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

[acbytesla]

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.

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.



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

You're not wrong Grinder, in fact you are right.

That is what he should have said. Never the less, I'm sure he wasn't thinking at that moment that the world is parsing his every word and phrase. Look how Vogt twisted Amanda's little message that "she was there". And these two are both native English speakers. Throw in two very different languages, where not only are the words different, but the structure and syntax of the languages are vastly different.

Raffaele either jumped to a conclusion based on what he saw, or Amanda said something that interpreted as nothings missing, when in fact Amanda may have said something like she had to check if something's missing. Given the language differences, don't you think something like this could have occurred?

Don't you think the language differences makes this kind of thing to be an almost certainty?

 

[Dan O.]

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

What actual effect did that statement have? What intent could it have served? The other side is making a big deal out of these little nothing's because they don't have anything else to hang their case on.

I've speculated before that the question of anything missing would have come up in the first call he made to his sister. In the second call to 112, he just jumped ahead of the script a bit. If he hadn't volunteered this information, the dispatcher would have asked if anything was missing and we would have reached exactly the same point.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

For me, John Follain's account of the pooh is part and parcel of the theme Follain is trying to maintain, that Monica Napoleoni was right in suspecting that Amanda wasn't telling her everything. This thing about, "Amanda knows something that she isn't telling us," is a meme to this day among a select group of guilters.

So, From "A Death in Italy," pp. 76-77... "With Raffaee occasionally acting as an intepretor.... Amanda's story (of what she had done in the cottage before the arrival of the postal police) didn't make much sense to Napoleoni."

As she quizzed Amanda, Napoleoni couldn't help thinking that she was hiding something from her - but she had no idea what.

Napoleoni had just checked out Amanda's story about thinking the door was open because the trash was being taken out, but had found the bins. But here's the pooh stuff...

Later, after sheltering from the cold with Amanda in Luca's car, Raffaele got out to speak to Napoleoni. 'My girlfriend has just remembered that when she went into the big bathroom on her own this morning there was excrement. When she went back to the flat it wasn't there anymore,' Raffaele said. The toilet had been flushed in their absence, he added.

Napoleoni went back into the cottage and to the big bathroom that Filomena and Laura shared, and saw that contrary to what Raffaele had told her, the excrement was still there. She was puzzled and guessed that for some reason or another, Amanda and Raffaele wanted to make sure that she would notice it.

So to merge Crini's latest motive to this case against John Follain's agenda os sowing the seeds of doubt against Amanda, that Amanda was hiding something and is perhaps to this day hiding those things.... except the one thing that Amanda and Raffaele are drawing attention to is Crini's own stresser as the cause of this crime!

This is the way that Raffaele describes the same incident in Honor Bound:

Amanda was still troubled about the toilet that was unflushed one minute and flushed the next, so I mentioned it. Paola and Luca said it could be important and we needed to tell the police right away. So I got out of the car and discussed it with Monica Napoleoni. It was another ill-fated move because Amanda was mistaken - for what reason I do not know. The excrement in the toilet was still there, as the forensics team soon discovered. Maybe it had sunk a little in the bowl as the paper absorbed the water and grew heavier. Or maybe Amanda was just disturbed by the scene and hadn't been thinking clearly when she made that observation - who knows.

Still what we have here, if Crini is to be believed, is that after managing a world class forensic clean-up leaving no trace that a clean-up had ever taken place, except for the lack of forensics which support guilt, here we have Raffaele "giving away the game" as to the cause of the murder, as per Crini.

Despite Follain's agenda of sowing the seeds of doubt in his book that the police were right to, early on, suspect Raffaele and Amanda... what really does the pooh incident have to do with anything re: "multiple attackers"?

For my money it is well after the fact, at the time of writing of Follain's book, and not at the time of the real-time discovery of the pooh, that this myth that the pointing out of the pooh, "Amanda was hiding something from us, but we just don't know what....?" developed.

To me, it just demonstrates how Napoleoni, on her first case as lead detective, botched this horribly by assigning meaning to the most bizarre of things.

