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

[Skind]

It turns out that the confusion surrounding the locked door was more a translation issue, combined with Filomena actually needing to make a more "urgent case", because no one else there was seeing this in "urgent" terms. But in guilter fashion, it is Amanda who is singled out for a lack of urgency, when the postal police also had this lack. Do you also suspect them of involvement?
.

Filomena should thank her lucky stars she wasn't the one accused.

Had she been, her failure to call police would have been "unexplained" and in contradiction to her "sense of urgency".

Her "red panic" desire to see the door kicked down would only be explained by fore-knowledge on what was behind the door...

 

[Bill Williams]

Evidence of Raffaele's innocence is proven by the defence submitting computer activity during the night, frequent interruptions in the automatic screen saver....

Can Nencini ignore this? And if Raffaele has an alibi, then his consistent vouching for Knox cannot be ignored.

GOODBYE “FALSE ALIBI”
How can the alibi be failed, or even false, if Raffaele was at home using his two computers? Did he burn one of them and delete the activity from the other one, as they had said? No, the cops did, so they made the alibi fail, not him. Maori showed the residual activity on the Apple (because the Acer hard disk was, as we know, completely fried). What deleted most of the data on the Apple was an event that happened at 6.20 on November 6, while Raffaele was in the police station. So it wasn’t him, it was them.

What did the police recover from that computer? Only the starting of Amelie, and the music file at 5:30 am. Then the defense examined it, and they were able to recover as well the opening of the cartoon Naruto at 9:26 pm (“What?” Nencini asked…..“The cartoon Naruto, President. NARUTO, it’s a CARTOON.” As usual the defense points seem to sound completely new to him). The cartoon remained open until the crash of 6:20.

Then the defense recovered some automatic activity, which just proves the computer was on. And plenty of screen-saver interruptions along the whole evening. “You have all those interactions in my report,” Maori reminded. “You decide if they are human or not.” (Guess what they will decide…)

see: http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/defense-perfectly-demonstrates-the-innocence-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

 

[Bill Williams]

Filomena should thank her lucky stars she wasn't the one accused.

Had she been, her failure to call police would have been "unexplained" and in contradiction to her "sense of urgency".

Her "red panic" desire to see the door kicked down would only be explained by fore-knowledge on what was behind the door...

Not to mention Filomena's boyfriend who would have had to have been arrested and accused, too, since he was Filomena's alibi. Maybe his DNA was one of the unidentified males found on the bra-clasp!

 

[souldonut]

Sfarzo's take on Maori

.... quite positive. Not sure if others have read this yet, but it looks like Maori did quite a good job addressing things that Bongiorno didn't cover, at least according to Frank. (Contrasting with Frank's fairly negative report of Bongiorno's performance) This makes me about 10% more optimistic than I was yesterday. I hope that Amanda's lawyers finish tying up any loose ends on the 30th.

I just wonder if Nencini and the jurors were paying attention. Reportedly, Nencini was startled when Maori pointed out computer logs showing that RS started playing the cartoon Naruto 9:26pm (!?!). (Perhaps while AK and RS were getting ready to go murder and rape MK).

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/d...ocence-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

No idea how this will turn out.

-sd

 

[Bill Williams]

.... quite positive. Not sure if others have read this yet, but it looks like Maori did quite a good job addressing things that Bongiorno didn't cover, at least according to Frank. (Contrasting with Frank's fairly negative report of Bongiorno's performance) This makes me about 10% more optimistic than I was yesterday. I hope that Amanda's lawyers finish tying up any loose ends on the 30th.

I just wonder if Nencini and the jurors were paying attention. Reportedly, Nencini was startled when Maori pointed out computer logs showing that RS started playing the cartoon Naruto 9:26pm (!?!). (Perhaps while AK and RS were getting ready to go murder and rape MK).

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/d...ocence-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

No idea how this will turn out.

-sd

That's the alibi right there... poor Meredith was probably gone by then. No wonder none of the guilters in court tweeted this....

 

[Machiavelli]

I consider the first observations in your post as obviously devoid of merit. As for the numbered points:

1. No, total lack of urgency is inconsistent with earlier behaviour - such as calling Filomena. We wouldn't be talking about the delay if your assertion was true.

2. The idea that they were 'forced' is inconsistent with the abscence of reliable evidence that they were 'caught' in anything when the postal police arrived.

3. It is throughly consistent - as people noted earlier, Filomena was not the boss of Knox. Thus there is no obligation to call the police, thus no failure. The problems a guilty scenario has are manifest - K+S were expediating the discovery by calling around (that would have been the point under a guilt scenario) yet you suddenly have them trying not to expediate it because they might something-something-mumble-something-or-other.

Face it: the attention would be on Knox and Sollecito as first attenders anyway so the "Needed Filomena there" excuse doesn't work.

(...)

1. total lack of urgency is just shown by delays, and the prior calls by Knox to Filomena without collecting information herself are something which we may also consider a form of "delay", because in fact all her calls and phone conversations with Filomena are slowing down events. They are triggering the coming back and discovery of body by Filomena, but they are also slowing it down. She calls, but she does not provide informations. She delays her own discovery, she waits to speak to Sollecito 'over breakfast' about 'strange events', search and conveying of information is blocked, everything is slowed down.

2. this observation is contorted and unintellegible (negative statement? "the absence of reliable evidence that they were 'caught' "?). I can hardly see a meaning in it. They don't need to be "caught" doing something, I don't see this as a logical requirement in any theory.

3. The "no obligation" = "no failure" is a false equivalence and it's not the first time I see your side bringing it up. The question is about credibility not about obligation. There isn't an explanation for that delay. If you find out something alarming, you are asked to call the police, you agree it's alarming and say ok but then you don't call the police, it does not look a very straightforward behaviour.
On the other hand, if two people are guilty, it's obvious they may have some fears and hesitation - for a hundered possible reasons - in the moments before they decide to dial the police number.

And I also think it's obvious that Knox would try to have another roommate there, to involve a co-founder of the body or seek a kind mediation, because this is what she tried to do with Filomena all the time throught her phone calls, her downplaying the loced door etc. This girl thinks that sending a letter to judges, explaining that she doesen't attend the trial because they may found her guilty and that they may be like blindfolded folks fooled by smoke and mirrors, may benefit her. It's narcissistic and megalomaniac, but a person with this perception and attitude - that is, a manipulative person - may well think that by having another roommate there her situation could be made look more favourable.

 

[Strozzi]

Actually, from this we can be certain that the Caraninieri patrol was not there otherwise:

they would have informed HQ and they would have been at the cottage and thus standing with the people giving them directions.

You don't give directions on how to get to you to a person who is standing at your location.

To think otherwise is simply unreasonable.

Mach, I agree with Skind's response to your post. You have pointed out that the 1:29 pm phone conversation was between Carbanieri Headquarters and Raffaele. If the Carbanieri were already there Raffaele would have said "they're already here" and not replied by giving directions to the cottage.

 

[Diocletus]

Not really. It was a bit more articulate.
As for what I have understood, Crini made the points:

1. Battistelli looked at his watch after his arrival and it was 12.35; he also wrote that down in his report. Crini says: why should we throw away this datum? His watch might have been slow but the datum exists. (the point is logical)..

Oh, gee. Let me think . . . Wait! I think I've got it!

Batistlelli is a liar.

 

[Diocletus]

they may be like blindfolded folks fooled by smoke and mirrors.

I don't know why she would ever think something like that.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. total lack of urgency is just shown by delays, and the prior calls by Knox to Filomena without collecting information herself are something which we may also consider a form of "delay", because in fact all her calls and phone conversations with Filomena are slowing down events. They are triggering the coming back and discovery of body by Filomena, but they are also slowing it down. She calls, but she does not provide informations. She delays her own discovery, she waits to speak to Sollecito 'over breakfast' about 'strange events', search and conveying of information is blocked, everything is slowed down.

This is complete invention. "Slowing down events"!? Filomena would have been in the ultimate "slowing down", if she'd not been called! Knox called.

This is exactly what is wrong with guilter logic - Amanda must have been a world-class manipulator of persons to have accomplished all of this. At 20 years of age. In a foreign language.

This reads like parody.

 

[Strozzi]

.... quite positive. Not sure if others have read this yet, but it looks like Maori did quite a good job addressing things that Bongiorno didn't cover, at least according to Frank. (Contrasting with Frank's fairly negative report of Bongiorno's performance) This makes me about 10% more optimistic than I was yesterday. I hope that Amanda's lawyers finish tying up any loose ends on the 30th.

I just wonder if Nencini and the jurors were paying attention. Reportedly, Nencini was startled when Maori pointed out computer logs showing that RS started playing the cartoon Naruto 9:26pm (!?!). (Perhaps while AK and RS were getting ready to go murder and rape MK).

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/d...ocence-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

No idea how this will turn out.

-sd

From various reports, it seems that Nencini has been startled by a number of things of which he was unaware. He may realize there is a lot to learn to get right before he pronounces judgement in this important case. Maybe he will read in and do his homework.

 

[acbytesla]

I consider the first observations in your post as obviously devoid of merit. As for the numbered points:



1. total lack of urgency is just shown by delays, and the prior calls by Knox to Filomena without collecting information herself are something which we may also consider a form of "delay", because in fact all her calls and phone conversations with Filomena are slowing down events. They are triggering the coming back and discovery of body by Filomena, but they are also slowing it down. She calls, but she does not provide informations. She delays her own discovery, she waits to speak to Sollecito 'over breakfast' about 'strange events', search and conveying of information is blocked, everything is slowed down.

2. this observation is contorted and unintellegible (negative statement? "the absence of reliable evidence that they were 'caught' "?). I can hardly see a meaning in it. They don't need to be "caught" doing something, I don't see this as a logical requirement in any theory.

3. The "no obligation" = "no failure" is a false equivalence and it's not the first time I see your side bringing it up. The question is about credibility not about obligation. There isn't an explanation for that delay. If you find out something alarming, you are asked to call the police, you agree it's alarming and say ok but then you don't call the police, it does not look a very straightforward behaviour.
On the other hand, if two people are guilty, it's obvious they may have some fears and hesitation - for a hundered possible reasons - in the moments before they decide to dial the police number.

And I also think it's obvious that Knox would try to have another roommate there, to involve a co-founder of the body or seek a kind mediation, because this is what she tried to do with Filomena all the time throught her phone calls, her downplaying the loced door etc. This girl thinks that sending a letter to judges, explaining that she doesen't attend the trial because they may found her guilty and that they may be like blindfolded folks fooled by smoke and mirrors, may benefit her. It's narcissistic and megalomaniac, but a person with this perception and attitude - that is, a manipulative person - may well think that by having another roommate there her situation could be made look more favourable.

What a crock. This is so typical of a guilter. It matters little what she does, it is read as some sign of guilt. Every single point you just made can easily be read entirely different.

What's really sad is the prosecution doesn't have a shred of actual evidence of her guilt, just innuendo and tea leaves.

So sad the police and prosecution feel the need to lie and lie and lie and lie. So corrupt, so shameful.

 

[Skind]

I consider the first observations in your post as obviously devoid of merit. As for the numbered points:



1. total lack of urgency is just shown by delays, and the prior calls by Knox to Filomena without collecting information herself are something which we may also consider a form of "delay", because in fact all her calls and phone conversations with Filomena are slowing down events. They are triggering the coming back and discovery of body by Filomena, but they are also slowing it down. She calls, but she does not provide informations. She delays her own discovery, she waits to speak to Sollecito 'over breakfast' about 'strange events', search and conveying of information is blocked, everything is slowed down.

2. this observation is contorted and unintellegible (negative statement? "the absence of reliable evidence that they were 'caught' "?). I can hardly see a meaning in it. They don't need to be "caught" doing something, I don't see this as a logical requirement in any theory.

3. The "no obligation" = "no failure" is a false equivalence and it's not the first time I see your side bringing it up. The question is about credibility not about obligation. There isn't an explanation for that delay. If you find out something alarming, you are asked to call the police, you agree it's alarming and say ok but then you don't call the police, it does not look a very straightforward behaviour.
On the other hand, if two people are guilty, it's obvious they may have some fears and hesitation - for a hundered possible reasons - in the moments before they decide to dial the police number.

.

1. Delays do not mean lack of urgency, if the urgency is expended on other things. As other people have pointed out K+S were doing other things related to the discovery in the interim.

2. It is a logical requirement that K+S were 'caught' at the scene. If they weren't, there would be nothing to 'force' them to pretend to have already called the police - they would simply assume Filomena had called the police, and would be able to use Filomenas statement as justification for why they would have thought this.

3. No, if there is no obligation, then there is no delay, period. As others have pointed out, the behaviour of K+S in the "delay" is actually straight forward - they were doing other things of equal apparent importance at the time!

In short, if the timeline presented by others above is in anyway true , there is no actual delay to explain - they were doing other things related to their urgency.

Only if one ignores what K+S were apparently doing and assume they were doing nothing, does it make any sense to assert they had "no urgency" or were "delayed".

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, at the same time as Amanda was ending her call with Filomena, Raffaele had called the phone service center to recharge his phone. My bet is that Amanda wanted him to make that call, her Italian was not so good. Three minutes later 12:38 he gets a confirmation of the extra minutes but we don't know if he saw it immediately or not, in any case his dad called at two minutes later at 12:40 and then he called his sister at 12:51 and 112 at 12:52.

In the meantime Amanda had called her mom at 12:47. Sounds like a lot of calls were taking place in a short period of time and Amanda and Raffaele were getting the advice they needed. There is nothing nefarious about the gap.

Maybe. But this means Sollecito thought re-charging his phone was more urgent than looking for Meredith or calling police, while Knox still thought that calling her mom in the USA was more important than trying to call the phone number of the missing roommate in Italy (to which she only made 16- 4-5 seconds calls; on one number she did not even try again).
We may also mention that Sollecito spoke with his dad, at that time he had all possible adive a 5 yo boy should need, then he waited another 12 minutes. Nefarious or not, it's late.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I haven't posted this for awhile...

When do people call the police?

How do ordinary, innocent people behave when they stumble onto a crime scene? Following is an example from a murder that took place in Washington State.

Jerry Heimann was a 64-year-old man in Everett, Washington. He lived with his mother, who had Alzheimer's disease, as well as his mother's caregiver and her children, who lived in the basement. On April 13, 2001, the caregiver persuaded some friends of her teenage daughter to kill Jerry so they could loot his bank account. They stabbed and bludgeoned him to death, threw his body in the woods, loaded his furniture into a rented truck, and vacated the house after cleaning up the kitchen where they had attacked him. They left the old lady to fend for herself.

Jerry had prior reason to doubt the goodwill of his mother's caregiver. Just a week or two earlier, she had stolen $1,800 from him by forging a check. Jerry called his son Greg and told him about this, and Greg advised him to fire the caregiver, but Jerry did not do so. Nor did he call the police.

A few days after the murder, Greg and his wife flew in for a visit they had been planning for months. Jerry had said he would meet them at the airport, and they were expecting him. He was not there. They waited for three hours before taking a cab to Jerry's house.

When they got there, the place was dark and no one seemed to be home. They looked around and managed to get in through a window. The first thing they noticed was that most of the furniture was gone. Then they found Jerry's mother, who was sitting in her wheelchair chewing on a piece of paper. She was hungry and dehydrated, and she had soiled her diapers. They got her cleaned up, fed, and put to bed. Then they got some groceries and prepared a meal for themselves in the kitchen. After dinner, they decided to call around to find out if anyone knew where Jerry was. That was when they noticed that all the phones in the house had been unplugged and the answering machine had been disconnected.

Numerous phone calls produced no report of anyone having seen Jerry in the past week. By then it was well into the evening and the couple was tired after a long day, so they went to bed. Greg awoke at 3 a.m. and couldn't get back to sleep, so he went downstairs to the kitchen. While he was sipping a cup of coffee, he suddenly noticed that there was blood on the back of the chair next to him. In fact, there was quite a bit of blood spattered on it. Casting his eyes around the room, he noticed for the first time that there was blood on the walls, too. And there was blood running down the side of a trash can in the kitchen.

That was when Greg decided he should call the police... but, he didn't actually do so. Instead he sat around until about 7:00 am, when he received a phone call from his mother, who lived in the area. She asked him to wait for her to get there before calling the police. So he did.

Shortly after 8:00 am, someone knocked on the door. It was a man from a government agency, Adult Protective Services. He had come to investigate an anonymous tip that the caregiver intended to harm Jerry Heimann. Greg described the situation to this individual, who immediately used his cell phone to call the police.

Why didn't Greg call the cops the minute he arrived at his father's house and found the furniture gone and the old lady in a state of neglect? Isn't that what any normal person would have done?

How could Greg and his wife prepare and eat dinner in a kitchen where there was blood spatter on the walls and furniture without even noticing it?

Anyone who sets out to analyze whether certain types of behavior are indicative of guilt should start by reading some crime stories to get a sense of what is "normal." The fact is that "normal" behavior is all over the map and very often seems ridiculously naive or clueless when viewed with the benefit of hindsight.

My source for the above is Mom said kill, a book by Burl Barer about the Heimann murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe. But this means Sollecito thought re-charging his phone was more urgent than looking for Meredith or calling police, while Knox still thought that calling her mom in the USA was more important than trying to call the phone number of the missing roommate in Italy (to which she only made 16- 4-5 seconds calls; on one number she did not even try again).
We may also mention that Sollecito spoke with his dad, at that time he had all possible adive a 5 yo boy should need, then he waited another 12 minutes. Nefarious or not, it's late.

No one knew Meredith was "missing" at that time. Nice try, to put some "guilt-like" nuance in there.

 

[Bill Williams]

And I also think it's obvious that Knox would try to have another roommate there, to involve a co-founder of the body or seek a kind mediation, because this is what she tried to do with Filomena all the time throught her phone calls, her downplaying the loced door etc. This girl thinks that sending a letter to judges, explaining that she doesen't attend the trial because they may found her guilty and that they may be like blindfolded folks fooled by smoke and mirrors, may benefit her. It's narcissistic and megalomaniac, but a person with this perception and attitude - that is, a manipulative person - may well think that by having another roommate there her situation could be made look more favourable.

According to Judge Massei, Amanda Knox had no psychopathology. Yet you can "diagnose" all this?

 

[Machiavelli]

What a crock. This is so typical of a guilter. It matters little what she does, it is read as some sign of guilt. Every single point you just made can easily be read entirely different.

What's really sad is the prosecution doesn't have a shred of actual evidence of her guilt, just innuendo and tea leaves.

(...)

The prosecution actually has a lot of actual evidence.
But you need to understand that arguments this argument (like others that I brought up) are meant to be a rebuttal of defensive arguments.
This point about the defence analysis based on the CCTV video is a defensive point. These arguments may be about things that could be read differently, but they are not intended to be evidence themselves, they are intended to show that the defensive disproval doesn't have solid foundations.

The defence video analysys is not able to disprove the Battistelli testimony about arrival at 12.35, nor the police testimony about the CCT clock being fast. These testimonies are pieces of evidence.
Here were are not talking about the piece of evidence. We are instead talkig about the validity of its defensive disproval.
The disproval is not sufficiently foundedd, not consistent. There are problems. There is this lack of urgency, this delay, there are other elements in the witnesses testimonies.

 

[Skind]

Maybe. But this means Sollecito thought re-charging his phone was more urgent than looking for Meredith or calling police, while Knox still thought that calling her mom in the USA was more important than trying to call the phone number of the missing roommate in Italy (to which she only made 16- 4-5 seconds calls; on one number she did not even try again).
We may also mention that Sollecito spoke with his dad, at that time he had all possible adive a 5 yo boy should need, then he waited another 12 minutes. Nefarious or not, it's late.

No, it means Sollecito thought to charge his phone in order to call around and call the police.

The reason why should be obvious.......

Also, Knox's call to MK was at about 12:07, follwed by two subsequent calls, so she had already doen the thing you claim was "more important"!

Try to distort what actually happened as much as you want - you will be caught and corrected.

 

[MDDVS]

These people are completely destroying the image of Italy in the eyes of many. I know that I will probably never going back there unless I can't avoid it. And all this for the sake of convicting two innocents? It's just sad.