Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.(...)

But this happens often in Italy. Witnesses don't want to testify, they are often reluctant until a journalist drives them out. It's very typical. During the cross questioning Mignini discussing with the defence pointed out "The fact that he comes forward only after some time is sadly because of reasons we all know about" (Follain quotes him, p. 285).
This is part of the Landscape, what you need to know of the context if you want to undersatand things.

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.....

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

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?

But the SC says that. Hellmann basically misreported what Quintavalle said. He presented a false report of the witness' testimony. Hellmann suppressed ("forgot") parts of the content of Quintavalle's testimony, then painted a picture of his testimony as vague and uncertain in a way which was not.

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.

Exactly. It's impeccable under the procedure viewpoint. Nencini is compelled to refuse. There is no reason for calling back the witness. You can't "recall" a witness just to "clear up" something that was already in the content of his first witness report.You need to put your questions only once and deal with a topic only once.

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.

I don't understand this tense "not being allowed to challenged" (you are saying to challenge, I think). Anyway I don't see how there can be a point tha makes sense. Hellmann's assessment of Quintavalle was illegitimate and unacceptable since it is inconsistent with the testimony itself, and also contains some unfounded deductions. Ok. So Hellmann is annulled. Doesn't exist any more. Nothing of what Hellmann assessed matters. So we are back to another appeal judge, who is asked to re-assess again (after Massei) the testimony of Quintavalle. The judge (Nencini) says there is no reason to hear the witness again (what judges say 95-99% of the times). What's the problem. I don't understand.

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:

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.

But Quintavalle said he was not questioned about just having seen the girl. He also explained that he did not want to come forward on his own decision, his journalist friend needed to drive him out and pressure him, because he was absolutely not keen to become a witness. He said clearly that he didn't speak about it before because he didn't want to.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

O My G.... But you are relying on those crappy google-translations... are they by Frank Sfarzo? Now I understand.
Chiriboga was not in the restroom. She was in the storage room.
Early in the morning she used to do the work in the storage room putting in order the wares lots.
The storage room is obviously not located in the customers' area.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

You think wrongly. Stating that you think Quintavalle was lying in court would just be ineffective. There is no charge attached. It is that either you can substantiate it with evidence, or it would just backfire.
Of course if you say "Gotcha! I catched him while he is lying, I have the evidence he is committing perjury" (so if you act as a witness of a crime), and then you manifestley have no evidence, this might go too forward and become an illicit claim of false evidence against an innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

But we also have to keep in mind that Nencini begins his opinion by reminding the reader that he is construing events within the context of judicial truths, found by the ISC in the remand, and in Rudy's final determination - that Rudy killed Meredith along with others, and that the break-in was staged - and also that Knox is guilty of Calumnia, no?

If those elements are accepted as given "judicial truths", then surely Judge Nencini was being quite fair and even handed in his approach to the case on the merits.

That Guede killed Meredith togethr with others and that Knox was guilty of calunnia are, to Nencini's court (what I understand he explains), not directly taken as judicial facts; but the facts that other courts have made these findings, they are pieces of circumstantial evidence about a certain scenario.
In other words, the defense and their scenarios are not riding dead horses, but they are starting the run already with a two lap penalty.
The findings by other courts cannot determine the decision, but they will influence it, just as the other pieces of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

That Guede killed Meredith togethr with others and that Knox was guilty of calunnia are, to Nencini's court (what I understand he explains), not directly taken as judicial facts; but the facts that other courts have made these findings, they are pieces of circumstantial evidence about a certain scenario.
In other words, the defense and their scenarios are not riding dead horses, but they are starting the run already with a two lap penalty.
The findings by other courts cannot determine the decision, but they will influence it, just as the other pieces of circumstantial evidence.

In other words, Knox and Sollecito did not get a fair trial. Thank you for admitting this.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't understand this tense "not being allowed to challenged" (you are saying to challenge, I think). Anyway I don't see how there can be a point tha makes sense. Hellmann's assessment of Quintavalle was illegitimate and unacceptable since it is inconsistent with the testimony itself, and also contains some unfounded deductions. Ok. So Hellmann is annulled. Doesn't exist any more. Nothing of what Hellmann assessed matters. So we are back to another appeal judge, who is asked to re-assess again (after Massei) the testimony of Quintavalle. The judge (Nencini) says there is no reason to hear the witness again (what judges say 95-99% of the times). What's the problem. I don't understand.

