Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

A few days after the murder! Why would he think to mention Amanda, he couldn't possibly know she had any connection to the murder of Meredith until after the 6th. I have also heard that that reporter lived upstairs of Quinn and they knew and talked to each other regularly.

Because he was asked about Raf and he knew she was his girlfriend. The fact that the reporter lived upstairs makes his testimony even less credible.

ETA - you must have missed this:

Inspector Volturno's testimony from March 21, 2009 hearing.
Question - Who did you speak to?
Inspector Volturno - Quintavalle and Chiriboga since she is his assistant and another girl whose name I don't recall now.

Question - You said previously that you had photographs of Amanda and Raffaele.Inspector Volturno - That's right.

Question - And you showed them to the people who were inside the shop?Inspector Volturno - Yes.

Question - Therefore both the owner and his assistants.Inspector Volturno - Yes.

Question - You said that you asked the manager of the business if he had seen the two defendants.
Inspector Volturno - Yes, exactly.

Question - What was his exact response?
Inspector Volturno - He said that Sollecito was a regular client whilst Amanda Knox was seen on a couple of occasions in Sollecito's company.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is from IIP so if someone has a more neutral cite..

Inspector Volturno's testimony from March 21, 2009 hearing.
Question - Who did you speak to?
Inspector Volturno - Quintavalle and Chiriboga since she is his assistant and another girl whose name I don't recall now.

Question - You said previously that you had photographs of Amanda and Raffaele.
Inspector Volturno - That's right.

Question - And you showed them to the people who were inside the shop?
Inspector Volturno - Yes.

Question - Therefore both the owner and his assistants.
Inspector Volturno - Yes.

Question - You said that you asked the manager of the business if he had seen the two defendants.
Inspector Volturno - Yes, exactly.

Question - What was his exact response?
Inspector Volturno - He said that Sollecito was a regular client whilst Amanda Knox was seen on a couple of occasions in Sollecito's company.

Inspector Volturno explicitly asked Quintavalle whether he recognized the photographs of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and whether he had seen them buy bleach in a period close to the murder. Quintavalle only recognized Amanda Knox as the girl whom he had seen enter the shop on a couple of occasions, but always in the company of Raffaele Sollecito. There was absolutely no mention by Quintavalle to the investigators of the presence of Amanda Knox in his shop on the morning after the murder.

When was this, if this from the 'just days' after the murder, why would the inspector be asking about Amanda and Raff for #1, and secondly, why would he have pictures of them?

 

[christianahannah]

Another line of defense against an extradition would be the lack of a timely trial. Had the trial been held within 9 months of the murder there would have been no Curatolo, no Nara, no Quintavalle, no Monacchia et al.

Sherlock you given answers and then just ignore them. Quintavalle came forward at the urging of a reporter from a local paper that had access to the PLE. Look at the accounts from Perugia from the first week. Information that shouldn't have been public for months if ever was on the front page immediately.

As Rose pointed out he still got the coat wrong and the scarf. Guessing jeans would have worked on Meredith as well. Did she wear a scarf the day or two before when he saw her with Raf.

You must explain why he knew nothing the day the detective talked with him.

To come forward because of the investigative perseverance of a local reporter does not a liar make. Good for this reporter that he was able to track down several witnesses. Not everyone is eager to be part of a criminal investigation or think what information they may or may not have is important.

From the photos I don't think he got the coat wrong. The scarf maybe (the color) but I would have to review his trial testimony to be certain.

And his explanation for why he did not speak up the day the detective questioned him is detailed in Massei.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

From what I recall, he claimed to see her wearing clothing that she'd actually borrowed from Raffaelle when they were waiting outside the cottage after the murder had been discovered.

That is, his description of her exactly matched that which had been broadly disseminated for a significantly extended and intense period of time after the murder (and especially after the arrests) and is unlikely to represent something she was actually wearing early that morning.

To be fair, I could be thinking of Curotalo.

