Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

I thought you were one of the ones to excuse AK and RS for being reluctant to phone the police (instead calling her mother, Meredith, Filomena, and his sister) yet suddenly Curatolo should have leapt into action although he didn't see blood or a broken window. How is it that you hold a disinterested homeless man to higher standards than honours student Amanda and tactical knife collector Raffaele?

Originally Posted by RWVBWL
Hi Fulcanelli,
What I find hard to believe is that Mr. Curatolo, who had been a witness in a murder trial back in 2001, DID NOT approach the police as he saw them working that day doing their investigation into the murder of Miss Kercher.
__________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by stilicho
I thought you were one of the ones to excuse AK and RS for being reluctant to phone the police (instead calling her mother, Meredith, Filomena, and his sister) yet suddenly Curatolo should have leapt into action although he didn't see blood or a broken window. How is it that you hold a disinterested homeless man to higher standards than honours student Amanda and tactical knife collector Raffaele?
__________________________________________________________________________

Good evening stilicho,
Mr. Curatolo, who says that he saw the carabinieri pass, and the police, etc etc. and stated that he watched them at the scene including the CSI people dressed in the full-white suits that day, would have obviously asked someone what was up, he being a full time "observer", in my opinion. Maybe our thoughts differ on this...

However I find it hard to believe that a guy who has testified before in another murder trial would not even approach them as they worked and give them the info that he saw 2 people loitering near the apartment last night, who were not wearing masks and costumes, and that he even knew what time it was, since he wore his watch...

RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi Fulcanelli,
What I find hard to believe is that Mr. Curatolo, who had been a witness in a murder trial back in 2001, DID NOT approach the police as he saw them working that day doing their investigation into the murder of Miss Kercher.

Anyone that would have been in the area would, in my opinion, have asked any one of the # of police officers "what was up?", "what's goin' on?" I bet there isn't THAT many murders in Perugia, so the investigation must have been a scene that Mr. Curatolo would have noticed, he who notices everything...

Curatolo, being holder of an incredible memory, should have easily "remembered" from his participation in the 2001 murder trial that witness testimony is vital, and should have been, in my opinion, the 1st witness to have come forward that same day, November 2, 2007...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Agreed.

And a reply to this post by another poster demonstrates, once again, the prejudices and distortions which characterise that poster's arguments (in my opinion):

He argues that it's impossible to say on the one hand that Curatolo should have gone to the police much earlier, then on the other had to defend AK/RS's delay in calling the police on the morning of the 2nd November.

I argue that this is a warped and disingenuous argument. It's entirely logical and reasonable (in my view) to conclude that the reason why AK and RS hesitated in calling the police on the morning of the 2nd is simply this: THEY HAD NO IDEA OR SUSPICION THAT A SERIOUS CRIME HAD TAKEN PLACE AT THAT TIME*. It's also entirely unreasonable, by the way, to suggest that Curatolo should have contacted the police at any time before 1pm on the 2nd, given that he hadn't seen AK/RS behaving overtly suspiciously the night before: he too had no reason AT THAT TIME to suspect that a serious crime had taken place.

In contrast, by the afternoon of the 2nd, I'd imagine that a fair number of police vans and cars were moving round that part of Perugia, and it wouldn't be hard for anyone who was out-and-about to figure out that something major was going on. By the morning of the 3rd, details of the murder would have been splashed up on every newspaper hoarding in Perugia - including the news stand right by the basketball court. I assume that Curatolo had reading skills, by the way....? And from the 3rd to at least the 5th, I imagine that the murder would have been the major talking point throughout all social/demographic strata of the town.

So the difference between Curatolo's position after the 3rd November, and AK/RS's position on the morning of the 2nd, is this: Curatolo can't have failed to know (from the 3rd onwards) that a murder had taken place on the night of the 2nd; whereas AK/RS could credibly have been unaware on the morning of the 2nd that a serious crime had occurred within the house. And additionally, as has been previously mentioned by others, people with drug habits tend to avoid calling the police to their house unless there's a very strong reason to do so.