I agree. You don't, do you.

 

[Machiavelli]

In other words, Knox and Sollecito did not get a fair trial. Thank you for admitting this.

The trial is fair. "Fair trial" does not mean a trial where pieces of circumstantial evidence do not exist.

 

[carbonjam72]

You think wrongly. Stating that you think Quintavalle was lying in court would just be ineffective. There is no charge attached. It is that either you can substantiate it with evidence, or it would just backfire.
Of course if you say "Gotcha! I catched him while he is lying, I have the evidence he is committing perjury" (so if you act as a witness of a crime), and then you manifestley have no evidence, this might go too forward and become an illicit claim of false evidence against an innocent.

Its not necessary to say Quintavale was lying. He could have imagined he saw Amanda after so much media attention to the story, and prompting by the journalist. In a similar way to how Amanda was manipulated into creating a false memory of the crime scene, and falsely implicating Lumumba. Although Amanda succumbed to extraordinary police pressure at the point of exhaustion and collapse, Quintavalle is an elderly man and perhaps somewhat enfeebled by advanced age.

Or, Quintavale could also have been just teasing, you know, making a joke with his testimony, against two people he knew were innocent.

The best reason for not crediting Quintavale's testimony, is because we already know it is factually false. We know Amanda and Raf never left their apartment that evening, because of their computer records, and because they said so and they are honest people. And there is no evidence of any kind contrary to that fact. (We must in fairness exclude the confused statements extracted through police coercion, nobody could reasonably credit those statements as fact).

So, by simply saying Quintavale is honestly mistaken, we have no genuine conflict in testomony, and Amanda, Raf, and Quint can all be telling the truth. Same with Curatolo, if we just deny the factual allegation, and simply credit him with believing a false idea, as he no doubt did as a witness in 2 other murder (?) cases.

So everyone can be telling the truth, and the police just made a mistake. Except for the fact that the police, prosecutor and lab and forensic techs repeatedly lied, and destroyed and suppressed exculpatory evidence. Not everything can be excused as honest error.

 

[carbonjam72]

The trial is fair. "Fair trial" does not mean a trial where pieces of circumstantial evidence do not exist.

But the result of another trial isn't circumstantial evidence pertaining to an alleged crime. It's the conclusion of court, by whatever mechanism of logic, or lack thereof.

And a fair trial, one would think must allow representation of the defendants who are being judged, and the opportunity to confront an accuser in court and cross examine them. Neither of which was allowed in this case.

It's obviously unfair to bind defendants to a trial where they were not represented, and even their own trial where they had no opportunity to cross examine the only accuser.

Its hard to understand why anyone would argue guilt, or that this judicial process was fair. It's not absurd because it happened in Italy. That just gives this absurdity and Italian accent.

 

[Diocletus]

The trial is fair. "Fair trial" does not mean a trial where pieces of circumstantial evidence do not exist.

No. But it does mean that you get a fair and impartial tribunal, which you don't have if some other court already told you how to rule.

Clear fair trial violation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Its not necessary to say Quintavale was lying. He could have imagined he saw Amanda after so much media attention to the story, and prompting by the journalist. In a similar way to how Amanda was manipulated into creating a false memory of the crime scene, and falsely implicating Lumumba. Although Amanda succumbed to extraordinary police pressure at the point of exhaustion and collapse, Quintavalle is an elderly man and perhaps somewhat enfeebled by advanced age.

I'm afraid the false memory syndrome is not credible for neither Knox and Quintavalle. (As for Knox there is no record of extraordinary pressure nor exhaustion, and the interrogation lasted only 2.5 hours).
Quintavalle is not an elderly man, he was 42 maybe, looking healthy and awake. He actually just looked reluctant to speak. The journalist was his neighbour.

Or, Quintavale could also have been just teasing, you know, making a joke with his testimony, against two people he knew were innocent.

Oh well, you would have to prove an allegation like that.

The best reason for not crediting Quintavale's testimony, is because we already know it is factually false. We know Amanda and Raf never left their apartment that evening, because of their computer records, and because they said so and they are honest people.

Well, we are going to disagree a bit on the fact of their being honest or reliable people. In fact they would be inconsistent, horribly mean and lying people even in their best scenario that is if they were innocent. If they were innocent they would be disgusting liars.
Not crediting a testimony on the assumption 'because factually false' is not a reason that can have place in a court's ruling.
The computer records don't confirm any alibi at all, they don't even have their cell phones on so there is absolutely nothing to contradict Quintavalle.

And there is no evidence of any kind contrary to that fact. (We must in fairness exclude the confused statements extracted through police coercion, nobody could reasonably credit those statements as fact).

There is no police coercion not even in any defence claim.

 

[Machiavelli]

No. But it does mean that you get a fair and impartial tribunal, which you don't have if some other court already told you how to rule.

Clear fair trial violation.

The Supreme Court only told Nencini how not to rule, that is not with the reasons and method employed by Hellmann.

 

[carbonjam72]

I'm afraid the false memory syndrome is not credible for neither Knox and Quintavalle. (As for Knox there is no record of extraordinary pressure nor exhaustion, and the interrogation lasted only 2.5 hours).Quintavalle is not an elderly man, he was 42 maybe, looking healthy and awake. He actually just looked reluctant to speak. The journalist was his neighbour.

CJ72: Well this is a strangely obtuse version. Amanda had been questioned for 55 hours over the previous 4 days, and obviously on the verge of mental, physical, emotional and psychological collapse. The last police interrogation was pre-planned to be overnight, with tag team interrogators, was physically abusive to someone who had no experience with this type of police tactics, was deprived of a lawyer, deprived of an unbiased translator - who admitted she was mediating and convinced Amanda she had amnesia and wasn't remembering correctly. My question isn''t whether this was a false memory induced through coercion by the police. My question is why aren't weren't the police immediately removed from their duties and brought up on charges?

Your arguments here, its hard to believe that even you believe them. Perhaps you really do need to hear it from ECHR, so you'll know its not people with an 'anit-Italy' agenda. What the Italian justice system did to these two people, and so many like them, will live on forever, Italy will never live this down.





MACH: Oh well, you would have to prove an allegation like that.

Well, we are going to disagree a bit on the fact of their being honest or reliable people. In fact they would be inconsistent, horribly mean and lying people even in their best scenario that is if they were innocent. If they were innocent they would be disgusting liars. Not crediting a testimony on the assumption 'because factually false' is not a reason that can have place in a court's ruling.
The computer records don't confirm any alibi at all, they don't even have their cell phones on so there is absolutely nothing to contradict Quintavalle.

CJ72: PROJECTION.


MACH:There is no police coercion not even in any defence claim.

CJ72: I'll defer to the ECHR, maybe they can explain it to you.

 

[Diocletus]

The Supreme Court only told Nencini how not to rule, that is not with the reasons and method employed by Hellmann.

Yeah: don't rule that the breakin wasn't staged and don't rule that Rudy did it alone. In other words, they stripped the next court of its impartiality and independence.

Sorry, but it's a clear echr violation.

 

[Bill Williams]

That Guede killed Meredith togethr with others and that Knox was guilty of calunnia are, to Nencini's court (what I understand he explains), not directly taken as judicial facts; but the facts that other courts have made these findings, they are pieces of circumstantial evidence about a certain scenario.
In other words, the defense and their scenarios are not riding dead horses, but they are starting the run already with a two lap penalty.
The findings by other courts cannot determine the decision, but they will influence it, just as the other pieces of circumstantial evidence.

In other words, Knox and Sollecito did not get a fair trial. Thank you for admitting this.

The trial is fair. "Fair trial" does not mean a trial where pieces of circumstantial evidence do not exist.

But the result of another trial isn't circumstantial evidence pertaining to an alleged crime. It's the conclusion of court, by whatever mechanism of logic, or lack thereof.

And a fair trial, one would think must allow representation of the defendants who are being judged, and the opportunity to confront an accuser in court and cross examine them. Neither of which was allowed in this case.

It's obviously unfair to bind defendants to a trial where they were not represented, and even their own trial where they had no opportunity to cross examine the only accuser.

Its hard to understand why anyone would argue guilt, or that this judicial process was fair. It's not absurd because it happened in Italy. That just gives this absurdity and Italian accent.

Machiavellli admits the trial is not fair, then says it is. He says that the ISC only told Judge Nencini what not to rule. So much for a fair and impartial look at the evidence. Look at the issue of Qunitavalle's testimony upthread. Nencini said that the way Hellmann viewed Quintavalle's testimony violated law and logic.

Yet Nencini fails to say what law, and the flawed logic used. Nencini just reverses Hellmann on Quintavalle without reference to anything.

