both morons who both gave the game away
2 they had a plan of immense depth in which they appeared to give the game away (they staged being people who had staged a burglary )
3 they had nothing to do with the staging
4 it was a real burglary

 

[Bill Williams]

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

snip

But Amanda effed up too. She told F nothing was stolen. So you're a cop and you're lying in bed at night thinking dispassionately about the case. You think you would conclude:

1 they were both morons who both gave the game away 2 they had a plan of immense depth in which they appeared to give the game away (they staged being people who had staged a burglary )3 they had nothing to do with the staging
4 it was a real burglary

For anyone who believes #1 or #2, or offers varying motives/timelines for the crime to make it seem AK and RS are guilty....

.... it is amazing that all these guilt scenarios require AK and/or RS to be either moronicly incompetent (cleaning the crime-scene but leaving the bath-mat and the faucet - and more than that, pointing them out!)

.... or stunningly clever and anticipatory of the next investigative move.

In other words, the best way to be a guilter is to handle the evidence in an arbitrary fashion, depending on the outcomes one's latest theory requires: namely guilt. No wonder the 2015 ISC completely exonerated them.

All of this pounding away at the keyboard by everyone in the last few pages of this continuation proves that the only way to conceive of guilt for the two, is to commit oneself to a completely arbitrary assembly of the evidence of this crime.

In other words, the reason why we move away from the early consideration of police of a staging of the crime-scene, is because even that requires an arbitrary and selective view of what is mostly non-evidence to begin with.

 

[Anode]

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

I agree with Grinder on the point that *initially* the cops should be suspicious of a comment expressing that nothing was taken. But, once they figured out something was taken they should have eventually discounted the comment as just stupid stuff we, as humans, say. (Meredeth's money and cell phones were in fact stolen so Raf was wrong).

On the other hand, I think it would have been much more incriminating to answer: "yes, Meredith's money and phones were stolen". That shows clear evidence of knowledge of the crime.

In retrospect he probably said it because either he heard someone else say nothing is missing or because, as someone pointed out in a previous post, that he had a look in F's room and saw valuables. It looked weird to him too.

 

[Kauffer]

I agree with Grinder on the point that *initially* the cops should be suspicious of a comment expressing that nothing was taken. But, once they figured out something was taken they should have eventually discounted the comment as just stupid stuff we, as humans, say. (Meredeth's money and cell phones were in fact stolen so Raf was wrong).

On the other hand, I think it would have been much more incriminating to answer: "yes, Meredith's money and phones were stolen". That shows clear evidence of knowledge of the crime.

In retrospect he probably said it because either he heard someone else say nothing is missing or because, as someone pointed out in a previous post, that he had a look in F's room and saw valuables. It looked weird to him too.

He couldn't have heard that. There was only Amanda there.

 

[Anode]

He couldn't have heard that. There was only Amanda there.

Sorry, I'm behind a little, aren't we talking about when the cops were there? Or are you just talking about her being on the phone with F?

 

[Grinder]

No need to say "nothing was stolen".

I'm not saying they should never have suspected a staged break-in using the other so called "evidence" but I'm willing to bet the police thought nothing of Rafaele's comments until they were cobbling together their case weeks maybe months down the road. They used the same approach guilters use, which was to take anything they said and did and twist it to make them look guilty.

I think this is probably right. What was said in front of Matteini or even Ricciarelli about Raffaele's comment, if anything?

Like the arsonist saying "boy that gasoline really gets a fire going" while watching from across the street.

Oh course saying nothing was stolen on the call and in person would raise suspicion.

 

[Grinder]

I agree with Grinder on the point that *initially* the cops should be suspicious of a comment expressing that nothing was taken. But, once they figured out something was taken they should have eventually discounted the comment as just stupid stuff we, as humans, say. (Meredeth's money and cell phones were in fact stolen so Raf was wrong).

On the other hand, I think it would have been much more incriminating to answer: "yes, Meredith's money and phones were stolen". That shows clear evidence of knowledge of the crime.

In retrospect he probably said it because either he heard someone else say nothing is missing or because, as someone pointed out in a previous post, that he had a look in F's room and saw valuables. It looked weird to him too.

Yes they should have backed off and yes had they said what was stolen from behind the closed locked door would have game, set, match.

My guess is that Amanda and Raffaele discussed it and concluded between themselves that nothing was missing and then he repeated that on the 911 call and to the PP.

I'm trying to look at it in situ in the then moment and not post facto. I'm not saying they should have stuck with it forever.

 

[Grinder]

He couldn't have heard that. There was only Amanda there.

And he heard it from her.

