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

[Grinder]

But this kind of question is a second guessing process. Maybe the police could have done such a thought in that moment, "maybe she is wrong" , etc. But from a logical pont of view, it's not really our buisness to know how she could be sure; the only relevant thing is that she declared she felt sure, she appered to be sure, and she later always maintained she's sure that's how Meredith used to behave.
Don't forget Filomena also was told about the blood, she was told she was not answering at the door, knew she was not answering the phone, and she knew she won't be away without the English phone she would use to call her mom, she knew about the 'break in' and strange burglary. She heared Knox's phone call and found it strange and alarming. She understood the thing was very unusual, potentially serious, she understood Meredith could not be out to do some shopping.

There is no doubt that Filomena wanted the door opened and feared for Meredith. Amanda and Raf had already tried the door but failed. They were the ones that had raised the concern first by calling F, Amanda's mom, Raf's sister and the police. Amanda and Raf didn't even know about the phone(s).

The question was how could she be so sure that Meredith never locked her door unless in England. Side point, had Meredith returned to England after arriving in Perugia maybe to buy shoes. Did Filomena try to open her door while she was gone?

Doors in Italy aren't like airplane toilet doors with a sign outside as to whether they are locked or not, so how when Meredith wasn't home did Filomena know her door wasn't locked?

What the police thought at the time is of no concern. They didn't woryy enough to break the door themselves. Although I don't like this style of discussion, doesn't her actions overruling the police assessment make you wonder why she was so concerned and perhaps knew something.

Had Amanda said the door was never locked and Filomena said it was sometimes and Amanda demanded the door be opened, you would say it is obvious she knew and wanted to control the finding.

No one questions F wanting the door opened. The question is how could she know Meredith never locked it?

 

[Machiavelli]

I lived in shared houses for the best part of 10-years - and in all that time I wouldn't have a clue if any of my housemates regularly locked their doors. They might have at certain times, but not others - most people don't take that much notice and I find it a little strange that Filomena was so certain. Maybe she was always sneaking into Meredith's room when she was out, I can't think of any other way she would be so certain. It's such a non-point though

If you can't think of "any other way" than a habit of "sneaking inside" to see that as normal, maybe this your problem; your view looks inherently a bit rigid and limited.

Filomena says she knew it was normal for Meredith to leave her door open, not locked. I found Filomena's knowledge about this totally normal.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, it's two different witnesses. It's two different points of view; and possibly two different moments.

Only possibly? THAT'S your defence?

 

[yimyammer]

The emails would explain why he up late and slept in. Why mention something he won't prove.

Why wouldn't one or more professors come forward and say they received an email sent at 4:30 am which would explain the 5;30 am music.

We will respectfully disagree that he is acting in an intelligent fashion. The professor that cleared PL wasn't harassed.

This is a murder case. No time to be so concerned about minor irritations to professors.

Amen! This is his life for God's sake, if there are emails that could contribute to an innocent verdict, then it would be absurd to not make them public, imo.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course I got your point but you missed the fact that they said they slept in until 10 and that was used against them because the music was accessed around 5:30. If he were up emailing until then, it makes his account of the night make sense. D'ya get it.

Dear, dear, dear. Every piece of information leading to guilt need not be proof of guilt. According to those that believe in guilt the 5:30 music not mentioned is a big deal because he said he slept til 10.

The crime continued until much alter according to the prosecution as they bought or stole cleaning supplies early in the morning and went to the cottage probably before 10 and cleaned as you might have read in Massei.

Hmmm. I am clearly failing to make my argument clearly enough.

Let me try another angle, which might illuminate the central issue more succinctly:

1) If it could be proved conclusively that Sollecito did compose these emails to his professors in the small hours of the morning on the 2nd November 2007, would that make any difference to an assessment of Sollecito's (or Knox's) guilt or non-guilt in the murder of Meredith Kercher? If so, why?

2) If it could be proved conclusively that Sollecito did not compose these emails to his professors in the small hours of the morning on the 2nd November 2007, would that make any difference to an assessment of Sollecito's (or Knox's) guilt or non-guilt in the murder of Meredith Kercher? If so, why?

3) If it could be not be proved conclusively whether or not Sollecito composed these emails to his professors in the small hours of the morning on the 2nd November 2007, would that make any difference to an assessment of Sollecito's (or Knox's) guilt or non-guilt in the murder of Meredith Kercher? If so, why?

That,in a nutshell, is the point. In my view, the answer to all three of these questions is "no". That's why it's an utterly irrelevant issue when attempting to evaluate the guilt/non-guilt/innocence of Sollecito or Knox.


PS: Guede was out dancing at exactly the same time as these alleged emails were allegedly being composed by Sollecito. Ironically, in that instance, Guede probably was doing this in order to try to create some sort of false alibi. And equally ironically, proof that Guede was out dancing actually ended up adding to the case against him rather than helping his defence: it's almost impossible to marry Guede's claims to have been distraught by "stumbling across" a dying Meredith with his proven appearance a short time later dancing in the clubs.

 

[LondonJohn]

Amen! This is his life for God's sake, if there are emails that could contribute to an innocent verdict, then it would be absurd to not make them public, imo.

These emails, even if found, would make not one iota of difference to the body of probative evidence in this murder trial.

Their proven existence most certainly would not be any sort of evidence helpful to the defence, and they most certainly would not help lead to an acquittal. Likewise, their proven non-existence wouldn't add anything to the case for guilt.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Sollecito - and the lawyers who checked his manuscript prior to publication - knew full well that this was nothing more than an unimportant and peripheral injection of detail and colour into his account of the night. It may be true. It may not be true. It may be provable. It may be disprovable. But any way you choose to look at it, it has no bearing whatsoever on the question of Sollecito's (or Knox's) guilt/non-guilt/innocence of the murder.

Personally, I think he should have written in his book that he went hot-air ballooning with Boutros Boutros Ghali between 2am and 3am on the 6th November. That would really have got the pro-guilt commentators livid. But the lawyers and courts would see it for what it was: irrelevant.

 

[Strozzi]

Won't it be something, when they do a perp walk with Mignini. I can't wait to see that fat disgusting tub of goo in manacles for all the damage that he did to all these people in the MOF and the Kercher trial. I hope they put him in the cell that Raffale was in. But he's lucky. He's fat and ugly, so it's unlikely that he'll become some guy's bitch.

But I sure wish he would have to endure that. If anyone deserves it, it's Mignini.

I'm surprised by your comment, acbytesla, because I know you respect Mignini. What do you say about Grinder or me when we are offline ?

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no doubt that Filomena wanted the door opened and feared for Meredith. Amanda and Raf had already tried the door but failed. They were the ones that had raised the concern first by calling F, Amanda's mom, Raf's sister and the police. Amanda and Raf didn't even know about the phone(s).

Yes but also Luca Altieri and Marco Zaroli were extremely concerned befor the door. So they say in their testimonies.

Now, about Raffaele and Amanda instead, a series of other observations could be made about their actions, their "developing concern", and above all their consistency.

(...) Doors in Italy aren't like airplane toilet doors with a sign outside as to whether they are locked or not, so how when Meredith wasn't home did Filomena know her door wasn't locked?

I don't understand the meaning of this question. It seems you want to rise questions with me that the defence did not ask to Filomena. But this can't be part of a reasoning in a trial.

What the police thought at the time is of no concern. They didn't woryy enough to break the door themselves. Although I don't like this style of discussion, doesn't her actions overruling the police assessment make you wonder why she was so concerned and perhaps knew something.

Frankly I find it normal that she was so concerned. She actually said she begun to have an unpleasant feeling of concern since the moment when Amanda talked with her on the phone and described what she found and what she did at home.

On the other hand I think the police were slightly suspicious and skeptical about the people there including Filomena. They perceived something that the break in could be a kind of staging like about insurance, they did not really believe completely any of them.
But Filomena knew the thing ws actually serious.

And anyway, I also say that Filomena and Laura appeared to be not unaware about the lifestyle of the other two girls, their timings and behaviours. On the contrary, they kept a kind of close observation on them. They made assessments about their behaviours, charachters and relational styles. For example Laura Mezzetti even decided to put a 5-euro "fine" for those who would fail to accomplish cleaning shifts (that was specifically "designed" for Amanda).

Had Amanda said the door was never locked and Filomena said it was sometimes and Amanda demanded the door be opened, you would say it is obvious she knew and wanted to control the finding.

But this depends on the context. You can't separate each element from a context ("If my granmother had wheels, she would be a wheel-barrel"). If Filomena said different things, if she was not concerned, if she was elesewhere that morning, if Knox was another character and did different things, maybe we would be talking about a different case.

No one questions F wanting the door opened. The question is how could she know Meredith never locked it?

The question to me, about this single, small element of the case that is the locked-door-dialogue, is rather the other way around, and I mean not at all this question you ask but instead the following:
1. how could Knox say that the locked door was normal; 2. why did Knox say that Meredith would lock her door even just to have a showerm whil this was obviously false; 3. how could Knox say a) the locked door could be normal seeing no urgency to break it down, b) whereas she (and Raffaele) had attempted to break down the door, and c) appear as a consistent witness; 4. how does Knox "lack of concern" and calm before the locked door fit with her e-mail narrative, in which she tells about her extreme, dramatic urgency to get immediately inside Meredith's room?

As I said there are also many other observations about the surrouding points, like for example why did Knox and Sollecito "discover" the break in two hours later than she noticed open front door blood and feces, etc. But I'm not discussing those now.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm surprised by your comment, acbytesla, because I know you respect Mignini. What do you say about Grinder or me when we are offline ?

You should see the PMs they send me about you!

(For clarity - not really.........)


FWIW, I thoroughly disagree with acbytesla's personal attack on Mignini. My own view is simple: if he has committed misconduct, he should be held properly to account for it. If he hasn't then he should be swiftly exonerated and be allowed to move on. If he's been falsely accused in some sort of witch hunt (which in itself wouldn't speak very highly of the Italian judiciary of course), those doing the witch-hunting should be properly investigated and brought to account themselves.

I don't know enough about the MoF case to even begin to make an educated call on Mignini's conduct in that case. But regarding the Kercher case, I don't believe he was guilty of actual misconduct of any sort. I think he made numerous huge mistakes, but that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Machiavelli]

I just read where some corrupt Italians fed their enemy alive to pigs.

How would you categorize this comment?

 

[kwill]

The key point about good evidence is it has to mean what the prosecution says, it can't have a different explanation that is at least as likely, it can't fly in the face of better evidence, and it has to explain what happened.

It doesn't have to be much - all they had in the Palmyra Island case was human bones and a stolen boat, but that was enough to answer the questions of what happened and who did it, and no other explanation was at all credible.

In this case, they have pretty good evidence of when Meredith was killed. The digestive evidence suggests it was probably soon after she was last seen, around 9 pm. The cell phone tower records suggest her phones were in a different location by 10:13 pm. One can throw out medical and cell tower anomalies to postulate that this evidence is not conclusive, but it is strong evidence and by far the best available.

But it's not what the prosecution wants. So they ignore it completely, in favor of testimony from people who are dubious to start with. And even then they have to cherry-pick elements from the testimony. Curatolo describes seeing Amanda and Raffaele, but then he describes Halloween. So they say he's partly right, partly wrong, and they decide which is which purely by how it fits their accusation.

Nara heard a scream followed by footsteps sometime after 11. Not only that, it is corroborated by two other witnesses. Except one of the witnesses heard the scream after an argument that took place on the road outside her house, which couldn't possibly have been the altercation in the cottage. And the other witness heard the footsteps, but not the scream that Nara described as so distinctive and extraordinary. So the prosecution says, ignore the problems and contradictions, focus only on the points that line up with each other and the accusation. And never mind the digestive and cell tower evidence that suggest none of what these people heard has anything to do with the murder.

This obviously is not consistent with the method they themselves have specified, which is to examine the evidence in its totality. If the prosecution forms a specious case by cherry-picking, the defense has no choice but to go through the problems point by point.

Thank you. The hardest thing about this case is watching the shape-shifting nature of the prosecution against Amanda and Raffaele. What fits guilt is always treated as not just plausible but infallible and outside any other possible explanation. What doesn't fit guilt is simply ignored, even when, as you say, it's the best uncontested evidence we have. Stomach contents and cell phone location are hard to dispute, and since they make it very unlikely that A & R were involved . . . they're just ignored.

Here's my question to guilters, since we seem to have a few of them around.

