Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

postmortem determination of ethanol

I did a search on medline for more information on how to determine the level of alcohol in tissues. All of these abstracts are publicly available. Here are some references:

1. Interpreting results of ethanol analysis in postmortem specimens: a review of the literature.
Kugelberg FC, Jones AW.
Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Jan 5;165(1):10-29. Epub 2006 Jun 19. Review.
PMID: 16782292 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Origin of blood ethanol in decomposed bodies.
de Lima IV, Midio AF.
Forensic Sci Int. 1999 Dec 20;106(3):157-62.
PMID: 10680064 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. Vitreous alcohol is of limited value in predicting blood alcohol.
Pounder DJ, Kuroda N.
Forensic Sci Int. 1994 Mar 25;65(2):73-80.
PMID: 8206459 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4. Comparative alcohol concentrations in blood and vitreous fluid with illustrative case studies.
Honey D, Caylor C, Luthi R, Kerrigan S.
J Anal Toxicol. 2005 Jul-Aug;29(5):365-9.
PMID: 16105262 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5. A study using body fluids to determine blood alcohol.
Stone BE, Rooney PA.
J Anal Toxicol. 1984 Mar-Apr;8(2):95-6.
PMID: 6716981 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6. Ethanol formation in unadulterated postmortem tissues.
Lewis RJ, Johnson RD, Angier MK, Vu NT.
Forensic Sci Int. 2004 Nov 10;146(1):17-24.
PMID: 15485717 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I have only had time to skim the 2007 review article, so far. Besides vitreous humor, the level of alcohol in the bladder sounds like a useful number to have.

 

[Grinder]

From Hellmann (thanks to komponisto): RESPONSE – Basically the first inquiry I made was with regards to two bottles of Ace bleach that had been seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on 16 November 2007. Immediately after they were seized I went around the shops nearby Raffaele Sollecito’s house trying to understand where they could have been purchased and in connection with this I showed the photograph of Raffaele Sollicito, [and] the photograph of Amanda Knox.

This is a direct quote from Volturno's testimony. Note he showed Quintavalle a picture of Amanda.

Massei on-the-other-hand wrote: This Court deems that the testimony of Quintavalle is reliable. It was discovered that Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if, on the morning of November 2, he saw Amanda Knox in his shop.
He was asked – so Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Mr. Quintavalle did not say anything about having seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2, 2007 in his [76] shop because he was not questioned about this and because, as indicated by Quintavalle himself, he considered this fact to be insignificant.

He was shown a picture of Amanda but didn't think it worthwhile to say he'd seen her that morning and Massei said:

Consequently, the fact of not telling Inspector Volturno about seeing Amanda on the morning of November 2 and the fact of having come forward only after having been convinced by Antioco Fois about the possible significance of this event, do not reduce the reliability of the witness, since these facts do not affect the genuineness of the memory.

Massei neglects to quote the inspector as to having shown Amanda's picture to Quintavalle and prefers to believe his recollection that he was not asked about Amanda...wow, just wow.

The PGP just can't see anything wrong with the prosecution case to the degree that it makes all their positions suspect. Why the prosecution thought that all the year late found-by-the-media witnesses should even have been presented boggles the mind, but that the PGP can't even admit that these witnesses are an embarrassment goes even further.

Thanks komponisto for providing the crystal clear thinking of Hellmann in English.

 

[Dougm]

From Hellmann (thanks to komponisto): RESPONSE – Basically the first inquiry I made was with regards to two bottles of Ace bleach that had been seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on 16 November 2007. Immediately after they were seized I went around the shops nearby Raffaele Sollecito’s house trying to understand where they could have been purchased and in connection with this I showed the photograph of Raffaele Sollicito, [and] the photograph of Amanda Knox.

This is a direct quote from Volturno's testimony. Note he showed Quintavalle a picture of Amanda.

Massei on-the-other-hand wrote: This Court deems that the testimony of Quintavalle is reliable. It was discovered that Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if, on the morning of November 2, he saw Amanda Knox in his shop.
He was asked – so Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Mr. Quintavalle did not say anything about having seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2, 2007 in his [76] shop because he was not questioned about this and because, as indicated by Quintavalle himself, he considered this fact to be insignificant.

