Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

A trap of your own making

This is pure speculation, and even as speculation it makes no sense. None of the evidence supposedly placing them at the crime scene was known at that point. Guilty or innocent, they had no reason to deviate from their initial account.
Moreover, what they told police is not what the police told the public. Raffaele (apparently) said Amanda went out on her own, and Amanda signed a statement in which she vaguely remembered meeting Patrick and being at the cottage when he killed Meredith. She said nothing about Raffaele being there.

But what the police told the public and the media was that all three were there, wanting Meredith to participate in group sex, and they killed her when she refused.

How did they figure all that out from the statements made by Amanda and Raffaele, and the evidence available to them at that time? These Perugian officers are either the most brilliantly intuitive detectives of all time, or else they are incompetent buffoons. There's no third way.

_________________

Thank you Charlie for your thoughtful and articulate response.

Yes, there's speculation in my theory that the lovebirds decided to change their alibi prior to their interrogation the night of November 5th. What's most speculative is WHY they did it. Less speculative is whether it was planned in advance. The basic evidence for planning I have is from Raffaele. In his diary he says TWICE that Amanda brought him to change their initial alibi. The first instance:

__________________________________________________
"Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different
statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to
go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember
exactly whether she went out..."
______________________________________________________


Raffaele is saying that Amanda brought him to change his story. Okay, so Raffaele writes in tangled grammar. But he appears to say the same thing elsewhere in his diary, November 12, 2007:

_________________________________________________
"I said the fat cavolata [cavolo = cabbage... garbage/crap?] in my second
statement. And that is:
1 that Amanda brought me to say something stupid and I have repeated
that over and over again in the court of the squadra mobile;
2 reconstructing I am realizing that Amanda was actually very likely
with me all night, never leaving."
_________________________________________________

Yet another example of Raffaele saying this---or something like this--- in a letter he wrote to his local TV station NORBA and released on February 25, 2008, apparently referring to the day of his arrest:

____________________________________________________
"they suspect everything, even yourself, and you, not giving it much importance, one day you fall in a trap of your own making (cadi in trappola con le tue stesse mani)...."
_____________________________________________________

You're right Charlie, the cops didn't have on November 5 any evidence that would place either lovebird at the cottage on the night of the murder, but Amanda didn't know this. Neither did Raffaele. But she must have learned that there were dozens of cops assigned to the murder case and that the Forensic Police were swarming over the cottage looking for the most minute trace left. (If guilty, she may have found that troublesome.)


Maybe.... on the 4th she first learned of the video security camera across the street pointing toward the cottage...HOLY COW!... which might have pictures of her coming and going the night of the murder. (In fact, an image of an Amanda-like woman was captured by the camera that night, but proved too ambiguous to be used as evidence.)

As I said in my last post, I think Amanda ---by November 5th--- strongly suspected that evidence would emerge placing her at the scene of the crime. So it was then best for her to just admit it................so long as she was seen as an innocent bystander.

Just why they changed their alibi prior to the November 5th interrogation? We don't know. Raffaele says it was Amanda's idea, but he doesn't tell us why. The interesting fact is that after undergoing many hours of interrogation over the preceding three days, and holding to their initial alibi, on the night of November 5th---within a couple hours---BOTH them lovebirds were signing a different tune. I think it was planned. And Raffaele says so too.

So, in conclusion, Charlie..........was Raffaele lying?

///

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I'll just ask questions this time:
1) Why did Guede break into the apartment?
2) What type of knife was the alleged Meredith DNA found on?
3) Did Raffaele frequently carry a knife?
4) Did Filomena say anything in her testimony in regards to the break-in being suspicious?
5) When was the autopsy report completed?

Well, I found the answer to 4): Filomena did indeed testify that she found glass on top of items in her room. She also testified that she had closed the shutters on her window before she left.

I am most interested in the first question. Guede knew who lived in the apartment - 4 young women, 2 of whom were college students from foreign countries - so he was fully aware that it would be unlikely that there were a lot of valuables in the apartment. Yet he ignored Filomena's jewelry and proceded to ransack her bedroom. Obviously he did not break in looking for anything that would easy to steal and easy to fence (presumably it is easy to unload stolen jewelry, given that jewelry is so often a target of thieves). What was he doing there?

 

[Fiona]

Fair point. One difference is that Guede's DNA was apparently found on and in the victim,

Yes

and Guede fled the country as soon as he could catch a train.

No

Nothing would have prevented Knox from catching a plane home before she was arrested, but she tried to cooperate with the police without hiring a lawyer.

