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

[RoseMontague]

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.

Nope, I am sure those that are in that picture would disagree. Many of them are members here. It is an excuse for you to accuse posters here of being racist, that is all it means.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

He never claimed he didn't give an interview.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that he is lying; moreover, a lying scenario - or journalists paying him (who much?) - would not even be consistent.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope, I am sure those that are in that picture would disagree. Many of them are members here. It is an excuse for you to accuse posters here of being racist, that is all it means.

I don't need excuses to accuse people of being racists. You already know that I consider various posters racists.

As for the photos, facts exist, some things "are" - they not only "mean".

 

[Poppy1016]

He never claimed he didn't give an interview.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that he is lying; moreover, a lying scenario - or journalists paying him (who much?) - would not even be consistent.

Sounds compatable to me that he was paid by journalists.

 

[Grinder]

Mach, you indicated that the beautiful black man most certainly was Rudy because there just weren't other black men in the area except Rudy. Remember?

Wouldn't that indicate that the entire area you referred to would be racist or something?

Not that it matters but most of those people are not rich or upper crust. Knox grew up in a middle class neighborhood. The current value is about $428,000.

 

[RoseMontague]

He never claimed he didn't give an interview.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that he is lying; moreover, a lying scenario - or journalists paying him (who much?) - would not even be consistent.

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).

I have previously posted the link to the actual interview he gave.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't need excuses to accuse people of being racists. You already know that I consider various posters racists.

As for the photos, facts exist, some things "are" - they not only "mean".

This is defamation. A screen shot has been taken.

 

[RWVBWL]

Memory Reconstruction

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.

But, but, Bill Williams,
Don't you know that memory recall is a process, not a replaying of a recording?

Have a quick read from a screen shot from a post written Pro-Guilter 'Catnip',
which I read early this mornin' before I split to the beach+which I post below:


Trip out that what she read, unusual email ,
then somehow, in her mind, became bizarre email...

Weird,
that memory stuff.
Sounds like Quintavalle suffers from the same disease...
And the Judge believed him!

 

[RWVBWL]

In my opinion, there's an extremely simple and entirely plausible reason for the whole debacle. It's as follows: Mignini and the state police were under massive pressure to be speedy and competent in investigating this murder - and, probably even more importantly, to be seen to be speedy and competent.

And that (in my view) was due to two major reasons: firstly, this was by some distance the most high-profile "whodunnit" serious crime that the Perugia authorities had faced in many years* (maybe decades) - it had an international aspect, a "beautiful young exchange student brutally killer in her own home" the international media were pouring into Perugia in droves as a result, and they were all looking directly at Mignini and the Perugia police for answers. And secondly, I don't think we should underestimate the fact that the authorities had totally botched another not-dissimilar (but much lower-profile) murder almost exactly a year previously, and had been roundly criticised for their incompetence and mismanagement.

I think all of the above (and the asterisk point below) led the authorities to rush to judgement. They quite clearly (in my view) developed severe tunnel vision and confirmation bias within even hours of the discovery of the body. By the 5th November, I believe that the tunnel vision and confirmation bias - aided and abetted by some undoubtedly unorthodox behaviour from Knox - had manifested themselves in what the authorities clearly (and vocally) considered to be a cast-iron theory which "solved" the murder. They coerced Knox into "confirming" their theory. They all slapped themselves heartily on the back for a "job well done", and basked in the superficial adulation of the world's media and the Perugia public.

After all that, I think it was nothing more complicated than a combination of personal hubris, authority groupthink, and an institutional circling-of-the-wagons once large holes began to appear in the "theory". I think they were all more than reluctant to admit that they'd got it wrong, for fear of being once more labelled incompetent and unreliable. And from then on..... QED.


* Add to this the complicating factor that it was the State Police who - by happenstance - were the body leading the investigation, rather than the Carabinieri, who were the normal "go to" police force for serious crimes such as this one, and who were undoubtedly much more used to - and equipped for - investigations of this nature. I believe that, as a result, the State Police very likely felt they had something to prove in the way they handled the Kercher investigation, and that this added further to the refusal to admit (or even understand) that their original (Nov 6th) theory of the crime was totally wrong.

Hi LondonJohn,
Great post!
I'd also like to point out so people keep in mind that these folks who were out to quickly solve this horrible, bloody murder in a town popular with college students also deal with Mafia-types, so they are used to playing hardball, so to say...