A final point: by all accounts, AK and RS helped the police in any way they could AFTER the body had been discovered. I'm not sure, but I don't think they ever refused a request for an interview, and they never (to my knowledge) refused to answer any questions in interview to which they might reasonably have an answer. Whether they were lying to protect themselves is a different matter, but either way, I believe it's inarguable that they "helped the police with their inquiries" to a full extent.


* This of course pre-supposes that AK and RS were both not involved in the crime, but that's a necessary pre-supposition for the purposes of this particular argument. After all, if they DID do it, then it's somewhat easier to explain why they would hesitate to call the police.....

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I also find it very hard to believe that Mr. Curatolo did not "remember" that eyewitness accounts are very important and that he should go and tell that information to the police when he saw them doing their investigation into Miss Kercher's murder later on that day. This is from a former witness in a murder trial back in 2001? Come on!

As I wrote a moment ago,
Mr. Curatolo should have been the 1st witness to have come forward, in my opinion...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

I wasn't aware about him being a witness in 2001 - is there a link I could read more about it?

Do you know how long it was before he came forward with his information in the Kercher murder?

 

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by Malkmus
Jason is the first full-time employee of Forensic Bioinformatics and he is the primary author of the Genophiler® automated software analysis system.

That tells me that he's a systems engineer.

Not denying that. But you write it, as Fiona has, as if his position excludes him from being able to criticize analysis of DNA evidence by Stefanoni. That notion requires disregarding his credentials, which specifically includes forensic DNA interpretation, DNA profiling, and his actual job description which claims he has analyzed the data of DNA evidence in over 800 cases, not to mention his thesis and dissertation on forensic DNA analysis. The man's world is DNA analysis. The fact that he's written a program designed to evaluate the results of others' DNA analysis only further proves his expertise in the field.


Originally Posted by Malkmus
[He's] the very guy who wrote the program which analyzes the DNA testing results...

Are you sure about that? The systems engineer would normally be involved with managing the design, production, and testing phases of a software project. He would do that within the scope defined by the forensic scientists.

The answer to your question was in my previous quote which you already cited. Nevertheless, "he is the primary author of the Genophiler® automated software analysis system"
To be the author of a software means he wrote it.

Originally Posted by Malkmus
The very purpose of Dr. Glider's [sic] position is to evaluate the work of people like Dr. Stefanoni!

It's more likely that Dr Gilder's position is similar to that of the project manager of the software in the machine employed by Dr Stefanoni.

Perhaps he is also a project manager. That doesn't mean one can discount the fact that he himself has participated in the analysis of DNA evidence of 800 some cases.

 

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by RWVBWL
Good evening stilicho,
Mr. Curatolo, who says that he...

RWVBWL

Hi, RWVBWL, just wanted to pass on a neighborly "hello" from Sherman Oaks.

 

[RWVBWL]

I wasn't aware about him being a witness in 2001 - is there a link I could read more about it?

Do you know how long it was before he came forward with his information in the Kercher murder?

Hi Sherlock Holmes,

This is the first time I had read of it, so I kept the file saved:
"A homeless man, Antonio Curatolo, this week told British television that he saw Knox and Sollecito lurking near the scene of the crime on the night of November 1. In a twist, it has emerged Curatolo was a key witness in a murder trial involving a Tunisian who murdered his girlfriend in Perugia in 2001"

Link is here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...aly+Antonio+Curatolo&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are more stories out there of this incident I have read,
and a few more interesting stories on Perugia Shock about Mr. Curatolo:

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

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/you-too-superwitness.html

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/toto-witness.html

Though the court believes Mr. Curatolo, I personally DO NOT.
But as I am sure Fulcanelli will tell me, my opinion doesn't matter, just the court's.
Thank goodness for Appeals Trials...
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi, RWVBWL, just wanted to pass on a neighborly "hello" from Sherman Oaks.

Hi Malkmus,
Another Los Angelino on JREF who likes reading about this case? Cool!
I actually lived in Van Nuys for a few years as a kid during elementary school years.
I'm stoked to see someone else "From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California",
as legendary news anchor Jerry Dunphy used to say,
interested in this particular murder case and participating here on JREF!
Have a good night,
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

Agreed.

And a reply to this post by another poster demonstrates, once again, the prejudices and distortions which characterise that poster's arguments (in my opinion):

He argues that it's impossible to say on the one hand that Curatolo should have gone to the police much earlier, then on the other had to defend AK/RS's delay in calling the police on the morning of the 2nd November.

I argue that this is a warped and disingenuous argument. It's entirely logical and reasonable (in my view) to conclude that the reason why AK and RS hesitated in calling the police on the morning of the 2nd is simply this: THEY HAD NO IDEA OR SUSPICION THAT A SERIOUS CRIME HAD TAKEN PLACE AT THAT TIME*. It's also entirely unreasonable, by the way, to suggest that Curatolo should have contacted the police at any time before 1pm on the 2nd, given that he hadn't seen AK/RS behaving overtly suspiciously the night before: he too had no reason AT THAT TIME to suspect that a serious crime had taken place.

In contrast, by the afternoon of the 2nd, I'd imagine that a fair number of police vans and cars were moving round that part of Perugia, and it wouldn't be hard for anyone who was out-and-about to figure out that something major was going on. By the morning of the 3rd, details of the murder would have been splashed up on every newspaper hoarding in Perugia - including the news stand right by the basketball court. I assume that Curatolo had reading skills, by the way....? And from the 3rd to at least the 5th, I imagine that the murder would have been the major talking point throughout all social/demographic strata of the town.

So the difference between Curatolo's position after the 3rd November, and AK/RS's position on the morning of the 2nd, is this: Curatolo can't have failed to know (from the 3rd onwards) that a murder had taken place on the night of the 2nd; whereas AK/RS could credibly have been unaware on the morning of the 2nd that a serious crime had occurred within the house. And additionally, as has been previously mentioned by others, people with drug habits tend to avoid calling the police to their house unless there's a very strong reason to do so.

A final point: by all accounts, AK and RS helped the police in any way they could AFTER the body had been discovered. I'm not sure, but I don't think they ever refused a request for an interview, and they never (to my knowledge) refused to answer any questions in interview to which they might reasonably have an answer. Whether they were lying to protect themselves is a different matter, but either way, I believe it's inarguable that they "helped the police with their inquiries" to a full extent.


* This of course pre-supposes that AK and RS were both not involved in the crime, but that's a necessary pre-supposition for the purposes of this particular argument. After all, if they DID do it, then it's somewhat easier to explain why they would hesitate to call the police.....

Thank you LondonJohn for the well written response to "stilicho" on my behalf!
I enjoy reading your posts in full, and I have learned much from the experience...
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi Sherlock Holmes,

This is the first time I had read of it, so I kept the file saved:
"A homeless man, Antonio Curatolo, this week told British television that he saw Knox and Sollecito lurking near the scene of the crime on the night of November 1. In a twist, it has emerged Curatolo was a key witness in a murder trial involving a Tunisian who murdered his girlfriend in Perugia in 2001"

Link is here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...aly+Antonio+Curatolo&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are more stories out there of this incident I have read,
and a few more interesting stories on Perugia Shock about Mr. Curatolo:

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

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/you-too-superwitness.html

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/toto-witness.html

Though the court believes Mr. Curatolo, I personally DO NOT.
But as I am sure Fulcanelli will tell me, my opinion doesn't matter, just the court's.
Thank goodness for Appeals Trials...
RWVBWL

Again, I agree. I would also add that a valid and reasonable (in my view) point to consider is that Curatolo, as a long-standing homeless man, would inevitably have been well within the radar of the Perugia police. In general, police and city authorities tend not to look kindly on homeless people. Many such people actively cause different degrees of problems, ranging from harassing passers-by for money, through to involvement in petty crime and drugs offences. And in addition, the very existence of homeless people tends to dent a city's image - as viewed both by its own inhabitants and by outsiders/tourists (this last point is perhaps distasteful, but in my opinion it's undeniably true).

