• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Read the links provided to you, especially regarding the witness testimony your arguments are relying upon, then you will have a greater chance of convincing people you're a mensa candidate. If you don't read them you may just find out just how easy it is for otherwise intelligent people to make an utter fools of themselves on this case.

The heroine addicted, drug dealing, homeless park bench bum (now deceased) is not reliable and his testimony is a mass of contradiction and omission. I wonder, did he ever mention the tow truck people, or the scream?
 
I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible.


That's it? You claim to be equally sceptical of both sides of this case, and that's all you have to say on the lies and professional misconduct of the scientific police?

The misconduct is not a matter of speculation - there are hours of video showing their cargo cult science in living colour. Have you watched them? The lies are a matter of public record - Stephanoni lied on the stand. Have you read the trial transcripts?

Why are you so willing to give the police a free pass, but seem determined to pick apart Hellman, if you're equally sceptical of both sides? A couple of pages back you seemed to claim that there couldn't be anything wrong with the police interrogation, because "checks and balances" would be in place. As I replied then, you're right - all civilised countries are aware of how easy it is for police to step over the line, so checks and balances are a matter of law. Those checks and balances consist of recording interrogations and giving suspects access to a lawyer.

Now - what happens when those checks and balances aren't implemented? Why aren't you interested in these aspects of the case?

You really ought to be better acquainted with the source material.
 
Not to repeat myself, but;
I stumbled upon this from Italian TV last year after the Florence Conviction
Amanda Knox Case: Raffaele Sollecito on Linea Gialla with English subtitles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QeRH_dGE0
This is very powerful
The Barbie clone is very pretty but sounds Blonde and foolish, while Raffellee is magnificent, as is the IIP person: It really exposes the faults in the case for guilt.
I would like to see other examples from Italian media
If this is an example of what was on Italian TV, I am not surprised that Frank was predicting acquittals.
My memory is that the US shows that discussed the case in this period were biased toward guilt and looked like they were produced by PMF or TJMK, with clueless talking heads like Dershowitz spouting persecution falsehoods, really nothing as deep and revealing as this show.
Am I remembering this correctly?
 
Remaining litigation

With the exception of the ECHR, does anyone have an up to date status of the outstanding legal action connected to this case, including type and nature of action, court dates, locations, etc?
 
A small point: Rosa de Calle was Raffaele's maid at the time and Ana Marina Chiriboga the worker at Quintavalle's Conad store had been his maid until a few months before the murder.
 
With the exception of the ECHR, does anyone have an up to date status of the outstanding legal action connected to this case, including type and nature of action, court dates, locations, etc?

According to the darksiders Amanda has a defamation case on June 9 and her parents are still facing the charge of repeating the slap story. I believe Raf and co-writer are also being sued.

ETA - I think PQ posted a list maybe at .org as I couldn't find it at .net - Oggi is also involved with the Raf book suit.
 
Last edited:
According to the darksiders Amanda has a defamation case on June 9 and her parents are still facing the charge of repeating the slap story. I believe Raf and co-writer are also being sued.

IIRC, the transfer of the case against Amanda's parent to Florence, guaranteed the case would lapse due to statute of limitations.

I think, IIRC, that Raf&Gumbal's case picks up on June 20th? Is that right? Or was there a day in May?

Pretty sure LJ had the dates for the HonorBound case, but I think Vogt does too.

I think the release of the motivation report may moot the balance of the residual cases. I think cassation has made it clear they don't want this case, in any form, bouncing back at them.
 
IIRC, the transfer of the case against Amanda's parent to Florence, guaranteed the case would lapse due to statute of limitations.

I think, IIRC, that Raf&Gumbal's case picks up on June 20th? Is that right? Or was there a day in May?

Pretty sure LJ had the dates for the HonorBound case, but I think Vogt does too.

I think the release of the motivation report may moot the balance of the residual cases. I think cassation has made it clear they don't want this case, in any form, bouncing back at them.

I'm slightly concerned about the alleged June 9th case for defamation of the cops, because that is linked to the as now confirmed conviction.
 
