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

[Grinder]

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

State troopers dispatched to the Norwalk Courthouse Sunday night found a person had entered the building through a broken window, but apparently nothing was taken.

Wow, they wrote this story over 24 hours after the break-in but still used the modifier "apparently".

It is clear that had he said "apparently" or "it doesn't seem", I wouldn't think the answer odd or suspicious.

It is my impression that perps make subtle mistakes rather than blurting out "I killed her", but with this group that statement would be spun that he felt responsible for her murder because he had met Amanda and otherwise she wouldn't have been alone.

 

[kwill]

To me it raises the question: how would Filomena have known this? Was she in the habit of walking in on Meredith unannounced? She would certainly need to have been to have formed so emphatic a view on the subject after only a few weeks of her living there.

Not that I regard this as any mystery. What Filomena was doing was stating a trivial falsehood, because she had a far bigger fish to fry than being pedantically accurate in her every utterance -- namely, persuading the guy from the postal police to break down Meredith's door. That's just how even the most very honest of people happen to communicate with respect to trivial points of detail which don't have anything to do with the objective they're trying to achieve.

I think Meredith locked her door more than Filomena realized. Meredith may have locked it when she had a lot cash in her room, including when she had rent cash onhand. She may have locked in if there was a man in the house - a friend of Filomena, Laura, or Amanda. She may have locked it for other reasons.

Amanda would be in the best position to know because their rooms were adjacent, their bedroom doors were side-by-side, and Amanda and Merdith's daily schedules of classes overlapped better than Meredith's schedule with that of Filomena and Laura, who were working normal business-day hours at a law firm. Amanda would have heard Meredith turn her bedroom door key when she was coming and going.

Two examples of clear thinking, thanks. Filomena was emphatic because she was trying to get them to open the door, but Amanda was much more likely to know the answer to the question. It's only important because it's become one of the weird instances claimed by guilters as evidence that Amanda is a liar.

If only they would apply their sharp eyes to what hash Mignini routinely makes of truth.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini is not indicted of anything.

I found out there is a hearing scheduled on Jan 15 2014, but it's not a trial. And there is no indictment. That is the preliminary hearing I was waiting for long time!
There is no request of indictment by the prosecution. But the case goes in the hand of the preliminary judge first, before being assessed by the prosecution office, as a procedure because this is from a case of territorial competence.

That preliminary judge in Turin will decide what to do with the investigation file on Giuttari and Mignini, and I tell you, there will be no trial. Nor indictment.
The only possible result will be a dropping of charges. The only question to see is the legal formula for that.

I want to move this to the top...... January 15 is not that far away. Many are saying that the preliminary hearing which sent this to trial was on Nov 22.

But Machiavelli disagrees. I guess we will see. I just did not want Machiavelli to deny he'd said the above if and when he's proven wrong.

He does that, you know.

 

[Grinder]

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?

If he wasn't calling about a burglary then what was he calling about. Most everyone here saying that the call wasn't suspicious are saying that he was really calling about the blood and the locked door and the roommate that couldn't be found or reached.

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.

No if he had said he didn't know if anything was missing or said that there was blood, a locked door and a missing roommate that wouldn't have been suspicious.

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.

When did this story come out? When were the police aware of the difference? I don't think it would be as suspicious in that it would a detail of an eye-witness which we all know they get wrong all the time. There is a difference getting a detail wrong and making a declarative statement that they could be sure of. Check Dan O's link to the courthouse break-in.

But I would say that you would be wrong to point out that the different observations could raise suspicions. I would argue they don't do much in proving guilt.

 

[Briars]

Flatmates who lived in close quarters probably had a good idea if someone locked their door often or not. Returnig from the shower was she observed taking a key to unlock the door as Amanda said she did. The sound of a key in a lock makes a distinctive sound and that was either a common daily occurence or not.A sound that could be heard in the next room even if noone was in the hall. Filomena was certain she never locked her door and with good reason.

 

[Bill Williams]

Flatmates who lived in close quarters probably had a good idea if someone locked their door often or not. Returnig from the shower was she observed taking a key to unlock the door as Amanda said she did. The sound of a key in a lock makes a distinctive sound and that was either a common daily occurence or not.A sound that could be heard in the next room even if noone was in the hall. Filomena was certain she never locked her door and with good reason.

And, of course, all of this was discussed at length at trial, and it forms the backbone of the Crini prosecution...... not.

No, this is presented as a pure surmise, based on nothing, all with the intent of suggesting that someone (usually Knox or Sollecito) was lying.

It doesn't even cover what was really real for Filomena.. the issue for her was to get the door open..... by any means possible. Amanda and Raffaele tried and failed. The postal police outright refused.....

I think Filomena would have lied about the earth being flat if that would get the door open.

 

[Grinder]

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.

In fact there was a burglary and the burglar only took little things. I love the intricate scenario's of what Amanda said in English and what his sister told him, neither of which the cops would know at the time. May Follain has those dialogs as well.

I disagree with Mach that the suspicious nature of the reply translates into anything significant.

I like my idea that his sister said say "nothing" and when asked he said "nothing".

 

[toto]

What's your point Bill why not ask your pal Frank if he was one of the two? Perugians who registered a complaint against the cost of the video..Amanda never complained about her treatment in jail to her lawyers. The guard should be charged for actual transgressions involving her or others if true, Nothing to do with her innocence btw. Mignini will not be charged with anything unlike Spezi. Do you know why Sollecito met him in Florence?

I think the point is that not all the people involved in the prosecution of Knox and Raffaele seem to have the highest ethical standards. In a related point if Amanda is proved justified in her criticism of the head guard at Capanne, then it helps to show her as a generally truthful person (who might have been telling the truth about the slap on her head for instance).

 

[kwill]

Flatmates who lived in close quarters probably had a good idea if someone locked their door often or not.

Agreed. And the closer the quarters, the better idea they would have. Whose room was closer to Meredith's? Amanda's. Therefore who would know whether or not she usually locked it? Amanda.

Filomena was certain she never locked her door and with good reason.

Well, she said she was certain. Whose schedule do you suppose was more likely to match Meredith's? Amanda's, because they were both college students, or Filomena's because she worked full time at a law office? She obviously wanted the police to break in and see if Meredith was in there, so she said it was unusual for the door to be locked -- the clear implication being that something was wrong.

It's so easy to see what was going on . . . what's hard is understanding why so many people are so determined to give some people who are known to have lied repeatedly (Guede and Mignini) every benefit of the doubt while parsing every word said by a couple of innocent college students.

 

[Grinder]

Raffaele wrote in his book Honor Bound pages 26 -29

I agreed with Amanda, the kitchen, the and living room looked normal. So did Laura's room; a couple of drawers were pulled open, but that didn't strike me as out of the ordinary. Amanda's room was apparently untouched: she had left the previous night's clothes shrewn over her bed, and her other things were less than tidy, but nothing seemed to be missing. Then I pushed open Filomena's door, which had been left slightly ajar, and saw that the place was trashed. Clothes and belongings were strewn everywhere. The window had a large, roundish hole, and broken glass was spread all over the floor.
Okay, we thought. so there's been a break-in. What we couldn't understand was why Filomena's laptop was still propped upright in its case on the floor, or why her digital camera was still sitting out in the kitchen. As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere...
...
...I dialled the emergency number for the carabinieri. On the first try, the dispatcher said he was busy and told me to call back. Not exactly the response I wanted to hear. When I called back a few minutes later, he was still noticeably impatient.
When I described the break-in and the bloodstains, and he became fixated on the idea that the intruder had cut himself on the glass on the way through Filomena's window. I didn't quite know how to respond to that, and when I hesitated, he growled at me to make sure I was still there.
"So, it's a home burglary?" he asked.
"No, nothing's been taken." I didn't know that for sure, of course, and I should have been more careful about my choice of words. At the time, I though, I thought I was just performing my civic duty by passing the information along...

As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere...

That's his book written 5 years after the event and he uses a modifier - "as far as we could tell"

My contention is that the answer looked suspicious when it was first reviewed, not 5 years later after it was explained.

Over a day later, the report of Dan's courthouse break-in said "apparently".

 

[yimyammer]

RS:
Ehmm...this ...

[Raffaele Sollecito hangs up the phone]
POLICE:
Hello??


Second call
POLICE:
Carabinieri, Perugia.
RS:
Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.

The only thing I find strange about this conversation is that it says Raf hung up on the police. Did he really do that or did he have the typical cell phone disconnection?

 

[toto]

As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere...

That's his book written 5 years after the event and he uses a modifier - "as far as we could tell"

My contention is that the answer looked suspicious when it was first reviewed, not 5 years later after it was explained.

Over a day later, the report of Dan's courthouse break-in said "apparently".

I know it's your contention. You've already said so! I don't think I have made a comment one way or the other on your point of view, except to say that ironically the best thing for Raffaele would be to have said "There's nothing stolen as far we can tell so far" , but this would paradoxically be exactly what a guilty person would have said. Raffaele and Amanda seem to say and do a number of things that haven't helped them at all, and yet were they to have been guilty they would have been far more cautious and circumspect. (IMO)

 

[Briars]

You can hear him say cosa fai to Amanda prior to the hangup .

 

[toto]

As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere...

That's his book written 5 years after the event and he uses a modifier - "as far as we could tell"

My contention is that the answer looked suspicious when it was first reviewed, not 5 years later after it was explained.

Over a day later, the report of Dan's courthouse break-in said "apparently".

I've just realised that your point might not be directed at me, but at the chunk of text I quoted! Not interested in starting a potential straw man argument! Just really interested in whether they are guilty or not and being prepared to change my views back to guilty if anyone can persuade me. It's just that everything makes so much more sense if I see things through a "not guilty" prism. Seeing events through a "guilty" prism as everyone has pointed out leads to bewildering scenarios that really don't (for me at least) hang together. Obviously the police have a duty to examine all the evidence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere...

That's his book written 5 years after the event and he uses a modifier - "as far as we could tell"

My contention is that the answer looked suspicious when it was first reviewed, not 5 years later after it was explained.

Fair enough. The police are supposed to be suspicious. Their suspicions are often aroused by observations that turn out not to be relevant to whatever they are investigating. That is not the problem here. The problem is that this is still being raised as though it is evidence of something, and it is not.

 

[Briars]

Actually, I thought it was quite clever.
What's interesting is that you say you speak Italian and Bill just asked for a translation of a short passage, and you avoided it like the plague.

How clever? it really isn't so difficult to learn another language but glad you are impressed and incredulous.I feel very special all of a sudden. Now if Bill could only come up with a charge or false complaint against Crini that would be something , time is a ticking .

 

[toto]

How clever? it really isn't so difficult to learn another language but glad you are impressed and incredulous.I feel very special all of a sudden. Now if Bill could only come up with a charge or false complaint against Crini that would be something , time is a ticking .

You are missing a trick here. You should have written all that in Italian.

 

[Briars]

Machiavelli did say that he wasn't asked first about any theft, but he was, in both calls.

That is true Sollecito had told him that practicamente someone had broken the window made a mess then and there was a closed door, Then came the required info taken about names and address, Then the dispatcher still taking notes says so they broke a window and there was a theft A statement or question trying to understand. Sollecito follows there was no theft.

 

[Briars]

Oh I didn't miss a thing and nor do have to prove anything by playing secretary to BIll and his stopping points.

 

[Bill Williams]

How clever? it really isn't so difficult to learn another language but glad you are impressed and incredulous.I feel very special all of a sudden. Now if Bill could only come up with a charge or false complaint against Crini that would be something , time is a ticking .

Briars. Calm down.... can you translate these... they are the outstanding issues against some of the people involved in the wrongful prosecution of Sollecito and Knox. Do you deny that, or are you simply going to point elsewhere hoping people don't notice?

Do you have any comments other than strawman arguments about Crini? He's got his own problems. So far he's completely ignored the ISC on motive, and he has no knife in play - and just makes up more stuff. Re: "kitchen knife is a match for the outline on the sheet."

None of what is listed is a false complaint. Nice try. Machiavelli claims the charge against Mignini isn't a charge, that the Jan 15 hearing is a preliminary. I've been told the preliminary was on Nov 22, and that Jan 15 is the beginning of the trial.

We will see. My bet is that Machiavelli will deny he ever said what he'd said. That's his style. What's yours?