Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

He [Curatolo] was examined in court. The court found him reliable. If you have any direct evidence that he isn't, aside from generalisations about homeless people, then provide it.

I don't distrust Curatolo's testimony because he is homeless, I distrust it because he appears to be, as Rose would say, "whacked." Coincidentally, this whackedness is probably the cause of his homelessness.

 

[Mary_H]

The trouble is, when these 'lies' occurred during the interrogation, we're then back to arguing whether or not the 'confession' (in AK's case) was coerced. I'm assuming people wouldn't call a coerced confession a 'lie'. AFAIK, the only time either of their stories changed was during that interrogation, and that in response to lies from the police that they knew AK had left the apartment, they had hard evidence placing her at the scene, etc.

Oh, but they do, Katy. That is pretty much all they've got in the way of evidence regarding "lies." If you look at any discussion in any thread or blog about this case over the past two years, you will find the guilters compulsively defaulting to the claim that Amanda repeatedly lied, and that that gave the police, judges and prosecution license to interrogate her, imprison her and convict her.

Oddly, the only documentation they can ever provide shows that Amanda's "lies" consist of forgetting the times or the number of phone calls she made, or the time or menu of her dinner with Raffaele -- really important stuff like that -- all of which was stated four days after the crime.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I am a little puzzled by this knife disucssion. As I understand it, this was the situation in which the knife was taken from the kitchen drawer:





Is this no longer the case?

I'm guessing you missed this part of the statement you quoted:

led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him

And you, apparently, have missed the pictures of the drawer and the accompanying discussions regarding it's contents

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't distrust Curatolo's testimony because he is homeless, I distrust it because he appears to be, as Rose would say, "whacked." Coincidentally, this whackedness is probably the cause of his homelessness.

It would appear, Mary, that everyone who agrees with you is sane, while everyone who furthers the Prosecution case is "whacked".

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't distrust Curatolo's testimony because he is homeless, I distrust it because he appears to be, as Rose would say, "whacked." Coincidentally, this whackedness is probably the cause of his homelessness.

If I remember correctly this homeless person was found by a local journalist that took him to the cops. Was this the case?

 

[tsig]

Thanks - and yes, you're right that Ohio is not a state that places the right to a fair trial above the right to freedom of speech. As a general (but not strict) rule, many of the more "liberally-enlightened" states in the USA (that classification is bound to start WW3 in here!) DO impose sub-judice laws regarding evidence, opinions of guilt, character defamation etc. California is one such state. Here's the CA Attorney General's web page concerning sub-judice rules:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/legis/subjudicerule.asp

As you can see, it's fairly self-explanatory. And it also supports my original argument (which itself was, in any case, prefaced by the word "moderately" as it applied to the USA). I took issue at a strongly-worded and somewhat condescending reply from another poster (i.e. not you!) who essentially said I was talking rubbish - either through ignorance or through a willful attempt to spread lies. And I didn't like being called either ignorant or a liar, when I would like to think that I am neither.

Just as a final point, here's the general wikipedia* page on sub judice and the rules surrounding it. It specifically names those countries where stringent rules are in place, and mentions the difficulty of classifying the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

I hope this clears up any confusion. And who knows, maybe the other poster in question will retract the earlier statements. Or maybe not.

*Yes, not the World's most unflinchingly reliable source, I know. But perfectly OK in this instance.

EDIT: The first link is not from California, but from Ontario! My massive error - sorry. I'll try and find a US state to illustrate my point.....

Your link goes to Ontario.

 

[RoseMontague]

It would appear, Mary, that everyone who agrees with you is sane, while everyone who furthers the Prosecution case is "whacked".

sorry, I just wanted to see what it looked like if I quoted it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No Charlie, that's not how it went. Mignini simply connected Narducci to those who had been convicted for their roles in the MOF murders. It was the prosecutor who had convicted them years before who made thje link to Satanic cults and indeed, one of those convicted admitted that he and his co-convicted were part of one. This all had nothing to do with Mignini, he was never even involved in that case.

What is your source of information? I am going by what Frank has written, which includes the following:

It seems that the Foligno loan sharks were selling themselves as satanic killers of Narducci.

And also arrived a call from Gabriella Carlizzi of Rome who had information from the roman Gang of Magliana that the body found in the lake was not Narducci but it had been substituted for another.

So, Mignini reopened the case on the hypothesis that the Foligno loan sharks were really involved in the Narducci's murder and that the information coming from the Gang of Magliana was reliable.

Carlizzi as we all know is a psychic who communicates with the spirit of a dead priest.

Frank's writeup may be read here:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/11/genius-or-evil.html

The nature of Mignini's thinking is also described in the Motivation following the verdict in his case, as translated by Google:

Mignini, by Act of 31.05.2004, asked already. P. authorization to intercept the users of Fiasconaro and De Stefano (in prod. Pm, 6 binder sheet 486).

The request is made within the proc pm. pen. No 8970/02/21, which was on the misleading on the investigation, and the related note of 05/17/2004 pg Giuttari was referring to. As seen Narducci murder (even against unknown).

The request goes over the steps of the survey widely, even from its origin, with the discovery of differences between the corpse fished in Lake Trasimeno and the exhumed by Narducci, on which were observed in terms of esoteric references to archaic rituals and references - Egyptian - local environments and Masonic paramassonici - fringe, then, explains the existence of serious evidence of guilt of the crime of slander to the detriment of the many journalists committed 18.4-2002 in Perugia from various relatives and dalTaw Narducci.

I read this to mean that Mignini filed a request in which he described how the corpse fished from the lake was not really Narducci, and explained that when the real body of Narducci was exhumed, it revealed signs of "archaic rituals" with a Masonic connection. Do I understand this correctly?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If I remember correctly this homeless person was found by a local journalist that took him to the cops. Was this the case?

Yes.

 

[Mary_H]

And you, apparently, have missed the pictures of the drawer and the accompanying discussions regarding it's contents

I think I must have missed them, because I keep reading people talking about there being only only one or two knives in the drawer, which is contrary to what Finzi testified.

 

[Mary_H]

It would appear, Mary, that everyone who agrees with you is sane, while everyone who furthers the Prosecution case is "whacked".

It's interesting you would mention that, Bob. I was wondering what everyone was going to do with LondonJohn's suggestion that we examine the ad hominem fallacies that abound in these discussion.

By the way, may I suggest that the next legal term for discussion in our short series (following "straw man" and "circular reasoning") might be "Ad hominem arguments". It's a very interesting area - and one about which I'm sure many people here have plenty of knowledge and experience....

The problem is that these discussions, I think, all must ultimately end in ad hominem arguments, fallacy or not. The facts are there in black and white, yet people refuse to accept them, regardless of how effective the arguments for or against may be. That's when people start asking, hmm, do I want to go with RWVBWL, his real life experience and his kind heart, or do I want to go with Giuliani Mignini, his fat, smug face and his convictions for previous abuses of power?

 

[stilicho]

Why does this matter? I can't see why anybody would waste time on this case now.

Have you seen the Bigfoot and homeopathy threads? And there's an entire sub-forum dedicated to 9/11 conspiracies.

 

[stilicho]

Or, AK wasn't sure exactly what time they ate dinner and only knew it was late, hence her uncertainty as to the time (something probably not helped by both of them being high. Pot may not cause amnesia, but it can cause uncertainty as to when particular things happened).

The trouble is, when these 'lies' occurred during the interrogation, we're then back to arguing whether or not the 'confession' (in AK's case) was coerced. I'm assuming people wouldn't call a coerced confession a 'lie'. AFAIK, the only time either of their stories changed was during that interrogation, and that in response to lies from the police that they knew AK had left the apartment, they had hard evidence placing her at the scene, etc.

And yet Patrick didn't change his story. Do you recognise the inconsistency in your position? Of all four of those interrogated, only Patrick stayed with his first version of the events of the evening of 01 NOV 2007.

We're back again to Rose's and Mary's perceptions of improbabilities. The three of those who lied to police were also found guilty of murder and the one who didn't lie to police was entirely exonerated. You may substitute lying with coercion but the results are identical.

 

[stilicho]

I don't distrust Curatolo's testimony because he is homeless, I distrust it because he appears to be, as Rose would say, "whacked." Coincidentally, this whackedness is probably the cause of his homelessness.

He wasn't whacked at all. He was very careful and deliberate on the stand and impressed everyone who heard him with the notable exception of the man calling himself Frank Sfarzo.

The prosecution did call two witnesses who were considerably more whacked than Curatolo, including Kokomani. Although his testimony was not believed (really it was uncorroborated, unlike Curatolo's) there is some probability that he had seen RS and AK before and either had the day or the situation confused.

I am a little dismayed that Kokomani has fallen into disrepute even at the PMF and only because the judges did not find him credible. I think he saw them doing something--who knows what--and thought they were potentially dangerous.

Don't discount the fact that there was not a single friendly witness from Perugia to testify for either Amanda or Raffaele.

 

[stilicho]

Your link goes to Ontario.

He already apologised for that last page.

 

[stilicho]

That's when people start asking, hmm, do I want to go with RWVBWL, his real life experience and his kind heart, or do I want to go with Giuliani Mignini, his fat, smug face and his convictions for previous abuses of power?

What?

Nobody knows anything about RWVBWL's "real life experience and his kind heart" because none of his anecdotes have a shred of evidence to support them. He could just as easily be the Green River Killer.

 

[capealadin]

For pity's sake. The poor homeless person had nothing else to see or do, except watch the people in his vicinity. I give him some credibility. Not much, because I don't know his impairments, if any, but he probably observed a lot of comings and goings.

 

[capealadin]

I for one will take RWV's take on the weather, the surf, Tito's tacos and some drug taking...but for the rest..this juror is still out.

 

[Mary_H]

Don't discount the fact that there was not a single friendly witness from Perugia to testify for either Amanda or Raffaele.

That is not quite true. One witness for the defense is Raffaele's friend who came to his door and talked to Amanda at around 8:30.

If Amanda and Raffaele had been out and about in that rather busy city that night, it is likely more people would have seen them and come forward about it. No one did because Amanda and Raffaele spent the whole night at Raffaele's.

 

[Mary_H]

Nobody knows anything about RWVBWL's "real life experience and his kind heart" because none of his anecdotes have a shred of evidence to support them. He could just as easily be the Green River Killer.

I am not suggesting we limit our observations to RWVBWL and Mignini; those were just two names that came quickly to mind. The point is, in the records of this case, there is a lot of evidence of the differences between most of the people on the pro-innocence side versus most of the people on the pro-guilt side. If a person were not aware of all the evidence, or wanted to ignore it, he or she could choose a side based on the types of people who populate either side.