Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

[aa9511]

I don't think she was bothered by the internet black PR campaign that much. It's simpler than that. First when writing a book the editor usually tells you to cut down a lot of non essential stuff. Second, the book addresses the issues that were raised in the actual media, and in court, by the prosecution, by Maresca, Pacelli and Massei.
That's why the vibrator issue is described ( Guess how many times Pacelli mentioned the vibrator in Nencini's court :facepalm and the bathmat is not.

The internet "enthusiasts" may find it indicative of guilt, but they are reduced to that anyway. Guede who had a history of impudent break-ins left bloody prints and DNA and matches the timeline of the crime perfectly.
Amanda can't be shoehorned into any kind of scenario. There's no possible timeline, there are no traces of her in the room, there is no motive.

The only thing that can be done is seeking obscure indications of guilt in her every move and every word she writes or says.

That is your opinion, correct? I would guess that only Amanda knows about what editors told her and why she wrote the book the way that she did.

 

[SMK]

Nothing like this in there, and I have the book in my hands.
<modsnip>

On p 80 of my library copy, Knox describes how after being cool toward Sophie, and basically numb, she suddenly is hit with shock and overcome with righteous fury at the murderer, and is flooded with anger, and begins to hit her head over and over again with the palm of her hand , and now speaks to Sophie with emotion.

 

[aa9511]

On p 80 of my library copy, Knox describes how after being cool toward Sophie, and basically numb, she suddenly is hit with shock and overcome with righteous fury at the murderer, and is flooded with anger, and begins to hit her head over and over again with the palm of her hand , and now speaks to Sophie with emotion.

Thank you, SMK.

That is the same time they are waiting to get their fingerprints taken. I believe some of the girls are having theirs taken, and Amanda and Sophie are waiting to have theirs taken.

 

[Katody]

On p 80 of my library copy, Knox describes how after being cool toward Sophie, and basically numb, she suddenly is hit with shock and overcome with righteous fury at the murderer, and is flooded with anger, and begins to hit her head over and over again with the palm of her hand , and now speaks to Sophie with emotion.

Exactly.

 

[Katody]

It's absurd and fanciful imo the lovebirds after watching Ameile and trying to then watch a cartoon would assist Guede who they didn't know in a rape and murder. If they had of gone to the cottage and found him there, they would have defended Meredith if he attacked her, not join the guy in butchering a friend within 10-30mins of arriving.

There's no evidence of drink or hard drugs and why would they want to leave his apartment in the first place to party when the night before was the big night for students to party and Raffaele had no interest.

Excellent points.

Now that Crini acknowledged the computer data discovered by the defence and also admitted the only reasonable TOD is before the suspicious cellphone activity and the connection of 22:13 it leaves very little space for any reasonable scenario involving Amanda and Raffaele.

Also, Naruto playback at 21:26 is old. I don't believe anyone, not the prosecution, not the crowd of civil accusers addressed the additional computer data submitted by the defence at the start of this trial.

Impossible timeline, no motive, no contact with Guede, no forensic trace in the murder room. Doesn't look very good compared to what there is on Guede alone.

 

[Katody]

I understand.

But Galati gives an ample refutation of all in his Appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation: pp 39-41-

he asserts that Hellmann took Q out of context, misrepresented his words, did not take as a whole.

According to Q he immediately recognized Amanda in the newspapers after her arrest as the one who was in his shop morning after the murder. He even supposedly told his workers about this.

Now when Volturno comes a few days later with photos of Amanda and Raffaele Q doesn't mention the memorable sighting at all, despite recognizing Amanda in the police photo.

How does Galati explain this inconsistency?

 

[SMK]

According to Q he immediately recognized Amanda in the newspapers after her arrest as the one who was in his shop morning after the murder. He even supposedly told his workers about this.

Now when Volturno comes a few days later with photos of Amanda and Raffaele Q doesn't mention the memorable sighting at all, despite recognizing Amanda in the police photo.

How does Galati explain this inconsistency?

Q said that he did not at the time understand the importance of Knox being in his store. The police were asking about bleach purchases at the time.

Galati says he saw her both from the side, as she left, and from the front. The clothing was not important as it was her pale skin and blue eyes which made Q recognize her from prior trips to his shop with RS. Galati says the Hellmann court did not take into account Q's own explanations, and misrepresented what Q said in a fragmentary way.