He was shown a picture of Amanda but didn't think it worthwhile to say he'd seen her that morning and Massei said:

Consequently, the fact of not telling Inspector Volturno about seeing Amanda on the morning of November 2 and the fact of having come forward only after having been convinced by Antioco Fois about the possible significance of this event, do not reduce the reliability of the witness, since these facts do not affect the genuineness of the memory.

Massei neglects to quote the inspector as to having shown Amanda's picture to Quintavalle and prefers to believe his recollection that he was not asked about Amanda...wow, just wow.

The PGP just can't see anything wrong with the prosecution case to the degree that it makes all their positions suspect. Why the prosecution thought that all the year late found-by-the-media witnesses should even have been presented boggles the mind, but that the PGP can't even admit that these witnesses are an embarrassment goes even further.

Thanks komponisto for providing the crystal clear thinking of Hellmann in English.

If there was an honest pro-guilt position that was not based on predisposed bias, it would make much more sense for them to just drop Quintavalle as part of the argument. He is only a minor player anyway, being used mostly for the purpose of showing that Amanda and Raff were not really sleeping that morning, as they have said. Why insist this guy's testimony is valid?

I think it is because the house of cards can't stand to have anything removed, but that is just me.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks roteoctober It is also evident that if, hypothetically (and contrary to the assessment of unreliability of that witness made by this Court), one should deem reliable the statement given by witness Curatolo, the two current defendants would be completely cleared by that alone, since according to the witness at that time they were certainly in Piazza Grimana and not at the house on Via Della Pergola.

The above paragraph sums up what so many tried to say from the beginning of Curatolo's testimony. It has always been so clear that Curatolo, while destroying the alibi of the kids, also provided them with a better alibi.

Once again, it brings to mind the question why the PGP have stuck to his testimony. Why didn't they just discount him even before his heroin use and dealing came to the forefront. How could the same person trust Curatolo and have no problem with him yet find that Amanda having a phone number in her phone of someone convicted years later for dealing coke is damning? And that report comes from the same paper that "discovered" almost every eye-witness.

 

[Grinder]

I was watching an episode of the old Cheers show last night and at one point they were trying to warn Karla that the guy she with had a heart problem and could die if he had too vigorous activity. They couldn't get through and it was speculated that the couple had taken the phone off the hook or unplugged it as new lovers were known to do.

The phones being turned off as evidence has always seemed in the top five of stretches in pointing to guilt. They would obviously have left them at Raf's and turned on had they been planning murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

minor player

If there was an honest pro-guilt position that was not based on predisposed bias, it would make much more sense for them to just drop Quintavalle as part of the argument. He is only a minor player anyway, being used mostly for the purpose of showing that Amanda and Raff were not really sleeping that morning, as they have said. Why insist this guy's testimony is valid?

I think it is because the house of cards can't stand to have anything removed, but that is just me.

Grinder,

What is so strange about the focus on Quintavalle's testimony is that it has nothing to do with their alibi or lack thereof. It concerns a time period that was considerably later than the crime.

 

[Grinder]

If there was an honest pro-guilt position that was not based on predisposed bias, it would make much more sense for them to just drop Quintavalle as part of the argument. He is only a minor player anyway, being used mostly for the purpose of showing that Amanda and Raff were not really sleeping that morning, as they have said. Why insist this guy's testimony is valid?

I think it is because the house of cards can't stand to have anything removed, but that is just me.

Yes, what is it that I'm supposed say? Oh yeah, atta boy!

PGP need all the pickup sticks to be left in place. They have always argued that those that didn't buy the guilty verdict went after one piece of evidence at a time rather than looking at the whole. They have also stated that each piece of evidence doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt in an of itself.

Hellmann clearly takes apart the pile of sticks and shows that none of the individual witness accounts mean diddly and that in order to "buy" Massei not only is vague testimony needed to be taken with a level of seriousness not deserving of them, but elements of their testimony needs to be deleted in order for others to fit.

