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

[acbytesla]

You're right Poppy, he doesn't say to the operator "I killed Meridith".

It usually doesn't work that way.

But when you put this together with so many things...

Soooo many things: In his diary he says that Filomena's door was wide open when they got back to the cottage. In his book he says it was ajar. Either way it was open. Not closed shut.

Yet we're supposed to believe that Knox would have not have further opened that door to see if any one was home. Oh c'mon.

Another person who thinks they can read the tea leaves. Why would she? That was someone else's bedroom. Ever hear about respecting a roommates privacy?

Maybe that's not the answer, Maybe Amanda was tired and not that observant. Maybe she didn't sleep well at Raffaele's. The simple fact is that we don't know. At best this is something curious and unexplained. What it isn't, is evidence of guilt. It doesn't add a thing to the prosecution's or the defense's case. It means nothing.

What's missing is actual evidence of their involvement.

 

[Kaosium]

Her phone and calls became very interesting after RS said she went out. Police would then look at her last calls or texts. This was prior to any personal story from Donnino

You don't think they probably had checked those calls and texts before then, like perhaps when they wiretapped her? Wouldn't it be kinda odd for them to be bugging her calls and conversations in the Questura without checking whether there was any phone activity the night of the murder--which was why they were taping her and Raffaele's conversations?

 

[Vibio]

Where is the evidence in the physical evidence showing they participated in the murder? There is none. Only evidence of Rudy. He , and he alone left evidence proving he was the murderer.

There doesn't need to be.

Look up the Patrick Latko murder from last year in New Jersey.

Patrick Latko murdered his friend and his friend's mother in a small kitchen "20 stab wounds. 2 slit throats. None of his DNA or fingerprints were found.

This is from the Press of Atlantic City:

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home.

Is Latko “the unluckiest guy in the world? Or did he kill Ryan and Diana Patterson?” Shill asked.

Public defender Kevin Moses pointed out that not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings.

So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats ... so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Latko was found guilty because of other evidence unrelated to the crime scene... but DNA? Fingerprints? None.

 

[toto]

Re: RS call to the Police:

Briars is correct. RS lies in his book about the call to the police.

The operator does not at all "growl" at RS. The truth is the operator is quite patient.

He's trying to make sense of RS disjointed account. Putting myself in the operator's shoes, the first call, the one with Sollecito hanging up on him, almost sounds like a prank.

"Someone entered the house" "They broke a window" "they made a big mess" "there is a closed door"

The operator asks (as if asking for conformation): "A furto in abitazione eh?"

A "furto in abitazione" translates into English as a "break in". The operator does not ask if anything was taken.

RS answers "non c'è il furto... " Note: he uses the words "il furto" (theft)

So yes, that IS an odd thing to say to the operator unless you're sure nothing was taken. Althought I can understand giving RS the benefit of the doubt on that one, what makes no sense is the concern over the locked door. Knox said that Meridith always locked her door when she was away… so why is THAT the point of concern?

Sollecito says "il problema è che c'è la porta chiusa... ci sono macchie di sangue." "THE PROBLEM is that there is the locked door" "there are drops of blood"

THAT's the problem? That the door to Filomena's room is locked? It's the weekend, she's not there, she not answering her phone but that DOES happen.

If you come home and you see that a window is broken, a room has been overturned, your concern is that there has been a robbery.

I think you would logically assume that the blood was there because the intruder cut himself on the broken glass while entering.

Why even mention your roomate's locked door if she always locks it?

But Sollecito points out the locked door as THE problem. That is odd of him to do so. The whole thing DOES sound as if he knows what's really going on. It sounds like he's trying to put 2 and 2 together for the operator.

And he makes a big deal about the drops of blood. When the operator, trying to make sense of it all, logically asks if the intruder cut himself on the glass, Sollecito gets flustered (as Briar points out) and HANGS UP on the operator!

