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

[RWVBWL]

Marco vs Marina

(...)
Yet with the clothing, you simply will not discuss it. You will stall, and make unrelated philosophical sophistry. Why?

I know the answer why. Because if you did have the information about whether or not the clothing was collected and/or tested you would post it. If for no other reason than to prove me wrong BEFORE being all vague about it.
(...)

The trousers were analyzed as item #150, the jacket was analyzed as item #159. The sweater was not analyzed since apparently did not have blood-like stains.
The scarf fits the description by Quintavalle.

Hi Machiavelli,
How can Marco Quintavalle even know the description of Miss Knox's scarf?

Miss Marina Chiriboga,
who was also there working at the Conad store on the morning of Nov. 1, 2007, aparently disagrees.

She stated in court that Amanda Knox did not come in the Conad store that morning.

Don't you believe her?

But then 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.

<snip>

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.

 

[acbytesla]

Hi Machiavelli,
How can Marco Quintavalle even know the description of Miss Knox's scarf?

Miss Marina Chiriboga,
who was also there working at the Conad store on the morning of Nov. 1, 2007, aparently disagrees.

She stated in court that Amanda Knox did not come in the Conad store that morning.

Don't you believe her?

But then 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.

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.

I don't know how the Supreme Court or anyone could say that Quintavalle's testimony is credible. Remember, he was questioned by detectives days after the murder and at that time, he told the police nothing. But somehow a year later after prodding by a reporter he has this strange memory of Amanda coming into the store, hanging out and not buying anything? I wouldn't call Quintavalle a liar, I do believe he now thinks that happened, but in reality this is more likely to be a self created memory.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi acbytesla,
I was re-reading that article from Perugia Shock and Italian law enforcement had questioned Marina after the murder, (as she was the maid at Raff's flat), about the bleach+cleaning supplies.

Her memory was precise.

Please correct me if I am wrong,
but from reading the article I will link again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20091203....blogspot.com/2009/06/chiriboga-at-stand.html

it seems that Italian law enforcement had no idea that Marina even worked at Marco Quintavalle's Conad store and was also present there on the morning of Nov. 1, 2007 when "Foxy Knoxy" was supposed to have arrived early awaiting the store to open so she could get needed cleaning supplies to finish up. Right?


So who do I believe?
Marina, who correctly remembered right after the murder what the bleach contents were and who, when in court states that Amanda Knox was not there.

Or do I believe Marco who, I'll quote you:
"was questioned by detectives days after the murder and at that time, he told the police nothing. But somehow a year later after prodding by a reporter he has this strange memory of Amanda coming into the store, hanging out and not buying anything?"

 

[acbytesla]

Hi acbytesla,
I was re-reading that article from Perugia Shock and Italian law enforcement had questioned Marina after the murder, (as she was the maid at Raff's flat), about the bleach+cleaning supplies.

Her memory was precise.

Please correct me if I am wrong,
but from reading the article I will link again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20091203....blogspot.com/2009/06/chiriboga-at-stand.html

it seems that Italian law enforcement had no idea that Marina even worked at Marco Quintavalle's Conad store and was also present there on the morning of Nov. 1, 2007 when "Foxy Knoxy" was supposed to have arrived early awaiting the store to open so she could get needed cleaning supplies to finish up. Right?


So who do I believe?
Marina, who correctly remembered right after the murder what the bleach contents were and who, when in court states that Amanda Knox was not there.

Or do I believe Marco who, I'll quote you:
"was questioned by detectives days after the murder and at that time, he told the police nothing. But somehow a year later after prodding by a reporter he has this strange memory of Amanda coming into the store, hanging out and not buying anything?"

Yea, but it seems that the ISC seems to think Quintavalle is credible.... I shake my head and remember the song ...things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yep, it's absurd to think Quintavalle guessed that outfit -- and equally absurd to think he remembered it.

Can you remember what anyone in your life wore on a particular day ten months ago? Even four days ago. Can you remember the outfits of people you saw in the grocery store four days ago? I doubt you remember what your spouse wore four days ago, let alone the people you briefly encountered.

Fact is the "super" witnesses for this case are weak, regardless of their motives or sincerity. I don't see how an objective person can claim their testimony is beyond reasonable doubt.

A recent post worth repeating. Wildhorses does not go as far as I would. The fact (if it is a fact) Quintavalle correctly remembers a scarf or other garment proves he is either a liar or a very suggestible witness who has been coached. That's apart from the other indicators to the same effect.

 

[acbytesla]

A recent post worth repeating. Wildhorses does not go as far as I would. The fact (if it is a fact) Quintavalle correctly remembers a scarf or other garment proves he is either a liar or a very suggestible witness who has been coached. That's apart from the other indicators to the same effect.

