Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Wow, are those deluded remarks. That YOU don't find his reasons to be valid is what you mean. I think the majority of people would find his reasons to very valid. Hell, the fact that a year had gone by in the one of if not the biggest and most publicized murder cases in Perugian or modern Italian history would be enough. Then there is the fact that Volturno questioned him only days after the murder. That his own employees said Quintavalle was mistaken. That his story makes no sense because there were cleaning supplies at both the cottage and Raffaele's apartment. That Quintavalle's story makes zero sense and NOTHING was bought.

Quintavalle is a joke. Too bad it's not funny.

You and bagles don't understand how witness testimony works. A court has no way of knowing whether a witness is credible or discreditable, except in the context of the whole case. A pillar of the community will be seen as more credible than a low-life drugdealer. Ultimately though, what court does is look at the testimony as a whole and it is usually obvious which witnesses are the more credible.

In the case of Quinatavalle, he may have been backward in coming forward. However, the facts are: two shiny bottles of ACE bleach HAD been recently purchased, against the context of Raff having a cleaning lady, and who was instructed to always use Raff's preferred medical disinfectant, Lysoform.

In addition, you can see in the police video he had a pail full of damp rags and used latex gloves, and also in the bin in the bathroom. By amazing coincidence, on the murder night, he had variously either a burst pipe (one of Amanda's stories) or a leaking pipe (the other) and it happened either before 20:40 (according to witness, Raff Papa) or after 23:00 (Amanda, who put dinnertime back and back).

In a letter to Papa, Raff said he once cooked the flatmates a fish dinner. Amanda claimed they ate the fish 23:00 murder night, and he had blood on the back of his hand. Raff wrote in his Prison Diary he'd cooked for Mez at his flat (Amanda said Mez had never been there) and must have "pricked the back of her hand then".

When the Postal Police arrived next morning at the cottage, a mop was propped by the door and Amanda had no coat on, suggesting she had only stepped out momentarily (according to CD - or was it BN - to throw out some water onto the gravel). Raff claimed Amanda began merrily mopping up whilst he made breakfast earlier that morning, whilst it was he who mopped in another version.

So much water! The postal police claimed to hear the washing machine cycle come to a finish, and Filomena claimed the clothes in the machine were still freshly steaming. So much cleaning going on! All the mops, buckets, ACE, damp rags. What was going on?

In addition, Amanda liked to get up at 6:00 am. Why would she claim it was 10:30am on this particular morning? Straight away, a judge will have his or her curiosity piqued. Forensic IT guys tell the court Raff turned back on his phone at about 6:00 and someone downloaded a whole load of grunge music around that time. Raff told police he carried on sleeping after Amanda left his flat at about 10:30 to fetch a mop from the cottage to clean his still wet floor from the night before.

In the context of all of this, a local respected shopkeeper claims he saw the rare sight of a young student type up 7:45am outside his shop waiting for it to open, who then went scuttling to the cleaning department.

So Quintavalle states she was wearing jeans. Straight away the judges are wondering at what point did she change into a nice white skirt, and why?

Police didn't think she'd had a shower. Why make it up unless it is to "explain" Amanda pottering about in the bathroom and whizzing around barefoot?

So you see, against that context, Quintavalle's testimony is of interest to the court, given Amanda didn't call the police once, and Raff, not until almost 13:00 pm the next day.

Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning? Why would she lie about having done so? Why lie about what time you slept to? What's with all the bleach in Raff's apartment when he prefers medical disinfectant? Why all the rags and latex gloves? What's with the washing machine? What's with the mop ? Ah, yes...he had a massive leak - or burst pipe - the night before.

That explains everything.

 

[bagels]

So you see, against that context, Quintavalle's testimony is of interest to the court, given Amanda didn't call the police once, and Raff, not until almost 13:00 pm the next day.

Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning? Why would she lie about having done so? Why lie about what time you slept to? What's with all the bleach in Raff's apartment when he prefers medical disinfectant? Why all the rags and latex gloves? What's with the washing machine? What's with the mop ? Ah, yes...he had a massive leak - or burst pipe - the night before.

That explains everything.

I analyzed the morning of the 2nd thoroughly.

see: this post.

 

[Vixen]

This essay mirrors EXACTLY the observations that you, I and others have been making about the structural problems and fundamental points of tension within the Italian criminal justice system. Many judges are (perhaps by their very nature) reactionary, and they don't like power being taken away from them. Likewise public prosecutors. And a high proportion of the judiciary have grown up in (and been educated in) a system where the prosecutor and judge are basically in cahoots, and where the (pretence of) the "impartial search for the truth" means that they can satisfy themselves that they have no partisan interests.

In practice, of course, this has long meant that the defence in any trial is hugely and improperly hampered, since the default position of the court has been that the prosecutor is "telling it as it is" while the defence is nothing more than a partisan organ of the defendant who will try anything to get acquitted. And the natural progression of such a warped system is that unless the defence can positively disprove the prosecution case, the chances of acquittal once a case has gone to trial are very low - even if the prosecution case is (objectively) clearly lacking.

