Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[sept79]

Quintavalle's Perjury -- continuation

Testimony of Marina Chiriboga (WITNESS and HEADS) on June 26, 2009


DEFENSE - Attorney. Maori - You have said that November 2 took
service at seven-thirty. At half past seven there were
patrons, the people inside the store?
WITNESS - I do not remember that day, it should be ', there are sometimes yes, sometimes not. I do not remember, because as I went in stock to that time, my colleague was at the checkout and Mark, so, in
around.
DEFENSE - Attorney. Maori - So you do not remember people.
WITNESS - No.
DEFENSE - Attorney. Maori - All right.
PRESIDENT - Are there any other questions? Excuse me, where the warehouse?
HEADS - Warehouse (bathroom) close to the chest, around.
PRESIDENT - Near?
HEADS - Buy now.
PRESIDENT - So always in the shop?
WITNESS - Yes, yes.
PRESIDENT - But, having taken her service to half past seven
November 2 and having Quintavalle also referred to her as
She first said that in the interview he said: "Ah, the morning
of murder ... ", and November 2," ... maybe I
seen ... "I do not know in what terms reported it to him," Amanda ...
Knox "and she was there, not in Quintavalle said," But I
I was there and I have not seen "?
WITNESS - Yes, he asked us: "But you have not seen it?" And I I said, "No, I have not seen it (Amanda) ... I have not seen" then I have not seen.PRESIDENT - So you remember that Quintavalle also claimed
to her, but she did not ... her.
WITNESS - Yes.
PRESIDENT - So you remember that?
WITNESS - Yes, I remember this.
CHAIRMAN - And she (Chiriboga) said, "No, I have not seen it (Amanda)." HEADS - Well, I said, "I have not seen."
PRESIDENT - If there are no other questions, we can dismiss the
heads. It can go.

 

[Bill Williams]

What I'm saying is that if Volturno went in and asked Qunitavalle if Knox bought bleach on Nov. 2, and Quintavalle knows that Knox was there looking at bleach Nov. 2, the answer is not going to be "no, have a good day."

So if that's what you, the prosecution, Volturno, nencini and the ISC want us to believe, then you're all full of crap.

Don't worry nobody cares of what you believe.

This response is unworthy of you.

The issue is that Quintavalle would have seen Knox's face all over Italian TV. That he doesn't say anything then, but waits literally months to be prompted by a journalist, and then becomes one of Mignini's superwitnesses, tells us all we need to know about this case.

I do not know enough about it, really to say if Quintavalle committed perjury. But it is unconscionable that the court took his testimony.

And look what Judge Nencini does in his motivations report. First he cites that ISC has passed to him that the Hellmann court erred in principles of law in the evaluation of Quntavalle's testimony.....

The Prosecutor General gathered a multitude of errors ascribed; methodological mistakes; the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia giving as proven what instead needed to be
proved; [14] simple statements of principle that constitute serious mistakes in the Sentencing Report; with violation of the procedural principles given in articles 192 paragraph 2, 237, 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Namely, the Prosecutor severely criticized:...............................

- Non-observance of the principles of law in the evaluation of the witness Quintavalle;

What principles of law did Hellmann violate that invalidated his conclusions? Nencini does not say.

The Supreme Court made similar considerations in relation to the testimony of the witness Quintavalle, whose evidentiary force had been devalued on the basis of reasoning that valued only the critical aspects of the testimony, erasing further aspects that had confirmed the truth of what was said by the witness; this evaluation of the proof was lacking in logical rigor.

What "logical rigor" was missing? That Qunitavalle had not recognized Knox as being the one in his store when first questioned, but that when jogged by a journalist months' later - this means that logically Quintavalle's memory is sound?

And then astoundingly, when the Sollecito defence team asks for a reexamination of the Quintavalle testimony - to clear all this up - guess what Judge Nencini does?

He says there is no need to reexamine Quintavalle because he's already testified and been cross examined.

Which, amongst other things, does not allow the defence to argue the real import - that Nencini has already considered criticism of Quintavalle's testimony to be lacking in "logical rigor" and violating "principles of law". What is new, and why Sollecito's request for a reexamination of Quintavalle should have been allowed, IS this business of Hellmann's decision regarding Quintavalle being against principles of law.

Sollecito has had his rights violated by Nencini in not being allowed to challenged the faux-law that Nencini says the Supreme Court and the prosecution appeal of Hellmann got right.

Pointing to Nencini's discussion of those principles and logic for Nencini it boils down to this - even though Quintavalle came forward at the insistence of a journalist a year later, principles of law and logic are satisfied because:

(Quintavalle) was struck by the eyes and the extremely pallid face of the young woman, by the expression of her face, which he had the means to perceive at the distance of about a meter at the moment of the young woman’s entrance into his commercial enterprise. Particulars which had remained impressed in his memory.......

.....the Court holds that these same cannot in fact be classified as unreliable on the basis of unproven arguments and definitely eccentric with respect to an objective examination of their content; content of both testimonies which emerges likewise coherent, anchored to precise reference points significant to both the witnesses, free of evident contradictions; and in particular made credible by the substantive disinterest of the witnesses to the procedural outcomes of the defendants.

In there lies Italian law and logic. Apparently, being a yard away from such a striking woman on Nov 2, 2007, does nothing to jar Quintavalle's memory a week later, but in November 2008, apparently it does.

Logical. And now law.

 

[tsig]

I have some news for you. AK and RS's defence wasn't the best it could have been, unfortunately.

As a matter of fact it took quite a while before those of us here at the JREF forums pieced together the fact that if you nailed down the timeline it turned out that AK and RS couldn't be the killers.
That was pretty much the turning point in discussion of the case here, in fact. The pro-guilt side have just been completely unable to develop a theory of the crime that makes any sense and fits the known timeline. Every time they try they either have to leave out an important piece of hard evidence to make their theory work, or they end up with a nonsensical story.

I think Mignini was actually ahead of the curve here in one sense, in that he was smart enough to realise that AK and RS couldn't be guilty unless the murder took place at 23:45. That's why he whipped that time of death out of his sleeve at the end of the first trial. However for whatever reason (stupidity, insanity, dishonesty, corruption, moral bankruptcy, take your pick) he went ahead with the prosecution even though AK and RS couldn't be guilty unless the murder happened at 23:45, and the murder could not have happened any later than 21:30.

Sounds like an iron clad defense so why didn't the defense lawyers use it?

 

[tsig]

I think that people expected that an Italian judge might have some degree of integrity, but alas, this guy turned out to be a complete lackey scumbag. This is exactly how the Nazis got away with everything they did: appoint officious drones to carry out your orders.

Italy is mass killing Jews?

 

[Desert Fox]

Accusing a witness of lying is possible but pointless unless you have evidence of it. If you are the witness of say a police misconduct yourself you should submit a complaint, and you need to look like a credible person; if you don't know but just think that one witness is lying you need to find evidence, or it's not going to be effective.

I don't think the issue here is not being effective but that you might find yourself charged in such a case.

 

[Desert Fox]

Italy is mass killing Jews?

Not much of a student of history are you. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Freisler

 

[Diocletus]

Italy is mass killing Jews?

No, they already did that: Holocaust in Italy.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Stefanoni is a scabrous old whore..

Literally?

Literally scabrous and literally old, without doubt. The rest is a matter of seasoned conjecture.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Sounds like an iron clad defense so why didn't the defense lawyers use it?

They tried, but the homeless junkie and the crazy old lady demolished the medical evidence.

 

[Diocletus]

They tried, but the homeless junkie and the crazy old lady demolished the medical evidence.

Also known by their Sioux names, Poop-in-Woods and Pee-at-Night.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think this is your own inference, and it's a bit of a nonsense. Stefanoni is a scientists working in laboratory, Berti and Barni as well. They do not dispute that a latent blood stain can fail to match the concentration needed for a confirmatory test. It is also not possible to infer a truth from "protocols", a word that some people seem tend to abuse. It I obvious that if concentration doesn't reach the sensitiveness threshold or if the sample is not used for confirmation but for other tests (like DNA) instead, you won't have a positive confirmation. But that is no proof of absence.

This is why I'm encouraging you to hit the lecture circuit, Machiavelli. You're wasting your talent. If you present at forensic conferences, you will be addressing technicians who actually work in crime labs, and your ground-breaking Internet research will have real impact.

The bathmat-sliding demo will be a perfect launchpad for this new endeavor. It will bring people into the room. But first, you have to work out the details.

- Did Amanda/Raffaele take turns sliding on the mat?

- Or, did they slide in tandem?

- Or, did one slide on the mat and one on a towel or some other conveyance?

- Where did they start the sliding activity, where did they go, where did they stop along the way?

Once you have worked out these details, you can get Kermit and some of your other friends to produce a compelling slide show and video. Then you will be ready for your new career as a forensic serologist and crime scene analyst.

What are you waiting for?

 

[LondonJohn]

Volturno's research was focused on bleach. And was dealing with other stores too.

Pathetic (not so much on your part, though you are hopelessly credulous in swallowing Volturno's/Quintavalle's ex post facto "reimaginings").

Look: there is simply ZERO logical reason why Volturno might have been asking such an open ended question as "Have you ever seen this woman or this man in your store buying cleaning products?", unless the answer to that question was "No, I have never seen either of them in my store before". Because if the answer to that question was "Yes", then necessarily the question would immediately narrow down to whether the man or woman had been buying such products between 9pm on 1st November and 1pm on 2nd November.

After all, the police can have had no interest in whether Knox or Sollecito had been buying bleach etc at any time before the evening of 1st November (I believe that not even in their flights of fancy do/did the authorities think that the murder was premeditated in the hours or days beforehand...) or after the afternoon of 2nd November.

 

[anglolawyer]

Pathetic (not so much on your part, though you are hopelessly credulous in swallowing Volturno's/Quintavalle's ex post facto "reimaginings").

Look: there is simply ZERO logical reason why Volturno might have been asking such an open ended question as "Have you ever seen this woman or this man in your store buying cleaning products?", unless the answer to that question was "No, I have never seen either of them in my store before". Because if the answer to that question was "Yes", then necessarily the question would immediately narrow down to whether the man or woman had been buying such products between 9pm on 1st November and 1pm on 2nd November.

After all, the police can have had no interest in whether Knox or Sollecito had been buying bleach etc at any time before the evening of 1st November (I believe that not even in their flights of fancy do/did the authorities think that the murder was premeditated in the hours or days beforehand...) or after the afternoon of 2nd November.

You are joking, right? It was premeditated from the moment Amanda's attention was drawn to the toilet brush.

 

[tsig]

I think that people expected that an Italian judge might have some degree of integrity, but alas, this guy turned out to be a complete lackey scumbag. This is exactly how the Nazis got away with everything they did: appoint officious drones to carry out your orders.

Not much of a student of history are you. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Freisler

These activities are supposedly taking place in the present.

 

[tsig]

No, they already did that: Holocaust in Italy.

That means they are doing it now?

What do the Nazis have to do with a murder trial in Italy?

 

[Bill Williams]

Pathetic (not so much on your part, though you are hopelessly credulous in swallowing Volturno's/Quintavalle's ex post facto "reimaginings").

Look: there is simply ZERO logical reason why Volturno might have been asking such an open ended question as "Have you ever seen this woman or this man in your store buying cleaning products?", unless the answer to that question was "No, I have never seen either of them in my store before". Because if the answer to that question was "Yes", then necessarily the question would immediately narrow down to whether the man or woman had been buying such products between 9pm on 1st November and 1pm on 2nd November.

After all, the police can have had no interest in whether Knox or Sollecito had been buying bleach etc at any time before the evening of 1st November (I believe that not even in their flights of fancy do/did the authorities think that the murder was premeditated in the hours or days beforehand...) or after the afternoon of 2nd November.

You are joking, right? It was premeditated from the moment Amanda's attention was drawn to the toilet brush.

I'll tell you how premeditated this crime was. Ms. Knox bought bleach to clean up after the "war zone" party in Seattle, from which she received a felony conviction the equivalent to a parking ticket.

She had that bleach with her during the train trip, and used the bleach on Oct 31 to forensicly sterilize the whole cottage, so that whatever was deposited on the horrible night of Nov 1 had to have been from the crime and not because of normal household occupation.

This thing was premeditated from Seattle onwards, and I once had the bleach receipts from a local Seattle hardware store. And the proprietor there, a Mr. Quintaville (no relation to Quintavalle) remembers seeing her. At least this is what he said a year later.

Michael at .NUT now has the receipts. Ask him.

 

[Diocletus]

That means they are doing it now?

What do the Nazis have to do with a murder trial in Italy?

Well, to spell it out further for you: the Nazi M.O. was to have officious drone-like jackasses carry out their illegal orders in violation of victim human rights. Similarly, the Italian supreme court chose Nencini to carry out its illegal orders in violation of the defendants' human rights. Get it now? It's a comparison.

 

[Samson]

That means they are doing it now?

What do the Nazis have to do with a murder trial in Italy?

The main difference is that the Nazis believed they were involved in a just cause. Nencini can not plausibly hold that belief. He is accordingly a more evil man.

 

[sept79]

Quintavalle's Perjury -- continuation

Marina Chiriboga was on the witness stand on June 26, 2009, in Massei's court in order to provide testimony as to the presence of bleach at Raffaele's apartment. During her testimony it was discovered that she was working at Quintavalle's store the first week in November of 2007. The following Q&A ensued:

WITNESS (Marina Chiriboga) - Yes, he (Quintavalle) asked us: "But you have not seen (Amanda) ?" And I said, "No, I have not seen Amanda ... I have not seen" then I have not seen.
Frank Sfarzo (who was in the court room on the day of this testimony) wrote on Perugia Shock that the defense was afraid to ask Chiriboga where the restroom was located--fearing that it may be down the street somewhere. So, Massie (PRESIDENT) asked

PRESIDENT - Are there any other questions? Excuse me, where is the restroom? HEADS - Restroom close to the chest, around. PRESIDENT - Near? HEADS - In the shop. PRESIDENT - So always in the shop? WITNESS - Yes, yes.

 

[Diocletus]

Marina Chiriboga was on the witness stand on June 26, 2009, in Massei's court in order to provide testimony as to the presence of bleach at Raffaele's apartment. During her testimony it was discovered that she was working at Quintavalle's store the first week in November of 2007. The following Q&A ensued:

WITNESS (Marina Chiriboga) - Yes, he (Quintavalle) asked us: "But you have not seen (Amanda) ?" And I said, "No, I have not seen Amanda ... I have not seen" then I have not seen.
Frank Sfarzo (who was in the court room on the day of this testimony) wrote on Perugia Shock that the defense was afraid to ask Chiriboga where the restroom was located--fearing that it may be down the street somewhere. So, Massie (PRESIDENT) asked

PRESIDENT - Are there any other questions? Excuse me, where is the restroom? HEADS - Restroom close to the chest, around. PRESIDENT - Near? HEADS - In the shop. PRESIDENT - So always in the shop? WITNESS - Yes, yes.

That's reasonable. Most of the important evidence in this case seems to have something to do with a bathroom.