 

[Myvice]

1) that's raffaele's coat... amanda was cold, and he gave her his. documented fact: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=ra...lang=en-CA&w=U77lJd_nneSrr79BCCAM7YiFHCOcbc7W

2) how could the coat worn by her in that photo be photographed later in crime scene photos of her bed?

So I guess she did have access to a gray coat.

 

[Katody]

Q said that he did not at the time understand the importance of Knox being in his store. The police were asking about bleach purchases at the time.

It doesn't ring true, given that Q indicated to Volturno other times he saw Amanda and Raffaele, despite the fact that they didn't buy bleach. He just strangely omits the memorable event of the morning after the murder.

Of course the police asked specifically about Amanda and Raffaele, showing photos of them, according to Volturno's testimony.

So Galati doesn't address the discrepancy between Q and Volturno's testimony at all. Pretends it doesn't exist. That's what I expected.

 

[SMK]

It doesn't ring true, given that Q indicated to Volturno other times he saw Amanda and Raffaele, despite the fact that they didn't buy bleach. He just strangely omits the memorable event of the morning after the murder.

Of course the police asked specifically about Amanda and Raffaele, showing photos of them, according to Volturno's testimony.

So Galati doesn't address the discrepancy between Q and Volturno's testimony at all. Pretends it doesn't exist. That's what I expected.

pp 38-39 Galati Appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy:

In relation to the suppositions of the Court, it seems appropriate to recall that Quintavalle had explained the reason for which he did not mention having seen the young woman on the morning of November 2, and his explanation is confirmed by the statements of Inspector Volturno, who stated that the investigation activity, carried out in the early days after the fact, tended to establish whether there could have been purchases of bleach made by Amanda and Raffaele with the clear purposeof checking if any cleaning activity had taken place to remove traces of the crime.

Quintavalle did not take a year to convince himself of the accuracy of his perception: his doubt was in regard to the usefulness of the date &#8211; his having seen the girl on the morning of November 2, &#8211; and in this regard a reading of the statements of Quintavalle (cf. transcript of the first instance hearing March 21, 2009) contradicts what, in contrast to the truth, was written by the CAA on this point.

It should be thus noted that precisely such hesitation (is it useful or not? Am I going to say this or not?) makes it entirely plausible that Quintavalle had not on his own volition communicated to Inspector Volturno his having seen the girl, but limited himself to answering specific questions that, as mentioned, were put to him and which were focusing on the purchase of items and not on people. [45] A further observation on which the CAA bases its assessment of unreliability (thus, of low reliability) appears completely arbitrary, because contradicted by the statements of the witness.

Quintavalle would have seen the young woman out of the corner of the eye and never from the front. From the examination of the statements made by Quintavalle in the first instance trial completely different facts emerge because Quintavalle affirms what was referred to by the Court of Assizes on p. 71, when the young woman was still outside the store (cf. transcripts of the hearing March 21, 2009, p. 72) adding: &#8218;this young woman when she came inside, I looked at her to greet her; I mean I saw her at a distance of one metre, 70-80 cm&#8219;.

Since in the ruling this clarification is omitted, one must presume that Quintavalle&#8217;s statements had been accepted exactly as they had been reported in the defendants&#8217; grounds of appeal, intentionally deprived of all that could contradict it, thwarting its defensive utility. [45]

 

[quesarita]

Quintavalle would have seen the young woman out of the corner of the eye and never from the front. From the examination of the statements made by Quintavalle in the first instance trial completely different facts emerge because Quintavalle affirms what was referred to by the Court of Assizes on p. 71, when the young woman was still outside the store (cf. transcripts of the hearing March 21, 2009, p. 72) adding: ‚this young woman when she came inside, I looked at her to greet her; I mean I saw her at a distance of one metre, 70-80 cm&#8219;.

So I gather: Months later he remembered Amanda specifically because he thought it was unusual that she was waiting outside, and because she was so pale; yet he did not mention her to the police when they asked about store activity a couple of days after the murder; he saw her from the corner of his eye and never the front; yet he saw her both outside the store and from a distance of one metre when he looked at her to greet her.

 

[Katody]

pp 38-39 Galati Appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy:

In relation to the suppositions of the Court, it seems appropriate to recall that Quintavalle had explained the reason for which he did not mention having seen the young woman on the morning of November 2, and his explanation is confirmed by the statements of Inspector Volturno, who stated that the investigation activity, carried out in the early days after the fact, tended to establish whether there could have been purchases of bleach made by Amanda and Raffaele with the clear purposeof checking if any cleaning activity had taken place to remove traces of the crime.

Quintavalle did not take a year to convince himself of the accuracy of his perception: his doubt was in regard to the usefulness of the date – his having seen the girl on the morning of November 2, – and in this regard a reading of the statements of Quintavalle (cf. transcript of the first instance hearing March 21, 2009) contradicts what, in contrast to the truth, was written by the CAA on this point.

It should be thus noted that precisely such hesitation (is it useful or not? Am I going to say this or not?) makes it entirely plausible that Quintavalle had not on his own volition communicated to Inspector Volturno his having seen the girl, but limited himself to answering specific questions that, as mentioned, were put to him and which were focusing on the purchase of items and not on people. [45] A further observation on which the CAA bases its assessment of unreliability (thus, of low reliability) appears completely arbitrary, because contradicted by the statements of the witness.

Quintavalle would have seen the young woman out of the corner of the eye and never from the front. From the examination of the statements made by Quintavalle in the first instance trial completely different facts emerge because Quintavalle affirms what was referred to by the Court of Assizes on p. 71, when the young woman was still outside the store (cf. transcripts of the hearing March 21, 2009, p. 72) adding: ‚this young woman when she came inside, I looked at her to greet her; I mean I saw her at a distance of one metre, 70-80 cm&#8219;.

Since in the ruling this clarification is omitted, one must presume that Quintavalle’s statements had been accepted exactly as they had been reported in the defendants’ grounds of appeal, intentionally deprived of all that could contradict it, thwarting its defensive utility. [45]

As I thought. Galati pretends Volturno didn't ask about Raffaele and Amanda and pretends that Quintavalle didn't mention other instances of seeing Amanda while being silent about the supposed morning sighting that impressed on his memory so much.

According to Quintavalle's his worker told him Raffaele had been arrested and brought a newspaper with Amanda's photo. Supposedly he recognized her "but this is the girl...", by his own testimony. The connection between the murder, Raffaele (who he knew) and Amanda (supposedly seen on murder morning) is right in front of him.

Few days later Volturno comes asking about the two and Q tells about seeing Raffaele and Amanda on some other dates.

Q is not a believable witness IMO.

 

[nivogirl]

I wonder why Galati thought that clothing is not an important factor because if I remember seeing someone, I would think that an outfit description would be a very important factor because people who don't see people could not describe the clothing that they were wearing that night. I wonder in the Peurgian police had asked questions about what Amanda Knox was wearing on the first of november 2007 to the people that were around the cottage between 20:30 italian time and 22:00 italian time on that date. If the witnesses that were there don't know what she was wearing, they probably didn't see her.

 

[SMK]

I wonder why Galati thought that clothing is not an important factor because if I remember seeing someone, I would think that an outfit description would be a very important factor because people who don't see people could not describe the clothing that they were wearing that night. I wonder in the Peurgian police had asked questions about what Amanda Knox was wearing on the first of november 2007 to the people that were around the cottage between 20:30 italian time and 22:00 italian time on that date. If the witnesses that were there don't know what she was wearing, they probably didn't see her.

I am almost always wrong about what people are wearing, and even their hair length. I have a memory for eyes, faces, facial expressions. I guess everyone is different when it comes to memory. I don't see why Quintavalle would lie to the police or to the media or court. Possibly he was confused about what he remembered.

 

[aa9511]

I wonder why Galati thought that clothing is not an important factor because if I remember seeing someone, I would think that an outfit description would be a very important factor because people who don't see people could not describe the clothing that they were wearing that night. I wonder in the Peurgian police had asked questions about what Amanda Knox was wearing on the first of november 2007 to the people that were around the cottage between 20:30 italian time and 22:00 italian time on that date. If the witnesses that were there don't know what she was wearing, they probably didn't see her.

That is a good point, but speaking for myself, I probably would not remember what someone was wearing. Maybe if it was something unique, or some bright color, or if they were dressed exceptionally-well or exceptionally-sloppy. If it was just "generic"-type clothing, I probably would not be able to point it out later.

 

[aa9511]

I do not know enough about Quintavalle, independently, to be able to make a "decision" on him. I think it would have to be one of those things where, for me, I would have had to see him during his testimony to get a better understanding of whether he is making it up or not. Actually see and hear the way he answered questions (and for that I would have to know Italian!), and see his facial expressions, etc..

I have heard compelling arguments from both sides. It is odd that he would mention it a year later. On the other hand, the timing does match up with when we can deduce they woke up, from the computer and cell phone records. It does seem like there was something going on early in the morning.

And it is very possible that they needed some cleaning supply, maybe it was not bleach....maybe it was something as simple as latex gloves.

If it is true that Amanda went in and came back out with nothing, it is possible that she could have stolen something by putting it in her purse. Was it ever mentioned whether or not Q noticed if she had a purse with her? It would have been, IMO, pretty obvious to her not to check-out as that would leave a permanent record that she had been there and what she had bought. So what other solution is there if you need something but you can't pay for it? Steal it. If it was something small like gloves, she could have put them in her purse, or maybe she even had a large backpack-type thing with her. A student wearing a backpack would not have seemed unusual.

Also, with the different variations on what Q was asked, it is possible that maybe he did not want to deal with the police much, thus he only answered whatever questions they asked of him and didn't offer extra information, or didn't make extra connections, at that time.

It is also possible that the investigators, feeling very certain of RS and Amanda's guilt due to the other evidence, put pressure, either subtle or outright, on Q to "come up" with seeing Amanda. I do account that this might be possible, seeing as I read in the Ryan Ferguson case where the prosecutor visited one witness in jail and after that visit, the witness magically was able to point Ryan out, even though his first account was that he could not make out the two people's faces that he had seen the night of the murder.

So at this point, I just don't know.

 

[redheadedgal]

a great read about the semen stain, computer evidence, time of death, denial of rape etc:

http://groundreport.com/the-meredit...-the-evidence-was-manipulated-from-the-start/

 

[quesarita]

I do not know enough about Quintavalle, independently, to be able to make a "decision" on him. I think it would have to be one of those things where, for me, I would have had to see him during his testimony to get a better understanding of whether he is making it up or not. Actually see and hear the way he answered questions (and for that I would have to know Italian!), and see his facial expressions, etc..

I have heard compelling arguments from both sides. It is odd that he would mention it a year later. On the other hand, the timing does match up with when we can deduce they woke up, from the computer and cell phone records. It does seem like there was something going on early in the morning.

And it is very possible that they needed some cleaning supply, maybe it was not bleach....maybe it was something as simple as latex gloves.

If it is true that Amanda went in and came back out with nothing, it is possible that she could have stolen something by putting it in her purse. Was it ever mentioned whether or not Q noticed if she had a purse with her? It would have been, IMO, pretty obvious to her not to check-out as that would leave a permanent record that she had been there and what she had bought. So what other solution is there if you need something but you can't pay for it? Steal it. If it was something small like gloves, she could have put them in her purse, or maybe she even had a large backpack-type thing with her. A student wearing a backpack would not have seemed unusual.

Also, with the different variations on what Q was asked, it is possible that maybe he did not want to deal with the police much, thus he only answered whatever questions they asked of him and didn't offer extra information, or didn't make extra connections, at that time.

It is also possible that the investigators, feeling very certain of RS and Amanda's guilt due to the other evidence, put pressure, either subtle or outright, on Q to "come up" with seeing Amanda. I do account that this might be possible, seeing as I read in the Ryan Ferguson case where the prosecutor visited one witness in jail and after that visit, the witness magically was able to point Ryan out, even though his first account was that he could not make out the two people's faces that he had seen the night of the murder.

So at this point, I just don't know.

Personally, I feel it does not help your case (in support of the witness) to create a shoplifting incident out of thin air; as well as gloves that were never found.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

It would have been, IMO, pretty obvious to her not to check-out as that would leave a permanent record that she had been there and what she had bought.

That's an unrealistic construction. If you get caught stealing, that will leave a permanent record into the memory of Q and others. No one would take this risk who was involved in a murder.

 

[aa9511]

That's an unrealistic construction. If you get caught stealing, that will leave a permanent record into the memory of Q and others. No one would take this risk who was involved in a murder.

How hard is it to slip a pair of gloves or a couple of things in your bag? It can be done in mere seconds with the shopkeeper looking the other way.

I'm not saying this is what she did, I'm just thinking about the scenario.

Also, re: no gloves were found from last post....was anything clean-up related found? Why do we expect them to not leave anything else such as rags, etc., but yet they leave a pair of gloves for police to find? They must have cleaned with something.

They cleaned everything off or threw it away because none of it has been found.

I would think taking the chance of slipping something in your bag is much less risky than paying for it at the register with permanent record, or asking someone for it, who can then be a witness to it.

MOO.