Nothing about Quintavalle is credible. I tend to think he hasn't been corrupted but somehow convinced himself that this story was true. I don't know him personally, but people lie all the time for a lot of different reasons. A lot of times they lie just because they like being the center of attention. But I want to give Quintavalle the benefit of the doubt that his story isn't that, but something else.

I agree with you about the scarf detail. 10 months later he puts all of this together in his mind??? Really, not possible. I wouldn't be surprised that he has Amanda confused with someone else who came in on a different day that seemed strange to him and he has conflated multiple events.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nothing about Quintavalle is credible. I tend to think he hasn't been corrupted but somehow convinced himself that this story was true. I don't know him personally, but people lie all the time for a lot of different reasons. A lot of times they lie just because they like being the center of attention. But I want to give Quintavalle the benefit of the doubt that his story isn't that, but something else.

I agree with you about the scarf detail. 10 months later he puts all of this together in his mind??? Really, not possible. I wouldn't be surprised that he has Amanda confused with someone else who came in on a different day that seemed strange to him and he has conflated multiple events.

It does not seem to matter that he ism't credible. His function is like the others which are referred to as "all the other evidence." He goes into court and has either been coached, lied or coerced to say he saw Knox. So it becomes part of all the other evidence......

...... each item potentially disposable but designed to get some folk to say, "Look, you can't find something wrong with it all!"

How's this an argument for guilt?

 

[acbytesla]

It does not seem to matter that he ism't credible. His function is like the others which are referred to as "all the other evidence." He goes into court and has either been coached, lied or coerced to say he saw Knox. So it becomes part of all the other evidence......

...... each item potentially disposable but designed to get some folk to say, "Look, you can't find something wrong with it all!"

How's this an argument for guilt?

I agree, that is what is wrong with all this. It's as if the ISC is saying that if you add whole bunch of very suspect evidence it somehow adds up to something.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>What I say, is that I point out your method to say you should prove or substantiate your claims before you ask someone to discuss them. That goes for anyone, not for me. I'm not interested in any case, but to discuss with anyone, if you say "the clothes were not investigated", that is actually a wild claim. You should prove it, not just imply it or give it as taken. Also if you asserted "the cloth could have confirmed Knox's story", you should deal with your assertion and clarify it.<snip>

Of course. How can you tell what that is, if you don't know how it was formed?<snip>

I wish someone from the prosecution team would read this advice and follow it.

 

[Mary_H]

A recent post worth repeating. Wildhorses does not go as far as I would. The fact (if it is a fact) Quintavalle correctly remembers a scarf or other garment proves he is either a liar or a very suggestible witness who has been coached. That's apart from the other indicators to the same effect.

Well, he did say he knew the girl who came in was Amanda because she looked just like the picture he saw in the paper.

 

[Dan O.]

By the way - can you describe ANY context in which it is appropriate for the SP to be standing in blood, while being protectively clad? Please think this time, Machiavelli, before answering..... because the question is, why be protectively clad IF the crime scene is closed for evidence gathering?

Here's a comparison shot of the same section of the floor between Nov. 3 and Dec. 18 (and this latter photo was from before when we see them standing on this very spot). One has to wonder what were they thinking waiting this long before taking the detailed photos of the floor?!

And one more thing. The Luminol photos were done after all of this traipsing in and out of the room, stepping on the blood and tracking it down the hall.

And speaking of Luminol, apparently they used the Luminol in Raffaele's apartment in early November. What was all that malarky about having to wait for any bleach to dissipate?

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, he did say he knew the girl who came in was Amanda because she looked just like the picture he saw in the paper.

I would really like to be able to read well-translated versions of the testimony of these people. Thinking about it osmotically, we have an untrue story about bleach receipts circulating in Nov 2007 (parenthetically, the detail that made me think they were guilty) and about the same time Q tells Volturno: 'nope, no young murderers in my shop officer, no way' and then a year later up pops the same Q to feed the bleach lie, now exhibiting total recall of the piercing blue eyes (the clincher for the ISC) and the killer detail of the scarf. Give me a break. Only a schmuck believes this crap.

 

[RoseMontague]

I would really like to be able to read well-translated versions of the testimony of these people. Thinking about it osmotically, we have an untrue story about bleach receipts circulating in Nov 2007 (parenthetically, the detail that made me think they were guilty) and about the same time Q tells Volturno: 'nope, no young murderers in my shop officer, no way' and then a year later up pops the same Q to feed the bleach lie, now exhibiting total recall of the piercing blue eyes (the clincher for the ISC) and the killer detail of the scarf. Give me a break. Only a schmuck believes this crap.

There is quite a bit revealed in the appeals (translations by katy_did)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6061923&postcount=2470
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6061940&postcount=2472
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202366&postcount=4101
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202895&postcount=4119

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli,
How can Marco Quintavalle even know the description of Miss Knox's scarf?

Miss Marina Chiriboga,
who was also there working at the Conad store on the morning of Nov. 1, 2007, aparently disagrees.

She stated in court that Amanda Knox did not come in the Conad store that morning.

Don't you believe her?

She stated very diferent things. Unless you buy our lying petty criminal Frank Sfarzo's report as the "truth".

 

[Machiavelli]

Before we proceed, can you do me a kindness and answer a question?

On principle, no. I owe you no answer on this topic.

Why are you retreating into providing information, when you first refused because you wanted me to provide an osmotic description of the totality of the whole "why weren't the clothes collected and analysed," issue?

I am not "retreating" at all - but I note that you like to wishfully repeat that I "retreat".

I provide information only because you changed topic. First, you were making wild assertions about what the police collected and analyzed and other things.
Then, you made wild assertions about what information I have. You wildly asserted I have no information on the topic. It is a further unfounded claim. What information I have is a different topic, and if I want to disprove your wild claim on this new topic, I may just show I have some information that you seem to not have.
I am not discussing about the information itself, I am not disclosing the evidence. I am still, just responding with a counter-hint to a further unfounded new claim on your part.

 

[Grinder]

The trousers were analyzed as item #150, the jacket was analyzed as item #159. The sweater was not analyzed since apparently did not have blood-like stains.
The scarf fits the description by Quintavalle.

Do you know when these tests were done? Were the results available to the prosecution, defense and the media well before Quintavalle came out of the closet on his claims?

Were those photo of her bed just as available as the famous picture of the bloody bathroom?

How many of the witnesses were brought forward by the same intern reporter?

Do you have a list of reporters and the people each "found" for the prosecution?

 

[anglolawyer]

There is quite a bit revealed in the appeals (translations by katy_did)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6061923&postcount=2470
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6061940&postcount=2472
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202366&postcount=4101
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6202895&postcount=4119

Cool, thanks Rose (and Katy)

 

[Grinder]

I would really like to be able to read well-translated versions of the testimony of these people. Thinking about it osmotically, we have an untrue story about bleach receipts circulating in Nov 2007 (parenthetically, the detail that made me think they were guilty) and about the same time Q tells Volturno: 'nope, no young murderers in my shop officer, no way' and then a year later up pops the same Q to feed the bleach lie, now exhibiting total recall of the piercing blue eyes (the clincher for the ISC) and the killer detail of the scarf. Give me a break. Only a schmuck believes this crap.

In addition I'd sure like to know what the local paper, where the cub reporter worked, knew about the various things the witnesses he "found" testified to.

Was the information about the clothes including photographs published?

We know that the multiple killer theory was out there for most of a year before Nara "remembered".

We know that many things were leaked. We know the bloody bathroom picture was provided the press. We know that the prosecution had access to the photos of Amanda's clothes.

We know that the kids' photos had long been published when all of the witnesses were "found". Curatolo apparently had a spotlight from the press on the kids when he IDed them.

 

[Grinder]

She stated very diferent things. Unless you buy our lying petty criminal Frank Sfarzo's report as the "truth".

While I have some issues with Frank and don't fully trust him, much of his reporting seems as accurate as any of the others reporting on this case.

But what strikes me is that you demean him as a "lying petty criminal" in order to justify not believing him, yet you have no problem believing a major criminal (heroin dealing is considered a major crime) that is an admitted junkie, high every day, including the night of his damning memories.

Curatolo's testimony will be brought up at the next trial and at extradition. It will bring the same reaction as the video of the ICSI collecting evidence.

ETA - IIRC Marina Chiriboga testified that she didn't recall Amanda coming in the store that morning, but wasn't at the register the whole time. She wasn't able to state for certain that Amanda didn't come in, but was certain that she knew her and she hadn't seen that morning.

 

[Bill Williams]

While I have some issues with Frank and don't fully trust him, much of his reporting seems as accurate as any of the others reporting on this case.

But what strikes me is that you demean him as a "lying petty criminal" in order to justify not believing him, yet you have no problem believing a major criminal (heroin dealing is considered a major crime) that is an admitted junkie, high every day, including the night of his damning memories.

Curatolo's testimony will be brought up at the next trial and at extradition. It will bring the same reaction as the video of the ICSI collecting evidence.

ETA - IIRC Marina Chiriboga testified that she didn't recall Amanda coming in the store that morning, but wasn't at the register the whole time. She wasn't able to state for certain that Amanda didn't come in, but was certain that she knew her and she hadn't seen that morning.

I was about to point out the glaring double standard Machiavelli employs. Machiavelli is also very enthusiastic of protecting the PLE over their handling of Mr. Guede. Why is that?