From Nina Burleigh's book I recall reading,
and just double checked, that in The Questura where Mignini works, the whole 2nd floor is "utterly off limits to the public, reserved for the regional office of the Anti-Mafia Commission, which has offices in procuras across Italy."*

In my humble opinion,
a stoned Raffaele and Amanda stood no chance against seasoned, veteran detectives, investigators, interrogators, translators+mediators late at night, whose sole purpose was to arrest Amanda Knox, for according to Judge Claudia Matteini "it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."

And everyone knows by now that Amanda's Mom was already on her way to Italy,
due to arrive the next day, right?

(*) - Link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hs...ina burleigh 2nd floor questura mafia&f=false

 

[moodstream]

I find his testimony very credible.

But certainly not infallible,eh?

 

[JREF2010]

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.

Its building a case from fantasy, Migninism. lol

Then it gets more embarrassing as questions confront the fantasy, so Mignini is forced to lie on TV about budget cuts being the reason for not recording the interrogation.

Quintiavalle, Toto, Nara these are the Super Witness, Speak No Evil, See No Evil, Hear No Evil.

 

[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.

I'm lost. Quintavalle says he did not tell Volturno that Knox was in his store alone the day after the murder because he was not asked that exact question?

But here is Volturno's tesimony:

LM: Counsellor Maori, Sollecito defence. Inspector Volturno, let’s start in order: investigation that you did in relation to the infamous bleach. You made service notes?
OV: Yes.
LM: Let’s start from the 19th; so you make this service note where you refer to the activity that you carried out a couple of days before?
OV: From the 16th to the 19th, from the day the two containers had been seized to the 19th on which I make the note.
LM: Exactly. You took various people’s witness statements.
OV: No, I had questioned them informally at the shop, not as for a statement.
LM: Who did you question?
OV: Quintavalle, (Kiriboga) because she’s his shop assistant and the other girl whose name I don’t recall now.
LM: You have said earlier that you had photographs of Amanda and Raffaele.
OV: Exactly.
LM: And you had shown them to the persons who were to be found inside the food store?
OV: Yes.
LM: So therefore both the owner and the shop assistants.
OV: Yes.
LM: And you had asked if these persons had presented themselves or not inside the shop in the preceding days.
OV: No, I had asked if they were customers of the shop, because I did that with all the shops in Corso Garibaldi, not only with Quintavalle, showing them the photos I was asking them if they were customers.
LM: You though say different things in your notations, not different, in the sense that you specify that you had questioned the owner, Mr Quintavalle, and he mentioned that Sollecito was one of his usual customers and that Ms Knox had come into the shop only on a couple of occasions together with the boyfriend.
OV: Yes.
LM: You confirm this?
OV: Certainly, it’s written in the notation.
LM: Shortly we will ask for the acquisition, the production of the two notations. Therefore in these words Mr Quintavalle made it known that Sollecito and Amanda Knox … so, Amanda Knox had entered into the residence always in the company of Sollecito?
OV: Yes, into the shop, on those two occasions on which she had entered she had entered always in the company of Sollecito.


Defense Counsel Dalla Vedova
CDV: Counsel Dalla Vedova for Ms Knox. I wanted two clarifications, the first in relation to the activity that you had carried out in dealing with the Marco Quintavalle matter.
OV: Yes.
CDV: You have said that you had asked the manager of the commercial enterprise if he had ever seen the two accused.
OV: Exactly.
CDV:Exactly what was the response?
OV: He said that Sollecito was a usual customer while Amanda Knox had been seen on a couple of occasions in company with Sollecito.


I can't draw out of this that Quintavalle is not answering the question - was Amanda Knox ever in your store unaccompanied by Sollecito. This question seems unavoidably the question he is answering - was Knox ever in your store by herself.

How does Quintavalle get to she was in the store by herself the morning after the crime without directly contraditing his statements to Volturno?

 

[kwill]

Well, about Knox's personality, my judgement is limited to perceiving 1) the obvious manifestation of a narcissistic personality trait (which I most likely qualify as personality disorder, since it is pervasive), which is manifest from the outside but I cannot assess it in detail becaue obviously Knox is not a "patient" of me

And my judgment of those who think they can diagnose people of other cultures without meeting them, without knowing squat about those cultures, and without credentials in psychology, is that they suffer from something akin to silliness. Please elaborate on your knowledge of North American women. Where are they from? Have you ever been to North America? How much time have you spent here?

Amanda Knox had the misfortune to be kidnapped, mistreated, and held in prison for four years. When that ordeal began, she was an ordinary USA college student far from her home in the Pacific Northwest. Unjust incarceration changed her.