A normal answer would be "yeah maybe" or "yeah it looks like who ever it was cut himself" or "I have no idea"

But Sollecito gets flustered over a simple but apparently unexpected question and hangs up in the operators face.

Also Sollecito's voice (N.B.I speak Italian fluently): he does not sound agitated and confused over what happened, He doesn't sound like someone trying to make sense of things. I don't hear a sense of urgency. He sounds mealy-mouthed and like he's reciting things. Exactly like someone fibbing

I think Sollecito was a little unnerved by Filomena calling back a few times and making them "appropriately concerned that Meredith had vanished without a trace". (p27 Honor Bound), He was, he says, taking the call on behalf of Amanda whose Italian was not up to it. He thought he was "performing his civic duty".

 

[LondonJohn]

Last edited by toto; Today at 11:54 AM. Reason: punctation

punctation

ETA - I thought that was a interrogation technique of the PLE.

Yeah it sounds perhaps like some sort of torture by prodding the suspect's arms and legs with a sharp pointed metal spear.

Perhaps that might have "helped" Knox "remember" the police's "version of events that they knew to be correct" even more quickly........

 

[Grinder]

Odd remarks are not evidence of guilt . Where is there any REAL evidence of guilt?

Where does he say it is evidence of guilt? The remarks clearly were reasonably thought to be odd and suspicious at the time.

I see to this day that they could be construed to be on the side of the scales for guilt. They don't prove guilty but it is fair to put them on that side.

 

[Mary_H]

Welcome, Vibio. You're a brave soul to venture onto these shores.

<snip>If you come home and you see that a window is broken, a room has been overturned, your concern is that there has been a robbery.

Amanda and Raffaele probably were concerned about a robbery at first, but after some exploration they found that not only did nothing seem to be missing from Filomena's room, there also were no disturbances in any other part of the house.

The phone call to the police happened about 1 1/2-2 hours after Amanda first arrived home. If she and Raffaele wanted to fake a burglary and fake being alarmed, why would they wait to do so? That looks even more suspicious than coming in, seeing strange feces and blood and calling police immediately.

I think you would logically assume that the blood was there because the intruder cut himself on the broken glass while entering.

Why even mention your roomate's locked door if she always locks it?

But Sollecito points out the locked door as THE problem. That is odd of him to do so. The whole thing DOES sound as if he knows what's really going on. It sounds like he's trying to put 2 and 2 together for the operator.

The amount of time that elapsed also gave them time to get worried and a little panicky about Meredith not answering her phones. She wasn't out of town -- they had seen her less than 24 hours before all this. It was the other evidence combined with them not being able to contact her that raised their concern.

And he makes a big deal about the drops of blood. When the operator, trying to make sense of it all, logically asks if the intruder cut himself on the glass, Sollecito gets flustered (as Briar points out) and HANGS UP on the operator!

Happens all the time.

A normal answer would be "yeah maybe" or "yeah it looks like who ever it was cut himself" or "I have no idea"<snip>

Yeah, I can imagine what we would be discussing if Raffaele had said "it looks like whoever it was cut himself." That's an even bigger leap than "nothing's been taken."

The interesting thing about discussing this phone call is that the dispatcher/officer who took the call may not have found it suspicious at all. It is looked at with suspicion only because Raffaele was later arrested, but not for the phone call.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

How does it work in the US in States where it is not required?

They get a lot of bogus confessions, like the Norfolk Four. Here is a brief synopsis:

Suspect 1 (Danial Williams) confessed, naming no accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Williams.

Suspect 2 (Joseph Dick) confessed, naming Williams as his accomplice. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Dick.

Suspect 3 (Eric Wilson) confessed, naming Williams and Dick as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Wilson.

Suspect 4 (Derek Tice) confessed, naming Williams, Dick, and Wilson as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Tice.

Eventually, the guy who did it, who was in prison for something else, told someone who passed it on to the police. His DNA matched the crime scene samples.

Even with recordings, the cops game the system. They break the suspect before they turn on the camera. Here's one from Illinois, which as you say was the first state to require electronic recordings:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/magazine/100000001188108/jerry-hobbs-confession.html

Sounds pretty good eh? "I was just trying to be a father and take control of my children" and things got out of hand. Very professional police work.

But... the guy didn't do it. The whole story is complete fiction. The crime was the work of a sexual predator the confessor had never met.

I'll let you figure this one out. Which confession is real, anchored to physical evidence found at the crime scene, and which is false?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/matthew-livers-confession-11533097

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/jessica-reids-confession-11533129

 

[Grinder]

There doesn't need to be.

Look up the Patrick Latko murder from last year in New Jersey.

Patrick Latko murdered his friend and his friend's mother in a small kitchen "20 stab wounds. 2 slit throats. None of his DNA or fingerprints were found.

This is from the Press of Atlantic City:

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home.

Is Latko “the unluckiest guy in the world? Or did he kill Ryan and Diana Patterson?” Shill asked.

Public defender Kevin Moses pointed out that not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings.

So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats ... so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Latko was found guilty because of other evidence unrelated to the crime scene... but DNA? Fingerprints? None.

Ever consider he isn't guilty?

What was the other evidence?

 

[acbytesla]

There doesn't need to be.

Look up the Patrick Latko murder from last year in New Jersey.

Patrick Latko murdered his friend and his friend's mother in a small kitchen "20 stab wounds. 2 slit throats. None of his DNA or fingerprints were found.

This is from the Press of Atlantic City:

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home.

Is Latko “the unluckiest guy in the world? Or did he kill Ryan and Diana Patterson?” Shill asked.

Public defender Kevin Moses pointed out that not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings.

So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats ... so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Latko was found guilty because of other evidence unrelated to the crime scene... but DNA? Fingerprints? None.

Let me guess, they convicted him on motive and other compelling evidence. Don't you think it is interesting that there is none of that as well? Or is he another suspect that got railroaded, like Debra Milke and Ryan Ferguson....etc..etc.

Just because some people get convicted does not mean that they really committed the crime.

 

[kwill]

There doesn't need to be.

Look up the Patrick Latko murder from last year in New Jersey.

Patrick Latko murdered his friend and his friend's mother in a small kitchen "20 stab wounds. 2 slit throats. None of his DNA or fingerprints were found.

This is from the Press of Atlantic City:

"But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home.

Is Latko “the unluckiest guy in the world? Or did he kill Ryan and Diana Patterson?” Shill asked.

Public defender Kevin Moses pointed out that not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings.

So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats ... so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

Latko was found guilty because of other evidence unrelated to the crime scene... but DNA? Fingerprints? None.

Interesting case. I wondered how they convicted him without DNA or prints, so I did look it up.

Three days after the murders, investigators found a knife about a half-mile from the Pattersons' home with Ryan Patterson's blood on it. Investigators traced the purchase of the knife to Latko, and its sheath was found in his Deptford storage unit, Shill said.

Garofolo listed numerous events in Latko's history, including an incident where he hit and tried to run off the road the car of a woman who had a restraining order against him.

Latko has had six domestic-violence complaints against him and two charges of contempt for violating restraining orders, Garofolo said.
The evidence consisted of numerous text messages Latko had sent to friends including one which stated that if he finds out who was criticizing him to his former girlfriend, “they’re a dead man.”

Latko’s cell phone was found in the Patterson’s home following the
murders. There was surveillance footage of Latko changing his clothes little more than one half-hour after the murders had occurred.

So, yes. Absent DNA evidence, you need some very strong reasons to convict someone. In Latko's case, it sounds like they found those in abundance.

Let's see, in the case of Amanda . . . we have a text saying "see you later, have a good night." We have a single noise ticket from a going away party. We have a creative writing exercise where somebody gets raped. We have a roommate remembering something about insufficient toilet-brushing. And we have abundant DNA and fingerprint and shoe-print evidence from somebody else.

