Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Stacyhs]

It really doesn't matter one way or the other as an expressed wish remains intangible.

IOW, you have no logical counterargument. No 'expressed wish' was ever mentioned.

 

[Stacyhs]

Filomena did come under a lot of suspicion.

No, she did not. They verified her alibi almost immediately. Mignini has admitted he suspected Amanda as early as seeing R comfort A outside on Nov. 2.

She, too spent hours at the questura being interviewed and giving depositions.

Not as many as Amanda. But, she was never suspected of being involved in the murder so never grilled in the same manner as Amanda. Plus she always had a lawyer with her.

She had to hand in her lap top. Laura and the others less so due to being able to show being out of town all weekend. Silenzi, too, also spent long hours being interviewed. Many people did.

Silenzi's and the other boys' alibis were corroborated almost immediately so they were never subjected to the aggressive interrogation that Knox was.

As for the Gubbio issue, police will surely have wanted to know her movements and why she was at the cottage having spent most of her time at Sollecito's.

And? All the above does NOT directly answer my question. Instead, you're tap dancing all around it.

Why would it [going to Gubbio] be any more suspicious than Laura, Filomena, and the boys downstairs not being there? Is it any more suspicious than Filomena being at the fair?


The simple answer is: it isn't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Unless you are claiming the police fraudulently tampered with the CCTV it is an objective scientific fact the police turned up before RS made his phone call. As RS had only been there once or twice, how would he know 'Nothing has been taken'?

No one is claiming that. But we know for a fact that the CCTV was several minutes late.
Massei correctly reasoned that the postales arrived after the 112 calls. As Nencini even noted on pg 180:

So from the telephone records regarding the service used by Raffaele Sollecito it follows with absolute certainty that the latter, at 12:50:34 pm of 2 November 2007, was ringing his sister Vanessa Sollecito, with whom he talked for 39 seconds: in succession, at 12:51:40 pm he rang 112 (the emergency number for the Carabinieri) with whom he spoke for 169 seconds; finally at 12:54 pm he rang 112 again and spoke with the operator for about 57 seconds.

That's 4 min and 25 seconds. Additionally, there's Amanda's call to Filomena at 12:34:56 (48 seconds) followed immediately by her call to her mother at 12:47:23 (1 min. 22 seconds). So, she was on the phone for just over 2 minutes.
But you, and apparently Nencini, expect us to believe that neither Battistelli nor Marzi noticed either Raffaele or Amanda on the phone for almost 4 1/2 minutes and 2 minutes respectively?

Nencini also writes:

The evaluation of the First Instance Court is of necessity weakened by inadequate attention given to the variety of the statements of the witnesses certainly present at 7 Via Della Pergola from 12:00 pm until 1:00 pm on 2 November 2007, in the commotion that preceded the breaking down of the door to the victim’s room.
They were Michele Battistelli, Fabio Marzi, Luca Altieri and Marco Zaroli.

12:00? None of those mentioned above were present at the cottage at 12:00. Neither Battistelli nor Marzi ever claimed to be there before 12:35.

Nencini further goes on to say RS had sufficient time to quietly go out and call 112 after Luca, Marco, Filomena and Paola had arrived (pg. 187):

What this really means is that the logical argumentation made by the Judges of first instance themselves does not stand up to the simple observation that in the phases preceding the [169] discovery of the body no one present, not even the State Police officers, took any notice of the movements of Raffaele Sollecito, who thus had the opportunity to absent himself from the sight of those present, and of making, in the space of a few minutes, the telephone calls to his sister and to 112. It is to be noted indeed that inside 7 Via Della Pergola, between 12:30 pm and 1:00 pm on 2 November 2007, the crowd of people, all there for different reasons, had created a situation of appreciable confusion that certainly prevented the State Police officers from paying attention to what each young person was doing from time to time.

But that does not stand up to the phone records or driving time, which has them arriving around 1:05, well after the two 112 calls had concluded.

1) Romanelli calls Zaroli to go to the cottage: 12:40:13 (Romanelli phone log)(she forgets she has his car)

2)Grande calls Altieri to pick up Zaroli at 12:40:06 (Altieri phone log)

3)Zaroli calls Altieri at 12:45:35 and asks Zaroli to pick him up at his house. Call ends at 12:45:55 (Altieri phone log)

4) Driving distance and time from Altieri's house to Zaroli's (using addressed given in their depostions: 2.5 km, 5 minutes.

