Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #49

I get that you think they are guilty, but none of these events are in the least bit suspicious unless you come to the party already thinking they are guilty.

Police: "Then listen, practically they entered ... they broke a glass ... and how do you know that they entered?"
RS: "There are signs. There are also blood stains in the bathroom."
Police: "So they entered. .. because they are broken ... have they cut themselves breaking the glass?
RS: "Ehhh ... What are you doing?"
Police: "Hello?"
[hangs up the phone]

 

[Antony]

Your reply is what I would expect. You believe if add the words ominous and strange as an adjective that I should think of those events as strange and ominous? They are not. Real physical evidence is required. not metaphysical evidence. Why don't you see that?

I get that you think they are guilty, but none of these events are in the least bit suspicious unless you come to the party already thinking they are guilty.

What gets me is that the PGP agonise for years on end about allegedly suspicious details of Amanda and Raff's words or actions, yet don't ever address the equivalent questions about the statements and actions of the investigators and prosecution.

Briars I don't think has ever offered any answers. Sherlock said we "would have to be blind" to believe all the verifiable accounts of police lies and misconduct - echoing my words that someone would have to be blind to ignore them.

In one blog I raised this point, and a PGP came back with "the police are not on trial". The subtext seemed to be that being on trial is the same as being guilty. Why have trials at all?

 

[Antony]

Police: "Then listen, practically they entered ... they broke a glass ... and how do you know that they entered?"
RS: "There are signs. There are also blood stains in the bathroom."
Police: "So they entered. .. because they are broken ... have they cut themselves breaking the glass?
RS: "Ehhh ... What are you doing?"
Police: "Hello?"
[hangs up the phone]

Of course the PGP have this backwards: if there was genuine evidence that Amanda and Raff were up to no good, then it would be worth asking the questions about why the 112 call ended in this way. In the absence of genuine evidence, it's no more than an illustration of the stress and confusion of the moment.

 

[Diocletus]

Does anyone know whether Giulia Bongiorno commitments as a Mother and Italian parliamentarian will have any impact on the duration of Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal?

I dunno. But I'm betting that the biggest delay in the upcoming trial will be for the production of previously-suppressed evidence, including but not limited to the lab records.

 

[Antony]

I dunno. But I'm betting that the biggest delay in the upcoming trial will be for the production of previously-suppressed evidence, including but not limited to the lab records.

Exactly. In itself, it shouldn't decide the outcome of the trial, but the result of this battle will be a statement as to whether the Florence judges will be on the side of justice or judicial face-saving. We will know what verdict to expect on the outcome of the disclosure hearings.

ETA. Oops! I read "biggest delay" as "biggest day". Read my reply in that context.

 

[Grinder]

Police: "Then listen, practically they entered ... they broke a glass ... and how do you know that they entered?"
RS: "There are signs. There are also blood stains in the bathroom."
Police: "So they entered. .. because they are broken ... have they cut themselves breaking the glass?
RS: "Ehhh ... What are you doing?"
Police: "Hello?"
[hangs up the phone]

"Hanging up the phone" is a bit misleading as it was mobile phone. Has it been determined exactly why he made that second call?

As for what she was doing "[calls] the Carabinieri (at the number 112), while Amanda Knox calls her family in America because evidently, in the pressure of the moment [nel precipitare degli eventi], she also sensed an increased need to inform her family about [partecipare alla sua famiglia] her concern."

Btw - in the latest expose on the call the translation is lot's of blood but years ago even the PGP Italians said that was a bad translation and it was spots of blood.

Here's something from Massei (the third part of this trilogy [Mignini and Ergon]) Amanda spoke of that smashed window and of the possibility that someone could have entered the house through the broken place; she said this also in the telephone call to 112 and in the first declarations to the Postal Police

Can't wait for Ergon to produce HER 112 call. Maybe Michael will release the bleach receipts. But, alas, who will release the interrogation recordings?

