• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fiona said:
Your choice: the question stands. Were you there? If you were not there then what are you basing your opinion as to whether people were in costume on the 1st or not on? What is the foundation which underpins your very strong assertion that Curatolo was wrong about the night or indeed was not a credible witness? Were you in court for that part of the evidence? Stewart Home was,
Click to expand...

The "were you there?" question is useless. If you applied that question to everything, nothing would ever be solved.

The answer to your questions is no. I was not in Italy. I was not in the courtroom. I have spoken to people that were.

Apply your "were you there?" question to any murder case and see how far it gets you.

Were the investigators "there" at the time of the murder? Did the investigators witness the murder?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I don't use PMF as a source. That site has been proven less than credible and it is run by a pathological liar.
Click to expand...

And that's the greatest part of your problem.

It has not been proven to be not credible, neither by you or anyone else. Unlike everyone else, PMF has tracked the case from the very beginning (in one incarnation or another, be it True Crime on Haloscan or the True Crime Weblog Message Board), actually has experts that know what they're talking about, combined with a rich archive of case data and most of all, is strict with the truth and adapting it's debate accordingly. On those grounds, I can see why you don't like it. That's your problem. But at the moment, you seem bent on making your problem everyone else's.
 
Last edited:
Not really helpful Bruce Fisher: the fact is that you are asking me to dismiss the statements of someone who was there in favour of....well nothing at all. That is not a good way to proceed.
 
Fiona said:
So there are footprints of Guede's facing Kercher's door? I did not know that. I am now wondering why this has not been plainly stated because it is quite important
Click to expand...

Guede had blood on one portion of his left shoe. His right shoe made no prints going down the hall.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Yes, the shoe print is angled toward the front door. Rudy took one step out of the room turning toward the front door, his right foot came down facing Meredith's door, he locked the door and left. He did stop at one point to possibly put on a coat.

The cottage is small. It would have been a normal motion to step out of the room toward the direction you were intending to go.
Click to expand...


...and then turn and face the door you were intending to lock.
 
RoseMontague said:
The distinction here is that these new experts are getting the information from the defense team for further review. It is a case where the defense team has given them all they have (meaning the defense did not get the complete files from the prosecution).
Click to expand...

They are not getting it from the defence team. They're getting it from the family. Don't confuse the two.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Like I'm telling you, the quote is not correct.

And Bongiourno herself, one of the best lawyers in Italy, cross examined Curatolo on the stand. Curatolo actually made her look a fool.
Click to expand...

Does anyone have a link to Curatolo's actual witness statements to the police in November/December 2007 then? The original Italian would be best, for minimisation of ambiguity or mistranslation. I'd like to look at them.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
...and then turn and face the door you were intending to lock.
Click to expand...

If you mean slightly move your upper body then yes, you can say turn.

This is a small area we are talking about. Rudy was within inches of the door when he locked it.
 
Amazer said:
Was that really necessary?
Click to expand...

No, but it WAS wearily predictable. That's why I refuse to engage with him (whereas by contrast, I almost always find you reasonable and fair to engage with, even when we are arguing diametrically opposing points)
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
The "were you there?" question is useless. If you applied that question to everything, nothing would ever be solved.
Click to expand...

It is actually a very useful question. If the answer to it is a negative, then that answer should therefore remove all the absolute certainty you assert. At least, it would do for those who can conceive of humility and is a must for those who scream 'reasonable doubt' at every opportunity. Apparently though, that maxim only applies to everyone 'else's' opinions or beliefs.
 
Fiona said:
Then why was this not raised in court? It is in direct defiance of a court order and so it should be fairly easy to deal with, should it not?
Click to expand...

It appears to me that it was part of the defense motion requesting an independent review of the DNA evidence that was denied. It seems that the appeal will get into this further.
 
LondonJohn said:
Does anyone have a link to Curatolo's actual witness statements to the police in November/December 2007 then? The original Italian would be best, for minimisation of ambiguity or mistranslation. I'd like to look at them.
Click to expand...


And with that, you've just proved that you don't bother reading previous posts. I just answered that question today.
 
Matthew Best said:
A (the files) are needed to produce B (the electropherograms). If you have B, it doesn't mean you now have A.
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked the second part, why would an italian lab for an italian jury be producing B in english.
 
Perhaps, RoseMontague: but the application for an independent review is a funny way of going about it. It seems to me that the more natural route to deal with direct defiance of a court order is to challenge that in court and force compliance: then the evidence can be given to whichever experts the defence chooses to employ. I can see no logical reason for asking for an indpendent review when this route is available: and none for delaying the action until the appeal. Maybe I am missing something, though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom