Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[RWVBWL]

Personally, I would not want to go to prison on account of what someone who had been sleeping on a bench in th emiddle of a city for 8 or 9 years said about me.

"...most studies indicate a considerable burden of cognitive dysfunction among homeless people. Such dysfunction might be expected to impact upon their ability to reintegrate into society, thereby undermining policies of inclusiveness. In clinical practice, assessment of homeless adults should include their cognitive state."

http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/97/8/375

"Homeless people are significantly more likely to have an intellectual disability than the general population."

http://jid.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/4/325.pdf

"Cognitive impairments can increase significantly a person’s level of risk for becoming or remaining homeless."

http://intraspec.ca/JPP2007_28_375-388_Backer&Howard.pdf

And there's a whole lot more where that came from.

Good evening Mary H,
I grew up in Venice Beach, and we have a lot of "street people" living here and always hanging out on the boardwalk, people that we call druggies, street urchins, bums, hippies, rasta's, and a coupla different gangs here, the V13, and the Shoreline Crips. Plus us surfers, and then the 'normal' people who live here too, . And then there are the tourists, who make Venice Beach one of the most popular places to visit in Southern California. So I am kinda used to a lot of different variety of humanity, esh, screaming homeless bums don't bother me, haha...

With that said, I personally do not see how any homeless guy, most likely someone I would consider a bum, could ever correctly remember the coherant details of what I have read that Mr. Curatolo stated in court. With an amazing memory such as this guy seems to posses, this guy could be making a good sum of money doing something productive with his life. But he's a bum, with an incredible memory, I guess...

I also read that Mr. Curatolo was a key witness in another murder trial back in 2001 when some guy murdered his girl. So if that is true, and Mr. Curatolo was indeed the key witness in another murder trial, I would think that he knows the cops vs bad guys game pretty well.

So with his super memory of how the game works, why the heck did Mr. Curatolo not approach the police, (whom he had already helped years ago in that other murder trial), that day that Miss Kercher's body was found, since he could have then clued the police in with what he had seen that previous night right away? Why the heck would he come forward much later?

This is a guy who said he doesn't have a watch, but who could remember that he was there in the square, reading his newspaper "The Expresso", between 9:30pm and 10:00pm the night of Miss Kercher's murder. He said the he got the time from the digital clock in the square.

Reading this in Perugia Shock, Frank Sfarzo, who did attend the trial, says it best:

"Curatolo was so worried about fixing the time that besides recalling that he goes to check it to the electronic board --on the other side of the square-- he added, today, that he also checks it on his own watch. But he had always stated not to have a watch. So Massei asked him to show his watch. And he didn't have it. Massei asked him if he could be more precise about his arrival time because 21:30-22:00 was a bit vague. And he did get more precise, much more precise: 21:27-21:28!
This is Antonio Curatolo, he can tell you exactly what you want to hear, he can tell you anything and the opposite of anything. He, as I always said, is simply a psychiatric case." (highlights mine)

More here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post.html

In my opinion, since his detailed recollection of times, and faces in the dark are so impressive, I bet someone might have "helped" Mr. Curatolo to "remember", much as a Hollywood actor studies his script and "remembers" his lines too...
Hmmm, just another thought,
RWVBWL

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's less uncommon than you might think for the police to question homeless people in the vicinity of a violent crime. They are often overlooked by criminals for exactly the same reason you do.

Indeed, the Knox trial was Curatolo's second gig as a prosecution witness in a murder case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/20/meredithkercher.italy

Maybe they should put him on the payroll.

 

[RWVBWL]

A man's occupation should not be considered in determining his reliability as a witness. I don't have a link but there was a local incident where a police officer was reprimanded due only to witness statements supplied by a pair of homeless individuals.

Here's an example of a murder investigation partially solved due to the alertness of a homeless man:


John has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, Carlisle said, and doesn't trust his memory.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]So John used a knife to twice carve the license plate of the truck — NXF 562 — into the solid white line of the roadway.
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]A police detective later traced the registration of the license plate to a truck owned by Lankford, Carlisle said.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
(Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Mar/04/ln/hawaii803040350.html )

It's less uncommon than you might think for the police to question homeless people in the vicinity of a violent crime. They are often overlooked by criminals for exactly the same reason you do.

Hi stilicho,
That was a pretty cool story you have linked. Thanks for the read.
However, the one thing I wonder about it would be the timing of when John went and gave this information to the police.
It sounds like he did it right away, and the police used that info to track down "Matt Ford".
Informing the police right away is what I would think that a "true" witness would do, homeless or not...

And I do not believe that Mr. Curatolo did this with regards to the murder of Miss Kercher.
Please correct me if I am wrong,
RWVBWL

 

[odeed]

Odeed,

You may be mistaking the chemical treatment to reveal latent fingerprints with a putative special DNA treatment. Fingerprints do not require anything special in the way of pretreatment to yield DNA.

You are probably right about me mistaking the chemical treatment to reveal latent prints.

From the articles I have read, the amount DNA obtainable from fingerprints, varied from person to person, from day to day, and the amount of DNA that can be obtained was low and results subjective. The technique used to get a profile in the UK is reported as the LCN method, and that obtaining DNA profile from fingerprints is not used by any law enforcement lab outside of the UK (at least there was no standards set), which is something I think you have objected to in the processing of the DNA from the knife.

I do not think the Italian lab used the LCN method to obtain the DNA profiles from the mixed (Kercher/Knox) sources in the apartment, so then if fingerprints are the source of Knox DNA profile, it would have to come from a number of prints whose DNA somehow found it's way to Kercher's blood (or whatever source was tested) to get a profile without LCN testing, but I think we may end up recycling arguments from the discussion that house dust could be the source for DNA on the bra clasp.

Two samples from Sollecito's flat showed mixed DNA traces from Amanda and Raffaele. What is your interpretation of this result?

halides1

I have not read up on the DNA traces from Sollecito's flat (I think I glossed over some of thread where it has been mentioned), so while I loathe to comment on it, I'll follow on that while I think it is improbable that fingerprints can be a source for DNA traces found as above, I would not rule out saliva and then sweat for a source in this case.

 

[Mary_H]

Good evening Mary H,
I grew up in Venice Beach, and we have a lot of "street people" living here and always hanging out on the boardwalk, people that we call druggies, street urchins, bums, hippies, rasta's, and a coupla different gangs here, the V13, and the Shoreline Crips. Plus us surfers, and then the 'normal' people who live here too, . And then there are the tourists, who make Venice Beach one of the most popular places to visit in Southern California. So I am kinda used to a lot of different variety of humanity, esh, screaming homeless bums don't bother me, haha...

With that said, I personally do not see how any homeless guy, most likely someone I would consider a bum, could ever correctly remember the coherant details of what I have read that Mr. Curatolo stated in court. With an amazing memory such as this guy seems to posses, this guy could be making a good sum of money doing something productive with his life. But he's a bum, with an incredible memory, I guess...

I also read that Mr. Curatolo was a key witness in another murder trial back in 2001 when some guy murdered his girl. So if that is true, and Mr. Curatolo was indeed the key witness in another murder trial, I would think that he knows the cops vs bad guys game pretty well.

So with his super memory of how the game works, why the heck did Mr. Curatolo not approach the police, (whom he had already helped years ago in that other murder trial), that day that Miss Kercher's body was found, since he could have then clued the police in with what he had seen that previous night right away? Why the heck would he come forward much later?

This is a guy who said he doesn't have a watch, but who could remember that he was there in the square, reading his newspaper "The Expresso", between 9:30pm and 10:00pm the night of Miss Kercher's murder. He said the he got the time from the digital clock in the square.

Reading this in Perugia Shock, Frank Sfarzo, who did attend the trial, says it best:

"Curatolo was so worried about fixing the time that besides recalling that he goes to check it to the electronic board --on the other side of the square-- he added, today, that he also checks it on his own watch. But he had always stated not to have a watch. So Massei asked him to show his watch. And he didn't have it. Massei asked him if he could be more precise about his arrival time because 21:30-22:00 was a bit vague. And he did get more precise, much more precise: 21:27-21:28!
This is Antonio Curatolo, he can tell you exactly what you want to hear, he can tell you anything and the opposite of anything. He, as I always said, is simply a psychiatric case." (highlights mine)

More here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post.html

In my opinion, since his detailed recollection of times, and faces in the dark are so impressive, I bet someone might have "helped" Mr. Curatolo to "remember", much as a Hollywood actor studies his script and "remembers" his lines too...
Hmmm, just another thought,
RWVBWL

Thanks, RWVBWL. I wanted your opinion because I value your experience and judgement. There are homeless people and there are homeless people. Curatolo belongs in the category of those who are wheeled into court in an office chair, wearing a coat, hat and scarf.

The comment you made at the end of your post is what I have always thought about Nara Capezzali, the woman who said she heard a blood-curdling scream from across the street and through her double-paned windows. How convenient for the prosecutor to find someone to add credence to Amanda's account of hearing Meredith scream as Patrick was murdering her.

Oops! Patrick didn't murder Meredith and Amanda didn't hear a scream.... Guess Mignini should have waited a little longer before recruiting that witness.

 

[stilicho]

Hi stilicho,
That was a pretty cool story you have linked. Thanks for the read.
However, the one thing I wonder about it would be the timing of when John went and gave this information to the police.
It sounds like he did it right away, and the police used that info to track down "Matt Ford".
Informing the police right away is what I would think that a "true" witness would do, homeless or not...

And I do not believe that Mr. Curatolo did this with regards to the murder of Miss Kercher.
Please correct me if I am wrong,
RWVBWL

The story illustrated the fact that law enforcement will talk to people who have information. They aren't as discriminating as the general public are regarding a person's social status.

How is an individual supposed to know ahead of time that they are a "true" witness? Do you report everything you find noteworthy to the police? Probably not. You've seen those posters at street corners asking for witnesses to accidents, I assume. That's a garden variety version of searching for witnesses as the police do while investigating a crime. Not everyone who witnesses an accident steps forward to immediately involve themselves but that doesn't disqualify their observations.

As Charlie has indicated, Curatolo's presence in the piazza has helped law enforcement on more than one occasion.

 

[Mary_H]

The story illustrated the fact that law enforcement will talk to people who have information. They aren't as discriminating as the general public are regarding a person's social status.

How is an individual supposed to know ahead of time that they are a "true" witness? Do you report everything you find noteworthy to the police? Probably not. You've seen those posters at street corners asking for witnesses to accidents, I assume. That's a garden variety version of searching for witnesses as the police do while investigating a crime. Not everyone who witnesses an accident steps forward to immediately involve themselves but that doesn't disqualify their observations.

As Charlie has indicated, Curatolo's presence in the piazza has helped law enforcement on more than one occasion.

Odd that Curatolo didn't hear the scream or the running that Cappezzali heard, or see any sign of Rudy that night. Sounds like the prosecutors were trying to cover all their bases.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague
Yes, I was attempting to assign odds to the most discussed probabilities.

1. Both results on the knife and bra-clasp are legit.
2. Both results are fabricated.
3. One result is contamination/transfer and the other legit.
4. Both results are some type of contamination/transfer of DNA.

As you have indicated you also feel that the chances are pretty low on number 4. The knife just happens to get contaminated with Meredith's DNA, proving Amanda's involvement and the other just happens to be contaminated with Raffaele's DNA proving his involvement. I am currently inclined to give the odds of number 4 only a 1 in 25 chance and I have had that as low as 1 in 100.

What is your basis for calculating this probability?

I don't want to speak for Rose but the probability is not a simple calculation as she has stated.

Accidental contamination/transfer is just that--an accident. The other two options are the expected results from a particular action if, and only if, certain conditions are met. The last two options don't depend on any certain conditions but myriad different conditions.

To have that happen twice, and only in the positive results that were used in the two major pieces of DNA evidence placing AK and RS either with the murder weapon or at the scene of the crime, is highly improbable. Moreover, if it was a habitual case that contamination/transfer happened in that lab (as in some of halides1's examples) then there would be many more examples than just those two.

On the other hand, if the DNA evidence was fabricated, you would expect exactly the results that were found. You wouldn't have to worry about the mechanism by which a rare accident happened twice and only for the two pieces of evidence being questioned.

 

[stilicho]

Odd that Curatolo didn't hear the scream or the running that Cappezzali heard, or see any sign of Rudy that night. Sounds like the prosecutors were trying to cover all their bases.

Why do you find that odd? Sound waves bounce. They also interfere with one another.

Was Rudy supposed to have been with AK and RS at the basketball court?

 

[Mary_H]

Why do you find that odd? Sound waves bounce. They also interfere with one another.

I agree. If the sound of a scream (from a woman being strangled and having her face pushed into the floor?) had managed to escape the cottage, it would have bounced off the wall that runs next to the cottage and back again, or have competed with the sound waves from traffic on the street. If it could possibly have been heard, it is more likely it would have been heard by someone sitting outside than by someone inside her home.

 

[stilicho]

Why should Mignini regret what he did and want to do things differently? Everything turned out just fine for him -- he knew the system and he knew he couldn't lose. Just get Amanda's statements into the press before (or if) the Supreme Court had time to disallow them.

You're giving Mignini and Italian law enforcement far too much credit. Just from our discussions here there have been numerous things we'd all have done differently if we had occupied their shoes at the time. Amanda was incredibly fortunate, in fact, that the statements she did make were declared inadmissible. It certainly didn't make the prosecutor's case any easier to have her be able to make the accusation, sign it, modify it, and then claim that she was bullied and/or having a vision.

 

[Mary_H]

You're giving Mignini and Italian law enforcement far too much credit. Just from our discussions here there have been numerous things we'd all have done differently if we had occupied their shoes at the time. Amanda was incredibly fortunate, in fact, that the statements she did make were declared inadmissible. It certainly didn't make the prosecutor's case any easier to have her be able to make the accusation, sign it, modify it, and then claim that she was bullied and/or having a vision.

Well, that's one way to look at it. I'm not sure the ease of the prosecution's case is at issue, though, since, as I said before, it appears that no matter what happened, they couldn't lose. They had all the "problems" you listed above with the statement, in addition to no evidence, bad science and loony witnesses, yet they still managed to get a conviction.

Whether Amanda was "fortunate" in any way also is a bizarre approach. It's kind of like saying someone should count their blessings because they lost only an arm and a leg instead of both arms and both legs.

And again, the concept of inadmissibility is irrelevant in this case. The judges and the jury panel were all fully informed about Amanda's statements, regardless of whether they were brought up at trial. That was information that the judges, especially, could not be expected to put out of their minds.

 

[Amazer]

Amazer Wrote: "Ok, but you'll agree (i hope) that when people say Amanda was questioned for 14 hours that the impression given is of one interrogation lasting 14 hours."

You missed the part where I said that this statement isn't even on my site.

No, did see that. Still decided to comment on it since later in that some post you allude to the fact that the interrogation lasted many hours.

Amazer wrote: "I believe people take issue with your statement because it gives the impression that there were more knives in that drawer that could have been murder weapons."

It is very possible that there was. We do not have a completed picture of the knife that was left in the drawer. It could be a round edge bread knife or it could have a pointed tip. We don't know because it wasn't taken out and tested.

You could always ask Raffaele (or the owner of the appartment) what kind of knife that second knife was. For now I don't see any reason to doubt that this one knife was the only knife that qualified as a potential murder weapon when it was collected.

Amazer,

19. "The clasp was not discovered until 47 days had passed."

Bruce: The Machine (Harry Rag) is insinuating that I worded this improperly. He will say that the clasp was discovered along with the bra but the investigators decided to leave it on the floor. Either way, my point is very clear. The clasp was not handled properly by the investigators.

Amazer: "I'd have to agree with Harry in this case. It is worded improperly."

Do you agree with Fulcanelli and Harry Rag when they say that the clasp was stored properly in the cottage for 47 days?

If the clasp was discovered on the same day that the bra was collected then why didn't they collect it?

It doesn't really matter whether I agree with them or not. You made the absolute claim that the clasp wasn't discovered until 47 days had passed. From the comments you gave later it's obvious that you are not certain that is the case. Thus, your claim was improperly worded.

P.S. Obviously I would have liked the bra clasp to have been collected much earlier, during those first few days. That would have settled much of this debate one way or another.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for giving the facts to correct another one of Fulcanelli's misstatements, Malkmus. With a reference too - good work.

I'm sure he will just pretend this never happened, like every other time he has been caught misstating the facts, but that doesn't matter if it's all recorded here.

And indeed he responded in a wearily predictable fashion - as nicely evidenced by his beautifully patronising response to Malkmus just one post below your post quoted above. Lovely stuff!

I also love the idea that I'm "politically astute" enough to subtly skirt round the issue of Guede's previous criminal history (or otherwise, depending on what you choose to believe). For the record, my position on Guede is this: I believe that he was involved, to a greater or lesser degree, in the murder (and possibly also the sexual assault) of Meredith Kercher. I believe that there is ample evidence to properly convict him, and that also certain elements of his personality and prior history tend to support his culpability (although of course that's not a pre-requisite for conviction).

I therefore have no real interest in what the precise nature of his previous offending might or might not be, and by extension I'm not prepared to speculate one way or the other (particularly about some of the more lurid claims). In addition, I realise that any media reporting of Guede's "previous" should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, since he's in no position to defend himself in court against false accusations (and neither, by the way, are Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito).

 

[43degreesNorth]

In advance of the appeal, will any details be published in addition to general information about questioning DNA evidence, new witnesses etc? or is all hush hush until the court date?

 

[LondonJohn]

I took a look at the first link, and I can confirm that it merely says that Rudy's lawyers were "considering legal action".

It does not confirm the claim that Guede's lawyers filed suit in Italy for slander against the Seattle Times.

This does not prove they did not do so, of course. It merely demonstrates that the links Fulcanelli provided claiming they supported his claim, did not in fact support it. I am not surprised by this development.

Indeed. And, in fact, it's "PR 101" to come out strong with threats of libel suits almost automatically when a potentially damaging accusation is made. This is for two reasons: Firstly - in line with what has been suggested in this instance - the very threat of legal action may cause the source of publication (and other media outlets) from re-publishing the same claims; and secondly, such an immediate and strong rebuttal with threats of legal action (or even more definitive announcements to the effect of "I will be instructing my lawyers to issue proceedings" etc) serve to plant in the minds of the wider public that the claims possibly (or even probably) aren't true.

It's amazing how many assertive statements of this kind aren't actually then followed up by the formal issuing of libel proceedings. Now, it's clearly true that Guede and his legal team wouldn't have the sophistication of, say, Donald Trump or David Beckham, in the area of "empty threats of legal action". But this could very well be what happened here. And, it's also clearly the case that the widespread reporting of Guede as a drug dealer - true or false - could only have had a detrimental (or, at best, neutral) effect on his chances at trial or appeal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thank you for the citations. I'm not sure it is accurate to say Guede's lawyers sued The Seattle Times. I haven't been able to open the first link because there is a problem with the security certifcate, but the title of its article seems to be, "Kercher suspect's lawyer may sue." The second article quotes Biscotti as saying, "We have already initiated contacts with U.S. firm to file a complaint against the newspaper that published the article..."

Maybe the threat of the lawsuit was enough to get media outlets to change their ways, but so far I don't see any evidence of Guede's lawyers actually "filing suit in Italy for alander against the Seattle Times," as you wrote in Post #14454.

Your splitting hairs. Whether they actually filed suit or not isn't the point, the fact is Rudy's lawyers were incensed because the description wasn't true and the story they were going to sue was covered by several different outlets and as a result the media got the message, for a time referring to Guede as a former gardener' or similar, rather then petty criminal or drug dealer.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I took a look at the first link, and I can confirm that it merely says that Rudy's lawyers were "considering legal action".

It does not confirm the claim that Guede's lawyers filed suit in Italy for slander against the Seattle Times.

This does not prove they did not do so, of course. It merely demonstrates that the links Fulcanelli provided claiming they supported his claim, did not in fact support it. I am not surprised by this development.

What it 'says' is that they were contacting a legal firm in the United States with the view to filing suit.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you watch the crime scene videos it becomes very clear that the crime scene was completely mishandled by investigators. There is no doubt that contamination occurred.

The clasp should have been collected at the same time as the bra. This has been gone over many times. Why was DNA found on the clasp that was not also found on the bra itself? We will never know this because the evidence was not collected properly.

No it isn't.

Why?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Personally, I would not want to go to prison on account of what someone who had been sleeping on a bench in th emiddle of a city for 8 or 9 years said about me.

I see, some people should just know their place and not testify against their betters, right?

I'll take the honour and decency of a homeless man over that of a pair of entitled and over privileged murdering liars any day.