Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ken Dine]

Thanks for posting Hellmann's text on this.
I agree with Hellmann and disagree with your view. Raffaele's statement was based on his non-professional judgment. He was not a CSI and neither he nor Amanda had conducted a thorough search. He wouldn't even know all of what should have been in the flat.

Filomena's bedroom was the only room a burglar had obviously been in since it was ransacked, but Filomena's TV and laptop were in plain view, which likely prompted their "nothing was stolen" response.

Amanda stated in the confusion of the situation that she never checked her bedroom drawer to see if her own rent money was still there – that would be interesting to know?

Of course, the police SHOULD HAVE itemized everything they found in the cottage, so if her money was still there, then Amanda's rent money should have been listed in a police report, the operative word being 'SHOULD', of course.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I do not see how they can argue that, as no new evidence to the effect "the petitioners did not commit the act" was presented at the appeal and indeed, I am not sure it was pleaded, the appeal grounds being restricted to Curatolo and 36(i).

My oh my, this modern jurisprudence is so confusing. The witch presented no evidence that she doesn't float...

 

[Grinder]

Was it established that anything was stolen from Filomena's room? That is what Amanda was referring to when she spoke to Filomena and what Raffaele was referring to when he talked to the cops (undoubtedly hearing it earlier from Amanda).

Make-up stolen from F's room.

 

[Wattson]

You may agree but it was Filomena that said that. The PP had the victim check her room. They did not declare that nothing appeared stolen.

If it appeared that nothing was stolen to everyone there then why would it be suspicious for Raf to say it. On top of that, if you apply some logic it doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone take the time, effort, and risk to stage a burglary and then not take anything? And then make the claim to the police that nothing was stolen?

 

[Numbers]

I agree and I also agree with Bill that even the postal police noted that nothing appeared to have been stolen.

By Grinder's thinking as demonstrated in his post, this would make the postal police behavior suspicious.

By a more rigorous consideration, the statements that "nothing appeared to have been taken", or even that "nothing had been taken", are only quick observations not based on a thorough evaluation. They are not suspicious.

Obviously, these statements were made before Meredith's room had been examined (the door was still locked closed). Logically, Amanda, Raffaele, and the postal police should not have stated that nothing had been taken - however, a statement such that "based on a superficial check, nothing seems to be missing" would have perhaps been justified. And, IIRC, Raffaele did tell the Carabinieri that Meredith's door was locked closed.

 

[Numbers]

It isn't meaningless and in fact was a reasonable phrase to focus on. It's the 2nd of Nov. A woman was just found murdered. Ask you cop buddy if they look at the people that find a crime or call it in. Ask him if they listen to the 911 tape for clues.

Of course knowing that a break in had resulted in nothing taken is an odd piece of information. Can his remarks be explained or rationalized? Sure.

But it was the 2nd. Meredith had just been found. They were looking for any clue. The guy that called in a "real" break in said nothing was stolen.

If a guy called in an arson fire and said there was no sign of arson would that be suspicious?

What could Raf have said that would be suspicious? I think with you guys he could have said there may be a dead person with their foot showing and you would compare it to cartwheels and Ta-da.

Again, there is a semantic confusion. There are break-ins with nothing stolen, that is trespassing. There are break-ins with another crime within the residence or structure, that is burglary.

Someone does not call in an "arson fire", they call in a "fire". Your analogy is suspect.

 

[Grinder]

If it appeared that nothing was stolen to everyone there then why would it be suspicious for Raf to say it. On top of that, if you apply some logic it doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone take the time, effort, and risk to stage a burglary and then not take anything? And then make the claim to the police that nothing was stolen?

It did not appear nothing was stolen to everyone until Filomena went into her room and checked her possessions. At that point 1/2 hour after Raf had called it was looking like a staged break in to everyone. Even F made a remark that it was one odd robbery.

Why would anyone take the time, effort, and risk to stage a burglary and then not take anything?

A conundrum wrapped in a mystery, buried in an enigma & shrouded in secrecy!

Perps screw up in details all the time. That's a way LE catches them.

If it turned out that the burglary was staged (as the police believed and all but the "PLE knew Rudi's MO crowd" agree they believed) and Raf was part of the murder would people then think the remark was suspicious?

Of course we would all point to the remark and say he slipped up. If the police had ignored the "nothing was stolen" response we would be pillorying the PLE for being idiots.

Perhaps it is hard for people to see the difference between suspicious behavior and behavior that is evidence of guilt.

Again what could he have said that was suspicious?

 

[Grinder]

By Grinder's thinking as demonstrated in his post, this would make the postal police behavior suspicious.

That's just dumb. The PP observed glass on top of clothing AND were told by the owner of the stuff in the room nothing was stolen. Hope you're not buying Bill's Follain account because it's not even what Follain reported.

By a more rigorous consideration, the statements that "nothing appeared to have been taken", or even that "nothing had been taken", are only quick observations not based on a thorough evaluation. They are not suspicious.

Okay what would be suspicious?

Obviously, these statements were made before Meredith's room had been examined (the door was still locked closed). Logically, Amanda, Raffaele, and the postal police should not have stated that nothing had been taken - however, a statement such that "based on a superficial check, nothing seems to be missing" would have perhaps been justified. And, IIRC, Raffaele did tell the Carabinieri that Meredith's door was locked closed.

Since the PP didn't say that it is bull. Had Raf said something like nothing seems to be missing or not that we noticed it would be different.

 

[Numbers]

I do not see how they can argue that, as no new evidence to the effect "the petitioners did not commit the act" was presented at the appeal and indeed, I am not sure it was pleaded, the appeal grounds being restricted to Curatolo and 36(i).

1. Read the appeals. Of course the appeals claim that the defendants did not commit the crimes. You are mistaken in what you state about the appeal grounds. The appeals are available on the site listed below.

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

Please document your statement on the appeals being restricted to Curatolo and 36(i). Are you referring to the appeals of Knox and Sollecito to the CSC?

2. The CSC would have based their opinion on the appeals and the court documentation. The appeals included some new information, including Professor Peter Gill's expert opinions from his book on the DNA evidence in the case. The motivation report will, it is expected, explain the CSC reasoning to conclude that the defendants did not commit the criminal act.

 

[Grinder]

Again, there is a semantic confusion. There are break-ins with nothing stolen, that is trespassing. There are break-ins with another crime within the residence or structure, that is burglary.

Someone does not call in an "arson fire", they call in a "fire". Your analogy is suspect.

The fire was arson so in fact he called in a fire that was arson but couldn't know that it was or wasn't and that's why it would be suspicious.

 

[Numbers]

....


Since the PP didn't say that it is bull. Had Raf said something like nothing seems to be missing or not that we noticed it would be different.

If the police and prosecution are looking for a "convenient suspect" any statement or any knife will do.

Did the police question Raffaele about this "suspicious" statement"? Where is the witness statement where they attempt to draw him out on this "so-suspicious" statement?

 

[Numbers]

The fire was arson so in fact he called in a fire that was arson but couldn't know that it was or wasn't and that's why it would be suspicious.

Please check your logic on this. Someone in my family called to report a fire, and had no idea what caused it. Turns out somebody had a grill with hot coals too close to their building. The grill was not visible from a distance. Was that fire, resulting from a grill with hot coals placed too close to a building, a mistake or intentional? And why would someone who simply sees flames on the side of a building be "suspicious" for calling it in?

 

[Numbers]

It did not appear nothing was stolen to everyone until Filomena went into her room and checked her possessions. At that point 1/2 hour after Raf had called it was looking like a staged break in to everyone. Even F made a remark that it was one odd robbery.

A conundrum wrapped in a mystery, buried in an enigma & shrouded in secrecy!

Perps screw up in details all the time. That's a way LE catches them.

If it turned out that the burglary was staged (as the police believed and all but the "PLE knew Rudi's MO crowd" agree they believed) and Raf was part of the murder would people then think the remark was suspicious?

Of course we would all point to the remark and say he slipped up. If the police had ignored the "nothing was stolen" response we would be pillorying the PLE for being idiots.

Perhaps it is hard for people to see the difference between suspicious behavior and behavior that is evidence of guilt.
Again what could he have said that was suspicious?

Check your semantics on this.

When did the police question Raffaele about his "suspicious" statement?

 

[acbytesla]

It isn't meaningless and in fact was a reasonable phrase to focus on. It's the 2nd of Nov. A woman was just found murdered. Ask you cop buddy if they look at the people that find a crime or call it in. Ask him if they listen to the 911 tape for clues.

Of course knowing that a break in had resulted in nothing taken is an odd piece of information. Can his remarks be explained or rationalized? Sure.

But it was the 2nd. Meredith had just been found. They were looking for any clue. The guy that called in a "real" break in said nothing was stolen.

If a guy called in an arson fire and said there was no sign of arson would that be suspicious?

What could Raf have said that would be suspicious? I think with you guys he could have said there may be a dead person with their foot showing and you would compare it to cartwheels and Ta-da.

We'll have to agree to disagree Grinder. I see it as totally meaningless. Amanda had probably been in Filomena's room a few times before that day. She made a cursory observation. You might say they were jumping the gun making that observation. but it is proof of nothing.

 

[Dan O.]

...

Is there anything a 911 caller on this scene could have said that would have been legitimately suspicious?

Calling 911 in the EU is itself a suspiscious act. Where do they think they are, America?!

 

[Matthew Best]

It would help me greatly if you identified each of the points made, and which apply to your comments. Otherwise, I am not sure that you know what any of these "logical fallacies" even mean.

Or how to spell them. "Tu quoche" indeed!

 

[Matthew Best]

You are pushing a lie. And you still haven't answered when the bleach was smelled in the apartment.

You really should work in that timeline. It might help you recognize the next stupid lie before you post it.

Or it might not.

 

[Dan O.]

Filomena's bedroom was the only room a burglar had obviously been in since it was ransacked, but Filomena's TV and laptop were in plain view, which likely prompted their "nothing was stolen" response.

Filomena's room was obvious because it was ransacked. But on the other side, Laura's room was obviously visited by a thief because the room was immaculate except for the underware drawer being left open and the corner of the bed appeared to have been lifted up.

 

[Planigale]

The speculation is a more generalized one to why people make these kinds of mistakes. An arsonist that mentions the accelerant when it wasn't publicly known or a murderer reveals something about the crime not known.

He wasn't saying what anybody except maybe Amanda was saying. He called 911 and reported the break in and when asked said "nothing was stolen".

Try to put yourself in the position of the PLE on Nov. 2nd and the report of the call is produced. The PLE at that time is supposed to be looking for any clue. If I heard him say "nothing was stolen it" would perk my ears.

ETA - the fact that nothing was stolen from F or outside M's room made it more suspicious. I think you see them as "two innocents" and that everyone should have always have seen them that way.

So since somethings were stolen does that then exonerate him?

 

[Matthew Best]

Many a true word said in jest." ~ Shakespeare

Please can you start joking? It would be a pleasant change for us all in so many ways.