Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I'm not trying to contend anything.

If you followed my posts on the subject, for the moment I'm trying to have accurate info on what Coratolo said at the appeal. Something wrong with that?

Not what Kaosium says he said. Not what Kaosium thinks he said. But what Coratolo said.

--

I may take you up on the offer to scroll on by.

Apologies for putting it this way, but this is picking gnat-waste out of pepper.

For my money it is a effort to divert into irrelevant issues when the main point is clear. Curatolo is an unreliable witness, and adds nothing to understanding this case.

This is beyond issues of the normal relative skepticism investigators should reserve for eyewitness testimony. But add in the junkie aspect and when Curatolo was brought in pretty much cinches the matter.

The only reason we're talking about this is because Cassazione looked at it even more differently than this thread. They simply said Hellmann erred because there was no a priori reason to doubt Curatolo.

Yeah sure.

 

[Anode]

I can't believe I'm saying this. But I think Vibio makes a fair point. It's clear that Curatolo said he was always taking drugs in 2007, it's just not clear that he says he took heroin on that specific night.

That said, it is also fairly clear that the implication that he was high that night is also true because he uses the caveat that heroin doesn't cause hallucinations. So from Curatolo's perspective, whether or not he may or may not have been high is irrelevant.

Is it possible to ask the author of the web page in question for the source? It doesn't make much difference to me. I find Curatolo unbelievable, but I do like having accurate sources...

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not trying to contend anything.

If you followed my posts on the subject, for the moment I'm trying to have accurate info on what Coratolo said at the appeal. Something wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that, and you probably noticed I've been following your posts on the subject. We started with you asking the the following:

"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?"


Now you know that Curatolo said he was always using drugs, including when prompted 2007, (which in the context of his testimony indicates the night of the murder incidentally) and was a habitual user. His saying he always used heroin means he most certainly was on heroin the night of the murder is a logic problem a seven year-old could solve.

Not what Kaosium says he said. Not what Kaosium thinks he said. But what Curatolo said.

Curatolo said he was always high in those days, that includes the night of the murder. This therefore is a false statement:

"But putting together the available info, I find that: at the trial Curatolo never said that he was high that evening."

As I pointed out before, he didn't just say he was high the night of the murder, he said he was always high in those days. Claiming that he never said he was high the night of the murder when he said he was high all the time is an indication of either fundamental dishonesty or a mental disorder.

 

[acbytesla]

There's nothing wrong with that, and you probably noticed I've been following your posts on the subject. We started with you asking the the following:

"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?"


Now you know that Curatolo said he was always using drugs, including when prompted 2007, (which in the context of his testimony indicates the night of the murder incidentally) and was a habitual user. His saying he always used drugs means he most certainly was on drugs the night of the murder is a logic problem a seven year-old could solve.



Curatolo said he was always high in those days, that includes the night of the murder. This therefore is a false statement:

"But putting together the available info, I find that: at the trial Curatolo never said that he was high that evening."

As I pointed out before, he didn't just say he was high the night of the murder, he said he was always high in those days. Claiming that he never said he was high the night of the murder when he said he was high all the time is an indication of either fundamental dishonesty or a mental disorder.

I think he has you there Vibio. Your argument is nitpicking. It is unreasonable for you to ignore the implication.

I'm curious, can you allow your mind to consider that Curatolo was probably high that night? And this discussion may just fill some need for you to score points as opposed to anything else?

 

[Kaosium]

Is it possible to ask the author of the web page in question for the source? It doesn't make much difference to me. I find Curatolo unbelievable, but I do like having accurate sources...

I have access to editing that wiki but outside a couple (very minor) copy-edits I've contributed nothing to it. I don't know who rendered that translation, but I do know the source: the dialogue between Zanetti and Curatolo at the appeal appearance of the latter. Hellmann also (partially) quoted from that exchange in the Hellmann-Zanetti Report.

