Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

It's like a blind spot.

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:

​

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.

And are still 'missing', apparently !

 

[Vibio]

....how anyone could ever get the impression that by saying he was always using heroin he somehow precluded having used it that night.

He says, (as a lot of people can): "I have always used drugs".
He says that he was using them in 2007
He identifies the drug he used as heroin.

He does not say with what frequency he was using the drug.
He does not say he was high that night.

If you want to infer from all of this that, "Curatolo was high that night"....fine.

--

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

I must admit that studying the pro guilt side does give an interesting education.
All of the evidence appears to point that AK/RS are innocent, however the pro guilt side clings to trying to state that they are guilty.
It is also interesting that the same exact phenomena can be seen with other cases. I wonder if there are any case studies on it?

 

[platonov]

The digested read.

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.

The tl;dr version

Alibis are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT

[or something]

 

[acbytesla]

He says, (as a lot of people can): "I have always used drugs".
He says that he was using them in 2007
He identifies the drug he used as heroin.

He does not say with what frequency he was using the drug.
He does not say he was high that night.

If you want to infer from all of this that, "Curatolo was high that night"....fine.

--

But what you are ignoring is Curatolo's mention that "heroin doesn't cause hallucinations." What he doesn't say is that he wasn't using that night. That clearly demonstrates that he sees it as irrelevant and a given that he may have been under the influence. And that he doesn't think its use has an impact on what he saw that evening. That's telling Vibio.

Can't you see that Vibio??

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how to conduct a line-up

Curatolo could have been the most upstanding citizen in Perugia, and his identification would still not be worth anything. The alleged sighting was made at night over a considerable distance. Another problem is that any eyewitness identification should be carried out with careful procedures. Here is what the Innocence Project says about proper versus improper photo line-ups.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

And the fact that Curatolo was a "super-witness" for Mignini in two other cases, should exclude him as a witness that can be relied upon for truthful testimony. Curatolo didn't see anything, his account is fictional, and made at the prompting of Mignini, just as in the two other cases where Mignini turned to him (imo, obviously).

What's interesting, is that a journalist is taking credit for digging up Curatolo as a witness. Could one suppose Mignini made the suggestion to the reporter to seek out Curatolo and see what he may know?

 

[LondonJohn]

The tl;dr version

Alibis are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT

[or something]

No:

Reliable alibis are very useful for proving innocence.

Lack of alibis or unreliable alibis are not very useful for proving guilt.

That you can't/won't understand this (together with the wider issue of the burden of proof) is an interesting insight into your arguments. Thanks

 

[Skind]

But what you are ignoring is Curatolo's mention that "heroin doesn't cause hallucinations." What he doesn't say is that he wasn't using that night. That clearly demonstrates that he sees it as irrelevant and a given that he may have been under the influence. And that he doesn't think its use has an impact on what he saw that evening. That's telling Vibio.

Can't you see that Vibio??

Pretty much. The chances of him remembering any particular hit is pretty slim and there would be no need for him to declare that heroin is not a hallucinogen if he was certain he wasn't under the influence that night. You don't need to declare that something doesn't have an effect if you believe you weren't under the influence.

It's therefore reasonable to hold to the belief that Curotalo believed he was likely under the influence that night, regardless of wheter he actually was.

Holding onto the belief that a lack of a clear confirmation actually means something is not a reasonable position to take, to the point of actually being foolish and a bit stupid.

 

[Kaosium]

He says, (as a lot of people can): "I have always used drugs".

He says that he was using them in 2007
He identifies the drug he used as heroin.

He does not say with what frequency he was using the drug.
He does not say he was high that night.

If you want to infer from all of this that, "Curatolo was high that night"....fine.

--

Of course you have to infer he was saying that he was high on heroin that night, he said he was always using drugs then, which he then specified as heroin. He also delineated times when he wasn't using drugs, notably at the time because he was in prison, so your version of 'always' cannot apply to his statement.