Today she's a grown woman with a sophisticated understanding of Italian jurisprudence and the international phenomenon of wrongful conviction. I think that those who think they can diagnose her personality from afar are unwittingly revealing far more about themselves than they possibly could about her.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

There is nothing factual about this claim. It's your opinion. As a member of Injustice Anywhere, I have never read any racial or anti-Semitic comments ever.

I don't know the Knoxs personally, but I can't imagine them to be racist either. Amanda lives in a very diverse part of Seattle. Chinatown which besides is heavily Asian is only blocks away from the area in Seattle with the highest concentration of African Americans in Seattle.

It is really sad when you make absurd remarks like this Machiavelli.

 

[moodstream]

Its building a case from fantasy, Migninism. lol

Then it gets more embarrassing as questions confront the fantasy, so Mignini is forced to lie on TV about budget cuts being the reason for not recording the interrogation.

Quintiavalle, Toto, Nara these are the Super Witness, Speak No Evil, See No Evil, Hear No Evil.

Massei has a system of thought available to him that would seem to be unobtainable by the merely sane. This is how he puts it together:

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.

True enough, Volturno says: [Quintavalle] said that Sollecito was a usual customer while Amanda Knox had been seen on a couple of occasions in company with Sollecito.

Massei sees Quintavelle’s pov, despite Volturno writing down Q’s answers when they were given, and Q is recalling the conversation after at least a year, probably 2.

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.

Okay, Q did say he never saw Knox without Sollecito, but his answer does not apply to Nov 2.

Whatever.

A guy who lived over Q’s shop, Antioco Fois, found work as a free lance writer for Giornale dell’Umbria. He seems to have more or less pestered Q with questions like "But do you know anything? Did you see something? Did you hear something?" As written up in Massei, Q must have told Fois multiple times he did not know anything, he did not see something, and he did not hear something.

One day Q changed his answer. Quintavalle told Fois that he had seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2.

Massei's concluson? 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.

O---K---A---Y --!

Now Massei starts to pour the concrete around the steel cage of this tower of reason.

Q saw a woman with light blue eyes and a pale face which, together with the unusual time, may well have fixed in his memory what Quintavalle said he saw. Massei will not deign to explain how, if so fixed in his memory, it managed to slip Q’s mind for so long. Why spoil the fun!


In addition, Massei continues, without feeling a need to explain the relevance, 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.

And, for the finale, get ready, here it comes! The knock out blow!

Q had an employee, Chiriboga. One unspecified day, Q asked Chriboga if ‘that ( unspecified) morning’ Chiriboga had seen Knox in the store. Chiriboga answered no. But – The question necessarily presupposes that Mr. Quintavalle had seen Amanda Knox that morning. !!!!

If all that don't convince you, well, at least you can take comfort from the fact that, unlke Massei, you still have your sanity.

 

[Planigale]

What is interesting is these critical witnesses do not seem to have been found by the Police at the time of the investigation, but discovered much later by an 'amateur'. Not sure what it says about the Police. But it does create concerns about contamination of the witnesses. Memory is not fixed, but can be created by active recall. So you get the well established phenomena of false confessions. How much easier to create false witness. One wonders how much the photo shown to Quintavalle, where the blue eyes could be seen, turned in to memory of having seen AK the next morning.

As has been said, the testimony of Quintavalle or Curatolo do not speak to the crime. There was no rhyme or reason for AK to be hanging around a basketball court on a November night. There was no reason for her to be shopping that morning. The sole function is to enable the argument that AK and RS lied about where they were, and if they lied about being on a basketball court at 10pm, then they would certainly lie about being present at the murder.

This has been effective: Mach was convinced, for him the strongest evidence of guilt is that AK lied about stuff, therefore she is a murderer. This is the 'throw enough mud and some will stick' method. The mud osmotically merges to form a complete case. This is philosophically different from the 'anglo-saxon' model where just because you are a bad man doesn't mean you are guilty. (I have had an interest in witch trials - the common law system was relatively protective of witches, compare Scotland - Roman law with England - common law) The parallels with this case is interesting, even the use of sleep deprivation to create a false confession, which was common in witch trials.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is nothing factual about this claim. It's your opinion. As a member of Injustice Anywhere, I have never read any racial or anti-Semitic comments ever.

I don't know the Knoxs personally, but I can't imagine them to be racist either. Amanda lives in a very diverse part of Seattle. Chinatown which besides is heavily Asian is only blocks away from the area in Seattle with the highest concentration of African Americans in Seattle.

It is really sad when you make absurd remarks like this Machiavelli.

I think that many pro-guilt commentators (including Machiavelli, by the look of things) have jumped to the following lazy, misguided conclusion: a simultaneous belief in the black Guede's guilt and the white Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt/innocence is an indicator of latent racism.