Rose has a picture she posted just a page ago of the cloths Amanda wore that morning that she left on her bed after her morning shower on Nov 1nd.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Another line of defense against an extradition would be the lack of a timely trial. Had the trial been held within 9 months of the murder there would have been no Curatolo, no Nara, no Quintavalle, no Monacchia et al.

Sherlock you given answers and then just ignore them. Quintavalle came forward at the urging of a reporter from a local paper that had access to the PLE. Look at the accounts from Perugia from the first week. Information that shouldn't have been public for months if ever was on the front page immediately.

As Rose pointed out he still got the coat wrong and the scarf. Guessing jeans would have worked on Meredith as well. Did she wear a scarf the day or two before when he saw her with Raf.

You must explain why he knew nothing the day the detective talked with him.

Look again at that picture, he said jeans, and there are jeans, he said a grey jacket, there is a grey jacket there, he said a brownish scarf, it's there also, These are not the type of pictures the press is going to print, it's just some cloths on a bed, maybe someone did print these before he said that but I be curious to see a link to that.

 

[christianahannah]

I think it is possible that Quintavalle consciously or subconsciously made a decision to help in the conviction (witnesses in the Todd Willingham case changed their testimony over time). Maybe it was not a desire for 15 minutes of fame, but ultimately his motive is unimportant. What matters is that his testimony cannot be taken seriously because it effectively changed over time, and it is contradicted by Chiraboga.

I disagree. His motive would be important in giving his testimony.

I don't believe his testimony changed over time. Changing would be saying one thing one time and then saying another thing another time. Quintavalle did not do that.

And I don't think Chiraboga contradicted his testimony - only that she herself did not see Amanda that morning.

 

[Skind]

Look again at that picture, he said jeans, and there are jeans, he said a grey jacket, there is a grey jacket there, he said a brownish scarf, it's there also, These are not the type of pictures the press is going to print, it's just some cloths on a bed, maybe someone did print these before he said that but I be curious to see a link to that.

They are, however, the sort of pictures that might make it into the possession of a journalist, who could concievably show them to potential witnesses to ask if they'd seen someone like Knox wearing something 'like this'.

Having said that, the cap doesn't appear, and the scarf looks more brown. Either way, Quintaville basically guessed that Knox was wearing autumnal colours in the middle of autumn. Hardly a genius.

 

[Grinder]

When was this, if this from the 'just days' after the murder, why would the inspector be asking about Amanda and Raff for #1, and secondly, why would he have pictures of them?

It was after the 6th.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They are, however, the sort of pictures that might make it into the possession of a journalist, who could concievably show them to potential witnesses to ask if they'd seen someone like Knox wearing something 'like this'.

Having said that, the cap doesn't appear, and the scarf looks more brown. Either way, Quintaville basically guessed that Knox was wearing autumnal colours in the middle of autumn. Hardly a genius.

I could believe someone told him, I doubt it could be proved though, but not in a million years did he guess that.

 

[Grinder]

\

And his explanation for why he did not speak up the day the detective questioned him is detailed in Massei.

Oh horse poop.

Massei defers to Q instead of the cop and even that's weak because Q claims he was asked about Raf but Q already knew Amanda by sight.

Yes, what ever happened to the greatest cub reporter since Jimmy Olsen?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It was after the 6th.

fair enough, but someone above posted something that said the inspector asked Quint a couple of days after the murder.

 

[Grinder]

Look again at that picture, he said jeans, and there are jeans, he said a grey jacket, there is a grey jacket there, he said a brownish scarf, it's there also, These are not the type of pictures the press is going to print, it's just some cloths on a bed, maybe someone did print these before he said that but I be curious to see a link to that.

Really how detailed must things be pointed out to you? The picture wasn't published but the press had access to police information and the reporter worked on Q for weeks to come forward. The reporter could have fed him the info directly or asked if she were wearing jeans, orange scarf and a grey coat.

As usual you pass over the more important details such as the fact that a detective asked about what he saw the night and morning after the murder and he said nothing. After Amanda and Raf are arrested and their pictures are again in the papers he says nothing.'

