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

[Machiavelli]

I did not write a novel to fill the void until the Avetrana Motivation was published. You have invented yet another fantasy. Writing a book was a lifelong dream for me. I don't appreciate what you imply with this.

I am talking about your summary of the case, that is what I called a fiction story; I did not mean your novel.
Your Scazzi case summary on IIP is about as much fiction as your novel, but I'm sure your novel is much better.
It's a good idea to focalize yourself on novels. That could work. I'm not joking.

 

[Machiavelli]

The judges showed their bias, for whatever reason, by coming to a decision that was not supported by the facts. That case is a very simple one, much like the Kercher case. For some reason the PTB decided that would not play well.

All cases become simple if you remove the evidence.

 

[moodstream]

All cases become simple if you remove the evidence.

Well said!

 

[RoseMontague]

I am talking about your summary of the case, that is what I called a fiction story; I did not mean your novel.
Your Scazzi case summary on IIP is about as much fiction as your novel, but I'm sure your novel is much better.
It's a good idea to focalize yourself on novels. That could work. I'm not joking.

The link was to my post in January, again before the judges decision, it was not written as a void in waiting for the Motivation report. Which is what I pointed out already. So what fiction story are you referring to if not the one linked to in the discussion?

 

[Bill Williams]

I just took a quick peek at the Massei logic for accepting Quintavalle's testimony, and, were it not for the consequences, it would be quite humorous. It reads like something Groucho Marx's character might read in a movie like Duck Soup.

A wider issue is that the testimony is irrelevant. It would show that certain statements by Knox were not truthful, if Quintavalle's testimony is accurate, but still not relevant to the crime. You have to delve into fantasy - she bought bleach and used it to clean the cottage - fantasies without a grain of substantiation, in order for the testimony he offerred to have value. Since we must fantasize to make this testimony count, why include Quintavalle at all?

What does any of this have to do with the question of guilt and innocence.

Here's the relevence f Qunitavalle's testimony, as per the conclusions Massei draws and accepts:

- Quintavalle saw "the silhouette of a young woman who was waiting for me to open the store" at 7:45 am in the act of him opening the store (p. 74-75)

- she came in and was as close as 1 1/2 metres to Quintavalle who noted in detail her clothing

- at testimony, he remembered her facial skin colour, but as of Nov 2, he did not know who she was.

- he did not know if she bought anything

- a few days later, he was informed of Raffaele's arrest, who he did know.

- the person came to him with other newspapers and he recognized Knox as the woman who would often accompany Raffaele to his store.

- "he only made a statement about it in November 2008 and did not mention it earlier, even when Inspector Volturno questioned him a few days after Meredith’s murder."​

So despite knowing a few days after the murder that both Amanda and Raffaele were alleged to have been involved, and that he HAD put 2 + 2 together about the silhouetted woman had been Amanda - even though she'd passed 1 1/2 metres from him and he could tell the colour of her facial skin-tone....

... but not reporting this to police or to Inspector Volturno who questioned him....

... Massei accepts that Quintavalle's testimony is reliable.

Why? Well this is where Machiavelli gets all annoyed. Machiavelli is parroting Massei who says:

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 shop because he was not questioned about this and because, as indicated by Quintavalle himself, he considered this fact to be insignificant.

So, an accused murderess is in his shop, and he id's her as Amanda Knox, but when questioned a few days later does not volunteer this information because he's not asked directly? He waits a full year to volunteer this? And Massei finds this "reliable" as does Machiavelli?

Acc. to Massei it was when enterprising cub reporter Antioco Fois convinced Quintavalle that it would be important to the case for the PM to know this, that, in late 2008, Quintavalle comes forward?

Massei argues, as does Machiavelli, that the lateness of Q. coming forward does not diminish the quality of the memory.

When Machiavelli argues vehemently that Massei has rightly believed Quintavalle, and Machiavelli argues for the precise recreation of what Massei argues and why....

.... Machiavelli is not inventing things. Not really. He's simply passing on the case as presented by Massei.

My reaction to Massei's confidence in Quintavalle is that there's no really compelling reason to think, a year later, that Quintavalle is remember things correctly. Any more than that his testimony is "reliable".

But now I know where Machiavelli is coming from. What is strange about Machiavelli is that he calls people "liars" because they assess things differently than Massei.

A lot must be at stake here.

 

[RoseMontague]

It might be a symptom. Stats make them appear as race-and-class-oriented, not evenly distributed (also on other indicators, including sex and age).
Usually there is a reason for that.

A symptom of what, exactly?

 

[RoseMontague]

Here's the relevence f Qunitavalle's testimony, as per the conclusions Massei draws and accepts:

- Quintavalle saw "the silhouette of a young woman who was waiting for me to open the store" at 7:45 am in the act of him opening the store (p. 74-75)

- she came in and was as close as 1 1/2 metres to Quintavalle who noted in detail her clothing

- at testimony, he remembered her facial skin colour, but as of Nov 2, he did not know who she was.

- he did not know if she bought anything

- a few days later, he was informed of Raffaele's arrest, who he did know.

- the person came to him with other newspapers and he recognized Knox as the woman who would often accompany Raffaele to his store.

