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

[LondonJohn]

You are incorrect. Any decision by a court can be appealed. It does not have to be a verdict. Chieffi, the Supreme Court ruled once and for all that it was to err legally for Curatolo's appearance and lifestyle to be the point of focus. Final decision. Res iudicata.

Marasca-Bruno does not outrank Chieffi. It did not have the power or jursidiction to resusitate Toto's chosen lifestyle. Yes, Toto was a wreck by 2011. That still doesn't cancel out the fact he saw Knox & Sollecito hanging around the basketball court on the eve of the murder, keeping watch over the scene below. The basketball court wall was about 60 metres from the cottage and did overlook via Pergola.

So Toto was mistaken about the destination of the partygoers. Being a Thursday night, why wouldn't people still be partying, with a long bank holiday weekend ahead on a Thursday evening. Thursday is fast becoming the new Friday for work party dos, as people want to reserve Friday evening for their families. Marasca's claim it is not credible anyone would be partying on a Thursday night is a stupid one. If you had to go to work the morning after Halloween, it makes sense to party the day after. That's what people in the City do. Every Friday we would finish at 4:00, make our way to the basement to socialise and have drinks. Then with a Bacardi Breezer in our hands, we would totter off to some incredibly loud wine bar-cum-nightclub in Moorgate or Finsbury Square. Marasca's reasoning that it must have been Wednesday when Toto witnessed the rowdy revellers is just crap. There are also hen parties and stag parties. A guy in my office loved nothing more than to dress up in costume, and we would all eagerly gather round his latest package sent via the office, to see his latest mad costume. My bank manager in Finland loves nothing more than to dress up as a Harry Potter character for his Halloween parties, which - hello???!!! - are not always exactly on 31 Oct!!!


I cannot believe the terrible reasoning of Hellmann and Marasca. They are as thick as two broad planks. Or utterly corrupt, more like.

Oh pleeeeeease. Stop digging (once again).

1) Once again, please go and do some proper, objective research into what res judicata means and where it applies. It does not apply to interim rulings - only to settled judgements. You are simply flat-out wrong in what you think it means, and where you think it applies in this case.

2) For yet another time: there were no crowds of students boarding buses in the square on the night of Thursday 1st November 2007. All the Halloween parties were on the night of Wednesday 31st October - the night of Halloween itself. And all the big out-of-town clubs were closed on the following night, Thursday 1st November. And before you bring in more nonsense about "municipal buses"... there would have been nowhere for these alleged student revellers to go by bus on the night of Thursday 1st November. That's because ALL THE OUT-OF-TOWN CLUBS WERE CLOSED THAT NIGHT. Had any students wanted to party on that Thursday night, they'd have had to go to one of the clubs in the centre of Perugia - which was walking distance from the square!


You. Are. Wrong. And your desperate rationalisations to try to rehabilitate Curatolo and his claims are becoming increasingly embarrassing.

 

[Vixen]

Oh dear. What you've done there is that you've misrepresented Curatolo's testimony and his claims, haven't you.

Incidentally, Curatolo's understanding of the days of the week on which the disco buses ran throws up another significant factor: Curatolo (thought he) knew that the buses ran on Thursdays, and obviously he knew (possibly not at the time, but after being "reminded" of the date at a later time) that the murder occurred on Thursday 1st November. So Curatolo seems to have thought that his "recollection" of the disco buses actually corroborated his story, since he assumed the murder happened on the first night of the week on which the buses ran. However (as we all know by now), the presence of Halloween on a Wednesday evening (and the presence of a sombre holy day of obligation the following day) meant that actually the buses ran on Wednesday and not Thursday that week.






Seriously? Seriously?! You're suggesting that just because Curatolo claims to "remember" - several months after the event, and during which time he was heroin-dependent - that the day he saw the authorities etc coming and going from the cottage was the "very next day" after the night he claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito in the square...... that this in itself somehow lends credibility and weight to the veracity of his claim?!!!! Wow.

He was with friends who also witnessed what Toto saw on the morning of 2 Nov 2007 after the door was broken down.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, there you go then. Curatolo was indicating that he was thinking of the right date or thereabouts as it coincided virtually with Halloween.

Quote:
Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?
Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was. Judge: When is Halloween? Curatolo: I don’t know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think. Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?
Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.

Oh my word. Just because Curatolo doesn't know the date of Halloween, this makes no difference whatsoever to the fundamental, fatal contradiction in his claim: THAT HE SAW KNOW AND SOLLECITO IN/AROUND THE SQUARE ON THE VERY SAME NIGHT WHEN HE SAW CROWDS OF STUDENT REVELLERS IN COSTUMES AND MASKS BOARDING THE DISCO BUSES.

We know already that this cannot possibly have been the evening/night of Thursday 1st November. And that's all that matters.

 

[LondonJohn]

He was with friends who also witnessed what Toto saw on the morning of 2 Nov 2007 after the door was broken down.

You're still not getting it, are you?

What Curatolo (and his friends) saw on Friday 2nd November is wholly immaterial when it comes to judging the credibility and reliability of what he claims he saw on the evening/night of Thursday 1st November. The fact that Curatolo claims that these two events happened on consecutive days is neither here nor there.

And Curatolo conclusively proves that his claimed account of the evening/night of Thursday 1st November is fundamentally unreliable and without credibility, when he claims that he also saw hoards of students in costumes and masks boarding disco buses on that same evening/night.

End of argument. Curatolo's claims are worthless.

As I said before, what you really ought to be thinking about is how the heck the Chieffi SC panel and the Nencini court both considered Curatolo's claims to be credible and reliable.

 

[Vixen]

Oh pleeeeeease. Stop digging (once again).

1) Once again, please go and do some proper, objective research into what res judicata means and where it applies. It does not apply to interim rulings - only to settled judgements. You are simply flat-out wrong in what you think it means, and where you think it applies in this case.

2) For yet another time: there were no crowds of students boarding buses in the square on the night of Thursday 1st November 2007. All the Halloween parties were on the night of Wednesday 31st October - the night of Halloween itself. And all the big out-of-town clubs were closed on the following night, Thursday 1st November. And before you bring in more nonsense about "municipal buses"... there would have been nowhere for these alleged student revellers to go by bus on the night of Thursday 1st November. That's because ALL THE OUT-OF-TOWN CLUBS WERE CLOSED THAT NIGHT. Had any students wanted to party on that Thursday night, they'd have had to go to one of the clubs in the centre of Perugia - which was walking distance from the square!


You. Are. Wrong. And your desperate rationalisations to try to rehabilitate Curatolo and his claims are becoming increasingly embarrassing.

If you can appeal any decision by a court, then it follows that that appeal can go all the way up to the Supreme Court (whether common law or Roman law). Chieffi Supreme Court did have the power to make a final decision, and it decided Curatalo should not have been vilified by Hellmann for his lifestyle choices as it offended a principle of law. Full stop. Marasca acted illegally in reinstating Hellmann's character assasination of Toto in exactly the same terms as Hellman.

It also acted defectively in reinstating Conti & Vecchiotti when Chieffi had expunged them. The only directions Chieffi gave regarding the DNA was for exhibit 36I to be properly tested, which Conti & Vecchiotti had neglected to do in their dereliction of duty.

 

[LondonJohn]

The fact he assumes the revellers were waiting for the disco bus doesn't mean that they were. For all he knows, they may have been off to a private party. Perugia is a haven for people who like to party.

Increasingly desperate.

Curatolo had been living in the square long enough to know what was what. Indeed, he certainly knew that the disco buses operated on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights (though of course he was wrong in respect of the week of the murder, on account of Halloween falling on a Wednesday that year). I have little doubt that Curatolo knew very well about these disco buses, and his testimony clearly supports that view.

Curatolo was wrong. I personally don't think he ever saw Knox and Sollecito on ANY date. I think he "remembered" long after the event, and since he thought he knew that disco buses always ran on Thursdays he added this into his story. Oh and did you know that he was dependent on heroin for several years around this date, and was self-admittedly using heroin on the night in question. Oh and did you also know that the Perugia authorities had cast-iron evidence of Curatolo dealing heroin (to an undercover cop, captured on video, no less...) from several years before the murder, yet they somehow declined to press charges until long after Curatolo had testified in the Knox/Sollecito trial process? Why do you think Curatolo was not charged and tried (for a very serious criminal offence, and not a triviality) in 2005, 2006 or 2007, Vixen? Have a think about how that could possibly come about, why don't you? (There's a pretty obvious answer suggesting itself, by the way)

 

[LondonJohn]

If you can appeal any decision by a court, then it follows that that appeal can go all the way up to the Supreme Court (whether common law or Roman law). Chieffi Supreme Court did have the power to make a final decision, and it decided Curatalo should not have been vilified by Hellmann for his lifestyle choices as it offended a principle of law. Full stop. Marasca acted illegally in reinstating Hellmann's character assasination of Toto in exactly the same terms as Hellman.

It also acted defectively in reinstating Conti & Vecchiotti when Chieffi had expunged them. The only directions Chieffi gave regarding the DNA was for exhibit 36I to be properly tested, which Conti & Vecchiotti had neglected to do in their dereliction of duty.

Once more with (no) feeling: the Chieffi judgement was not the settled judgement in this case. It was merely an interim verdict. And as such its verdict cannot be considered res judicata. Comprendez?

 

[Vixen]

Increasingly desperate.

Curatolo had been living in the square long enough to know what was what. Indeed, he certainly knew that the disco buses operated on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights (though of course he was wrong in respect of the week of the murder, on account of Halloween falling on a Wednesday that year). I have little doubt that Curatolo knew very well about these disco buses, and his testimony clearly supports that view.

Curatolo was wrong. I personally don't think he ever saw Knox and Sollecito on ANY date. I think he "remembered" long after the event, and since he thought he knew that disco buses always ran on Thursdays he added this into his story. Oh and did you know that he was dependent on heroin for several years around this date, and was self-admittedly using heroin on the night in question. Oh and did you also know that the Perugia authorities had cast-iron evidence of Curatolo dealing heroin (to an undercover cop, captured on video, no less...) from several years before the murder, yet they somehow declined to press charges until long after Curatolo had testified in the Knox/Sollecito trial process? Why do you think Curatolo was not charged and tried (for a very serious criminal offence, and not a triviality) in 2005, 2006 or 2007, Vixen? Have a think about how that could possibly come about, why don't you? (There's a pretty obvious answer suggesting itself, by the way)

Because if that undercover cop had enticed Toto to break the law in order to procure a conviction, then the prosecutors would have been aware of the danger of it resulting in a mistrial.

Think Secret Sheik, who encouraged pop star Tulisa's bodyguard to score some cocaine for him and then did a 'sting' by revealing his cunning plot in the NEWS OF THE WORLD, it ended up in the judge halting the proceedings, condemning it as a mis-trial and pressing charges on the Dodgy Sheik instead, who ended up serving time himself for his shady procurement of another to commit a crime.

 

[Vixen]

Once more with (no) feeling: the Chieffi judgement was not the settled judgement in this case. It was merely an interim verdict. And as such its verdict cannot be considered res judicata. Comprendez?

A judge's job is to make a decision.

Any decision by a judge can be appealed.

The final decision belongs to the Supreme Court. If a Supreme Court makes a decision, it is res iudicata.

A verdict is simply another decision relating directly to whether the prosecution has ultimately proven its case.

For example, suppose a dispute arises as to whether a woman is married to a man. The matter is in dispute. It goes all the way to the Supreme Court, who rules the man is married to the woman. This is res iudicata.

Another Supreme Court cannot come along and overturn it.

All it can do is send the matter back to a merits court to weigh up the issue again, with specific directions.

 

[Stacyhs]

Come on then, I challenge you. Give me a citation direct from Curatolo, and not from Vogt, Hellmann or Marasca that he claimed people were wearing 'masks and costumes'.

Hah!

Ummmm...what part of the quote I posted above is eluding you? Here is his testimony when Judge Zanetti questioned him in 2011:

Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?
Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was.
Judge: When is Halloween?
Curatolo: I don’t know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think.
Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?
Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.

Original Italian:

Teste - Era...penso che era la festa di Halloween che c'era in via vai di ragazzi mascherati e che si diverivano.

If that's not enough, he repeats the "masked" claims:

DIFESA - C'erano anche, c'era che gente che faceva scherzo? C'erano maschere, c'era quello che lei ha definito casino?

TESTE - si, si.

DIFESA - Maschere, che tipi di maschere?

TESTE - Erano ragazzi mascherati.

DIFESA - Quelli che si vedono in Halloween? Mascherati...

TESTE - Si.

