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

[acbytesla]

-
-
We also have a Trolley car here in Seattle nicknamed the SLUT, South Lake Union Trolley. You can also get T-Shirt's with "I rode the SLUT" on it in coffee shops along the SLUT's route. Or at least, they were available when I rode it back in the day.

Maybe it's just a Seattle thing,

d

P.S. I believe Paul Allen had something to do with that also, he's heavily invested in turning the South Lake Union area into a Bio Technology Center and also the SEAHAWKS!!!
-

You're right, you're right, you're right. I've ridden the SLUT. In fact I rode it today.

 

[JREF2010]

Meredith's bedroom has only one small window and that faces away from the two local towers and across the valley toward the distant Wind tower. Sitting on her bed, I think the walls obstruct the cellular signals equally from all three towers so the local towers are likely to be much stronger. But sitting at Meredith's desk, you only have a thin window obstructing the radio signal of the distant Wind tower. Does the thinner obstruction make a difference equaling out the signals? I don't know.

Meredith didnt live there that long, has even one other cell log shown to connect to 30064 on her phone?

If it's all inconclusive, then they wont have much luck proving their innocence.

 

[acbytesla]

Meredith didnt live there that long, has even one cell log shown to connect to 30064 on her phone?

If it's all inconclusive, then they wont have much luck proving their innocence.

I don't have all of her calls and texts. So I don't know. I tried like hell to get a list of all the calls and the towers connected through made by Amanda, Raffaele and Meredith all the time they were in Italy or at least since Meredith arrived.

I don't have Pellero's report, the Defense's cellular expert. I have translated some of his testimony but not the whole thing.

If you know where I can get more detail, let me know. I've asked at IIP many times and never got it.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's quite an interesting point. Property must 'belong to another' in order to be capable of being stolen. You cannot steal a wild animal, for example. I guess the answer would be, in English law anyway, that upon death her property would immediately pass to her estate to be administered by those entitled to apply for letters of administration or, if she made a will, probate. It would not belong to nobody at all. Otherwise we would all be free to appropriate the property of the dead pending any grant. This cannot be the law in Italy - or anywhere else - so I doubt Mach's argument which offends common sense.

It is a matter of fact that Knox and Sollecito were charged with illicit appropriation of the phones, not with theft.
In Italian jurisprudence theft is a charge that requires a formal complaint by a victim in order to be prosecuted, and it a crime is focused on the element of victim's will, and the will of the perpetrator to permanently prevent the victim from taking possession of the item (there must be a possessor who claims he had the possession of the item).

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>PS. A dead person cannot be robbed because the law says this, not because I think. But in addition to this - and I remark the concept in addition - there is also another fact, that is, that the phones were tossed away thus the indication that the purpose of the person who took the phones was a staging, that is the intent of the thief vas just the removal of the phones and not the keeping of the phones.

You have no way of knowing the intent of the thief. Most purses that are snatched are thrown away fairly quickly; that does not mean the thief meant only to remove the purse and not see what he could get out of it, just as Rudy was interested in seeing what he could get out of taking the phones.

If the thief of the phones wanted them only for the staging, why not dispose of them where they could not be found, such as in a garbage can, to continue the ruse that they were stolen in the robbery? That they were found in the Lanas' yard suggests one of two things: the thief wanted them found, or he disposed of them impulsively. Neither of these scenarios, of course, lessens the truth that the thief stole the phones.

It's absurd to say one can't steal from a dead person and ridiculous even to carry this conversation any further, but keep in mind that, to be precise, one of the phones belonged to Filomena, who was very much alive.

The primary purpose of you arguing that a thief can't steal from a dead person was an effort to minimize Rudy's crimes. That is how you are thinking -- that the three defendants committed some crimes that night, but Rudy's were not quite as serious as Amanda and Raffaele's.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Abrams wrote, "At 12:08 p.m. Knox called her roommate Filomena Romanelli and apparently said that she was at their house but cell phone records seem to show she was likely still at Sollecito's home.” He also wrote, “So if she had not been back at her house yet, as cell phone records seem to show, and was still at Sollecito's, would she have known about a break-in?” (highlighting mine)

If I am reading this passage correctly, Abrams seems to be saying that Amanda did not return to her flat until after her call to Filomena and that she did so in Raffaele's company. I have three questions. One, is it undisputed that the call to Filomena took place at Raffaele's? Two, did Amanda in fact say anything to indicate where she was? Three, is there any electronic evidence that Amanda made the first trip? I suspect that the answer to 1 is yes and that the answer to 3 is no. With respect to 2, I just reread Amanda's email and she indicates that she was at Raffaele's flat when she made that call. Therefore, the only ways she could have indicated that she was not at Raffaele's when she made the call would be by something she said to Filomena contemporaneously, or if she said something at her trial. I suspect that Abrams is simply wrong in his assertion, but I have no idea how he got there.