Now just for sport in would be great if one of the PGP here would explain how Amanda thought she was going to control the discovery and investigation? Some PGP are now saying that her not going to Gubbio is proof she killed Meredith. Since they knew they had left no evidence behind, why not take the 45 minute drive and hang out until called or texted? Why not use the known plan as cover to be out of town?

ETA - Still waiting on the bleach smell theory. Is it the theory that they bleached something besides the knife but not the knife? They say that because of the inventory he had to return it to the drawer. Accepting that would he know that he needed to be sure no blood or DNA remained. And we all know from his Facebook or MySpace page that he was very aware that bleach was the stuff to use. He therefore would have certainly washed the knife immediately and soaked it in the handy bleach from below his sink for some extended time. If as the astute PGP sleuths maintain bleach was used later it is incumbent on them to prove where it was used, in the spirit of showing where things (contamination) come from.

And for the millionth time, what does Amanda's DNA on a knife from the kitchen she was using prove? I guess that she, the lazy hippie, was doing some work in the kitchen.

 

[Bill Williams]

What gets me is that the PGP agonise for years on end about allegedly suspicious details of Amanda and Raff's words or actions, yet don't ever address the equivalent questions about the statements and actions of the investigators and prosecution.

Briars I don't think has ever offered any answers. Sherlock said we "would have to be blind" to believe all the verifiable accounts of police lies and misconduct - echoing my words that someone would have to be blind to ignore them.

In one blog I raised this point, and a PGP came back with "the police are not on trial". The subtext seemed to be that being on trial is the same as being guilty. Why have trials at all?

To be fair, most things which police say or write down are because of the "fog of war" when not all is known or there really is no larger context into which some item can be fit. I mean, when the postal police (Battistelli) first looks at Filomena's room and says, "This is no burglary", that is not misleading at all.... it actually wasn't a burglary. It's just that at the time the comment was made, no one knew the horror behind Meredith's door, save for Rudy. And Rudy was in the process of fleeing to Germany - classic guilt behaviour.

Where the police ARE put on trial is at the trial of the people they allege have committed the crime. The phrase "the police are not on trial" is laughable. When they declare "case closed", their trial becomes actually proving something, disclosing damning evidence to the defence and backing up their claims.

It's where guilters go off the rails. The reports back from the courtroom in 2009 consisted mainly of Andrea Vogt feeding to Peggy Ganong the unchallenged allegations of the prosecution - as if there did not need to be a challenge at all, or a trial, to the various prosecution claims.

So when the prosecution claims that the secretly recorded "confession from Knox, "I was there!", means that Knox is guilty, who really wants to put the prosecution on trial for that? Ignore the fact that what she meant was that she was at Raffaele's- why? Well, becuase it's not the police who are on trial here!

That's how it works in guilterdom.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #50

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=256373#

 

[Bill Williams]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5221951a6970915037.jpg[/qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=256373#[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_52219522b43c86f38d.jpg[/qimg]

....................................................... and?

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #51

Police: "Then listen, practically they entered ... they broke a glass ... and how do you know that they entered?"
RS: "There are signs. There are also blood stains in the bathroom."
Police: "So they entered. .. because they are broken ... have they cut themselves breaking the glass?
RS: "Ehhh ... What are you doing?"
Police: "Hello?"
[hangs up the phone]

PIP #1 It doesn't matter, there is no evidence of murder anyway
PIP #2 You can't hang up a mobile you can only end call
PIP #3 Once upon a time PGP exaggerated blood stains into lots of blood
PIP #4 RS hung up, surprised/shocked because AK had started calling her mother in the middle of RS conversation with police
PIP #5 You should be looking at the police's suspicious behaviour
PIP #6 How would not going to Gubbio but being at the cottage help control the discovery?

"Ehhh . . . What are you doing?"

 

[Briars]

"Hanging up the phone" is a bit misleading as it was mobile phone. Has it been determined exactly why he made that second call?