English translation:

There were also, there were people who were joking? There were masks, was there what you called a mess?

HEADS - yes, yes.

DEFENSE - Masks, what types of masks?

WITNESS - They were masked boys.

DEFENSE - What do you see on Halloween? Masked ...

HEADS - Yes

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...-Testimony-HZ-Brughini-Curatolo-Lucarelli.pdf

"Mascherati" means "masked".

HAH!

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, there you go then. Curatolo was indicating that he was thinking of the right date or thereabouts as it coincided virtually with Halloween.Quote:
Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?
Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was. Judge: When is Halloween? Curatolo: I don’t know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think. Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?
Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.

And this, boys and girls, is why I keep coming back with a bucketful of popcorn! TV has nuthin' on Vixen when it comes to entertainment.

 

[LondonJohn]

A judge's job is to make a decision.

Any decision by a judge can be appealed.

The final decision belongs to the Supreme Court. If a Supreme Court makes a decision, it is res iudicata.

A verdict is simply another decision relating directly to whether the prosecution has ultimately proven its case.

For example, suppose a dispute arises as to whether a woman is married to a man. The matter is in dispute. It goes all the way to the Supreme Court, who rules the man is married to the woman. This is res iudicata.

Another Supreme Court cannot come along and overturn it.

All it can do is send the matter back to a merits court to weigh up the issue again, with specific directions.

No. This is utter nonsense.

Firstly, you still don't understand that res judicata applies to specific suits or charges, and not to each piece of evidence. And secondly, you still don't understand what the Chieffi SC panel and the Nencini court actually did.

But by all means keep writing "res judicata" when you're using it inappropriately and don't know what it means or when it applies. It certainly looks really clever and highbrow, anyhow.........

 

[Stacyhs]

Because if that undercover cop had enticed Toto to break the law in order to procure a conviction, then the prosecutors would have been aware of the danger of it resulting in a mistrial.
Think Secret Sheik, who encouraged pop star Tulisa's bodyguard to score some cocaine for him and then did a 'sting' by revealing his cunning plot in the NEWS OF THE WORLD, it ended up in the judge halting the proceedings, condemning it as a mis-trial and pressing charges on the Dodgy Sheik instead, who ended up serving time himself for his shady procurement of another to commit a crime.

As Charlie Brown would say, "Oh, good grief!"

IF that undercover cop had enticed Curatolo? But I thought the Perugia police were all upstanding, honorable, and truthful? But now you want us to think poor Curatolo was illegally entrapped by those sneaky police using illegal methods? Tut tut.

So now you've throwing more spaghetti a la desperation on the wall to see what sticks, eh? Curatolo was finally arrested and charged and convicted for that illegal drug sale.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because if that undercover cop had enticed Toto to break the law in order to procure a conviction, then the prosecutors would have been aware of the danger of it resulting in a mistrial.

Think Secret Sheik, who encouraged pop star Tulisa's bodyguard to score some cocaine for him and then did a 'sting' by revealing his cunning plot in the NEWS OF THE WORLD, it ended up in the judge halting the proceedings, condemning it as a mis-trial and pressing charges on the Dodgy Sheik instead, who ended up serving time himself for his shady procurement of another to commit a crime.

Oh dear.

Firstly, are you actually not aware that Curatolo was subsequently tried and convicted of heroin dealing using this exact evidence? On that basis, I'd suggest that the evidence gathered by Perugia police stood up in court.....

Secondly, are you not aware that police all over the world carry out these sorts of sting operations every day of every year, and successfully use them to secure convictions?

Thirdly, are you aware of the difference between entrapment (offering someone an improper incentive to commit a crime, in a way that could reasonably be interpreted as coercive, and where the individual might very well not have committed the crime had it not been for the entrapment) and lawful sting operations? If an undercover police officer walks over to a drug dealer and says "I want to buy some heroin" and the dealer produces a baggie of heroin and asks for (say) 30 Euro, then this is not entrapment.


Oh, and his moniker was the "Fake Sheikh", not the "Secret Sheik". And you should read up on the case if you want to learn the difference between entrapment and a lawful sting operation.

 

[Stacyhs]

No. This is utter nonsense.

Firstly, you still don't understand that res judicata applies to specific suits or charges, and not to each piece of evidence. And secondly, you still don't understand what the Chieffi SC panel and the Nencini court actually did.

But by all means keep writing "res judicata" when you're using it inappropriately and don't know what it means or when it applies. It certainly looks really clever and highbrow, anyhow.........

I have one word for you: mother-in-lawS.

 

[Numbers]

Deleted. Duplicate.

 

[Vixen]

No. This is utter nonsense.

Firstly, you still don't understand that res judicata applies to specific suits or charges, and not to each piece of evidence. And secondly, you still don't understand what the Chieffi SC panel and the Nencini court actually did.

But by all means keep writing "res judicata" when you're using it inappropriately and don't know what it means or when it applies. It certainly looks really clever and highbrow, anyhow.........

You are wrong.

From wiki:

Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "issue preclusion".

In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.[1]

The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.


<snip>

Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier case.

Nota Bene In law an 'issue' has a specific legal meaning. During a trial or civil case, there will be issues.

A court can make a decision on an issue, which is not a verdict.

That decision can be appealed. The Supreme Court can determine an issue is settled, even if the final verdict is not, were it to send the case back down for further consideration on other specific issues.

If a Supreme Court decides an issue, that issue is res iudicata.

Clear now?

 

[LondonJohn]

I have one word for you: mother-in-lawS.

I really don't know why I bother sometimes. But I suppose I feel some sort of need to promote the practice of logical, objective, critical thinking in respect of this sad case, in the face of... well.... none of the above.

I suppose it's why some critical thinkers have been participating in threads on this forum related to 9/11 conspiracies, Moon Landing hoaxes and homeopathy for so very long as well........

 

[Numbers]

Here's an excerpt from the testimony of Curatolo, questioned by Bongiorno, during the trial before the Hellmann appeal court:

"Bongiorno: Senta, le volevo chiedere: si ricorda se quella sera c'era anche in quella piazza , lei ha parlato di tutti questi …

Curatolo: Altra gente? Se c'era altra gente?

B_: Se vuola intanto risponda a questo: c'era altra gente?

C_: Si.

B_: C'erano anche, c'era che gente che faceva scherzi? C'erano maschere, c'era quello che lei ha definito casino?

C_: Si si.

B_: Maschere, qui tipo di maschere?

C_: Erano ragazzi mascherati.

B_: Quelli che si vedano in Halloween? Mascherati ...

C_: Si.

B_: Ho capito. ….
….
B_: E questi pullman erano i pullman quelli con i ragazzi che vanno in discoteca?

C_: Si.

B_: Verso che ora?

C_: Verso le nove e mezza, le dieci, le undici.

B_: Senta, all'indomani invece a che ora ha visto queste a persone vestite di bianco?

C_: Verso le due, dopo che ho visto i Carabinieri.

B_: Grazie, non ho altre domande."

Translation, by Google translate:

"Bongiorno: Listen, I wanted to ask you: do you remember if that evening was also in that square, you talked about all these ...

Curatolo: Other people? If there were other people?

B_: If you want to respond to this in the meantime: were there other people?

C_: Yes.

B_: There were also, there were people making jokes? There were masks, was there what you called a mess?

C_: Yes yes.

B_: Masks, here type of masks?

C_: They were masked guys.

B_: The ones you see on Halloween? Masked ...

C_: Yes.

B_: I understand.
....
B_: And these coaches were the buses with the guys going to the disco?

C_: Yes.

B_: Towards what time?

C_: About half past nine, ten past eleven.

B_: Listen, the next day instead what time did you see these people dressed in white?

C_: About two o'clock, after I saw the Carabinieri.

B_: Thanks, I have no other questions."

So Curatolo states he saw the couple (allegedly Knox and Sollecito) on the day with the young people (ragazzi) in masks, and there were buses taking them to the disco, while it was on the next day that he saw the white-clothed persons and the police.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/
March 26, 2011 testimony, Curatolo

 

[Stacyhs]

I really don't know why I bother sometimes. But I suppose I feel some sort of need to promote the practice of logical, objective, critical thinking in respect of this sad case, in the face of... well.... none of the above.

I suppose it's why some critical thinkers have been participating in threads on this forum related to 9/11 conspiracies, Moon Landing hoaxes and homeopathy for so very long as well........

I think we're all really here for the same reason: it's vastly entertaining. Kimo sabe?