Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[wasnt_me]

(83-84) From the mot. Report about the non-bleach purchase:

Witness Quintavalle, at the hearing on March 21, 2009, was asked many questions to uncover elements of information that would be useful in verifying his reliability. This was mainly because though his meeting with Amanda occurred early in the morning (at 7:45 am) on November 2, 2007, he only made a statement about it in November 2008 and did not mention it earlier, even when Inspector Volturno questioned him a few days after Meredith’s murder.
This Court deems that the testimony of Quintavalle is reliable. It was discovered that Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if, on the morning of November 2, he saw Amanda Knox in his shop.
He was asked – so Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Mr. Quintavalle did not say anything about having seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2, 2007 in his [76] shop because he was not questioned about this and because, as indicated by Quintavalle himself, he considered this fact to be insignificant.

In conclusion:

According to the shop owners, he saw AK on Nov second. Then the MOT report says two things happened "A few days later." The shop owner was questioned about RS's receipts, and also the shop owner sees AK in the paper and tells and employee that AK was the one in the store.

Okay, so if these two events happened within a couple days of each other, and probably a week after the murder, this shop owner has no reason or no excuse for NOT telling LE. I'm very sure RS's picture was right next to AK's and he could easily have made the connection that his customer was dating his allege accomplice. If he'd read about if AFTER he was questioned, why not call the police immediately to add more to his statement? If he'd read about it BEFORE questioning then there is zero excuse.

Now I want to know what led the police to question this shop owner in the first place. It's clear that the shop owner did not come forward. So what receipts were they taking to him? OR, I guess where they guessing RS would have gone there to by bleach and were asking IF the shop owner had some receipts for bleach for that day?

Whether this witness is believable greatly depends on the what day he was questioned and what day he saw AK in the paper, and also what kinds of questions the police were asking him about RS's receipts.

Makes no sense.

 

[wasnt_me]

Now, I want to know what kinds of questions the police were asking the shop owner about RS and what had led them to the shop owner's doorstep, because the shop owner had no "evidence" for them until 2009. So why did the go to the shop owner?

This is BS:

Consequently, the fact of not telling Inspector Volturno about seeing Amanda on the morning of November 2 and the fact of having come forward only after having been convinced by Antioco Fois about the possible significance of this event, do not reduce the reliability of the witness, since these facts do not affect the genuineness of the memory.

If Q saw AK, was questioned about RS's receipts some time after Nov 5th, then saw AK and RS in the paper together in a sex murder on the night of Nov 1st, how in the hell can Q think seeing AK in the morning of Nov 2nd attempting to buy bleach is no significant to tell the police? You can't tell me that a grocery store owner didnt look at a newspaper between the murder and his questioning by the police. And even if there could happen, after he was questioned, and then made the connection between RS and AK, he had a duty to come forth while it was still November 07.

So I do not buy his story for one stinking moment.

 

[SMK]

Nevermind, I was reading something wrong.

 

[wasnt_me]

It's cool. I fixed it.

But I still want to know about the receipts and what was asked of this shop owner.

My guess is that it went like this.

He didn't see jack, jill, a pail of water, or AK that morning. He might have seen some chick outside in a coat and hat, but that's as far as I'll give him.

the police question him. afterward, he sees in a paper what the police inquiry was about and thus connects AK and RS together in his mind again. He starts to think he saw AK, not a stranger outside the shop.

I dont believe him because, again, if he vividly remembered meeting AK when she was with RS at the store and she was so striking to him, why would he not know it was her outside the store? Why did he need a newspaper to help him see that?

Even so, I'll give him not making the connections, but once he did, he did so still in the month of November 2007, so why did it take until November 2008 for him to speak on it?

My guess, the anniversary of the death arrived and people were talking about it. he boasted about seeing AK at his shop buying bleach but not buying it. Why did he say that? probably because in the police questioning, he already knew RS hadn't bought the bleach and he hadn't seen AK. If he says she didn't buy anything, that means he doesn't have to supply proof that she was there and he got his 15 minutes of fame.