 

[LondonJohn]

Pretty much. The chances of him remembering any particular hit is pretty slim and there would be no need for him to declare that heroin is not a hallucinogen if he was certain he wasn't under the influence that night. You don't need to declare that something doesn't have an effect if you believe you weren't under the influence.

It's therefore reasonable to hold to the belief that Curotalo believed he was likely under the influence that night, regardless of wheter he actually was.

Holding onto the belief that a lack of a clear confirmation actually means something is not a reasonable position to take, to the point of actually being foolish and a bit stupid.

The other crucial point to remember regarding this issue is this:

When someone develops a long-term dependency on Heroin, the physiology and psychology of that dependency makes it almost vital for that person to get daily fixes - the combination of dependency and tolerance means that it's hugely important to maintain a certain level of high, and if the daily (or often twice-daily) fix is not obtained, the person can suffer extreme adverse reactions. Indeed, most drug-related crime is exactly linked to this factor: dependent users craving their maintenance fix at any cost.

Therefore in Curatolo's case, it's almost inconceivable that as a long-term dependent user of Heroin - as he indisputably was in 2007 - he could or would have had any "days off" from Heroin. He would have required constant fixes in order to satiate his dependency and prevent adverse withdrawal symptoms.

With all that in mind, and taking into account what Curatolo provably said in front of Hellmann's court, it's a virtual certainty that Curatolo was high on Heroin on the evening/night of 1st November 2007.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course you have to infer he was saying that he was high on heroin that night, he said he was always using drugs then, which he then specified as heroin. He also delineated times when he wasn't using drugs, notably at the time because he wasn't in prison, so your version of 'always' cannot apply to his statement.

Exactly. I would go so far as to state with confidence that the only time from some time before 2007 up to the point he died, the ONLY time Curatolo was not taking at least daily fixes of Heroin was when he was forcibly prevented from doing so by virtue (or not) of being in custody.

I would hope (for his own sake, and for the sake of basic humanity within the Italian prison system) that Curatolo would have been given Methadone (or similar) while in custody, in order to alleviate the severe problems caused by the abrupt cessation of Heroin fixes.

 

[acbytesla]

Pretty much. The chances of him remembering any particular hit is pretty slim and there would be no need for him to declare that heroin is not a hallucinogen if he was certain he wasn't under the influence that night. You don't need to declare that something doesn't have an effect if you believe you weren't under the influence.

It's therefore reasonable to hold to the belief that Curotalo believed he was likely under the influence that night, regardless of wheter he actually was.

Holding onto the belief that a lack of a clear confirmation actually means something is not a reasonable position to take, to the point of actually being foolish and a bit stupid.

Curatolo would be considered to be an incredibly unreliable witness given the circumstances. Junkie, homeless at night, doesn't come forward for 6 months. No special reason to remember the couple. No special reason to remember the precise time.

This is why police write everything down. Depending on people's memory in hindsight is incredibly unreliable. It's not like Curatolo remember seeing this couple do something outrageous. There is no reason to remember it.

I don't believe Amanda and Raffaele spent 10 minutes together standing in the basketball court ...ever...let alone for around two hours precisely when the murder was occurring.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

alibi evidence is sometimes ignored

London John,

I agree with you in principle, and you have stated it very clearly. However, Farah Jama had an alibi, but the jury didn't believe him. They chose to believe DNA evidence that is now agreed to have arisen from contamination. Jonathan Fleming had an alibi (he was in Florida), but he was convicted of murder on the basis of a witness who did crack. It was at night and she was 400 feet away (the crime took place in Brooklyn). Or consider Juan Rivera, who was electronically monitored using a bracelet; (IIRC) he was under house arrest. Yet he was convicted. It would seem that alibis don't always mean much to prosecutors or juries.

 

[Vibio]

But what you are ignoring is Curatolo's mention that "heroin doesn't cause hallucinations."

I haven't ignored that, having posted the full quote more than once here. Would that mean he's refering to that evening? Maybe, maybe not. But before coming to that point, I want to know what exactly was said at the trial. I think we can now agree that he never said: "most certainly I was high that night".