Before prompting Vibio to look in Italian, I went and looked for a transcript of that appearance and couldn't find one in English. It's possible there's not one available, however there's also those who were in court at the time who rendered translations of the proceedings, it's my guess that's where that one came from.

I could (and would) change it if there was reason to believe it was inaccurate, but so far that bar has not been met. Hellmann did quote verbatim from testimony at times in his report, (like the Rudy Guede section) and as you can see when he did so he used a different format, like a script where each speaker is identified. He did not do so for this particular exchange with Curatolo so there's no reason to believe he's quoting it verbatim and there may very well be other dialogue he did not represent, which could very well have included something that could be rendered as 'most certainly' when translated.

Without a transcript showing differently I have no basis for trying to change that and cannot help but wonder how anyone could ever get the impression that by saying he was always using heroin he somehow precluded having used it that night.

 

[platonov]

Two or three days ago, someone posted here a The Telegraph article about Amanda Knox, which actually does represent the problem with how the U.K. media (particularly) has corrupted this case.

<snip>

What is really real is the concerted, coordinated PR effort to smear Amanda Knox ahead of the coming Cassazione ruling on the Nencini guilty verdict.

Wow Bill - I think you have finally cracked it.

Leaving aside the precise details of AK's connection with coke dealers, the big Q is :
Who is behind these 'smears' [& Lets also ignore for a moment the the 'interesting' concept of it being possible to smear a convicted sex killer]

I think we may have some clues in this regard.
A short time ago a slimy Italian, also a convicted killer, gave a press conference (which many posters here apparently missed) casting doubt on the existence, never mind strength, of AK's alibi & her story generally.

Might he have something to do with this latest assault on AK's public persona.

What do you think ?

 

[platonov]

A model witness

Why does it matter if he was high that specific day or not?
I have posted multiple times a variety of sources which support that human memory is poor in the best of times
I have further posted that the memory of people who use heroin is further impaired.
Conclusion should be that high or not that day, his memory should not be trusted and that he is not a credible witness.

If you disagree, please provide some sources that one can research to see if your arguments are justified?

Edit: While I tend to avoid this, this is an important crux of the matter. As such, unless you can refute the sources, I will assume that you are conceding the argument that he is credible?

Well - perhaps there is something to this.

But compared to AK & RS's confused & inconsistent (evasive even) accounts of the evening on Nov 1st (and the next morning) Curatolo is a model witness.
So if his memories are impaired by the fact of his being a heroin user - what on earth were this pair on ??

Cocaine & alcohol perhaps. Or maybe they were/are just dissembling & badly at that.

Or a combination of both ?

 

[Desert Fox]

Wow Bill - I think you have finally cracked it.

Leaving aside the precise details of AK's connection with coke dealers, the big Q is :
Who is behind these 'smears' [& Lets also ignore for a moment the the 'interesting' concept of it being possible to smear a convicted sex killer]

I think we may have some clues in this regard.
A short time ago a slimy Italian, also a convicted killer, gave a press conference (which many posters here apparently missed) casting doubt on the existence, never mind strength, of AK's alibi & her story generally.

Might he have something to do with this latest assault on AK's public persona.

What do you think ?

Even if she was guilty, which is against the evidence, it is possible to commit libel against somebody who is guilty of a crime.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well - perhaps there is something to this.

But compared to AK & RS's confused & inconsistent (evasive even) accounts of the evening on Nov 1st (and the next morning) Curatolo is a model witness.
So if his memories are impaired by the fact of his being a heroin user - what on earth were this pair on ??

Cocaine & alcohol perhaps. Or maybe they were/are just dissembling & badly at that. Or a combination of both ?

Your post is dishonest. . . .
Their story is consistent. Both were at his apartment the whole night. What they did each second, people will remember things in different order.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think he has you there Vibio. Your argument is nitpicking. It is unreasonable for you to ignore the implication.

I'm curious, can you allow your mind to consider that Curatolo was probably high that night? And this discussion may just fill some need for you to score points as opposed to anything else?

