Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I haven't confused Curatolo with the olive man. The prosecution tried to use olive mans testimony to verify Curatolo's testimony. The same with Nara, I just can't remember olive mans name.

His name is Hekuran Kokomani. And he was (believe it or not) designated by Mignini as a "super witness". His testimony was a pile of fantasy, and he came across in court as utterly unreliable and, frankly, disturbed. Quite how Mignini decided to put him in front of the court is perplexing to say the least. but then he also put a career-homeless guy on the stand who was confused about which night was which and yet sometimes claimed accurate-to-the-minute timings, together with an elderly lady who not only got confused about dates and times but who also appeared to have near-miraculous powers of hearing. And yet the court accepted them as reliable witnesses.........

 

[LondonJohn]

This touches on the perplexity (points of confusion) over alibis that you guys have.

Leaving aside for the moment the amateur sleuthing /gastric analysis which conveniently always points to a ToD before 21.30.

The evidence of Curatolo breaks the (initial*) alibis of both AK & RS.
Theorizing over how (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted OR your own ToD is pointless unless you accept this point.

If his testimony is accepted and it was - their alibis are gone.

London John tries to have it both ways later in the post but it wont do - that is not the defence put forward for either AK or RS. As I pointed out before , You can do it over on a forum all you like but in the real world that gets you convicted.

* without getting into whether RS stands by the initial alibi.

I don't understand what you've written, let alone what point you're trying to make. Please can you repeat it in comprehensible English?

 

[platonov]

I don't understand what you've written, let alone what point you're trying to make. Please can you repeat it in comprehensible English?

Really, well keep trying.

But I must warn you, when you finally do, you wont like* it.

* I hope this is not what's causing your current incomprehension.

.

 

[Chris C]

I don't understand what you've written, let alone what point you're trying to make. Please can you repeat it in comprehensible English?

Yeah, I guess i should have made it simpler to understand. So here it is.

If Curatolo breaks AK/RS alibis, it gives them an alibi to not commit the crime.

PS Who Dat

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Really, well keep trying.

But I must warn you, when you finally do, you wont like* it.

* I hope this is not what's causing your current incomprehension.

.

platonov, darling, it really is impossible to understand what it is you are attempting to purport.

Please, for us slightly dense readers of this thread, do your best to keep it simple and straightforward.

thanks so much

 

[LondonJohn]

Really, well keep trying.

But I must warn you, when you finally do, you wont like* it.

* I hope this is not what's causing your current incomprehension.

.

I don't think I can really be bothered to "keep trying". And why would I not like it? Do you think I have a vested interest in Knox and Sollecito being found not guilty? Do you have a vested interest in them being guilty? Is this some sort of "us versus them" game for you?

If I find (or am shown) evidence which points firmly to the guilt of one or other of them, I'll readily change my view. But I haven't found (or been shown) any such evidence yet.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, I guess i should have made it simpler to understand. So here it is.

If Curatolo breaks AK/RS alibis, it gives them an alibi to not commit the crime.

PS Who Dat

It wasn't you that I was referring to!

 

[LondonJohn]

IIRC correctly, Curatolo - the eyewitness of impeccable character and background - said (in about his third version of the story) that Knox and Sollecito were by the basketball court from some ludicrously precise time of 9.28pm (or something close to that) until 11pm.

Let's for one moment place the ToD at some time before 9.30pm (or even some time before 11.00pm would be equally applicable here). So if Curatolo is to believed (and, even though the court inexplicably accepted his testimony, I think he is not to be believed), then if Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder they must have done so before they arrived at the basketball court. And since we can be almost certain that Meredith didn't arrive home before 9.00pm, that means that Knox and Sollecito must have literally raced from Sollecito's apartment after the 9.10 computer interaction (or it gets even more ridiculous if the 9.26 interaction is shown to be correct), got into some sort of argument with Meredith, attacked and stabbed her, and run back to the basketball court - all by 9.28pm or whatever.

