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

[bri1]

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.

La Faccia is what makes me understand the approach so far. But we've come too far now. Italian prosecutors / judiciary / police have had ample warning that these two are not going to shut up about this. This isn't going to go away if they are convicted. The only way to save face was to affirm the acquittals. I understand why the defence have waited until now. Even though the Supreme Court gave notice with their motivations report that this wasn't going to be treated with the honesty and seriousness which it deserved, I understand waiting to appear to give the Florence court a chance, but there was really only one possibility for how this case could be prosecuted, and that's by ignoring science and human psychology, obfuscating facts, and smearing these people. So the only response in the Defence's part of the case, can be to not only demolish the evidence (again!) but also to point out in no uncertain terms that the people involved in this prosecution, from the PM to the police, to the lab techs, to the prison staff, have acted from a combination of ignorance and malice , and the flaws in the system that allow such people to act with impunity over 6 years of bringing this case.
We will see how courageous these lawyers are going to be... I personally think that there are certain principles which you have to sometimes defend to the death (of your career), on the basis that if that principle in seriously compromised, how much do you really want to be in that profession anyway?

 

[Mary_H]

Hello?

It was a holiday in the U.S. today, Supernaut. Nothing you did.

 

[katy_did]

I don't see the statement as suspicious, even taken in isolation. There were valuables in plain sight in Filomena's room, the only room which had been disturbed. It may have been an assumption to say nothing was taken (if an incorrect one), but it's not an unreasonable one.

Seen in the context of the conversation, it's even harder to see it as suspicious. Raffaele begins the conversation by just stating the facts: someone broke into the house, they left everything in a mess, there's a locked door. The guy on the phone is then the first person to assume there's been a theft and says so to Raffaele; he replies that it isn't really a theft, and repeats that there's a broken window, a mess, a locked door.

When he calls back the phone guy is still harping on about a theft, asking "What did they take?" Raffaele, probably a little frustrated by now, answers "They didn't take anything, the problem is there's a locked door and drops of blood". He's trying to make the man understand that he's not calling to report a theft, but because they can't get in touch with Meredith, which is concerning since someone's obviously been in the house.

When you think about it from Raffaele's perspective, it's an odd phone call to have to make: reporting a theft would be straightforward, but he's calling not to say anything's been stolen but to report all these slightly odd things which might well turn out to be absolutely nothing. It probably sounded a bit weird to the phone guy at the time, but of course once Meredith's body was discovered, all the little odd circumstances should have made sense.

Is there any evidence the police actually did latch onto that part of Raffaele's conversation before they were arrested? I know the prosecution used it later, but that doesn't mean the police noticed at the time. My guess is that they found the fact that nothing had been taken much more suspicious than the fact Raffaele noticed nothing had been taken.

 

[codyjuneau]

I apologise if I seem a bit dumb but I've just been hearing about the current trial second hand. My impression is that the prosecution are really minimising the sexual aspect of the crime, minimising the involvement of Guede, and just arguing that AK and RS committed murder because of personal animosity (with the final straw being an unflushed toilet). is that a correct interpretation? This means they just concentrate on 'evidence' of AK & RS involvement and don't need to worry about any relationship with RG? Effectively just accepting Guede's story that he and MK made out then he went to the toilet AK and MK had words about the rent money then about an unflushed toilet then it resulted in murder?

.
An intriguing observation, as if Rudy's only involvement was forgetting to flush the toilet. Perhaps the prosecuting team are avoiding anything that will jeopardize Rudy's early parole. Very intriguing.
.

 

[Samson]

La Faccia is what makes me understand the approach so far. But we've come too far now. Italian prosecutors / judiciary / police have had ample warning that these two are not going to shut up about this. This isn't going to go away if they are convicted. The only way to save face was to affirm the acquittals. I understand why the defence have waited until now. Even though the Supreme Court gave notice with their motivations report that this wasn't going to be treated with the honesty and seriousness which it deserved, I understand waiting to appear to give the Florence court a chance, but there was really only one possibility for how this case could be prosecuted, and that's by ignoring science and human psychology, obfuscating facts, and smearing these people. So the only response in the Defence's part of the case, can be to not only demolish the evidence (again!) but also to point out in no uncertain terms that the people involved in this prosecution, from the PM to the police, to the lab techs, to the prison staff, have acted from a combination of ignorance and malice , and the flaws in the system that allow such people to act with impunity over 6 years of bringing this case.
We will see how courageous these lawyers are going to be... I personally think that there are certain principles which you have to sometimes defend to the death (of your career), on the basis that if that principle in seriously compromised, how much do you really want to be in that profession anyway?

This link has been kindly offered for ridicule and disdain from another site, I read it and found once more how irreconcilable this case has become. This case can never go away now.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-taken-an-even-more-absurd-turn-1991798.html
This from 2010 and seems prescient.

 

[Samson]

.
An intriguing observation, as if Rudy's only involvement was forgetting to flush the toilet. Perhaps the prosecuting team are avoiding anything that will jeopardize Rudy's early parole. Very intriguing.
.

Known knife carrier and threatener Rudy on this occasion left the opportunity to experience the thrill to others.

 

[toto]

I don't see the statement as suspicious, even taken in isolation. There were valuables in plain sight in Filomena's room, the only room which had been disturbed. It may have been an assumption to say nothing was taken (if an incorrect one), but it's not an unreasonable one.

Seen in the context of the conversation, it's even harder to see it as suspicious. Raffaele begins the conversation by just stating the facts: someone broke into the house, they left everything in a mess, there's a locked door. The guy on the phone is then the first person to assume there's been a theft and says so to Raffaele; he replies that it isn't really a theft, and repeats that there's a broken window, a mess, a locked door.

When he calls back the phone guy is still harping on about a theft, asking "What did they take?" Raffaele, probably a little frustrated by now, answers "They didn't take anything, the problem is there's a locked door and drops of blood". He's trying to make the man understand that he's not calling to report a theft, but because they can't get in touch with Meredith, which is concerning since someone's obviously been in the house.

When you think about it from Raffaele's perspective, it's an odd phone call to have to make: reporting a theft would be straightforward, but he's calling not to say anything's been stolen but to report all these slightly odd things which might well turn out to be absolutely nothing. It probably sounded a bit weird to the phone guy at the time, but of course once Meredith's body was discovered, all the little odd circumstances should have made sense.

Is there any evidence the police actually did latch onto that part of Raffaele's conversation before they were arrested? I know the prosecution used it later, but that doesn't mean the police noticed at the time. My guess is that they found the fact that nothing had been taken much more suspicious than the fact Raffaele noticed nothing had been taken.

My take on this is that Raffaele said nothing had been taken because he thought nothing had been taken.

If they had staged the scene then they would have cleaned up the lavatory/toilet and possibly taken something obvious like a laptop (and after clean up gone off on daytrip as planned) If they were worried about being seen carrying a laptop shaped bundle then ok they wouldn't have. But Rafaelle would most definitely calibrate his response to something like "Nothing appears to be taken but we aren't sure" or something like that, something simple and reasonable sounding. I appreciate that if the burglary was staged then they would have to take something, i.e. money, but then you wouldn't want to be too knowledgeable about precisely what's been taken so then again the default "not sure" response is the most obvious response for a guilty party.

 

[Samson]

My take on this is that Raffaele said nothing had been taken because he thought nothing had been taken.

If they had staged the scene then they would have cleaned up the lavatory/toilet and possibly taken something obvious like a laptop (and after clean up gone off on daytrip as planned) If they were worried about being seen carrying a laptop shaped bundle then ok they wouldn't have. But Rafaelle would most definitely calibrate his response to something like "Nothing appears to be taken but we aren't sure" or something like that, something simple and reasonable sounding. I appreciate that if the burglary was staged then they would have to take something, i.e. money, but then you wouldn't want to be too knowledgeable about precisely what's been taken so then again the default "not sure" response is the most obvious response for a guilty party.

There is nothing easier to demonstrate by physics nor will there ever be that the break in was not staged. The defence have been slumbering for six long years.

 

[acbytesla]

My take on this is that Raffaele said nothing had been taken because he thought nothing had been taken.