-----

By the way... and this is curious: at the Massei trial Coratolo is never asked about drug use by the defense. Bongiorno never brings up the subject. I find that odd.

 

[Kaosium]

Exactly. I would go so far as to state with confidence that the only time from some time before 2007 up to the point he died, the ONLY time Curatolo was not taking at least daily fixes of Heroin was when he was forcibly prevented from doing so by virtue (or not) of being in custody.

I would hope (for his own sake, and for the sake of basic humanity within the Italian prison system) that Curatolo would have been given Methadone (or similar) while in custody, in order to alleviate the severe problems caused by the abrupt cessation of Heroin fixes.

My guess as to the latter is that he probably was getting something, I do know they're generous with the sedatives with people who aren't suffering withdrawals as per Amanda refusing the tranquilizers in prison, so I cannot see why they couldn't find something to mitigate his condition whether it was methadone (which I've heard causes its own problems) or something else.

Indeed it probably should be remembered that Curatolo had spent a decade or so sleeping on the streets which is what happens to those who are heroin junkies, which is what Curatolo was. Those are the ones who answer questions by saying they were 'always' high.

 

[acbytesla]

Curatolo could have been the most upstanding citizen in Perugia, and his identification would still not be worth anything. The alleged sighting was made at night over a considerable distance. Another problem is that any eyewitness identification should be carried out with careful procedures. Here is what the Innocence Project says about proper versus improper photo line-ups.

That was an interesting article Chris. When I was around 20 years I was asked to identify the hit and run driver that damaged my car at Dicks Burgers in Seattle in the Wallingford District. I was waiting in line for my order and and my car was hit and the driver took off. I thought I saw the driver. And one of the other patrons luckily got the plate number. The cops asked me to pick the driver out of a lineup of photos a week after the incident. I thought I could tell but I was wrong. They said, that was ok, because they knew already who the driver was. It was actually an off duty Seattle Police officer.

 

[carbonjam72]

Double Hmmmm...

.

Thanks for the response CJ. I am trying to put myself in the police shoes while they were trying to determine who murdered Meredith. One size shoe does not fit all, but I assume most were initially acting in good faith. The police were speculating based on limited evidence while they waited for the forensic test results. I think it is clear, that at some point they thought Amanda knew more than what she was telling them. That is a meme that has persisted. At that time, I doubt they thought she was a participant in the murder.

So by November 4, when they took her to the cottage, it may have been an attempt to elicit reactions from her that would either cause her to cooperate, or give them clues as to what she knew. Asking her to select a knife the murderer might have used is similar to the interrogation tactic they used later, of asking her to imagine what she would have seen if she was there when the murder took place. It is their method of forcing a suspect to confront reality. When she broke down crying, they probably inferred that she knew a kitchen knife was the murder weapon, and may be the reason they later selected a random kitchen knife at Raffaele's in order to force his cooperation.
As for Mignini, past behaviour is a predictor of future behavior.

In the Narducci case, when the body was exhumed and it was found to be Narducci's, Mignini should have realized his initial theory was wrong and stopped there. Instead he proposed a preposterous conspiracy involving body swapping, family, friends, and reporters.

In the Kercher case, when the forensic test results arrived and clearly showed that a known burglar name Rudy Guede, who had no business being in the girl's cottage, had broken in, assaulted and murdered Meredith, Mignini once again should have realized his initial theory was wrong and stopped there. Instead he proposed a preposterous conspiracy involving Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda.

So Mignini's behaviour is predictable, in hindsight at least. However, Mignini will likely get it right most of the time, because most cases are obvious right from the beginning. Ironically, this one would have been also if they had just waited for the forensic test results to arrive. But that is another irony in itself, because the imminent arrival of Amanda's mother, intended to protect Amanda, prompted the police to do a premature heavy handed interrogation before the forensic test results were obtained, with disastrous results for Amanda. It also had disastrous results for the Kerchers, the Knoxs, the Sollecitos, everybody actually, except for, and the ultimate irony, Meredith's murderer Rudy Guede.

