Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Right: let's wind back.

You originally made this statement:

"Several people have been to the former Piazza Grimana and verified there is a clear view of the cottage from where Toto sat."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12266497#post12266497


So will you now confirm that the above statement is factually incorrect, and that in fact you simply made it up? Thanks in advance.

That was clearly a typo.:D

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.

It certainly is! Just when I think the reserve of insane arguments has been exhausted, she pulls another one out of her hat. Or is that "cap with a red stripe"?
 
This should have PQ and the nutters foaming at the mouth. His email campaign has failed yet again. Today, Amanda Knox is the keynote speaker at the Midwest Innocence Project Gala fundraiser.

2018 Keynote Speaker, Amanda Knox

Amanda Knox is an exoneree, journalist, speaker, and author of the New York Times best-selling memoir, Waiting to Be Heard (HarperCollins, April 2013). Between 2007 and 2015, she spent four years in an Italian prison and eight years on trial for a murder she didn’t commit. The controversy over Amanda's case made international headlines for nearly a decade, and thrust her into the spotlight, where she was vilified and shamed. Amanda now works to shed light on the issues of wrongful conviction, truth seeking, and public shaming. Her journalism has been published in USA Today, the L.A. Times, the Seattle Times, Seattle Magazine, BROADLY, and the West Seattle Herald. She is currently the host of The Scarlet Letter Reports, a VICE/Facebook series about the public vilification of women. She lives in Seattle with her partner, the novelist Christopher Robinson.
https://themip.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/FacesofInnocence2018pastcopy/tabid/948202/Default.aspx

We have been witness to the hateful vilification and shaming of Knox in this very forum.
 
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.

It's also irrelevant because the only use of Curatolo that the prosecution made, if I understand correctly, was an attempt to contradict Knox's alibi that she was at Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time. Whether or not one could view the cottage from the piazza was - if I understand correctly - not an issue during the trials.

So when I say its "interesting" I mean its actually amazing that by the miracles of modern technology that one can show online the sight lines from the piazza to the area of the cottage, and demonstrate that the view of the cottage is blocked, contrary to the assertions of some guilters.

But the short explanation of the significance of the Curatolo's testimony is that the final and definitive judgment of acquittal, the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, explicitly deemed that testimony unreliable and thus unable, under Italian procedural law, to establish a credible contradiction to Knox's alibi.
 
This should have PQ and the nutters foaming at the mouth. His email campaign has failed yet again. Today, Amanda Knox is the keynote speaker at the Midwest Innocence Project Gala fundraiser.


https://themip.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/FacesofInnocence2018pastcopy/tabid/948202/Default.aspx

We have been witness to the hateful vilification and shaming of Knox in this very forum.

No doubt the guilters will be claiming that the RCMP and Interpol will quickly invade the US to arrest Knox for her previous entry into Canada to give a talk at a Canadian law school while having been exonerated in Italy for the murder/rape of Kercher.
 
This should have PQ and the nutters foaming at the mouth. His email campaign has failed yet again. Today, Amanda Knox is the keynote speaker at the Midwest Innocence Project Gala fundraiser.

https://themip.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/FacesofInnocence2018pastcopy/tabid/948202/Default.aspx

We have been witness to the hateful vilification and shaming of Knox in this very forum.

What is especially noteworthy about this MIP fundraiser is that there are about 45 sponsors - primarily large law firms and their partners - listed under the announcement.

I suggest that those sponsors do not agree with the guilters' opinions of Amanda Knox.
 
What is especially noteworthy about this MIP fundraiser is that there are about 45 sponsors - primarily large law firms and their partners - listed under the announcement.

I suggest that those sponsors do not agree with the guilters' opinions of Amanda Knox.

These law firms and their partners obviously do not understand that the Italian Supreme Court's definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was illegal because they overstepped their authority. Clearly they don't realize that this acquittal will be overturned in the very near future.:D
 
Breaking news. There seems deliberate intent to make Thursday night IP fundraiser in Kansas City with Amanda Knox all but invisible to the press
TJMJ "Breaking News" 4/26/2018

More PQ lunacy.
 
TJMJ "Breaking News" 4/26/2018

More PQ lunacy.

Apparently PQ and other guilters do not watch Kansas City TV or read Kansas City newspapers.

Here is a news item from one Kansas City TV station from 20 February 2018 updated 22 March on the MIP fundraiser announcing that Amanda Knox would be the keynote speaker:

"KANSAS CITY, MO (KCTV) -

Amanda Knox, an American exchange student who was initially convicted of murder in Italy but eventually cleared, will be speaking this spring in Kansas City.