I think this sums it up.

All Amanda would have had to say was nothing "seems" to have been taken and Raffaele missed the word "seems". We have no idea if Amanda and Raffaele were speaking English or speaking Italian at that moment, and looking back they might not be sure either. Mis-communications happen all the time when people are speaking the same language, let alone where it's a combination of two and neither is very good with the other's native tongue.

Frankly, I'm tired with this obsession over whether Raffaele's mentioning of this means anything. I can see where it might give one pause for a second, but in of itself it is insanely difficult to interpret. At what point do we say we don't know? And that in truth, it isn't proof of anything and we let it go and actually discuss real evidence.

I swear all the PGP has is speculation. Why did Amanda do this? And why did Raffaele say that?

 

[acbytesla]

There is nothing easier to demonstrate by physics nor will there ever be that the break in was not staged. The defence have been slumbering for six long years.

Ron Hendry did a good job of this as well as the Channel 5 documentary. They said the rock was most certainly thrown from outside. I think they said that this could be proven 100 percent by examining the edge of the glass. Unfortunately, I don't think this was ever done and the window pane and the glass are both long gone.

 

[Samson]

Ron Hendry did a good job of this as well as the Channel 5 documentary. They said the rock was most certainly thrown from outside. I think they said that this could be proven 100 percent by examining the edge of the glass. Unfortunately, I don't think this was ever done and the window pane and the glass are both long gone.

Yes but the photographs are unchallenged, so can be studied by the ECHR, but why not the defence with full screen presentation on December the 6th?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes but the photographs are unchallenged, so can be studied by the ECHR, but why not the defence with full screen presentation on December the 6th?

Sure, but you can't really examine the the edges. I think simply playing the Channel 5 documentary and translating or dubbing it in Italian should suffice. It was very compelling

 

[Samson]

Sure, but you can't really examine the the edges. I think simply playing the Channel 5 documentary and translating or dubbing it in Italian should suffice. It was very compelling

I spent hours examining Hendry before anything else, and concluded that the impaled glass shard proved an exterior event, which could not occur from within the room. The Massei reconstruction allows some PGP proposing Amanda tapped the glass with the rock, to avoid making too much noise, yet there is the scuff mark on the frame of the lower window Rudy stood on, the divot in the hardwood inner shutter, the impaled glass shard, the glass removed and placed on the right sill by gloved* hands, the debris on the clothes below the left sill. This is all as incontrovertible as the equations that lead to the surprising conclusion of the big bang theory, but completely believable and comprehensible in this case.

* This is the only assumption.

 

[acbytesla]

I spent hours examining Hendry before anything else, and concluded that the impaled glass shard proved an exterior event, which could not occur from within the room. The Massei reconstruction allows some PGP proposing Amanda tapped the glass with the rock, to avoid making too much noise, yet there is the scuff mark on the frame of the lower window Rudy stood on, the divot in the hardwood inner shutter, the impaled glass shard, the glass removed and placed on the right sill by gloved* hands, the debris on the clothes below the left sill. This is all as incontrovertible as the equations that lead to the surprising conclusion of the big bang theory, but completely believable and comprehensible in this case.

* This is the only assumption.

It's a good assumption. You're talking about the tv show...right??

 

[Samson]

It's a good assumption. You're talking about the tv show...right??

Actually often proclaimed by PGP no fingerprints on the glass, though I never read one court document of 10,000, but assume aspiring cat burglar has studied 101...

 

[acbytesla]

Actually often proclaimed by PGP no fingerprints on the glass, though I never read one court document of 10,000, but assume aspiring cat burglar has studied 101...

Not sure I understand this. ????

Let me guess..wearing gloves at this point??

I guess you already said that.

 

[JREF2010]

Ron Hendry did a good job of this as well as the Channel 5 documentary. They said the rock was most certainly thrown from outside. I think they said that this could be proven 100 percent by examining the edge of the glass. Unfortunately, I don't think this was ever done and the window pane and the glass are both long gone.

Another missed opportunity by the forensic team, intentional or not who knows? Anyone surprise the forensic team messed something up again? I'm not surprised.

Probably budget cuts is why they didn't inspect the glass.

 

[acbytesla]

Another missed opportunity by the forensic team, intentional or not who knows? Anyone surprise the forensic team messed something up again? I'm not surprised.

Probably budget cuts is why they didn't inspect the glass.

They didn't even try and prove their claim that it was staged other than observational hocus pocus.

 

[JREF2010]

odd is an understatement

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.

The cell phone police found it odd nothing was stolen too. That's what started the staged thing, per Raffaele in his book.

When you have broken glass, a window and shutters opened and the most valuable items known to the residents, laptops and a digital camera sitting in the open in the kitchen, I don't see why its so hard to comprehend this as odd. An odd situation was noted by all.

But then how many murders does a person walk in on, and what is the normal status quo response for being involved in a murder scene? This alone is odd.

I think a lot of old folks on the forums don't recall what its like to be a 20yr old. College, sex, partying, adventurous, 60 to 100 texts and calls a day, busy with life, living in the moment. That alone reduces clarity. 20yr olds seem odd to old people, in general.

Why would Stefonani say she didn't test for blood on the knife, and then it was found out she did test for blood on the knife and it was negative. I find that odd and even more serious in deciding on guilt or innocence.

I find it odd, the defense wanted more and more testing, while the prosecution seemed to want to thwart more information and in Stefonanis case, she seemed to not want to be open about her data.

Mignini saying they didn't record the interrogation due to budget cuts , I find severely odd and dishonest, due to the fact the were recording like crazy before and immediately after the interrogation. Suspects or not, they were recording a mountain of evidence and used none of it in court.
I find that odd.

To find the truth we need to look beyond odd.

To try to convict someone for murder, I think Crini's motivation was very odd.

If Florence can convict on odd, or possibles, or maybes...then whats the point of DNA labs.

 

[acbytesla]

The cell phone police found it odd nothing was stolen too. That's what started the staged thing, per Raffaele in his book.

When you have broken glass, a window and shutters opened and the most valuable items known to the residents, laptops and a digital camera sitting in the open in the kitchen, I don't see why its so hard to comprehend this as odd. An odd situation was noted by all.

But then how many murders does a person walk in on, and what is the normal status quo response for being involved in a murder scene? This alone is odd.

I think a lot of old folks on the forums don't recall what its like to be a 20yr old. College, sex, partying, adventurous, 60 to 100 texts and calls a day, busy with life, living in the moment. That alone reduces clarity. 20yr olds seem odd to old people, in general.

Why would Stefonani say she didn't test for blood on the knife, and then it was found out she did test for blood on the knife and it was negative. I find that odd and even more serious in deciding on guilt or innocence.

I find it odd, the defense wanted more and more testing, while the prosecution seemed to want to thwart more information and in Stefonanis case, she seemed to not want to be open about her data.

Mignini saying they didn't record the interrogation due to budget cuts , I find severely odd and dishonest, due to the fact the were recording like crazy before and immediately after the interrogation. Suspects or not, they were recording a mountain of evidence and used none of it in court.
I find that odd.

To find the truth we need to look beyond odd.

To try to convict someone for murder, I think Crini's motivation was very odd.

If Florence can convict on odd, or possibles, or maybes...then whats the point of DNA labs.

Very well said JREF.
Odd is a a theoretically guilty Amanda and Raffaele not going to Gubbio and calling the police themselves
Odd is the prosecution saying they called the police after the postal police arrived, when they clearly knew this wasn't true.
Odd is DeFelice saying that Amanda buckled and told us what we already knew which was wrong.
Odd is Giobbi and Raffaele sayinging they heard Amanda scream and yet the police not only said they didn't hit her, they served her tea and cookies.
Odd is 4 computer drives be fried
Odd is the strange way Stefanoni tested Sample 36B
Odd is the 46 days before they went back to the cottage.
Odd is that the police can't count the rings on a sneaker.
Odd is the police leaving Meredith's bloody sweatshirt.
Odd is the the police not testing what looks to be a semen stain under Meredith.
Odd is the missing EDFs
Odd is the missing negative controls.