In my opinion, such a knee-jerk and willfully-insulting "conclusion" tells us far, far more about the people making this accusation than the people they are accusing. Arguably, indeed, one might even philosophically argue that it indicates a form of racism on the part of the accusers......

As regards the Vashon Island gathering, well let's break that down shall we? Knox is Caucasian, and her family are (by definition for blood relatives, and by relatively high probability for marriage/partnership relatives) also Caucasian. So all the family members at the gathering were Caucasian. Knox went to a school which is overwhelmingly Caucasian (and that's a whole different discussion). So her schoolfriends at the gathering were Caucasian. Her parents live in predominantly-Caucasian neighbourhoods, and work in jobs with a predomination of Caucasian co-workers (again, a whole different discussion), so her parents' friends and co-workers at the gathering were Caucasian.

I'd suggest that this probably accounts for well over half the attendees already. An examination of the remainder of the attendees shows no statistical significance for exclusion of ethnic minorities, if one assumes the condition that people who involve themselves in prolonged miscarriage-of-justice discussions/campaigns (discounting those with a direct familial or friend connection) are in ABC1 demographic groups.

In short, an "examination" of the Vashon Island photograph tells us precisely nothing about racial bias or prejudice. Once again, I'm afraid, it tells us a whole lot more about the person making the accusation. Shame on him.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I think this is a disgusting, disgraceful and unsupportable piece of excrement.

The person who wrote it should be utterly ashamed of himself.

 

[Planigale]

For an exam question I would set 'Compare and contrast the physical evidence of the involvement of RG with the involvement of AK in the murder of MK'.

My starter would be the palm print of RG. This is amazingly strong evidence, it is evidence of time, place and person. RG is identified by his handprint, at the scene of the crime and since it was made in wet blood it also ties him to the time of the crime. His identity is confirmed independently by PCR identification of his biological material from MK vagina. So identity confirmed by two separate methods carried out by two different laboratories. Both samples are specific for person and place, and also include time information. The physical evidence of AK - none. (Her DNA on the handle of the knife - even if the murder weapon must have been deposited post cleaning therefore is not evidence of involvement).

RG was not convicted of theft although there is a history of probable previous thefts, his DNA was found on MK purse (handbag in English?), from which money and phone taken. He had no known income and came into money about that time allowing him to flee to Germany. AK found guilty of theft - no physical evidence, purely based on the motive argument, that the only person with a motive to steal (despite the fact that RG may have had a motive and admitted to being present) was AK as part of the false burglary scenario. Although cunningly she then said nothing was stolen. Foolishly she failed to steal anything from herself of the other girls. Only from where there is physical evidence of RG being present.

 

[acbytesla]

For an exam question I would set 'Compare and contrast the physical evidence of the involvement of RG with the involvement of AK in the murder of MK'.

My starter would be the palm print of RG. This is amazingly strong evidence, it is evidence of time, place and person. RG is identified by his handprint, at the scene of the crime and since it was made in wet blood it also ties him to the time of the crime. His identity is confirmed independently by PCR identification of his biological material from MK vagina. So identity confirmed by two separate methods carried out by two different laboratories. Both samples are specific for person and place, and also include time information. The physical evidence of AK - none. (Her DNA on the handle of the knife - even if the murder weapon must have been deposited post cleaning therefore is not evidence of involvement).

RG was not convicted of theft although there is a history of probable previous thefts, his DNA was found on MK purse (handbag in English?), from which money and phone taken. He had no known income and came into money about that time allowing him to flee to Germany. AK found guilty of theft - no physical evidence, purely based on the motive argument, that the only person with a motive to steal (despite the fact that RG may have had a motive and admitted to being present) was AK as part of the false burglary scenario. Although cunningly she then said nothing was stolen. Foolishly she failed to steal anything from herself of the other girls. Only from where there is physical evidence of RG being present.

Then you can add the fact that Rudy admitted being there during the murder. Not during a middle of the night interrogation at the Questura but on Skype with a friend. No outside pressure at all. And while he has changed his story multiple times about that night, the story has always been unbelievably moronic crap.

Then of course outside of the DNA and the palm print there are the sneakers. While they have never found the actual shoes that Rudy wore that night, he was dumb enough to leave the box that they came in. This allowed the police to match the size and model of that shoe to the about a dozen bloody shoe prints.

No one really questions Rudy's significant involvement in the murder. Why they think his accomplices could be two students who didn't really know him is beyond me.

Rudy's story of being on the toilet when someone came in and murdered Meredith and then left is really about the dumbest lie I have ever heard.