Yes, I believe his explanation. He didn't blabber. His testimony was consistent and precise when he came forward with the story about Knox. He never showed any doubt nor did he change his story. He testified under oath and spent time in court when he had a business to run. This is not something people do for fun. It is too bad that he didn't mention it at first, but in the end this does not really matter. It happens all the time. There is no expiration date on witnesses. I am pretty sure that this witness testimony will be accepted. It fits with the other evidence. JMO.
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
New Posts
-
-
KY- I-75 Active Shooter Targeting Vehicles- Latest: nerosleuth
- Status
I agree that it fits in with the other evidence.
I also agree with the innocence side that prosecutors could have worded their questions in such a way as to "lead" him to the answer, or make him think that he saw Amanda. Or, as Katody said, maybe something to do with talking to the media.
I don't know. This is one where I would have to see the testimony in person and be able to "get a read on him." Whether he is lying or not. That does leave the question, though, like you said, of why would he lie?
It's not like he was in prison or facing a prison sentence that prosecutors could make a deal with him or something.
I don't really see the motivation for lying. Except maybe something along the lines of if he said something to the media and then had to "keep that line."
Q explanation was that he wasn't asked about Amanda by the police, nor shown the photos of her or Raffaele.
You think officer Volturno lied when he contradicted Q and said he showed him photos, asked him if he saw them and Q confirmed he knows them and had seen them?
Yes hi did. He came out with the story to a journo intern that came by, not to the police.
He sure did change it. His first story was Amanda came a few times to the shop. His second story was that he never said the first story
That's something people do when the court orders them. For a busy man Q took time to give interviews on TV
Why was Amanda waiting for the shop to open IYO?
And returning to your previous interesting opinion:
In your opinion what evidence of clean up is there? What exactly had been cleaned up?
Which other evidence?
This. He came with the story to a local acquainted journalist. Then the story went national, the TV that was supposed to cover his identity showed him and he had no choice but to testify in court.
Contrary to what Sherlock believes, when the court calls a witness, the witness is not free to disregard it. Also, when you have a local business in Perugia, it's better to be nice to the local authorities.
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
THREE times this question has been asked... with no answer...
even TJMK refutes this.
what has been theorized about mignini does not come out of thin air. assertions amanda stole, does.
New Florence Appeals Court Schedule 2014:
Jan 9 and 16: Sollecito Defense Summation
Jan 20: Rebuttals and Jury Deliberations
http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/
Jan 9 and 16: Sollecito Defense Summation
Jan 20: Rebuttals and Jury Deliberations
http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/
Q explanation was that he wasn't asked about Amanda by the police, nor shown the photos of her or Raffaele.
You think officer Volturno lied when he contradicted Q and said he showed him photos, asked him if he saw them and Q confirmed he knows them and had seen them?
Yes hi did. He came out with the story to a journo intern that came by, not to the police.
He sure did change it. His first story was Amanda came a few times to the shop. His second story was that he never said the first story
That's something people do when the court orders them. For a busy man Q took time to give interviews on TV
Why was Amanda waiting for the shop to open IYO?
And returning to your previous interesting opinion:
In your opinion what evidence of clean up is there? What exactly had been cleaned up?
bbm
Re: bolded
But didn't Officer V ask him about the buying of bleach the first time, and then later showed him the pics? So in that case, both would be correct, wouldn't they?
Q would be correct b/c he was only asked about the bleach the first time and not shown pics.
And Officer V would be correct because at a subsequent time, he showed Q the photos and Q said he had seen her?
bbm
Redhead, with all due respect, I feel like we are always discussing this issue. So since I've been on here, this has been months and months, day after day. For most, it's been years. The theory of "clean-up/cover-up" is central to this case. It is not a simple answer that can be put into one post. As you see, because we have been discussing this constantly for months since I've been on, and years for most of the rest of you.
I do not feel like trying to put such a long-winded answer into one post, only to have that post spur on days upon weeks of debate on issues which we have already discussed over and over and over - DNA, etc. etc.. I just do not really feel like it right now. I am only speaking for myself, not for others.
The assertions about Mignini are exxagerated, IMO, so yes, some of it comes out of thin air - the exxagerated part, which is most of it. My point was that things the innocence side thinks are "out of thin air,' theories that come from the guilt side, I can also say the same for the other side. It only seems to be "out of thin air" because you don't believe the premise behind it - that Amanda is guilty.
The evidence of computer activity at 5:32 am and also phone activity at around 6 am, IIRC. Something was going on, other than them being asleep until 10.
And please don't say they were having sex. I will not believe that they are willing to have their alibi questioned partly over their inability to admit they were having sex at that time. Even though they have admitted it at other times. And Amanda has written about sex in her book. So I know what's coming, and I am writing previous to that.
I take your other points into account, yes, the interview with TV seems strange to me and also I would agree on cooperation with the police.
Again, I feel that I have a higher opinion of Perugian LE than you do. If he asked about bleach in the first few days after the murder, he was not asking about random purchasers because bleach was not used on Meredith's body. Bleach would only have been used to clean up the cottage, if used. So the purchase of bleach would only have been important if it was done by Amanda or Raffaele (or another resident of the cottage, but that has never been an issue). So if a police officer received an answer of "No" to the question about bleach purchases, his next question should have been, have you seen any of these people recently?
If the police walked away from the shop after only asking that one question, then the investigation was indeed badly done and flawed from the start.
I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can say is that a "theory" of a clean-up is very different from "evidence" of a clean-up, evidence which I do not see in my online research outside of this forum.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
Personally I think there's a lack of blood in the bathroom. For a bloody murderer to have made multiple trips in there, he sure was careful in his "clean up".
Why would 1 person cleaning up use every fixture in the bathroom?
All while leaving no bloody water splashes on the tile, being careful only to step on the mat?
Meredith's outside of her door was clean. Some want to take RGs word, yet forget he said he washed his hands when he got home because they were covered in blood.
No blood on outside of Meredith's door, the cottage door, or cell phones.
Yes we suppose Amanda's lamp that was on the floor below Merediths bed was used to see something on the floor maybe and left accidentally.
The knife back in the drawer doesn't concern me.
Did the cops have an inventory list of all their clothes, to know what was missing? Is there any witness testimony to what they were wearing?
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
Yes let's talk about what people say to the media.
I actually have asked MULTIPLE times for a logical reason RS would add 5hours to the arrival time at the police station for questioning in an interview with the media contrary to evidence.
RS also gave a very interesting interview to Kate Mansey days after the murder.
Seems Quintivalle isn't the only one who speaks to the media when he shouldn't.
??
According to Volturno he asked if Q had ever seen the two in the photos the first time he came to the store. And Q confirmed seeing them. (p.177 also p. 203, Volturno's testimony)
It was the first time he came to the shop, on 17th or 18th of November IIRC (that exact date written down in Volturno's service note from the shop visit is quoted in Raffaele's appeal I think).
Where is this idea that Volturno asked about Amanda and Raffaele on some other visit to the store coming from?
IMO, If anything, it's evidence they were at home, as they said, and not doing cleanup at the villa.
If Amanda knew there was computer activity in the middle of the night, she would have mentioned it when pressed about details. Wouldn't she?
It wasn't incriminating after all, to the contrary, it confirmed her story that she didn't leave Raffaele's for the night.
The only explanation I can see is that she was asleep while Raffaele toyed with the PC (alternatively, she didn't remember this, it was a week after that night when the police in the overnight interrogation demanded from her to precisely list everything she did, hour after hour).
And of course the incoming SMS is not evidence of activity. Outgoing connection would have been. (again it was Raffaele's cell phone, so it changes nothing in the above).
Why do you think there were multiple trips? One trip looks sufficient to me.
Do I understand correctly that you think they cleaned only the floor in the bathroom and left the blood drops on the ceramic facilities, door, lightswitch, etc?
You think all of it had been cleaned?
So we have doors (except the bathroom door), bathroom floor and the phones on your list. Is there something else that was cleaned? What about the floors?
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
The question was what evidence of a clean up and I gave some examples.
I did not say ONLY these things. I actually think the bidet looks very clean except the blood near the drain.
Sure, that's why I ask. I'm trying to organize the facts as you see it into a mental picture that I can grasp.
So they cleaned also the bidet and all of the floors. Than Guede left the trail of prints and also someone dripped blood into the freshly cleaned bidet. Is that about right?
Actually what I have been looking for and not finding is any evidence of the towels, cloths, rags, paper etc. that would have been used in a clean-up. Where could it have gone? Perugia is not that big and neither is the window of time in which someone could have disposed of that sort of bloody evidence.
Amber29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 357
No that's not what I'm saying at all. I did not say they cleaned the bidet, I only noted that it appeared clean minus the small amount of blood near the drain. My thoughts being RG(lone wolf) must've took care not to splash any bloody water outside the bidet or on the rim.
- Status