And here we are, six years later after the horrible murder - except that just like the ISC resurrected "sex game gone wrong" last March, now Crini has resurrected the pooh; ignoring, it seems, the directive of the ISC to look into the sex-game as motive.

When do they throw in the towel on this mockery?

 

[JREF2010]

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.

I guess we can all read into it what we want. If Filomena or Laura had said it probably no interest would be posted about it.

 

[JREF2010]

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".

In hindsight, they'd been better off getting lawyers and never lifting a finger to help the polizia. Sure, we all agree with that.... its easier to play football from the couche.

 

[Grinder]

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.

The defense needs to do reverse osmosis. They need to have the jury look at all the evidence that the kids have assembled in their defense and not look at any individually but as a whole.

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....

If the evidence were credible or even more credible they would have a case. But it's not. The witnesses are so weak and pathetic I really don't know why they even used them. Mach says they must use every witness which I don't believe but if true just another questionable aspect of their system. I don't believe they let Christian Tremontano testify.

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...

Yes about the gloves off. What exactly did Girgha say?

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 think the PIP underestimate how many think they are guilty.

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.

As disappointed in the defense I had been, I think your approach would be a total disaster. You want everybody to start with them being in fact totally innocent and therefore any evidence is ridiculous because they are totally innocent.

The knife is a perfect example. Saying that it is impossible that they would use the knife to kill and return it to the house wouldn't convince them one iota.

The defense needs to tear down the "accuastion" interrogation and then move through the time line tearing a hole in key evidence. The footprints need to shown as not matching and in an unproven substance.

The TOD needs to be honed in on.

The witnesses starting with Curatolo need to be mocked, one and all. They need to show that the ear witnesses really give no information relevant. They need to point out that Meredith had no history of fooling with her phone.

They need to point out the improbability of the kids hanging out in the plaza until almost midnight while Meredith sat or laid around for almost three hours without going online or texting, which would be a Guinness record in this day and age.

They to demand a timeline that works with her digestion, phone activity and other known events (computer activity, tow truck, etc.) and if they won't drop Cura, with his 9:30 to near midnight. They need to point out how the prosecution changed timelines and type of knife as they produced questionable evidence and witnesses.

What they don't need to push is motive, character or an impossible knife.

ETA - I beat a ticket that was generated by a police sting. Got a $100,000 refund for my mother by writing a one-page letter.

 

[acbytesla]

In hindsight, they'd been better off getting lawyers and never lifting a finger to help the polizia. Sure, we all agree with that.... its easier to play football from the couche.

These two didn't think for a minute that they were actually suspects!!! It's real easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback everything the did and/or say.

I can see why Amanda was trusting and naive, but it seems more surprising that Raffaeale was clueless given that his sister was a cop.

But, never the less, should-a, would-a, could-a. What they didn't do was commit the murder and all this minutiae that means nothing drives me crazy.

 

[Grinder]

What actual effect did that statement have? What intent could it have served? The other side is making a big deal out of these little nothing's because they don't have anything else to hang their case on.

It wasn't a statement of service it was something blurted out if to held against. Try to pull this anyway from this case with all the opinion about the totality of it.

It was an unfortunate statement guilty or innocent. Clearly the only way he could be certain nothing was taken is if he had staged it. Of course, anybody investigating this would look at that statement with suspicion. If the other pieces were credible and significant, his statement would clearly be another brick.

I've speculated before that the question of anything missing would have come up in the first call he made to his sister. In the second call to 112, he just jumped ahead of the script a bit. If he hadn't volunteered this information, the dispatcher would have asked if anything was missing and we would have reached exactly the same point.

At what point did the investigators know about the call to his sister?

I guess we can all read into it what we want. If Filomena or Laura had said it probably no interest would be posted about it.

If Filomena had been the person whose room was broken into and called the police after looking for her stuff it would be a bit of a different story. She would known what to look for and could have reported nothing is missing. I still think the vast majority of people would put a qualifier in the response.

In hindsight, they'd been better off getting lawyers and never lifting a finger to help the polizia. Sure, we all agree with that.... its easier to play football from the couche.

It isn't Monday morning quarterbacking to say that the formulation of that statement was unfortunate. If justice is a scale the statement certainly doesn't go on the innocent side.