What is incomprehensible to me, is why his co-workers, and the judicial system in Italy, have not only allowed this occasional perverse behavior, but have actively enabled it, both in the Narducci case and in the Kercher case.

Cody
.

It's a very interesting conversation for me on this point, of what did Mignini "know", or "should have known".

The first highlight - What Mignini believed as opposed to what various police believed are not necessarily the same. What unclear is how much "steering" Mignini actually does in guiding an investigation, I think that's still something of an unknown, at least for me.

The second Highlite - Here your position is more troublesome for me. Your suggestion that they are just trying to push Amanda to remember something or give up information is interesting, and they claim to have ionterpreted her breakdown as an indication she was hiding something, more of their 'psychological investigation' methods. And you draw the analogy to that purpose in selecting a single knife from Raf's apartment.

This attributes different mindsets from Stef and the police. And it strikes me as a possibility. I have viewed the effort to get Amanda to pick up the knife on Nov 4th as an effort to get her hands on a 'compatible weapon', which they know Stef can match to both Amanda & Meredith's DNA.

In your scenario, the police would honestly believe Finzi's 'police instinct'. It makes them almost unfathomably stupid, but not quite. It's a plausible level of stupidity. Stef can still be dishonest in cooking the lab results, no matter what they bring her.

But what about the police lady who gave Raf the lawyer's card? Could Amanda's reaction to the knives on Nov 4th, have narrowed their interest on AK/RS as a pair? That could be a consistent time-line, but I'd like to confirm the date/time of the police lady giving Raf the lawyer's card, and the Nov 4th trip to the cottage.

As I'm writing Cody, I'm finding your scenario more and more plausible. Very interesting.

Getting back to Mignini though, does he know Guede is possibly involved, and when does he know that? That's the conflict in our thesis's; if they recognize Guede's MO at the crime scene, then they can't believe AK/RS are truly involved in the crime. Unless, Mignini, Napoleone (and possibly Zugarini) gently allow their idiot underlings to blunder their way to the desired outcome, only giving nudges when they seem to be heading off course.

Very interesting Cody.

 

[acbytesla]

I haven't ignored that, having posted the full quote more than once here. Would that mean he's refering to that evening? Maybe, maybe not. But before coming to that point, I want to know what exactly was said at the trial. I think we can now agree that he never said: "most certainly I was high that night".

I don't know what he said Vibio. I read the Hellmann report which may not be complete and I read the dialogue at the wiki. Which means it is possible that you are right about this point...but that we don't know. I too would appreciate the Italian transcript and translation of that transcript.

By the way... and this is curious: at the Massei trial Coratolo is never asked about drug use by the defense. Bongiorno never brings up the subject.

I do agree, that is strange. I think everyone was incompetent about not asking about his drug use, and that includes both the judge and the defense attorneys.

 

[Kaosium]

I haven't ignored that, having posted the full quote more than once here. Would that mean he's refering to that evening? Maybe, maybe not. But before coming to that point, I want to know what exactly was said at the trial. I think we can now agree that he never said: "most certainly I was high that night".

How would that be rendered in Italian? It is possible that you are correct on that point, however remember you've not actually seen the full quote and there's reason to believe Hellmann didn't quote that section verbatim.

Otherwise are you saying that Curatolo was speaking in broad generalities in an attempt to deceive the court into thinking he was stoned when a pedantic parsing of his statements introducing an alien context (that he wasn't testifying about what he saw in a murder case which is why he was ever asked) might suggest he wasn't exactly saying he was stoned that night?

-----

By the way... and this is curious: at the Massei trial Coratolo is never asked about drug use by the defense. Bongiorno never brings up the subject.

Other interesting things that didn't come out until well after the (initial) trial was that this was Curatolo's third tour of duty as a witness for one of Mignini's prosecutions and that he was in the process of being convicted of heroin dealing when he testified those three times.