One year later just before or after they are charged he suddenly is willing to do a TV interview and come forward.

ETA - Rose wrote - The police inspector showed him pictures just a few days after the murder and he didn't remember. He claims he was not interviewed and the defense plays his TV interview in court and Massei ignores it. A year later he remembers each article of clothing she wore. Yeah right.

"Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on November 19, 2007. The record makes it clear that Quintavalle was shown photos of Amanda and Raffaele and he said they had been to his store two or so times but not on November 2nd. and they were always together. The record indicates that Volturno spoke with Quintavalle and then his two employees. On March 21, 2009 Volturno testifies to the same."

Read Volturno here

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Eyewitness testimony in the Cameron Todd Willingham case

From David Grann's article in The New Yorker
Quote
The witnesses’ testimony also grew more damning after authorities had concluded, in the beginning of January, 1992, that Willingham was likely guilty of murder. In Diane Barbee’s initial statement to authorities, she had portrayed Willingham as “hysterical,” and described the front of the house exploding. But on January 4th, after arson investigators began suspecting Willingham of murder, Barbee suggested that he could have gone back inside to rescue his children, for at the outset she had seen only “smoke coming from out of the front of the house”—smoke that was not “real thick.”

An even starker shift occurred with Father Monaghan’s testimony. In his first statement, he had depicted Willingham as a devastated father who had to be repeatedly restrained from risking his life. Yet, as investigators were preparing to arrest Willingham, he concluded that Willingham had been too emotional (“He seemed to have the type of distress that a woman who had given birth would have upon seeing her children die”); and he expressed a “gut feeling” that Willingham had “something to do with the setting of the fire.”
Endquote

The problem is that witnesses change their testimony to conform to their beliefs. In addition, if Quintavalle said that he was not interviewed when he was, that puts yet another dent into his credibility.

 

[Bill Williams]

Where's Machiavelli gone?

Last disappearance was when he claimed expertise as a sleep clinician. Fortunately he clarified that his knowledge of the subject is his own struggles with sleep issues, compared with his theatre training and reading Knox's e-mails. (I have a sleep therapists course syllabus in front of me, and introductory courses are on "Sleep assessments through diary reading," and "William Shakespeare and the Sleep Clinician.")

Then he claims some sort of expertise in false/compliant confessions. Maybe he's off doing the qualifying courses?

But the big news is that Machiavelli confirms that Amanda Knox was in the PLE's sights from day one. So much for the claims that she just blurted out Lumumba's name without the PLE being on her case about what "See you later" meant.

Even Machiavelli now admits that Knox was a suspect going into interrogation and that she needed to have have a lawyer, an interpretor from the beginning and the sessions needed to have been taped. As the ISC ruled.

Note... when Anna Donnino eventually DID arrive at the interrogation, she notes that it is in chaos and that she immediately starts acting "as if a mediator" between police and Knox. In a strange way, Donnino's account seems to confirm what Knox has said all along, that she was being pressured and the PLE was not getting out of her what they had planned when she went in. Of course, Knox eventually "buckled and told us what we already knew."

I miss Machiavelli.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Really how detailed must things be pointed out to you? The picture wasn't published but the press had access to police information and the reporter worked on Q for weeks to come forward. The reporter could have fed him the info directly or asked if she were wearing jeans, orange scarf and a grey coat.

As usual you pass over the more important details such as the fact that a detective asked about what he saw the night and morning after the murder and he said nothing. After Amanda and Raf are arrested and their pictures are again in the papers he says nothing.'

One year later just before or after they are charged he suddenly is willing to do a TV interview and come forward.

ETA - Rose wrote - The police inspector showed him pictures just a few days after the murder and he didn't remember. He claims he was not interviewed and the defense plays his TV interview in court and Massei ignores it. A year later he remembers each article of clothing she wore. Yeah right.

"Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on November 19, 2007. The record makes it clear that Quintavalle was shown photos of Amanda and Raffaele and he said they had been to his store two or so times but not on November 2nd. and they were always together. The record indicates that Volturno spoke with Quintavalle and then his two employees. On March 21, 2009 Volturno testifies to the same."

Read Volturno here

Maybe Volturno is lying. He's a cop isn't he, he's Italian isn't he, I thought that's all you guys needed.

I also don't see anything in you link related to Quintavalle but I did read this :

The recordings also revealed a plan by the Sollecito family to interfere with the investigation by enlisting the broadcaster Telenorba and the newspaper Panorama to leak evidence including images of Meredith's naked body. The Sollecito family would eventually be charged related to these acts but after successfully arguing for a change of venue to Bari the Bari prosecutor refused to proceed. The Sollecito's would later be implicated in another allegation of interference when Prison Informants stated that they were paid by Sollecito's family to lie at trial and cause confusion.

Some of that I did know, but some I did not. I was always told by PIPs that all the trial leakage to the press was from the prosecution, but I guess not.

 

[Machiavelli]

Where's Machiavelli gone?

Last disappearance was when he claimed expertise as a sleep clinician. Fortunately he clarified that his knowledge of the subject is his own struggles with sleep issues, compared with his theatre training and reading Knox's e-mails. (...)

You are just being disrespectful. Knowledge of patients is true clinical expertise, not second-degree training. Knowledge is the result of experience (not ones "own struggle with sleep").

However it's your standard, you are basically making up stuff on everything (and you appear to me as always keen to attempting to discredit an interlocutor, never about actually building your own arguments); You were stating that Knox and Sollecito were "factually" found to be psychopatologically normal, weren't you?

 

[Machiavelli]

W
But the big news is that Machiavelli confirms that Amanda Knox was in the PLE's sights from day one. So much for the claims that she just blurted out Lumumba's name without the PLE being on her case about what "See you later" meant

.

Always said that. You have a short memory.
And all my claims stand; try to live with it once for all: I don't change my points. I still claim the police didn't have any suspicion on Lumumba. Nothing changed. No big news. Stop lying about what other posters say, it's annoying.

Even Machiavelli now admits that Knox was a suspect going into interrogation and that she needed to have have a lawyer, an interpretor from the beginning and the sessions needed to have been taped. As the ISC ruled.

Needed to be taped? Needed to "have" a lawyer? !?
How do you make this stuff up?

 

[Machiavelli]

The lamp appears to be for the downstairs door so people can see where they are walking at night to get to the door and see their keys to unlock the door. It looks to me like it would easily illuminate the balcony. I don't know if it was on or off, it's funny to me that if you think this would be a better and more hidden access for a burglar that you would not ask. I can find no mention that ILE even posed the question.

(...)

In fact, these lamps are on the other side of the cottage too; they illuminate Filomena's window (not well, they are very weak). But that one that you show won't illuminate the balcony. Among other things, because it's obviously too low; you need a light at some level above the balcony or you will have a shadow. Yes, anyway I definitely think the balcony would be more hidden and protected than Filomena's window regardless of whether these garden lamps are on or off. I think there is no question about which is the logical point of entry.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, and kudos to Grinder for coaxing this admission out of Machiavelli.

(...)

Coaxe? Admission?

What are these people talking about?

Look, it's quite more simple. You just don't know the law. You don't really seem to understand what a formal suspect is, what it means, what it implies, who is entitled to have suspects right and who has not (and what are the consequences of them).

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach the issue is what De Felice meant when he said that she buckled and told us what we knew to be correct. He didn't say implied things. She named Patrick as the murderer and said she was in the cottage because she had let him after sending I'll see you soon text.

You can't make sense of his statement without acknowledging that they thought Patrick was involved in the murder with Amanda. She signed statements to that effect and those statements were not correct.

No? I think yes, I can indeed.
This is what I understood when I read statements De Felice - I never understood he was claiming they knew the name of Patrick before Knox's accusation. This content does not belong to De Felice declarations.
As always, the innocentisti attempt to work out "facts" out of material they don't even know. I guess you don't even have recordings of the press conference and not even citations of it (and I guess you won't be able to read it, given your misinterpreatation).