Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

Let's get started shall we? All this time, posters here were claiming "Quintavalle (sp?) did not come forward for a year."

But Owen's article is dated within two or three weeks of the murder.

Lie no.1 disposed of.

Did you read the article that yoy posted? Owen doesn't mention Quintavalle comming forward at that time, only the discovery of the bleach receipts which was a total fabrication. Not only were bleach reciepts not found at Raffaele's flat, there was no tax reciept showing any sales in Marco's store that morning.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7140361&page=1

Under cross-examination, Quintavalle said that he had not wanted to get involved in the case but finally did so, in August 2008, at the urging of a journalist friend.
​

You can verify Quintavalle's testimony for yourself by reading the transcripts at http://AmandaKnoxCase.com/

 

[Dan O.]

"Interesting" in the sense they have nothing to do with the crime.

"There were five receipts found. All of the receipts are from 2007. They are dated February 11, March 17, March 21, May, and November 4. None of the receipts show that bleach was purchased. The November 4, 2007 receipt was for pizza."

November 16 video from Raffaele's appartment

14:26:51 - First of two bleach bottles discovered under sink
14:28:54 - Showing price sticker on second bottle from CONAD store(1.43?)
15:07:09 - Receipt for pizzas dated 04-11-2007 17:27 (13.00)
15:16:45 - Harry Potter book on bed stand
15:25:07 - Begin searching drawer of used grocery bags
15:27:43 - Receipt dated 21-03-2007 17-48 "ALIMENTARI" "Quintairlle" (8.70)
15:28:18 - Receipt dated 17-03-2007 18:26, 2 items (6.15)
15:31:40 - Another receipt (date not seen under Mignini's thumb)
15:32:38 - Drawer is now empty
15:32:47 - Receipt dated 19/05/2007 17-28 three items (4.52, 1.25, 1.50)
15:33:32 - Receipt dated 21-03-2007 17-48 (8.70), showing CONAD bag
15:33:57 - Showing CONAD bag in drawer
15:37:08 - inventory of apartment
​

 

[Dan O.]

Seems odd. Why would the police lie about it. The smell of bleach is not something you can mistake?

Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle testified that she started cleaning Raffaele's appartment for the last time at about 2 pm on November 5, 2007. Raffaele and Amanda were there at that time and left shortly after she started.

That evening, Raffaele and Amanda are at the home of a friend of Raffaele's having dinner when Raffaele is called to the police station.

Raffaele will not be in his home again until he is brought there barefoot by the police the next morning. It really sounds like the officer that smelled the bleach doesn't know the difference between bleach and Lysofoam.

 

[Bill Williams]

The courts have resolved this matter. The two were exonerated by the Supreme Court of Italy on March 27, 2015.

 

[Kauffer]

Oreste Volturno attempted to discover the origins of this bleach by visiting merchants in the vicinity of Sollecito's apartment but he was unable to locate where or when the bleach was purchased. ​

You are quoting and have always quoted from erroneous newspaper reports and other, dubious, unreliable, secondary source material. It doesn't matter how large the type you use. There were no bleach receipts and no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele bought or used bleach in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[analemma]

I suggest you revisit the police video of Raf's flat, in the videos library.

The video that shows the second "Harry Potter" book?
The book that police and all the tabloids said that Amanda was lying about having at Rafs?
Another lying false accusation thrown at Amanda by the STUPID Italian police who only wanted to burn the American witch and protect Poor, Poor, Rudy.
This false accusation was amplified by the Lap Dog British tabloids and even some American networks, before the American networks found out the Italian police were nothing but a pack of liars and started to check the facts before broadcasting them.
The difference between the American and European press was that the americans came to understand that the Italian police were liars, the Italian prosecutors were known nut jobs, and the purpose of the Italian courts was primarily to protect the Italian police, so a certain amount of skepticism and verification was necessary before printing something.
There were some notable exceptions in the British press, the Guardian, for instance, who dug deep into the people and facts, and were rewarded by getting the story correct, as history has shown.
sta,e

 

[Vixen]

It's not an "editing error". It's a pack of lies.

Then that works well for the defense in substantiating a police set up.

Richard Owen was simply recording what he was told by an accepted "reliable source".

 

[Vixen]

You are quoting and have always quoted from erroneous newspaper reports and other, dubious, unreliable, secondary source material. It doesn't matter how large the type you use. There were no bleach receipts and no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele bought or used bleach in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oreste Volturno attempted to discover the origins of this bleach by visiting merchants in the vicinity of Sollecito's apartment but he was unable to locate where or when the bleach was purchased.You are quoting and have always quoted from erroneous newspaper reports and other, dubious, unreliable, secondary source material. It doesn't matter how large the type you use. There were no bleach receipts and no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele bought or used bleach in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

---

This is a direct quote from Voltirno's court testimony (translated). As I provided the link, you have no excuse for claiming it is a misquote from a newspaper.

 

[acbytesla]

The courts have resolved this matter. The two were exonerated by the Supreme Court of Italy on March 27, 2015.

There are of course other ancillary issues related to the case.
The motivation or reasoning for the court decision which is required within the next month.
The ECHR ruling on Amanda Knox's application to overturn the callunia conviction.
The new charges against Raffaele for supposed inaccuracies in his book.
The charge against Oggi for the same thing in their publications.
The charges against Amanda's parents for repeating that Amanda had been slapped.

With Italy, this stuff seems to never end

 

[LondonJohn]

Then that works well for the defense in substantiating a police set up.

Richard Owen was simply recording what he was told by an accepted "reliable source".

But that's the nub of the problem. Owen may have been reporting what he was told by an authority figure. But whoever that figure was, (s)he was telling Owen falsehoods. Owen patently made no effort to cross-check or verify the information he was being told - after all, if he had done so, he'd have discovered it was at best unverifiable and at worst completely false (which is in fact what it was).

Newspaper reporters - particularly lazy ones - are renowned for their propensity to swallow and regurgitate things told to them by "official sources" without even trying to check for accuracy or reliability. There are three main reasons for that:

1) There is a misguided belief that official sources are generally accurate and truthful;

2) Official sources tend to be useful to journalists on an ongoing basis, so many journalists try to cultivate good working relationships with such sources, in the hope that this will pay dividends in the future. And it should be rather obvious that an excellent way to cultivate a good relationship is to uncritically print whatever the source wants them to print (a big hello to Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau is also in order here!);

3) Perhaps most importantly, a reporter and his/her publisher can be extremely confident that they will have full legal protection if they report something that's been supplied by an official source. If their reported facts face legal challenge from any quarter, they can safely say that they were only reporting what they'd been told by an official source.


Of course, if an official source is feeding a reporter information that's salacious, sensational and provocative, the reporter may feel that (s)he has hit the jackpot: the reporter now has legally iron-clad permission to report all of this salacious/sensational information, and what's more, it can be shown to have had some form of official endorsement. And savvy authority figures with an agenda know this full well, of course. Hello Dr Mignini!

 

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oreste Volturno attempted to discover the origins of this bleach by visiting merchants in the vicinity of Sollecito's apartment but he was unable to locate where or when the bleach was purchased.You are quoting and have always quoted from erroneous newspaper reports and other, dubious, unreliable, secondary source material. It doesn't matter how large the type you use. There were no bleach receipts and no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele bought or used bleach in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

---

This is a direct quote from Voltirno's court testimony (translated). As I provided the link, you have no excuse for claiming it is a misquote from a newspaper.

Vixen,
I suspect others will point this out but the lag in posting now makes it so I don't know.

Kauffer was not saying that you misquoted the headline I think. He is saying that you, in general, have quoted from "erroneous newspaper reports and other, dubious, unreliable, secondary source material."

In this particular case, I don't know of a reason to disbelieve the headline you quoted and I am not sure that Kauffer was suggesting that this particular headline was false. It seems reasonable to me that a policeman might have gone looking for where the bleach in Sollecito's apartment came from since the police may have had a view at that time that the bleach was purchased following the crime and was used as part of a AK/RS crime scene clean up.

If the police did go looking for the source of the bleach and didn't find it is another indication that AK/RS did not purchase bleach following the murder and thus there were no bleach receipts to find, so the bleach receipts that were reported to have been found by Richard Owen didn't exist.

So once again:
Did the police find receipts for bleach as reported by Richard Owen?

You said this:

No, Richard Owen is a highly trained top drawer journalist, who writes accurately and objectively. In the UK we hold dear the freedom of the press. Unfortunately, Amanda's PR machine could not compromise the integrity of our best journalists.

Was the information that Richard Owens reported about the bleach receipts correct? This is an important question because a great deal of what you have put forth in this thread to support your view that AK/RS are guilty is based on information reported in the early days of this case. Most of us participating in this thread think that a lot of the information reported early on in this case was false and was probably based on police lies. We have put forth the issue of the bleach receipt reporting as an example of that false reporting. If you believe that all that early reporting was true and reliable then you believe there were bleach receipts found in Sollecito's apartment.

So once again:
Did the police find receipts for bleach as reported by Richard Owen?

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oreste Volturno attempted to discover the origins of this bleach by visiting merchants in the vicinity of Sollecito's apartment but he was unable to locate where or when the bleach was purchased.You are quoting and have always quoted from erroneous newspaper reports and other, dubious, unreliable, secondary source material. It doesn't matter how large the type you use. There were no bleach receipts and no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele bought or used bleach in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

---

This is a direct quote from Voltirno's court testimony (translated). As I provided the link, you have no excuse for claiming it is a misquote from a newspaper.

Of course, this is cleverly sidestepping Kauffer's post that you quoted. Kauffer said "There were no bleach receipts and no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele bought or used bleach in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher."

Volturno's testimony does not contradict that. In fact if anything, Volturno found that the bleach in Raffaele's apartment was purchased long before either Amanda or Meredith even moved into the cottage.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

false reporting and journalistic credibility

But that's the nub of the problem. Owen may have been reporting what he was told by an authority figure. But whoever that figure was, (s)he was telling Owen falsehoods. Owen patently made no effort to cross-check or verify the information he was being told - after all, if he had done so, he'd have discovered it was at best unverifiable and at worst completely false (which is in fact what it was).

LondonJohn,

Excellent post. In the case of Owens's 19 November article, he falsely claimed that Guede was a frequent visitor to the women's flat. This deducts from his credibility as a reporter. So do his false statements such as "...she soon became known as someone who was capable of intense jealousy and rage..." and "...the latest in a line of changing stories full of inconsistencies and contradictions." (cite given upthread) No testimony has ever even suggested anything close to this assessment of Ms. Knox's behavior. As for the whole changing stories nonsense, we now know (thanks to the actual texts) that Ms. Knox reverted to her original version of events no later than 7 November. That makes two stories in all and with no more inconsistencies than is reasonable to expect. Mr. Owen is may be capable of something better than tabloid hackery, but I have seen no evidence of it.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are of course other ancillary issues related to the case.
The motivation or reasoning for the court decision which is required within the next month.
The ECHR ruling on Amanda Knox's application to overturn the callunia conviction.
The new charges against Raffaele for supposed inaccuracies in his book.
The charge against Oggi for the same thing in their publications.
The charges against Amanda's parents for repeating that Amanda had been slapped.

With Italy, this stuff seems to never end

My opinion - now that the main case is settled, these ancillary cases will simply fade, or lapse.

The most important thing to come is the motivations report from Marasca. This is a lot like my own entry to this, in the fall of 2011 - where the Hellmann court had taken the action to provisionally exonerate AK and RS, but we were all waiting for the Hellmann report.

While due in Jan 2012, it came in before Christmas 2011. All sides were shocked, really, at the unreserved exoneration of AK and RS - Peggy Ganong said Hellmann's report read like a Friends of Amanda press release. I'm not sure even innocenters appreciated the total exoneration Hellmann had found.