- "he only made a statement about it in November 2008 and did not mention it earlier, even when Inspector Volturno questioned him a few days after Meredith’s murder."​

So despite knowing a few days after the murder that both Amanda and Raffaele were alleged to have been involved, and that he HAD put 2 + 2 together about the silhouetted woman had been Amanda - even though she'd passed 1 1/2 metres from him and he could tell the colour of her facial skin-tone....

... but not reporting this to police or to Inspector Volturno who questioned him....

... Massei accepts that Quintavalle's testimony is reliable.

Why? Well this is where Machiavelli gets all annoyed. Machiavelli is parroting Massei who says:


So, an accused murderess is in his shop, and he id's her as Amanda Knox, but when questioned a few days later does not volunteer this information because he's not asked directly? He waits a full year to volunteer this? And Massei finds this "reliable" as does Machiavelli?

Acc. to Massei it was when enterprising cub reporter Antioco Fois convinced Quintavalle that it would be important to the case for the PM to know this, that, in late 2008, Quintavalle comes forward?

Massei argues, as does Machiavelli, that the lateness of Q. coming forward does not diminish the quality of the memory.

When Machiavelli argues vehemently that Massei has rightly believed Quintavalle, and Machiavelli argues for the precise recreation of what Massei argues and why....

.... Machiavelli is not inventing things. Not really. He's simply passing on the case as presented by Massei.

My reaction to Massei's confidence in Quintavalle is that there's no really compelling reason to think, a year later, that Quintavalle is remember things correctly. Any more than that his testimony is "reliable".

But now I know where Machiavelli is coming from. What is strange about Machiavelli is that he calls people "liars" because they assess things differently than Massei.

A lot must be at stake here.

It gets worse, Bill. Quint claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele in his shop together before they had even met, yet his memory is reliable? He claims he did not give an interview in his shop and told them to leave and then that interview was shown in court (which Massei ignores) to prove him wrong and his memory is considered reliable? It is a joke. As moodstream says, why would Amanda even be there in the first place? She had access to plenty of bleach if she needed bleach and there is no evidence bleach was used to clean up the crime scene in the first place and no evidence Amanda bought any bleach in Quint's store. It is a complete joke.

 

[moodstream]

It gets worse, Bill. Quint claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele in his shop together before they had even met, yet his memory is reliable? He claims he did not give an interview in his shop and told them to leave and then that interview was shown in court (which Massei ignores) to prove him wrong and his memory is considered reliable? It is a joke. As moodstream says, why would Amanda even be there in the first place? She had access to plenty of bleach if she needed bleach and there is no evidence bleach was used to clean up the crime scene in the first place and no evidence Amanda bought any bleach in Quint's store. It is a complete joke.

And his seeing her is sillouette is nice literary foreshadowing for shady activities, but the sun rose at 6:52 that morning. What's with the sillouette?

 

[Machiavelli]

So, an accused murderess is in his shop, and he id's her as Amanda Knox, but when questioned a few days later does not volunteer this information because he's not asked directly? He waits a full year to volunteer this? And Massei finds this "reliable" as does Machiavelli? (...)

Yes, I do find this reliable. It appears Massei founds it too, on similar grounds.

.... Machiavelli is not inventing things. Not really. He's simply passing on the case as presented by Massei.

You bet I am not inventing things.

My reaction to Massei's confidence in Quintavalle is that there's no really compelling reason to think, a year later, that Quintavalle is remember things correctly. Any more than that his testimony is "reliable".

But now I know where Machiavelli is coming from. What is strange about Machiavelli is that he calls people "liars" because they assess things differently than Massei.

The problem is that you also report things differently: it seems to me you said Quintavalle didn't remember, or that he stated that he nobody entering his shop.
In fact, it seems you now accept that Quintavalle did not volunteer unrequested information, which is quite a different thing.
Also, it seems to me you said her employee (Chiriboga) testified that nobody entered the shop - which is also something false.

 

[Bill Williams]

It gets worse, Bill. Quint claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele in his shop together before they had even met, yet his memory is reliable? He claims he did not give an interview in his shop and told them to leave and then that interview was shown in court (which Massei ignores) to prove him wrong and his memory is considered reliable? It is a joke. As moodstream says, why would Amanda even be there in the first place? She had access to plenty of bleach if she needed bleach and there is no evidence bleach was used to clean up the crime scene in the first place and no evidence Amanda bought any bleach in Quint's store. It is a complete joke.

At some point Massei, as the judge, DOES get to say what he feels is reliable and what is not reliable...

.... and this is NOT one of those times in his 400+ page report where he relies on probablies and compatibilities rather than "proof".

This is one of those times where Massei just chooses to believe that Quintavalle's testimony is reliable.

I guess the issue, as you say, is that Massei comes to this conclusion by picking and choosing and virtually ignoring other things Q. says. But this business of not ruling out Q. because of it's late date simply because:

the witness gave a precise description of what he saw on the morning of November 2 and also provided a description of certain physical features of the woman he saw (light blue eyes and pale face) which,
together with the unusual time, may well have fixed in his memory what
Quintavalle said he saw. In addition, it should be added that one evening prior to November 2 and shortly after 20:00 pm, he noticed the young woman when she came into the shop with someone he knew well (Raffaele Sollecito) after the shop had closed.