Abrams made up his mind from media reports in 2007 and will never change.

Now he is pulling his information straight from Mull's website. He has no clue as to the phone records, Amanda's account, or the testimony of Filomena at the trial.

Amanda went to the cottage in the morning and took a shower. She noticed blood in the bathroom and the dirty toilet, but she didn't discover the broken window because Filomena's door was closed.

She returned to Raffaele's apt. and discussed this with him. She was at Raffaele's apt. when she called Meredith's phones and when she first called Filomena. This is what she has always said.

Then she went back to the cottage with Raffaele, they discovered the broken window, and she reported it to Filomena in a subsequent phone call, as per Filomena's testimony.

Abrams doesn't know or care about facts.

 

[Mary_H]

It is a matter of fact that Knox and Sollecito were charged with illicit appropriation of the phones, not with theft.
In Italian jurisprudence theft is a charge that requires a formal complaint by a victim in order to be prosecuted, and it a crime is focused on the element of victim's will, and the will of the perpetrator to permanently prevent the victim from taking possession of the item (there must be a possessor who claims he had the possession of the item).

Massei begs to differ with you, Mach:

The stealing of the mobile phones complements the crime of theft due to the benefit,
which has been mentioned, obtained by stealing the mobile phones. A benefit that,
in order to constitute the crime of theft [ai fini della configurabilità del furto], does not
necessarily have to be of a financial or a property-related nature (cf. for example,
Cass. 12.2.1985 No. 4471 and Cass. 22.11.1983 No. 9983) (page 388)

The element of continuance together with the crimes of simulation [staging] and of
unjustifiable carrying of the knife and of the theft of the cell phones determines, with
regard to Raffaele Sollecito, an increase of the punishment of a further 1 year and
thus Raffaele Sollecito is condemned to 25 years of imprisonment. In relation to the
fact that in addition to the said crimes Amanda Knox is also answerable for the crime
of calunnia, she must be condemned to a total punishment of 26 years of
imprisonment (base penalty 24 years; increased to 24 years and 6 months for the
simulation [staging]; to 24 years and 9 months for carrying the knife; to 25 years for
theft and increased, finally, by a further year for calunnia). (page 393)

He not only calls it theft (not "illicit appropriation"), he also says that "theft does not necessarily have to be of a financial or a property-related nature," which opposes your understanding that "just the removal of the phones and not the keeping of the phones" does not constitute theft.

And, of course, as I said last night, the question is moot because Meredith was alive when the killer left.

 

[Strozzi]

Meredith didnt live there that long, has even one other cell log shown to connect to 30064 on her phone?

If it's all inconclusive, then they wont have much luck proving their innocence.

I though I read some Italian court rules or laws regulating legal procedure that say that if there are two items of conflicting evidence and neither can be ruled out, then the one that supports innocence is to be accepted. Anyone know about this?

 

[Dan O.]

I'm extremely familiar with the terrain. There are two spots on Google Street view close to the Wind Cell tower on Ponte Rio. One point is about a 100 meters below the base of the cell tower and from that Google Street View point the hill you speak of blocks the line of sight. The other point that I have found close to the tower is a winding road above the antenna which has a perfect line of sight to the entire hillside of Perugia. I can easily make out the Lupatelli and Acquedetto towers from that point. The definition of the image is not good enough to make out what's on the hillside but I'm very confident that it has a good line of sight.

IMO It makes little sense to site that antenna in that location if it only serves the area to the hill in the way.

The tower is almost in the valley so it may not be intended to serve the city.. The winding road with the view is to the side at almost the same elevation. But Google Earth is the best tool for seeing the view.

And now that I've checked to out, I will revert my claim and admit that the cottage is not shadowed by the nearby hill from that WIND tower. Attachment to follow... Highlights are locations of cottage and Launa's garden.

 

[Machiavelli]

Dave, here are some corrections or clarifications to what you wrote.

Re: possible contact between Knox and Guede:
You wrote that Guede had visited the apartment, wording it in such a way that an unknowledgeable reader might think you are referring to the women's apartment. Guede never visited the women's apartment, the upstairs apartment, before the crime. He had visited the guys' apartment, the downstairs apartment, twice. One evening Knox was walking home from the university area when she ran into 3 of the guys who lived downstairs.

