3.4.2 – A. One of the two witnesses who, in the opinion of the Court, refuted Knox is Curatolo, a vagrant who at the time of the murder was often stationed on a bench in Piazza Grimana.
It needs to be stressed that, obviously, the defence cultivates no form of prejudice against Curatolo for the lifestyle he follows, even if the Court considered it necessary to argue credibility by making reference to it" (p. 70 sentenza): “a different lifestyle from the norm, but his testimony cannot be considered unreliable for this reason, since such a way of conducting his life does not affect his capacity to perceive events and to report them. Rather it should be observed that the frequentation of such places as Piazza Grimana and Corso Garibaldi gives credibility to the identification of people made by Curatolo relative to the places that for him were usual and constitute his habitat: in fact, living near the University for Foreigners and Corso Garibaldi, he appears a qualified observer of the people whom he reports having noticed and recognized”.
Some assessments in this respect also foist themselves onto the current defence.
If the Court considered it was able to define Curatolo as a “qualified observer” by virtue of his habitual frequentation of those places, on the other hand it should perhaps be considered that just this frequentation, inasmuch as it was habitual, may be a cause of confusion or erroneous or distorted perceptions.
To phrase it better: certainly Curatolo may report on the placement of the buildings around him, on the number of benches in Piazza Grimana, on who are the owners of the newsstand next to which he sleeps, etc., but since that area is frequented every day by hundreds of people, it is highly improbable that Curatolo could clearly memorize every face.
In the same way, it is even more difficult to believe that he could place with certainty, over time, the sequence of people passing through that Piazza.
In fact, it is undeniable that Curatolo’s days all elapsed with the same rhythm: hence the plausible difficulties for him of locating a certain episode – perhaps lacking significance – on a given day or in that preceding it or even in the following week. From this would follow, contrary to what was observed by the Court, the inability of Curatolo to perceive events and to be able to report them with the certainty required of the key testimony in a criminal trial.
It should not, in fact, be forgotten that Curatolo’s declarations were used by the Court as a finding from the preliminary investigation , in order to refute and contradict the reconstruction put forward by Amanda Knox of the progression of the evening of 1 November 2007; or rather, to claim that – contrary to what has been maintained by Knox (i.e. that she, along with Sollecito, remained at the home of the latter in Corso Garibaldi, without interruption, from the evening of 1 November to 10.00 on the day of 2 November) – the two young people would have spent the evening of 1 November from 21.30-22.00 until before midnight in Piazza Grimana (seen there by Curatolo).
But the reality of the facts refutes the idea that Curatolo, on that evening – which he indicated was 1 November 2007 – and in that time frame, could have seen Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
During the course of his testimony, Curatolo claimed – at least ten times – that on the evening of 1 November he arrived in Piazza Grimana about 21.30-22.00, and left about 23.30-24.00, making clear that he saw Raffaele and Amanda until a little before midnight (declarations of Antonio Curatolo, hearing 28.3.2009, pages 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 25).
And yet in the judgment, it is even highlighted that “around 23.00 (a minute before, a minute after) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were no longer in Piazza Grimana where Curatolo had seen them several times, beginning at 21.30 or 22.00” (p. 73). Such a reconstruction is the result of a very serious distortion of the testimony of the vagrant, since the judgment reaches such a conclusion by extrapolating one single piece of information from the testimony and supporting it with totally erroneous statements from other witnesses.
And indeed, after placing the time until which Amanda and Raffaele were present in Piazza Grimana at a little before midnight nine times (not an exaggeration, but a number obtained by reading the transcripts), on page 18 of his deposition Curatolo became confused and spoke of 23.00-23.30 instead of 23.30-24.00 (and even then he concludes the examination by repeating that he saw the young people until a little before midnight).
It appears significant that the judgment takes as its reference point the hour indicated just once by the witness, rather than that repeated ten times!
In order to affirm that Raffaele and Amanda left Piazza Grimana at 23.00, the judgment followed tortuous and illogical reasoning. On page 72, the sentencing report reads: “Curatolo, during the course of his examination and with specific regard to this issue, declared that he saw these young people until before midnight; he also claimed that when he left Piazza Grimana, which happened before midnight, the two young people were no longer there. It is therefore the same expression, before midnight, repeated twice, with a meaning which is necessarily not coincident but which can be inferred, on the basis of the same statements by Curatolo. If, in fact, when Curatolo left he did not see the two young people, and this happened before midnight, then the last time he saw them – indicated by the same expression: before midnight – would have been at an earlier time which could, therefore, have been at around 23.00 to 23.30”.
This is obviously earlier than the hour indicated by the witness, and not supported by any objective data.