As for what she was doing "[calls] the Carabinieri (at the number 112), while Amanda Knox calls her family in America because evidently, in the pressure of the moment [nel precipitare degli eventi], she also sensed an increased need to inform her family about [partecipare alla sua famiglia] her concern."

Btw - in the latest expose on the call the translation is lot's of blood but years ago even the PGP Italians said that was a bad translation and it was spots of blood.

Here's something from Massei (the third part of this trilogy [Mignini and Ergon]) Amanda spoke of that smashed window and of the possibility that someone could have entered the house through the broken place; she said this also in the telephone call to 112 and in the first declarations to the Postal Police

Can't wait for Ergon to produce HER 112 call. Maybe Michael will release the bleach receipts. But, alas, who will release the interrogation recordings?

Now just for sport in would be great if one of the PGP here would explain how Amanda thought she was going to control the discovery and investigation? Some PGP are now saying that her not going to Gubbio is proof she killed Meredith. Since they knew they had left no evidence behind, why not take the 45 minute drive and hang out until called or texted? Why not use the known plan as cover to be out of town?

ETA - Still waiting on the bleach smell theory. Is it the theory that they bleached something besides the knife but not the knife? They say that because of the inventory he had to return it to the drawer. Accepting that would he know that he needed to be sure no blood or DNA remained. And we all know from his Facebook or MySpace page that he was very aware that bleach was the stuff to use. He therefore would have certainly washed the knife immediately and soaked it in the handy bleach from below his sink for some extended time. If as the astute PGP sleuths maintain bleach was used later it is incumbent on them to prove where it was used, in the spirit of showing where things (contamination) come from.

And for the millionth time, what does Amanda's DNA on a knife from the kitchen she was using prove? I guess that she, the lazy hippie, was doing some work in the kitchen.

The cop was trying to make sense of the story the broken window , no theft blood from what the glass? The question was put to Sollecito in the first call. No answer instead 'eh che fa' to Amanda then hangup. Sollecito calls back hello I just called. Cop straight away so there is a broken window then they went into the bathroom? RS more casually no I don't know ( If he went there first) there is a closed door. Why the need to speak to Amanda when he was expected to answer? what was she doing, maybe grabbing the phone, not happy with what Sollecito was saying. One intruder, not more than one, no theft, blood in bathroom, The cop was getting the idea the intruder had cut himself then went the bathroom . Sollecito has said there was only blood in the bathroom not near the closed door, amazing he had done a complete sweep of the cottage and knew it was void of any blood spots. Inquiring minds want to know why the certainty there was no theft, how did he know it was one intruder, why did he keep mentioning this closed door with the missing housemate but never called her phone at the cottage.

 

[Bill Williams]

The cop was trying to make sense of the story the broken window , no theft blood from what the glass? The question was put to Sollecito in the first call. No answer instead 'eh che fa' to Amanda then hangup. Sollecito calls back hello I just called. Cop straight away so there is a broken window then they went into the bathroom? RS more casually no I don't know ( If he went there first) there is a closed door. Why the need to speak to Amanda when he was expected to answer? what was she doing, maybe grabbing the phone, not happy with what Sollecito was saying. One intruder, not more than one, no theft, blood in bathroom, The cop was getting the idea the intruder had cut himself then went the bathroom . Sollecito has said there was only blood in the bathroom not near the closed door, amazing he had done a complete sweep of the cottage and knew it was void of any blood spots. Inquiring minds want to know why the certainty there was no theft, how did he know it was one intruder, why did he keep mentioning this closed door with the missing housemate but never called her phone at the cottage.

So far both you and cuki777 are describing a chaotic scene, one that everyone thought of as chaotic, and one that everyone thought defied rational explanation - until, of course, the horrible discovery.

It is hard to tell the point you're trying to make, really it is. Except that I do accept that you come to this already convinced of their guilt and as a result see all sorts of hidden agendas in what are otherwise snippets of chaotic conversation where it's not entirely clear who is talking to who at any one time.....