What else does one need when even Machiavelli is admitting the trial was not fair? Machiavelli/Yummi (with HarryRag/The Machine) is one of the most active on-line pro-guilt lobby proponents.

Now he's not even hiding it!

 

[MichaelB]

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/marco-quintavalle/

Appeal Summary

Further evidence of the numerous contradictions incurred in the decision of the 1st degree, also emerges with indisputable proof from further passages in the Motivations. The Court held that, “The version given by Amanda Knox whereby she remained with Raffaele Sollecito at the house on Corso Garibaldi from the evening of 1 November to 10am the following morning” (p73) is contradicted by the statements made by Marco Quintavalle at the hearing of 21 March 2009. At that sitting the witness reported seeing Amanda entering his shop in Corso Garibaldi the morning of 2 November at around 7.45am. Despite being heard immediately after the murder (transcript of the hearing on 21 march 2009. p. 82), Quintavalle revealed this fact for the first time only in November 2008, i.e. one year after the murder! Even the circumstances which led to this new witness, should, at least, suggest the need for great caution in assessing its reliability.

In reality, this precaution was not observed in any way. The testimony was, in fact, deemed credible because “Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if on the morning of 2 November he saw Amanda Knox in his shop. He asked him – as Quintavalle recalled – about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Quintavalle did not say he saw Amanda Knox the morning of the 2 November both because he was not asked and because, as the same Quintavalle stated, he considered the fact insignificant (…) The witness provided a precise description of what he noticed on the morning of 2 November; and certain physical features of the girl (blue eyes and white face) together with the unusual hour, could well have fixed what Quintavalle said he saw in his memory” (p75 and 76 of the sentencing report).

The above example is merely the contradictory result of a partial reading of the testimony of the witness. Specifically, at the hearing of 21.03.2009 (transcript, p.83), Sollecito’s defence asked: “The specific question is this. Did Inspector Volturno come with photographs of Amanda and Raffaele?” Quintavalle responded “With photographs, no, I don’t think so”. Inspector Volturno questioned about the same set of circumstances, however, declared “A few days later we tracked down the Conad-Margherita shop situated at the beginning of Corso-Garibaldi, where the owner recognized the photographs we showed him, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer of the store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company” (transcript of the hearing on 13.03.2009, pp.177 and 178). Yet, on being asked “Did Inspector Volturno ask you if you knew Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?” Quintavalle replied, “About Amanda they didn’t ask me, that is, they did not ask me if Amanda came to the shop” (transcript of the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.83). This fact was contradicted by the declarations from his assistant, Ana Marina Chiriboga, who, when asked by Knox’s defence, “When the police came and spoke with Marco Quintavalle, they didn’t speak with you the first time. What did Marco Quintavelle say about this interview? Of what did they speak?”, replied, “Nothing, he told us that they asked him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Since we had already seen a bit on TV, so we commented” (transcript from the hearing on 26.06.2009, p.54). And again, to the question of the defence, “So they had arrived. What did he say?”, “That he knew them”, Chiriboga replied precisely, “Yes, ah, they wanted to know if he knew them? Him, yes, he said he knew them, but I said I didn’t, also my colleague said that…” (transcript hearing 26.06.2009, p.55), and to the further question, “Quintavalle replied that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, yes?” the witness replied “Yes” (transcript of the hearing 26.06.2009, p.56). Therefore, we do not see how it is possible for the motivations to affirm that Quintavalle did not report to have seen Amanda Knox the morning of 2 November only because he was not asked” (pp 75 and 76 of the motivations).

This prompts two observations. If it is true that Quintavalle provided a precise description of the girl’s entry into the shop (who is assumed to be Amanda Knox), it is strange that a person with a ‘strong’ visual memory (Quintavalle’s declarations, hearing 21.03.2009, p.78), when asked “Did you notice what eye colour Sollecito has”? (transcript 21.03.2009, p.115) responded “I believe they were brown, but I’m not quite sure, really no, I didn’t notice, I didn’t notice that, I don’t remember”, although Raffaele was his regular customer. To highlight the importance of this fact, furthermore, we should acknowledge that if Quintavalle was impressed by the physiognomy of Amanda, because it is characterized by blue eyes on a white face, then analogously he should have been equally impressed by that of Sollecito: a boy with such clear blue eyes and so fair a complexion. Moreover, Quintavalle remembered all this despite not having seen Amanda from the front but turned three quarters, “Then she entered, I saw her let’s say, three quarters left, three quarters of the left side. I didn’t see her from the front (…)” (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.75).

