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

[Bill Williams]

If you have been reading this board awhile, you will have seen Machiavelli refer many times to the lies that Amanda and Raffaele told. These lies are some of the evidence which Machiavelli relies on to be certain that they are guilty.

Well, Amanda told the policewoman the poop had been flushed. That turns out to have been wrong. It is seen as a lie Amanda made in an effort to control the investigation. The policewoman did not fall for it. The police found the poop and collected it - or at least a sample from the associated toilet paper.

Some Italians are very devoted to divining hidden meanings in the actions of others. They take it very seriously, and I have noticed that once they convince themselves that they discern a hidden meaning they don't want to change their view and recognize they were wrong. Italian has a word for it: "dietrology", which is roughly translated as "behind-ology". They look for meanings behind things. On this board our valued friend and contributor, Machiavelli, sees meanings and significance where the rest of us do not.

When Raffaele called police to report that someone had broken in through a window, the police operator asked him if anything was stolen. Raffaelle, who had looked in Filomena's room and had seen the broken window and rock on the floor, apparently also saw valuables in the room - a TV and laptop computer visible. He also had seen a camera on the kitchen counter or table. These valuables, the sort of things a burglar might take, were still there. So Raffaele replied to the police operator's question whether anything was stolen that "No, nothing was stolen". Turns out that was incorrect (a lie), as cash, cell phones, keys, and credit cards were taken from another (still locked) room, Meredith's room.
The police and prosecutor and Machievelli cite this as a lie by Raffaele. How could he know if anything was stolen, they say. Proof that he attempted to steer or control the investigation.
I guess they teach that in Dietrology 101, but to free up the Police Academy budget for it they had to give up something else - Lab Science 101.

Machiavelli needs to be careful. He's called people criminals on this very discussion forum. He has exposed himself, for some unknown reason, to defamation claims within Italy. I suspect from now on he will be more careful, but if his comments are traceable, and traced by folk like Hellmann and/or Vecchiotti, that would be a different matter.

 

[Strozzi]

Both John Follain in his book as well as Sollecito in his report that Napoleoni thought that Raffaele was too insistent that she notice the pooh. For some reason that made Napoleoni suspect that the two, AK and RS, were trying too hard to direct police, and possibly misdirect them.

Because Amanda thought it had been flushed, she was very concerned that someone had been in the house that morning when she was there to shower, change, and dry her hair in her Italian housemates' bathroom (the shared a hair dryer there) and that the person was still there in the house after Amanda left to go to Raffaele's. And, having discovered the break in on her second visit home, she thought the person who had been in the house was a burglar (rather than other house occupant). She took it as something very important to point out to the police and wanted them to see where the person had been and had flushed down what she had earlier seen. Raffaele was following her level of concern.

 

[Poppy1016]

Come on Tesla, if laptops were missing for an example, Amanda could easily have noted it. If innocent it was one of the most unfortunate comments made by either one of them not under pressure.

It is totally fair to ask how he knew nothing was missing. In fact, there was that missing make-up (maybe that's where she kept her drugs).

He wasn't asked what Meredith was missing anyway. His proper answer and the one almost anyone would say would be "I don't know" or maybe "it doesn't seem so" or "nothing for sure".

Not even Amanda could have known in a couple of minutes that nothing was stolen from Filomena's or her own room. She didn't even check for her cash.

I agree with your post Grinder. Why on earth would he say nothing was missing? He didn't even live there. How would he know? Both AK and RS made many strange comments, which brought suspicion on them. I chalk this up to them being young and naiive. But I can see why police may have been suspicious.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Why on earth would he say nothing was missing? He didn't even live there.

I presume because Amanda had told him nothing was missing - which she could very easily have said in a spirit of meaning "nothing of immediately observable consequence" - and it was Raffaele who found himself conveying the information because of the language barrier.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with your post Grinder. Why on earth would he say nothing was missing? He didn't even live there. How would he know? Both AK and RS made many strange comments, which brought suspicion on them. I chalk this up to them being young and naiive. But I can see why police may have been suspicious.

I presume because Amanda had told him nothing was missing - which she could very easily have said in a spirit of meaning "nothing of immediately observable consequence" - and it was Raffaele who found himself conveying the information because of the language barrier.