I'm glad you agree that her DNA and prints weren't part of the evidence, though. There is no evidence, no motive, and no reason to pretend anybody but Guede was there.

 

[Vibio]

Grinder my post "There doesn't need to be...." was in response to Poppy. Physical evidence at the crime scene is not always left by the perpetrator. Even in bloody violent crimes.

 

[Grinder]

Amanda and Raffaele probably were concerned about a robbery at first, but after some exploration they found that not only did nothing seem to be missing from Filomena's room, there also were no disturbances in any other part of the house.

Burglary Mary burglary.

The amount of time that elapsed also gave them time to get worried and a little panicky about Meredith not answering her phones. She wasn't out of town -- they had seen her less than 24 hours before all this. It was the other evidence combined with them not being able to contact her that raised their concern.

It is not mutually exclusive that it was suspicious, remains odd but can be explained.

The interesting thing about discussing this phone call is that the dispatcher/officer who took the call may not have found it suspicious at all. It is looked at with suspicion only because Raffaele was later arrested, but not for the phone call.

When reviewing the 911 call which is standard procedure, that definitive nothing stolen would be a flag. Certainly had Nara made the call with a witness that she was in her apartment it wouldn't be suspicious. Well even then they would wonder how she knew.

 

[toto]

No Toto. You're wrong.

Burlary is a legal term:

Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. To engage in the act of burglary is to burgle (in British English) or to burglarize (in American English).[3]

There is a difference between a burglary and theft. And the term "Furto in abitazione" DOES not mean theft.

If you can read Italian go "furto in Abitazione" in Wikipedia.

Well I am not wrong that google translate translates "furto in Abitazione" as burglary! I am also not wrong that I gave the OED definition of burglary. However, I accept that Wikipedia quotes the Theft Act of 1968 :
(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

I accept that theft is not a necessary part of burglary therefore. I can't understand any Italian (hence my reliance on google translate). In the UK 99 percent (my made up figure) of people when telling someone their house has been burgled may well be asked "What did they take?" ! I do hope you are not getting all Machiavellian on me!

 

[Vibio]

Welcome, Vibio. You're a brave soul to venture onto these shores.

I'm a very busy guy... so I don't have much time to post.

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting case. I wondered how they convicted him without DNA or prints, so I did look it up.<snip>

So, yes. Absent DNA evidence, you need some very strong reasons to convict someone. In Latko's case, it sounds like they found those in abundance.<snip>

I was pretty sure it would turn out to be something like that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a narrative with a timeline would be nice

But when you put this together with so many things...

How about putting this together with so many things and coming up with a narrative and timeline of what happened? This narrative and timeline should include and explain all of the things that are supposedly odd or suspicious. The crime happened six years ago; I don't think it is too much to ask.

 

[Mary_H]

Burglary Mary burglary.

I was using Vibio's terminology, Grinder, Vibio's terminology.

It is not mutually exclusive that it was suspicious, remains odd but can be explained.

When reviewing the 911 call which is standard procedure, that definitive nothing stolen would be a flag. Certainly had Nara made the call with a witness that she was in her apartment it wouldn't be suspicious. Well even then they would wonder how she knew.

Was the 911 call reviewed by investigators before the arrests?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder my post "There doesn't need to be...." was in response to Poppy. Physical evidence at the crime scene is not always left by the perpetrator. Even in bloody violent crimes.

I see you are not a disciple of Locard.

What was the evidence they used to convict him?

My point was that just because someone was convicted of a similar crime and left no evidence doesn't really prove anything.

It does seem odd that they didn't find any evidence of the two in the murder room nor did they find any evidence of a clean up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

TOD and the timeline

So how did Amanda kill Meredith in such a way that her dead body still had all of her early evening meal in her stomach and none in her duodenum?

Rolfe.

Vibio, This is a good question. What do you think?