Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Didn't the Daily Mail also fabricate quotes and reactions from the Knox's at the Hellman appeal hearing when they mistakenly thought the guilty verdict for Calumnia was actually for the murder charges?

Also, I believe the Daily Mail has been caught before fabricating entire court proceedings just to gin up articles for publication.

Is that still freedom of the press? I don't think so. Intentionally false reporting designed to boost sales at the expense of innocent people is just plain old garden variety fraud, and the journalistic perps should be in prison with their more pedestrian criminal cohorts.

If you listen to "Skeptics with a K," a British skeptical podcast, they discuss a lot of articles on the Daily Mail and they tend to be both very credulous on paranormal issues and some of their articles are more like ads than real news items.

 

[acbytesla]

Didn't the Daily Mail also fabricate quotes and reactions from the Knox's at the Hellman appeal hearing when they mistakenly thought the guilty verdict for Calumnia was actually for the murder charges?

Also, I believe the Daily Mail has been caught before fabricating entire court proceedings just to gin up articles for publication.

Is that still freedom of the press? I don't think so. Intentionally false reporting designed to boost sales at the expense of innocent people is just plain old garden variety fraud, and the journalistic perps should be in prison with their more pedestrian criminal cohorts.

What can you say CJ? Of course you are right. I'm very uncomfortable trying to censor the press. But then when I read things that I know are total fabrications and see the damage that they can do, it just makes me angry.

I think the author of that article got a little background information and used his imagination to fill in the rest knowing that no one would call him on any of it. And why would they, he (Andrew Malone) and the Daily Mail had published countless other stories fabricated out of whole cloth.

Check out the article below about just a few of the Daily Mail's tabloid articles.
http://www.septicisle.info/2007/12/daily-mail-has-absolutely-no-shame.html

 

[Bill Williams]

Vibio's research consists of posting questions in this thread and then ignoring the responses. The PGPs cling to bombproof opinions (it's called a 'bunker mentality' for a reason) that are entirely immune to facts. Recent examples of the pointlessness of these exchanges:

A Mach being corrected on the 'I was there' recording
B someone or other (Griffinmill?) on the infinitesimal possibility that the blood was in the quantity needed to react with luminol but not TMB
C Vibio obsessing about whether Curatolo said he was high that night
D Mach (again) appearing to query whether Amanda's hair was tested

All these have at least two things in common. First, the closer you look at each issue the worse it gets for the pro-guilt position and second, no matter how completely the PGPs are routed it does not make a blind bit of difference to them. They are literally beyond reason.

A) Mach insists he was not corrected, and went on to say that what Amanda was trying to accomplish (even though she was completely unaware that her conversation with her mother was being monitored) was to send "mafia code" to Raffaele, in essence threatening him with an evidence war if he ever withdrew his alibi. We've witnessed a variation on this guilter-stupidity with the reaction to Raffaele's recent news conference.

B) This business on the relationship between a presumptive test versus a confirmatory test is the most bizarre of these guilter talking points, and is (as you say) completely resistant to rational discussion. It is true that the presumptive test is the most accurate.... but that also means that it more accurately finds that whatever the sample is, it is just that the test doesn't say WHAT the sample is. The guilter talking point is that at a crime scene where you'de expect to find blood, then it must be blood, simply by the presumptive test coming out positive. Yet the guilters show their complete resistance to rationality when the confirmatory test FOR BLOOD comes negative, which means that whatever the sample is, it is not blood. It is a complete canard to say that since the presumptive test is more accurate then its results trump the confirmatory test... even Stefanoni said that TMB-test would be reliable if there were as little as 5 blood cells. It is, as you say, bizarre in the extreme that guilters are resistant to following reason on this.

C) For Vibio, it seems to be an argument over sources. If the source is IIP, he will disbelieve the evidence, simply on the grounds that it comes from an innocence source. Yet, even with an obviously fake report on anonymous "From The Questura" letterhead (with no other identifying information on it, Vibio thinks it is ludicrous to simply assign it as a forgery - even in the absence of ANY legitimizing evidence. That is simply bizarre reasoning.

D) Mach is resistant to reason by simply repeating that "no report for hair test was filed with the court," and think that ends the matter right there. Yet it is bizarre to claim there wasn't such a test for what was claimed to be a drugged fueled, ritualistic murder associated with the "day of the dead," where there was NO such test done by the police on the alleged perps. Given the guilter penchant for deciding things on the basis of "it is consistent that...", the notion that a test WAS done, but simply not put to the court because it was negative is more consistent with what's real than the claim that no such test was done to begin with.

After all, to accuse the police or the prosecutor in Italy of withholding evidence will land you a calunnia or defamation charge, even if you're the defence attorney.

 

[Vibio]

Bill Williams explaining to the forum what I think. It's like he's providing a simultaneous translation into a language (and logic) all his own.

 

[acbytesla]

Bill Williams explaining to the forum what I think. It's like he's providing a simultaneous translation into a language (and logic) all his own.

While I can appreciate someone not wanting their thoughts to be assumed, it does seem like your actions do speak pretty loudly. You asked us over and over and over again to provide cites for Toto taking heroin on the night of the murder. We provided them. Then you said you didn't believe them. Then we found an Italian publication that reported the same testimony and then you disappeared.

Frankly Vibio, that makes your requests to be disingenuous.

 

[Desert Fox]

While I can appreciate someone not wanting their thoughts to be assumed, it does seem like your actions do speak pretty loudly. You asked us over and over and over again to provide cites for Toto taking heroin on the night of the murder. We provided them. Then you said you didn't believe them. Then we found an Italian publication that reported the same testimony and then you disappeared.

Frankly Vibio, that makes your requests to be disingenuous.

And I provided a source which indicates by some weird twist he was not on heroin that day, his memory would still be garbage.

 

[Vibio]

http://www.umbria24.it/mez-lo-show-...nda-e-raffaele-visti-ad-halloween»/31273.html

This article from Umbria24 gives summary plus quotes from the day's testimony of Curatolo during the appeal trial.

Thank you for the link.

This article too reports the exact same quotes from the courtroom that are in the Hellman report (and the ABCnews report.)

The quote "most certainly I was high that night…" is nowhere to be found.

The exchange found in the "injustice" article is creative writing.

It is a fabrication.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you listen to "Skeptics with a K," a British skeptical podcast, they discuss a lot of articles on the Daily Mail and they tend to be both very credulous on paranormal issues and some of their articles are more like ads than real news items.

Shouldn't it be "Sceptics with a C" if it's a UK sceptics' website?!

The Mail (and, to be fair to the mail, pretty much all the UK press - though the Mail is perhaps the worst offender) is increasingly in the business of desperately trying to attract readers - and online eyeballs - in a crowded multimedia news & human interest marketplace.

That's a dangerous game to be playing. And when one considers that even when UK newspapers had this section of the field (features, sensational scoops) to themselves and garnered millions of paying readers, they often sailed far too close to the wind in their zeal to outdo each other and shock/titillate the public, the current situation is easy to understand and explain.

The game in the 21st century is to try to grab the reader's attention. That requires a hot topic, something sensational, and something with jeopardy or tragedy. And if one or more of the protagonists is a sexualised female and/or the story involves sex, criminal activity or both, then so much the better. These types of story are gold dust to outlets such as the Mail. From then on, the ONLY question that needs to be asked is this: is the story robust from a legal perspective? There's no need to debate whether the story is actually true, nor whether it's in the public interest, nor whether it's fair to its subjects.

It really does work this way, I'm afraid. That's not a jaded, hyperbolised or CT view of the way UK newspapers work - this is how they truly do work. They realise that they are in very real danger of going out of business in the new paradigm, particularly in printed form. Pretty much all of them have huge overheads and egotistical proprietors and editors. And they all have a massive sense of entitlement and droit du seigneur.

All of the above explains exactly why they jumped on the "Foxy Knoxy" goldmine with undisguised relish. It was manna from heaven for them. And the latest incarnation is simply a further milking of the same cow.

 

[Desert Fox]

In case you are interested, here is a link to the podcast
http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/podcasts/

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ,

A Seattle Police officer would not be free to give an interview as to what happened that evening without consent from the PR department of the Seattle Police department. They are not likely to comment and refer the press to the actually police report. So I seriously doubt that anyone actually spoke with the officer from the Daily Mail.

This story proves just how much the writers at the Daily Mail are willing to make up to get the clicks on their websites and sell advertising.

Here is what the Daily Mail wrote in their article



Now here is what actually happened according to the police officer. There was no call for reinforcements, there were no arrests. The officer didn't go inside the party. There were no naked guests. It



What I find interesting beyond the total fabrication of this story with absolutely just a narrative and no quotes from any of Amanda's friends or acquaintances is that it says Amanda lived in a house on Greek Row.

Now I don't know if that is actually where Amanda lived. But if that is true no one living around there could legitimately say who may have been throwing rocks were actually attending the party. As noted, this is Greek Row. I spent a lot of time on Greek Row at the UW. I've been to many parties in that neighborhood and it is true that they do throw some wild parties.

These are many are stately houses where a hundred or so 20 year old Frat boys live together It is right across the street from the University of Washington campus where 40,000 students go to school. That street is a 4 lane road with a lot of traffic. On one side are the Frat houses and on the other are the dormitories. There are people walking to and from everywhere in that neighborhood. This would be like saying that the man that lives in the penthouse apartment on the Upper East Side of New York is responsible for what some idiot did outside on 5th Avenue. The only thing anyone actually knows for sure about this party is that Amanda and her roommates had a band and it got loud and the officer wrote a noise citation.

Finally, let me say the following. This article was written in 2007 by Andrew Malone, a journalist from the Daily mail. He doesn't actually quote a single person from Seattle. Not one. He pulls a couple of quotes from the incident report and just makes the rest up.

Ahhh that's the part I was thinking of:

The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
So what the Mail's done here is very interesting (and typical!). It's indirectly quoted some sort of unattributed source ("colleagues") recalling that the investigating officer said "it was like a scene from Baghdad". So either someone (presumably another police officer, since the story has the investigating officer talking with "colleagues") talked to the Mail, or the Mail invented this quote completely - safe in the knowledge that it was sufficiently legally protected.

 

[LondonJohn]

In case you are interested, here is a link to the podcast
http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/podcasts/

Well I'm very disappointed that they've deferred to the wrong (American) spelling of sceptic!

I'll certainly listen to the podcast later though - thanks.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thank you for the link.

This article too reports the exact same quotes from the courtroom that are in the Hellman report (and the ABCnews report.)

The quote "most certainly I was high that night…" is nowhere to be found.

The exchange found in the "injustice" article is creative writing.

It is a fabrication.

Prove it. Find the official Italian transcript and post the relevant extract. Should not be difficult for an Italian speaker.

ETA I should add that it makes no difference to me whether he was high or not. His evidence is worthless (or exculpatory) anyway. Guilters don't believe them guilty because they believe Curatolo - they believe Curatolo because they believe in guilt, as with all the mountain of so-called evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

Prove it. Find the official Italian transcript and post the relevant extract. Should not be difficult for an Italian speaker.

ETA I should add that it makes no difference to me whether he was high or not. His evidence is worthless (or exculpatory) anyway. Guilters don't believe them guilty because they believe Curatolo - they believe Curatolo because they believe in guilt, as with all the mountain of so-called evidence.

Got a question for you. . . .
I was taught in PI training that dying testimony is suppose be extremely reliable.
Pretty skeptical of that now. . . .Did they discuss it in law school or in further education?

 

[acbytesla]

Ahhh that's the part I was thinking of:

The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
So what the Mail's done here is very interesting (and typical!). It's indirectly quoted some sort of unattributed source ("colleagues") recalling that the investigating officer said "it was like a scene from Baghdad". So either someone (presumably another police officer, since the story has the investigating officer talking with "colleagues") talked to the Mail, or the Mail invented this quote completely - safe in the knowledge that it was sufficiently legally protected.

I'm sure deep down LJ that this is totally fabricated. The incident report had virtually none of this detail. If other officers had been called in, that would have made it into the incident report. And since he doesn't have to give up his sources, no one can ever prove that he lied. It's brilliant. And if you look closely, he does this throughout the article.

He doesn't quote the officer, he says "According to the court records the first officer on the scene, Patrolman Bender, said the only excuse that Knox gave for her behaviour was that she was moving abroad."


"Those present that night say the scenes on the street were as nothing compared to what was going on inside Knox's rented house"
It was, according to one party guest, "bedlam, with drink, drugs and bodies everywhere.

There are so many lies in this article, I can hardly count them. I got up to 25 and stopped. It is clever writing and phrased in such a way that there is no way to hold the Daily Mail accountable for this fictitious bile.

 

[carbonjam72]

Send Lying Tabloid Journalists To Jail, Please.

Shouldn't it be "Sceptics with a C" if it's a UK sceptics' website?!

The Mail (and, to be fair to the mail, pretty much all the UK press - though the Mail is perhaps the worst offender) is increasingly in the business of desperately trying to attract readers - and online eyeballs - in a crowded multimedia news & human interest marketplace.

That's a dangerous game to be playing. And when one considers that even when UK newspapers had this section of the field (features, sensational scoops) to themselves and garnered millions of paying readers, they often sailed far too close to the wind in their zeal to outdo each other and shock/titillate the public, the current situation is easy to understand and explain.

The game in the 21st century is to try to grab the reader's attention. That requires a hot topic, something sensational, and something with jeopardy or tragedy. And if one or more of the protagonists is a sexualised female and/or the story involves sex, criminal activity or both, then so much the better. These types of story are gold dust to outlets such as the Mail. From then on, the ONLY question that needs to be asked is this: is the story robust from a legal perspective? There's no need to debate whether the story is actually true, nor whether it's in the public interest, nor whether it's fair to its subjects.

It really does work this way, I'm afraid. That's not a jaded, hyperbolised or CT view of the way UK newspapers work - this is how they truly do work. They realise that they are in very real danger of going out of business in the new paradigm, particularly in printed form. Pretty much all of them have huge overheads and egotistical proprietors and editors. And they all have a massive sense of entitlement and droit du seigneur.

All of the above explains exactly why they jumped on the "Foxy Knoxy" goldmine with undisguised relish. It was manna from heaven for them. And the latest incarnation is simply a further milking of the same cow.

Well LJ, I accept your take on the brit tabs, and it seems consistent with what appears on-line.

The Guardian ran an editorial recently after the sentencing of Andy Coulson and the acquittal of Rebecca Brooks, discussing the reign of terror in British society of Murdoch and the UK tabloids, and the prospect of "monstering" to which uncooperative politicians and hapless celebrities may be subjected to.

What I'm suggesting, is the legal prohibitions currently in place are not strong enough, or are as a practical matter, beyond the reach of almost all of the citizenry due to the time, expense and vagaries of legal action.

These types of socially destructive profit seeking behaviors should be criminalized in my view. It's not just crossing the line in how personal information is obtained (phone hacking for example), but the damage done by releasing personal information - even if true. It is a kind of assault, and wielded as such.

My understanding is that the type of media coverage of Knox would not have been legal had the trial been held in the UK, because it would have been seen as a violation of Knox's right to a fair trial. So why then, is such media coverage not a violation of the same right to a fair trial, in Italy? If a defendant has a right to a fair trial, then one can only wonder what other fundamental rights may be disregarded in foreign jurisdictions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Williams explaining to the forum what I think. It's like he's providing a simultaneous translation into a language (and logic) all his own.

What would make this less ad hominem-ish would be if you provided an example

Otherwise, you actually did argue the issue of Toto at the level of sources. You were provided with a proof from IIP, and you called it creative writing.

It would be more satisfying to me if you put me on ignore, though, than simply responding with ad hominem.

Otherwise I'm with AL, you should actually prove your claim that IIP has it wrong rather than simply asserting it because you don't like the source.

 

[Vibio]

Otherwise I'm with AL, you should actually prove your claim that IIP has it wrong rather than simply asserting it because you don't like the source.

Again the tactic is pure Bill Williams.

------------

I have searched for the full trial transcript.

The only official transcript currently available of Curatolo's words at the Hellman trial is the Hellman report.

The Hellman Report quotes him saying the following:

Curatolo: "I have always taken drugs”

Judge: “even in 2007?”

Curatolo: “yes”

Judge: "The type of drug “

Caratolo "I always took heroin. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen”.

The injustice article reports him saying:

"I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything."

Compare the two.

The devastating line: "so most certainly I was high that night" as reported in the injustice article is missing. It is nowhere to be found in the Hellman Report.

Not in the Hellman Report or in any news reports from the courtroom. It is a phrase that I do not believe would go unnoticed...or left out of the Hellman Report... only to turn up in an article on some website.

In my opinion, the exchange in the injustice article is a fabrication.

If you feel differently: fine.


--------------------

I should add that it makes no difference to me whether he was high or not.

Fine.

 

[carbonjam72]

Different translations maybe?

Again the tactic is pure Bill Williams.

------------

I have searched for the full trial transcript.

The only official transcript currently available of Curatolo's words at the Hellman trial is the Hellman report.

The Hellman Report quotes him saying the following:

Curatolo: "I have always taken drugs”

Judge: “even in 2007?”

Curatolo: “yes”

Judge: "The type of drug “

Caratolo "I always took heroin. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen”.

The injustice article reports him saying:

"I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything."

Compare the two.

The devastating line: "so most certainly I was high that night" as reported in the injustice article is missing. It is nowhere to be found in the Hellman Report.

Not in the Hellman Report or in any news reports from the courtroom. It is a phrase that I do not believe would go unnoticed...or left out of the Hellman Report... only to turn up in an article on some website.

In my opinion, the exchange in the injustice article is a fabrication.

If you feel differently: fine.


--------------------



Fine.

Hi Vibio,

Am I missing something, or are you comparing two english translations of the original Italian document?

If so, is it possible that you have identified differences in translation, as opposed to differing accounts?

As a test, what would happen if we just dropped in the original Italian from Hellman, into google translate, and see what comes out?

When I translate Italian articles through google translate, it often comes out like a kind of mishmash where I have to try to read what is actually being said.

So, going back to the original Italian text, are both translations from Italian actually reasonable interpretations of what Hellman wrote?

I'm asking you since this is your issue, as I don't have any trouble doubting that Curatolo is unreliable. As a witness in 2 other cases for Mignini, Curatolo is either the luckiest long-term heroin junkie in the world who miraculously keeps witnessing key events with perfect recall, that help Mignini secure criminal convictions, or one more lying tramp witness in Mignini's tramp witness parade.

 

[Bill Williams]

Again the tactic is pure Bill Williams.

------------

I have searched for the full trial transcript.

The only official transcript currently available of Curatolo's words at the Hellman trial is the Hellman report.

The Hellman Report quotes him saying the following:

Curatolo: "I have always taken drugs”

Judge: “even in 2007?”

Curatolo: “yes”

Judge: "The type of drug “

Caratolo "I always took heroin. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen”.

The injustice article reports him saying:

"I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything."

Compare the two.

The devastating line: "so most certainly I was high that night" as reported in the injustice article is missing. It is nowhere to be found in the Hellman Report.

Not in the Hellman Report or in any news reports from the courtroom. It is a phrase that I do not believe would go unnoticed...or left out of the Hellman Report... only to turn up in an article on some website.

In my opinion, the exchange in the injustice article is a fabrication.

If you feel differently: fine.


--------------------



Fine.

What I do appreciate is that, following some unnecessary ad hominem, you actually DO run through your evidence.... and present it competently....

.... which if you had done to begin with would have saved you the need to begin with the ad hominem.

That part I appreciate.

However, back to the issue at hand.

The issue is: is Curatolo a reliable witness? If the choice is between some who claim that Curatolo actually verbalized in the courtroom, "I was high that night," or simply that, ""I always took heroin. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen,".....

.... my opinion is that the difference is not as devastating as you might suggest.

You see, IIP is not on trial here. Neither is either of the PMF sites nor TJMK. The issue, as you are pushing for really is: what did Curatolo really say?

Either way, it is no wonder Curatolo was laughed out of court and summarily dismissed as unreliable by the Hellmann court. That the ISC would reverse a "finding of fact" by the court of appeal, where the ISC has no constitutional right so to do....

...... and did so because they found that there is no "a priori" reason to doubt Curatolo's testimony, when in fact there's a whole host of reasons as witnessed by the exchange here in this thread.... is the very issue which is relevant. Is Curatolo a reliable witness? But any measure and by BOTH the nuances of meaning you present in your post above, he is not. Period.

In short, Cassazione did not quash the acquittals on the basis of the difference in testimony that you may have uncovered between IIP and trial transcripts. They quashed it because they did not like the fact as found by the Hellmann appeals' level. The ISC acted illegally on this point. In short, the difference between IIP and what other stuff you have found is actually immaterial to anything, and is simply not the issue according to the courts.

I hope from this point on, you will consider it "pure Bill Williams" to return a discussion to the salient point being discussed.

 

[Dan O.]

Sorry CJ, vibio cannot do what you ask. He has chosen to be a member of the guilter family and his continued membership requires that he not speak against the beliefs of that family.


Antonio Curatolo testified twice, in front of Massei (2009-03-28) and again in front of Hellmann (2011-03-26). In each of these events he would have been subjected to direct and cross examination by multiple prosecutors and attorneys. What Hellmann wrote would have been a consolidation of that testimony.