5) Driving distance and time from Zaroli's house to Via della Pergola cottage: 14.7 km, 14 minutes.

Total driving time: 19 minutes + leaving at no earlier than 12:46 =
arrival at cottage: 1:05 . They arrived AFTER the 112 calls made by Sollecito at 12:51/12:54 were made and completed.

(I used this route planner)

 

[Vixen]

No, she did not. They verified her alibi almost immediately. Mignini has admitted he suspected Amanda as early as seeing R comfort A outside on Nov. 2.


Not as many as Amanda. But, she was never suspected of being involved in the murder so never grilled in the same manner as Amanda. Plus she always had a lawyer with her.

Silenzi's and the other boys' alibis were corroborated almost immediately so they were never subjected to the aggressive interrogation that Knox was.

And? All the above does NOT directly answer my question. Instead, you're tap dancing all around it.

Why would it [going to Gubbio] be any more suspicious than Laura, Filomena, and the boys downstairs not being there? Is it any more suspicious than Filomena being at the fair?


The simple answer is: it isn't.

To a detective who doesn't know any of the facts, arriving at a crime scene. Person X lies dead. So asking why did X's housemate come around that same morning from a different address? The cop doesn't know yet when the murder took place. "To change my clothes and take a shower." Cop, "but the door was wide open and it's a cold November morning", "Oh, I needed to come back here to change my clothes and have a shower because we are going out for the day and I wanted to look nice". So for all the cop knows, that could either be true or it might be a story made up to explain the housemate's presence in the same building as the dead person.

 

[Stacyhs]

To a detective who doesn't know any of the facts, arriving at a crime scene. Person X lies dead. So asking why did X's housemate come around that same morning from a different address? The cop doesn't know yet when the murder took place. "To change my clothes and take a shower." Cop, "but the door was wide open and it's a cold November morning", "Oh, I needed to come back here to change my clothes and have a shower because we are going out for the day and I wanted to look nice". So for all the cop knows, that could either be true or it might be a story made up to explain the housemate's presence in the same building as the dead person.

That was never the question. Once again, you're moving the goalpost. The question was:

Stacyhs said:
I didn't say they went to Gubbio. You claimed they wanted Filomena to come back and discover the body, and I asked you why would they not just go to Gubbio, leave the bedroom door open, and let her find it when she came home?

Answer the question.

You replied:

Because they wanted to be there when the body was found. If they were not there it might be suspicious

I then asked:

Why would it be any more suspicious than Laura, Filomena, and the boys downstairs not being there? Is it any more suspicious than Filomena being at the fair?

I then repeated more than once:

Why would it [going to Gubbio] be any more suspicious than Laura, Filomena, and the boys downstairs not being there? Is it any more suspicious than Filomena being at the fair?

A question you have yet to answer. Instead, you've done nothing but tap dance around it.

 

[TruthCalls]

To a detective who doesn't know any of the facts, arriving at a crime scene. Person X lies dead. So asking why did X's housemate come around that same morning from a different address? The cop doesn't know yet when the murder took place. "To change my clothes and take a shower." Cop, "but the door was wide open and it's a cold November morning", "Oh, I needed to come back here to change my clothes and have a shower because we are going out for the day and I wanted to look nice". So for all the cop knows, that could either be true or it might be a story made up to explain the housemate's presence in the same building as the dead person.

Well now, it sure as hell seems you've just shot your entire argument in the foot. You claimed being out of town would have been suspicious. However, now you're going on about what the cop might be thinking when he finds her at the cottage. So which is it... suspicious to be AT the cottage, or suspicious to be out of town in Gubbio? I think what we've learned from you is whatever Amanda did would have been the suspicious option.

 

[Vixen]

That was never the question. Once again, you're moving the goalpost. The question was:


You replied:

I then asked:


I then repeated more than once:



A question you have yet to answer. Instead, you've done nothing but tap dance around it.

Police found them outside the cottage when they weren't expecting them...? Remember, Filomena rang her, not the other way round, so if Filomena hadn't rung, or the cops turn up, they would have gone. (Although in the pics they look utterly exhausted.)