And the other important factor (again as explicitly addressed in this essay) is that courts seemingly cannot shake their "traditional" - but now prohibited - practice of basing their verdicts on their own narrative and set of inferences. Basically, the public prosecutor would serve as a form of "adviser" to the court. And it's not difficult to see how this would further diminish the power and fair opportunity of the defence.

As you say, I think these sorts of dynamics have been highly visible in the Knox/Sollecito trial process, most notably and clearly in the Massei trial. The judiciary in Italy clearly needs huge reform and re-education, since it appears incapable of fulfilling its constitutional role properly, justly and lawfully. And the Knox/Sollecito trial process only serves to highlight this in an internationally-embarrassing manner.

LOL Numbers and LondonJohn are now hitching their wagons to a pair of obscure intellectual theorists, their own having had their wheels come off spectacularly. Two becomes one. Or is it one becomes two?

 

[bagels]

LOL Numbers and LondonJohn are now hitching their wagons to a pair of obscure intellectual theorists, their own having had their wheels come off spectacularly. Two becomes one. Or is it one becomes two?

The case is over. The discussion is about why it took the Italians eight years to acquit the students a functional criminal justice system either wouldn't have brought to trial, or, at worst, would have acquitted in the first trial. To the Italians credit the error was caught in the second level trial and they were acquitted, but then the Supreme Court did an oopsie and the whole process was delayed again and ended up taking eight years.

 

[Vixen]

I analyzed the morning of the 2nd thoroughly.

see: this post.

No, you didn't bagels. Where is the timeline for between 20:40 1st Nov to 11:00 2nd Nov?

Who switched on Raff's phone? Who downloaded the heavy rock?

 

[Numbers]

LOL Numbers and LondonJohn are now hitching their wagons to a pair of obscure intellectual theorists, their own having had their wheels come off spectacularly. Two becomes one. Or is it one becomes two?

LOL.

Gialuz and Luparia are professors of Italian criminal procedural law at major Italian universities. They each have over 40 publications.

There is a similar article from Giulio Illuminati, Professor of Criminal Procedure, Head of the Department of Law, University of Bologna, "The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988)" that I have cited and discussed in previous posts.

Please cite your own articles on Italian criminal law that show you have the expertise to debunk or refute them. Or cite such articles from an expert that can contradict Gialuz, Luparia, or Illuminati. Or that can contradict some other known aspect of history. Because what the professors are describing and explaining are events in Italian legal history and current judicial conduct well-known to experts in the field.

Only certain anonymous internet posters with agendas are unaware of them.

 

[Vixen]

In South Africa the complete record is made available to each of the five appeal Judges in hard copy before the appeal is heard. This record can amount to tens of thousands of pages.

Modern technology will certainly supersede this and in various countries it may well be the case already.

...but a complete record is made available, including the entire court transcripts.

Without this an appeal us a farce.

It might be made a available for reference, but in general courts are still paperbound, or at least they are in England & Wales. Sure, law firms and solicitors might have everything electronically, but the Italian Supreme Court will have had to make do with thousands of lever arch files.

A high court judge will not condescend to look at them, except to look up points of law a party has set out, either out of curiosity, or to check whether it is as they say.

However, if a lower court (Massei and Nencini) have ruled it a fact that a witness' testimony is reliable, it is not their place to overturn it, as Bruno-Marasca did, but to send it back down to be re-examined.

 

[bagels]

No, you didn't bagels. Where is the timeline for between 20:40 1st Nov to 11:00 2nd Nov?

Who switched on Raff's phone? Who downloaded the heavy rock?

Raff switched on his phone and computer. He was probably still up or dozing off and on. He stayed up late the night before as well.

From ~6-11 everyone is asleep so there is nothing to account for.

The main thing with my timeline is how organic it is and how precisely the statements of all the witnesses fit what happened.

If we allege some early morning cleanup Amanda switches gears by ~12:00 and then suddenly puts on an ingenious performance that exactly replicates a late morning lazy discovery and slow realization of what's going on. This is particularly impressive considering a conspirators instinctive reaction would be to feign panic and overcompensate, which is precisely what Amanda didn't do. If you were staging a murder discovery would your plan involve taking a shower with the body and then going home and checking your friends facebook page?

It's extremely difficult to reconcile a frantic cleanup with the well documented discovery process that we have.

 

[acbytesla]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Here's the thing about my correlation Numbers. It's a general maxim. Not a law. Simplifying a difficult subject so others truly understand demonstrates a true grasp of that subject whereas a long involved explanation that leaves others baffled is often just a cover up for a personal lack of understanding..

People on the other hand deceive in both simple short lies..say like a 4 year old caught stealing snacks or long and involved like Jeffrey Skilling of Enron.

 

[Agatha]

Please continue the discussion in Part 21.

Posted By: Agatha