And a short word on the "convenience" of a ToD before 9.30pm according to the stomach/intestine contents. It's not a question of it being "convenient", it's a question of it being a proper deduction from the post-mortem condition of Meredith's stomach and intestines, combined with a near-certain knowledge of her being alive up until 9.00pm. That some people consider this to be merely "convenient" is a window into their lack of scientific reasoning and/or knowledge of human digestion patterns.

 

[platonov]

IIRC correctly, Curatolo - the eyewitness of impeccable character and background - said (in about his third version of the story) that Knox and Sollecito were by the basketball court from some ludicrously precise time of 9.28pm (or something close to that) until 11pm.
Let's for one moment place the ToD at some time before 9.30pm (or even some time before 11.00pm would be equally applicable here). So if Curatolo is to believed (and, even though the court inexplicably accepted his testimony, I think he is not to be believed), then if Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder they must have done so before they arrived at the basketball court. And since we can be almost certain that Meredith didn't arrive home before 9.00pm, that means that Knox and Sollecito must have literally raced from Sollecito's apartment after the 9.10 computer interaction (or it gets even more ridiculous if the 9.26 interaction is shown to be correct), got into some sort of argument with Meredith, attacked and stabbed her, and run back to the basketball court - all by 9.28pm or whatever.

And a short word on the "convenience" of a ToD before 9.30pm according to the stomach/intestine contents. It's not a question of it being "convenient", it's a question of it being a proper deduction from the post-mortem condition of Meredith's stomach and intestines, combined with a near-certain knowledge of her being alive up until 9.00pm. That some people consider this to be merely "convenient" is a window into their lack of scientific reasoning and/or knowledge of human digestion patterns.

False , you don't recall correctly ... So that disposes of the rest of your theory.

which is what my reference to ......

Theorizing over how (your understanding) of the details of his testimony........


was getting at.

.

 

[Justinian2]

I'm not making that assumption - I'm trying to dispell it.

.

We are trying to dispel some of Massei's conclusions. I take it you are trying to rebut our arguments. Could you explain what argument you are trying to rebut?

 

[platonov]

platonov, darling, it really is impossible to understand what it is you are attempting to purport.

Please, for us slightly dense readers of this thread, do your best to keep it simple and straightforward.

thanks so much

Well if you genuinely don't follow my post, quote it and highlight all the parts you can't understand.

Others are free to do the same.

But it may reflect badly on your claims to follow the somewhat more difficult prose in the Massei report or other court docs OR indeed the scientific evidence - gastric analysis for example.

I do accept that some here are genuinely confused by relative simple issues or even my posts - this may be down to my my brevity, my prose or my assumption that the posters here understand the basic facts of the case.

ETA If you (or others) don't understand ........

The evidence of Curatolo breaks the (initial*) alibis of both AK & RS.
then your (plural) confusion over the case & guilty verdict is understandable but unfortunately not amenable to a text based solution.
.

 

[Chris C]

It wasn't you that I was referring to!

I know, just didn't feel like double quoting your thread.

 

[Justinian2]

Well if you genuinely don't follow my post, quote it and highlight all the parts you can't understand.

The evidence of Curatolo breaks the (initial*) alibis of both AK & RS.

Why? What do you mean initial?

Firstly, he is a homeless person and not a great witness.

Secondly, Curatolo saw AK and RS after they were seen by witnesses in their home and thus fills the gap in their whereabouts during any possible time the murder happened. (The murder happened between 9 and 12 pm). The most likely time of the murder was from 9 to 10.

Thirdly, the prosecution needs both certain evidence AND to disprove the alibi to win any arguments outside of court. A non-certain alibi is NOT proof of anything.

 

[LondonJohn]

False , you don't recall correctly ... So that disposes of the rest of your theory.

which is what my reference to ......

Theorizing over how (your understanding) of the details of his testimony........


was getting at.

.

False - you're wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7197242&page=1

"On the night before Kercher's body was discovered, he said, he was sitting on a bench in Piazza Grimana, reading a news magazine and smoking cigarettes. The plaza was busy with young people, he said, but he noticed one couple, whom he identified in court as Knox and Sollecito, talking animatedly. At one point Sollecito went to a railing at the edge of the square and looked down in the direction of the house where Kercher was killed, Curatolo said.

The couple was in the square from about 9:30 p.m. until just before midnight, he said."

And Curatolo was later persuaded by Mignini to bring forward his "time of departure" for Knox and Sollecito to something before 11.30pm.

Perhaps before you put your patronising hat back on, you'd like to check your facts? Or, at least tell me where you think I'm wrong and provide "corrections", rather than just telling me that I'm wrong.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Well if you genuinely don't follow my post, quote it and highlight all the parts you can't understand.

Others are free to do the same.

But it may reflect badly on your claims to follow the somewhat more difficult prose in the Massei report or other court docs OR indeed the scientific evidence - gastric analysis for example.

I do accept that some here are genuinely confused by relative simple issues or even my posts - this may be down to my my brevity, my prose or my assumption that the posters here understand the basic facts of the case.

ETA If you (or others) don't understand ........

The evidence of Curatolo breaks the (initial*) alibis of both AK & RS.
then your (plural) confusion over the case & guilty verdict is understandable but unfortunately not amenable to a text based solution.
.

Tell us all what the "gastric analysis" shows, then. We bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge. I, for one, couldn't understand any words of more than two syllables in all the medical papers that I read on the subject - I'd be so grateful if you could put the whole thing into language that a four-year-old could understand (it's the only way I hope to be able to understand it myself).

 

[platonov]

Why? What do you mean initial?
Firstly, he is a homeless person and not a great witness.

Secondly, Curatolo saw AK and RS after they were seen by witnesses in their home and thus fills the gap in their whereabouts during any possible time the murder happened. (The murder happened between 9 and 12 pm). The most likely time of the murder was from 9 to 10.

Thirdly, the prosecution needs both certain evidence AND to disprove the alibi to win any arguments outside of court. A non-certain alibi is NOT proof of anything.

OK - you don't understand.

re initial ....The asterisk [ * ] in the original post is a clue.

.

 

[platonov]

False - you're wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7197242&page=1

"On the night before Kercher's body was discovered, he said, he was sitting on a bench in Piazza Grimana, reading a news magazine and smoking cigarettes. The plaza was busy with young people, he said, but he noticed one couple, whom he identified in court as Knox and Sollecito, talking animatedly. At one point Sollecito went to a railing at the edge of the square and looked down in the direction of the house where Kercher was killed, Curatolo said.

The couple was in the square from about 9:30 p.m. until just before midnight, he said."

And Curatolo was later persuaded by Mignini to bring forward his "time of departure" for Knox and Sollecito to something before 11.30pm.

Perhaps before you put your patronising hat back on, you'd like to check your facts? Or, at least tell me where you think I'm wrong and provide "corrections", rather than just telling me that I'm wrong.....

No HIS TESTIMONY in court - that is what helped convict.



.

 

[LondonJohn]

No HIS TESTIMONY in court - that is what helped convict.



.

What? This WAS from his testimony in court. What part don't you understand?

By the way, would you prefer not to answer my earlier question about whether or not you have a vested interest in the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito?

 

[platonov]

Tell us all what the "gastric analysis" shows, then. We bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge. I, for one, couldn't understand any words of more than two syllables in all the medical papers that I read on the subject - I'd be so grateful if you could put the whole thing into language that a four-year-old could understand (it's the only way I hope to be able to understand it myself).

No before we get into anything complex......

Well if you genuinely don't follow my post*, quote it and highlight all the parts you can't understand. Others are free to do the same.
* of which you said ...

I don't understand what you've written, let alone what point you're trying to make. Please can you repeat it in comprehensible English?


ETA I said you wouldnt like it.

.

 

[platonov]

What? This WAS from his testimony in court. What part don't you understand?

By the way, would you prefer not to answer my earlier question about whether or not you have a vested interest in the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito?

No its a newspaper report, the original testimony or Massei's treatment of same will clear the matter up.

That conspiracy theory is OT ... see AAH.

Now lets deal with this alibi confusion.

.