Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

I think you are confused. This regards Guedes version of events.

I think you need to elaborate.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is one of the links I provided earlier, the other 2 are worth reading as well:
(katy_did appeal translation)

Quote:
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).

 

[Withnail1969]

He had reason to. He recognised her. She also very much stood out by her demeanour and behaviour (she was trying not to be seen).

How do you 'try not to be seen' when you're the only person in the shop first thing in the morning on a public holiday? How exactly would one go about doing that?

Do you sometimes think the things you say seem a little bit odd? (no offence).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Her memory is backed up by the inspector, Quintavalle's is not.

Was he not cross examined in the trial?

 

[RoseMontague]

A year after the fact, he remembers, not just that Amanda was in his store on a particular day, but also what direction she walked after leaving his store!!!!!!!

Are you trying to make me laugh?

It is pretty silly.

 

[Justinian2]

I think Massei got a lot of things wrong (Quintavalle, the time of death) and AK and RS are still guilty. However, as I understand it, the jurors reasoning is taken into consideration in the Italian system.

This is a better deal than AK would have gotten in the U.S. Here the jury doesn't have to give a reason for their verdict. They can sit in the deliberation room for a hour eating cookies then come out and say guilty (or not guilty) and that's the end of it. Their reasoning is not taken into consideration in the appeal.

The chance of finding a jury in the USA where all eleven people voted for her guilt is zero. It's easy to hang the jury if even one person has doubt.

In Massachusetts, both AK and RS would have had lawyers appointed to them before they ever talked to the police - the murder hotline assures that.

Furthermore, in Massachusetts they would not have had their calls bugged, their diaries confiscated, the Knox family wouldn't have been sued for slander etc.

Many people like myself would have fought the whole jury to the death rather than have voted guilty. The probably of Amanda being found guilty of 1st degree murder in Massachusetts is 0.0000000. First degree murder here carries a sentence of life without parole.

Massachusetts is cute with the manslaughter charges, though. The prosecutor here would have tried to have her cop a plea for 2-5 years. She would be out on parole now if she elected the certain approach rather than risk a trial.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here is one of the links I provided earlier, the other 2 are worth reading as well:
(katy_did appeal translation)

I refer you once again to my earlier post regarding the appeals.

Claims need to be tested in court. Either they already have (in the main trial) and were found wanting, or they have yet to be (in the appeal) and until such time, they are no more then that...claims.

 

[moodstream]

He had reason to. He recognised her. She also very much stood out by her demeanour and behaviour (she was trying not to be seen).

I am sorry, Fulcanelli, that's just silly. No one would remember what direction a patron headed after leaving the store. That is just not credible.

I am curiously drawn to claim that she stood out because she was trying not to be seen. I thought she was the only one in the store? Can you explain for me how she did this, as per the witness?

 

[RoseMontague]

Was he not cross examined in the trial?

This one contains even more of his testimony (BTW, the TV interview he did was posted here recently)

katy_did appeal translation

Quote:
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 iQn 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 Curatola, 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.

 

[Fulcanelli]

How do you 'try not to be seen' when you're the only person in the shop first thing in the morning on a public holiday? How exactly would one go about doing that?

Do you sometimes think the things you say seem a little bit odd? (no offence).

Perhaps you should just read his testimony.

She entered his shop without saying a word, wearing a hat and a scarf pulled up over her mouth and hurried past him. She was being furtive. That tends to make people take notice.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The chance of finding a jury in the USA where all eleven people voted for her guilt is zero. It's easy to hang the jury if even one person has doubt.

In Massachusetts, both AK and RS would have had lawyers appointed to them before they ever talked to the police - the murder hotline assures that.

Furthermore, in Massachusetts they would not have had their calls bugged, their diaries confiscated, the Knox family wouldn't have been sued for slander etc.

Many people like myself would have fought the whole jury to the death rather than have voted guilty. The probably of Amanda being found guilty of 1st degree murder in Massachusetts is 0.0000000. First degree murder here carries a sentence of life without parole.

Massachusetts is cute with the manslaughter charges, though. The prosecutor here would have tried to have her cop a plea for 2-5 years. She would be out on parole now if she elected the certain approach rather than risk a trial.

You're not in Kansas now Dorothy.

 

[pilot padron]

Gosh. I hope CBS and the "48 Hours" producers/reporters are bracing themselves for a slew of libel suits from various members of the Italian law enforcement community.

What's that? No such legal actions have either been taken or indicated? Oh.

Good point that you proffer after a 'long silence' today.

Thank You.

I will now and forever more judge the accuracy, as well as unbiased motivation of anything I see or hear in any of the the media using the argument you propose concerning critical importance concerning preponderance of and/or premonitions about 'legal action', being so inherently paramount in determining accuracy of same.

 

[loverofzion]

He had reason to. He recognised her. She also very much stood out by her demeanour and behaviour (she was trying not to be seen).

He said he remembered her because of her light eyes and fair coloring, something which struck him.
He also said he was familiar with Raffaelo who had shopped there before and had seen her with him in the store that past week together.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am sorry, Fulcanelli, that's just silly. No one would remember what direction a patron headed after leaving the store. That is just not credible.

I am curiously drawn to claim that she stood out because she was trying not to be seen. I thought she was the only one in the store? Can you explain for me how she did this, as per the witness?

He remembered because he knew her. Her behaviour also made her stand out in his memory. He saw where she went because he was in a position to be able to see.

As for her trying not to be seen, I refer you to my earlier post.

 

[Withnail1969]

Perhaps you should just read his testimony.

She entered his shop without saying a word, wearing a hat and a scarf pulled up over her mouth and hurried past him. She was being furtive. That tends to make people take notice.

Lol. So nobody bothered to ensure that this bizarre masked Ninja hadn't stolen anything after she left the shop empty-handed? Can you imagine going to your local corner shop dressed like that early in the morning without attracting enormous attention?

Did Quintavalle's assistant report a similar mysterious masked Ninja?

 

[loverofzion]

I am sorry, Fulcanelli, that's just silly. No one would remember what direction a patron headed after leaving the store. That is just not credible.

I am curiously drawn to claim that she stood out because she was trying not to be seen. I thought she was the only one in the store? Can you explain for me how she did this, as per the witness?

Why wouldn't anyone notice what direction someone had gone after leaving the store?
It was early (not quite 8 AM), she was the first and only customer, and she apparently aroused his curiousity by her light eyes and furtive behavior.
He said she stood out and left a distinct impression on him.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This one contains even more of his testimony (BTW, the TV interview he did was posted here recently)

katy_did appeal translation

Has it not occurred to you then that there was a REASON the court rejected his testimony? After all, they were there when he and others were cross examined and we were not.

I would also remind you, the defence does have a habit of reproducing witnesses whose testimony was rejected for one reason or another in previous hearings (Christian and 'Momi' Barrow come to mind). So, I'm not really impressed.

 

[moodstream]

Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November - 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 otherjust 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: "

I love that part!

 

[Justinian2]

You're not in Kansas now Dorothy.

My answer was an answer to a question about what would happen in the USA. See, you set up a strawman (straw-woman?).

Actually, the probability of a finding of guilty by a jury in the states is 2^11 = 1 in 2048, if you assume half the people think she is innocent and have the strength to hold out against ten others. The probability is 0.0005 that she would be found guilty.

My ex-wife reversed and entire jury by poking a guy in the arm with her finger and asking "Am I now guilty of A&B? (does that touch constitute A&B?)" The jury ignored the judge's instructions and voted innocent.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Lol. So nobody bothered to ensure that this bizarre masked Ninja hadn't stolen anything after she left the shop empty-handed? Can you imagine going to your local corner shop dressed like that early in the morning without attracting enormous attention?

Did Quintavalle's assistant report a similar mysterious masked Ninja?

I wasn't aware that someone simply trying not be noticed means they're about to steal something.

It was a cold morning.