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

[yimyammer]

I too would like to see the actual transcript.

If he didn't say what we have been led to believe then of course it changes the whole thing.

They need to proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but that doesn't mean that a statement that could be explained can not be considered as part of the case for guilt.

When this was first reported it definitely looked suspicious. People with innocence hindsight may not be able to see what it looked like to investigators and prosecutors in real time.

I have no problem with whatever they actually said being considered part of the case, I just would like to verify what they said from as accurate and non bias source as possible.

Like you, I notice both sides sometimes lean toward interpretations of evidence that support their pre-existing conclusions so I try to remain open to whatever the facts may be on an issue and seek to find the most untainted sources possible.

 

[yimyammer]

We have both including the translation to English. What we don't have is direct documentation of the conversation between Amanda and Raffaele or the call to his sister.





The only indication of guilt is the claim after the fact by the prosecution and echoed by the guilters. There has been no evidence presented that this is in fact evidence of guilt. It's ludicrous on it's face that someone staging a burglery would tell the police that nothing was stollen because there is no conceivable advantage to do so. If anyone disagrees then let's hear their argument as to how such a statement would benifit the guilty.

thx, has it been posted in this thread already? If so, can you give me tip on how to find it among all the posts here or post a link to an outside source?

I fully understand why we can't & don't have transcripts between Amanda and Raf and I assume the police weren't recording all the conversations at the time Raf called his sister so that obviously wouldn't be available either.

 

[yimyammer]

Double Duh.



Gubbio. From the perspective of the investigators at the time, it was suspicious. They didn't know about Gubbio and they weren't trying to make alibis or rationalizations for people.

They had a murder. We can all agree on that. They had a broken window and a room that had been tossed. There was nothing stolen from the room where the break in occurred except the make-up (Filomena's dope stash?). The break-in looked suspicious to them. It was a high window.

He couldn't be guilty and know nothing was taken because the phones, money and credit cards were taken.

Now we move into Tesla terriotory and say that it would be impossible for him to be involved and call the police because he would have gone to Gubbio.

But he didn't go to Gubbio and he did call to report the break-in and when he responded nothing was taken it became suspicious as they put it all together.

Who would think that someone would break-in and not steal anything?

So under the scenario where we assume they are guilty and trying to hide something, wouldn't it make more sense to say things were stolen since they would have been the ones to have stolen them and it would be consistent with staging a break-in?

 

[Grinder]

So under the scenario where we assume they are guilty and trying to hide something, wouldn't it make more sense to say things were stolen since they would have been the ones to have stolen them and it would be consistent with staging a break-in?

First of all I repeat that I don't think his answer makes him guilty but it was reasonable for the PLE to think it was suspicious that he answered that way.

I'm not assuming they are guilty at all in this discussion. I assume that the police always look at the people that discover a crime and listen to their 911 call. Without being specific, I seem to remember that I've heard of cases where the caller seemed too calm or said something that just didn't seem right and that made the police suspicious. Suspicion is not proof of guilt.

They were suspicious of Patrick, because they read the text to mean I'll see you right away. It was reasonable that they were suspicious of him.

If they had really staged and killed I suppose they should have taken something from Filomena's room like the laptop and answered that it looks like a laptop is missing but not for sure as the owner isn't home.

Perps make mistakes and that answer looked like that at the time.

Super - many are at Thanksgiving.

 

[Dan O.]

thx, has it been posted in this thread already? If so, can you give me tip on how to find it among all the posts here or post a link to an outside source?

Partial transcript of first call from Perugia Shock

Raffaele: Hallo good morning listen... Someone during the night entered the house by breaking the window and put everything upside down and there's a door locked. The street is.. The street is?
Amanda: Via della Pergola.
Raffalele: Via della Pergola 7.
112 (voice off): Perugia Carabinieri....
112: Via?
Raffaele: Via della Pergola 7, in Perugia.
112: Practically they entered. They broken a glass and how do you know they entered?
Raffaele: You can tell it by the signs, there are even blood traces in the bathroom. They didn't take anything, the problem is that there's that locked door, there's a stain of blood...
112: There's a locked door. Which one is the locked door?
Raffaele: Of one of the housemates who is not here and we don't know where she is and yes, yes, we tried to call her but she doesn't answer in no way.
112: Fine, I'm sending a patrol so we verify the situation.​

A recording can be found here but it's only the first 48 seconds.

 

[Grinder]

YY this is from a PGP site so I don't fully trust it:

POLICE:
Theft [burglary] in the house eh?
RS:
No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess.
POLICE:
Just a moment please.
[Music plays for 5 seconds]
POLICE:
Hello?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
So listen, they entered .. they broke the window .. and how do you know they entered?
RS:
It can be seen by signs... that there are drops .... that there are blood stains in the bathroom.
POLICE:
So they entered. .. because the window's broken ... did they cut themselves breaking the window?
RS:
Ehmm...this ...
[Raffaele Sollecito hangs up the phone]
POLICE:
Hello??

Second call
POLICE:
Carabinieri, Perugia.
RS:
Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.
POLICE:
Someone's been in the house and broke the window?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Then they went into the bathroom.
RS:
I don't know, if you come here perhaps ...
POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is one of the doors is closed, there are bloodstains.
POLICE:
A door's closed? Which door's closed?
RS:
The door of one of the flatmates who isn't here. We don't know where she is.
POLICE:
Were these blood stains outside the door of this flatmate who's not there?
RS:
The blood stains are in the bathroom.
POLICE:
Oh in the bathroom. And there's this closed door. And this girl, do you have her mobile number, her ...?
RS:
Yes, yes, we tried to call her but she's not answering.
POLICE:
OK, I'll send you a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.
RS:
OK.
POLICE:
Is this OK with you?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Goodbye.

 

[yimyammer]

Partial transcript of first call from Perugia Shock

Raffaele: Hallo good morning listen... Someone during the night entered the house by breaking the window and put everything upside down and there's a door locked. The street is.. The street is?
Amanda: Via della Pergola.
Raffalele: Via della Pergola 7.
112 (voice off): Perugia Carabinieri....
112: Via?
Raffaele: Via della Pergola 7, in Perugia.
112: Practically they entered. They broken a glass and how do you know they entered?
Raffaele: You can tell it by the signs, there are even blood traces in the bathroom. They didn't take anything, the problem is that there's that locked door, there's a stain of blood...
112: There's a locked door. Which one is the locked door?
Raffaele: Of one of the housemates who is not here and we don't know where she is and yes, yes, we tried to call her but she doesn't answer in no way.
112: Fine, I'm sending a patrol so we verify the situation.​

A recording can be found here but it's only the first 48 seconds.

As always, thank you! Sounds like a rushed statement to me, I guess in retrospect, one could see it like PGP describe but I can't see how it would initially arouse suspicion

 

[yimyammer]

First of all I repeat that I don't think his answer makes him guilty but it was reasonable for the PLE to think it was suspicious that he answered that way.

I'm not assuming they are guilty at all in this discussion. I assume that the police always look at the people that discover a crime and listen to their 911 call. Without being specific, I seem to remember that I've heard of cases where the caller seemed too calm or said something that just didn't seem right and that made the police suspicious. Suspicion is not proof of guilt.

They were suspicious of Patrick, because they read the text to mean I'll see you right away. It was reasonable that they were suspicious of him.

If they had really staged and killed I suppose they should have taken something from Filomena's room like the laptop and answered that it looks like a laptop is missing but not for sure as the owner isn't home.

Perps make mistakes and that answer looked like that at the time.

Super - many are at Thanksgiving.

I hear ya and understand the point you're making, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to reason through this and determine if his statement is consistent with someone trying to cover something up.

Wouldn't it be more consistent with a cover up to say something was missing?

Or are you saying he slipped up by accidentally saying nothing was missing?

 

[yimyammer]

YY this is from a PGP site so I don't fully trust it:

POLICE:
Theft [burglary] in the house eh?
RS:
No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess.
POLICE:
Just a moment please.
[Music plays for 5 seconds]
POLICE:
Hello?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
So listen, they entered .. they broke the window .. and how do you know they entered?
RS:
It can be seen by signs... that there are drops .... that there are blood stains in the bathroom.
POLICE:
So they entered. .. because the window's broken ... did they cut themselves breaking the window?
RS:
Ehmm...this ...
[Raffaele Sollecito hangs up the phone]
POLICE:
Hello??