 

[PalmettoGirl]

I watched a documentary thing on Hulu today about this case. I am even more firm in my belief that Amanda and Raffale (sp) are innocent and have been railroaded.

 

[wasnt_me]

SMK, I know you don't mind tenacious bloggers, so here's on who talks about the bleach and the fact that the mop was never a significant part of the case.

http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/about-the-bleach/

 

[wasnt_me]

I watched a documentary thing on Hulu today about this case. I am even more firm in my belief that Amanda and Raffale (sp) are innocent and have been railroaded.

Which one are you talking about?

:wagon:

 

[SMK]

SMK, I know you don't mind tenacious bloggers, so here's on who talks about the bleach and the fact that the mop was never a significant part of the case.

http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/about-the-bleach/

Thanks for this!!!

Italian news reports right after the murder had Knox and Sollecito being found outside the cottage with a mop by the communications police, but this is not mentioned at all in the Judge’s report on Guede’s sentencing. That report established a significant case for the post-murder manipulation of the crime scene, so the absence of mentioning the communictions police finding the pair with a mop is signficant.

 

[PalmettoGirl]

Which one are you talking about?

:wagon:

Ummm...I think it was done by Lifetime. It wasn't the movie though. It was pretty much a documentary.

 

[otto]

Thanks for this!!!

Italian news reports right after the murder had Knox and Sollecito being found outside the cottage with a mop by the communications police, but this is not mentioned at all in the Judge’s report on Guede’s sentencing. That report established a significant case for the post-murder manipulation of the crime scene, so the absence of mentioning the communictions police finding the pair with a mop is signficant.

Why is the mop significant in Rudy's conviction?

 

[wasnt_me]

Ummm...I think it was done by Lifetime. It wasn't the movie though. It was pretty much a documentary.

I'll go look for it, thanks!

but what about it helped you solidify your conclusions?

 

[wasnt_me]

Now, I really don't want to call FR a liar, but I just found this article. Of course I give her the benefit of doubt because I don't know if this article is factually correct. If it is true, though, then I guess 2+2=4. If it is true, then I am a lot less likely to believe other things FR said.

I don't know why in the world FR would testify that the dryer was warm when she got to the cottage the morning of Nov 2nd.

We all know MK's clothes were in there, none of them were from the murder. None of AK's clothes were in there. Why would she say this under oath?

Blonde, bespectacled Filomena Romanelli also posed a string of problems for the defence. She said that when she returned to the house they shared on 2 November 2007 the washing machine was warm. She later identified most of the clothes inside as those of the victim, Meredith Kercher, a student at Leeds University.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox

 

[otto]

Now, I really don't want to call FR a liar, but I just found this article. Of course I give her the benefit of doubt because I don't know if this article is factually correct. If it is true, though, then I guess 2+2=4. If it is true, then I am a lot less likely to believe other things FR said.

I don't know why in the world FR would testify that the dryer was warm when she got to the cottage the morning of Nov 2nd.

We all know MK's clothes were in there, none of them were from the murder. None of AK's clothes were in there. Why would she say this under oath?

Blonde, bespectacled Filomena Romanelli also posed a string of problems for the defence. She said that when she returned to the house they shared on 2 November 2007 the washing machine was warm. She later identified most of the clothes inside as those of the victim, Meredith Kercher, a student at Leeds University.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox

What makes you think the dryer was not warm?

 

[wasnt_me]

Here's a timeline from an article. The TL came from RF's testimony, allegedly.

How the murder was discovered

November 2, 2007 10.58am Elisabetta Lana, a neighbour, reports to police that she has found a mobile phone in her garden. Her daughter later finds another. One is registered in the name of Filomena Romanelli, housemate of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox.

12.15pm Knox telephones Romanelli, saying she has found the door of the cottage open and blood in the bathroom.

12.15-12.30pm Romanelli makes two attempts to telephone Kercher.

12.30pm Two police officers arrive at the cottage, seeking Romanelli to check on the mobile phones.

12.45-1pm Romanelli arrives at the cottage and explains the mobile phones were used by Kercher.

1.15pm On police advice, a friend of Romanelli breaks down the door of Kercher’s bedroom.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5683711.ece

This is the first verification I've seen that FR tried to call MK also. She didn't arrive at the cottage between 12.45 and 1pm though. That's misleading. She arrived very close to 1pm. Arriving earlier gives the sense that they were all standing around the cottage for a half hour BF discovery of MK.

 

[otto]

Regarding the use of luminol, I think there will be testimony about luminol evidence in one of the online trials next week. I can hardly wait for the defense to point out that it's grapefruit juice! That will give the trial a circus atmosphere as prosecutors try to prove that the walls are covered with blood and the defense stomps their feet asserting that the prosecution can't prove it's blood because it could be juice.

 

[dgfred]

Amanda and Rafe cannot be standing outside with the mop if the mop was actually found in the hallway closet.

If they were found outside with the mop, is there testimony from anyone that while they were explaining the crap in the toilet and the blood in the bathroom, looking around FR's room and breaking down MK's door that AK also put the mop in the closet? Because if no one saw her do that, then right after the body was found, everyone was made to leave the house. She would have had NO time between when the PP arrived and when they were vacated from the house to put the mop away. And if the PP remembered her with the mop so clearly, surely they would have watched her put it away and they would have testified to such. Did they? I doubt it, but still...

They were not 'standing' outside with a mop, but you can see one there in the pictures of that day.

There was also a mop in the closet inside the cottage IIRC.

 

[dgfred]

Here's a timeline from an article. The TL came from RF's testimony, allegedly.

How the murder was discovered

November 2, 2007 10.58am Elisabetta Lana, a neighbour, reports to police that she has found a mobile phone in her garden. Her daughter later finds another. One is registered in the name of Filomena Romanelli, housemate of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox.

12.15pm Knox telephones Romanelli, saying she has found the door of the cottage open and blood in the bathroom.

12.15-12.30pm Romanelli makes two attempts to telephone Kercher.

12.30pm Two police officers arrive at the cottage, seeking Romanelli to check on the mobile phones.

12.45-1pm Romanelli arrives at the cottage and explains the mobile phones were used by Kercher.

1.15pm On police advice, a friend of Romanelli breaks down the door of Kercher’s bedroom.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5683711.ece

Wasn't it AK that made the two (each a few seconds long) calls to Meredith's phones? :waitasec:

 

[wasnt_me]

I said that TL was developed off RF's testimony. and I know nothing about a few seconds phone call.

Please show the picture of the mop outside and I'll believe it. Just wondering why the other dried up, crusty mop was being gift wrapped and taken into the murder room for, then.

 

[wasnt_me]

Here's a picture of the wall climbing. Everyone was interested in it, and I don't know if he's going up or down, with the way the pictures are displayed. Oh, on the bottom of the pictures, you see 1, 2, 3, so he's going up the wall. This is precisely what one web sleuther said she wanted to see in order to believe it was true.

Flourish, I told you I'd help you find it. here it is, like two months later!

 

[PalmettoGirl]

I'll go look for it, thanks!

but what about it helped you solidify your conclusions?

It's called "Behind the Headlines: Amanda Knox".

There is NO evidence linking them to the crime. Where is their DNA? Rudy's DNA is in the room, but Amanda and Raffaele's are not. Why would Raffaele call the police if they murdered someone and were trying to get away with it? The fact that the knife found in Raffaele's kitchen is not a match is a huge red flag. It's too big to have caused Meredith's wounds. Also, the supposed DNA on the knife was all used up? Another red flag. They mentioned Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's. Well duh. They lived together. That only makes sense.