Friday, April 08, 2011

A Witness Icognito: Could Outnumbered Knox And Sollecito Defenses Be Forced To Resort To This?

Posted by Peter Quennell

Luciano Aviello is the so-called Camorrah Supersnitch from Naples. He has not been photographed in two decades.

When he testifies in court, he does so from behind a curtain, so that back in his cell he can sleep easier. Perhaps make that: can stay alive.

The beautiful scene below is of Alba, north of Genoa and south of Turin in northwest Italy, where Luciano Aviello may or may not be in the prison there. Nobody seems to know for sure.

We first described what is know of Luciano Aviello back here in June of last year, along with some excellent satire.

Aviello explosively emerged as a possible key defense witness - the US and UK media made a really huge deal out of this - when he claimed that his missing brother was the real murderer, along with two others.

And that Aviello knew where some evidence was hidden (not yet actually unearthed).

As with the hapless Mario Alessi, on whom we posted earlier this week, Luciano Aviello was interviewed not only by the defenses, but also by Prosecutor Mignini and Ms Comodi.

The Italian police also investigated his claims - and they did a surprise search of his prison cell. Nothing is known of what the police and prosecution found out, which makes Aviello something of a one-man minefield.

Even in the middle of last year, Luciano Aviello did not sound too credible.

Here now is an excellent new profile of Aviello and the credibility of snitches like him. It is by Mike La Sorte,  a professor emeritus at the State University of New York. Mr La Sorte includes this:

On November 1, 2007, in the Italian city of Perugia, Meredith Kercher was murdered. A trial was held and Amanda Knox was found guilty of the crime and imprisoned. At the time of the murder Luciano Aviello was out of prison and living in Perugia with his brother, Antonio. Returning to prison for extortion, Luciano from his cell in the Spring of 2010 came forward to announce that the true slayer of the victim was Antonio.

“Yes,” he declared, “it was my brother who killed Meredith during the commission of a break-in. I can produce the weapon of the crime and the keys to the house.” This generated international attention and got Avellino into the newspapers. His confession gave the defense the excuse to reopen the case to review the evidence. [Actually the mandatory appeal was already pending.]

Camorra expert Gigi di Fiore said of him: “Aviello is a strange person. He has had several contacts with the Anti-Mafia Commission and was judged to be less than truthful, a confused youth in search of publicity. He would want to exchange information for protection but had little to offer. His story is an emblematic event of no merit.”

Why could Luciano Aviello’s testimony on his claimed murderous brother (who presumably does know what he looks like) really, really matter to the besieged Knox and Sollecito defenses if it is believed? 

These are the reasons:

    1) The Supreme Court of Cassation has already accepted that overwhelming evidence proves THREE people - Guede and two others - all attacked Meredith.

    2) There are literally hundreds of evidence points pointing to Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - in fact MORE point to Knox and Sollecito.

    3) Despite the absurd claims of the dispirited conspiracy panel at Seattle University Monday night, not one evidence point - NOT ONE -  points to anyone else.

The defense lawyers actually get along well with Mr Mignini, and they know that the justice professionals have really done an okay job. They have never once claimed that any evidence was fabricated, or that investigators made things up, or beat or starved Amanda Knox, or performed any other criminal act. They seriously need to finger other perps.

So. Look forward to welcoming the colorful if invisible Mr Aviello. We sure do look forward to seeing you.  Or not, as the case may be.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/08/11 at 08:26 PM in Evidence & WitnessesOther witnesses31 Aviello hoax


What a beautiful scene.

Posted by Lola on 04/08/11 at 09:39 PM | #

Lola, do you know Italy? I think you do. Alba is in Cuneo in the heart of Piedmont. Prison there must be especially hard to take so Aviello does not get all of the frills.

The prisoners there are taught to grow flowers.  Really, who cannot love the Italians?! Apart from Moore, Heavey, Dempsey, Preston, et al….

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/08/11 at 09:51 PM | #

Of course the extreme need for Alessi or Aviello to explain who REALLY did it might be moot if Knox and Sollecito climb up on the stand and finally explain fully why it wasn’t them.

Preferably in two explanations that now coincide.

Just as the member of the conspiracy theory panel at Seattle U last Monday night were so clearly urging… Oh, they wasnt, as Paul Ciolino might say? No, of course not. They wasn’t.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/08/11 at 10:20 PM | #

What do you think is more likely to occur peter…Amanda and Raphael taking the stand or this mafia prison snitch? I personaly think that this guy will not put himself at risk for more time.

