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

[Skind]

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 means tresspassing with the intent of rape, grievous bodily harm, damage, or theft.

Look it up.

It can literally be translated word for word. It is , by all appearances - including the sources you sent people off to check - the exact italian equivilant of burglary.

The italian term for break-in appears to be violazione di domicilio

 

[Dan O.]

The dispatcher was not sure of theft but Sollecito started the call to police saying someone has broken a window entered and made a big mess.....So following that intro after taking down the address he resumes and says so someone broke in and there was a theft a statement of what he understood the caller to be calling about. RS no no theft.Later after RS told him no there was no theft he says of the blood found in the bathroom so this intruder cut himself on the glass? Again a question type of statement which makes sense from what the caller has said. No answer background cosa fai? Then hangup. There is no reason for an innocent person to be defensive about reporting a breakin and try to change the reality of the 112 call.

You are trying to imagine what Raffaele was asking and filtering it through your perspective of guilt. You are searching for confirmation of your belief. You can make believe anyone is guilty with that method. A proper analysis would seek to determine if any scenario can be ruled out by the evidence.

You propose a guilt scenario where Raffaele is making the call but is only Amanda's puppet and doesn't know the scenareo that they are staging. When questioned if the intruder cut himself breaking in he has to ask the mastermind Amanda.

I propose an innocent explanation that Raffaele hadn't looked for blood in Filomena's room and was asking Amanda if she knew anything. The call hung up. We don't know if Raffaele pressed the End button or if the cell dropped the call. The police could have determined this by examining the phones log if they thought it was important.

I asked you before, did Raffaele have the call recordings or transcripts before he wrote that chapter for his book? In either case, it is universally known that emergency calls are always recorded. This recording was probably referenced if not played in the trial. Knowing that the call was recorded and that the prosecution had the recording, how could Raffaele gain by lying about the call?

 

[Skind]

Here's the deal - Vibio - YOU present the EXACT location where we can ALL check the OFFICIAL definition of the terms you are using.

Off you go now. Shouldn't take you more than a moment.

 

[RWVBWL]

Dang, who let the dude out?

Guede writes in his German Prison 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.

That the dude who killed Meredith Kercher exited the front door.
Hmmmm.

Let me think about this for a second or 2,
well ok, 3...

Who unlocked the front door of Meredith's flat to let the dude,
whom Rudy Guede was stronger than,
out?

Recall that Christian T. weeks earlier had to unlock his front door
to let Rudy Guede, whom he recognized as a neighbor living nearby,,
err, The Black Man out
after he had broken in through a window, (ahh, sound familiar?)
and tried to rip off the place as Christian and his chick peacefully slept...

Also please keep in mind that Meredith herself
and a friend of the dudes downstairs had recently seen someone lurking in the bushes near their flat at night.


Surely Miss Kercher,
all alone on a holiday weekend evening,
would not have unlocked her front door for just anyone if she was on a "date" with Rudy Guede,
as Grinder still apparently believes from readin' those early newspaper reports.

But if she did so,
surely she would have re-locked that front door,
or else that breezy 13 mph November canyon wind woulda kept bangin' that front door open and closed all night, right?
Esh, I'd bet that door bangin' sound would get kinda annoyin' a bit if you were tryin' to get it on while your boyfriend was outta town, right?


So who unlocked and opened the front door to let the dude,
with c****** colored hair + wearin' a N******* jacket, out the front door?

Got any ideas, Briars, Mach, or Vibio?
RW

 

[Skind]

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

........and therefore it would be entirely pertinent whether or not something had actually been stolen.

Well done. You've just agreed that a theft would be at the forefront of Sollecitos mind when being asked about a Furto in Abitazione.

You just don't know that you've done so.

ETA, such a massive uninsightful self-contradiction is the classic giveaway of another poster who is mysteriously missing and who writes suspiciously like Vibio.

 

[Vibio]

It can literally be translated word for word. It is , by all appearances - including the sources you sent people off to check - the exact italian equivilant of burglary.

The italian term for break-in appears to be violazione di domicilio

Uh... no Skind.

"Furto in abitazione" The literal, word-for-word, translation would be "theft in the home"

But Burglary does not mean that there was a theft. Burgalry is in fact a "violazione di domicilio". Perhaps there was the intent to steal... but that is another question.

 

[Kaosium]

That's not quite what Mignini said.

He did go on to talk about budget restrictions but what he said was: "But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else."

He also says: "It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that."

Which was a curious thing for him to say, especially considering this little nugget in the Massei Report:

In the meantime the Court had initiated, at the request of the Sollecito defence and in agreement with the Prosecutor, the expert task of a joint nature for the transcription of the tapped telephone conversations and voice recordings arranged by the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Perugia in the course of the preliminary investigations, the transcription of which had been requested.

(These voice recordings were made at Police Headquarters in Perugia, appropriately prepared, where the co-tenants of Meredith Kercher, the boys of the apartment below that one occupied by the murdered girl, and the English girlfriends of the English student involved in the Erasmus Programme, had gathered on the afternoon of November 2, 2007. Other voice recordings were made during meetings in prison between Amanda and her parents. Finally, phone tappings had been made of the fixed and mobile phone services of the family of Raffaele Sollecito.)

Let us now reflect on the voluminous amount of things they recorded before and after that night in the Questura. They tapped her and Raffaele's phones, they recorded Amanda's conversations with her family in prison, they taped some or all her witness statements previously, they recorded her and Raffaele talking when they weren't being interviewed at the Questura and they wiretapped Raffaele's family. However the most important moment, from ~10:45 PM November 5th until 5:45 AM November 6th inside the police station in the interview rooms they never produced any tapes of and dodge the question of why it wasn't recorded with a different story every time.

Why do they claim they inexplicably failed to record anything from what was no doubt the easiest (and cheapest!) time for them to do so from the most important moment of their investigation, from which they would produce the best reason they ever gave for arresting Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele?

Taped Police interrogations are not done in Italy.

This was supposedly a 'witness' interview, not the interrogation of a suspect which would have required a lawyer to be present, at least that was the flimsy legalese Machiavelli and others have advanced as to why Amanda's rights weren't violated.

I don't know the requirements in the rest of Europe but I am under the impression that in Germany (due to it's past) they are actually not allowed and are against the law.

Do you mean interrogations or taping them? I've never heard interrogations were not allowed in Germany anymore, but if they are, them being taped is for the protection of everyone--especially the subject of the interrogation!

It should also be remembered that in 2007, the year of Knox's interrogation, only a handful of US States required recorded interrogations.

It was only in the year 2003 that Illinois became the first US State to do so.

All of this crap would have been thrown in the trash in the United States or any country with a modicum of respect for the rights of the accused. In Italy they lie about it and blame their victim for their mistaken arrests and then pretend they don't have any record of what occurred and file additional charges that in this case resulted in a three year prison sentence for Amanda, now being taken to the ECHR.

The police (and prosecutor) are responsible for the arrest of Patrick Lumumba. Amanda Knox's two statements were coerced from her in the middle of the goddamn night after a week of little sleep (57 of the 89 hours from the arrival of the postal police until the second statement was signed Amanda spent with police at the Questura, the cottage or Raffaele's) which she cast serious doubt on ('I can't be used as 'testimone' and asked 'who was the REAL murder(er)?) the same day after she got some sleep and she fully recanted the next day with her note to them of the 7th.

However they totally disregarded that and told the press she 'buckled and admitted to the facts we knew to be correct' and produced before Matteini on the eighth an entirely invented and unsupportable fantasy of a 'sex game gone bad' which could be derived from none of the evidence they had either then or later and everything they arrested her and Raffaele on turned out to be either mistaken, coincidence or incompetence on their part.

Eventually they found the actual murderer, Rudy Guede, but instead of releasing all the unfortunate victims of the first arrest they made on entirely bogus evidence, they still pretended the 'theory' they originally had made on all that false evidence was still true and had the unmitigated teremity to scapegoat her for their idiot arrests.

The possibility that the bizarre theory of a spontaneous conspiracy between three people who barely knew each other (or ritualistic sex murder in keeping with those holidays--whatever) they just made up off of mistakes, irrelevant coincidence and incompetence could still be true even once they caught a goddamn burglar who left evidence all over the scene when they'd found nothing of Raffale, Amanda or Patrick in the murder room could still be true is a paranormal claim.

They caught the man who killed Meredith Kercher, what they didn't have was the guts to admit they were wrong to the press of (mainly) three nations, elements of whom had become fascinated by the theories they'd proposed and the lies they'd been told about all the evidence they had for the bizarre theory which had so captivated them.

They are liars, frauds and fools and at this point anyone who hasn't figured it out should start noticing that.

 

[Vibio]

ETA, such a massive uninsightful self-contradiction is the classic giveaway of another poster who is mysteriously missing and who writes suspiciously like Vibio.

I have made no such comments about others. But could you explain further?