Is there anything presented as evidence of guilt that strikes you as improbable or dubious? Anything?

 

[LondonJohn]

Three points about the "locked door issue":

1) It's my current understanding that Filomena was not talking about Knox's door being open (as in not shut, as in being able to see through the open door into the room), but rather that Meredith didn't lock her already-closed door. Is that correct? If it is correct, then the valid question still exists of how Filomena could have known that Knox never locked her door: simply looking down the hallway in the direction of the closed door would make it impossible to tell whether the door was locked or not. The only way to tell would be to try the door handle. Was Filomena in the habit of trying Meredith's door handle when Meredith was absent?

2) It's also my current understanding that there's the very real possibility of a "lost in translation" error in Knox's alleged comment about Meredith "always" locking her door. This was apparently a quick comment imparted by Knox to Altieri via Sollecito. I seem to remember reading that Knox denied making the comment in the way in which it was reported. Does anyone have further info on this?

3) Once again it bears repeating that the seriousness of the situation changed significantly when the Postal Police turned up. Everyone now knew, for the first time, that Meredith's phones had been found thrown into a random front garden on the outskirts of the city. It was now obvious therefore that a) Meredith being parted from her phones was a seriously worrying development in itself, and b) the location and nature of their discovery was extremely out of the ordinary and worrying in itself (in a way that it mightn't have been, for example, if the phones had been found under a table in a bar). And the police were present and gave implicit authorisation for the door to be broken down. Therefore, it's absolutely clear that the logical level of concern - and the associated requirement to break down Meredith's door - was much, much higher after the police arrived than at any time prior to their arrival.

 

[yimyammer]

These emails, even if found, would make not one iota of difference to the body of probative evidence in this murder trial.

Their proven existence most certainly would not be any sort of evidence helpful to the defence, and they most certainly would not help lead to an acquittal. Likewise, their proven non-existence wouldn't add anything to the case for guilt.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Sollecito - and the lawyers who checked his manuscript prior to publication - knew full well that this was nothing more than an unimportant and peripheral injection of detail and colour into his account of the night. It may be true. It may not be true. It may be provable. It may be disprovable. But any way you choose to look at it, it has no bearing whatsoever on the question of Sollecito's (or Knox's) guilt/non-guilt/innocence of the murder.

Personally, I think he should have written in his book that he went hot-air ballooning with Boutros Boutros Ghali between 2am and 3am on the 6th November. That would really have got the pro-guilt commentators livid. But the lawyers and courts would see it for what it was: irrelevant.

I understand your point but that's not what I was responding to.

I was responding to the notion that evidence of when these emails were sent was withheld because revealing this evidence would expose 3rd parties to unwanted attention so Raf was protecting them. I think that's an absurd stance to take considering what is at stake.

I also deliberately used the words "If there are emails that could contribute to an innocent verdict" which effectively acknowledges your point.

I do feel that if these emails do nothing to help prove his innocence, then I don't see any logical reason why he even mentioned them in his book but like others have said, he doesn't come across as the brightest bulb from what I've read and in my exchanges with him on his Q&A but that may be exaggerated by the language barrier

 

[Strozzi]

You should see the PMs they send me about you!

(For clarity - not really.........)


FWIW, I thoroughly disagree with acbytesla's personal attack on Mignini. My own view is simple: if he has committed misconduct, he should be held properly to account for it. If he hasn't then he should be swiftly exonerated and be allowed to move on. If he's been falsely accused in some sort of witch hunt (which in itself wouldn't speak very highly of the Italian judiciary of course), those doing the witch-hunting should be properly investigated and brought to account themselves.

I don't know enough about the MoF case to even begin to make an educated call on Mignini's conduct in that case. But regarding the Kercher case, I don't believe he was guilty of actual misconduct of any sort. I think he made numerous huge mistakes, but that's a different matter altogether.

It would be misconduct if he knew the interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6 2007 were recorded, because he has stated they were not and he would have failed to protect evidence. It would also be misconduct if he knowingly provided false evidence. If he did not prepare and submit required legal documentation, such as the required documentation to bar the suspects' access to attorneys, before they were subsequently brought before a magistrate in early Nov 2007, that would be misconduct. If he knew that his assistant prosecutor deliberately made false statements in court, wouldn't that be misconduct? If he did anything more with suspect Amanda than passively serve as "notary" to hear or accept her statements in the very early morning of Nov 6 2007, that would be misconduct.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why will there be a dropping of charges and how can you be so sure about it?