 

[Grinder]

These two didn't think for a minute that they were actually suspects!!! It's real easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback everything the did and/or say.

Boy that would be a great argument in court. Hey they wouldn't have made those mistakes statements had they ever thought they would be suspects.

It is so obvious that the natural response wouldn't be a definitive "nothing is missing" and making that was unfortunate, spin it all you want.

I can see why Amanda was trusting and naive, but it seems more surprising that Raffaeale was clueless given that his sister was a cop.

But, never the less, should-a, would-a, could-a. What they didn't do was commit the murder and all this minutiae that means nothing drives me crazy.

There you go, great defense. The statement is/was suspicious. Is that statement enough to convict?

There is no " should-a, would-a, could-a" it is what he said.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the PIP underestimate how many think they are guilty.

No, I think you are wrong on this. I think a lot of Italians think they are guilty. However, I'm not sure that a lawyer who became totally familiar with the case would necessarily come to the same conclusion as the general population who don't know the facts of the case.

As disappointed in the defense I had been, I think your approach would be a total disaster. You want everybody to start with them being in fact totally innocent and therefore any evidence is ridiculous because they are totally innocent.

The knife is a perfect example. Saying that it is impossible that they would use the knife to kill and return it to the house wouldn't convince them one iota.

The defense needs to tear down the "accuastion" interrogation and then move through the time line tearing a hole in key evidence. The footprints need to shown as not matching and in an unproven substance.

The TOD needs to be honed in on.

The witnesses starting with Curatolo need to be mocked, one and all. They need to show that the ear witnesses really give no information relevant. They need to point out that Meredith had no history of fooling with her phone.

They need to point out the improbability of the kids hanging out in the plaza until almost midnight while Meredith sat or laid around for almost three hours without going online or texting, which would be a Guinness record in this day and age.

They to demand a timeline that works with her digestion, phone activity and other known events (computer activity, tow truck, etc.) and if they won't drop Cura, with his 9:30 to near midnight. They need to point out how the prosecution changed timelines and type of knife as they produced questionable evidence and witnesses.

What they don't need to push is motive, character or an impossible knife.

Wow!!!!! Want to step outside? LOL. First off, couldn't you tell I was joking? Second, I don't think I could persuade you of anything. We don't exactly hit it off....or haven't you noticed?

But lets go back and address your points....one by one.

First, I wouldn't address the character of these two until the very end.

Second, the knife. We would start with the fact that Stefanoni supposedly found an incredibly small amount of DNA on the blade of that knife. But no one has ever been able to confirm this. There wasn't a second test done which the RIS has told the court is absolutely required.

Then ask yourself, (to the jury) would you, or anyone you know, have transported this cheap knife to the cottage to cook with given there are a dozen suitable knives at the cottage? And given that Raffaele, has two pocket knives, wouldn't it be far more likely that if he was concerned for Amanda's safety he would give her one of these knives instead?

The rest of your argument, I'm in full agreement. If you note, Crini had 16 elements to his argument. Don't you think the defense can and should address the absurdity of the prosecution's theory in their comprehensive rebuttal? Maybe this isn't the most compelling argument for you? But there ware more than one person on the jury and what is not persuasive to one, may very well be persuasive to another.

Just a thought.

 

[MDDVS]

People are not robots. Life is not a court of law. There is no "natural response".

 

[Poppy1016]

I wonder why Raf's sister, knowing how the system works, didn't advise Raf to the dangers of talking to police.

 

[MDDVS]

I wonder why Raf's sister, knowing how the system works, didn't advise Raf to the dangers of talking to police.

I think it probably never crossed her mind that they would suspect her brother.

 

[Grinder]

You're not wrong Grinder, in fact you are right.

That is what he should have said. Never the less, I'm sure he wasn't thinking at that moment that the world is parsing his every word and phrase. Look how Vogt twisted Amanda's little message that "she was there". And these two are both native English speakers. Throw in two very different languages, where not only are the words different, but the structure and syntax of the languages are vastly different.