 

[Vixen]

Well now, it sure as hell seems you've just shot your entire argument in the foot. You claimed being out of town would have been suspicious. However, now you're going on about what the cop might be thinking when he finds her at the cottage. So which is it... suspicious to be AT the cottage, or suspicious to be out of town in Gubbio? I think what we've learned from you is whatever Amanda did would have been the suspicious option.

Given she was the only one with a key during the time frame, of course she'd be accountable. But she had a warm shower at Sollecito's. What's with the bright white skirt? She said she had a shower and washed her hair, which is how she noticed the toilet mess as she says she went there to blow-dry her hair. (But her hair doesn't look newly washed in the pics.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen said:

To a detective who doesn't know any of the facts, arriving at a crime scene. Person X lies dead. So asking why did X's housemate come around that same morning from a different address? The cop doesn't know yet when the murder took place. "To change my clothes and take a shower." Cop, "but the door was wide open and it's a cold November morning", "Oh, I needed to come back here to change my clothes and have a shower because we are going out for the day and I wanted to look nice". So for all the cop knows, that could either be true or it might be a story made up to explain the housemate's presence in the same building as the dead person.

Well now, it sure as hell seems you've just shot your entire argument in the foot. You claimed being out of town would have been suspicious. However, now you're going on about what the cop might be thinking when he finds her at the cottage. So which is it... suspicious to be AT the cottage, or suspicious to be out of town in Gubbio? I think what we've learned from you is whatever Amanda did would have been the suspicious option.

Yet, the issue in 2025 is not speculating about all of this, about whether or not the postales, or the cavalcade of eventual cops were right on the scene to suspect anyone at the time..... at the time, they may or may not have been right to suspect...

It's just that this crime has been adjudicated multiple times. The final, non-apeallable court moved well past the issue of whether or not AK or RS should have (or not) been suspected.

Borrowing Maraca-Bruno's turn of phrase in their 'motivations report' in acquiting the pair, even if someone at the scene had suspected them, that did not make up for the unassailable fact of neither of AK's nor RS's forensic presence being in the murderroom.

That's even before noting that if either AK or RS had been suspected at the scene, then the all night interrogation was definitely illegal under Italian law. There'd be no argument at all as to when AK had become a suspect, and should have been supplied with a lawyer and a competent translator.

Vixen wants it to seem that AK and RS were suspects, and obvious suspects early on. That means that they definitely were denied their rights, Vixen admits to it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Police found them outside the cottage when they weren't expecting them...?

And? They weren't expecting the police to turn up so soon as they'd just called 112.

Remember, Filomena rang her, not the other way round,

Sigh. Remember, Amanda had called Filomena first and told her about what she'd found during her first trip. That set the discovery in motion.

so if Filomena hadn't rung, or the cops turn up,

Rubbish. Amanda had already called Filomena and they called 112 BEFORE the postales showed up.

they would have gone.

Wait a minute. You claimed that planning to go to Gubbio was "just a story". The you repeated "Gubbio is simply a story." Now it's something they would have done? You can't even keep your own story straight.

(Although in the pics they look utterly exhausted.)

What you're trying to imply is that they were exhausted from being up all night cleaning up. They didn't look exhausted. They look traumatized and in shock. But you do you.

 

[TruthCalls]

Police found them outside the cottage when they weren't expecting them...? Remember, Filomena rang her, not the other way round, so if Filomena hadn't rung, or the cops turn up, they would have gone. (Although in the pics they look utterly exhausted.)

The Postal Police found them waiting outside... and yes, they weren't expecting the Postal Police, they were expecting the Carabinieri. In fact, they told the Postal Police when they arrived they had called, and were waiting for the Carabinieri.

And wrong, Amanda called Filomena first at 12:08. How do you not know these things?

 

[Stacyhs]

Given she was the only one with a key during the time frame, of course she'd be accountable.

With a broken window? Only if you'll now admit the police jumped to the conclusion that it was staged from day one.

But she had a warm shower at Sollecito's.

And she had a better shower with her own things, including her clothes, at her place.

What's with the bright white skirt?

What are you? The fashion police ticketing her for wear bright white after Labor Day?

She said she had a shower and washed her hair, which is how she noticed the toilet mess as she says she went there to blow-dry her hair. (But her hair doesn't look newly washed in the pics.)

It does to me. Funny how no one there ever commented on her hair not looking clean.