My opinion - we will get that with Marasca's report. The only additional question is how, or even if, Marasca will frame the events since the Hellmann acquittal. Will Marasca see the 2013 OSC reversal of Hellmann as a technical necessity to clear up outstanding issues - 36I, or Avello? Or will Marasca write a scathing indictment of the insider-internecine war within the Italian judiciary?

I think that Numbers is being optimistic about ECHR and the calunnia....

The trials for Raff, Oggi, Knox's parents, as well as the outstanding defamation charge against Knox will be allowed to lapse - taking any of those into a court will allow the defence to be a little less shy....

MOO. YMMV.

 

[Dan O.]

Nick Squires TELEGRAPH
...
Sollecito also appeared to have a taste for the macabre – he had visited the site of the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau in Germany and posted photographs on the internet of himself posing as a cross between a mummy and a mad doctor, with a meat cleaver in one hand and a bottle of bleach in the other.
...


What's with the bleach, Kauffer?

You've probably never seen that photo taken from Raffaele's MySpace page. Here is an article that reproduced it: http://metro.co.uk/2008/09/16/merediths-murder-suspects-498300/ . The photo of Raffaele is half way down the page.

What is in that bottle?

It is possible that Italy requires bleach to be in unmarked bottles and given the red color to make it more appealing to small children. But I somehow doubt it.

 

[Vixen]

You've probably never seen that photo taken from Raffaele's MySpace page. Here is an article that reproduced it: http://metro.co.uk/2008/09/16/merediths-murder-suspects-498300/ . The photo of Raffaele is half way down the page.

What is in that bottle?

It is possible that Italy requires bleach to be in unmarked bottles and given the red color to make it more appealing to small children. But I somehow doubt it.

Everyone has seen it.

Perhaps it's actually methyl alcohol. It has to be dyed to put off people drinking it.

The girlfriend is quoted as saying, "bleach". She should know, she claims to have togged him up.

 

[Bill Williams]

Everyone has seen it.

Perhaps it's actually methyl alcohol. It has to be dyed to put off people drinking it.

The girlfriend is quoted as saying, "bleach". She should know, she claims to have togged him up.

It would be helpful to provide a summary of what this has to do with the case. It is not apparent why this is remotely important.

 

[Kauffer]

Everyone has seen it.

Perhaps it's actually methyl alcohol. It has to be dyed to put off people drinking it.

The girlfriend is quoted as saying, "bleach". She should know, she claims to have togged him up.

It's clearly not bleach. But what could this photograph possibly have to do with evudence in a murder trial? There was no bleach cleanup, no evidence for it or any kind of cleanup. Additionally, if Raffaele's kitchen knife had been bleach cleaned of blood, there would be virtually no chance of any DNA being left on it.

So, therefore, since it was not bleach cleaned and still tested negative for blood, some other interpretation will need to be found for the DNA test results, which had nothing to do with the murder - because the knife had nothing to do with the murder. But we already know that to be true since it is too wide to have made the smaller wound and too long to have made the larger ones.

 

[Dan O.]

Everyone has seen it.

Perhaps it's actually methyl alcohol. It has to be dyed to put off people drinking it.

The girlfriend is quoted as saying, "bleach". She should know, she claims to have togged him up.

Who? What? You need to step away from the google translate and pay more attention to the attribution quotes:

By Nick Squires in Perugia 10:00AM GMT 05 Dec 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Kercher-trial-Raffaele-Sollecito-profile.html

Sollecito also appeared to have a taste for the macabre – he had visited the site of the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau in Germany and posted photographs on the internet of himself posing as a cross between a mummy and a mad doctor, with a meat cleaver in one hand and a bottle of bleach in the other.
A university friend said it was just a prank. "I took that picture and did him up that way," said Angelo Cirillo."I wrapped him in toilet paper."
​

It's Nick that is saying the bottle is bleach. Stupid Nick is probably just copying what his girlfriend Mignini is telling him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What's in a name

Dan O.

Compounds imparting a red color are usually organic (meaning carbon-containing) compounds. The dye that gives transmission fluid its color is one such compound. They would likely be oxidized in the presence of bleach and lose its color. Whatever the pink/red colored liquid is in the bottle, it is unlikely to be bleach.