Actually the testimony of Stefano Bonassi (the guy living downstairs) reports that as the two guys were walking in the center, they run into three people who were already together, the theree people were Amanda, Meredith and Guede. The two girls had met Guede while they were walking home.

MC: È capitato che Rudy venisse in casa vostra?
SB: È successo una sera che io sono rimasto a dormire e gli altri miei coinquilini sono usciti ed hanno incontrato Rudy in centro unitamente alle altre ragazze sono scesi poi a casa nostra.

Then he points out that Knox and Guede already knew each other (Guede even told his friends he liked Amanda):

SB:
L'avevano incontrato.
MC:
Ma l'avevano incontrato in un momento successivo mentre tornavano a casa...
SB:
In un momento successivo mentre tornavano a casa.
MC:
L'avevano invitato a venire a casa vostra?
SB:
Questo non lo so se l'hanno invitato.
MC:
Comunque Amanda e Rudy quindi si conoscevano?
SB:
Sì.
MC:
Si sono visti solo quella volta?
SB:
Che a me risulti sì.
MC:
Le risulta che Rudy abbia chiesto a qualcuno di voi qualcosa riferita ad Amanda?
SB:
Sì, ha esposto un suo interessamento.
MC:
Ovvero?
SB:
Ovvero ha detto che era, cioè che... Ecco gli piaceva.

Giorgio Cocciaretto said he met Guede there at the downstairs apartment two or three times, and that evening Guede was talking with both Amanda and Meredith "molto tranquillamente" (very openly, very at ease):

GCM:
Lei ha detto che era un assiduo frequentatore della casa di via Della Pergola con riferimento all'appartamento occupato dai ragazzi, che è l'appartamento sottostante.
GC:
Sì.
GCM:
Quante volte in questo appartamento ha visto Rudy Ghedè?
GC:
Due o tre volte.
GCM:
In queste occasioni lo ha visto Rudy Ghedè che era insieme agli altri ragazzi o c'era anche qualcuna delle ragazze del piano di sopra.
GC:
In una occasione c'era anche Meredith e Amanda.
GCM:
Lei ricorda se Rudy Ghedè parlava con l'una o con l'altra o con tutte e due.
GC:
Sì, parlava sia con Amanda che con Meredith molto tranquillamente.

All witnesses recall that Guede said he liked Amanda, only talked with his friends about Amanda, not about Meredith.
Also according to Bonassi and Cocciaretto, Meredith did not socialize with them (other downstairs guys and friends) too much while Amanda was very conversable, chummy.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

All witnesses recall that Guede said he liked Amanda, only talked with his friends about Amanda, not about Meredith.
Also according to Bonassi and Cocciaretto, Meredith did not socialize with them too much.

Yeah, well, Amanda wasn't home on Nov. 1 so poor Rudy had to rape Meredith instead.

 

[yimyammer]

The Cowboys and their #32 ranked defense have to play the Seahawks in Seattle this year. I'm afraid we're going to need a repeat of the 2005 draft just to be competitive.

at a minimum.......I think they'll get crushed up in Seattle, 2014 looks to be a bad one for the pokes.... too old, too little cap room and always too much jerry jones

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the first call between Amanda and Filomena

Charlie,

I just reread Candace Dempsey's account of Amanda and Filomena's first call (pp. 57-59). Filomena recalled Amanda's saying that Amanda would call Raffaele. Filomena also said that she told Amanda to call the police. In her email Amanda said that she would call Meredith. There is a discrepancy here, but the facts suggest Amanda's account as being more accurate. One, Paola overheard Filomena's half of the conversation and did not recall her telling Amanda to call the police. Two, Amanda's next two calls are to Meredith's phones. Three, how could Amanda have actually called the police given her Italian was pretty limited at the time? I hasten to add that Filomena's account may have been in error (as I believe it was) from imperfect memory, perhaps confusing one conversation she had with another, or from language problems. In other words, I don't attach any significance to it.

However, I do attach significance to exactly what Abrams wrote. When I went to the fake wiki to look for what it said about the first phone call between Amanda and Filomena, I found "moreover she said that she was going to Raffaele’s place. Filomena’s question about where Meredith was, Amanda had answered that she did not know." Two points stand out. One, their version does not even sound like Filomena's version. Two, it seems to me that this passage is indeed the wellspring of Abrams' nonsense.

 

[MichaelB]

Actually the testimony of Stefano Bonassi (the guy living downstairs) reports that as the two guys were walking in the center, they run into three people who were already together, the theree people were Amanda, Meredith and Guede. The two girls had met Guede while they were walking home.