Curatolo sightings of them need to be at 9:30 but not at 11 or 10:30 and Nara can't be at 11 and on and on.

The prosecution threw too much spaghetti and just made a mess of the wall.

 

[Dougm]

Yes, what is it that I'm supposed say? Oh yeah, atta boy!

Agreeing with another poster on this thread seems to be some terrible offense as presented elsewhere.

I am a bit disapointed that I did not get a "high five" however!

 

[Dougm]

Grinder,

What is so strange about the focus on Quintavalle's testimony is that it has nothing to do with their alibi or lack thereof. It concerns a time period that was considerably later than the crime.

But it shows THEY LIED!!

Except that ... it doesn't.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

phone records don't show when phones are turned on or off

I was watching an episode of the old Cheers show last night and at one point they were trying to warn Karla that the guy she with had a heart problem and could die if he had too vigorous activity. They couldn't get through and it was speculated that the couple had taken the phone off the hook or unplugged it as new lovers were known to do.

The phones being turned off as evidence has always seemed in the top five of stretches in pointing to guilt. They would obviously have left them at Raf's and turned on had they been planning murder.

Grinder,

Indeed. All we know is that Amanda turned her phone off shortly after her messaging with Patrick, and we know it from her testimony. We have little information about when she turned it back on, or exactly what Raffaele did, yet one certainly saw plenty of comments to the effect that they turned them off and then on nearly simultaneously over the course of this case.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Reading Candace Dempsey's New Year post:

I am glad to see this quote from Hellmann's report concerning the character and antecedents of Guede - vis a vis the Massei theory that Rudy would not burglarize a place where he was made to feel welcome -

Moreover: it has always vexed me that PGs refute his having a history of knife-wielding and burglarizing:

Moreover, Rudy was not a very nice person. Hellmann doesn’t think he had qualms about breaking into a cottage where (at least in the downstairs apartment, where the victim’s boyfriend lived), he’d been received as a friend:

The personality of Rudy Guede, as it emerges from witness statements, does not reveal any particular respect for other people. Not only had he — as recalled above — acquired experience as the perpetrator of burglaries in others’ apartments, sometimes even committed with the robbery victims present in the house (see Tramontano); not only had he not hesitated to use a knife to threaten the victim that had chased him (Tramontano again, but also in the Milan nursery he had taken possession of a 40-cm-long knife), but several times on the street, especially when he was drunk, he had importuned young women, attempting to hug and kiss them, and even the very fact (only seemingly banal; in reality very indicative of his ways) that he was in the habit of using the bathroom in other people’s houses (as a guest or as an intruder, it matters not here) to defecate or urinate without flushing afterward.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2012/01/

 

[MitNagel]

The prosecution threw too much spaghetti and just made a mess of the wall.

The witnesses were always contradictory and downright weird. But this was just ignored prior to Hellmann.

Quintavalle seems to have been a leftover from a previous strand of thinking, the alleged cleanup with bleach, which never even made its way into the Massei Report.

But they decided to somehow shoehorn him in anyway.

 

[Grinder]

Agreeing with another poster on this thread seems to be some terrible offense as presented elsewhere.

I am a bit disapointed that I did not get a "high five" however!

Although it is not well known that I'm your lackey as well, I would be happy to give a clue by giving you...

------------A High Five!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!---------------------------------

 

[codyjuneau]

Reading Candace Dempsey's New Year post:

I am glad to see this quote from Hellmann's report concerning the character and antecedents of Guede - vis a vis the Massei theory that Rudy would not burglarize a place where he was made to feel welcome.

That always struck me as ludicrously funny. Rudy is too nice a guy to break into his friends house, ergo he would require an invitation before going there to participate in the brutal sexual assault and murder of Meredith. Emily Post would be proud of Rudy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Grinder,

What is so strange about the focus on Quintavalle's testimony is that it has nothing to do with their alibi or lack thereof. It concerns a time period that was considerably later than the crime.

