TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
All the discussion of whether or not Curatolo could see the cottage, or some small part of the cottage property, is interesting.
However, the Marasca CSC panel, in its motivation report, agreed with the defense arguments - and the Hellmann motivation report - that his testimony was unreliable for other reasons, based on an evaluation of the inconsistencies within his testimony and of his personal characteristics and history of being a drug addict and drug pusher as well as a serial testifier ("protagonist") in other cases that were prominent in the media. Also, his statement he saw Knox and Sollecito was late - that is, only was made long after media exposure (Marasca does not clearly state that it contradicted his initial statement).
Because his testimony was unreliable, it could not be used to contradict with certainty Knox's statement that she was in Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time (late afternoon of 1 November until the following morning). Thus, since Italian procedural law CPP 192 requires that the existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise, and consistent, Curatolo's testimony cannot be used to make any inference contradicting Knox's statement about her presence in Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time. Furthermore, Knox's statements from the 5/6 November interrogation, in a final decision of the Gemelli CSC panel, could not be used against her in the murder/rape case, because they had been obtained contrary to the guarantees of defense rights in Italian law (CPP Article 63).
Here's an excerpt from the Marasca CSC panel motivation report about why they consider Curatolo's testimony unreliable:
"[T]he presence of intrinsic contradiction and poor reliability of the witnesses, on several occasions objected to during the trial, do not allow unreserved credit to be attributed to their respective versions, to the extent of proving with reasonable certainty, the failure, and therefore the falsity, of the accused’s alibi, who insisted that she stayed in her boyfriend’s home from late afternoon on 01-Nov until the following morning. Curatolo (an enigmatic personality: a vagrant, drug addict and drug pusher) - apart from the lateness of his statements and the fact that he was not new to judicial protagonism in cases under the media spotlight - was however disproved by reference to groups of young people leaving that evening in coaches for discotheques in the area, it being proven that on the night of the murder, the bus service was not running; also the reference to masks and practical jokes which he claimed to have witnessed that evening; that would lead to a conclusion that it was Halloween, 31-Oct, and not 01-Nov, the date of the murder. This contradicts the balanced assessment - but always in a context of uncertainty and ambiguity - of the witness referring (regarding the context where he saw the two accused together) to the day before he saw (in the afternoon) unusual movements of police and Carabinieri and, in particular, men wearing white overalls and headgear (they looked almost like aliens) enter the house on via della Pergola (evidently 02-Nov, after the body was found). "
Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
PDF September 07, 2015 Supreme Court Motivation Report
See pages 50 (last paragraph) - 51
Agreed, it's interesting but as it relates to the case it's irrelevant as Curatolo was deemed unreliable.
It's just funny to read Vixen valiantly arguing the cottage can be seen when even photos on TJMK prove that at best you can catch part of the gate at the entrance to the driveway. With so many other 'better' vantage points why would they remain out in the open looking at the left gate post in the dark from hundreds of feet away. It's such a silly argument but you know Vixen, she'll concede nothing.