I agree with Vibio that on the very narrow issue of whether or not Curatolo actually stated unequivocally in court that he was high on heroin on the night of 1st November 2007, it's questionable (and I'd certainly be interested in where that IIP transcript came from.....).

But of course that's only a very selective narrow point that's not necessary when assessing the actual salient point of Curatolo's drug use around the time of the murder and his general state of mental health (both during the time of the murder and when he gave testimony before Massei and Hellmann).

And the answers to those questions are crystal clear. Curatolo was, by his own explicit admission, using heroin in 2007, and almost certainly on the night of the murder. Furthermore, Curatolo's mental health is beyond all doubt sufficient in and of itself to disqualify him as a reliable witness. He claimed to be leading a Jesus-like existence, he obviously had issues with his choice to live on the streets for several years (when I'm in no doubt that he could have been cared for by Perugia social services had he complied and/or desired their services). And in Hellmann's courtroom, he first of all claimed he's come to testify there from his normal abode - rather than prison (which is where he actually was incarcerated at that time) - then stated that he had no idea why he was in prison. He went on to insist (much to the visible consternation of the prosecutors!) that he had seen students in Halloween costumes on the night in question, and that he was certain that the buses he'd seen were disco buses.

And those are the important and relevant things to know about Curatolo. He was in no fit state to be a reliable witness on 1st November 2007 (or any day around that date), and he was in no fit state to give testimony in any of the trial courtrooms. In short, his involvement in this trial process needs to be entirely eliminated.

Still, I suppose there's comedy value (tinged with sadness and incredulity) to see commentators such as Stewart Home and SA go to ridiculous lengths to bolster Curatolo's credibility (the "Halloween costumes on 1st November" debacle and the excruciatingly embarrassing "meeting with Curatolo" - complete with "smell test" - respectively). The fact is that Curatolo was a shambles.

Incidentally, the added fact that the police/prosecutors were holding a drug-dealing charge from several years previously over his head is something else that definitely should not be overlooked. In fact, even if Curatolo had been lucid as crystal and entirely consistent in his testimony, this remarkable factor in itself should have rendered Curatolo's role in proceedings suspect.

 

[Samson]

You have an impossibility to deal with then. The problem is that the left inner shutter (as viewed from inside) and the main window share a common latch. We presume that the main latch is closed, otherwise nothing stops the wind from opening the window. There is no damage to the inner shutter in the area of the latch indicating that the inner shutter was not behind it's latch when the rock struck.

The inner shutter was likely closed as far as it would without releasing the main latch to place the shutte behind its latch.

In a debate with Ergon he says

1) AK was convicted of staging the break in to mislead the investigation. Whether she or RS threw the rock from the inside or the outside is immaterial.

and

2) Filomena Romanelli testified she had closed the outer shutters almost shut. Rudy Guede could not have thrown that big rock through that small gap without damaging the outer shutters.

4) I've also seen pictures of the two locking mechanism of the INNER shutters. Filomena locked them, she was going away for a trip. Guede could not have accessed the apartment without damaging the inner shutters.

1. He ignores the dead body in the house so a staging is from inside unless the stagers want the neighbours to drop by.

2. I have also calculated Rudy could grasp the rough roof tiles while standing on the planter to pull open the right shutter as looking from outside, The Hendry idea of holding the building corner is dangerous to impossible.

4. This is what you seem to know,
I had never heard of inward opening glass, but windows are for light by design. In this set up it must be possible to exclude weather while allowing light. I must presume it is possible to lock the glass closed but have the internal shutter open, and that Filomena after pulling closed the exterior shutters locked the glass and then pushed the interior shutters closed.

I have just reread your post confirming the obvious point about the ability to lock glass only, since typing this, but am interested in the overall subject as I see it the best simple proof of non involvement to promote to public, and Ergon's complacency should be demolished.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can't believe I'm saying this. But I think Vibio makes a fair point. It's clear that Curatolo said he was always taking drugs in 2007, it's just not clear that he says he took heroin on that specific night.

That said, it is also fairly clear that the implication that he was high that night is also true because he uses the caveat that heroin doesn't cause hallucinations. So from Curatolo's perspective, whether or not he may or may not have been high is irrelevant.

I just wish that everyone would view Curatolo's testimony osmotically.

Curatolo's testimony debunked Micheli's pretrial theory that Curatolo and earwitness Nara Capezzelli were describing the same event. Curatolo provided an actual alibi for Knox and Sollecito, in the sense that Mignini at trial's end had to place TOD at 11:30 pm...... changing his own "theory of the crime" yet again.

Why anyone would focus on a matter completely irrelevant to the osmotic understand of Curatolo's contribution to this is beyond me.

 

[platonov]

An open mike spot beckons

Your post is dishonest. . . .
Their story is consistent. Both were at his apartment the whole night. What they did each second, people will remember things in different order.

Your post is funny

 

[Desert Fox]

Your post is funny

What is actually funny is that you never want to show exactly what those supposed inconsistencies are. . . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow Bill - I think you have finally cracked it.

Leaving aside the precise details of AK's connection with coke dealers, the big Q is :
Who is behind these 'smears' [& Lets also ignore for a moment the the 'interesting' concept of it being possible to smear a convicted sex killer]

I think we may have some clues in this regard.
A short time ago a slimy Italian, also a convicted killer, gave a press conference (which many posters here apparently missed) casting doubt on the existence, never mind strength, of AK's alibi & her story generally.

Might he have something to do with this latest assault on AK's public persona.

What do you think ?

It's a guess, because one has to navigate the glee in which you post a lot of ad hominem....

When asked, Raffaele said that the only two people entitled to speak for this case, were him and Bongiorno.

The people intent on perpetrating a concerted PR campaign against Knox and Sollecito leave that part out. Apparently, what Raffaele wants the world to hear (as well as Cassazione) is contained in the pages of the appeals document now filed with Cassazione for their ruling. That document is clear - both Sollecito and Knox are innocent.

It is the agenda of this PR campaign to say otherwise, claiming that somewhere in that document is either Raffaele or Bongiorno disputing the alibi Raffaele has always given Amanda.

Although in Italian, it is here for all to read:

RICORSO PER CASSAZIONE - con richiesta di assegnazione alle Sezioni Unite Penali
​

But, hey, why would one read this (even if through Google Translate) when the more lurid factoids make better newspaper copy.

Skip to page 10, because in the introduction, you find Raffaele's positon on this matter:

INTRODUCTION

The defense, in this appeal, as already done in the past, will analyze both the Raffaele Sollecito's position as that of Amanda Knox, not only because the erroneous assessment of the evidence against the latter has come to affect, as in a system of communicating vessels, on the position of the other defendant, but also - and this is the essential point - as the guilt "cascade" of Sollecito was not anchored to specific procedural emergencies (serious, precise and concordant)......​

Otherwise, you have every right to use highly charged language, like, "a slimey Italian," because I've come to learn that the more invective like this which is hurled, the less the veracity of one's position can be assumed.

But I do admit, yours makes better tabloid copy.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree with Vibio that on the very narrow issue of whether or not Curatolo actually stated unequivocally in court that he was high on heroin on the night of 1st November 2007, it's questionable

No it's not, Curatolo did state unequivocally he was on drugs the night of the murder. That's what always means, it's an absolute.

It may not be any more credible than the rest of his testimony, it may be he never actually uttered words that would literally mean 'most certainly' if rendered unto English, but by saying he was always high he certainly did say unequivocally he was high the night of the murder.

In fact there's no way he could have been less unequivocal about it: he didn't even allow for the possibility he was not high that night. The equivocation comes from the listener (or reader) in realizing that he couldn't be high every instant and that it would be an exaggeration, but that doesn't change what Curatolo said: which was an unequivocal admission he was on drugs the night of the murder--and the rest of the time as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

I find it very interesting - and very instructive - when some people either cannot or will not understand that in a criminal trial, where the entire burden of proof rests with the prosecution, the reliability of witnesses for the prosecution is of absolute importance. By contrast, the defence - whether the defendants themselves or defence witnesses - don't even have to offer any testimony. The defence doesn't have to prove anything at all. It only has to convince the court that the prosecution has not proven guilt.

That's not to say that if the defendants (or, to a lesser extent, defence witnesses) are assessed as unreliable or contradictory, this should not count in assessing their overall credibility. Clearly if a defendant claims (s)he was in one place at the time of the crime, while it can be reliably shown that in fact they were at a different place (particularly if that place is the crime scene), then this in itself can be strong evidence of guilt.

But of course this is clearly not the case with the accounts of Knox and Sollecito. Naturally there have been inconsistencies and confusion, but their general account has remained consistent from day 1 (save for that fateful interrogation night on 5th/6th November 2007, which I would strongly argue needs to be considered in a special context).

As I've said before, Sollecito could have claimed he was playing 5-a-side football with the Sultan of Brunei and Tom Cruise on the night of the murder - regardless of how easily that could be disproved, it would still be entirely incumbent on the court to prove that he participated in the murder of Kercher (which would of course have necessitated his presence at the cottage during the murder). Had Sollecito made such a ludicrous claim, it would clearly have damaged his general credibility to an extent, but it would not constitute proof of guilt.

On the other hand, someone claiming he saw Knox and Sollecito hanging around near the basketball court on the night of the murder - when Knox and Sollecito both claim they were inside Sollecito's apartment all night - needs to pass a very high reliability/credibility test, otherwise his testimony must be considered worthless. Curatolo spectacularly failed the reliability/credibility test, and thus his account should be entirely thrown out. If you are going to convict someone of serious crimes, you've got to be certain of the evidence against them.

 

[platonov]

Even if she was guilty, which is against the evidence, it is possible to commit libel against somebody who is guilty of a crime.

She is.
It may be.

I look forward to the civil action of one convicted killer against another in the matter of her associating with coke dealers.
Given that, at that stage - if the various groupie arguments are to be believed - The Kerchers will have seized all RS's assets, how can she hope to achieve satisfaction w.r.t any damages awarded her.

 

[LondonJohn]

No it's not, Curatolo did state unequivocally he was on drugs the night of the murder. That's what always means, it's an absolute.

It may not be any more credible than the rest of his testimony, it may be he never actually uttered words that would literally mean 'most certainly' if rendered unto English, but by saying he was always high he certainly did say unequivocally he was high the night of the murder.

In fact there's no way he could have been less unequivocal about it: he didn't even allow for the possibility he was not high that night. The equivocation comes from the listener (or reader) in realizing that he couldn't be high every instant and that it would be an exaggeration, but that doesn't change what Curatolo said: which was an unequivocal admission he was on drugs the night of the murder--and the rest of the time as well.

Ah yes I absolutely agree that one can (and should) draw exactly this inference from Curatolo's words as paraphrased in the Hellmann Report. I was being pedantic in pointing out that it may not be that Curatolo actually said the exact, explicit words "I was high on Heroin on the night of 1st November 2007" (or their exact equivalent). I had gone on to point out that (in my view) whether or not Curatolo had spoken these precise words is immaterial - for exactly the reason you give: one can clearly draw the reliable inference that Curatolo was affirming that he must have been on Heroin on the night of the murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

She is.
It may be.

I look forward to the civil action of one convicted killer against another in the matter of her associating with coke dealers.
Given that, at that stage - if the various groupie arguments are to be believed - The Kerchers will have seized all RS's assets, how can she hope to achieve satisfaction w.r.t any damages awarded her.

It would be preferable to me (as well as indicative of a more honest debate) if you were to refrain from using terms such as "groupies". Of course, if you want to keep using these sorts of terms, that's entirely your prerogative, but...........