Indeed, the elements of verification which were called upon by the judgment were not evaluated in any way.
Curatolo’s statements, according to the judgment, should be read together with those of the witnesses Maurizio Rosignoli and Alessia Ceccarelli, owners of the newsstand in Piazza Grimana. On the basis of the sentencing report, “the witness Maurizio Risognoli (see page 131, hearing of 19.06.2009) reported that buses departed for the clubs from Piazza Grimana, and at around 23.00-23.30 they are already there. On the basis of these elements it is therefore considered that Curatolo left the bench on Piazza Grimana between 23.00 and 23.30 (when he could see the buses leaving for the clubs, which Rosignoli indicated happened in exactly this time frame) and when he left the bench the two young people were no longer there” (pages 72 and 73 sentenza).
In reality the witness made clear reference to the hour in which the buses arrive in the Piazza, whilst the judgment erroneously maintained that such an hour would coincide with their arrival at the club, drawing the erroneous conclusion that Curatolo – in contrast with all the statements made by him – left his bench between 23.00 and 23.30.
On top of that, the judgment did not minimally consider that the statements of Rosignoli were reported by him in uncertain terms, since the kiosk has already been closed for a long time at that hour, and it does not appear that he made any use of the bus to go clubbing.
In relation to Ceccarelli, with respect to the presence of Curatolo in the area of Piazza Grimana on 2 November 2007, on page 73 the sentencing report reads: “Alessia Ceccarelli therefore reported knowing Curatolo, and specified that in this period he was on the bench next to the newsstand. She added that on 2 November 2007 she opened the newsstand and Curatolo was there (declarations of Alessi Ceccarelli hearing 23.6.2009, pages 122 and 126)”.
Such a statement is isolated from context, whilst totally ignoring the fact that, as Ceccarelli stated, the opening hours of the newsstand were 6.40 in the morning to 19.00 at night.
Well, Curatolo reported having spent the night between 1 and 2 November in the park and waking up around 8.30-9.00, going to get a cappuccino at the bar and then placing himself on the bench in Piazza Grimana (hearing 28.03.2009, p. 6).
And so it is clear that the statements of Ceccarelli, far from confirming Curatolo’s claims, emphatically refute them. And in fact, they confirm that the witness has clearly fallen into error.
It is clear, then, that neither Rosignoli nor Ceccarelli provide any support for the mere inferences of the judgment and, in fact, calling on them demonstrates total inconsistency.
Instead of properly scrutinizing the accusatorial hypothesis in the light of findings reported in the trial, the judgment took its validity for granted, misrepresenting Curatolo’s testimony.
It is enough to consider that, in line with the interval of time indicated throughout his testimony, Curatolo specified that he saw Raffaele and Amanda for almost two hours (hearing 28.3.2009, p. 17), whilst the reconstruction of the sentencing report reduces this period of time to a maximum of one hour.
In reality, Curatolo cannot refute Amanda’s account.
First of all, because it is unlikely that the young people, while having two free and comfortable houses at their disposal would stay at length in the cold to talk. What is more, according to what is stated in the judgment, with their cell phones turned off. The illogic of such a reconstruction is obvious: once again, instead of privileging linearity, it follows a tortuous path.
In addition, the evening indicated by Curatolo cannot have been 1 November 2007.
The judgment has inferred the credibility of the witness on the indications, provided by him, of the comings and goings of the Carabinieri on 2 November. In this regard it must be observed that the possibility that Curatolo saw between “13.30 and 14 (…) people dressed in white” (p. 71 sentenza) the day on which Meredith’s body was found, is highly improbable for two reasons. Since the body was found after 13.00, the scientific police (“the people dressed in white”) cannot have been there on 2 November at that hour; and perhaps the false timing of the image Curatolo has in mind is connected to a fact occurring on another day or even an episode taken from a news story.
Further, bear in mind that on the one hand the presence of Curatolo on 2 November cannot be confirmed by Ceccarelli’s statements; on the other, the judgment did not consider that the bus service for the clubs was not running that day (as declared ex 391 bis c.p.p. by the witnesses Pucciarini and Brughini).
So in light of the above, we should conclude the total unreliability of Curatolo’s testimony. In fact, contrary to what he declared, not only could he not have seen Amanda and Raffaele in the aforementioned time span (for the reasons mentioned above) but above all he could not have seen them on the evening of 1 November 2007.
If one wishes to disregard these findings and consider Curatolo reliable, paradoxically he would provide Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi, since at the moment of the crime – which the judgment places at a few minutes after 23.30 – the two young people would have been outside the house on Via della Pergola.