Explained in posts above.

Do you categorize the judges and prosecutors responsible for the original verdict against Migini for abuse of office as criminals like you do with Hellmann and Zanetti?

The prosecutor (Turco) who requested a conviction of Mignini and Giuttari, he said himself - during his closing arguments - that he was not completely sure there was evidence against Mignini (this says everything you need to know about a prosecutor).
My assessment about Maradei is not flattening either. But in this case my opinion was shared also by others.

For example, this document by a group of judges requesting Maradei to be removed and demanding the government of Tuscany to withdraw the budget to his office:


http://met.provincia.fi.it/comunicati/comunicato.asp?id=120408

- (...) Magistratura Democratica Toscana ha firmato negli ultimi giorni un pesante atto di accusa nel quale si chiede pubblicamente al Presidente del Tribunale Ognibene di sostituire il Giudice Maradei, delegato al progetto, invitando la Regione Toscana a sospendere il Piano e a non pagare l’appalto per la parte di lavoro già rendicontata, annunciando altresì che verrà investito del problema il Consiglio Giudiziario ed il Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura;

Magistratura Democatica [a judiciary syndacate] of Tuscany has signed in the last days a document of severe accusation in which publicly calls for the President of the Court Mr. Ognibene to replace Judge Maradei, currently the delegate to the project, inviting the Region Tuscany to terminate the Plan and do not pay the working contract already in the budged, also announcing that in the Judicial Council and in the Superior Council of Magistrates the issue will be invested (...)

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2012/06/13/la-giustizia-caso-maradei-guerra-tra-toghe.html

 

[Bill Williams]

Three points about the "locked door issue":

1) It's my current understanding that Filomena was not talking about Knox's door being open (as in not shut, as in being able to see through the open door into the room), but rather that Meredith didn't lock her already-closed door. Is that correct? If it is correct, then the valid question still exists of how Filomena could have known that Knox never locked her door: simply looking down the hallway in the direction of the closed door would make it impossible to tell whether the door was locked or not. The only way to tell would be to try the door handle. Was Filomena in the habit of trying Meredith's door handle when Meredith was absent?

2) It's also my current understanding that there's the very real possibility of a "lost in translation" error in Knox's alleged comment about Meredith "always" locking her door. This was apparently a quick comment imparted by Knox to Altieri via Sollecito. I seem to remember reading that Knox denied making the comment in the way in which it was reported. Does anyone have further info on this?

This is the way Raffaele puts it in his book. IIRC.

3) Once again it bears repeating that the seriousness of the situation changed significantly when the Postal Police turned up. Everyone now knew, for the first time, that Meredith's phones had been found thrown into a random front garden on the outskirts of the city. It was now obvious therefore that a) Meredith being parted from her phones was a seriously worrying development in itself, and b) the location and nature of their discovery was extremely out of the ordinary and worrying in itself (in a way that it mightn't have been, for example, if the phones had been found under a table in a bar). And the police were present and gave implicit authorisation for the door to be broken down. Therefore, it's absolutely clear that the logical level of concern - and the associated requirement to break down Meredith's door - was much, much higher after the police arrived than at any time prior to their arrival.

I believe you have this slightly wrong, LJ. It was Filomena alone who recognized the seriousness of the separation of Meredith from her phones, esp. as it relates to the breaking down of the door.

I don't believe the PP give or withheld permission one way or the other. It is clear that they did not think that the whole scene which they summarized as, "this is no burglary," including the condition of the bathroom necessitated breaking in any doors.

I think their position on this was, "If you want to pay for the damage, be my guest. I'm not doing it."

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This locked door thing is nuts. Amanda called Filomena because she was worried. Raffaele mentioned the door twice when he called the cops. When the postals arrived, he and Amanda invited them in to investigate.

So we're supposed to believe Amanda was trying to delay the discovery of the body, because of some confusing dialog about whether or not Meredith was in the habit of locking her door? What exactly is the premise here? Was Amanda supposedly thinking that maybe if she made the locked door out to be normal, everyone would just go away and forget it, and find the body some other time?

If so, why call people in the first damn place?

This is guilter ******** on steroids.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
1) It's my current understanding that Filomena was not talking about Knox's door being open (as in not shut, as in being able to see through the open door into the room), but rather that Meredith didn't lock her already-closed door. Is that correct? If it is correct, then the valid question still exists of how Filomena could have known that Knox never locked her door: simply looking down the hallway in the direction of the closed door would make it impossible to tell whether the door was locked or not. The only way to tell would be to try the door handle. Was Filomena in the habit of trying Meredith's door handle when Meredith was absent?

As I said, this can't be a point. It could be a matter for the defences to put a question to Filomena. But the just the question alone, put later, without Filomena's answer, cannot be an argument usable for speculation.

2) It's also my current understanding that there's the very real possibility of a "lost in translation" error in Knox's alleged comment about Meredith "always" locking her door. This was apparently a quick comment imparted by Knox to Altieri via Sollecito. I seem to remember reading that Knox denied making the comment in the way in which it was reported. Does anyone have further info on this?

Amanda Knox admitted in court to basically have said Meredith some time would close the door, with obvious effect of downplaying the importance of the locked door, by trivializing it (might be normal) and diminishing possible meaning as reason of concern.

3) Once again it bears repeating that the seriousness of the situation changed significantly when the Postal Police turned up. Everyone now knew, for the first time, that Meredith's phones had been found thrown into a random front garden on the outskirts of the city. It was now obvious therefore that a) Meredith being parted from her phones was a seriously worrying development in itself, and b) the location and nature of their discovery was extremely out of the ordinary and worrying in itself (in a way that it mightn't have been, for example, if the phones had been found under a table in a bar). And the police were present and gave implicit authorisation for the door to be broken down. Therefore, it's absolutely clear that the logical level of concern - and the associated requirement to break down Meredith's door - was much, much higher after the police arrived than at any time prior to their arrival.

There is no question Filomena's report and Knox's report before the witnesses about the element, were obviously different and incompatible with each other.
Everybody recalls Knox saying the locked door was not important after the police officers had already arrived, and when they (Sollecito, Knox, then minutes Luca and Marco) already knew about the phone findings.
The actual change in the assessment of this element happened the moment of the arrival of Filomena, not at the arrivel of the postal police.

And besides that we have an inconsistence between what Knox tells, and the factual habits of Meredith (the detail was actually not normal in her behaviour), there is also inconsietence between Knox's real attitude observed by testimonies, and Knox's own behaviour in the previous moments as she reports it herself (attempt to break down the door and e-mail narrative).

 

[Bill Williams]

This locked door thing is nuts. Amanda called Filomena because she was worried. Raffaele mentioned the door twice when he called the cops. When the postals arrived, he and Amanda invited them in to investigate.

So we're supposed to believe Amanda was trying to delay the discovery of the body, because of some confusing dialog about whether or not Meredith was in the habit of locking her door? What exactly is the premise here? Was Amanda supposedly thinking that maybe if she made the locked door out to be normal, everyone would just go away and forget it, and find the body some other time?

If so, why call people in the first damn place?

This is guilter ******** on steroids.

Exactly. One point to be made, though, is that everything guilters can say about AK which is supposedly suspicious, applies to the postal police. The bottom line is that everything looked confusing, but NO ONE expected (save perhaps Filomena) what was behind that door. What it speaks to is that the condition of the cottage with the door closed (and locked) did not scream murder.... and yet guilters are also trying to make hay off the condition of the cottage prior to discovery...

 

[Mary_H]

This locked door thing is nuts. Amanda called Filomena because she was worried. Raffaele mentioned the door twice when he called the cops. When the postals arrived, he and Amanda invited them in to investigate.

So we're supposed to believe Amanda was trying to delay the discovery of the body, because of some confusing dialog about whether or not Meredith was in the habit of locking her door? What exactly is the premise here? Was Amanda supposedly thinking that maybe if she made the locked door out to be normal, everyone would just go away and forget it, and find the body some other time?

If so, why call people in the first damn place?

This is guilter ******** on steroids.

Machiavelli wants to claim that Filomena became alarmed because of her good sense, not because of the sound of Amanda's voice.