No, she just said sometimes Meredith locked her door.
But you, you admit yourself that she was trivializing and downplaying the locked door, and that she was not expressing any urgency, insofar as you concede that "she may well have intended to be reassuring".
If she was reassuring, she was downplaying the locked door, and she was expressing that breaking down the door was not that urgent.
If she was reassuring, if she actually thought it was true that Meredith would lock her door (nobody corroborated this anyway) so maybe they should not be concerned, that would make her become inconsistent, because later she offered a narrative in which her own feeling of urgency and need to enter the room was a focal point, and she would be inconsistent because she attempted to break down the door herself and build a narrative about this.
So she is lying in her e-mail and in her story explaining her attampt to break down the door, there is no way. If she had no feeling of urgency, she is lying.
Morover, also the fact that she did not feel urgency itself is rather suspicious - this lack of concern, conflicting with her e-mail story, would be out of place even without the conflicting e-mail narrative.
What Knox does
not say, what she does
not communicate, her lack of urgency, may be even more important than the phrases she says.
And, the lost-in-translation theory is simply utterly non-credible. It is not credible that Sollecito got wrong a simple statement wording it like a rather peculiar "Meredith locks her door even when she takes a shower". And it is even less credible that he makes such gross translation mistake of delivering a wrong reassuring message, after he just attempted to break down the door himself (!) out of alleged Knox's anxiety (Knox allegedly even tried to enter from the window). And that this mistake was repeated twice.
And also, it is not credible that Sollecito
failed to break down the door (a 60+ kg adult man, a kickboxer).
I meant that Amanda and Raffaele had already tried to break down that door,
But we don't know
why. Whe know that it was
not because of Amanda Knox's alleged feeling of urgency, because such attitude is something she was not having.
they called the caribinieri (and numerous others)
The fact that they called the carabinieri so late, and that they called numerous others, is an interesting detail to the prosecution too.
with their concerns which included the locked door, and they invited the postals in and showed them the other things that worried them. That is the context I was referring to.
Yes but also her e-mail narrative, it is another context; and the previous attempt to break down of the door requires a context too, which she offers in her narration.
And the context she offers is conflicting with her lack of urgency (in addition with conveying reassuring information), something which was observed by many witnesses.
Because she simply offered the probably true information that Meredith did sometimes lock her door (...)
By the way, I wonder how you jump to the conclusion that the information was "probably" true, given that information we have is she locked her door only once when she left for a week.
Other possibilities: she heard Filomena say something she knew was wrong and wanted the police to have the best possible information. Or, she was trying to keep hope alive that perhaps the door being locked didn't mean what she feared.
But where is the anxiety, the urgency, the need and the intent of entering Meredith's room, as she expressed in her narrative, that she reports have lead her to attempt to break down the door some time prior to that moment?
(...) Then maybe she said it more than once because it happened to be true? She may well have been trying to reassure them as well as herself that the worst was not the only possibility.
Don't you think it's curious that she omits talking about the first time, and describes the event as if it just happened later, when Filomena was already there?
However she and Raffaele were the ones that reported it and summoned everyone else.
You keep repeating it as if this "summoning" was an exculpatory element, while in fact it is not. Moreover, a textbook would tell you that staging of a crime is very common in domestic murders and this summoning and calling of police, leading to the discovery of the body, is exactly what most stagers do.
Not wanting to break someone else's property on merely a suspicion without knowing for sure there was a body behind the door and it was possible the locked door meant nothing is a poor reason to suspect them when they were the ones who reported it all!
But they DID brake someone else's property! They had already broken the door. They only did not break it down completely (not as far as we know at least).
They are the ones who created any urgency or reason to break it down at all.
It's correct. And, it's the point. The point is that they themswelves were not consistent with the urgency they created, as for what comes out from the description of such urgency theu offer in their own account.