She will be the keynote speaker at the Midwest Innocence Project's Faces of Innocence Gala.

The gala will be held Thursday, April 26 at the Marriott Muehlebach, located at 1213 Wyandotte in Kansas City.

From 2007 to 2015, Knox spent four years in prison and eight years on trial.

She now lives in Seattle."
 
The issue I have raised previously if the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using the testimony of Curalto as evidence and PGP have to base their arguments on this testimony.
To make my point as simple as possible so that even stupid PGP posters can understand, I will use an example to illustrate my point.
A man has been arrested for breaking into a house, raping and battering the occupant to death. The police have the following evidence against the suspect :-

His DNA is all over the crime scene.
He leaves blood handprints, footprints and fingerprints at the scene.
The DNA of the suspect is found on the victim’s private parts.
The blood of the victim is found on the clothing and in the home of the suspect.
The police find a metal bar in the home of the suspect with the victims blood and DNA on it.
The suspects’ DNA is found under the fingernails of the victim. The suspect has scratches on his face.
There is clear CCTV of the suspect running away from the scene covered in blood.
The police check the mobile phone of the suspect and found photos of the victim.
The police check the computer of the suspect and find a written account of the murder that only the murderer could know.

In my scenario the police/prosecution have a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case. Imagine a witness comes forward. The man is homeless and sleeps rough. Just after the murder he is questioned if he had seen the suspect at the time of the murder and the man says he has not. Months after the murder he says had seen the suspect in a square away from the house. The man is a heroin addict. The man is totally incoherent when giving testimony in court and can’t answer basic questions. If the testimony of the man is true, he has the suspect away from the house at the time of the murder. The man claims a nightclub near the square was open when he saw the man on the night of the murder when in reality the nightclub was closed. Despite the fact the man’s testimony lacks credibility and is full of holes and actually provides the suspect with an alibi, the police/prosecution decide to use the testimony of the man and PGP use the testimony of this man when arguing their case. Would it not be strange the police/prosecution would have to resort to using the testimony of this man which lacks credibility and is full of holes when they have a mountain of solid, credible and damming evidence against the suspect and PGP use the testimony of this man to argue their case. In my scenario the police should not have to evidence with no credibility full of holes which actually undermines their case because they have plenty of solid evidence against the suspect.

The link below shows just how full of holes and lacking in credibility the testimony of Curalto was. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using with no credibility such as the testimony of Curalto. In addition, Curalto has Amanda and Raffaele away from the cottage at the time of the murder which gives Amanda and Raffaele an alibi for the time of the murder which is damaging to the prosecution’s case. The fact the prosecution were prepared to use the testimony of Curalto indicates the prosecution had such a weak case and lack of evidence, they were desperate enough to use evidence which undermined their case. How is this explained if the prosecution had overwhelming evidence and a watertight case against Amanda and Raffaele as Vixen constantly claims?

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/antonio-curatolo/

My post below shows the numerous holes in the scenario of Amanda and Raffaele committing murder with Guede. Curalto makes no mention of Guede being with Amanda and Raffaele. If PGP want to believe the testimony of Curalto, this raises the question how could Amanda and Raffaele plan and commit a murder with Guede if they were away from the cottage and Guede was not with them. PGP who believe the testimony of Curalto have shot themselves in the foot by creating yet another hole in the scenario of Amanda and Raffaele committing murder with Guede.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11970178#post11970178
 
It's also irrelevant because the only use of Curatolo that the prosecution made, if I understand correctly, was an attempt to contradict Knox's alibi that she was at Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time. Whether or not one could view the cottage from the piazza was - if I understand correctly - not an issue during the trials.

So when I say its "interesting" I mean its actually amazing that by the miracles of modern technology that one can show online the sight lines from the piazza to the area of the cottage, and demonstrate that the view of the cottage is blocked, contrary to the assertions of some guilters.

But the short explanation of the significance of the Curatolo's testimony is that the final and definitive judgment of acquittal, the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, explicitly deemed that testimony unreliable and thus unable, under Italian procedural law, to establish a credible contradiction to Knox's alibi.

You're not getting it. Perugia is on a steep gradient, so looking at Google maps won't tell you what is and what is not visible.

Anyone who has ever been to Edinburgh will know that you can see over roof tops. On a straightline two-dimensional Google map this will have the appearance of the house being in the way, when in fact, because of the advantageous aspect of a high viewpoint, you can see across it perfectly well.
 
What is especially noteworthy about this MIP fundraiser is that there are about 45 sponsors - primarily large law firms and their partners - listed under the announcement.