“Sollecito is due back in court in Florence on false claims in his book on 30 April. Knox’s calunnia trial is due to resume again shortly in Florence with expanded charges targeting false claims in her book. The Oggi trial for quoting false claims in Knox’s book has a testimony session 16 June.”
 
I'm slightly concerned about the alleged June 9th case for defamation of the cops, because that is linked to the as now confirmed conviction.

Have you learned nothing!??!

Actual laws, evidence, common sense, and reality are only occasionally relevant in an Italian court room.

They do what they please, because they can. And right now, this case pleases no one. Not even the cops want it pursued is my guess.

I'd say about now, they are teeing up the translator Donino?, Stefanoni, Napoleoni, Ficarra and Zugarini for striped pajamas, laundry detail, and weekend visits.

Of course I have no idea what will actually happen. What does Wrong Way Corrig Bill W think?
 
A small point: Rosa de Calle was Raffaele's maid at the time and Ana Marina Chiriboga the worker at Quintavalle's Conad store had been his maid until a few months before the murder.


Hi Grinder,
Thanks for the PM and also, posting this above info, of which I had forgotten...

Marina was the housekeeper at Raff's for as long as her pregnancy allowed her to, but kept her job at the Conad convenience store. Rosa was 1 of her friends, IIRC.

Her Boss was shown photo's of Raffaele and Amanda, (per what I read in The Massei Report yesterday) after the murder BUT did not tell detectives that he saw Amanda waiting outside that morning on the day when Miss Kercher's corpse was found, nor that Amanda had went straight to the cleaning supply section when his store opened, but left without buying anything that day.

I too owned and ran a retail store for many years,
we always knew the local surfer customers, heck I'd betcha that Marina said Hi to Raffaele if he ever came inside the store when she was working there.

Ana Marina Chiriboga was an important witness to consider in this case we discuss.

Here's the jist of her Courtroom testimony, as reported by Perugia Shock:
Friday, June 26, 2009
CHIRIBOGA AT THE STAND
'I DIDN'T SEE AMANDA KNOX THAT MORNING'

The buffoon gets unmasked

Those who don't like me bragging to have been right better stop reading this blog because every hearing is being a confirmation of my reading and I guess it will more and more this way as the trial continues.
Marina Chiriboga didn't receive the call to the stand, she had changed address. But today they found her and they brought her to the courtroom. The beautiful Latina had been cleaning at Raffaele's place as long as her pregnancy allowed her, and she was also working at the infamous Conad store owned by the genius of memory Marco Quintavalle.
After the crime she had been interviewed by Sollecito's lawyers and then by the police about something important at that time and (for someone) still important now: the bleach. She confirmed the two bottles of Ace bleach had been in Raffaele's apartment since the summer and in exactly the same conditions, and on the same place, in which they were found after the crime, one still sealed and the other one half full. So, those who still believed in it can say definitely goodbye to the bleach legend, that the rule of suspicion wanted to have been used for cleaning the murder weapon...
But time passed by since she was heard about the bleach and a new event happened. One of the events that nailed Amanda Knox. An event of which, as it was discovered today, Marina was witness.

Her boss Marco --thanks to the services of the director of Giornale dell'UmbriaCastellini and his reporter-- remembered, after one year, that Amanda came to his store to buy cleaning products for the crime scene. Marina was there with him. Yes, today it was revealed that MARINA WAS THERE WITH HIM, and today she was in a courtroom where the defense attorneys of Knox and Sollecito could ask her if she also saw Amanda that day.

Absent Carlo Dalla Vedova, Ghirga and Maori had in front of them the person who could destroy the most disgusting accuser of Amanda. Not a poor nuts like Curatolo who spoke out of his foolery, but a person of normal intelligence who, seduced by a local journalist, deliberately chose to remember --with one year delay and for reasons he should be called to explain-- to have seen Amanda. The attorneys had this key witness in front of them. And they didn't ask her anything.
Did you see Amanda coming to the store at the opening of November 2? Nobody made that simple question. Of course.

They know the first rule of criminal attorneys: never ask a question if you don't already know the answer. Marina could have answered No, and that would have been perfect. But she could have been instructed by the store owner or by the instructors of the store owner and she could have answered Yes. And this would have been a problem. And because a trial is not gambling they were paralyzed. They had the match ball in their hands and they couldn't shoot, they had to let her go.

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.

Silence when the truth emerges. The banality of Truth.

That's how the great journalist and his prosciutto slicer end up. They were out in their reckonings, they forgot to instruct that Latin girl who was there on November 2. Their games with the media, with this trial and with other people's lives were today demolished by the honesty, by the sincerity of a Marina Chiriboga.
Another woman on the way of Amanda Knox. So different this time. Different from Rita, Monica, Lorena, Claudia, Manuela, Patrizia, Filomena, the english girls, or the side judge, Beatrice Cristiani (the one who can't accept that a girl washes her hair everyday). It looks like Marina is the only other female who has nothing against Amanda. Maybe because she's so young, so gorgeous. Maybe because she's so sunny, so happy with her life. Maybe because she luckily had nothing to do with the director of Giornale dell'Umbrina.
Marina, a breath of fresh air in this dirty dirty story, a real Latin sunbeam that came to save Amanda.

Remember when the logic told us that the testimony of the store owner HAD to be fake? Well, for those who are not familiar with the critical reasoning now there's a witness too. Someone who, confirming the logic calculation, simply said She wasn't there. But those who didn't believe the reasoning are free not to believe witnesses too.

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.

And so everyone is free to be stupid now. Everyone can decide who to believe: a sinister prosciutto slicer or a college student able to study 5 languages in a cell. Everyone is free who's reasoning to follow: the one of the great (just a bit local) news director --member of the Order of Journalism and regular at the main talk show-- or the one of Mr no-qualifications.
 
Not to repeat myself, but;
I stumbled upon this from Italian TV last year after the Florence Conviction
Amanda Knox Case: Raffaele Sollecito on Linea Gialla with English subtitles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QeRH_dGE0
This is very powerful
The Barbie clone is very pretty but sounds Blonde and foolish, while Raffellee is magnificent, as is the IIP person: It really exposes the faults in the case for guilt.
I would like to see other examples from Italian media
If this is an example of what was on Italian TV, I am not surprised that Frank was predicting acquittals.
<snip>


With a bit of spare time on my hands,
I just finished watching this vid that you linked Analemma,
it is powerful, as you wrote...
Thanks, RW
 
Hi Grinder,
Thanks for the PM and also, posting this above info, of which I had forgotten...

Marina was the housekeeper at Raff's for as long as her pregnancy allowed her to, but kept her job at the Conad convenience store. Rosa was 1 of her friends, IIRC.

Her Boss was shown photo's of Raffaele and Amanda, (per what I read in The Massei Report yesterday) after the murder BUT did not tell detectives that he saw Amanda waiting outside that morning on the day when Miss Kercher's corpse was found, nor that Amanda had went straight to the cleaning supply section when his store opened, but left without buying anything that day.

I too owned and ran a retail store for many years,
we always knew the local surfer customers, heck I'd betcha that Marina said Hi to Raffaele if he ever came inside the store when she was working there.

Ana Marina Chiriboga was an important witness to consider in this case we discuss.

Here's the jist of her Courtroom testimony, as reported by Perugia Shock:
Friday, June 26, 2009
CHIRIBOGA AT THE STAND
'I DIDN'T SEE AMANDA KNOX THAT MORNING'

The buffoon gets unmasked

Those who don't like me bragging to have been right better stop reading this blog because every hearing is being a confirmation of my reading and I guess it will more and more this way as the trial continues.
Marina Chiriboga didn't receive the call to the stand, she had changed address. But today they found her and they brought her to the courtroom. The beautiful Latina had been cleaning at Raffaele's place as long as her pregnancy allowed her, and she was also working at the infamous Conad store owned by the genius of memory Marco Quintavalle.
After the crime she had been interviewed by Sollecito's lawyers and then by the police about something important at that time and (for someone) still important now: the bleach. She confirmed the two bottles of Ace bleach had been in Raffaele's apartment since the summer and in exactly the same conditions, and on the same place, in which they were found after the crime, one still sealed and the other one half full. So, those who still believed in it can say definitely goodbye to the bleach legend, that the rule of suspicion wanted to have been used for cleaning the murder weapon...
But time passed by since she was heard about the bleach and a new event happened. One of the events that nailed Amanda Knox. An event of which, as it was discovered today, Marina was witness.

Her boss Marco --thanks to the services of the director of Giornale dell'UmbriaCastellini and his reporter-- remembered, after one year, that Amanda came to his store to buy cleaning products for the crime scene. Marina was there with him. Yes, today it was revealed that MARINA WAS THERE WITH HIM, and today she was in a courtroom where the defense attorneys of Knox and Sollecito could ask her if she also saw Amanda that day.

Absent Carlo Dalla Vedova, Ghirga and Maori had in front of them the person who could destroy the most disgusting accuser of Amanda. Not a poor nuts like Curatolo who spoke out of his foolery, but a person of normal intelligence who, seduced by a local journalist, deliberately chose to remember --with one year delay and for reasons he should be called to explain-- to have seen Amanda. The attorneys had this key witness in front of them. And they didn't ask her anything.
Did you see Amanda coming to the store at the opening of November 2? Nobody made that simple question. Of course.

They know the first rule of criminal attorneys: never ask a question if you don't already know the answer. Marina could have answered No, and that would have been perfect. But she could have been instructed by the store owner or by the instructors of the store owner and she could have answered Yes. And this would have been a problem. And because a trial is not gambling they were paralyzed. They had the match ball in their hands and they couldn't shoot, they had to let her go.

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.

Silence when the truth emerges. The banality of Truth.

That's how the great journalist and his prosciutto slicer end up. They were out in their reckonings, they forgot to instruct that Latin girl who was there on November 2. Their games with the media, with this trial and with other people's lives were today demolished by the honesty, by the sincerity of a Marina Chiriboga.
Another woman on the way of Amanda Knox. So different this time. Different from Rita, Monica, Lorena, Claudia, Manuela, Patrizia, Filomena, the english girls, or the side judge, Beatrice Cristiani (the one who can't accept that a girl washes her hair everyday). It looks like Marina is the only other female who has nothing against Amanda. Maybe because she's so young, so gorgeous. Maybe because she's so sunny, so happy with her life. Maybe because she luckily had nothing to do with the director of Giornale dell'Umbrina.
Marina, a breath of fresh air in this dirty dirty story, a real Latin sunbeam that came to save Amanda.

Remember when the logic told us that the testimony of the store owner HAD to be fake? Well, for those who are not familiar with the critical reasoning now there's a witness too. Someone who, confirming the logic calculation, simply said She wasn't there. But those who didn't believe the reasoning are free not to believe witnesses too.

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.

And so everyone is free to be stupid now. Everyone can decide who to believe: a sinister prosciutto slicer or a college student able to study 5 languages in a cell. Everyone is free who's reasoning to follow: the one of the great (just a bit local) news director --member of the Order of Journalism and regular at the main talk show-- or the one of Mr no-qualifications.

your welcome.

A recent poster here has tried to say all witnesses need toi be heard and that's the way it works with the other side allowed to cross but that's not true.

Massei didn't allow CT and shouldn't have allowed Quintavalle and Curatolo for sure and probable Nara and the other ear witness.
 
Hi Grinder,
I goofed once again,
for it was from The Hellmann-Zanetti Repot that I read that Conad convenience store owner Marco Quintavalle had been shown photographs of both Raffaele AND Amanda after Miss Kercher's murder.

And check this out,
he was shown those pics and questioned about the Ace Bleach
right after the Nov. 16, 2007 Crime Scene video shot at Raffale's flat that I will link again:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O5B1RCbD!sskADAddI-1njo2AEcA0xcAke9LMm-XdnHtn6OHJoXU

Here's a snippet of The Hellmann-Zanetti Report:
In fact, from the testimony of Inspector Volturno at the hearing of 3.13.2009 it was revealed that photographs of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were shown to Quintavalle, as they were to his staff and the other shop owners [esercenti] of the area, and that they were asked in particular whether the two had made any purchase for cleaning products, precisely because it was a line of enquiry of the investigation [punto oggetto di indagine]. Therefore Quintavalle cannot claim that he did not report to Inspector Volturno what had happened on the morning of 2 November because he was convinced that it was not a relevant fact.

The link:
https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/quintavalle/
 
Last edited:
Hi Grinder,
I goofed once again,
for it was from The Hellmann-Zanetti Repot that I read that Conad convenience store owner Marco Quintavalle had been shown photographs of both Raffaele AND Amanda after Miss Kercher's murder.

And check this out,
he was shown those pics and questioned about the Ace Bleach
right after the Nov. 16, 2007 Crime Scene video shot at Raffale's flat that I will link again:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O5B1RCbD!sskADAddI-1njo2AEcA0xcAke9LMm-XdnHtn6OHJoXU

Here's a snippet of The Hellmann-Zanetti Report:
In fact, from the testimony of Inspector Volturno at the hearing of 3.13.2009 it was revealed that photographs of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were shown to Quintavalle, as they were to his staff and the other shop owners [esercenti] of the area, and that they were asked in particular whether the two had made any purchase for cleaning products, precisely because it was a line of enquiry of the investigation [punto oggetto di indagine]. Therefore Quintavalle cannot claim that he did not report to Inspector Volturno what had happened on the morning of 2 November because he was convinced that it was not a relevant fact.

The link:
https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/quintavalle/

The funniest example of rhetorical bait-and-switch was hearing Quintavalle defended on this very web-service by a poster saying that Q. had not been asked the right question in late November 2007. It made it seem that when the reporter, 6 months later, talked Quintavalle into remembering Knox in his store, six months earlier, all Q. had done was say, "I've been waiting for someone to ask me that exact question."

All of that is an example of the pretzel-like contortions PLE/Judiciary had to do to keep Q. in this. Thankfully the ISC (presumably) saw through this and others.
 
Have you learned nothing!??!

Actual laws, evidence, common sense, and reality are only occasionally relevant in an Italian court room.

They do what they please, because they can. And right now, this case pleases no one. Not even the cops want it pursued is my guess.

I'd say about now, they are teeing up the translator Donino?, Stefanoni, Napoleoni, Ficarra and Zugarini for striped pajamas, laundry detail, and weekend visits.

Of course I have no idea what will actually happen. What does Wrong Way Corrig Bill W think?

:p

I like Grinder better than you!
 
The funniest example of rhetorical bait-and-switch was hearing Quintavalle defended on this very web-service by a poster saying that Q. had not been asked the right question in late November 2007. It made it seem that when the reporter, 6 months later, talked Quintavalle into remembering Knox in his store, six months earlier, all Q. had done was say, "I've been waiting for someone to ask me that exact question."

All of that is an example of the pretzel-like contortions PLE/Judiciary had to do to keep Q. in this. Thankfully the ISC (presumably) saw through this and others.


Hi Bill Williams,
Gosh, I recall reading from a pro-guilter that store owner Marco Q. was not shown photo's of Amanda, only Raffaele, when he was questioned by the detective.

Not so:
Quoting from the written transcripts of the hearing of 3.13.2009:

“QUESTION – Did you carry out investigations into the death of Meredith Kercher?

RESPONSE – Yes.

QUESTION – Do you remember the kind of inquiries [accertamenti] you made? First list them to us and then describe them.

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 Sollecito, [and] the photograph of Amanda Knox.

After a few days we traced the store, which was a Margherita Conad store – located right at the start of Corso Garibaldi, where both the owner and the assistants recognized Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox in the photographs that we showed to them. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer of this store, whereas the girl had been seen two or three times in his company.

QUESTION – Together with Sollecito?

RESPONSE – Yes, yes, in his company. In this store we also asked if by chance they had noted in the days immediately preceding the homicide or immediately after if they remembered whether these people had purchased this product, however they did not remember…”
 
Hi Bill Williams,
Gosh, I recall reading from a pro-guilter that store owner Marco Q. was not shown photo's of Amanda, only Raffaele, when he was questioned by the detective.

yeah I just read that too and honestly didn't remember how clearly Vortuna (sp?) stated he had ask specifically about both of them with picture and buying bleach.

That segment reduces the value of his "memory" of her shopping in the cleaning section to as close to zero as one can get, an infinitesimal number.

Just curious if someone has the translation of his testimony not from Hellmann's summary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom