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

[katy_did]

I'm sure the police wonder why doesn't he just say so?

All I've said as I have repeated many times that it would suspicious to investigators. Why didn't he answer that he wasn't concerned about anything stolen but rather what had happened to the missing roommate?That's how a reasonable police investigator would look at it even with the explanation.

Hold on, how did he know there was a missing roommate? For all he knew she decided to take a last minute trip with her boyfriend, or went away for a few days with her English girlfriends. She wasn't his roommate, and he didn't know what her habits were with regard to locking her door. If he'd said "I'm worried about the missing roommate" wouldn't he have been jumping to conclusions every bit as much (or more so) than when he said nothing had been taken?

That's the problem: anything he said could be taken as suspicious if you look at it the right way. If he stuck to the bare facts of the locked door and the blood he wasn't being clear enough about his concern for the missing roommate; if he showed concern about a missing roommate he was demonstrating knowledge he shouldn't have had.

If I were going to pinpoint a suspicious comment or contradiction I think it would be Raffaele saying Filomena's door was "wide open" while Amanda said it was "ajar". That was worth the police checking out and clarifying with them. The comment about nothing being missing, on the other hand, just seems like a reasonable assumption.

You could have that nailed. I doubt anybody but a true crime writer would know the answer .

Heh.

 

[Supernaut]

Should we be suspicious of anyone that knows nothing was stollen after a breakin? Should we be suspicious of these people?

Meeow.

 

[Supernaut]

Did you know;

there is no Italian word for "sarcasm"!

 

[Machiavelli]

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. (...)

It's incorrect. Sollecito is the first person saying "there is no theft", without being asked; it was Sollecito's spontaneous pointing out or correction, the Carabinieri in fact did not specifically ask any question about what was stolen or if they stole anything.

Then, on the second call few seconds later the officer asked about "what has been stolen" and Raffaele repeated the concept that "they didn't steal anything" (Sollecito thus repeated the thing twice, the first time not being asked).

 

[Bill Williams]

It's incorrect. Sollecito is the first person saying "there is no theft", without being asked; it was Sollecito's spontaneous pointing out or correction, the Carabinieri in fact did not specifically ask any question about what was stolen or if they stole anything.

Then, on the second call few seconds later the officer asked about "what has been stolen" and Raffaele repeated the concept that "they didn't steal anything" (Sollecito thus repeated the thing twice, the first time not being asked).

And this is suspicious....... how?

 

[Strozzi]

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.

I agree with you and want to point out how well you take us through these points.

Let me repeat something that I wrote earlier - police often get calls reporting burglaries or auto accidents where the caller will say/volunteer "nothing taken" or "nobody is hurt" before a thorough inspection is possible and the caller can actually know for sure. It means the caller at this early stage has not noticed anything taken or anyone injured and has seen no obvious reason for it to be otherwise. I think the defense should point this out if they need to rebut this issue.

I believe Machiavelli cited Raffaele's statement as a "lie" - one of many alleged lies or statements that the two defendants allegedly made that Machiavelli seeks to weave together into "osmotic" proof of guilt. He is here to protect the PLE and learn what critical thinkers say about the case so that he can help the prosecution prevail. As he indicated, he is an advisor to some pro-prosecution interests and this is war!

 

[Machiavelli]

And this is suspicious....... how?

The question whether this is an element for suspicion or not, it's an assessment to be made on a subsequent stage. Here I only meant to point out the matter of facts, talking about what he actually said.

 

[Bill Williams]

The question whether this is an element for suspicion or not, it's an assessment to be made on a subsequent stage. Here I only meant to point out the matter of facts, talking about what he actually said.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Strozzi]

It's incorrect. Sollecito is the first person saying "there is no theft", without being asked; it was Sollecito's spontaneous pointing out or correction, the Carabinieri in fact did not specifically ask any question about what was stolen or if they stole anything.

Then, on the second call few seconds later the officer asked about "what has been stolen" and Raffaele repeated the concept that "they didn't steal anything" (Sollecito thus repeated the thing twice, the first time not being asked).

Machiavelli, I accept your statement that Raffaele volunteered the "nothing taken" comment first. You are trying to find suspicious meaning in this because of a desire to find the defendants guilty. Prove that there is meaning to this.

I suggest that in addition to Raffaele seeing valuables present and no indication (cut TV antenna, etc.) that items were removed, he may have been further along in his conversation on this matter than the police operator. Amanda may have said something which he understood to mean nothing is missing. Or his sister Vanessa, then an officer of the Carbineri in Rome, with whom Raffaele spoke by phone a minute before he called the police operator, may have asked Raffaelle if anything was taken to which he may have said "no" or "I don't think so". So, whether Raffaele was thinking of this issue as a result of a comment Amanda may have made or a question from his sister, either could explain why Raffaele spoke of "nothing taken" ahead of the police operator asking if anything is taken.

You are really desperate to try to use this as an indication of guilt or suspicion.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
I believe Machiavelli cited Raffaele's statement as a "lie" - one of many alleged lies or statements that the two defendants allegedly made that Machiavelli seeks to weave together into "osmotic" proof of guilt. He is here to protect the PLE and learn what critical thinkers say about the case so that he can help the prosecution prevail. As he indicated, he is an advisor to some pro-prosecution interests and this is war!

I point out that I have no interest in protecting PLE; I am only interested in protecting what I believe to be truth and justice.

And also, I add to this the fact that I consider the IIP, the pro-Knox supporters and their media Italian networks as a criminal force, and I defend what I believe should be the sovregnity of a system, and what I believe a defence by the collectivity from the power of criminal mobs should be.

I also believe the racist or prejudicial stance expressed by part of the press and of the American Polupation must be pointed out and fight as a cultural element.

I'ts curious btw that, while you accuse me of "protecting PLE", some others instead accuse me of "throwing everyone under the bus".

 

[Bill Williams]

I point out that I have no interest in protecting PLE; I am only interested in protecting what I believe to be truth and justice.

And also, I add to this the fact that I consider the IIP, the pro-Knox supporters and their media Italian networks as a criminal force, and I defend what I believe should be the sovregnity of a system, and what I believe a defence by the collectivity from the power of criminal mobs should be.

I also believe the racist or prejudicial stance expressed by part of the press and of the American Polupation must be pointed out and fight as a cultural element.

I'ts curious btw that, while you accuse me of "protecting PLE", some others instead accuse me of "throwing everyone under the bus".

I know two people you don't throw under a bus. You are nothing if not loyal.

But things got off so well.... then you posted this nonsense. Can you name the criminals you accuse? Hellmann? Vecchiotti?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, I accept your statement that Raffaele volunteered the "nothing taken" comment first. You are trying to find suspicious meaning in this because of a desire to find the defendants guilty. Prove that there is meaning to this.
(...)

Look, actually I really want to leave you the freedom to assess Sollecito's statement the way you like. I did not have a wish to engage in a discussion about why his comment is suspicious.
I think it's useful if I point out a factual point, what he said; as for why it is suspicious or not, well, to me there is nothing wrong in bringing opinions about it but it may be rather more a waste of time, or at least it would take a bit. To me it is just obvious why it is suspicious, I find it strange that some people won't perceive it as such or don't notice. If you want to understand more why we have these different perceptions, I should think about and describe a bit more at lenght my experience of things and logical procedure about the point.

 

[Machiavelli]

I know two people you don't throw under a bus. You are nothing if not loyal.

(...)

You are mistaken even on this one. I would have some criticism about Mignini as well, but nothing comparable to your accusations and nothing really against his honesty or professionalism.
About Stefanoni, I really can't think about anything because she did nothing wrong in my opinion and nothing beyond her task.

The problem with these two people is that I hate their accusers. I am disgusted by the campaign that has targeted them. You mistake my hatred against their accusers with a kind of loyalty to them. You are wrong. It would be like saying Emile Zola was loyal to jewish communities because he defended Dreyfuss. Which is an absurd twisting of facts. Zola was not loyal to any persecuted minority, he couldn't care lees about their identity and couldn't care less about whether the person he was defending was 'perfect' or not; he was motivated by his own rage, not by any loyalty.
Just like some pro-Knox supporter seem to be.
The same is about me.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are mistaken even on this one. I would have some criticism about Mignini as well, but nothing comparable to your accusations and nothing really against his honesty or professionalism.
About Stefanoni, I really can't think about anything because she did nothing wrong in my opinion and nothing beyond her task.

The problem with these two people is that I hate their accusers. I am disgusted by the campaign that has targeted them. You mistake my hatred against their accusers with a kind of loyalty to them. You are wrong. It would be like saying Emile Zola was loyal to jewish communities because he defended Dreyfuss. Which is an absurd twisting of facts. Zola was not loyal to any persecuted minority, he couldn't care lees about their identity and couldn't care less about whether the person he was defending was 'perfect' or not; he was motivated by his own rage, not by any loyalty.
Just like some pro-Knox supporter seem to be.
The same is about me.

Your comments are interesting but don't really address what I was getting at. I'm not sure I've ever run across quite a character who insists on redefining what the issue is so that you're always arguing on friendly ground.

Are you sure you're not a politician?

 

[Dan O.]

2. Kokomani was in the area at that time (per cellphone data)

I haven't followed the cars outside. But Rudy was in Meredith's room alone with Meredith and the door was closed when he murdered her. There was probably nobody else even in the cottage.

7. Entry into the downstairs appartment with a key:

No. The police found the key upstairs.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your comments are interesting but don't really address what I was getting at. I'm not sure I've ever run across quite a character who insists on redefining what the issue is so that you're always arguing on friendly ground.
(...)

Well I am smiling, but actually there isn't an emoticon to express myself for this here... I think, maybe more like a movie scene where you are the charachter and say the line, that will work.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well I am smiling, but actually there isn't an emoticon to express myself for this here... I think, maybe more like a movie scene where you are the charachter and say the line, that will work.

My feeling is that you deal with things on the level of mythology, rather than fact. It's the origin of this whacky approach where you start with some overarching osmotic symbology and actually are critical of others mainly because they don't fit into the symbology.

You're a curious fellow. When reading you I dont learn about specifics of this horrible case, I learn how some argues dietrology - some hidden tribalism......

.... that you're really not interested in even explaining to those who can't hope to know. You write as if defending a religious fundamentalism where one needs prior conversion to a system of thought before one can hope to understand.

I know you don't see it that way. Consider it friendly feedback.

 

[kwill]

I would have some criticism about Mignini as well, but nothing comparable to your accusations and nothing really against his honesty

You have criticism of him, and nothing really against his honesty. That's . . . interesting. And yet Mignini did lie on CNN about the reason there were no tapes of the Knox interrogation. He had an opportunity to tell the world the real reason, but he chose not to.

CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?

It's a very direct question, yes? Is this an answer to that question? No.

Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped.

That's all very nice, Mr. Prosecutor, and also irrelevant. He keeps going with the obfuscations that do not answer the question: Why wasn't there any video or transcript of those hours?

Mignini: The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of…

Yes, yes, but what about the interrogation that led to her arrest?

But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe.

So . . . what are we the people to make of this strange interview with the man who has convinced himself that a normal pair of college students are guilty of murder? First he says that "it" (meaning turning on a tape recorder or a video camera, it's not clear which) is just "not done" in a police station at the very moment of interrogation.

Let's remember that Amanda and Raffaele were definitely recorded in private conversation at this very same police station, and that their conversations there were definitely transcribed.

And then let's think about his claim that "not insignificant" budget problems do not allow them to transcribe what he has just claimed was really a very short and friendly interrogation.

This is a lie. Mignini is a liar.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have criticism of him, and nothing really against his honesty. That's . . . interesting. And yet Mignini did lie on CNN about the reason there were no tapes of the Knox interrogation. He had an opportunity to tell the world the real reason, but he chose not to.



It's a very direct question, yes? Is this an answer to that question? No.



That's all very nice, Mr. Prosecutor, and also irrelevant. He keeps going with the obfuscations that do not answer the question: Why wasn't there any video or transcript of those hours?



Yes, yes, but what about the interrogation that led to her arrest?



So . . . what are we the people to make of this strange interview with the man who has convinced himself that a normal pair of college students are guilty of murder? First he says that "it" (meaning turning on a tape recorder or a video camera, it's not clear which) is just "not done" in a police station at the very moment of interrogation.

Let's remember that Amanda and Raffaele were definitely recorded in private conversation at this very same police station, and that their conversations there were definitely transcribed.

And then let's think about his claim that "not insignificant" budget problems do not allow them to transcribe what he has just claimed was really a very short and friendly interrogation.

This is a lie. Mignini is a liar.

The trouble is, that even though this is true, that Mignini lied to Drew Griffin, the overarching trajectory of Machiavelli's thought doesn't allow for it.

The stranger thing that Drew Griffin said when explaining this interview to (I think it was Anderson Cooper), was the next day when Griffin met Mignini on the street in Perugia. Mignini came over to Griffin and asked (it much have been through an interpretor), "Did I sound believable?" That was a "WTF" moment for Griffin.

This is who Machiavelli stays up late at night to defend... and Machiavelli, true to form simply shifts the ground from underneath that claim - all the while controlling the rhetorical agenda.

I note that Machiavelli not answer the question as to whether or not he considers Hellmann and/or Vecchiotti as criminals. He's got quite the detailed mythology to defend.

The simpler answer is as you suggest, Kwill. Mignini got caught with his hand in the cookie jar in 2007 and it has been one lie after another to try to fend off his own criminal troubles. Yet to come.

 

[Poppy1016]

The trouble is, that even though this is true, that Mignini lied to Drew Griffin, the overarching trajectory of Machiavelli's thought doesn't allow for it.

The stranger thing that Drew Griffin said when explaining this interview to (I think it was Anderson Cooper), was the next day when Griffin met Mignini on the street in Perugia. Mignini came over to Griffin and asked (it much have been through an interpretor), "Did I sound believable?" That was a "WTF" moment for Griffin.

This is who Machiavelli stays up late at night to defend... and Machiavelli, true to form simply shifts the ground from underneath that claim - all the while controlling the rhetorical agenda.

I note that Machiavelli not answer the question as to whether or not he considers Hellmann and/or Vecchiotti as criminals. He's got quite the detailed mythology to defend.

The simpler answer is as you suggest, Kwill. Mignini got caught with his hand in the cookie jar in 2007 and it has been one lie after another to try to fend off his own criminal troubles. Yet to come.

Machiavelli has clearly referred to Hellmann and Vechiotti as criminals. And now he refers to us as criminals also.