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

[moodstream]

Briars, Can you stand one more ? about the calls?

Briars,

Thank you for coming on JREF to argue for guilt. The more the better. It helps keep the conversation fresh.

Can you stand to go back to the topic of the phone calls. Sorry, I missed out on the discussion

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems your core claim is that RS stating there was no theft was a “boo boo” and he knew it. RS knows there was no theft because he staged the break in. By telling the police there was no theft, RS is giving himself away. You also just don’t like that RS’s account of the call in Honor Bound does not seem to you to correspond with an accurate objective reporting of the call, and you feel this is an intentional distortion, a lie.

One puzzling thing is that when RS told the police nothing was taken, RS actually knew something was taken, the $400 and the phones. How does this fit with your claim? You can’t be suggesting RS did not know of the theft from Ms Kercher’s room but did know nothing was missing from Filomena’s room, especially as you make a point of RS/AK not calling Ms Kercher after arriving at the cottage. How do you fit this with your claim that RS stating there was no theft was a boo-boo, if, as is so, there was a theft? On the other hand, had RS said it seemed like a theft occurred, that would have implied he must be guilty because how could he have known? Isn’t it damned if he did and damned if he didn’t? Seriously, that’s a question. Putting the money and phones aside, if the break in was staged but a decision had been made not to actually steal anything (which you explain how? btw), what’s the problem with telling the police nothing was stolen. It can’t be your position that the dispatcher would have expected RS to have an inventory of Filomena’s possessions! You’re not building your claim on a distinction between the spoken phrase ‘they did not take anything’ and ‘it doesn’t appear anything was taken’. Are you?

I just don’t see where RS’s statement to the police has any implicative value. I think you are falling into the basic guilter loop. You are forcing the conclusion that RS’s acts because he is guilty and offering your forced conclusion as proof your conclusion is correct.

 

[NancyS]

Regarding the emergency call...
If I came home to that scene (a bit of blood, a locked door with housemate uncontactable, a broken window), I sure wouldn't want the emergency operator to focus on the scene as a theft (especially if it seemed that nothing was missing) or a burglary.
This is because if I reported it that way, the call would be categorised in a certain way, and the police would not attend for days, perhaps not at all. I would want to be sure that what I was telling the operator was accurate and that they didn't get hung up on an element of the scene that would cause them to downgrade the call.

This is exactly what I was thinking - by the time they phoned they were worried about Meredith being missing and so were trying to emphasise 'Not a theft' so the police would take their concerns seriously. Translating for Amanda, was also causing some awkwardness in the conversation. None of this is evidence of guilt

 

[Supernaut]

OK.

there's a tag-team here anal-ysing transcripts of phone-calls to police on 02/11/07 and later accounts of them.

And people are rising to it.

This, I have to say, will be giving the impression to an observer that there is a legitimate reason to find something/anything about these phone-calls "suspicious", or even to discuss them if they were "evidence" of something.

This is isn't a discussion, it's simply providing them with an opportunity to use the forum like a vacant shopfront to cover with pro-prosecution 'flyposting' .

I suggest you all knock it off, until/unless the afore-mentioned tag-team responds HONESTLY AND COHERENTLY (Briars) to some of the more pertinent and fundamental questions begged by their pro-guilt stance.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

Ok.

http: //it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furto#Furto_in_abitazione_e_furto_con_strappo

It appears that Vibio is not correct on this. Thanks for clearing this up, Dan O.

 

[Skind]

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.

But you just mentioned that it is with intent to steal, so the issue of whether anything actually was stolen would be right in the forefront of Sollecitos mind regardless of what version of "furto in abitazione" you're trying to use.

The only other reasonale options can be discounted:

no arson
no trashing
no vanadalism
no squatting

the only remaining option is assault and murder, and both are thankfully rare enough that they wouldn't spring to mind.

 

[GreyFox]

Guede writes in his German Prison Diary:


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

I hear ya RW. It amazes me how the pieces of the puzzle for Guede fit so perfectly like this little nugget here with Rudy's Prior behavior to go along with a bloody palm print, foot print, DNA in her Vagina, as well as the (first date) anal sex that seems to get ignored for some reason.

It is just so obvious that Guede did this Rape/Murder.

I cant see sitting around playing word games with Raff to try and make his pieces fit when clearly they don't. Who would want to be judged on something so flimsy ? Look how hard the PGP have to work to keep him in it.

Before I could ever put someone behind bars I would have to know for sure they did it. If I was to go with all circumstantial evidence and no real meat and potatoes then the circumstantial evidence would have to be damn good. Only here you have solid evidence that someone else committed the crime.

 

[Dan O.]

What is known about the taping systems in the Perugia police headquarters?

We may know who got the contract to install it.


On at laest a couple of occasions, Amanda was brought back to a room at the police HQ and asked to repeat what she had already told the police while outside that room. One was after her escorted visit back to the cottage. The last was on the night of November 5th.

Who else was probably there? The police chief?

I think there is some information of the roles of some of the police in the filing of the slander suit against Amanda.

 

[Briars]

How does that come under "interviewing someone as a witness"?

That status was in the process of changing due to the unexpected revelation of RS in the next room, Amanda writes herself of the shock of hearing he withdrew her alibi. I believe at 1:45 Mignini arrived and told her she was a formal suspect. Then came the break , snacks , a nap before the morning written statement.RS had been called in on the 5th specifically to answer questions about his alibi that didn't work. His earlier account of using the computer that night didn't jive nor did his phone records. He had turned off his phone all night and had said he slept till 10am. Evidence showed the computer was only used early in the morning and the phone turned on after. These points needed to be cleared up.The notion that he was confused about the day is ridiculous. They were apart on Halloween together on the 1st. He shouldn't have a problem remembering what he did the night before the shocking discovery when questioned a couple days later.

 

[Diocletus]

That status was in the process of changing due to the unexpected revelation of RS in the next room, Amanda writes herself of the shock of hearing he withdrew her alibi. I believe at 1:45 Mignini arrived and told her she was a formal suspect. Then came the break , snacks , a nap before the morning written statement.RS had been called in on the 5th specifically to answer questions about his alibi that didn't work. His earlier account of using the computer that night didn't jive nor did his phone records. He had turned off his phone all night and had said he slept till 10am. Evidence showed the computer was only used early in the morning and the phone turned on after. These points needed to be cleared up.The notion that he was confused about the day is ridiculous. They were apart on Halloween together on the 1st. He shouldn't have a problem remembering what he did the night before the shocking discovery when questioned a couple days later.

If she was a formal suspect after signing the 1:45 statement, then why wasn't she a formal suspect just before she signed it (i.e., while the police were typing it)? After all, the statement was typed by the police based on things that they thought that Knox had previously said. Her signing of the 1:45 statement didn't change what the police thought she had said.

A lawyer would have told her not to sign the 1:45 statement. She was a suspect based on what the police thought she said, and should have had a lawyer prior to being presented with the 1:45 statement.

Her rights were violated.

 

[Dan O.]

His earlier account of using the computer that night didn't jive nor did his phone records.

Didn't jive with what?

 

[Briars]

Didn't jive with what?

He wasn't using the computer that night as he had stated . It had no human interaction until a brief one after 5:30 am. This plus the phone turned back on early doesn't jive with his alibi that he slept in till 10am .Of course he now claims that he sent emails during the night,so perhaps these lost communications will clear up any discrepency in his account.

 

[Briars]

She had no alibi based on what Sollecito said, which prompted the further, brief questioning resulting in her admission to being present.

 

[acbytesla]

He wasn't using the computer that night as he had stated . It had no human interaction until a brief one after 5:30 am. This plus the phone turned back on early doesn't jive with his alibi that he slept in till 10am .Of course he now claims that he sent emails during the night,so perhaps these lost communications will clear up any discrepency in his account.

Actually, there is significant evidence that he was using his computer that night. But if you had a hottie like Amanda Knox wanting to do the nasty with you would you be spending your time on the computer?

 

[Bill Williams]

OK.

there's a tag-team here anal-ysing transcripts of phone-calls to police on 02/11/07 and later accounts of them.

And people are rising to it.

This, I have to say, will be giving the impression to an observer that there is a legitimate reason to find something/anything about these phone-calls "suspicious", or even to discuss them if they were "evidence" of something.

This is isn't a discussion, it's simply providing them with an opportunity to use the forum like a vacant shopfront to cover with pro-prosecution 'flyposting' .

I suggest you all knock it off, until/unless the afore-mentioned tag-team responds HONESTLY AND COHERENTLY (Briars) to some of the more pertinent and fundamental questions begged by their pro-guilt stance.

This has always been the case. Please note the number of times questions to Vibio, Briars and Machiavelli have been posted and reposted. They simply refuse to answer and continue to post "guilt sounding like" things. They simply do not want to deal with anything other than, as you say, fly posting.

Briars is now on to this business about Raffaele's computer activity over night. without saying why this is suspicious, Briars wants to make it suspicious sounding.

That has always been the way through this, including the way the case was presented to the very first judge who locked them up.

What Briars, Vibio and Machiavelli will not answer is, frankly, where the case is right now, as being advanced by Crini. It is incredible to me, that these folk insist on advancing the prosecution's case as if it was still in the unfettered hands of Mignini.

So I can only repeat.... Mignini's case, in the main and other than the finding of guilt, did not survive even the Massei court. The Massei court - broken record time here - did not find a motive for Amanda and Raffaele to have been involved in this. (When they divert into, "not all crimes have motives", or "not all crimes have the motive discovered,") that is precisely not the point in this case...


.... Massei says the motive is Rudy's and Rudy's alone... his lust.

Massei says there is no psychopathology to be found in AK or RS. Read the report. One of the side lawyers recently argued in this new Florence court that Knox had a "split personality". Why is it that lawyers in Italian courts are allowed to say things with NO evidence, much less psychological evaluation, to support it?

Massei says that Meredith and Amanda got along fine, aside from trivial normal housemate things.

Point is.... the guilter world these days contents itself with saying "guilt-like" things which are not even real. Flyposting, like you say. Witness Vibio, where the same Italian word used by the 211 operator to describe a burglary, is then used by Raffaele, and Vibio still claims it is Raffaele harping on about a "theft" or "non-theft"..... sheesh.

Machiavelli goes on about other things. We have not heard much from Machiavelli these days... my assumption is that he's found out that Jan 15 IS the trial for Mignini's abuse of office charge... and he'll not want someone reposting that he said it was only the prelim, where the abuse of office charge will be dismissed.... (if true, Machiavelli seems to have unique knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes - quite the lose-lose situation for Machiavelli if true with his posting here.

Maybe Machiavelli will do what he often does - simply deny he said it.

Maybe someone out there who's feeding Machiavelli info, has just found out he's blabbing things under the "Machiavelli" pseudo.... I'll admit, that could not be pleasant for M. having his own people criticise him like that...

 

[Diocletus]

She had no alibi based on what Sollecito said, which prompted the further, brief questioning resulting in her admission to being present.

Yes, and then they violated her rights when they typed that up and presented it to her to sign without allowing her access to counsel.

 

[Grinder]

Regarding the emergency call...
If I came home to that scene (a bit of blood, a locked door with housemate uncontactable, a broken window), I sure wouldn't want the emergency operator to focus on the scene as a theft (especially if it seemed that nothing was missing) or a burglary.
This is because if I reported it that way, the call would be categorised in a certain way, and the police would not attend for days, perhaps not at all. I would want to be sure that what I was telling the operator was accurate and that they didn't get hung up on an element of the scene that would cause them to downgrade the call.

They didn't know the phones were missing and tossed in a garden. The PP came and didn't get excited about what they saw. Amanda had returned to Raf's and didn't drag him directly to the cottage, IIRC they ate breakfast first. They didn't call the police immediately when they got back to the cottage. They called the US and Raf's sister before they called 911. They obviously didn't think something untoward had happened no matter how it is reconstructed now. The blood was only a couple of tiny drops. They hadn't noticed the bath mat.

Now they call and answer that nothing was stolen instead of saying they didn't know. It is totally reasonable that in review the police would think that suspicious. If other evidence confirmed that suspicion then his response would be more evidence against him.

 

[Grinder]

That status was in the process of changing due to the unexpected revelation of RS in the next room, Amanda writes herself of the shock of hearing he withdrew her alibi. I believe at 1:45 Mignini arrived and told her she was a formal suspect. Then came the break , snacks , a nap before the morning written statement.RS had been called in on the 5th specifically to answer questions about his alibi that didn't work. His earlier account of using the computer that night didn't jive nor did his phone records. He had turned off his phone all night and had said he slept till 10am. Evidence showed the computer was only used early in the morning and the phone turned on after. These points needed to be cleared up.The notion that he was confused about the day is ridiculous. They were apart on Halloween together on the 1st. He shouldn't have a problem remembering what he did the night before the shocking discovery when questioned a couple days later.

So the PLE had checked their phone logs and knew she had had communications with Patrick, check.

Are you saying that Amanda wrote her own statement at 5:45? Did she type it in Italian?

Mignini acted as a notary and wrote down what she said.

 

[Grinder]

He wasn't using the computer that night as he had stated . It had no human interaction until a brief one after 5:30 am. This plus the phone turned back on early doesn't jive with his alibi that he slept in till 10am .Of course he now claims that he sent emails during the night,so perhaps these lost communications will clear up any discrepency in his account.

Would the computer being fried destroy evidence of his non-Internet activity?

 

[Bill Williams]

So the PLE had checked their phone logs and knew she had had communications with Patrick, check.

Are you saying that Amanda wrote her own statement at 5:45? Did she type it in Italian?

Mignini acted as a notary and wrote down what she said.

What is amazing is that if Amanda wrote this, she not only wrote it in Italian, but in the precise legalese-Italian needed to try to meet the "spontaneity" requirement, a requirement that unless she'd had legal training in Italy she'd not have been aware of it.

Of course, Mignini could have given her the short course in how everything she said after his arrival had to have been spontaneous... except, that sort of "coaching" makes it non-spontaneous... damn.

Could Knox have even understood the Italian works, much less the implication of what she was signing? That's the precise reason she needed an Italian lawyer, one guaranteed by law and one denied her by the very PM, Mignini, who claimed he had stopped Ficarra's head-slapping interrogation by himself quoting the very law which required Ficarra to stop.

.... and the law he ignored by continuing, using this "I will act as if only a notary" crap.

What Briars wants to avoid, is that all this is the reason why these statements were ruled inadmissible. They were inadmissible mainly because they were not Knox's spontaneous statements, they were the Italian words put into the mouth of a sleep-deprived, scared foreigner who neither spoke the language, nor knew the legal concepts required to make this legal.

Why didn't they just slip in that Knox was the cause of tooth decay, and that would have solved that dental issue, too?

 

[Briars]

As I've followed this murder case for years, since it happened,
I've wondered if words don't often get miss pro-nounced when translated from Italian to English.

Case in point:
I got this quote from a download of Rudy Guede's German Prison Diary from PMF:
Rudy Guede writes this:





But just a moment ago,
I found this:
"Trovato negro, trovato colpevole; andiamo"
Hmmmm...

Heya Vibio,
When you wake up, can you translate this for me?
Does it really mean:
"Found black, found guilty; let's go?

Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

Let's go?


Who was with this person when he said outloud to Rudy Guede:
"Let's go"?

I think Guede is trying to suggest RS ,(man with chestnut hair) said out loud to his companion ( Amanda) lets go. It is really not believable that RS said all this but saying lets go is.