While that's true, I believe that if Quintavalle's testimony had been totally reliable and accurate, it could in fact have been a major indicator of Knox's guilt, and by extension of Sollecito's guilt. If you think about it for a moment, remember what Knox and Sollecito were claiming: their story was that they had spent the night at Sollecito's apartment, that they had somewhat lazily and slowly woken up at 9.30-10.00am on the 2nd, and that the first time either of them had left the apartment on the 2nd was when Knox left at around 10.30am to go back to the cottage for a shower and a change of clothes.

If it could be shown that Knox had instead been waiting outside Quintavalle's shop just before 8.00am on the 2nd, I believe this would have been massively damaging to both Knox and Sollecito. After all, this is not something that Knox in particular would be able to have forgotten in her recall of that morning, so the only thing a court could conclude was that she was deliberately lying to the police (and the court) to conceal her presence at the shop at that early time in the morning. I think that even regardless of what she might have been trying to buy (or not buy), the very issue of her lying about her whereabouts the morning after the murder would have been a very serious piece of probative evidence.

Without wishing to sound smug (hehehe), I did say many times before and during the appeal trial that it would be very important for the defence lawyers to make sure that both Quintavalle and the "mixed DNA" bathroom swabs were both addressed and that the court had to also address and dismiss them. To anyone with an objective, disinterested mind, it was completely obvious that Quintavalle's testimony was unreliable at best, an honest mistake at "medium", and an outright lie at worst. That's why it was quite rightly thrown out by Hellmann's court, and why it was outright scandalous that Massei's court seemingly accepted it wholesale.

But I would still strongly contend that if something had shown Quintavalle's story to have been reliable and accurate (if, for example, he'd immediately told the investigating police that she'd been in his store and if in-store CCTV had captured Knox there at 8.00am), then this evidence alone would have put Knox - and Sollecito - in serious trouble, even though (as you say) it was not evidence concerning anything directly related to the time of the murder.

As it happened, however, Quintavalle's story was rubbish and totally unreliable from the get-go. If I were to wager on an explanation, I'd go with Quintavalle being a liar - to me, there's little other way to explain how he couldn't recognise Knox a couple of weeks after the murder (when the murder was the talk of the town), yet he could miraculously recognise her and remember minutiae of her presence (exactly what she was wearing, her eye colour, what direction she walked off in). I think Quintavalle - for reasons only known to himself - was seduced by the thought of being the centre of attention in a journalistic scoop. And for that, if I'm right, he ought to be totally ashamed of himself and his actions.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, the way that Hellmann's report has discussed issues such as Quintavalle and "ear witness" Capezzali (and many other elements of the case) simply goes further to show how ignorant many pro-guilt commentators were when they complained that Hellmann;s court was only looking at a few selected parts of the case. What they signally failed to comprehend was that the areas like the Conti/Vecchiotti DNA report or the recall of Curatolo were merely areas where Hellmann decided that his court needed additional evidence/testimony to help with the judgement.

As many of us have said for a very long time, the appeal trial considered the entirety of the evidence/testimony: everything from the Massei trial, plus all the additional stuff introduced in the Hellmann trial. Furthermore, the various arguments set out in the appeal trial (i.e. the closing arguments of the prosecutors, victim's advocate and defence) and the court's own deliberations were themselves based on this entirety of evidence. And likewise, Hellmann's court's verdicts were based on the entirety of evidence. There was simply no "cherry-picking" of evidence going on - regardless of how much some uninformed or biased commentators might like to claim otherwise.

PS: Thanks to whoever's vetting the posts rapidly at the moment. I realise it's a thankless and presumably very tedious task, but it does enable a more constructive multi-poster discussion to take place in something approaching real time. It's much appreciated (and I think I probably speak for many others as well).

 

[Draca]

[And we think we know she had ate a bit of mushroom.

I don't think this should be put in the category of things that are known in my opinion. I think it is a unproven possibility.

 

[Bill Williams]

The witnesses were always contradictory and downright weird. But this was just ignored prior to Hellmann.

Quintavalle seems to have been a leftover from a previous strand of thinking, the alleged cleanup with bleach, which never even made its way into the Massei Report.

But they decided to somehow shoehorn him in anyway.

This is why the guilt case is in tatters, and most certainly was tatterable in the Massei report. Massei goes out of his way to say that there was no apparent use of bleach at the crime scene, while at the same time going out of his way similarly to say that there was a smell of bleach at Raffaele's on the 6th, just as you would expect after a clean up. Except at Raffaele's place, this massive cleanup was supposed to have been for a single knife.

I suppose one could say that if (as Grinder says) in-store CCTV had shown Knox there at the store at 7:30 am, that would have raised a huge red flag. Then again, you'd also have to provide receipts which show what was bought - presumably bleach, if you follow the meme.

But even with that, all it is is a red flag. Massei himself goes out of his way to state that bleach was not used, or more than likely not used, for the clean-up that is only a hypothesis anyways. One of Massei's 39 "probablies". Even in Massei, there is no divergent narrative pointing to guilt on this point, because even if Knox had been at the store - which she wasn't - what exactly DOES that prove about the horrible murder?

The whole bleach/cleanup meme includes the alleged/phantom store visit, and it all falls apart anyway, regardless of Quintaville's relationship to the truth. I think it is 50/50 whether he's simply mistaken or lying, because that's what the overall evidence points to - she simply wasn't there. But even if there had been CCTV evidence, what does that prove?

The evidence is this: there had been no systematic clean-up at the crimescene anyway, other than one hypothesized in-the-negative by Massei - meaning, a cleanup designed to remove all trace of Sollecito and Knox, while miraculously leaving a complete forensic presence for Guede intact.

This is more than a Marriott PR supertanker talking point. This actually has the added benefit of being logical!

It is good to see Hellmann-Zanetti relying on common sense, rather than "probablies" and reasoning in-the-negative.

I can just hear the PGP now:

1) Okay, prove that Knox DIDN'T buy bleach somewhere else?
2) Prove that the employee at Q.'s store DIDN'T see Knox, even though she said she didn't? Afterall, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (a real live, criticism when I asked this of a PGP.)
3) Prove that the clean-up didn't happen, meaning prove that even the erasing of the evidence of the clean itself wasn't simply successful? (Remember, other than some cursory wiping that obviously failed, there is NO evidence that a more systematic clean was even tried.) Disprove that what we're seeing is the result of a successful clean, which also masked that the clean itself happened!
4) Prove the the absence of the smell of bleach means that a clean with bleach did not happen! Afterall, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can't remember who wrote it, but if this is the line of argumentation, then one can actually prove that half the world's population should be suspect.

Then again, I've always wondered about you (meaning: you reading this) and why you obsessively follow this case!

 

[smkovalinksy]

While that's true, I believe that if Quintavalle's testimony had been totally reliable and accurate, it could in fact have been a major indicator of Knox's guilt, and by extension of Sollecito's guilt. If you think about it for a moment, remember what Knox and Sollecito were claiming: their story was that they had spent the night at Sollecito's apartment, that they had somewhat lazily and slowly woken up at 9.30-10.00am on the 2nd, and that the first time either of them had left the apartment on the 2nd was when Knox left at around 10.30am to go back to the cottage for a shower and a change of clothes.

If it could be shown that Knox had instead been waiting outside Quintavalle's shop just before 8.00am on the 2nd, I believe this would have been massively damaging to both Knox and Sollecito. After all, this is not something that Knox in particular would be able to have forgotten in her recall of that morning, so the only thing a court could conclude was that she was deliberately lying to the police (and the court) to conceal her presence at the shop at that early time in the morning. I think that even regardless of what she might have been trying to buy (or not buy), the very issue of her lying about her whereabouts the morning after the murder would have been a very serious piece of probative evidence.

Without wishing to sound smug (hehehe), I did say many times before and during the appeal trial that it would be very important for the defence lawyers to make sure that both Quintavalle and the "mixed DNA" bathroom swabs were both addressed and that the court had to also address and dismiss them. To anyone with an objective, disinterested mind, it was completely obvious that Quintavalle's testimony was unreliable at best, an honest mistake at "medium", and an outright lie at worst. That's why it was quite rightly thrown out by Hellmann's court, and why it was outright scandalous that Massei's court seemingly accepted it wholesale.

But I would still strongly contend that if something had shown Quintavalle's story to have been reliable and accurate (if, for example, he'd immediately told the investigating police that she'd been in his store and if in-store CCTV had captured Knox there at 8.00am), then this evidence alone would have put Knox - and Sollecito - in serious trouble, even though (as you say) it was not evidence concerning anything directly related to the time of the murder.

As it happened, however, Quintavalle's story was rubbish and totally unreliable from the get-go. If I were to wager on an explanation, I'd go with Quintavalle being a liar - to me, there's little other way to explain how he couldn't recognise Knox a couple of weeks after the murder (when the murder was the talk of the town), yet he could miraculously recognise her and remember minutiae of her presence (exactly what she was wearing, her eye colour, what direction she walked off in). I think Quintavalle - for reasons only known to himself - was seduced by the thought of being the centre of attention in a journalistic scoop. And for that, if I'm right, he ought to be totally ashamed of himself and his actions.

I think you are right (of course certain others will feel I am saying, "Atta boy" - it amuses me that they continue to read here and take note of all this irrelevancies - so I will in fact say it: Atta boy.)

I was always highly suspicious of Quintavalle coming forward so late in time, as anyone knows that had he really been struck by the memory of Amanda and her blue eyes and pale skin, he would have come forward from a sense of duty as soon as he knew she was a suspect. This in fact was a major detail which bugged me, and helped turn me toward belief in Knox and Sollecito's innocence. Yes, I think he is without conscience.

I am assuming after the prosecution files its appeal in Rome on Feb. 15, the defense will have another 45 days to file. Then, let us hope that the SC upholds Hellmann's logic swiftly, and that all will be over at last, notwithstanding the conspiracy theorists who will go on til the end of time. Hellmann's logic is coherent and solid to all but those who cannot rid their minds of that long ago fantasy of the 3 on 1 murder.

 

[komponisto]

From Hellmann (thanks to komponisto): RESPONSE – Basically the first inquiry I made was with regards to two bottles of Ace bleach that had been seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on 16 November 2007. Immediately after they were seized I went around the shops nearby Raffaele Sollecito’s house trying to understand where they could have been purchased and in connection with this I showed the photograph of Raffaele Sollicito, [and] the photograph of Amanda Knox.

This is a direct quote from Volturno's testimony. Note he showed Quintavalle a picture of Amanda.

Massei on-the-other-hand wrote: This Court deems that the testimony of Quintavalle is reliable. It was discovered that Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if, on the morning of November 2, he saw Amanda Knox in his shop.
He was asked – so Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Mr. Quintavalle did not say anything about having seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2, 2007 in his [76] shop because he was not questioned about this and because, as indicated by Quintavalle himself, he considered this fact to be insignificant.

He was shown a picture of Amanda but didn't think it worthwhile to say he'd seen her that morning and Massei said:

Consequently, the fact of not telling Inspector Volturno about seeing Amanda on the morning of November 2 and the fact of having come forward only after having been convinced by Antioco Fois about the possible significance of this event, do not reduce the reliability of the witness, since these facts do not affect the genuineness of the memory.

Massei neglects to quote the inspector as to having shown Amanda's picture to Quintavalle and prefers to believe his recollection that he was not asked about Amanda...wow, just wow.

The PGP just can't see anything wrong with the prosecution case to the degree that it makes all their positions suspect. Why the prosecution thought that all the year late found-by-the-media witnesses should even have been presented boggles the mind, but that the PGP can't even admit that these witnesses are an embarrassment goes even further.

Thanks komponisto for providing the crystal clear thinking of Hellmann in English.

A correction: although (as with all sections) I did do some minor editing, the credit for the section on Quintavalle should go primarily to Newcomer (from IIP).

But in any case I'm sure I speak for the entire translation team when I say that the positive feedback is greatly appreciated.