• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, according to Vibio:

The Carabinieri operator's use of the words "furto in abitazione" translates into English as a "break in", with no connotation of "theft"

But when Sollecito replies "Non c'è il furto... " the word "furto" suddenly translates as "theft"!

Who'd a thunk it?!

:rolleyes:
 
toto said:
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!
Click to expand...


You're exactly correct. To any lay person, the term "burglary" automatically implies theft (or at the very least, attempted theft).

To argue anything else is just semantic nonsense.
 
LondonJohn said:
You're exactly correct. To any lay person, the term "burglary" automatically implies theft (or at the very least, attempted theft).

To argue anything else is just semantic nonsense.
Click to expand...

And we will have none of that! :mad:
 
Vibio said:
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.
Click to expand...


Oh my goodeness,
a guilter just convinced me that Amanda+Raff ARE guilty!
I am now truly a believer!!!

And after killing Mez,
they meet up with Rudy Guede,


got stoned or did some lines with him,
told him they were gonna put his DNA inside Meredith's vagina
and leave HIS fingerprints, palm prints and shoe prints even, all over the place,
so he had better go out dancing to create an alibi and then split town,
while they did an immaculate clean-up job to remove ALL of their own DNA+fingerprints
and then planned to stay in town + face down the best police investigators that Italy had to offer...
Right...
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
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.
Click to expand...

True enough. In this case, though, the perpetrator left a bloody palm print, bloody shoe prints, DNA inside the victim's vagina, DNA on her clothing, and DNA on her purse.

Crime scene photos and the autopsy report show what he did. She was standing next to her bed when he attacked her, holding her from behind with a knife in his right hand. He stabbed her in the neck, and she tried to break free. A brief struggle took place. It ended when he forced her to her knees and cut her throat. Then he dragged her into the middle of the room, ripped her clothes off, and raped her as she lay dying.

The cops hadn't figured any of that out by Nov. 6, 2007, when they convened their press conference. They told a completely different story, and then they went on a mad scramble for "evidence" to prop it up.
 
LondonJohn said:
You're exactly correct. To any lay person, the term "burglary" automatically implies theft (or at the very least, attempted theft).

To argue anything else is just semantic nonsense.
Click to expand...

London John, the operator was speaking in the Italian language. To another Italian.

I don't know how well you speak Italian but "Furto in abitazione" to an Italian (my language) does NOT mean theft.

"There was a break-in?" is what he was asking.

RS responded "No, it was not a theft."
 
Vibio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Looking at the relevant article and this guide to the crime of theft (of which "furto in abitazione" is a sub-category), this doesn't sound right to me. Taking possession of someone else's property seems to be an essential part of the crime: the only difference I see between simple theft and "furto in abitazione" is that the latter occurs by entering a building or other place. In fact the wording of article 624 (theft) and the wording of 624b ("furto in abitazione") is identical, except the latter specifies there has to be entrance into a building or other place. Am I misreading it?

Article 624 (furto) said:
Chiunque si impossessa della cosa mobile altrui, sottraendola a chi la detiene, al fine di trarne profitto per sé o per altri..
Click to expand...
Article 624b (furto in abitazione) said:
Chiunque si impossessa della cosa mobile altrui, sottraendola a chi la detiene, al fine di trarne profitto per sé o per altri, mediante introduzione in un edificio o in altro luogo...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
London John, the operator was speaking in the Italian language. To another Italian.

I don't know how well you speak Italian but "Furto in abitazione" to an Italian (my language) does NOT mean theft.

"There was a break-in?" is what he was asking.

RS responded "No, it was not a theft."
Click to expand...


You may care to read this post of mine from a little higher up the thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9667918#post9667918

And then you may care to ponder a while on the word "furto" (I'll give you a clue: that word was used twice in close succession in the call between Sollecito and the Carabinieri. Once by the Carabinieri operator, and once by Sollecito....).
 
katy_did said:
Looking at the relevant article and this guide to the crime of theft (of which "furto in abitazione" is a sub-category), this doesn't sound right to me. Taking possession of someone else's property seems to be an essential part of the crime: the only difference I see between simple theft and "furto in abitazione" is that the latter occurs by entering a building or other place. In fact the wording of article 624 (theft) and the wording of 624b ("furto in abitazione") is identical, except the latter specifies there has to be entrance into a building or other place. Am I misreading it?
Click to expand...


No, you're not misreading it, and you are correct. "Furto in abitazione" translates to "theft from a domestic residence", and implies both the entry into the premises and the theft of property from the premises.

I think that one.........HUGE clue may be in the form of the word "furto".

Guess how "furto" translates to English?

"Theft".
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your responding Mr. Vibio.
 
Vibio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your responses. Sorry for the duplicate post.
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
Physical evidence at the crime scene is not always left by the perpetrator. Even in bloody violent crimes.
Click to expand...


Sure,
not even when it's left by the Black Man Found...
:rolleyes:

From Rudy Guede's German Diary:
He tried to attack me but I
took a chair to protect myself, being stronger than him.
Although I had a chair and he had a weapon, he exited
through the front door telling me "black man found,
guilty man found," he yelled.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
So, according to Vibio:

The Carabinieri operator's use of the words "furto in abitazione" translates into English as a "break in", with no connotation of "theft"

But when Sollecito replies "Non c'è il furto... " the word "furto" suddenly translates as "theft"!

Who'd a thunk it?!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You're not suggesting that someone came here to commit premeditated dietrology, are you LondonJohn? Aggravated dietrology with intent to gawk!
 
Vibio said:
If you can read Italian go "furto in Abitazione" in Wikipedia.
Click to expand...


- where the leading picture is of a bicycle theft.....

- where the term literally means Theft in Habitation (house)....
 
Last edited:
Poppy1016 said:
I appreciate your responding Mr. Vibio.
Click to expand...

And Vibio is completely correct to state that physical evidence of the perpetrator is not always left at the crime scene (or, more accurately, is not detectable), even in bloody violent crimes.

Vibio would also be correct to state that it's eminently possible to convict someone of a bloody violent murder even when there is no physical evidence of their participation in the crime.

However....... in order for a safe conviction in such circumstances, there would have to be other evidence that constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


Here's an example (somewhat of a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point) that I've given before:

Prisoner A and Prisoner B share a cell. They are provably locked in their cell at 8pm. Their cell door is provably not unlocked again until 8am the following morning. When it is unlocked, the prison officer looks into the cell and sees B lying dead on his bed. A pathologist later confirms that B was killed by suffocation with his pillow, and that it was homicide rather than suicide.

There is none of A's DNA or biological material on the pillow itself or on B's body, and no bruises or scratches on A's body. There is, in fact, no physical evidence whatsoever which could link A to B's murder.

A can safely be convicted of B's murder.
 
London John: "But when Sollecito replies "Non c'è il furto... " the word "furto" suddenly translates as "theft"! Who'd a thunk it?!"

Have you any experience translating English into another language? If you translate word-for-word you can often wind up like those funny Google translations.

"Furto in abitazione" is a term. It cannot be translated word for word. The best English equivalent is break-in.

Of course a break-in can be with the intent to steal. But if there was a theft or not, that would be another question.

...............

Futhermore: The word Burglary does not mean theft. It means the "act of entering into a building" with the INTENT to steal.

In law it the crime of tresspassing with the intent of rape, grievous bodily harm, damage, or theft. Or of simply tresspassing.

Look it up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom