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

[Katody]

Rafaele had gloves for cleaning at his place. They're in the police video and in the record of items tested. There was a lot of bleach and other cleaning supplies at the cottage.
Just saying.

Quintavalle's testimony has larger problems than him saying Amanda waited for the shop to open to not buy anything.
IMO asserting something so... peculiar like stealing cleaning supplies doesn't raise Quintavalle's credibility.

It is also interesting because apparently nothing had been cleaned up.

 

[Tugela]

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/

Did they give any reason for destroying the hard drive?

 

[sherlockh]

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.

Omitting something does not mean a witness is lying. His shop assistant confirmed that Quintavalle asked her about seeing Knox that morning which implies Quintavalle did see her (why else would he ask?). His memory was accurate and precise which is more important then how long it took till he came forward. Personally I think he didn't really want to be involved in a murder trial but he says he didn't think it was all that important since Volturno was asking about bleach purchases.

Furthermore, this witness testimony fits with the computer and phone evidence which already proved that both of them were lying about what they were doing that morning. Then of course there is all the evidence of the clean up done by Knox which fits as well with this testimony. I don't think this witness is all that important but yet again a witness must be made out for a liar where every straight lie of Knox is just an inaccuracy. Amazing. JMO

 

[Tugela]

Rafaele had gloves for cleaning at his place. They're in the police video and in the record of items tested. There was a lot of bleach and other cleaning supplies at the cottage.
Just saying.

Quintavalle's testimony has larger problems than him saying Amanda waited for the shop to open to not buy anything.
IMO asserting something so... peculiar like stealing cleaning supplies doesn't raise Quintavalle's credibility.

It is also interesting because apparently nothing had been cleaned up.

There is no evidence that anything was cleaned up. If that did happen, then there should be residues remaining to show that, and there was none.

The claim there was a "cleanup" was made to account for the otherwise complete lack of evidence. The problem however is that there is no evidence of a cleanup either.

The Perugian authorities appear to believe that theories are the same thing as evidence.

 

[Tugela]

Omitting something does not mean a witness is lying. His shop assistant confirmed that Quintavalle asked her about seeing Knox that morning which implies Quintavalle did see her (why else would he ask?). His memory was accurate and precise which is more important then how long it took till he came forward. Personally I think he didn't really want to be involved in a murder trial but he says he didn't think it was all that important since Volturno was asking about bleach purchases.

Furthermore, this witness testimony fits with the computer and phone evidence which already proved that both of them were lying about what they were doing that morning. Then of course there is all the evidence of the clean up done by Knox which fits as well with this testimony. I don't think this witness is all that important but yet again a witness must be made out for a liar where every straight lie of Knox is just an inaccuracy. Amazing. JMO

What evidence of a cleanup by Knox?

 

[Katody]

I think he didn't really want to be involved in a murder trial but he says he didn't think it was all that important since Volturno was asking about bleach purchases.

So you think Quintavalle lied to Volturno and then lied in court about it?

 

[redheadedgal]

evidence there was no cleanup:

--blood on faucet
--blood in sink, bidet
--bloody bathmat
--amanda left her lamp in KM's room (if you suppose guilt)
--no luminol swirls found on floor or in MK's room
--knife put back into drawer instead of thrown away (if you suppose guilt)
--no clothing of either AK or RS is reported "missing" by PLE

what else do those who suppose guilt believe was cleaned up since NONE of the above was done/found/cleaned up etc?

 

[redheadedgal]

so now "shoplifter" has been added to the list of names describing amanda?


:facepalm:

 

[redheadedgal]

Did they give any reason for destroying the hard drive?

i have never seen a reason... and i believe three were ruined. odd, eh?

massei just mentions that they "sustained damage": p. 299: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=259

 

[redheadedgal]

under evidence files, march 31/08 is computer related... maybe someone with a technical mind can tell us what happened? http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html

w/ pictures: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/computer_consultant_report.pdf

 

[SMK]

One thing I had wondered about Amanda's book:

I noticed the part about Meredith getting a job at Le Chic was totally omitted: No mention at all of this.

Was this true, or just a rumor, that Patrick had given MK a job at LeChic?

 

[Katody]

One thing I had wondered about Amanda's book:

I noticed the part about Meredith getting a job at Le Chic was totally omitted: No mention at all of this.

Was this true, or just a rumor, that Patrick had given MK a job at LeChic?

Just ask yourself where have you read about it. What do you think?

 

[SMK]

Just ask yourself where have you read about it. What do you think?

Truthfully, I don't recall where I had read about it. I had thought it was established fact (although I really couldn't imagine why Meredith would want such a job).

 

[quesarita]

evidence there was no cleanup:

--blood on faucet
--blood in sink, bidet
--bloody bathmat
--amanda left her lamp in KM's room (if you suppose guilt)
--no luminol swirls found on floor or in MK's room
--knife put back into drawer instead of thrown away (if you suppose guilt)
--no clothing of either AK or RS is reported "missing" by PLE

what else do those who suppose guilt believe was cleaned up since NONE of the above was done/found/cleaned up etc?

Thank you! What IS the evidence that there was a clean-up? The mop was clean. I'm sure the trash in the cottage, at Raffaele's and around the neighborhood was searched and no gloves, rags, towels, blood or bleach was found. As with so much in this case, the evidence for the clean-up seems to consist only of a first impression supported only by circular reasoning IMO:
Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, so the lack of physical evidence tying them to the scene must mean they cleaned up that evidence, because they are guilty.

 

[whoanellie]

Thank you! What IS the evidence that there was a clean-up? The mop was clean. I'm sure the trash in the cottage, at Raffaele's and around the neighborhood was searched and no gloves, rags, towels, blood or bleach was found. As with so much in this case, the evidence for the clean-up seems to consist only of a first impression supported only by circular reasoning IMO:
Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, so the lack of physical evidence tying them to the scene must mean they cleaned up that evidence, because they are guilty.

Exactly. No evidence of guilt => clean up => evidence of guilt.

 

[quesarita]

Exactly. No evidence of guilt => clean up => evidence of guilt.

And no evidence of purchases of cleaning supplies =>shoplifted gloves => no evidence of purchase.

 

[sherlockh]

So you think Quintavalle lied to Volturno and then lied in court about it?

No, I think he might have come forward sooner. I don't know why he didn't tell about Knox to Volturno, but I see no reason to not believe him. Why would a shop owner want to be involved in a murder trial? He has a business to run. His testimony about Knox was precise and consistent. That is what the judges will consider. It happens in cold cases that witnesses are urged to come forward tens of years after a crime. It is completely normal that witnesses remember things that they consider not important and therefore not come forward. His testimony does not expire.

 

[aa9511]

so now "shoplifter" has been added to the list of names describing amanda?


:facepalm:

When we try to look at the case openly and try to figure out pieces of the puzzle, sometimes a little brainstorming is not such a bad thing.

I could make a list of names attributed on here to Mignini, Massei, and others involved in the case.

 

[aa9511]

Rafaele had gloves for cleaning at his place. They're in the police video and in the record of items tested. There was a lot of bleach and other cleaning supplies at the cottage.
Just saying.

Quintavalle's testimony has larger problems than him saying Amanda waited for the shop to open to not buy anything.
IMO asserting something so... peculiar like stealing cleaning supplies doesn't raise Quintavalle's credibility.

It is also interesting because apparently nothing had been cleaned up.

Thank you, when you put it that way, I am open to hearing what is said.

 

[Katody]

I don't know why he didn't tell about Knox to Volturno, but I see no reason to not believe him.

You don't know. You don't believe his explanation?

Why would a shop owner want to be involved in a murder trial? He has a business to run.

I think he blabbered something that wasn't really true to the intern journo, it spun out of control and it was hard to back down after the TV came to interview him and his identity revealed.

His testimony about Knox was precise and consistent.

No, it certainly is not consistent with what he told when questioned by the police in 2007. It also defies common sense. Why would she wait for the shop to open and buy nothing?

It is completely normal that witnesses remember things that they consider not important and therefore not come forward.

Do you think this is the case here? He considered it important enough that he saw Amanda on other days in mundane circumstances (as he reported those to the police) but the unusual and memorable encounter was not important so he omitted it?