Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Since your wrote the bolded and underlined above in response to my post would you mind clarifying what is meant by this? I haven't any idea what you are trying to say here and I would appreciate it if you would be courageous enough to be up front about it.

The paragraph in question was clearly prefaced as not being in response to your original point, and I'm not sure it meets the definition of courage to explain it, but...

... it's in response to various allegations of libel floating round at the moment, regarding various areas of this case (both direct and peripheral). There is, for example, talk that some people have libelled Knox and Sollecito, that some have libelled Mignini or the Italian police, and that some have libelled prominent commentators on the case. I was pointing out that in order for a libel to be proven in court, the allegations have to be shown to be both injurious and untrue (or, more accurately, the defendant has to prove it to be true in order to defeat a libel action).

Hope that explains it. I must run: I have an angry fax to send to Richard Branson

 

[LondonJohn]

Kind of like when homeowners come upon a burglary having taken place while they were gone and they go room to room seeing what has been ransacked or taken before police arrive? Or sometimes even doing the same while police are there so the police have an idea of what was taken or done by the thief?

No, this is not correct. If the homeowner interferes with the scene before the police arrive, then clearly there's nothing that the police can do about it, and they have no choice but to deal with a compromised scene. However, if the scene is undisturbed when the police arrive, then it's usual for the police to preserve the scene until it has been dusted for prints and checked for DNA before the homeowner is allowed to check for what's been stolen.

 

[Draca]

nothing was stolen

Of course in this case, it turned out that things were taken (Meredith's money, keys, cell phones).

It might seem strange that a real break-in occurred and nothing was taken, but actually it isn't that strange. Maybe the burglar gets spooked and leaves in a hurry before taking anything; maybe the burglar can't find anything worth taking; maybe the break-in was done for another purpose besides robbery...etc.

If I were staging a burglary to cover up my involvement in a murder, I might remove something from the room (like an easily portable laptop?) to make the staging more convincing.

I agree. What kind of stager wouldn't take the laptop or camera? They competently staged the scene by making it look like a rock was thown threw the window and scattered glass around the room, but didn't bother to make it look like something was stolen? The same is true with the wardrobe clothes. Why just dump them from the closet instead of tossing them around a bit? And they didn't bother to open or dump out the boxes on the shelves? If this was a staging they did a brilliant job breaking the window to look real and failed in every other way.

The lack of burglary from the bedroom makes perfect sense however in what Steve Moore describes as a Highly Disorganized Crime Scene / Crime of Passion. When Rudy Guede was surprised by Meredith Kercher arriving home things spun out of control and ended in rape and murder. The burglary at that point was over. It wasn't his intention in entering the cottage for this to happen. He didn't clean the crime scene and fled, leaving a mess behind. He didn't steal anything more than what was easily at hand because of both time and knowing anything taken could incriminate him if traced back to the cottage. It would seem at first thought odd that a burglar broke in but didn't steal the laptop. As a professional, Steve Moore easily explains why the scene was left the way it was. It makes sense in the context of how and when the murder occurred.

In regards to Raffaele's statement that nothing was stolen. Guilters insist that how could he KNOW that nothing was stolen? Well, he didn't. He was saying from his cursory glance it didn't look like anything was stolen. If he saw the laptop and camera that is a normal assumption. He wouldn't know what else Filomena had hidden away that may have been worth something. Also, why as a stager, would he report that nothing was stolen? Wouldn't that thought make him realize that - doh - they had better steal something to make the staging look more authentic?

 

[christianahannah]

The paragraph in question was clearly prefaced as not being in response to your original point, and I'm not sure it meets the definition of courage to explain it, but...

... it's in response to various allegations of libel floating round at the moment, regarding various areas of this case (both direct and peripheral). There is, for example, talk that some people have libelled Knox and Sollecito, that some have libelled Mignini or the Italian police, and that some have libelled prominent commentators on the case. I was pointing out that in order for a libel to be proven in court, the allegations have to be shown to be both injurious and untrue (or, more accurately, the defendant has to prove it to be true in order to defeat a libel action).

Hope that explains it. I must run: I have an angry fax to send to Richard Branson

Another poster has informed me that your comment was in response to something on another forum. I think it takes courage to address whomever your comments are directed towards directly to them and not by way of proxy through answering of another's post.

I didn't have a clue what you were commenting on and assumed it was directed at me. I still am not sure what the comment is in response to and take it your last sentence in the above quote is more of the same.

 

[Fine]

* * *
In regards to Raffaele's statement that nothing was stolen. Guilters insist that how could he KNOW that nothing was stolen? Well, he didn't. He was saying from his cursory glance it didn't look like anything was stolen. If he saw the laptop and camera that is a normal assumption. He wouldn't know what else Filomena had hidden away that may have been worth something. Also, why as a stager, would he report that nothing was stolen? Wouldn't that thought make him realize that - doh - they had better steal something to make the staging look more authentic?

_____________________-

Raffaele does not express himself well. Neither does Amanda. What he should have said, to properly express to the cops the situation at the cottage, is: "To the best of my knowledge, nothing was stolen." Yet another example of how---as Raffaele would later observe--- the lovebirds fell into a trap of their own making.

///

 

[christianahannah]

I agree. What kind of stager wouldn't take the laptop or camera? They competently staged the scene by making it look like a rock was thown threw the window and scattered glass around the room, but didn't bother to make it look like something was stolen? The same is true with the wardrobe clothes. Why just dump them from the closet instead of tossing them around a bit? And they didn't bother to open or dump out the boxes on the shelves? If this was a staging they did a brilliant job breaking the window to look real and failed in every other way.

The lack of burglary from the bedroom makes perfect sense however in what Steve Moore describes as a Highly Disorganized Crime Scene / Crime of Passion. When Rudy Guede was surprised by Meredith Kercher arriving home things spun out of control and ended in rape and murder. The burglary at that point was over. It wasn't his intention in entering the cottage for this to happen. He didn't clean the crime scene and fled, leaving a mess behind. He didn't steal anything more than what was easily at hand because of both time and knowing anything taken could incriminate him if traced back to the cottage. It would seem at first thought odd that a burglar broke in but didn't steal the laptop. As a professional, Steve Moore easily explains why the scene was left the way it was. It makes sense in the context of how and when the murder occurred.

In regards to Raffaele's statement that nothing was stolen. Guilters insist that how could he KNOW that nothing was stolen? Well, he didn't. He was saying from his cursory glance it didn't look like anything was stolen. If he saw the laptop and camera that is a normal assumption. He wouldn't know what else Filomena had hidden away that may have been worth something. Also, why as a stager, would he report that nothing was stolen? Wouldn't that thought make him realize that - doh - they had better steal something to make the staging look more authentic?

I don't know if the room/break-in was staged or not, however, that was the conclusion of the court and of some of those who testified. One thing is for certain - the room did not look exactly the same way as Filomena had left it the afternoon of November 1. I would imagine Filomena would have been questioned by the police and both the prosecution and defense as to how the room was when she left and how it was when she returned, as I would expect Amanda and Raffaele were also questioned (by the police) as to what they saw when they first encountered her room.

Do you know the laptop's and camera's placement in the room and were they in their cases or out of cases?

 

[LondonJohn]

Another poster has informed me that your comment was in response to something on another forum. I think it takes courage to address whomever your comments are directed towards directly to them and not by way of proxy through answering of another's post.

I didn't have a clue what you were commenting on and assumed it was directed at me. I still am not sure what the comment is in response to and take it your last sentence in the above quote is more of the same.

Unfortunately the avenue you suggest (direct communication) is not open to me - as it is not open to most people who argue that the convictions are unsafe. Perhaps you might want to ask yourself why that is. And you have a very strange definition of the word "courage", and the people to whom it applies. I'd more than happily debate any aspect of this case with anyone, as I am pretty sure of my position - but the decision on meeting to debate is unfortunately not my prerogative.

If you thought the original "final paragraph" was aimed at you, then I apologise for the confusion - even though it was explicitly separated from my response to your post, and even though I've since told you that it was not aimed at you. But you certainly seem to have an issue with it, and seem unwilling to let it go. Why is that?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know if the room/break-in was staged or not, however, that was the conclusion of the court and of some of those who testified. One thing is for certain - the room did not look exactly the same way as Filomena had left it the afternoon of November 1. I would imagine Filomena would have been questioned by the police and both the prosecution and defense as to how the room was when she left and how it was when she returned, as I would expect Amanda and Raffaele were also questioned (by the police) as to what they saw when they first encountered her room.

Do you know the laptop's and camera's placement in the room and were they in their cases or out of cases?

Filomena's "recollection" seemed to change over time, noticeably detrimentally towards Knox. She has already been shown to have changed her view on the positioning of her window shutters, such that her memory seemingly became far more detailed 18 months after the event than it was 3 months afterwards.

My view is that Filomena very likely became convinced of Knox's guilt during 2008, and her "recollection" of events on November 1st/2nd 2007 subsequently underwent a subliminal shift in order to reinforce and corroborate her feelings about Knox. I believe that the condition of her room may have gone through just such a transformation: I believe that she may have left her room fairly messy on the afternoon of November 1st, but that she's since convinced herself that her room was very tidy and that the mess was caused during the staging.

IIRC, both the laptop and the camera were not in any sort of case, and both were in plain sight. As others have commented, any half-baked amateur intent on conducting a staged break-in/burglary would more than likely take items such as these as part of the staging - even if they just threw them into the undergrowth outside the cottage. It takes a special kind of cunning to decide to stage a burglary where the "burglar" is interrupted before he has taken anything from the room he broke into...

 

[RoseMontague]

Unfortunately the avenue you suggest (direct communication) is not open to me - as it is not open to most people who argue that the convictions are unsafe. Perhaps you might want to ask yourself why that is. And you have a very strange definition of the word "courage", and the people to whom it applies. I'd more than happily debate any aspect of this case with anyone, as I am pretty sure of my position - but the decision on meeting to debate is unfortunately not my prerogative.

If you thought the original "final paragraph" was aimed at you, then I apologise for the confusion - even though it was explicitly separated from my response to your post, and even though I've since told you that it was not aimed at you. But you certainly seem to have an issue with it, and seem unwilling to let it go. Why is that?

LJ,
It was confusing for me as well and I have not seen Christiana as upset about something for awhile. Maybe you should do this in a separate post rather than in a reply to someone. I have no issues with bringing up the article that Bruce posted as well as the criticism of it.

BTW, if that is the issue you are discussing and I admit I am not certain about that, I did not care for Bruce's article.

 

[christianahannah]

Unfortunately the avenue you suggest (direct communication) is not open to me - as it is not open to most people who argue that the convictions are unsafe. Perhaps you might want to ask yourself why that is. And you have a very strange definition of the word "courage", and the people to whom it applies. I'd more than happily debate any aspect of this case with anyone, as I am pretty sure of my position - but the decision on meeting to debate is unfortunately not my prerogative.

If you thought the original "final paragraph" was aimed at you, then I apologise for the confusion - even though it was explicitly separated from my response to your post, and even though I've since told you that it was not aimed at you. But you certainly seem to have an issue with it, and seem unwilling to let it go. Why is that?

Actually, it was a paragraph break so I don't see how that is explicitly separated from your response to my post. When it is included in a post to me how am I to know who it is directed towards?

No, I am more than willing to let something go and I have. I thought you were due a response from me after I had been informed as to where your comment was directed to.

As far as my being upset or having an issue - I thought you were making an accusation (towards me) and I responded wanting to know what was meant by your post. The writings and postings about this case have taken an ugly turn lately (and also in the past) and many on both sides have not been immune to veiled threats directed their way.

I am sorry you cannot respond by direct communication to the issues you would like to address, but here is not the place to do so unless you make it known what it is you are commenting on. Otherwise it creates too much confusion.

 

[katy_did]

LJ,BTW, if that is the issue you are discussing and I admit I am not certain about that, I did not care for Bruce's article.

+1, and I'm glad I'm not the only one on this 'side of the fence' to feel that way about it.

 

[Draca]

Filomena's laptop location

IIRC, both the laptop and the camera were not in any sort of case, and both were in plain sight. As others have commented, any half-baked amateur intent on conducting a staged break-in/burglary would more than likely take items such as these as part of the staging - even if they just threw them into the undergrowth outside the cottage. It takes a special kind of cunning to decide to stage a burglary where the "burglar" is interrupted before he has taken anything from the room he broke into...

Massei pg 53
In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40), and continuing to explain, she declared that "I picked up the computer and perceived that in lifting it, I was picking up pieces of glass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it" (p. 41)

-- Filomena says her laptop was in its case and the case was standing up. I think we can see the bag over by the window. I haven't read anywhere that she took the whole bag. I think she took the laptop out of the bag. I don't know what she means by "from underneath". My guess is that it is from underneath the shopping bag that tipped over.

The digital camera is said to have been in the open. I don't know if it was in a case or not. Does anyone have a photo. Was it laying on the white table?

I believe this is the laptop bag:




To add to the confusion. Massei pg 66 says Amanda says this:

Upon returning home, she opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, ‚but her computer was in its place on the desk.‛

How can the computer be both on Filomena's desk and in her laptop bag on the floor? What's the truth here? Did Massei mix up what Amanda said about her own laptop or something?

Micheli:
At the same time, it was simulated that someone had entered the house through the bedroom window of the R. (presumably to steal, but are not seized even a laptop on the desk, or jewels are easily accessible in a drawer)


* I'm really confused if someone could alleviate my pain !

 

[Chris C]

Do you know the laptop's and camera's placement in the room and were they in their cases or out of cases?

Though the laptop was slightly moved, it was still sitting on the floor where Filomena left it. Which would explain why their was glass on it.

 

[Chris C]

How can the computer be both on Filomena's desk and in her laptop bag on the floor? What's the truth here? Did Massei mix up what Amanda said about her own laptop or something?

I have wondered whether or not Knox didn't get confused when writing that email and meant Laura's computer. Afterall she did check the house and Laura's computer was sitting on her desk.

 

[RoseMontague]

Massei pg 53
In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40), and continuing to explain, she declared that "I picked up the computer and perceived that in lifting it, I was picking up pieces of glass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it" (p. 41)

-- Filomena says her laptop was in its case and the case was standing up. I think we can see the bag over by the window. I haven't read anywhere that she took the whole bag. I think she took the laptop out of the bag. I don't know what she means by "from underneath". My guess is that it is from underneath the shopping bag that tipped over.

The digital camera is said to have been in the open. I don't know if it was in a case or not. Does anyone have a photo. Was it laying on the white table?

I believe this is the laptop bag:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664dc866244161c.jpg[/qimg]


To add to the confusion. Massei pg 66 says Amanda says this:

Upon returning home, she opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, ‚but her computer was in its place on the desk.‛

How can the computer be both on Filomena's desk and in her laptop bag on the floor? What's the truth here? Did Massei mix up what Amanda said about her own laptop or something?

Micheli:
At the same time, it was simulated that someone had entered the house through the bedroom window of the R. (presumably to steal, but are not seized even a laptop on the desk, or jewels are easily accessible in a drawer)


* I'm really confused if someone could alleviate my pain !

I wonder if katy_did could take a look at the original Italian on this. That part about "from underneath" is not real clear. I am not sure if that case held her laptop or not. A poster at PMF indicated they thought the standing up part of the quote meant the laptop was open and not closed.

 

[Draca]

I have wondered whether or not Knox didn't get confused when writing that email and meant Laura's computer. Afterall she did check the house and Laura's computer was sitting on her desk.

That makes sense Chris. She wrote in the wee hours and was exhausted. I wasn't connecting that Massei got that statement from her email.


This is from Amanda's Nov 4th email:
filomenas room was closed, but when i opned
the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely
broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always
was and this confused me. convinced that we had been robbed i went to
lauras room and looked quickley in, but it was spottless, like it
hadnt even been touced. this too, i thought was odd. i then went into
the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room
for things missing, which there werent. then i knocked on merediths
room.

---------

Amanda's Court Testimony:
This time we opened the
doors, for example the door to Filomena's room, and I saw that her window was broken and there was a big mess. That's when I thought, oh gosh, it was a robbery. And I was running around everywhere.

AK: I was going into all the rooms to see if there was anything stolen, and
I saw that my computer was there, and Laura's computer was there too. What worried me was that Meredith's door was closed and when I called her, she didn't answer.

--------

Massei Translation pg 66
(Amanda) Upon returning home, she opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, 'but her computer was in its place on the desk.‛ Convinced that there had been a burglary, she went into the other rooms: Laura’s room was in order, and nothing was missing from her own room. However, Meredith’s door was closed.

Massei pg 53
(Filomena) In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40)


-- Amanda doesn't mention Filomena's computer in her court testimony. It does seem Massei is using her email home for that statement. It conflicts with Filomena's though.

 

[babycondor]

Is it possible that after climbing in, Rudy immediately had to go use the restroom and it was while Rudy was in there that Meredith came home, suprising him?

I think that is probably what happened.

 

[Draca]

but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always

Amanda's Nov 4 email -- "but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always was"

Okay, Show of hands on who thinks Filomena's computer was sitting on her desk or that it always was? There is NO ROOM on Filomena's desk for her laptop. Amanda may have been thinking of Laura's laptop. *Note - Fine says Amanda meant the camera was on the desk as normal, instead of the laptop.


Filomena's desk:




Laura's Laptop:





Also, I watched the Nov 2 crime scene video again to look for Filomena's digital camera. There is something the shape and size of a small black digital camera on the desk. I can't see it in this photo because of the angle. It's on the other side of the pinkish book.

To summarize. Filomena's laptop was in her laptop bag that was standing up on the floor. Her digital camera was on the desk and not in a case.

 

[Justinian2]

My case was an example of the police NOT investigating criminal activity of the type that Guede was involved in. Means that my conspiracy theory was fallible; Mignini didn't have to be helping Guede get off. Or ... it means the police are protecting these people. Nah! The first supposition is more plausible.

Go by the most likely explaination and Guede was a lone robber/rapist and he was not a Mignini informant. And -- the police in Italy and the USA are like Homer Simpson.

 

[Fine]

That makes sense Chris. She wrote in the wee hours and was exhausted. I wasn't connecting that Massei got that statement from her email.


This is from Amanda's Nov 4th email:
filomenas room was closed, but when i opned
the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely
broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always
was and this confused me. convinced that we had been robbed i went to
lauras room and looked quickley in, but it was spottless, like it
hadnt even been touced. this too, i thought was odd. i then went into
the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room
for things missing, which there werent. then i knocked on merediths
room.

---------

Amanda's Court Testimony:
This time we opened the
doors, for example the door to Filomena's room, and I saw that her window was broken and there was a big mess. That's when I thought, oh gosh, it was a robbery. And I was running around everywhere.

AK: I was going into all the rooms to see if there was anything stolen, and
I saw that my computer was there, and Laura's computer was there too. What worried me was that Meredith's door was closed and when I called her, she didn't answer.

--------

Massei Translation pg 66
(Amanda) Upon returning home, she opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, 'but her computer was in its place on the desk.‛ Convinced that there had been a burglary, she went into the other rooms: Laura’s room was in order, and nothing was missing from her own room. However, Meredith’s door was closed.

Massei pg 53
(Filomena) In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40)


-- Amanda doesn't mention Filomena's computer in her court testimony. It does seem Massei is using her email home for that statement. It conflicts with Filomena's though.

________________

Amanda does mention it in her testimony. She said she saw in on the floor.

In her email Amanda was confusing the laptop computer with the camera. Both owned by Filomena.

///