Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NancyS]

Question: I'm not informed about Curatolo+heroin, so if any one can help: was it established that Curatolo was high on heroin that evening? Or was it just that he was an occasional user? What's the deal here?

He admitted to using heroin that night, which would not only have affected his ability to make accurate memories, but would have also given him pinpoint pupils, which would affect his night vision and make it hard for him to see in the dark

 

[Kaosium]

Question: I'm not informed about Curatolo+heroin, so if any one can help: was it established that Curatolo was high on heroin that evening? Or was it just that he was an occasional user? What's the deal here?

By his own admission he was a habitual user and high the night of the murder:

[Mr. Curatolo] is a tramp who at the time lived on the streets whereas today he is detained serving a sentence [detenuto in espiazione di pena] for drug-trafficking [spaccio di sostanza stupefacente] and who, when asked why he had chosen this type of life (at times, in fact, such choices are motivated by idealistic reasons), he responded: “…Because … really I’m an anarchist however I have read the bible and I became a Christian anarchist… and so this is what I chose…”.

However – the Court observes – this idealistic urge [spinta ideale] to follow the example of Jesus (to quote “…to follow the life of Christ I chose to follow this type of life…”) did not prevent him from committing many crimes, such that, when questioned about the types of crimes committed, he replied: “Several, several, you know, some precedents for drugs, some precedents for political reasons…”.

Nor did it prevent him from selling drugs or making use of them himself, so that when questioned on the point, he responded: “…I have always taken drugs” and to the question “even in 2007?”, “yes” and on the type of drug “…I always took heroin” adding immediately “I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen…”.

Today he maintains that he no longer takes drugs because – as noted – he is being detained serving a sentence [espiazione di pena] but, when asked to clarify whether he knows whether he is imprisoned for a definitive conviction [condanna definitiva, i.e. a conviction confirmed by the Cassazione], he responded: “er [boh], I still haven’t understood anything however I think so… they took me and they put me in prison”.

 

[Vibio]

I can't find the quote about him being high that evening. Can someone post it?

 

[NancyS]

I can't find the quote about him being high that evening. Can someone post it?

He was either high or would have been withdrawing - and he would be even less likely to remember anything clearly if withdrawing. If withdrawing it is possible that he could hallucinate

Whacked or clucking, you decide?

 

[Kaosium]

I can't find the quote about him being high that evening. Can someone post it?

You don't think his saying he was always on drugs, including 2007 when specifically questioned, covers that?

 

[acbytesla]

I can't find the quote about him being high that evening. Can someone post it?

It is in his testimony Vibio. He admitted taking heroin that night and he says every night.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/homeless-heroin-addict-antonio-curatolo/

Judge: Do you take drugs?
Curatolo: Yes, heroin.
Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?
Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything.
Judge: Guards, take him away. I am done.

 

[anglolawyer]

But that's not true. That wold just hamper the investigation into Federico and his drug ring (an investigation which was not conducted by Mignini, the dominus of that was another prosecutor, I think he was Petrazzini). And it would be impossible to qustion him without lawyer and impossible force him to talk (in fact it as impossible to obtain Guede's testimony), Federico would likely just remain silent. And even if he talked it would be useless, his information would be most likely irrelevant. A total waste of time and money.

This guy got 2 years 8 months, right? Small potatos. They were unravelling a murder case, remember? In fact, the murder case of all time to these small-time provincials. Are you suggesting (based on what?) that this drug ring was of such overwhelming importance that nothing could be risked even in the interests of discerning the motive for the crime?

It is not impossible to question suspects without a lawyer. They did it to Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick. And in relation to the murder, Federico would only have been a person informed of the facts anyway. Finally, as you have explained, you are not a suspect until Mignini signs the right piece of paper.

 

[Vibio]

and high the night of the murder:[/url]

Would you please provide proof of this fact?

Thanks in advance.

 

[acbytesla]

You have no right and no excuse for calling Mignini "dirty old man" because he thought of a sexual context as a scenario; when you have a woman victim who was found dead in her room naked with evidence of sexual abuse on her body. Any rational person would infer a probable sexual context, and also, from the physical elements and autopsy report any rational person would infer the presence of multiple perpetrators involved on the murder scene. Also, any rational person would perceive that the "break in" was staged.

Seriously Machiavelli? How many sex crimes involve women perpetrators? How many involve two assailants? How many involve three assailants and one being a woman? No, Mignini is a "dirty old man" and the autopsy does not show multiple perpatrators or that it is rational to perceive that the "break in" was staged.

This is what is perfect about the case against Amanda. The prosecution "claims" something and all of a sudden that "claim" is considered proof. The majority of experts said that they couldn't tell is there were multiple or just a single perpetrator.

This case is conjecture, wrapped up in speculation, and shrouded by innuendo.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thanks but no thanks

Question: I'm not informed about Curatolo+heroin, so if any one can help: was it established that Curatolo was high on heroin that evening? Or was it just that he was an occasional user? What's the deal here?

Another one of Vibio's "I'm not informed" gambits? I did that once with respect to Professor Vinci and the Crimescope, and I am not going down that rabbit hole again.

 

[Vibio]

Another one of Vibio's "I'm not informed" gambits? I did that once with respect to Professor Vinci and the Crimescope, and I am not going down that rabbit hole again.

Good. Condsidering your performance on that one.

Oh... tell us again about Amanda Marie Knox winner of Italy's coveted "Woman-of-the Year."

And note folks: my question was adressed to Kaosium... but looks who pops in with the gratutious snide comment. So please allow me to respond with one too.

----

In the meantime, I'm asking Kaosium ... quote please?

 

[NancyS]

Would you please provide proof of this fact?

Thanks in advance.

As I said above, he would either be high or withdrawing and neither are conducive to making you a reliable witness. If anything, he would likely be marginally more reliable when using. If he hadn't used that day he would likely be clucking badly and would only care about where he would get his next fix from - and he would likely say anything to get that next fix.

 

[Planigale]

This is obviously a desperate attempt of diversion, quite usual from pro-Knox supporters, just showing how desperate you are to try to try avoid the merit of a question.
In fact, the only argument of merit in this is that Knox was known having phone contacts with a bunch of drug dealers at Piazza Grimana. There is really nothing you can do to make this go away. This goes beyond any consideration about Comic Sans or about your likes and dislikes of police professionalism level.
It will be really hard for you to attempt to remove Knox's contacts with the shady crowd from reality.
I leave it to rational observers to decide whether it is "competent" to assume someone is a drug user based on his/her repeated phone contcts with drug dealers. I point out that a blood test for cocaine taken 5 days later is almost certainly negative whatever the person did; and anyway personal use of drugs is not a matter of police investigation.

Mach I apologise if others have said this. I am catching up on correspondence.

1) This document only says that Frederico was identified as supplying drugs to Knox. It does not say the nature of the drugs (cannabis, E, Bennies?). It does not say the nature of the contact (by phone, in person). It does not say how this information was obtained but the implication (alleged sexual relationship) is that it was from an informant / witness.

2) It does not say that Knox had contact with any of the other persons mentioned. Indeed one can assume she did not or it would have explicitly said so.

3) It says Frederico was identified as having contact with these others through phone monitoring.

The interesting thing is it does clarify the 'amica' issue. Frederico had contact with transgender persons. This would potentially include persons of a female gender (social role) with a Y chromosome (genetic male). Frederico may have perceived MK's boyfriend as a potential competitor in supplying cannabis to Knox; so he and a transgender heavy (and those hormones can make you heavy if you don't take care) may have decided that someone was taking liberties. Co-incidently Guede came to call. Clearly Frederico will match Guede's original description of the assailant and probably his transgender hit (wo)man may resemble Knox.

I think I'll copyright the idea of a transgender assassin - it would make a great idea for a movie - you heard it here first!

 

[acbytesla]

Good. Condsidering your performance on that one.

Oh... tell us again about Amanda Marie Knox winner of Italy's coveted "Woman-of-the Year."

And note folks: my question was adressed to Kaosium... but looks who pops in with the gratutious snide comment.

In the meantime, I'm asking Kaosium ... quote please?

Why Vibio, does Kaosium need to reply when I provided the information you asked for? Again it is in his testimony.

Here it is again.

Curatolo’s question and answer session with the court’s second Judge Massimo Zanetti went as follows:

Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?
Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was.
Judge: When is Halloween?
Curatolo: I don’t know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think.
Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?
Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.
Judge: Ok, so how did you live in the park? Were you always there?
Curatolo: Always, yes. I never left. I just lived there. On a bench mostly.
Judge: What about when you had to go to the restroom?
Curatolo: I went to the bathroom in the wooded area down the hill.
Judge: So you weren’t there all the time then?
Curatolo: What do you mean?
Judge: Never mind. So, are you certain the buses were disco buses and not tour buses?
Curatolo: Yes, definitely disco buses. They look different from other buses.
Prosecution: No, no, you must be mistaken?
Curatolo: No. I am certain they were disco buses.
Judge: Do you take drugs?
Curatolo: Yes, heroin.
Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?
Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything.
Judge: Guards, take him away. I am done.

 

[Kaosium]

Would you please provide proof of this fact?

Thanks in advance.

What would you accept as evidence that hasn't already been provided? Tesla provided the relevant quotes from Curatolo's exchange with Zanetti above, from which the dialogue Hellmann paraphrased was derived from. The exact quote, (rendered in English) reads:

"...most certainly I was high that night..."

Do you find it intriguing that this was the third murder trial Curatolo had testified in support of Mignini's prosecution?

 

[Vibio]

It is in his testimony Vibio. He admitted taking heroin that night and he says every night.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/homeless-heroin-addict-antonio-curatolo/

Judge: Do you take drugs?
Curatolo: Yes, heroin.
Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?
Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything.
Judge: Guards, take him away. I am done.

Thanks for the quote from that web site.

Unless I'm missing something: It's interesting that the Hellman report provides a completely different quote... and with nothing about being high that night:

"Nor did it prevent him from selling drugs or making use of them himself, so that when questioned on the point, he responded: “…I have always taken drugs” and to the question “even in 2007?”, “yes” and on the type of drug “…I always took heroin” adding immediately “I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen…”.

Mmmmm....

 

[Vibio]

double post

 

[Diocletus]

Mach I apologise if others have said this. I am catching up on correspondence.

1) This document only says that Frederico was identified as supplying drugs to Knox. It does not say the nature of the drugs (cannabis, E, Bennies?). It does not say the nature of the contact (by phone, in person). It does not say how this information was obtained but the implication (alleged sexual relationship) is that it was from an informant / witness.

That's my conclusion, too. There were no Knox-Federico phones calls; the "information" came from a tipster.

So, who would have known about Federico, and had a motive to tell the cops that he maybe gave Knox some drugs? IDK, perhaps the real drug suppliers looking to shift the cops interest elsewhere--i.e., Laura, Filomena or maybe even Meredith's boyfriend.

 

[NancyS]

Thanks for the quote from that web site.

Unless I'm missing something: It's interesting that the Hellman report provides a completely different quote:

"Nor did it prevent him from selling drugs or making use of them himself, so that when questioned on the point, he responded: “…I have always taken drugs” and to the question “even in 2007?”, “yes” and on the type of drug “…I always took heroin” adding immediately “I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen…”.

Mmmmm....

Mmmmm you think he was high or Mmmmm you think he was withdrawing?

 

[Planigale]

I didn't even need this to know the criminal Amanda Marie Knox is a wierdo: the testimony of the others about her police station antics and the apparent glee she was displaying were evidence enough for me.

Lots of us may be thought of being weirdos. It does not mean we are murderers. A lot of being weird is culture specific. I have been called an immodest slut, and an uptight virgin (I paraphrase) in the same day.

I really do not think if I met AK I would like her; the one thing we have in common is the ability to be inappropriate. Being inappropriate does not make you a murderer.

PS for those who refer to 'British Virgins' - please stop. They almost certainly were not virgins and if they were so what? Many cultures would think that admirable.