I have no idea what you mean by the highlighted section. Raf and the 911 operator both were Italian speakers. Raf could see the break-in himself and could see the room had been tossed so he could report a break-in but could "know" that nothing was missing.

The point is he wasn't parsing just answering and the answer seems weird when he couldn't know for sure. Perhaps it has something to do with poor Italian that Mach describes.

Raffaele either jumped to a conclusion based on what he saw, or Amanda said something that interpreted as nothings missing, when in fact Amanda may have said something like she had to check if something's missing. Given the language differences, don't you think something like this could have occurred?

Okay now I get the highlighted section.

Don't you think the language differences makes this kind of thing to be an almost certainty?

No. Possible yes.

Was it ever explained that way by either of the kids?

 

[acbytesla]

Boy that would be a great argument in court. Hey they wouldn't have made those mistakes statements had they ever thought they would be suspects.

It is so obvious that the natural response wouldn't be a definitive "nothing is missing" and making that was unfortunate, spin it all you want.

There you go, great defense. The statement is/was suspicious. Is that statement enough to convict?

There is no " should-a, would-a, could-a" it is what he said.

You tell me Grinder, are these little so called inconsistencies persuasive to you? If you are convinced that nobody would make this kind of mistake, well, you probably cannot be convinced of their innocence.

But if a person thinks that people sometimes make mistakes, that they sometimes jump to conclusions, that they get ahead of themselves and their listener, than I don't think that person is going to be hard to persuade.

 

[Grinder]

I wonder why Raf's sister, knowing how the system works, didn't advise Raf to the dangers of talking to police.

I think it probably never crossed her mind that they would suspect her brother.

It is one of the great mysteries of the case. How could Raf's family not demand he have a lawyer from day one? Raf's dad did call in his lawyer but he was more of a tax lawyer IIRC.

Raf's sister should have been aware of how the police work and should have advised him to say nothing. Hey maybe she told him to say "nothing" and when they asked what was stolen he said "nothing"

 

[acbytesla]

Okay now I get the highlighted section.


No. Possible yes.

Was it ever explained that way by either of the kids?

You know Grinder, some people are so suspicious that they are looking for a way to interpret everything as suspicious or an indicator of guilt. I'm not trying to "spin" this, I just think this should be viewed as inconsequential. After all, Raffaele was WRONG about whether something was missing.

So what does it mean? It's not like he had actual knowledge of some little fact that he shouldn't have. This isn't like the argument that the guilters make about Amanda knowing that Meredith had her throat cut before she supposedly should have.

That is IMO, much more problematic than this point. Don't you think?

 

[Grinder]

You tell me Grinder, are these little so called inconsistencies persuasive to you? If you are convinced that nobody would make this kind of mistake, well, you probably cannot be convinced of their innocence.

I said that the statement guilty or innocent was unfortunate for Raf. I never said that "nobody would make this kind of mistake" that is a straw man. You do that all the time. The judge would sustain my objection and by now you would be held in contempt of court.

The statement was reasonably looked at by the ILE as suspicious. Of course, they saw or heard that statement and asked how could he know. They answered their own question by saying that he staged the break-in and knew nothing was missing. It would be a classic mistake of someone saying something they could only know if they had been there.

What would your court argument be? "This needs to ignored because the kids are innocent, you fools." "You can't consider that statement because he didn't know you might think he was a suspect." Hey, it just slipped out and it didn't mean anything" "Amanda said 'dunno' and he translated that as nothing"

No, mine's the best - "He had just called his sister and she had told him to say 'nothing' and that's exactly what he did.

 

[Poppy1016]

It is one of the great mysteries of the case. How could Raf's family not demand he have a lawyer from day one? Raf's dad did call in his lawyer but he was more of a tax lawyer IIRC.

Raf's sister should have been aware of how the police work and should have advised him to say nothing. Hey maybe she told him to say "nothing" and when they asked what was stolen he said "nothing"

Another question is why were Laura and Filomena so quick to lawyer up,yet not advise Amanda and Raf to do the same?

 

[Poppy1016]

Amanda and Raffael were seemingly hung out to dry and left for the wolves. They had no advice or protection. It is incredible how that transpired.