So Q. gave a "precise description"? How many of us can remember such a detailed description a year after the event.....

.... while at the same time failing to consider that the cops may have been interested in this info in Nov 2007, not 2008?

 

[Machiavelli]

A symptom of what, exactly?

Exactly I don't know for sure. Certainly something related to class and race groups. Maybe of racism? Maybe prejudice plays a part?

 

[Bill Williams]

The problem is that you also report things differently: it seems to me you said Quintavalle didn't remember, or that he stated that he nobody entering his shop.
In fact, it seems you now accept that Quintavalle did not volunteer unrequested information, which is quite a different thing.
Also, it seems to me you said her employee (Chiriboga) testified that nobody entered the shop - which is also something false.

The trouble I have with your posts, M., is that they are filled with dietrology. I believe it a reasonable inference that Q. in fact did not remember, and that his whole testimony is either a fabrication or a misremembering/conflating of other episodes. In short, there's nothing reliable at all about his testimony.

As for what Chiriboga said she saw, even Massei agrees with me:

To this it should be added that witness Ana Marina Chiriboga, at the time an employee in Quintavalle’s shop, said that Quintavalle asked her whether that morning she had seen Amanda and Chiriboga answered no

My bet is that you're going to invent some other dietrology to imply that Chriboga not remembering anyone in the store somehow verifies Q.'s story that someone WAS in the store.

Go for it, M.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly I don't know for sure. Certainly something related to class and race groups. Maybe of racism? Maybe prejudice plays a part?

You're implying that they are racists. I think you've just committed defamation. I am now steeling myself for an outburst of dietrology where you'll claim you were implying no such thing.

 

[RoseMontague]

Exactly I don't know for sure. Certainly something related to class and race groups. Maybe of racism? Maybe prejudice plays a part?

Not with me it doesn't.

 

[Machiavelli]

It gets worse, Bill. Quint claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele in his shop together before they had even met, yet his memory is reliable? He claims he did not give an interview in his shop and told them to leave and then that interview was shown in court (which Massei ignores) to prove him wrong and his memory is considered reliable? It is a joke. As moodstream says, why would Amanda even be there in the first place? She had access to plenty of bleach if she needed bleach and there is no evidence bleach was used to clean up the crime scene in the first place and no evidence Amanda bought any bleach in Quint's store. It is a complete joke.

When does he claim he did not give an interview?
(he actually claims the contrary).
And about the number days earlier, he put a caveat that he could only be very vague, saying "it's difficult for me" to remember how long before he saw them together and said something "broadly" ("in linea di massima").

I find his testimony very credible.

 

[Bill Williams]

When does he claim he did not give an interview?
(he actually claims the contrary).
And about the number days earlier, he put a caveat that he could only be very vague, saying "it's difficult for me" to remember how long before he saw them together and said something "broadly" ("in linea di massima").

I find his testimony very credible.

Of course you do. That's because there is no other evidence, really, that Knox was involved in the murder and you need something.

Even if it was Knox, as RoseM says, it means she was wandering around at 7:45 and says nothing about involvement in the murder.

It is no wonder that the Italian courts are trying to substitute length over depth in this case.

 

[Machiavelli]

You're implying that they are racists. I think you've just committed defamation. I am now steeling myself for an outburst of dietrology where you'll claim you were implying no such thing.

I think a large number of Knox-supporters are racists, I had this feedback from their writings independently from their skin colour, and I already said this in the past.
But the reunion photographs they make a factual statystical anomaly be visible. It's a factual element, independent from the reading of their posts.
There might be other reasons for the etcnical and class composition of this group. Whoever looks at the picture can put a question mark.

 

[RoseMontague]

When does he claim he did not give an interview?
(he actually claims the contrary).
And about the number days earlier, he put a caveat that he could only be very vague, saying "it's difficult for me" to remember how long before he saw them together and said something "broadly" ("in linea di massima").

I find his testimony very credible.

It is covered in his testimony as well as the appeal. I find him to be a lying liar, probably paid by the journalists for his lies. I think he is lower than dog drool.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course you do. That's because there is no other evidence, really, that Knox was involved in the murder and you need something.

Even if it was Knox, as RoseM says, it means she was wandering around at 7:45 and says nothing about involvement in the murder.

(...)

Well it it was Knox, it meas she offered a false alibi. That she lied. And a false alibi is evidence.

There is actually a lot of other evidence, but this one is a piece of evidence too.

 

[Poppy1016]

The trouble I have with your posts, M., is that they are filled with dietrology. I believe it a reasonable inference that Q. in fact did not remember, and that his whole testimony is either a fabrication or a misremembering/conflating of other episodes. In short, there's nothing reliable at all about his testimony.

As for what Chiriboga said she saw, even Massei agrees with me:



My bet is that you're going to invent some other dietrology to imply that Chriboga not remembering anyone in the store somehow verifies Q.'s story that someone WAS in the store.

Go for it, M.

Did Q give a description of Amanda? Eyes or coat or something? I forget.