Maybe.

There also seems to be substantial evidence that Guede was known to the cops as a drug dealer,

No

and he had been arrested at least once for breaking and entering,

Not sure he was arrested.

theft and carrying a knife.

No

His fingerprints on file from that arrest helped the police to identify him.

No

Not having a record of criminal convictions doesn't quite mean than Guede, Knox and Sollecito shared similar histories. And their backgrounds are so different that it's hard to believe Knox, Sollecito and Guede would have trusted one another enough to participate in a deadly crime together, when any one of them could have saved himself by turning on the other two.

Irrelevant even if true

 

[LiamG.]

...Nothing would have prevented Knox from catching a plane home before she was arrested, but she tried to cooperate with the police without hiring a lawyer.[/url]

Cleaning and rearranging the scene all night long, with the intension to lead the investigators away from oneself and then fleeing the country the next day to not be arrested, would make perfect sense.

 

[stilicho]

BobTheDonkey,

I have never made a claim about Guede’s being or not being in Filomena’s room*. Yet you put those words into my mouth and try to change the subject. Go figure.

*I do believe he threw the rock from outside, however, on the basis of the testimony of the ballistics expert.

Nobody claims that a violent struggle took place in Filomena's room, and only a half a dozen samples were taken there versus several dozen from Meredith's room.

You're each missing the point. Filomena's room is a part of the crimescene. There is no physical evidence of Rudy being in that part of the cottage.

Raffaele's DNA was found in the murder room, on Meredith's clothing, and Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's DNA elsewhere in the cottage. That's strong evidence by the criteria both of you have set by using Rudy as an example.

Is the appeal really going to argue that, since neither Amanda's nor Raffaele's DNA was found on Meredith's arms, the medical examiner was mistaken about there being multiple assailants? How successful do you think this would be?

 

[snook1]

Except that Guede doesn't have a history of violence either. He had the same criminal record as Raffaele and Amanda - none.

You might want to do something about that bias you're showing

What about the break in few weeks prior to the murder? He was found with a kitchen knife and apparently he didn't enter through the main door, right? Isn't that some kind of criminal behaviour?

 

[katy_did]

You're each missing the point. Filomena's room is a part of the crimescene. There is no physical evidence of Rudy being in that part of the cottage.

Raffaele's DNA was found in the murder room, on Meredith's clothing, and Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's DNA elsewhere in the cottage. That's strong evidence by the criteria both of you have set by using Rudy as an example.

Is the appeal really going to argue that, since neither Amanda's nor Raffaele's DNA was found on Meredith's arms, the medical examiner was mistaken about there being multiple assailants? How successful do you think this would be?

Rudy himself admitted to being in Filomena's room, just as he admitted to being in the small bathroom (in fact, in every place connected with the crime scene). He said he saw AK on the driveway through the window of Filomena's room, of course; something he could perhaps have worked out would be possible, but which seems most likely to be a detail he would add if he had some reason to notice it himself (if he were keeping an eye on the driveway himself through that window, checking for any residents coming home; or if he were conscious as he was climbing in the window that he'd be visible to anyone walking up the driveway).

Apparently Raffaele's lawyers are arguing in his appeal that Rudy knew details about which window had been broken before it was reported in the press. Not only did he know which window it was, he also said that when he was at the house, the shutters were wide open and the glass was 'perfect'. We know the shutters certainly weren't 'wide open'. Why lie? Sounds like he's protesting too much. A Rudy who knew nothing about the broken window wouldn't have had much reason to notice anything about the window at all, let alone to go to the trouble of lying about it.

Amanda and Raffaele can't be treated with the same criteria as Rudy when it comes to the DNA evidence, because both had been in the cottage frequently in the previous week and Amanda lived there. Their DNA has to be more carefully considered than Rudy's, because it could well have been there innocently. So the burden of proof to show that any DNA found is connected to the murder is higher. That's why the DNA evidence in the bathroom, in particular, is so weak. Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that of the three people accused of involvement in the murder, the only DNA found in the bathroom belonged to the person who lived there and used the bathroom every day?

 

[LondonJohn]

It is what wasn't found that is critical here. No evidence was presented that Knox or Sollecito deposited DNA on Ms. Kercher. However, Ms. Kercher's hyoid bone was broken, implying strangulation. This is why I find it so unlikely that they restrained her. As for Guede, I agree that it would be helpful to know exactly where on Ms. Kercher's body ILE looked and where they found DNA.

I still can't understand how the prosecutors can state with such seeming certainty that there had to be more than one assailant restraining Meredith during the commission of the crime. Regardless of Meredith's alleged knowledge of martial arts, if someone's coming at you with a large knife, you tend to err on the side of compliance. After all, in such situations the victim probably merely feels that they are going to be robbed at best, or sexually assaulted at worst - and either of those (horrible as they are) is better than putting up resistance and ending up dead.

In my view, the autopsy findings are consistent with the following scenario: A single intruder confronts Meredith with a knife, forcing her into the corner of her room against the wardrobe. He tells her to get on her knees, then puts the knife to her throat while pulling up her top and pulling down her trousers with his other hand. He inserts his fingers into her vagina, at which point she struggles against the knife, which causes the shallower non-fatal wound. Meredith then begins to scream, causing the attacker to inflict the large fatal knife wound(s). I think (but am not certain) that anatomically the breakage of the hyoid bone could easily have occurred during the infliction of the knife wounds, rather than during a separate strangulation.

 

[katy_did]

With regard to the break-in, I'm not sure what the testimony of the ballistics expert said (he was seen as unreliable by Massei because he wasn't a 'rock-throwing expert', of course... Presumably the prosecution countered by bringing in a genuine 'rock-throwing expert' who convinced him) but it seems pretty obvious that the evidence inside the room points to the window being broken from outside, rather than the slightly odd theory outlined by Massei.

Let's say Rudy broke the window while standing on the grating below (slightly more likely in my view either than him throwing the rock from below, or than him breaking it having already climbed up to the sill). Since he's standing directly in front of the window, his body acts as a barrier preventing the glass from falling to the ground. The rock breaks the glass and hits the inner shutter, leaving a mark; the shutter bursts fully open, causing glass to shatter throughout the room and to land some distance inside it. The rock either falls to the ground having rebounded from the shutter, or Rudy drops it inside before climbing through himself; it lands on the computer bag beneath the window which falls over, allowing glass to fall on top of it which Filomena notices when she picks it up, and rolls near the desk where it's found, the impact having caused the rock to fragment into several pieces.

That seems to me to be a logical sequence of events which fits all the evidence. On the other hand, Massei's theory requires all sorts of slightly odd (or maybe brilliantly ingenious) actions from Knox and Sollecito to make it work. He says that they closed the outer shutters (meaning glass didn't fall on the ground) and opened the window in order to break it. But there was glass on the outer windowsill: so Massei says it must've been open just the right amount, wide enough to allow them to break it in the first place, but still close enough to the sill for glass to fall on it. They held the inner shutter against the window as they broke it, and struck the glass hard enough to leave the mark on the inner shutter. But the glass was distributed throughout the room, including some distance inside; surely the inner shutter would've acted as a shield? So maybe they let go of the inner shutter as soon as the rock struck it, allowing the glass to be distributed in a more natural pattern around the room. Massei then says they 'set down' the rock, but in reality of course, they must have dropped it in front of the window to better simulate a genuine break-in, causing the rock to split into fragments.

Massei's theory requires all sorts of twists and turns to make all the evidence fit together, and even then I don't think it really makes sense (would glass really fall on the outer sill if the window were open? Given the angle of the open window, wouldn't more glass end up on the right (wardrobe) side of the room? The inner shutter theory almost needs AK and RS to be 'rock-throwing experts' themselves). The window being broken from outside fits the evidence without all the effort.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have been watching the video simulation of the brick through the window again. I still can't reconcile it with the reality of the situation.

1.In the video there does not appear to be a latch/lock on the interior shutters, whereas in reality the are and Filomena said they were locked. I they were not locked, could not the "burglar" just push them open rather than climbing up there to open the unlocked but wedged exterior shutters and then going back down to throw a rock through them?

2. There are pretty clear pictures of the lock/latch on the interior shutters in the pictures I have provided. They do not appear to be bent or damaged. So again why the rock if they were unlocked? I thought it was to break the window so the burglar could reach inside and unlock the latch, yet in the video they swing open through the impact of the rock.

3. What am I missing here?

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/105.JPG

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

[/QUOTE]How did they figure all that out from the statements made by Amanda and Raffaele, and the evidence available to them at that time? These Perugian officers are either the most brilliantly intuitive detectives of all time, or else they are incompetent buffoons. There's no third way.[/QUOTE]

Well, they must be the most brilliantly intuitive detectives of all time, because they rightfully got their man and their lady.[/QUOTE]

No, I do think that they made good, standard police-work.Putting piece and piece together.

It makes a huge difference, if you now read the transcripts and study what was said or if you are actually interrogating people - in front of you: are they nervous, are they calm, do the answers come quick or seem they to think about? All that little things, which you do not see in the transcript, but which are very well noticed by the police.

As I already pointed out, you cannot start with the result (Raffaele and Amanda beeing arrested) and work back,

you must start at the crime (Meredith) and then follow the steps which the police took (or should have taken in your opinion).

 

[katy_did]

A screen grab taken from here of the glass on the windowsill (someone on PMF managed to get a better shot without the subtitles, but it doesn't show the full windowsill). Click for a bigger image.



The glass is all towards the back or in the left corner of the windowsill. Given where Rudy would have been standing (directly in front of the left window as we look at it, the shutter on his right), to brush the glass off the sill he'd have had to sweep it across in front of him and then off to his left. In doing so he'd have spread fragments of glass all over the sill; as it is, most of the windowsill looks free of glass. If he moved the glass at all, it would be more sensible to push it out of the way towards the back/corner of the sill with his sleeve, and looking at where the glass is in the picture, maybe that's what he did.

Apparently Raffaele's appeal argues that Rudy cut himself when climbing up, and that this explains the cuts healing on his right hand when he was arrested. His right hand would be the one closest to the glass as he climbed up, of course.

 

[christianahannah]

Let's say Rudy broke the window while standing on the grating below (slightly more likely in my view either than him throwing the rock from below, or than him breaking it having already climbed up to the sill). Since he's standing directly in front of the window, his body acts as a barrier preventing the glass from falling to the ground. The rock breaks the glass and hits the inner shutter, leaving a mark; the shutter bursts fully open, causing glass to shatter throughout the room and to land some distance inside it. The rock either falls to the ground having rebounded from the shutter, or Rudy drops it inside before climbing through himself; it lands on the computer bag beneath the window which falls over, allowing glass to fall on top of it which Filomena notices when she picks it up, and rolls near the desk where it's found, the impact having caused the rock to fragment into several pieces.

That seems to me to be a logical sequence of events which fits all the evidence. On the other hand, Massei's theory requires all sorts of slightly odd (or maybe brilliantly ingenious) actions from Knox and Sollecito to make it work. He says that they closed the outer shutters (meaning glass didn't fall on the ground) and opened the window in order to break it. But there was glass on the outer windowsill: so Massei says it must've been open just the right amount, wide enough to allow them to break it in the first place, but still close enough to the sill for glass to fall on it. They held the inner shutter against the window as they broke it, and struck the glass hard enough to leave the mark on the inner shutter. But the glass was distributed throughout the room, including some distance inside; surely the inner shutter would've acted as a shield? So maybe they let go of the inner shutter as soon as the rock struck it, allowing the glass to be distributed in a more natural pattern around the room. Massei then says they 'set down' the rock, but in reality of course, they must have dropped it in front of the window to better simulate a genuine break-in, causing the rock to split into fragments.

Massei's theory requires all sorts of twists and turns to make all the evidence fit together, and even then I don't think it really makes sense (would glass really fall on the outer sill if the window were open? Given the angle of the open window, wouldn't more glass end up on the right (wardrobe) side of the room? The inner shutter theory almost needs AK and RS to be 'rock-throwing experts' themselves). The window being broken from outside fits the evidence without all the effort.

Did the rock thrown allow the inner shutters to open? The photos have the inner shutters closed but I do not know if they were closed after viewing of the crime scene and before the photos were taken. Do the inner shutters lock, did Filomena testify as to them being locked, and if they are not locked how easy are they to open?

I had guessed a somewhat similar scenario as Massei of the window breaking (somewhere in a previous post), however, I am definitely not a rock throwing expert.

I also thought some of the glass scattering across the room had to do with Filomena picking up objects and clothes in her room before it was determined a murder a had taken place.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Let's say Rudy broke the window while standing on the grating below (slightly more likely in my view either than him throwing the rock from below, or than him breaking it having already climbed up to the sill). Since he's standing directly in front of the window, his body acts as a barrier preventing the glass from falling to the ground. The rock breaks the glass and hits the inner shutter, leaving a mark; the shutter bursts fully open, causing glass to shatter throughout the room and to land some distance inside it.

But how can he stand on the grating below without having anything for his hands to hold on? I try to imagine how I would climb to that window and
I cannot see doing this without my hands holding on some sort of brick or projection on that wall.

This window is three and a half meter above the ground.

There have been no traces what or ever on that ground, that somebody has been standing there (not on the soil, not on the vegetation).

 

[LondonJohn]

Gosh - apparently anyone who hasn't read an accurate translation of the Massei report is speaking/writing from a position of ignorance. We must all wait until we've read an accurate translation of the Massei report before commenting on the case. We'd better all stop debating the case now, since we're all ignorant. The Massei report is, after all, the only document that will enable us to understand this case.

 

[katy_did]

Did the rock thrown allow the inner shutters to open? The photos have the inner shutters closed but I do not know if they were closed after viewing of the crime scene and before the photos were taken. Do the inner shutters lock, did Filomena testify as to them being locked, and if they are not locked how easy are they to open?

I had guessed a somewhat similar scenario as Massei of the window breaking (somewhere in a previous post), however, I am definitely not a rock throwing expert.

I also thought some of the glass scattering across the room had to do with Filomena picking up objects and clothes in her room before it was determined a murder a had taken place.

Well, not being a rock throwing expert either, obviously (do they actually exist?!) but I think the inner shutters would have burst fully open as the rock hit them. They did lock, but Filomena seems to suggest she left them open (this from Micheli's report, I haven't checked Massei's yet):

ricordava di averne certamente chiusi i vetri, lasciando invece probabilmente gli scuri aperti: delle persiane, pur non essendone sicura al cento per cento, riteneva di averle chiuse senza tuttavia ancorarle entrambe, dal momento che l’imposta di sinistra incontrava resistenza sul davanzale a causa di un rigonfiamento del legno. Il suo ricordo non era più preciso, in quanto reputava di avere sicuramente aperto le imposte la mattina avendo bisogno di luce per cambiarsi...ma si era poi allontanata di fretta perché si trovava già in ritardo.

She remembered having certainly closed the window, but probably leaving the [inner?] shutters open: although she couldn't be 100% sure, she believed she had closed the outer shutters without anchoring both, since the left shutter met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was no longer accurate, since she believed she had definitely opened the shutters in the morning having needed light to change...but had then left in a hurry because she was already late.

I think 'persiane' must refer specifically to the outer shutters, so I guess it's the inner shutters that were probably open/unlocked. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding how they work though, as Rose's post had me a bit puzzled too - what do you mean when you say they're closed in the photos? If you look at the photo Rose posted, I think the marks on top and bottom of the window frame are for the lock on the shutters, or so I remember from a Powerpoint on TJMK anyway.

As for the glass, the witnesses seemed to suggest it was all over the room even before Filomena disturbed it, though I'm not too sure so maybe Charlie/Bruce have a bit more information about that. Wouldn't have thought she could've disturbed it enough to spread glass all over the room if there wasn't quite a lot of it there already, though. At the very least, that would mean we'd have to hypothesize about yet another thing happening which coincidentally makes the scenario where the rock was thrown from outside look more convincing.

 

[Mary_H]

There's reason to believe Amanda was known to the Seattle Police. And Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's, both in Filomena's room and in the bathroom. Raffaele's DNA was found in Meredith's room on the clasp of the bra the victim was wearing when she was assaulted/murdered.

Rudy fleeing did not cause quite the same commotion that Amanda fleeing would have caused. If Amanda were to have flown the country, it would have immediately implicated her and undone her efforts to hide her involvement. Not exactly apples to apples comparison.

There is absolutely no reason to believe Amanda was known to the Seattle police, unless you believe the Seattle police remember every citizen they issue a citation to. Here is the text of the ticket she received for being the one who spoke to the police when they responded to a noise complaint from a neighbor of the house where Amanda was living:

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/171292.asp?source=mypi

To present this incident as "proof" that Amanda had a criminal past is desperate and false.

If Amanda had flown home within a day or two of the crime, she would never have been indicted for the crime, nor would have Raffaele. No one in Perugia would have seen Amanda not cry, cry too much, buy underwear, swivel her hips or go out to eat with Raffaele. If the police paid any attention to her after she left, it would be only because they suspected Patrick, and Patrick had texted Amanda. However, they would not have been able to force Amanda to return to Italy for questioning, and they most certainly would not have been able to convince a U.S. judge that there was enough evidence against her to make her a suspect.

 

[Mary_H]

I think, whatever system they have, you must live with it.

This argument implies we must abandon all standards of morality and decency when it comes to judging the systems of other cultures. If this were true, there would no civilization and no historical progress when it comes to human rights.

If your unmarried daughter were traveling in a Muslim country and was found to be sexually active, would it be all right with you if the police there stoned her to death, because she should have been living by the rules of the country she was traveling in? Even if the majority of women in that country had made it known they were against so stringent a penalty? Even if you and your countrymen believe that stoning to death is too severe relative to the behavior it is punishing? Would it be all right with you that the ruling class of that country had so much power they could ignore the complaints of their citizens and foreign observers?

Cultures and legal systems are relative, human rights and morality are not, or at least they shouldn't be. The Perugians are big boys; we don't have to hold them to standards lower than our own. If their laws and/or behaviors are unethical, we have every right to disapprove of them.

 

[Mary_H]

_________________

Thank you Charlie for your thoughtful and articulate response.

Yes, there's speculation in my theory that the lovebirds decided to change their alibi prior to their interrogation the night of November 5th. What's most speculative is WHY they did it. Less speculative is whether it was planned in advance.

You're getting ahead of yourself here. There is no need to speculate on why they changed their alibis until you have established that they did change their alibis.

The basic evidence for planning I have is from Raffaele. In his diary he says TWICE that Amanda brought him to change their initial alibi. The first instance:
__________________________________________________
"Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different
statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to
go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember
exactly whether she went out..."
______________________________________________________

Again, slow down. What Raffaele says here is that he told the cops Amanda had brought him to say crap, not that Amanda actually did bring him to say crap.

Raffaele is saying that Amanda brought him to change his story. Okay, so Raffaele writes in tangled grammar. But he appears to say the same thing elsewhere in his diary, November 12, 2007:

_________________________________________________
"I said the fat cavolata [cavolo = cabbage... garbage/crap?] in my second
statement. And that is:
1 that Amanda brought me to say something stupid and I have repeated
that over and over again in the court of the squadra mobile;
2 reconstructing I am realizing that Amanda was actually very likely
with me all night, never leaving."
_________________________________________________

Again, as in the first excerpt, Raffaele is reporting that he said to the cops that Amanda had brought him to say someting stupid, not that Amanda actually did bring him to say something stupid.

Yet another example of Raffaele saying this---or something like this--- in a letter he wrote to his local TV station NORBA and released on February 25, 2008, apparently referring to the day of his arrest:

____________________________________________________
"they suspect everything, even yourself, and you, not giving it much importance, one day you fall in a trap of your own making (cadi in trappola con le tue stesse mani)...."
_____________________________________________________

No, here Raffaele is saying that he was caught off guard by the police, who tricked him by using something innocent he had said against him. Most likely, in this case, it was his readiness to agree with the police's version of events, which he never dreamed would lead to his own arrest as a suspect.

You're right Charlie, the cops didn't have on November 5 any evidence that would place either lovebird at the cottage on the night of the murder, but Amanda didn't know this. Neither did Raffaele. But she must have learned that there were dozens of cops assigned to the murder case and that the Forensic Police were swarming over the cottage looking for the most minute trace left. (If guilty, she may have found that troublesome.)

Maybe.... on the 4th she first learned of the video security camera across the street pointing toward the cottage...HOLY COW!... which might have pictures of her coming and going the night of the murder. (In fact, an image of an Amanda-like woman was captured by the camera that night, but proved too ambiguous to be used as evidence.)

As I said in my last post, I think Amanda ---by November 5th--- strongly suspected that evidence would emerge placing her at the scene of the crime. So it was then best for her to just admit it................so long as she was seen as an innocent bystander.

Just why they changed their alibi prior to the November 5th interrogation? We don't know. Raffaele says it was Amanda's idea, but he doesn't tell us why. The interesting fact is that after undergoing many hours of interrogation over the preceding three days, and holding to their initial alibi, on the night of November 5th---within a couple hours---BOTH them lovebirds were signing a different tune. I think it was planned. And Raffaele says so too.

So, in conclusion, Charlie..........was Raffaele lying?

///

You haven't shown that Amanda and Raffaele changed their alibis prior to the 5th, and you never will, because they didn't. They both acted like innocent people before and during their interrogations. If a lot of analysis, planning and mental gymnastics had gone into the way they were going to respond to the cops, they never would have been arrested.

 

[Mary_H]

Gosh - apparently anyone who hasn't read an accurate translation of the Massei report is speaking/writing from a position of ignorance. We must all wait until we've read an accurate translation of the Massei report before commenting on the case. We'd better all stop debating the case now, since we're all ignorant. The Massei report is, after all, the only document that will enable us to understand this case.

Well, John, we're actually getting off pretty easy. There are several posters out there in blogworld who have tried to argue that you can't understand or debate the case unless you speak Italian.