 

[Sonia]

Yes, I think you're right. Bagels found the form of words elsewhere too. I was pretty sure it had nothing to do with Amanda and Meredith, but wondered if it might have been a language exercise from Romanelli or Mezzetti, or a genuinely nasty note from some rejected guy to one of the four female occupants.

But it now appears most likely to be a joke, as you say.

For heaven's sake, it's an Internet meme! It's supposed to be humorous.

It's the same jokey sentiment that's expressed much more succinctly in one of my teenage daughter's favorite memes, "Cool story bro."

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes they should have backed off and yes had they said what was stolen from behind the closed locked door would have game, set, match.

My guess is that Amanda and Raffaele discussed it and concluded between themselves that nothing was missing and then he repeated that on the 911 call and to the PP.

I'm trying to look at it in situ in the then moment and not post facto. I'm not saying they should have stuck with it forever.

Taken from this vantage point post facto it is clear that neither AK nor RS knew anything about the crime. If Raffaele said, "nothing is stolen," the only thing of import is if that betrays a knowledge of aspects of the crime only a perp would know.

 

[Numbers]

But I do agree.... Vixen, we need you!

If some posters are becoming fatigued in discussing the staged-break-in issue, I have another potential controversy to suggest. That is, when did Amanda become a suspect?

In fact, when does someone in Italy become a suspect, according to the Italian Criminal Procedural Code?

CPP Art. 61 states that the rights of the accused person extend to the suspected person. CPP Art. 63 states in essence that a person who is not accused or suspected who makes an incriminating statement shall be given the cautions that an investigation may be carried out on him, that he should appoint a lawyer, and that the questioning must stop. Furthermore, if that person should have been heard as a suspect or accused from the beginning, his statements shall not be used. CPP Art. 64 provides the rules for questioning of suspects. None of these articles gives a definition of "suspect".

However, CPP Art. 349 Identity check of the suspect and other persons, is interesting. Relevant paragraphs state:

CPP Article 349
1. The criminal police shall check the identity of the suspect and the persons who may be able to provide information relevant for the reconstruction of the events.
2. If necessary, the identity of the suspected person may be checked also by taking his fingerprints, taking photographs and making anthropometric measurements as well as other checks.
2-bis. If the checks referred to in paragraph 2 require the taking of a hair or saliva sample, the criminal police shall take the aforementioned samples in respect of the personal dignity of the person concerned...

Amanda and the British women had their fingerprints taken at 3 am on Nov. 3, according to WTBH. Did that make them suspects then? I realize that the CPP Art. 349 does not state that taking fingerprints makes one a suspect, but is it a reasonable inference in Italy? I also acknowledge that WTBH attributes the police taking the prints to check against those found in the cottage, without stating that anyone was told she was a suspect at the time.

Also, it would seem from para. 2-bis that DNA profiling could be obtained from a suspect not under arrest. But again, I may be misinterpreting Italian law and practice.

 

[Kauffer]

For heaven's sake, it's an Internet meme! It's supposed to be humorous.

It's the same jokey sentiment that's expressed much more succinctly in one of my teenage daughter's favorite memes, "Cool story bro."

Yes, quite. But from what was actually readable in the photograph, it wasn't immediately obvious it was a joke. When you see the full text, it becomes immediately clear. There are lots of blind alleys in this case.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes they should have backed off and yes had they said what was stolen from behind the closed locked door would have game, set, match.

My guess is that Amanda and Raffaele discussed it and concluded between themselves that nothing was missing and then he repeated that on the 911 call and to the PP.

I'm trying to look at it in situ in the then moment and not post facto. I'm not saying they should have stuck with it forever.

This was after Amanda talked to Filomena (the second call) and surely Filomena asked and Amanda probably answered she didn't see anything missing. Raf was probably repeating what he had overheard.

 

[Kauffer]

Sorry, I'm behind a little, aren't we talking about when the cops were there? Or are you just talking about her being on the phone with F?

The calls to the carabinieri - where Raffaele reported that nothing was stolen were made when Raffaele and Amanda are at the cottage on their own.

 

[Kauffer]

Like the arsonist saying "boy that gasoline really gets a fire going" while watching from across the street.

Oh course saying nothing was stolen on the call and in person would raise suspicion.

Hellmann had a different take on it. And a bunch of others reported the same thing and it would appear that nobody thought it was suspicious at the time. Maybe someone thought it was suspicious after they listened to the tape of the call after they had already come to think that Raffaele was suspicious for other reasons - like comforting his distressed girlfriend - and in true confirmation bias mode, didn't stop to consider that it was a common observation people at the cottage made that day.