Precisely Sergei,

None of us know exactly what was said between those two. That people read something nefarious about this is totally absurd. I have been around smart people who repeat themselves and forget that they told us something twice or three times.

Imagine them running around checking to see if anything is missing. Amanda's thinking that nothing seems to be missing and yet she doesn't realize that she is verbalizing her thoughts.

I know I've done that. Sometimes I've said something inappropriate only to have them look at me and I embarrassing said.."I said that out loud?" How often do we do this without even know that we did it?

 

[JREF2010]

I agree with your post Grinder. Why on earth would he say nothing was missing? He didn't even live there. How would he know? Both AK and RS made many strange comments, which brought suspicion on them. I chalk this up to them being young and naiive. But I can see why police may have been suspicious.

As said so many times before, the laptops were not stolen was the reason. The laptops were the most valuable item in the cottage and Amanda's laptop was not bothered so they felt nothing was stolen. That's my understanding.

In Amandas book she says the shock came from Filomenas room, but her laptop and digital camera were still there. It made no sense, the window smashed and the valuable items still there.

In Raffaeles book he says he opened Filomenas door and the same response, the Laptop was upright in her room and the camera was there, in the kitchen, but the room a mess.


So I would assume seeing the most valuable possessions not stolen , a person could assume "nothing has been taken".

just a guess...

 

[JREF2010]

Or what about another accomplice that cleaned his evidence after Rudi ran in a panic. A guy that had dressed for success and had made sure he left little behind but wiped down where he needed.

I'm sure the prosecution can reject that idea because there is no evidence of a clean-up.

The entire area of the hallway and bathroom could have been washed down in minutes including the sink and the bathmat.

Of course, Amanda didn't notice the mat until the police showed up. I mean she could have just thrown it in the shower of the other bathroom, but she couldn't see it even though it is totally impossible to believe that she would have stepped on it because it was so visible whew...that wears one out.

I agree it was all so faint on the floor. Who notices their bathmats in detail on a normal days activities? I don't.

The behavior to lead the police in and show them tiny blood drops on the cotton swabs and bathmat isn't what a typical person would do who was trying to clean up a murder scene and frame Rudy, as the PGP state.
For one, if it was a frame of Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda would not have been walking in the cottage knowing they could be picking up blood on their shoes.
This to me shows they had no clue there was bloody shoeprints in the hallway, and or bathroom.

The police crew had tromped through the house Nov 2, with Filomena and others that morning, walking on Rudys bloody footprints, and no one saw any of it. It was probably very very faint to see, including the bathmat. Its actually a wonder they didn't get Merediths blood on the soles of their shoes from Nov 2.

It just seems like witch hunting type evidence, eye brow detective work without any solid proof.

the bathmat- Amandas book states it as a reddish-brown splotch, the size of an orange and only seen when she got out of the shower.

 

[bri1]

I've just managed to catch up on all the developments in Florence, particularly Crini's prosecution 'case'. Does anyone know what role Crini played in the Monster of Florence case?
It stuns me (in a way) that they keep finding people willing to be involved in this.
The osmotic thing bugs the hell out of me.
IF each element of this case were credible, then I think that taken as a whole it would possibly build a sufficiently strong circumstantial case for conviction. IF Toto were credible and the alibis were actually compromised, IF the DNA on the bra clasp were proved (e.g. there weren't other contributors, there was no 47 day gap, it was collected properly etc), IF the DNA on the blade of the knife wasn't LCN (etc), IF there was evidence that the break-in was staged. But Italian rules (article 191 / 2 I believe) clearly state the standards that evidence has to meet to be considered in relation to other evidence, and the 'evidence' in this case clearly does not. That Crini felt he could argue otherwise is really just unbelievable....
Girgha's comments afterwards left me somewhat afraid for the defence's case. I really think that the gloves need to come right off, right now. Don't give any sort of praise to the prosecution's case. It should be completely ridiculed as the farce it was. I hope that the appeal to ECHR signals that the defence is going down this route...

 

[acbytesla]

I've just managed to catch up on all the developments in Florence, particularly Crini's prosecution 'case'. Does anyone know what role Crini played in the Monster of Florence case?
It stuns me (in a way) that they keep finding people willing to be involved in this.

Boy do I understand this emotion. But in Crini's defense....(I can't believe I'm defending this guy). But most likely, he was assigned to the job. Like it or not, the PM in this case had to come from his office and he probably drew the short straw.

The osmotic thing bugs the hell out of me.
IF each element of this case were credible, then I think that taken as a whole it would possibly build a sufficiently strong circumstantial case for conviction. IF Toto were credible and the alibis were actually compromised, IF the DNA on the bra clasp were proved (e.g. there weren't other contributors, there was no 47 day gap, it was collected properly etc), IF the DNA on the blade of the knife wasn't LCN (etc), IF there was evidence that the break-in was staged. But Italian rules (article 191 / 2 I believe) clearly state the standards that evidence has to meet to be considered in relation to other evidence, and the 'evidence' in this case clearly does not. That Crini felt he could argue otherwise is really just unbelievable....
Girgha's comments afterwards left me somewhat afraid for the defence's case. I really think that the gloves need to come right off, right now. Don't give any sort of praise to the prosecution's case. It should be completely ridiculed as the farce it was. I hope that the appeal to ECHR signals that the defence is going down this route...

I agree with you totally bri1. This prosecution should be mocked and in the US, I think that kind of sarcasm could work.

I really wish I was the defense attorney arguing this case. Even though, culturally I'm out of my element, and I didn't pass the Bar..in fact I didn't even take the exam, and I even though I've never practiced law, it would be fun to rip into this persecution of Amanda and Raffaele. I know I could...well, because I beat a traffic ticket once.

 

[Supernaut]

Boy do I understand this emotion. But in Crini's defense....(I can't believe I'm defending this guy). But most likely, he was assigned to the job. Like it or not, the PM in this case had to come from his office and he probably drew the short straw.


I agree with you totally bri1. This prosecution should be mocked and in the US, I think that kind of sarcasm could work.
I really wish I was the defense attorney arguing this case. Even though, culturally I'm out of my element, and I didn't pass the Bar..in fact I didn't even take the exam, and I even though I've never practiced law, it would be fun to rip into this persecution of Amanda and Raffaele. I know I could...well, because I beat a traffic ticket once.

Ah - but you've forgotten about la Faccia.

Humiliating or embarrassing someone is the single greatest slight you can inflict on someone in Italy. Thin-skinned doesn't come close to describing it.

Sure, in UK and (particularly) US courts, the defence counsel would rip into this with real sarcasm, but it's not going to happen in this trial.

Whatever, in the afore-mentioned countries there would be so many objections from the defence that Crini's "summation" would take a month to get through, but most judges would lose patience long before that - it simply wouldn't be allowed.

 

[acbytesla]

Ah - but you've forgotten about la Faccia.

Humiliating or embarrassing someone is the single greatest slight you can inflict on someone in Italy. Thin-skinned doesn't come close to describing it.

Sure, in UK and (particularly) US courts, the defence counsel would rip into this with real sarcasm, but it's not going to happen in this trial.

Whatever, in the afore-mentioned countries there would be so many objections from the defence that Crini's "summation" would take a month to get through, but most judges would lose patience long before that - it simply wouldn't be allowed.

No, I really didn't. I said in the US that kind of sarcasm would work.

One of the great things about Americans is that we are thick skinned and we expect other to suck it up and take it as well. We are blunt and direct and don't have much patience for others feelings. At least not in the court room or the board room. The American creed almost is "Can't take the heat, get out of the fire". I think it goes with our democratic ideals. "No hard feelings bub, but your clueless on this one. Suck it up and move on." And we do.

That isn't to say people don't get their feelings hurt. But ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts were allowed to expire in 1800, we've let it be known that what is important, is not the temporary feelings of one man, but that debate, even heated debate is better than silencing one's political enemy.

I understand that the American way might not fly in Italy, but perhaps it should.

 

[Diocletus]

I can't believe we are having this conversation.

Do not diminish the importance of the poo. The poo is the motive for murder and thus worthy of our careful consideration.

 

[acbytesla]

Do not diminish the importance of the poo. The poo is the motive for murder and thus worthy of our careful consideration.

Sorry, I didn't realize they took feces so seriously?

 

[Diocletus]

Sorry, I didn't realize they took feces so seriously?

Only in Florence. In Perugia, not so much.

 

[acbytesla]

Only in Florence. In Perugia, not so much.

Well, I'll remember to flush the next time I visit Florence.

 

[yimyammer]

I presume because Amanda had told him nothing was missing - which she could very easily have said in a spirit of meaning "nothing of immediately observable consequence" - and it was Raffaele who found himself conveying the information because of the language barrier.

This is something that I think has been grossly ignored as a crucial aspect of this case that has hurt these two folks incredibly. It's hard to communicate detailed information when everyone speaks the same language and is from the same country and culture. Remove these and pinpoint accurate communication becomes virtually impossible, imo.

In a case that seems to have been kicked off by likely misinterpretations over what Amanda said & how she acted, it just makes it that much more tragic to see this thing drag out seemingly forever with what seems to be an unlikely resolution in her favor.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, no police operator would expect a caller to know for sure whether or not something was missing until a complete item inspection and inventory was done. All the operator can reasonably expect the caller to know and note at that point is if the caller notices something specific is missing. Until an inventory is done, the operator should take a "no" as meaning "I don't at this moment know of anything taken, subject to subsequent inspection and inventory by all occupants".

If you came home to a break-in, called it in and they asked if anything were missing would you or almost anybody answer "nothing is missing" or would you say something like "I don't know" or "nothing for sure"?

It was an unfortunate response. It is reasonable to look at that response with some meaning to the situation regarding knowing that nothing was missing.

{quote]I do believe when Raffaele called the police he referred to the house as his American girlfriend's place, which signals two things - 1) the reason he is making the call, rather than she (poor Italian skills), and 2). it's not my place, so I certainly don't know the contents at the property.[/quote]

He could/should have said "I don't know, as I said I'm calling for the rsident because she doesn't speak Italian". Police ask as a standard procedure as they may she the perps carrying the loot. If the 911 operator said have you identified anything missing and he said "no" then that would be another story.

I find nothing suspicious or wrong or cavalier in Raffaelle's answer. Valuable items that a burglar might normally steal - TV, laptop, camera - were visible to him and not stolen. Had a TV that he had previously used in the living room been taken, with severed antenna wire dangling across the floor, he would have noted and reported that.

Nothing cavalier? Don't know where that idea comes from. It was an unfortunate response.

 

[acbytesla]

This is something that I think has been grossly ignored as a crucial aspect of this case that has hurt these two folks incredibly. It's hard to communicate detailed information when everyone speaks the same language and is from the same country and culture. Remove these and pinpoint accurate communication becomes virtually impossible, imo.

In a case that seems to have been kicked off by likely misinterpretations over what Amanda said & how she acted, it just makes it that much more tragic to see this thing drag out seemingly forever with what seems to be an unlikely resolution in her favor.

In fact, I'm thoroughly convinced if Amanda had been very fluent in Italian at the time of the murder, there is no way she is more than preliminary and perfunctory suspect as all of the people that lived in that cottage should have been.

The way idioms, slang and colloquialisms permeate languages, how does a foreigner who barely speaks the language or worse, that person who speaks enough to be dangerous stand a chance? The prosecution's case is all about perception and not evidence.

 

[Grinder]

I presume because Amanda had told him nothing was missing - which she could very easily have said in a spirit of meaning "nothing of immediately observable consequence" - and it was Raffaele who found himself conveying the information because of the language barrier.

Is that what they wrote in their books? Regardless of how PIP want to spin it, it was an unfortunate statement and it reasonably caused suspicion.

The answer under your scenario would be n"nothing that we know of" or something like that. I can't imagine that many people in Raf's situation would say "nothing is missing".

 

[Grinder]

As said so many times before, the laptops were not stolen was the reason. The laptops were the most valuable item in the cottage and Amanda's laptop was not bothered so they felt nothing was stolen. That's my understanding.

In Amandas book she says the shock came from Filomenas room, but her laptop and digital camera were still there. It made no sense, the window smashed and the valuable items still there.

In Raffaeles book he says he opened Filomenas door and the same response, the Laptop was upright in her room and the camera was there, in the kitchen, but the room a mess.


So I would assume seeing the most valuable possessions not stolen , a person could assume "nothing has been taken".

just a guess...

What about Amanda's money? She didn't even check that.

No matter how many times it is repeated and rationalized it was reasonable for the ILE to look at that response as suspicious.