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

[Chris_Halkides]

two recollections of the locked door conversation

Raffaele wrote (p. 31), Filomena was asked about the locked door. "Filomena told him no, absolutely not, unless Meredith was away in England. I didn't hear her say this because I was busy repeating the question in English for Amanda. And, unfortunately, I misunderstood Amanda's answer. I thought Amanda said that, yes, Meredith sometimes kept the door closed, even when she was in town. But that was not right; Amanda said exactly the same thing as Filomena. Because of this translation error..."

Amanda wrote (p. 71), {quote}
"Are you sure nothing was stolen?"
"Not as far as we can tell," I said. "But Meredith's door is locked. I'm really worried.
"Well is that unusual," they asked.
I tried to explain that she locked it sometimes, when she was changing clothes or was leaving town for the weekend, but Filomena whelled around and shouted, "She never locks her door!" {endquote}

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

(...)

There some truths that are very simple, shown by this, actually.
One, is that Knox - as for the reality observed by the people present - had actually no real desire to break down the door and see what was in the room.

The second truth, is that she was lying in her e-mail narrative (as she describes her extreme concern and extreme feeling of urgency to enter Meredith's room).

And as for confused communication, there is no credible language problem, not on a sentence like "brake down the door" or "get in", and even if you don't know the language at all: even a dog would have effectively expressed the necessitiy to break down the door if that was what he intended to communicate.
Amanda Knox would have immediately conveyed that the locked door was a primary reason for concern and that entering was urgent, if she were concerned about it.

Amanda Knox is inconsistent. What she writes in her later e-mail narrative (urgency, need to get in) is not consistent with how she actually behaved.
Her demeanor and statement are not consistent with her previous attempt to break down the door as she narrates it.
Her report about Meredith's habit is not consistent with the truth.

 

[Mary_H]

There some truths that are very simple,...<snip>

Absolutely.

Her report about Meredith's habit is not consistent with the truth.

There is no way in reality that you can validly make this claim. That is a simple truth.

 

[Grinder]

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?

The 5:30 in the morning access to the music on his computer has been an issue because the prosecution's theory is that they lied about sleeping until 10ish but were in fact busy disposing of evidence and organizing their clean-up. Obviously they weren't getting their alibis straight

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?

If he is lying about this, why? Clearly, though you don't get it, middle of the night emails explain...why the music was played at 5:30 before he went to sleep.

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?

Yes because (fill in the blank)

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.

If it has no impact on the case why did he put it in his book? I'm mean I'm sure it added a lot for the readers to know he wrote emails...not.

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.

I'll wait for the book

 

[Machiavelli]

(p. 31), (...) (p. 71),

I would make the rethorical question pages... of what trial document?
But seriously, really, I eman really really out of your playing the advocate, don't you see anything odd in these "recollections"?

You quote Knox's book, but do you know that, in fact, what the tetimonies say, is that Filomena was not there when Knox told Luca the first time that Meredith would normally lock her door?

There was no Filomena interrupting and shouting, there was instead a reassuring atmosphere among all the people on the place; because Filomena had not arrived yet.

 

[Grinder]

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?

It had nothing to do with Amanda's door.

 

[RWVBWL]

A question for ya:

Raffaele wrote (p. 31), Filomena was asked about the locked door. "Filomena told him no, absolutely not, unless Meredith was away in England. I didn't hear her say this because I was busy repeating the question in English for Amanda. And, unfortunately, I misunderstood Amanda's answer. I thought Amanda said that, yes, Meredith sometimes kept the door closed, even when she was in town. But that was not right; Amanda said exactly the same thing as Filomena. Because of this translation error..."

Amanda wrote (p. 71), {quote}
"Are you sure nothing was stolen?"
"Not as far as we can tell," I said. "But Meredith's door is locked. I'm really worried.
"Well is that unusual," they asked.
I tried to explain that she locked it sometimes, when she was changing clothes or was leaving town for the weekend, but Filomena whelled around and shouted, "She never locks her door!" {endquote}

Holiday weekend coming up,
all the boyz downstairs are outta town, including the 1 Meredith dates.

The 2 local gals, whom Mez was renting from, are also outta town.
The American chick has been stayin' at her new boyfriends pad for the last week,
since that classical music concert they went to together.

The girlz flat will be empty for the 1st time.

Meredith just withdrew the rent $$$ to give to Filomena.
It's in her bedroom.

Question:
Do you think that Meredith locked her bedroom door when she went over to Robyn's pad to hang out with her, Sophie and the other girlz, eat some pizza, look at Halloween pix, borrow a history book and watch a movie?


I'd bet ya $$$ she did.
As I'm sure she probably did previously too...
Who doesn't when living with others?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

RWVBWL, Excellent point.

 

[Machiavelli]

...
There is no way in reality that you can validly make this claim. That is a simple truth.

Now, if your only aim is to defend Amanda, you will decide to believe that in fact Meredith had a habit of locking her door, despite being a habit which nobody recalls having ever witnessed (I think not even Knox herself).

But you won't be able to find even this kind of improbable, unreasonable glimmer of wriggle room to making up scenarios, on the other two glaring levels of inconsistency:

What Knox writes in her subsequent e-mail narrative (urgency, need to get in) is not consistent with how she actually behaved before the witnesses;
and,
her demeanor and her report are not consistent with her previous attempt to break down the door as she narrates it.

 

[Mary_H]

I would make the rethorical question pages... of what trial document?

I quoted a trial document the other day that included several references to "the 5:45 interrogation." You responded by saying there was no mention of a 5:45 interrogation at the trial. What good does it do to quote trial documents to you?

But seriously, really, I eman really really out of your playing the advocate, don't you see anything odd in these "recollections"?

You quote Knox's book, but do you know that, in fact, what the tetimonies say, is that Filomena was not there when Knox told Luca the first time that Meredith would normally lock her door?

There was no Filomena interrupting and shouting, there was instead a reassuring atmosphere among all the people on the place; because Filomena had not arrived yet.

This argument does not counter halides1's post in the least.

 

[Mary_H]

Now, if your only aim is to defend Amanda, you will decide to believe that in fact Meredith had a habit of locking her door, despite being a habit which nobody recalls having ever witnessed (I think not even Knox herself).

But you won't be able to find even this kind of improbable, unreasonable glimmer of wriggle room to making up scenarios, on the other two glaring levels of inconsistency:

What Knox writes in her subsequent e-mail narrative (urgency, need to get in) is not consistent with how she actually behaved before the witnesses;
and,
her demeanor and her report are not consistent with her previous attempt to break down the door as she narrates it.

My aim was to point out that you do not have a foundation for claiming the truth in this case because you do not know the truth. The only person who knows whether Meredith locked her door was Meredith.

 

[Grinder]

My aim was to point out that you do not have a foundation for claiming the truth in this case because you do not know the truth. The only person who knows whether Meredith locked her door was Meredith.

Being right next door to Meredith Amanda could have heard the huge keys as described by Briars entering and turning the lock.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

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

But the question makes no sense.
Evidence cannot be improbable or dubious. Evidence is a fact. It's also logic about the finding.

It's something factual. A finding. And logic itself.

A scenario could be improbable, or the logical meaning of a factual finding can be dubious.

But evidence, because of its nature, consisting of factual findings and logical reasoning about it, it cannot be "improbable".
A reasoning can be wrong, logically flawed. A finding can be wrongly interpreted or wrongly recorded.

But "evidence", well what I consider as evidence, since I consider it evidence, I don't understand how could I consider it dubious and improbable.

 

[Machiavelli]

My aim was to point out that you do not have a foundation for claiming the truth in this case because you do not know the truth. The only person who knows whether Meredith locked her door was Meredith.

But do you understand what this piece of evidence is founded upon?
It is about Knox's consistency.

The foundation is the factual inconsistency of Knox's claims.

 

[Mary_H]

Being right next door to Meredith Amanda could have heard the huge keys as described by Briars entering and turning the lock.

I happen to believe that it is much more likely that Amanda knew Meredith's habits than that Filomena did. The only basis for any argument about this topic is the question of who was more credible -- Amanda or Filomena -- and that is a question that is never going to be settled.

 

[Mary_H]

But do you understand what this piece of evidence is founded upon?
It is about Knox's consistency.

The foundation is the factual inconsistency of Knox's claims.

Filomena is no more credible than Amanda; in fact, she may be less credible, since, as a native, she had more reason to fear the police than Amanda did. Filomena also did some stupid things that day that disrupted the crime scene, unlike Amanda, who led the police officers to the blood evidence in the bathroom.

This is another question that is never going to be settled, because, as Americans who share a culture with Amanda, we have told you many times that she is extremely honest, while, as an Italian to whom Amanda's culture is alien, you refuse to accept our evaluation because you want to keep insisting Amanda is a liar.

 

[Machiavelli]

I quoted a trial document the other day that included several references to "the 5:45 interrogation." You responded by saying there was no mention of a 5:45 interrogation at the trial. What good does it do to quote trial documents to you?

But because there is no claim of a 05:45 interrogation in the trial documents. It's obvious that the use of the word "interrogation" by a lawyer in the courtroom does not make such thing appear among defence claims or other documents. It's not enough.
You have documents filed as spontaneous statement. And you don't have any defence counter claim. Nothing. This is the default situation.
And you resort to quiting the use of one word from a lawyer in an oral speech in 2009?
You understand to make the claim that the existence of a 05:45 interrogation was acknowledged in the trial, you would need something more?

This argument does not counter halides1's post in the least.

halides1 post does not make any claim. It's a quote.

I just asked him by the way if he doesn't feel such quotes as a bit conflicting with the actual trial testimonies (or maybe even inconsistent themselves).

 

[Machiavelli]

Filomena is no more credible than Amanda; (...)

Amanda Knox did and wrote two opposite things. Two claims, two stories, one denies the other one.
Not two ways to tell something parly and badly; no, to incompatible things.
E-mail narrative, vs. actual behaviour. Narrated attempt to break down the door due to urgency to enter the room, vs. no feeling of urgency.
This is called inconsistency.

This does not depend on what Filomena says, there were multiple witnesses (albeit, the ability to assess Filomena's credibility is definitely something the judges are competent about).

 

[Mary_H]

But because there is no claim of a 05:45 interrogation in the trial documents. It's obvious that the use of the word "interrogation" by a lawyer in the courtroom does not make such thing appear among defence claims or other documents. It's not enough.
You have documents filed as spontaneous statement. And you don't have any defence counter claim. Nothing. This is the default situation.
And you resort to quiting the use of one word from a lawyer in an oral speech in 2009?
You understand to make the claim that the existence of a 05:45 interrogation was acknowledged in the trial, you would need something more?

Two lawyers used the phrase and neither the judge nor Mignini corrected them or objected to the use of the phrase.

It's like when you say Amanda is guilty because when she had the opportunity to say she was not guilty, she didn't take advantage of it. Even though the defense claims say something completely different, no doubt.

ETA: What, specifically, was the defense's complaint when they took the 1:45 and 5:45 statements to the Italian Supreme Court?

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda Knox did and wrote two opposite things. Two claims, two stories, one denies the other one.
Not two ways to tell something parly and badly; no, to incompatible things.
E-mail narrative, vs. actual behaviour. Narrated attempt to break down the door due to urgency to enter the room, vs. no feeling of urgency.
This is called inconsistency.

This does not depend on what Filomena says, there were multiple witnesses (albeit, the ability to assess Filomena's credibility is definitely something the judges are competent about).

How do these witnesses know Amanda had no feeling of urgency when they were at the bedroom door and she was in the other room? As Charlie pointed out, there is no reason to raise the alarm unless one feels urgency. When these witnesses had arrived, Amanda and Raffaele had already been feeling urgency for a couple of hours. If they felt less urgent at the time if the door being broken down, maybe it was because the others had taken some of the responsibility out of their hands.