The Motivations, furthermore, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his declarations Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other – and this fact is certain and conclusive – just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people: “[Raffaele] had light clothing, a light coloured shirt, beige, some similar colour, also light trousers. Then I noticed that strangely he had no glasses on that evening (…). She was wearing jeans, then had a pair of boots let’s say Timberland make (…) she had a sweater (…) of wool or heavy cotton (…) red or something similar” (transcription of 21 March 2009, p.77).

In this regard, following the reasoning of the court, this episode also – noting the unusual hour (“one evening, I had closed the shop, it was a few minutes past 8: p.76) and the particular features of the girl (blue eyes and light skin) – should have remained fixed in the memory of the witness. Yet, strangely, this did not happen, since Quintavalle claimed not to have recognized Amanda on the morning of 2 November (only a few days after that first meeting), because it was as if seeing her for the first time, “for me I didn’t know this girl” (transcript of 21 March 2009, p.72).

The motivation has downplayed the fact that Quintavalle decided to speak with investigators only a year after the crime was committed. According to the defence, however, this fact is symptomatic – in addition to those things already mentioned – of the unreliability of his testimony. Quintavalle only decided to make contact with prosecutors after intense pressure from the journalist Antioco Fois, a regular customer of his shop. These statements then allowed the witness to participate in broadcasts on national TV networks. A fact that, in the deposition, Quintavalle sought to play down. In fact, when asked the question “Don’t you remember an interview done with TG2?” he replied, “TG2? TG2 came and filmed me in secret, I said: ‘Look I have nothing to say, nothing to declare’. Then with the camera they took over the counter of the shop [i.e. presumably the camera was now visible] and I told them that they should do nothing, they had to go” (transcript of the hearing 21.03.2009, p.111); while in this regard, the assistant Chiriboga affirmed that Quintavalle had reported having given this interview and, when asked by the President “So what did Quintavalle say about this interview?” the witness responded “He said: ‘I have been interviewed’, we said: ‘But at what time?’ He said he was interviewed after we went out to lunch” (transcript from the hearing of 26.06.2009, p.70).

It is clear, therefore, that a memory of more than a year after the fact would require very careful assessment of its reliability, while making it more necessary to find further supporting evidence. In reality, the testimony of Quintavalle is completely unreliable as it was not even confirmed by the statements of his employees, on the morning of 2 November. Ultimately, Quintavalle, like Curatolo, is nothing but a witness produced by the mass media. Not infrequently, following the outcry caused by a particular incident in the news, witnesses emerge whose statements, rather than being the result of direct knowledge, convey a ‘mass media synthesis’ of what has been learned from reporting in newspapers and on television. In spite of this the Court has erroneously considered this witness reliable, extrapolating and emphasizing only a few of his statements and forgetting, however, those that would lead to diametrically opposite conclusions.

As is apparent from a reading of Chiriboga’s testimony, the question Quintavalle posed to his assistant occurred around the time of a television interview which he gave after the witness statements of October 2008. In the transcript of Chiriboga’s examination it reads:

PRESIDENT – And when did he recount this to you?

WITNESS – I don’t remember the exact date, but it was the day they went to interview them>> (transcript of hearing 26 June 2009, page 72).

It is therefore incomprehensible that Quintavalle’s question to his assistant following the witness statements to the Public Prosecutor, almost a year after the episode itself and on the occasion of a television interview, could constitute certain and credible verification of the witness’s story.

 

[Numbers]

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/marco-quintavalle/

Appeal Summary

Further evidence of the numerous contradictions incurred in the decision of the 1st degree, also emerges with indisputable proof from further passages in the Motivations. The Court held that, “The version given by Amanda Knox whereby she remained with Raffaele Sollecito at the house on Corso Garibaldi from the evening of 1 November to 10am the following morning” (p73) is contradicted by the statements made by Marco Quintavalle at the hearing of 21 March 2009. At that sitting the witness reported seeing Amanda entering his shop in Corso Garibaldi the morning of 2 November at around 7.45am. Despite being heard immediately after the murder (transcript of the hearing on 21 march 2009. p. 82), Quintavalle revealed this fact for the first time only in November 2008, i.e. one year after the murder! Even the circumstances which led to this new witness, should, at least, suggest the need for great caution in assessing its reliability.

In reality, this precaution was not observed in any way. The testimony was, in fact, deemed credible because “Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if on the morning of 2 November he saw Amanda Knox in his shop. He asked him – as Quintavalle recalled – about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Quintavalle did not say he saw Amanda Knox the morning of the 2 November both because he was not asked and because, as the same Quintavalle stated, he considered the fact insignificant (…) The witness provided a precise description of what he noticed on the morning of 2 November; and certain physical features of the girl (blue eyes and white face) together with the unusual hour, could well have fixed what Quintavalle said he saw in his memory” (p75 and 76 of the sentencing report).

The above example is merely the contradictory result of a partial reading of the testimony of the witness. Specifically, at the hearing of 21.03.2009 (transcript, p.83), Sollecito’s defence asked: “The specific question is this. Did Inspector Volturno come with photographs of Amanda and Raffaele?” Quintavalle responded “With photographs, no, I don’t think so”. Inspector Volturno questioned about the same set of circumstances, however, declared “A few days later we tracked down the Conad-Margherita shop situated at the beginning of Corso-Garibaldi, where the owner recognized the photographs we showed him, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer of the store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company” (transcript of the hearing on 13.03.2009, pp.177 and 178). Yet, on being asked “Did Inspector Volturno ask you if you knew Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?” Quintavalle replied, “About Amanda they didn’t ask me, that is, they did not ask me if Amanda came to the shop” (transcript of the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.83). This fact was contradicted by the declarations from his assistant, Ana Marina Chiriboga, who, when asked by Knox’s defence, “When the police came and spoke with Marco Quintavalle, they didn’t speak with you the first time. What did Marco Quintavelle say about this interview? Of what did they speak?”, replied, “Nothing, he told us that they asked him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Since we had already seen a bit on TV, so we commented” (transcript from the hearing on 26.06.2009, p.54). And again, to the question of the defence, “So they had arrived. What did he say?”, “That he knew them”, Chiriboga replied precisely, “Yes, ah, they wanted to know if he knew them? Him, yes, he said he knew them, but I said I didn’t, also my colleague said that…” (transcript hearing 26.06.2009, p.55), and to the further question, “Quintavalle replied that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, yes?” the witness replied “Yes” (transcript of the hearing 26.06.2009, p.56). Therefore, we do not see how it is possible for the motivations to affirm that Quintavalle did not report to have seen Amanda Knox the morning of 2 November only because he was not asked” (pp 75 and 76 of the motivations).

This prompts two observations. If it is true that Quintavalle provided a precise description of the girl’s entry into the shop (who is assumed to be Amanda Knox), it is strange that a person with a ‘strong’ visual memory (Quintavalle’s declarations, hearing 21.03.2009, p.78), when asked “Did you notice what eye colour Sollecito has”? (transcript 21.03.2009, p.115) responded “I believe they were brown, but I’m not quite sure, really no, I didn’t notice, I didn’t notice that, I don’t remember”, although Raffaele was his regular customer. To highlight the importance of this fact, furthermore, we should acknowledge that if Quintavalle was impressed by the physiognomy of Amanda, because it is characterized by blue eyes on a white face, then analogously he should have been equally impressed by that of Sollecito: a boy with such clear blue eyes and so fair a complexion. Moreover, Quintavalle remembered all this despite not having seen Amanda from the front but turned three quarters, “Then she entered, I saw her let’s say, three quarters left, three quarters of the left side. I didn’t see her from the front (…)” (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.75).

The Motivations, furthermore, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his declarations Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other – and this fact is certain and conclusive – just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people: “[Raffaele] had light clothing, a light coloured shirt, beige, some similar colour, also light trousers. Then I noticed that strangely he had no glasses on that evening (…). She was wearing jeans, then had a pair of boots let’s say Timberland make (…) she had a sweater (…) of wool or heavy cotton (…) red or something similar” (transcription of 21 March 2009, p.77).

In this regard, following the reasoning of the court, this episode also – noting the unusual hour (“one evening, I had closed the shop, it was a few minutes past 8: p.76) and the particular features of the girl (blue eyes and light skin) – should have remained fixed in the memory of the witness. Yet, strangely, this did not happen, since Quintavalle claimed not to have recognized Amanda on the morning of 2 November (only a few days after that first meeting), because it was as if seeing her for the first time, “for me I didn’t know this girl” (transcript of 21 March 2009, p.72).

The motivation has downplayed the fact that Quintavalle decided to speak with investigators only a year after the crime was committed. According to the defence, however, this fact is symptomatic – in addition to those things already mentioned – of the unreliability of his testimony. Quintavalle only decided to make contact with prosecutors after intense pressure from the journalist Antioco Fois, a regular customer of his shop. These statements then allowed the witness to participate in broadcasts on national TV networks. A fact that, in the deposition, Quintavalle sought to play down. In fact, when asked the question “Don’t you remember an interview done with TG2?” he replied, “TG2? TG2 came and filmed me in secret, I said: ‘Look I have nothing to say, nothing to declare’. Then with the camera they took over the counter of the shop [i.e. presumably the camera was now visible] and I told them that they should do nothing, they had to go” (transcript of the hearing 21.03.2009, p.111); while in this regard, the assistant Chiriboga affirmed that Quintavalle had reported having given this interview and, when asked by the President “So what did Quintavalle say about this interview?” the witness responded “He said: ‘I have been interviewed’, we said: ‘But at what time?’ He said he was interviewed after we went out to lunch” (transcript from the hearing of 26.06.2009, p.70).

It is clear, therefore, that a memory of more than a year after the fact would require very careful assessment of its reliability, while making it more necessary to find further supporting evidence. In reality, the testimony of Quintavalle is completely unreliable as it was not even confirmed by the statements of his employees, on the morning of 2 November. Ultimately, Quintavalle, like Curatolo, is nothing but a witness produced by the mass media. Not infrequently, following the outcry caused by a particular incident in the news, witnesses emerge whose statements, rather than being the result of direct knowledge, convey a ‘mass media synthesis’ of what has been learned from reporting in newspapers and on television. In spite of this the Court has erroneously considered this witness reliable, extrapolating and emphasizing only a few of his statements and forgetting, however, those that would lead to diametrically opposite conclusions.

As is apparent from a reading of Chiriboga’s testimony, the question Quintavalle posed to his assistant occurred around the time of a television interview which he gave after the witness statements of October 2008. In the transcript of Chiriboga’s examination it reads:

PRESIDENT – And when did he recount this to you?

WITNESS – I don’t remember the exact date, but it was the day they went to interview them>> (transcript of hearing 26 June 2009, page 72).

It is therefore incomprehensible that Quintavalle’s question to his assistant following the witness statements to the Public Prosecutor, almost a year after the episode itself and on the occasion of a television interview, could constitute certain and credible verification of the witness’s story.

This section of the defense appeal should be appreciated as a complete indictment of the credibility of Quintavalle's testimony of seeing Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2. Especially significant is the fact that he had claimed to see Amanda with Raffaele Sollecito together in his store before they had even met.

And also significant is his clear memory of Amanda's blue eyes, but total uncertainty about the color of Raffaele's - which also are blue. Obviously, his "memories" are products of his exposure to the media, which concentrated on Amanda's appearance.

The gap of one year between Quintavalle claiming not to have seen Amanda in his store on Nov. 2 and change in testimony to having seen her, after his media exposure and the urging of the journalist Fois further undermines the credibility of Quintavalle's testimony.

Also significant is that he was interviewed by the media - whether or not he was paid for the interview is not stated. In the US, a witness - or alleged witness - who financially exploited his or her connection to the case before or during the trial - would most likely be dismissed.

It is difficult to conceive that reasonable, unbiased, and objective persons would accept Quintavalle's testimony. I firmly believe that the ECtHR will find that Italy, through the actions of the CSC and the Nencini court, violated the rights of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito when this part of the case comes before the ECtHR.

 

[Numbers]

From: S.C. IMH Suceava S.R.L. v. Romania 24935/04 | 29/10/2013

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{%22sort%22:[%22appnoyear%20Ascending,appnocode%20Ascending%22],%22appno%22:[%2224935/04%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22002-9214%22]}

{excerpts}

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1 {Violation: Article 6.1}

Different decisions, without sufficient reasons, by two different courts as to admissibility of same piece of evidence: violation

Before the European Court, the applicant company complained that the national courts had attached different evidential value to the same expert reports produced in two separate sets of proceedings.

While reiterating that the admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for regulation by national law and the national courts, the Court noted that in the present case the validity and reliability of the same item of evidence had been assessed differently by the domestic courts. This contradictory assessment had led to different legal conclusions as to the establishment of the facts,....Since this was the decisive piece of evidence for establishing the facts, an issue arose in terms of the fairness of the proceedings.

The applicant company had informed the courts dealing with the second set of proceedings of the existence of the previous judgment in which the validity of the evidence had been assessed differently. Although the court had referred to that judgment, it had not provided sufficient reasons for choosing to adopt a contrary position concerning the validity of the same item of evidence. Bearing in mind the decisive role of the evidence in question, a specific and express reply to that argument had been required from the courts. In the absence of such a reply, it was impossible to ascertain whether the courts had simply neglected to deal with the argument or if they had intended to dismiss it and, if so, for what reasons.
______
The ECtHR ruling in this case suggests that the CSC and Nencini, in contradicting the Hellmann motivation essentially point-by-point but without providing clear reasons (that is, clear to a reasonable, unbiased, and objective person*) has placed Italy in violation of Article 6.1. Unless, of course, the CSC next quashes Nencini.

* For example, merely saying some court judgment is "illogical" or "imprecise" and so on does not make it clear that it truely is so; convincing reasons must be provided. IMO, the CSC did not do that when it quashed the Hellmann court's verdict.

 

[Numbers]

From: CASE OF RIBITSCH v. AUSTRIA 18896/91 04/12/1995

Violation of Article 3

{excerpt}

The Court emphasises that, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. It reiterates that the requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals.
_______
Ribitsch and his wife had been arrested without legal warrant by Austrian police on suspicion of selling drugs. They were detained from about 12.30 p.m. on 31 May 1988 to about 9.30 a.m. on 2 June 1988.
Ribitsch was insulted, threatened (including that his minor children would be taken away), and beaten.
After his release, he went on Austrian radio and told of his alleged experience in police custody. He did not file an official complaint. The police investigated based on his statements on the radio program and forwarded their finding to the prosecutor. One of the police officers was convicted at first level, but finally acquitted at the second level.

Note that Ribitsch's failure to follow formal procedures - that is, he did not file an official complaint - did not harm his application to the ECtHR; Austria was found in violation of Article 3.

 

[sept79]

Quintavalle's Perjury -- continuation

From Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock blog written on 26 Jun 09:


CHIRIBOGA AT THE STAND

After the crime Marina Chiriboga had been interviewed by Sollecito's lawyers and then by the police about something important at that time and (for someone) still important now: the bleach. While on the witness stand, she confirmed the two bottles of Ace bleach had been in Raffaele's apartment since the summer and in exactly the same conditions, and on the same place, in which they were found after the crime, one still sealed and the other one half full. So, those who still believed in it can say definitely goodbye to the bleach legend, that the rule of suspicion wanted to have been used for cleaning the murder weapon...

While on the witness stand it was revealed that Marina was in Quintavalle’s store the morning of 2 Nov 2007. Marina was there with him. Yes, today it was revealed that MARINA WAS THERE WITH HIM.
.
.
.
But then it was Massei's turn to pose questions. And Massei didn't forget about that crucial event. He made the fateful question: DID YOU SEE AMANDA KNOX COMING TO THE STORE THAT MORNING? And Marina's answer was simple: NO.

Silence when the truth emerges. The banality of Truth.

That's how the great journalist and his prosciutto slicer end up. They were out in their reckonings, they forgot to instruct that Latin girl who was there on November 2. Their games with the media, with this trial and with other people's lives were today demolished by the honesty, by the sincerity of a Marina Chiriboga.
.
.
.
Today Judge Massei exhibited himself in his usual performance when something dramatically in favor of Amanda happens. So if we thought the last hearings made him doubt about the prosecution theory now we know he's still there.

Marina told him that Amanda didn't come to the store. And he wasn't happy with that. He started asking and asking if she was sure, if she was present in all moments. It looked like he hoped her to say that at one point she went away or covered her eyes so she couldn't see. And he almost managed, since under the insisting questions Marina remembered that yes, at one point she maybe went to the depot. The next question, about where that depot was located, was a real moment of suspense.

You could tell that many people hoped Marina to reveal that the depot was two blocks away or so. I could see the Judge holding his breathe. Until Marina answered: the depot is just inside the store. And now only a stupid can believe that Amanda showed up just when Marina stepped into the depot. Especially considering that Amanda, according to the great store owner and his mentors, was already in front of the shop when they arrived, waiting for them to open.