Second call
POLICE:
Carabinieri, Perugia.
RS:
Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.
POLICE:
Someone's been in the house and broke the window?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Then they went into the bathroom.
RS:
I don't know, if you come here perhaps ...
POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is one of the doors is closed, there are bloodstains.
POLICE:
A door's closed? Which door's closed?
RS:
The door of one of the flatmates who isn't here. We don't know where she is.
POLICE:
Were these blood stains outside the door of this flatmate who's not there?
RS:
The blood stains are in the bathroom.
POLICE:
Oh in the bathroom. And there's this closed door. And this girl, do you have her mobile number, her ...?
RS:
Yes, yes, we tried to call her but she's not answering.
POLICE:
OK, I'll send you a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.
RS:
OK.
POLICE:
Is this OK with you?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Goodbye.

thx, I'm having trouble finding this statement suspicious at that time, maybe in retrospect after becoming suspicious for other reasons.

What is gained by Raf deliberately telling this lie (assuming that's what he did)?

 

[Grinder]

I hear ya and understand the point you're making, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to reason through this and determine if his statement is consistent with someone trying to cover something up.

Wouldn't it be more consistent with a cover up to say something was missing?

Or are you saying he slipped up by accidentally saying nothing was missing?

I don't think you are doing anything but reason this through.

Yes I would think that the PLE would have thought that he slipped up. The conversation if accurate is worse than I thought.

112: Practically they entered. They broken a glass and how do you know they entered?
Raffaele: You can tell it by the signs, there are even blood traces in the bathroom. They didn't take anything, the problem is that there's that locked door, there's a stain of blood...


Dan's version makes it even more of a volunteered statement - it seems like an extremely odd remark for someone trying to get the cops to come.

 

[Grinder]

thx, I'm having trouble finding this statement suspicious at that time, maybe in retrospect after becoming suspicious for other reasons.

What is gained by Raf deliberately telling this lie (assuming that's what he did)?

I don't think that it needed to be deliberate to be suspicious. I think in retrospect it was just an unfortunate selection of words but for the cops in the moment it was reasonably suspicious and odd. It wasn't suspicious to the operator but as the detectives were putting things together it seemed incongruous to them.

It seems clear that he was mostly concerned about the locked door and the blood rather than the break-in but the cops would want to know how he knew nothing was stolen. I think that is odd now.

Given his concern about the blood and door why would he care about the theft aspect?

 

[yimyammer]

I don't think that it needed to be deliberate to be suspicious. I think in retrospect it was just an unfortunate selection of words but for the cops in the moment it was reasonably suspicious and odd. It wasn't suspicious to the operator but as the detectives were putting things together it seemed incongruous to them.

It seems clear that he was mostly concerned about the locked door and the blood rather than the break-in but the cops would want to know how he knew nothing was stolen. I think that is odd now.

Given his concern about the blood and door why would he care about the theft aspect?

Duly noted

To answer your question (& putting myself in his shoes), I would make the comment in an incredulous manner which would never be picked up by reading a transcript of my words.

I say incredulous because I would be wondering what the hell is going on here? There appears to be a break-in but Amanda just told me she didn't see anything missing (I think this is reasonable to conclude he is getting this info from her since he doesn't live there and is making the call for her since he speaks Italian).

I don't know if there is a similar word in Italian, but I would have added the word "but":

There's been a break-in but nothing is missing?!?!

Assuming they are innocent, I think it would be natural to be confused by what they are seeing and not seeing and my immediate reaction wouldn't be, oh my god, someone has been murdered here!!

The bloody footprints must have been pretty faint because no one seems to point this out when all the other people and police arrive, Raf doesn't mention bloody footprints either so what they are seeing before the door is broken down in no way resembles what they ultimately discover.

I think its reasonable to think everyone was confused and the concern escalated as more people arrived, Meredith couldn't be reached on her phone and obviously crescendo's when the door is opened.

Then again, if I assume they are guilty, then I could assign all kinds of other meanings to the things they said and did.

I'm not saying I've cornered the market on truth here, its just my 2-cents

 

[yimyammer]

112: Practically they entered. They broken a glass and how do you know they entered?
Raffaele: You can tell it by the signs, there are even blood traces in the bathroom. They didn't take anything, the problem is that there's that locked door, there's a stain of blood...

you know, rereading this quote, it sounds like he saying it like I suggested except the "but" is silent. (I'm terrible at english grammar but can't a "but" be implied and therefore not written)

He's rushing past the theft issue because that's not what he's concerned about, he wants to discuss the other issues and that's what he elaborates on.