You guys tell me: can I continue to post here with out personal comments of the kind that Skind is making? are they allowed? If they are allowed I prefer to bow out.

 

[Dan O.]

I think they thought the phone records were suspicious and they called in Sollecito. He was the one who quickly said she went out. She learned he had bailed then she buckled also fairly quickly So the pair confirmed what they had started to suspect.

The alibi that they both stayed in for the evening has been. just been dissolved by Sollecito. It was then a priority to check her phone and see if there were any texts or calls around that time she was out.

Contradicting yourself in back to back posts

 

[Dan O.]

Why did he write he had told a pack of lies because Amanda told him to and he didn't think of the implications.

You won't be able to find the answer to this unless you stop echoing the talking points and start doing your own research. What did he actually say, how is it evidenced that he said it and what were the circumstances of when it was said?

 

[Vibio]

They tapped her and Raffaele's phones, they recorded Amanda's conversations with her family in prison, they taped some or all her witness statements previously, they recorded her and Raffaele talking when they weren't being interviewed at the Questura

I don't know if this is strange or not. Again: in 2007 most US jurisdictions did not require recording interrogations. But I just somehow don't think that meant no tapped phones, taped prison conversations ecc.

Also, I don't know if there is a difference between police questioning and what that might legally fall under as opposed to the others.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how to report a comment

I have made no such comments about others. But could you explain further?

You guys tell me: can I continue to post here with out personal comments of the kind that Skind is making? are they allowed? If they are allowed I prefer to bow out.

In general, one needs to address the argument, not the arguer. If someone feels that a comment violates the membership agreement, he or she may report it, just by clicking on the triangle with the exclamation point. If you decide to go, would you please respond at least to Rolfe's question first? If you have time, would you also respond to mine? Both are upthread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what about recording suspects

I don't know if this is strange or not. Again: in 2007 most US jurisdictions did not require recording interrogations. But I just somehow don't think that meant no tapped phones, taped prison conversations ecc.

Also, I don't know if there is a difference between police questioning and what that might legally fall under as opposed to the others.

We have discussed on many occasions the reasons to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects in fact (if not in name) by the time that they walked into the station on 5 November. Taking this as a given for a moment, do you think that their interrogations should have been recorded?

 

[katy_did]

It can literally be translated word for word. It is , by all appearances - including the sources you sent people off to check - the exact italian equivilant of burglary.

The italian term for break-in appears to be violazione di domicilio

If I'm right in my reading of the criminal code, then in my opinion "burglary" isn't entirely an appropriate translation either as it doesn't necessarily require a theft (as I understand it, burglary is often considered primarily a crime of trespassing and not theft, but I'm sure that varies by jurisdiction). "Furto in abitazione", on the other hand, is a sub-category of theft, and requires a theft to have happened for the crime to exist.

Apparently under Italian law, theft from a private building only became a separate category of theft quite recently; previously it just came under theft, and the breaking and entering part was an aggravating circumstance.

Basically, if there's no theft, then the crime of "furto in abitazione" didn't happen (or to put it another way, if there was no "furto" then there was no "furto in abitazione", but that sounds almost too obvious...)

 

[Vibio]

Halides1: depending on what questions you have asked either I have absolutely no idea (timelines)

Or I would need to take a good amount of time to gather my thoughts (interrogation)

It's 1.28. Buona notte.

 

[Rolfe]

What am I, invisible or something?

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Who said that?

 

[katy_did]

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".

I would have thought the fact that "furto in abitazione" involves taking possession of an object belonging to someone else for the purpose of personal gain was a little clue as well. But hey, I'm not a native Italian speaker; if I were I'd doubtless interpret that as "breaking into a building".

Weirdly I was just looking at the IMDB page for the bicycle movie today. I decided to download "Io Non Ho Paura" instead, but I'll have to put the other on my 'To Watch' list.

 

[Matthew Best]

There was a terrific radio program about false confessions on the USA program called This American Life recently. Highly recommend.

One part is about an officer who created a false confession without even knowing he was doing so . . . convicted an innocent young woman on the strength of it and much later had to face what he'd done. He trains police in how NOT to do this now, using his own screw up as a case study.

Thanks very much for that link. I echo your recommendation - everybody should listen to this if they can. It is truly educational.

 

[Briars]

Contradicting yourself in back to back posts

Not at all , they called Sollecito in specifically to question him about his lack of phone data and to show him the missed call from Papa. He said they slept it but the data showed he was up before 6 . So he withdraws Amanda's alibi . They then turn their attention to Amanda and her phone.