Posted by Barry on 04/09/11 at 01:57 AM | #

Hi Barry. My guess is that none of the four will testify for obvious reasons, but it doesn’t hurt for us to keep drawing attention to the fact that they are all chickening out and asking why. 

Mignini is not the lead prosecutor in the appeal - her and Ms Comodi are only there on the team at a judge’s orders - but he sure seems to have tied things up nicely in the trial and after.

Plus he seems to have silenced both the appellents’ familiies, and maybe even Knox herself, with the associated trials. They sure had it coming.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/09/11 at 02:07 AM | #

Hopefully this farce will soon come to an end and ‘True Justice for Meredith’ will have been realised. Aviello just wants the notoriety and a day trip away from prison. It would seem that notoriety is a craving that all these people desire. Knox, Sollicito, Dempsey, Moore and the others all seem to be tarred with the same brush.
Anything to enliven their obvious shallow lives.
They crave the excitement of deception and if they can make money doing so then all the better.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/09/11 at 08:53 AM | #

US Judge says Amanda Knox is “100 percent innocent” just hours ago…

Posted by willsavive on 04/10/11 at 03:12 AM | #

How can a judge in the USA say a convicted criminal in Italy is “100% innocent”?

Has he been present at the trials, read the evidence? Does he read Italian?

What does “100 % innocent” even mean? Is there a possibility that someone could be, say 80% innocent, or 99.5% innocent?

This doesn’t exactly reflect well on the USA…

Posted by lilly on 04/10/11 at 10:17 AM | #

Well said lilly.  Watching Heavey on the video I was thinking how unbefitting and inappropriate for a judge of all people to stand up on a public stage and say such things, particulary when, as you say he wasn’t present at the trial, seen all the original evidence or speaks Italian.  What many of the panelists had in common was that they ‘knew’ Amanda before she went to Italy and because of the type of girl she was/her achievements she couldn’t possibily have been involved in such a crime.  Somewhat contradictory given that they accused the Italians of pre-judgement.

Posted by Lola on 04/10/11 at 11:21 AM | #

From Bruce Fisher a message to me In response to my blog post here.

Hello Bruce Fisher, I am aware of your work, and likewise - congratulations on completing your recent book. I also understand the work it takes to write a book so I appreciate your effort as well. In response to your response to my blog post…

From your response I am assuming that you only read the “look inside” on Amazon and not the entire book. Also, I hear Knox supporters frequently say that these legitimate sites in regard to the facts of the case are “hate sites.” I see no hate speech on these sites, only honest people giving their analysis, and exposing many of the lies reported by the media and many Knox supporters. 

I want to start off by saying that we are probably going to have to agree to disagree, because you are contending things here that my book clearly goes over in detail.

For instance, the pillow-print which Dr. Rinaldi said was between 36 – 38 euro size shoe, and Knox is a 37 Euro. I also provide the defense experts that testified to some different findings, backing up what you have said in your response, in greater detail. My attempt was to create a fair account, as I go through all 50 days of the trial, without much author commentary therein those trial days.

However, it is clear to me that Knox is guilty of being involved in this murder - based on the evidence - and there is not much you can do about that, particularly when you provide more misinformation as you did in your response to my blog. For example:

In response to my statement, “5 spots in the house that were mixed with Knox and Kercher’s DNA (Some were mixed with the blood of them both), you said:  “Your statement: “Some were mixed with the blood of them both” is completely false. There were no samples collected that contained blood from both Amanda and Meredith”

Apparently you haven’t taken the time to read Judge Massei’s report. 

Two mixed blood samples:

Massei Report - Page 192 (para 2)  Speaking of blood samples in the bathroom, Judge Massei states, “another sample taken from a [blood] specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink.”

Third mixed blood sample:

Massei Report - Page 192 (para 3)  “The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.”

That pretty much sums up the 3 mixed blood spots. I’m not sure where you’re getting these “so called facts” from? I guess you believe that Judge Massei’s report is a work of fiction.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you claim that there were no mixed blood spots, and then proceed to explain to me how sharing a bathroom with someone and cutting your finger gets this result, or something.

Also, funny how when I spoke about the plethora of lies told by Knox and Sollecito, such as the party that Sollecito claimed that he and Knox went to on the night of the murder, that you did not comment on that. I wouldn’t presume that you have a logical answer for that one.

What about the call from Knox to her mother at 12:47p.m. (on the day Meredith’s body was discovered), when she told her mother that Raffaele was finishing a call with his sister and when he finished that call they were going to call the police? That call to her mother only lasted a minute and a half. Sollecito called his sister at 12:50p.m. Shows premeditation, in my opinion, as Sollecito’s call to his sister had not even occurred yet—they were reconfiguring their newly constructed alibi in a hurry as they were surprised by the postal police.

I understand you know the family and I understand this is a sensitive subject for you, and I apologize if I seem insensitive, but you are challenging my view based on my 4 paragraph blog, not my book…Moreover, a fine woman was butchered here, and it is my understanding that Amanda was involved…and maybe it is hard for you and the family to see this as you are not looking at it objectively, but this is still America and we all have our opinions.

But in the book I don’t provide the same opinions that I do on my blog—-the book is more about the facts, that’s what I have presented. I have watched the America media distort the facts in this case and I find it truly disturbing.

You say “Amanda didn’t write a confession.” That sure looks like a confession to me, confession of involvement. Innocent people don’t make such proclamations, and I just don’t buy the coercion in this instance, and I am always the first to scrutinize police when it comes to coercion—but I just don’t see it here.

She simply tried to outsmart the police—she thought she was smarter than them and could talk her way out of it by telling confusing half-truths, but she couldn’t. I have read everything on the case, including your site, so no need to send me links as if I have not considered them.

Just to touch on some of your other points made in response to my blog. In the book I discuss Quintavalle’s testimony as well as the testimony of Marina Chiriboga (Conad store worker) who said she was there that day and was sure she didn’t see Knox. You probably should bring that up in your opposition to Quintavalle’s version from now on.

You said:  “Quintavalle claimed Amanda was in the store and she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything.”

Quintavalle testified that he was not at the cash register when she left and didn’t see if she purchased anything or not.

P.S. I don’t care when Quintavalle came forward…one shouldn’t be penalized for doing the right thing, however long it takes them to realize what that is, particularly when they get there in time, which is what he did. I am not saying that I am in 100 percent agreement with his testimony, as far as his reliability is concerned, but he was another piece of the puzzle. Yet, I basically excluded his testimony, in my mind, when coming to my conclusion.

As for the barefoot bloody print on the bathmat, I detail all sides in my book, including what you wrote here. In fact, I go in to much greater detail explaining what you did here. However, I also do my own analysis and I believe it is Sollecito’s print.

Honestly, I would love to discuss this with you in private, but I don’t have time to respond at a moments notice with a five page rebuttal in what no doubt will wind up being a long, drawn-out public pissing contest, particularly when you are not debating things in my book, but opinions on my blog. If you would like to discuss this on a radio or TV show I would be more than willing.

Posted by willsavive on 04/10/11 at 11:27 AM | #

Hi Will,

Even Amanda Knox’s lawyers concede that her blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood:

“Why were you bleeding? Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 29 May 2010).

Posted by The Machine on 04/10/11 at 12:30 PM | #

9th May DNA Review
21st May AK/RS Appeal

Will the appeal finish on the 21st? I don’t know but maybe not.

Assuming the 9th is limited to the DNA Review that leaves the 21st (another Saturday, and presumably these are just morning sessions) to either entertain the thought of and/or hear further witnesses (including AK and RS themselves), hear prosecution and defence arguments on the evidence, including what has come in to the frame from the separate RG proceedings.

I do not think that there will be any rush to judgement on the day.

Furthermore if the convictions are upheld there will then be further arguments on sentence as both sides will want to be heard on that.

So possibly the appeal could run on until the end of June or longer.

Posted by James Raper on 04/10/11 at 02:28 PM | #

Just read some of the posts emanating from Seattle and it’s sad but true when it is said “They walk among us”

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/10/11 at 08:05 PM | #

Does that mean the court decides on guilt/innocence first and then the sides will argue sentencing?

Posted by Giselle on 04/11/11 at 06:50 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Will Savive On Amanda Knox On The Witness Stand On The Morning of June 12 2009

Or to previous entry Sollecito Family Trial: On The Component About Their Alleged Attempt At Political Interference