THIS is the smoking gun Ergon is on about?

 

[Briars]

So far both you and cuki777 are describing a chaotic scene, one that everyone thought of as chaotic, and one that everyone thought defied rational explanation - until, of course, the horrible discovery.

It is hard to tell the point you're trying to make, really it is. Except that I do accept that you come to this already convinced of their guilt and as a result see all sorts of hidden agendas in what are otherwise snippets of chaotic conversation where it's not entirely clear who is talking to who at any one time.....

THIS is the smoking gun Ergon is on about?

It is the sum of the events and evidence that convinces. The calls were not chaotic there was a slow casual account with too much information given, Communication between the accused then hangup. Hey what are you doing? click. Bias may prevent you from being curious , at least I'm honest about mine.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is the sum of the events and evidence that convinces. The calls were not chaotic there was a slow casual account with too much information given, Communication between the accused then hangup. Hey what are you doing? click. Bias may prevent you from being curious , at least I'm honest about mine.

True.

However, are you saying I'm not about mine? To be clear, my bias is that this is a typical, chaotic conversation.

Unless Knox was recorded as answering the question, "What are you doing?" with, "Please help me I can't get Meredith's door closed with my lamp in the way...." my bias remains the correct one.

You are "reading in" to this situation your confirmation bias. I am looking at it as part of the whole and it doesn't really point anywhere, really, except to a chaotic scene.... a scene which made no sense to anyone, let alone Raffaele and Amanda, until the horrible discovery.

If someone was as equally confirmation biased against Filomena, for instance, you could make a dandy case against her, too. She was in town, a keyholder, her boyfriend her only alibi. Did Curatolo (in his heroin induced haze) see Filomana hanging around the courtyard? I mean, it was a year later....

Was the boyfriend's Y-Haplotype on the bra-clasp? It wasn't just Raffaele's.... but, ooops, even Patrizia Stefanoni admits at the Massei trial that she cannot rule out that it was she herself who contaminated the bra-hook.

Why did Filomena swipe her own laptop out of the crime scene? It was Filomena who also said, "This is a stupid burglar if this was a burglary." Was Filomena wilfully trying to control the interpretation of the scene?

The problem I have with your approach, Briars, is that if aimed toward Filomena it may have been her wrongfully prosecuted. Weird behaviour? She lawyered up immediately. Care for Meredith? Her lawyering up was because she immediately knew she'd be out of an apartment for perhaps months - and she was worried she'd be on the hook for the damage in her room.

Heck, her boyfriend even had his hand on her buttocks outside the crime scene. What's with all that tom-"feelery" when she should be mourning?

Was Filomena's primary concern the horrible death? Or was Filomena a fatalistic type who (when in shock) immediately defaulted to the practical?

That's the issue Briars. Your approach can build a case against anyone. Even the postal police. Battistelli refused to kick down Meredith's door. Was that because he was trying to manipulate what only he knew was about to be a murder investigation?

Both Filomena and Battistelli had as much DNA in the murder room as Amanda Knox.

 

[Briars]

True.

However, are you saying I'm not about mine? To be clear, my bias is that this is a typical, chaotic conversation.

Unless Knox was recorded as answering the question, "What are you doing?" with, "Please help me I can't get Meredith's door closed with my lamp in the way...." my bias remains the correct one.

You are "reading in" to this situation your confirmation bias. I am looking at it as part of the whole and it doesn't really point anywhere, really, except to a chaotic scene.... a scene which made no sense to anyone, let alone Raffaele and Amanda, until the horrible discovery.

If someone was as equally confirmation biased against Filomena, for instance, you could make a dandy case against her, too. She was in town, a keyholder, her boyfriend her only alibi. Did Curatolo (in his heroin induced haze) see Filomana hanging around the courtyard? I mean, it was a year later....

Was the boyfriend's Y-Haplotype on the bra-clasp? It wasn't just Raffaele's.... but, ooops, even Patrizia Stefanoni admits at the Massei trial that she cannot rule out that it was she herself who contaminated the bra-hook.

Why did Filomena swipe her own laptop out of the crime scene? It was Filomena who also said, "This is a stupid burglar if this was a burglary." Was Filomena wilfully trying to control the interpretation of the scene?

The problem I have with your approach, Briars, is that if aimed toward Filomena it may have been her wrongfully prosecuted. Weird behaviour? She lawyered up immediately. Care for Meredith? Her lawyering up was because she immediately knew she'd be out of an apartment for perhaps months - and she was worried she'd be on the hook for the damage in her room.

Heck, her boyfriend even had his hand on her buttocks outside the crime scene. What's with all that tom-"feelery" when she should be mourning?

Was Filomena's primary concern the horrible death? Or was Filomena a fatalistic type who (when in shock) immediately defaulted to the practical?

That's the issue Briars. Your approach can build a case against anyone. Even the postal police. Battistelli refused to kick down Meredith's door. Was that because he was trying to manipulate what only he knew was about to be a murder investigation?

Both Filomena and Battistelli had as much DNA in the murder room as Amanda Knox.

Stick to just one point, the call is made by Sollecito he is calm listen to his tone there is no chaos. What would have caused him to not answer and need to ask Amanda what she is doing just prior to his hangup? Is a 911 call at the scene of a murder of interest to cops, I would say 100% of the time. Therefore the call, the contents , his tone and Amanda's verbal sounds and possible interference are of interest. No investigation in any murder would brush of a piece of evidence like that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Stick to just one point, the call is made by Sollecito he is calm listen to his tone there is no chaos. What would have caused him to not answer and need to ask Amanda what she is doing just prior to his hangup? Is a 911 call at the scene of a murder of interest to cops, I would say 100% of the time. Therefore the call, the contents , his tone and Amanda's verbal sounds and possible interference are of interest. No investigation in any murder would brush of a piece of evidence like that.

I am sticking to the point. The point is that you are assigning an interpretation based on a confirmation bias, not for what it is in and of itself.

If someone was similarly confirmation biased about Filomena Romanelli, they could similarly read in all sorts of conspiratorial things on her actions or words. Note how she sucks up to the Postal Police by agreeing with them about, "this is no burglary." Note then how she purposely and as part of a developing plan, casts suspicion on Amanda Knox by arguing with her over Meredith's door locking habits.

Don't you find it suspicious that Filomena would suck up to the cops about her room's condition, when Filomena knew damn well that the break-in was staged? Don't you find it suspicious that Filomena picked a fight with Amanda over Meredith's door locking habits, when it is clear that Amanda and Meredith were friends, and Filomena barely spoke English?

Look at how John Follain writes that Filomena was allowed to "rummage around her room" previous to the horrible discovery. Was this the final touches to the staging?

No investigation in any murder would brush off a piece of evidence like that.

Don't you find it suspicious that Filomena alone, over and against the advice of the Postal Police, ordered one of her friends to break-in Meredith's door? And this is AFTER Filomena had lawyered up! Isn't asking for a lawyer a sure sign of a guilty conscience? It almost guarantees that she wouldn't have to face an interrogation without one!!!

Was Filomena interrogated and slapped on the back of the head about swiping her laptop from behind police tape? No - she had a lawyer.

And Filomena and Amanda (as well as Sophie) told the same lie about their marijuana use. How did Filomena put it: "I have sinned."

The point is that by using the same pre-conceived suspicions about someone, you can prove that just about anyone did this horrible crime.

Me: I think it's Battistelli. Look at the way he controlled the initial investigation - and lied about not going in to check under the blanket. At issue was tracking in forensics that were perhaps only out in the hall.... like Y-Haplotypes, but give Battistelli a break.... he had to check to see if Meredith was still alive or not.

So did Battistelli corrupt the crimescene forensically or didn't he? Personally, I think he's guilty. I saw it in his eyes when I saw a picture.

 

[Dan O.]

First of all, does anyone still believe that Raffaele's calls to the police happened after the postal police arrived?

What is the issue with Raffaele saying nothing was taken? Raffaele could look for himself and see that obvious items that would have been taken by a thief were still there. Amanda testified that she looked into various rooms and saw cameras, laptops etc. indicating that nothing was stollen. Amanda and Raffaele were communication whith each other and would have shared their findings.

is the issue that Raffaele volunteered the statement that nothing was stollen without being asked? It is possible that Raffaele was asked by the police if anything was stollen when he described the breakin the first time. Raffaele's first conversation with the police was not recorded so we don't know everything that was said in that call.

The conclusion that the burgler had cut himself entering through the broken window is natural given the information that was available at the time. Why does anyone find that strange? Is it because they cannot conceive of that possibility given that they know their had been a murder and the blood was Meredith's?

What about the blood in front of Meredith's room? Do you not know that this is in front of the door to the bathroom where blood has already been found? Did anyone else that was in that cottage before Meredith's door was kicked open notice the blood in the hall?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So far both you and cuki777 are describing a chaotic scene, one that everyone thought of as chaotic, and one that everyone thought defied rational explanation - until, of course, the horrible discovery.

It is hard to tell the point you're trying to make, really it is. Except that I do accept that you come to this already convinced of their guilt and as a result see all sorts of hidden agendas in what are otherwise snippets of chaotic conversation where it's not entirely clear who is talking to who at any one time.....

THIS is the smoking gun Ergon is on about?

Ok, I've searched here, PMF, and True justice and can not find anything, who is this 'Ergon' and where can I read about whatever it is he has said?

 

[Antony]

Stick to just one point, the call is made by Sollecito he is calm listen to his tone there is no chaos. What would have caused him to not answer and need to ask Amanda what she is doing just prior to his hangup? Is a 911 call at the scene of a murder of interest to cops, I would say 100% of the time. Therefore the call, the contents , his tone and Amanda's verbal sounds and possible interference are of interest. No investigation in any murder would brush of a piece of evidence like that.

At a stretch, possibly. But it can't be used as the basis of a murder case in the absence of genuine evidence. It's because you have no genuine evidence, and no coherent narrative of the crime implicating the students, that you have to focus on innuendo like this.

 

[Briars]

First of all, does anyone still believe that Raffaele's calls to the police happened after the postal police arrived?

What is the issue with Raffaele saying nothing was taken? Raffaele could look for himself and see that obvious items that would have been taken by a thief were still there. Amanda testified that she looked into various rooms and saw cameras, laptops etc. indicating that nothing was stollen. Amanda and Raffaele were communication whith each other and would have shared their findings.

is the issue that Raffaele volunteered the statement that nothing was stollen without being asked? It is possible that Raffaele was asked by the police if anything was stollen when he described the breakin the first time. Raffaele's first conversation with the police was not recorded so we don't know everything that was said in that call.

The conclusion that the burgler had cut himself entering through the broken window is natural given the information that was available at the time. Why does anyone find that strange? Is it because they cannot conceive of that possibility given that they know their had been a murder and the blood was Meredith's?

What about the blood in front of Meredith's room? Do you not know that this is in front of the door to the bathroom where blood has already been found? Did anyone else that was in that cottage before Meredith's door was kicked open notice the blood in the hall?

The cop assumes the blood is from a cut , Sollecito tells the story in sequence there is a broken window , a mess, blood in the bathroom and a locked door, Naturally the cop assumes the blood is from a glass injury. When the second call resumes cop says so they broke the window then went into the bathroom, Sollecito no no I don't know.Why have a problem right there when the assumption was the blood was from the perp's cut? You would think Sollecito would have absolutely no reason to interject right there regarding the timing of the blood deposit.