 

[TruthCalls]

Given she was the only one with a key during the time frame, of course she'd be accountable. But she had a warm shower at Sollecito's. What's with the bright white skirt? She said she had a shower and washed her hair, which is how she noticed the toilet mess as she says she went there to blow-dry her hair. (But her hair doesn't look newly washed in the pics.)

Wow, straight to the diversionary tactics, eh?

The issue was whether being out of town was suspicious or not. You claimed if they had gone to Gubbio it would have been suspicious. And now we have you telling us that her being at the cottage was suspicious. IOW, no matter what Amanda did, you'd have found it suspicious.

But what's so fascinating is how you can reply with all this gibberish without once touching on the actual point being discussed.

 

[Vixen]

The Postal Police found them waiting outside... and yes, they weren't expecting the Postal Police, they were expecting the Carabinieri. In fact, they told the Postal Police when they arrived they had called, and were waiting for the Carabinieri.

And wrong, Amanda called Filomena first at 12:08. How do you not know these things?

RS only rang the carabinieri at circa 12:54 and they arrived about 1:30, as per CCTV footage.

 

[Vixen]

Wow, straight to the diversionary tactics, eh?

The issue was whether being out of town was suspicious or not. You claimed if they had gone to Gubbio it would have been suspicious. And now we have you telling us that her being at the cottage was suspicious. IOW, no matter what Amanda did, you'd have found it suspicious.

But what's so fascinating is how you can reply with all this gibberish without once touching on the actual point being discussed.

That's exactly the problem with hypothetical scenarios and 'what-iffing'. All we can look at is what did happen and chronology can tell us a lot. It is desperately important to you they rang the police first because it looks highly suspicious they only rang after Vanessa advised them to and after the police had already arrived (so didn't need to).

 

[Numbers]

Yet, the issue in 2025 is not speculating about all of this, about whether or not the postales, or the cavalcade of eventual cops were right on the scene to suspect anyone at the time..... at the time, they may or may not have been right to suspect...

It's just that this crime has been adjudicated multiple times. The final, non-apeallable court moved well past the issue of whether or not AK or RS should have (or not) been suspected.

Borrowing Maraca-Bruno's turn of phrase in their 'motivations report' in acquiting the pair, even if someone at the scene had suspected them, that did not make up for the unassailable fact of neither of AK's nor RS's forensic presence being in the murderroom.

That's even before noting that if either AK or RS had been suspected at the scene, then the all night interrogation was definitely illegal under Italian law. There'd be no argument at all as to when AK had become a suspect, and should have been supplied with a lawyer and a competent translator.

Vixen wants it to seem that AK and RS were suspects, and obvious suspects early on. That means that they definitely were denied their rights, Vixen admits to it.

Bill, thanks for discussing this important point. Since Vixen has admitted that the police and/or Mignini suspected Knox and Sollecito from the beginning of the investigation, it's clear that under Italian law they should have had lawyers present during the 5 - 6 November interrogation and even earlier. It's of interest that VIxen has - perhaps implicitly - come around to this point of view, having previously, IIUC, claimed that Knox and Sollecito - were merely witnesses during the 5 - 6 November interrogation.

 

[catsmate]

Au contraire. Your accusation is a confession.

Seriously, this is even more incoherently nonsensical than your usual drivel. Knox's acquittal is by definition an 'exoneration', and thus her earlier conviction was a 'miscarriage of justice'.
Simples.

 

[catsmate]

Wow, This poster thinks the ECHR can issue criminal court verdicts and has the pomposity to sling an insult along with it.

You're, again, Making Stuff Up and attributing it to others.

 

[Vixen]

Seriously, this is even more incoherently nonsensical than your usual drivel. Knox's acquittal is by definition an 'exoneration', and thus her earlier conviction was a 'miscarriage of justice'.
Simples.

Only in your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to hold, but it does not reflect the actual fact of the matter.

 

[Welshman]

There are numerous issues raised if you want to argue the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was suspicious. When Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated, three days had passed since Meredith's murder. If the actions of Amanda and Raffaele were so suspicious, why was no issue made of this in the interrogation? Amanda and Raffaele were not asked a single question regarding their behaviour prior to the interrogations and no suggestion was made they had murdered Meredith on the basis of their behaviour.