I don't think I'm taking extreme liberty if I read his statement as follows:

Raffaele: You can tell it by the signs, there are even blood traces in the bathroom. They didn't take anything, but the problem is that there's that locked door, there's a stain of blood...

Hell, maybe I'm guilty of confirmation bias, but this seems reasonable to me

 

[Grinder]

you know, rereading this quote, it sounds like he saying it like I suggested except the "but" is silent. (I'm terrible at english grammar but can't a "but" be implied and therefore not written)

He's rushing past the theft issue because that's not what he's concerned about, he wants to discuss the other issues and that's what he elaborates on.

I don't think I'm taking extreme liberty if I read his statement as follows:

Raffaele: You can tell it by the signs, there are even blood traces in the bathroom. They didn't take anything, but the problem is that there's that locked door, there's a stain of blood...

Hell, maybe I'm guilty of confirmation bias, but this seems reasonable to me

Well he said it in Italian so it would need to be implied in Italian which I couldn't venture a guess about.

I'm not saying he intended to say it as he did. From the perspective of a PIP it is clear that he was reporting as best he could. From the point of view of the PLE at the time, it was suspicious.

I don't think it is reasonable to say the police at the start of this couldn't think the remark suspicious and be reasonable.

I still think it was an odd conversation. Not saying it is proof of guilt or even significant circumstantial evidence, but odd.

 

[yimyammer]

Well he said it in Italian so it would need to be implied in Italian which I couldn't venture a guess about.

I'm not saying he intended to say it as he did. From the perspective of a PIP it is clear that he was reporting as best he could. From the point of view of the PLE at the time, it was suspicious.

I don't think it is reasonable to say the police at the start of this couldn't think the remark suspicious and be reasonable.

I still think it was an odd conversation. Not saying it is proof of guilt or even significant circumstantial evidence, but odd.

Endless litany of odd items in this case and there's no doubt in my mind that ILE found this and many other things suspicious. I just wish they had applied that suspicion to everyone/thing connected to this case equally and fairly.

 

[RWVBWL]

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

So the chick that had anal sex with her new boyfriend
made a stink over her new boyfriend's buddy taking a crap in her other roommates toilet that he did not flush,
so Amanda Knox murdered her, because of someone elses doo doo?
Right...


Something smells in Poo-rugia,
+ it ain't the chocholate...

 

[Dan O.]

I thought I saw Raffaele's 112 calls at http://www.AmandaKnox.com/ but couldn't spot them again. The best source i can currently find is: /themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_112_Calls

 

[RWVBWL]

So the other day I linked an old article from PS
where-in Miss Formica said that it wasn't Rudy Guede she saw on the narrow stairway.
There is an important photo to look at of the stairway.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9651416&postcount=7580.

The photo shows how narrow it really was.
Someone walked by Miss Formica and her date that evening, a man of color.

Most still claim that it was Rudy Guede that she saw that night,
that she apparently was mistaken.

How can folks dis-believe a gal who came forward soon after the horrible murder of Miss Meredith Kercher
and said that It Wasn't Rudy who walked right by her in that narrow walkway?

But believe Curatolo,
who did not come forward right away to report the suspicous loitering of a couple (weren't they arguing?) to the police investigators, BUT whom months later says that he did see Amanda Knox and Raf hanging outside for hours,
from a distance of about a hundred feet away?

Hmmmm,
believe a high on heroin drug dealing bum,
or a gal who walked right next to someone of color, who wasn't Rudy?

 

[Bill Williams]

Where's Machiavelli? He seems to have gone into retirement, following tweets from the courtroom. I hope he's all right. He's promised me a bottle of very good Italian wine!

 

[Antony]

Dan's version makes it even more of a volunteered statement - it seems like an extremely odd remark for someone trying to get the cops to come.

You keep repeating this but it doesn't make it true. It was a confused, panicky situation and Amanda and Raff hadn't seen that anything was obviously missing.

There is nothing suspicious, and it's only malicious thinking from the police (who wanted ready-made suspects) and the PGP (who swallowed the hysteria and can't let go) that make it so.

What is harder to understand is why someone like you should call it "suspicious", when you agree with innocence but maybe want to find reasons to blame the 2 students for their own misfortune.