I have no idea whether Curatolo himself had ever been involved in harassment or worse. And, of course, my default starting position wold therefore have to be that he HADN'T. But nonetheless, I would imagine that he might have a stronger motivation than many to keep "on the right side" of the police. And a good way to keep "on the right side " of the police might be to serve as a police/prosecution witness in criminal trials: plenty of "Brownie points"* for that, I'd venture.....

Also, I want to note that I'm not suggesting that Curatolo DID decide to come forward as a police/prosecution witness purely in order to curry favour** with the police. But I think it certainly bears examination.

* I'm not sure whether the phrase "Brownie points" is uniquely British - apologies if it is (it roughly means "good marks", or "favourable references").

** Is "to curry favour" another uniquely British expression?! If so, it means "to seek to get into someone's good books". As a totally off-topic aside, I recently learned where this curious phrase came from. The word "curry" has nothing to do with Indian/Thai food here. It is used in an earlier sense, meaning "to brush a horse(or similar beast)". And "favour" is a corruption of "Favel". Favel was a donkey who's the eponymous hero of a medieval French prose poem (Roman de Fauvel). The poem recounts how Favel gained power over the church and state (somehow!), and how other courtiers who wanted to petition church or state leaders had to stroke (curry) Favel in order to be heard. At some point, the word "Favel" was mistakenly changed to "favour" - since this seemed to clarify the meaning of the phrase. And so "to curry favour" was born. Apologies for this massive digression, but I needed it to qualify for my Marriott commission

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you LondonJohn for the well written response to "stilicho" on my behalf!
I enjoy reading your posts in full, and I have learned much from the experience...
RWVBWL

You're welcome. And I find what you write equally informative and enjoyable (and considerably less time-consuming!!!).

By the way, PLEASE tell me that you've seen the movie "The Big Lebowski". I was reminded again of the film by your quoting of "From the desert to the sea...", which is also quoted in the movie.

And I can't help but picture you in my mind as "The Dude" character from this film! It's one of my favourite movies - funny, intelligent and poignant all at the same time. The Coen Brothers at their finest, in my opinion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hi Sherlock Holmes,

This is the first time I had read of it, so I kept the file saved:
"A homeless man, Antonio Curatolo, this week told British television that he saw Knox and Sollecito lurking near the scene of the crime on the night of November 1. In a twist, it has emerged Curatolo was a key witness in a murder trial involving a Tunisian who murdered his girlfriend in Perugia in 2001"

Link is here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...aly+Antonio+Curatolo&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are more stories out there of this incident I have read,
and a few more interesting stories on Perugia Shock about Mr. Curatolo:

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

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/you-too-superwitness.html

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/toto-witness.html

Though the court believes Mr. Curatolo, I personally DO NOT.
But as I am sure Fulcanelli will tell me, my opinion doesn't matter, just the court's.
Thank goodness for Appeals Trials...
RWVBWL

Thanks RWVBWL- This quote is interesting too -

A second surprise we had today was that the blood alcohol count of Meredith went from 0.43 grams/liter to 2.3 grams/liter. Which means from having half a glass of wine or one glass of beer to potentially being in an alcohol-induced coma.
The new results were revealed by a Panorama blog, which obtained them from the consultants of Gip Matteini --Professor Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, Dr Anna Aprile, and Dr Mariano Cingolani-- who repeated the toxicology tests.
We await confirmation because someone here has made a mistake: was it the first lab, the Gip's consultants or the journalist for Panorama?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks RWVBWL- This quote is interesting too -

A second surprise we had today was that the blood alcohol count of Meredith went from 0.43 grams/liter to 2.3 grams/liter. Which means from having half a glass of wine or one glass of beer to potentially being in an alcohol-induced coma.
The new results were revealed by a Panorama blog, which obtained them from the consultants of Gip Matteini --Professor Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, Dr Anna Aprile, and Dr Mariano Cingolani-- who repeated the toxicology tests.
We await confirmation because someone here has made a mistake: was it the first lab, the Gip's consultants or the journalist for Panorama?

I believe that the Panorama-related info that you might be referring to is the same as is referred to here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583816/Meredith-Kercher-drank-enough-to-pass-out.html

And that report is from April 2008. This would suggest that the blood alcohol discrepancy isn't "new news". I presume that the discrepancy has been ironed out by now - does anyone know?

My base assumption would also be that the 2.3mg/l number was a false high reading for some reason. This is because all the other evidence points to Meredith being relatively sober when she arrived home, and I'd argue that it's unlikely that she then chose to drink herself into oblivion in the comfort of her own room, or that she embarked on an orgy of booze with AK/RS/RG (or anyone else).

 

[RWVBWL]

I believe that the Panorama-related info that you might be referring to is the same as is referred to here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583816/Meredith-Kercher-drank-enough-to-pass-out.html

And that report is from April 2008. This would suggest that the blood alcohol discrepancy isn't "new news". I presume that the discrepancy has been ironed out by now - does anyone know?

My base assumption would also be that the 2.3mg/l number was a false high reading for some reason. This is because all the other evidence points to Meredith being relatively sober when she arrived home, and I'd argue that it's unlikely that she then chose to drink herself into oblivion in the comfort of her own room, or that she embarked on an orgy of booze with AK/RS/RG (or anyone else).

Hi LondonJohn and Sherlock Holmes,
I had read this on Perugia Shock a while back and it does appear that there was a mistake, (another 1 of many done, I feel, in this murder case), that shows the results of Miss Kerchers BAC to be incorrect:

"Alcohol level: As I thought, there was a mistake. Nobody said "I made that mistake," but it seems that the blood sample was kept in a container with some residual alcohol, which is why the second analysis was abnormal. So, the rate of 0.43 found by the University of Perugia is confirmed. Meredith was not drunk."

Link here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/meredith-sobers-up.html

Though other may feel differently, I like reading Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock, for he is a local Italian and write's it like he sees it. He also has a new post up about Mr. Mignini, and mentions that he does indeed speak with him often...
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

1) AK was most probably wrong (in my view) to send that email in the first place.

You should have stopped right there. Amanda ****ed up yet again. She couldn't conveniently forget to recall it as she did with the wee hours phone call to Seattle the day after she murdered Meredith. It is a clear and rational representation of what Amanda wanted her spam list to know and contrasts starkly with her litany of "can't-remembers-don't-knows" that punctuated her court testimony.

Do you also recognise the distinctions?

 

[stilicho]

Curatolo presumably saw a bunch of cops and read about the crime in his daily paper. Amanda and Raffaele did not have those advantages.

Since when is standing in the middle of a crime scene not an advantage?

 

[stilicho]

I argue that this is a warped and disingenuous argument. It's entirely logical and reasonable (in my view) to conclude that the reason why AK and RS hesitated in calling the police on the morning of the 2nd is simply this: THEY HAD NO IDEA OR SUSPICION THAT A SERIOUS CRIME HAD TAKEN PLACE AT THAT TIME*. It's also entirely unreasonable, by the way, to suggest that Curatolo should have contacted the police at any time before 1pm on the 2nd, given that he hadn't seen AK/RS behaving overtly suspiciously the night before: he too had no reason AT THAT TIME to suspect that a serious crime had taken place.

....

* This of course pre-supposes that AK and RS were both not involved in the crime, but that's a necessary pre-supposition for the purposes of this particular argument. After all, if they DID do it, then it's somewhat easier to explain why they would hesitate to call the police.....

Everyone they phoned seemed to think there had been a serious crime committed. Excepting the woman they murdered, of course, who obviously could not answer her phone. Edda Mellas testified that she told Amanda to call the police and she wasn't there. Vanessa Sollecito told Raffaele to call the police. Filomena Romanelli told Amanda to phone them. They weren't there either.

The only people who were there and didn't think it was important to call the police were honours student Amanda and computer science major Raffaele.

Your last paragraph is revealing because it's exactly what most people would find acceptable. If Amanda and Raffaele were the murderers then they would not call the police. They would call other people first to involve them in the discovery of their crime.

 

[Mary_H]

You should have stopped right there. Amanda ****ed up yet again. She couldn't conveniently forget to recall it as she did with the wee hours phone call to Seattle the day after she murdered Meredith. It is a clear and rational representation of what Amanda wanted her spam list to know and contrasts starkly with her litany of "can't-remembers-don't-knows" that punctuated her court testimony.

Do you also recognise the distinctions?

All of Amanda's memories of what happened after Meredith's body was discovered are clearer than her memories from before. As she wrote at the end of her e-mail, "...I'm trying to remember what I was doing before all this happened." Having your roommate murdered would tend to focus your attention much more strongly on the present than on the past.

I don't agree that it was wrong for Amanda to send the e-mail. As I wrote before, it's a good thing she did, so we have at least a little bit of a record of what was going on in the days before the interrogation. What she wrote about was certainly important, interesting and harmless enough to share with the people in her life who are important to her.

 

[43degreesNorth]

All of Amanda's memories of what happened after Meredith's body was discovered are clearer than her memories from before. As she wrote at the end of her e-mail, "...I'm trying to remember what I was doing before all this happened." Having your roommate murdered would tend to focus your attention much more strongly on the present than on the past.
.

I think we will hear more about her memories today in the slander trial. She seems to have different memories after the murder from others as well as before. I am not convinced she struggles with memories before the murder. We had alot of detail from Amanda on a number of subjects. The memory loss/confusion, seems to be specific to various parts of the events where there is a discrepancy in the testimony and witness of individuals and phone records.

 

[LondonJohn]

All of Amanda's memories of what happened after Meredith's body was discovered are clearer than her memories from before. As she wrote at the end of her e-mail, "...I'm trying to remember what I was doing before all this happened." Having your roommate murdered would tend to focus your attention much more strongly on the present than on the past.

I don't agree that it was wrong for Amanda to send the e-mail. As I wrote before, it's a good thing she did, so we have at least a little bit of a record of what was going on in the days before the interrogation. What she wrote about was certainly important, interesting and harmless enough to share with the people in her life who are important to her.

Hi Mary

Again, it seems to me that certain posters (not you) are falling back on underhand "tactics" to try to attack other posters' arguments. I cannot be bothered responding to them, and nor do I think there's anything to be gained (for ANYONE) by engaging with them. And, in passing, it seems that they think that if they repeat phrases such as "spam list" enough times (without ANY qualification that this is only their opinion, I might add), then the wider community will somehow accept them as fact via some sort of osmosis. Sad and strange, in my view.

However, in response to you, I can understand why AK felt the need to send the "round robin" email. But I still think that she was wrong to actually send it - at least with some of the contents it included. I'd mitigate my belief by saying that she most likely didn't feel that she herself was under suspicion at the time of writing the email, and therefore might have felt free to say anything she liked. But, then again, she must have realised the general "heat" that was going down around that time, and that many people were probably under the broad umbrella of suspicion (in that they might not have been completely exonerated by that time).

So I'd argue, on balance, that she should have been more careful about writing down details related to the investigation - especially since she'd apparently been asked by the police not to discuss her interviews with anyone (apart from, presumably, a lawyer at her discretion). In my view, she could instead have written an email discussing in non-specific terms what was going on, and about how she felt (again, in non-specific terms) about things. I believe she made a mistake in referring directly to her police questioning.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi LondonJohn and Sherlock Holmes,
I had read this on Perugia Shock a while back and it does appear that there was a mistake, (another 1 of many done, I feel, in this murder case), that shows the results of Miss Kerchers BAC to be incorrect:

"Alcohol level: As I thought, there was a mistake. Nobody said "I made that mistake," but it seems that the blood sample was kept in a container with some residual alcohol, which is why the second analysis was abnormal. So, the rate of 0.43 found by the University of Perugia is confirmed. Meredith was not drunk."

Link here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/meredith-sobers-up.html

Though other may feel differently, I like reading Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock, for he is a local Italian and write's it like he sees it. He also has a new post up about Mr. Mignini, and mentions that he does indeed speak with him often...
RWVBWL

But I thought that the Italian police forensic experts were INCAPABLE of making mistakes