Then he points out that Knox and Guede already knew each other (Guede even told his friends he liked Amanda):

Giorgio Cocciaretto said he met Guede there at the downstairs apartment two or three times, and that evening Guede was talking with both Amanda and Meredith "molto tranquillamente" (very openly, very at ease):


All witnesses recall that Guede said he liked Amanda, only talked with his friends about Amanda, not about Meredith. Also according to Bonassi and Cocciaretto, Meredith did not socialize with them (other downstairs guys and friends) too much while Amanda was very conversable, chummy.

The guys downstairs weren't his friends. They didn't even know his name.

Ficarra p103

DOMANDA – Perché poco prima ci ha riferito con riferimento all’indicazione di Rudy che è stata su sua iniziativa che Amanda ha parlato di Rudy.
RISPOSTA – Di ricordare di quel soggetto, ho chiesto a lei come si chiamasse perché ancora noi non l’avevamo identificato in quel momento, non sapevamo chi fosse. Sapevamo che veniva chiamato il Barone dai ragazzi sotto, dell’appartamento sotto, ma non conoscevamo l’identità.

 

[Machiavelli]

Massei begs to differ with you, Mach:

He not only calls it theft (not "illicit appropriation"), he also says that "theft does not necessarily have to be of a financial or a property-related nature," which opposes your understanding that "just the removal of the phones and not the keeping of the phones" does not constitute theft.

No, I did not make the point that the keeping constitutes theft and not the removal; I said a theft requires a victim to be alive (and, if theft is committed as a crime alone, requires to file a complaint to be prosecuted); and also I pointed out that the removal was not aimed at keeping the phones, the meaning of this detail having implications on the motive: in terms of motive, this does not appear as a theft but as a staging. because there is no evidence the perpetrator aimed to keep the phones (they threw them away immediately). Therefore, those who are more suspected of taking the phones, must be those who did a staging. It's logical to assume those who took the phones and those who altered the murder scene are the same people, rather than suspect Rudy Guede (who left the house before the staging).

And, of course, as I said last night, the question is moot because Meredith was alive when the killer left.

It's still not enought for the element of theft. It makes actually no difference whether if it's theft of illicit appropriation, but I thought this specific deed happened to be illicit appropriation and not theft. But then, as I read again Massei I found in fact that Massei charged them with art. 624, that is theft, thus assumed Meredith was still alive.
It seems Massei did not find cash and credit cards were missing.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yeah, well, Amanda wasn't home on Nov. 1 so poor Rudy had to rape Meredith instead.

Are you sure she wasn't home ...?

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, well, Amanda wasn't home on Nov. 1 so poor Rudy had to rape Meredith instead.

What probably happened is Rudy broke the window and then saw Meredith approaching and approached her instead and he asked Meredith about Amanda and Meredith annoyed told Rudy that he didn't stand a chance and Rudy got angry and killed Meredith.

I mean if they the prosecution can pull theories without evidence out of their backsides, so can I. Sorry if it smells like Crini's poop.

 

[Machiavelli]

The guys downstairs weren't his friends. They didn't even know his name.

They hung out drinking together, let's say he talked to his acquaintances.

 

[Dan O.]

I found in fact that Massei charged them with art. 624, that is theft, thus assumed Meredith was still alive.

Told ya.


Now can you give us a timeline as to when these phones were stollen and when Meredith died? Or are you waiting to hear it from the Horsehair's mouth.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have no way of knowing the intent of the thief. Most purses that are snatched are thrown away fairly quickly; that does not mean the thief meant only to remove the purse and not see what he could get out of it, just as Rudy was interested in seeing what he could get out of taking the phones.

A purse is not a phone. There is nothing valuable inside a phone, except the phone itself. Thieves don't steal bycicles to dispose of them immediately, don't steal cell phones to throw them away. It might be an impulsive changing of mind, but then it's unclear why he took them in the first place; the first, more strong hypothesis is just the more simple and logical one, the thief did not intend to keep the phones.

If the thief of the phones wanted them only for the staging, why not dispose of them where they could not be found, such as in a garbage can, to continue the ruse that they were stolen in the robbery?

They tossed them in a ravine. Theit intent was to dispose of them for ever. They were unlucky, because it's was dark. They didn't know that right in that point below the road there was a house and a garden.

The primary purpose of you arguing that a thief can't steal from a dead person was an effort to minimize Rudy's crimes.

No, my purpose is not to minimize them, it's to attribute them to someone who is not Rudy Guede and to see them as unrelated to Rudy Guede. These phones are taken by someone who is maybe not called "thief", and our "thief" Guede is not the charachter with a logical motive or propensity for stealing the phones and toss them away.
This is what I am thinking, not what you try to put in my mouth.