I suggest that those sponsors do not agree with the guilters' opinions of Amanda Knox.

So that's how she's going to spend he rest of her life, schlepping around IP's pretending to be a victim.
 
You're not getting it. Perugia is on a steep gradient, so looking at Google maps won't tell you what is and what is not visible.

Anyone who has ever been to Edinburgh will know that you can see over roof tops. On a straightline two-dimensional Google map this will have the appearance of the house being in the way, when in fact, because of the advantageous aspect of a high viewpoint, you can see across it perfectly well.

No, you're not getting it. Google maps can show you what is visible by using the "street view" option which puts you on the street level. The elevated iron railing you see is the edge of the basketball court where Curatolo claimed he saw the two standing for hours (for some strange reason).
https://www.google.it/maps/@43.1149...4!1sZ9FN0M0KrJvsZYW_ZDrmOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Take a virtual trip and then tell me you can see the cottage at all from anywhere in the piazza or the b-ball court.

https://www.google.it/maps/@43.1149...4!1sz356KBYrf9QnwkQ-kqZ-Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 
You're not getting it. Perugia is on a steep gradient, so looking at Google maps won't tell you what is and what is not visible.

Anyone who has ever been to Edinburgh will know that you can see over roof tops. On a straightline two-dimensional Google map this will have the appearance of the house being in the way, when in fact, because of the advantageous aspect of a high viewpoint, you can see across it perfectly well.

No, you're not getting it. The building blocking the view is three stories tall and butts up against Viale Sant'Antonio. The roof of the cottage is at about the same grade as the road, which means there is a full three stories blocking the view. The view below is from the back of Piazza Grimana looking at the building. Despite the elevation change climbing up Via degli Scortici you are still well short of the height of the building, with the roof of the cottage just on the opposite side and equal to the base of the building.

Your audience over on TJMK might be gullible but not here.

537225ae239381c4fb.jpg
 
Last edited:
This should have PQ and the nutters foaming at the mouth. His email campaign has failed yet again. Today, Amanda Knox is the keynote speaker at the Midwest Innocence Project Gala fundraiser.


https://themip.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/FacesofInnocence2018pastcopy/tabid/948202/Default.aspx

We have been witness to the hateful vilification and shaming of Knox in this very forum.[/QUOTE]

So that's how she's going to spend he rest of her life, schlepping around IP's pretending to be a victim.

What she's doing is better and more productive than trolling around the internet for years spouting lies, making and repeating ridiculous, unsupported claims, and hurling disgusting insults against a woman who has been acquitted of Kercher's murder for over 3 years.
 
Last edited:
No, you're not getting it. Google maps can show you what is visible by using the "street view" option which puts you on the street level. The elevated iron railing you see is the edge of the basketball court where Curatolo claimed he saw the two standing for hours (for some strange reason).
https://www.google.it/maps/@43.1149...4!1sZ9FN0M0KrJvsZYW_ZDrmOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Take a virtual trip and then tell me you can see the cottage at all from anywhere in the piazza or the b-ball court.

https://www.google.it/maps/@43.1149...4!1sz356KBYrf9QnwkQ-kqZ-Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Sorry Stacy, our posts crossed in the mail...
 
No, you're not getting it. The building blocking the view is three stories tall and butts up against Viale Sant'Antonio. The roof of the cottage is at about the same grade as the road, which means there is a full three stories blocking the view. The view below is from the back of Piazza Grimana looking at the building. Despite the elevation climbing going up Via degli Scortici you are still well short of the height of the building, with the roof of the cottage on the opposite side and equal to the base of the building.

Your audience over on TJMK might be gullible but not here.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/537225ae239381c4fb.jpg[/qimg]

Google maps is a shill of the Mafia and Masons! Anyone can see that.
 
Sorry Stacy, our posts crossed in the mail...

Doesn't matter. Vixen will still claim that you can see over the roofs of those buildings and see the cottage which is below street level. Such is her need to believe. I imagine her clicking her heels together and repeating "I believe, I believe, I believe".
 
That was clearly a typo.:D



It certainly is! Just when I think the reserve of insane arguments has been exhausted, she pulls another one out of her hat. Or is that "cap with a red stripe"?


You've been naughty, haven't you, Stacyhs? You claimed Toto said there were people 'wearing masks' and that there were no buses running.

Wrong, on both counts.

Here is Curatolo's testimony, from the horse's mouth (here the cout has designated him 'B.C', probably because there aleardy was an 'A.C.' (Antonio).



GM:
So he sees these people, he goes to sleep in the park, wakes up in the morning at nine, stays in the area of Piazza Grimana, then about one thirty to two, at a certain point begins a bustle of Police?
B.C:
No, the way there was already there, but we did not do that much, and then when the Carabinieri asked if we had seen something and none of us knew anything we looked down and we had seen all that.
GM:
Have you seen people wearing white tracksuits?
B.C:
Yup.
GM:
A coverall that covered the whole body then?
B.C:
Yup.
GM:
Then there was an ambulance?
B.C:
The ambulance, there was the Police, the Carabinieri, people with them, normal.
GM:
Did you mention that these two boys had seen them before?
B.C:
Yes, I saw them other times because I always ride between Corso Garibaldi and Piazza Grimana.

GB:
What do you see at 9.30pm?
B.C:
I confirm another time, I saw two boys, they looked like two boyfriends who were down at the back of the basketball court.
GB:
At 9.30pm?
B.C:
At half past nine or so, half past nine-ten.
GB:
So these guys stayed there from 9.30pm the day before the crime, until midnight ...
B.C:
Before midnight.
GB:
Until before midnight always there.
B.C:
Yes, they argued, they were talking to each other. It was not the first time that such a thing happened to me.
GB:
Yes, but we are interested in reconstruction. How do you know that he had arrived at half past nine?
B.C:
Because apart from that, there is a clock of the LTZ, plus I have a watch too.
GB:
So at 21.30 there were together on the bench Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
B.C:
No, they were not ... I was on the bench, they were standing by the little wall of the basketball court.
GB:
Have they always been there continuously?
B.C:
Yes, until before midnight, I would go away, I think so because they were there.
GB:
So it's not like they left and came back, have they always been there?
B.C:
No, they neither went nor returned, they sat there talking to each other.

--

FM:
Do you remember when you saw the two defendants where they came from in Piazza Grimana?
B.C:
No, not even where they went. When I noticed them, they were already sitting on the wall.
FM:
She sat?
B.C:
I was sitting on the bench, but when I looked down at the back of the basketball court they were already sitting on the wall so I do not know where they came from.
FM:
So he did not see them coming?
B.C:
No.
FM:
You have now responded to the Public Prosecutor that the day after the vision of the two defendants you remember to have seen the presence of the Carabinieri and people with white suits?
B.C:
Yup.
FM:
Is it exactly the day after the night he saw the boys?
B.C:
Yup.
FM:
Thank you.
--
CRT:
And where were they?
B.C:
Always in the same place.
CRT:
Always in the same position?
B.C:
Yes, sometimes, in the periods I saw them there was the boy who got up, went to see downstairs, there's a railing at the back of the pitch, he got up, went downstairs and then he returned again.
CRT:
Who is it that got up?
B.C:
The boy.
CRT:
Raffaele Sollecito then he would get up?
B.C:
Yup.
CRT:
Alone?
B.C:
Yes. He went to see downstairs, then I started smoking again, for another half an hour like this, time to read other things and then later until about half past eleven, then I I lit another cigarette and it is not that I looked at once, I lit the cigarette once more, I went to look at the square once more and I was looking at the people above. Then I turned around and they were gone, there were other guys who were messing up for fun.
CRT:
So he turned around and they were gone?
B.C:
Yes, this around half past eleven, around midnight, after I got up the buses left.
--

CRT:
And she sat on this bench until the buses that brought the boys to ...
B.C:
to the disco.
CRT:
How can you say that they take the boys to the disco, for the timetable?
B.C:
Apart from the time, almost every day, Thursday, Friday and Saturday bring the guys to the disco these buses, to avoid getting them to go with the cars, then drunk and a mess happens.
CRT:
So you were still on this bench?
B.C:
Yup.
CRT:
And the buses leave, there are several guys and she says they will go to the disco and she stays here.
B.C:
Yup.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Antonio_Curatolo's_Testimony

I can't see anything impossible, here.
 
You're not getting it. Perugia is on a steep gradient, so looking at Google maps won't tell you what is and what is not visible.

Anyone who has ever been to Edinburgh will know that you can see over roof tops. On a straightline two-dimensional Google map this will have the appearance of the house being in the way, when in fact, because of the advantageous aspect of a high viewpoint, you can see across it perfectly well.

Only Vixen would cite "Edinburgh", when all sorts of street view photos have been posted here of Perugia. Vixen might not be aware that the crime took place in Italy!

Is it any wonder Vixen is arguing for folk to believe an evidenceless conclusion?

Vixen - who are these "several people"?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom