Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

I think if you had a point to make you would explain what it was and why I'd got it wrong.

I quoted both the highlighted and the bolded sections in your message. You are simply stating that Curatolo contradicts Amanda and Raffaele's alibi of being at his flat all night, and that the court accepted Curatolo's testimony.

That's nothing new to anyone here - they court demonstrated their lack of impartiality at every turn in the trial. Curatolo is not a credible witness.

I'm going to assume you and some others are being genuine on this.

The point is a remarkably simple one that goes beyond the conflict between the AK/RS alibi and Curatolo's testimony.
You cant pick and choose* parts of C's testimony [or misunderstandings of same] to prove that AK/RS are innocent.
*As both you, Chris C, Justinian2 and London John have done in the last few posts.

Well you can do what you wish on a forum - but others will point out the problems.

However the defence haven't the luxury of playing around with ToD's and wild theories.
Once the presence by the railings ? of AK/RS from around 9.30/10 onwards (and possibly intermittently up till 11) is accepted their alibi is gone.

They (the defence) have to completely discredit his (C's) testimony

Its to late to start plugging the gaps by saying
.... ' Yeah But .....they still couldn't have done it coz .......'
which has taken up tons of debate on this issue - as has fixing the ToD to suit various parts of the evidence - his (C's) included.

Basically you can't interpret C's testimony to give them a new alibi* - HE breaks their alibi.
Once this is done they are in the frame (or the square if you want ).

*As London John was doing with the alibi's of AK & RS in the post I originally quoted.

But if posters claim they couldn't understand the shorter post this one will hardly succeed.

.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
But if posters claim they couldn't understand the shorter post this one will hardly succeed.

.

"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of that is--'Be what you would seem to be'--or if you'd like it put more simply--'Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'"

"I think I should understand that better," Alice said very politely, "If I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it."

"That's nothing to what I could say if I chose," the Duchess replied, in a pleased tone.

"Pray don't trouble yourself to say it any longer than that," said Alice.
http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/books/1chpt9.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

your comment is insubstantial

hey all

imho this thread has descended to the point that it is an insult to the jref and its objectives. i suggest you all take a step back and go off to reread the available lit and vids etc. arguments keep surfacing, over and over, that have answers within massei or statements elswhere or whatever. both sides choose to ignore them when it suits their own belief.

and this is soley about your individual beliefs.

i, for one, will no longer take part in a thread so choc full of dogma, conspiracy and baseless conjecture. not tomention the constant ad homs and attacks on differing views.

hopefully the mods will soon realise the damage this thread is causing to the cred of the jref and its aims and end it now.

shame

lxxx

s_pepys,

You started a thread on the topic of this thread, but you did not answer my questions directed toward you there. You are careless in your use of the word "conspiracy," having failed to define what you mean despite being asked to do so. Your comment above is one glittering generality after another, unencumbered by anything resembling a specific fact or argument.

I am one of the commenters who has gone to the principals of the case to ask them questions. When then responded, I put their comments here. (Is that true of every thread at JREF?) I pointed this fact out to you as well. Your silence says a good deal about the care with which you have studied this thread. If you don't like this thread, don't participate further. The difference will be infinitesimal.

 

[Mary_H]

hey all

imho this thread has descended to the point that it is an insult to the jref and its objectives. i suggest you all take a step back and go off to reread the available lit and vids etc. arguments keep surfacing, over and over, that have answers within massei or statements elswhere or whatever. both sides choose to ignore them when it suits their own belief.

and this is soley about your individual beliefs.

i, for one, will no longer take part in a thread so choc full of dogma, conspiracy and baseless conjecture. not tomention the constant ad homs and attacks on differing views.

hopefully the mods will soon realise the damage this thread is causing to the cred of the jref and its aims and end it now.

shame

lxxx

We're in a transitional period, sam; give it time. This isn't the optimal moment to point to attacks on "differing views," because at this moment, differing views are few and far between. Most of them are finding voice in the posts of platonov, and that voice speaks in tongues.

The guilter movement is dead in the water. The largest source of arguments and debate has folded its tent, like the Arabs, and as quietly stolen away. Meanwhile, Peter Quennell continues to write, "It is reported...," meaning he is the only one reporting it.

Change is inevitable, as they say. We are starting to focus more on examining how the defense team will present its appeal. Personally, I would love to see more discussion on how to draw enough attention to the appeal that the judges are forced to acquit this time, although the movies that are in progress are already contributing to that goal.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm going to assume you and some others are being genuine on this.

The point is a remarkably simple one that goes beyond the conflict between the AK/RS alibi and Curatolo's testimony.
You cant pick and choose* parts of C's testimony [or misunderstandings of same] to prove that AK/RS are innocent.
*As both you, Chris C and London John have done in the last few posts.

Well you can do what you wish on a forum - but others will point out the problems.

However the defence haven't the luxury of playing around with ToD's and wild theories.
Once the presence by the railings ? of AK/RS from around 9.30/10 onwards (and possibly intermittently up till 11) is accepted their alibi is gone.

They (the defence) have to completely discredit his (C's) testimony

Its to late to start plugging the gaps by saying
.... ' Yeah But .....they still couldn't have done it coz .......'
which has taken up tons of debate on this issue - as has fixing the ToD to suit various parts of the evidence - his (C's) included.

Basically you can't interpret C's testimony to give them a new alibi* - HE breaks their alibi.
Once this is done they are in the frame (or the square if you want ).

*As London John was doing with the alibi's of AK & RS in the post I originally quoted.

But if posters claim they couldn't understand the shorter post this one will hardly succeed.

.

I hate to break it to you platonov, but not only does the defense completely discredit Curatolo's testimony, they also point out the same thing these other posters have done about Curatolo actually giving them an alibi if his testimony on the 10 times he gives the time is correct other than that one single time. So if they can do it on a later time, I see no problem with others doing it as well based on an earlier time, it simply shows that Massei's reasoning is flawed due to his cherry picking either the times Curatolo gave or cherry picking his own idea of TOD based on what Curatolo said one time out of ten.

 

[platonov]

I hate to break it to you platonov, but not only does the defense completely discredit Curatolo's testimony, they also point out the same thing these other posters have done about Curatolo actually giving them an alibi if his testimony on the 10 times he gives the time is correct other than that one single time. So if they can do it on a later time, I see no problem with others doing it as well based on an earlier time, it simply shows that Massei's reasoning is flawed due to his cherry picking either the times Curatolo gave or cherry picking his own idea of TOD based on what Curatolo said one time out of ten.

The defence accepts parts of Curatolo's testimony - Really , where in the appeal docs ??
ETA I've no doubt they will point to possible inconsistencies in a bid to discredit it completely, but they use parts of it to launch a new alibi. ??

.

 

[RoseMontague]

The defence accepts parts of Curatolo's testimony - Really , where in the appeal docs ??

ETA I've no doubt they will point to possible inconsistencies in a bid to discredit it completely
but they use parts of it to launch a new alibi. ??

.

.

Did you not read that translated portion from Raffaele's appeal I just posted? Last paragraph, rather long quote.

 

[LondonJohn]

hey all

imho this thread has descended to the point that it is an insult to the jref and its objectives. i suggest you all take a step back and go off to reread the available lit and vids etc. arguments keep surfacing, over and over, that have answers within massei or statements elswhere or whatever. both sides choose to ignore them when it suits their own belief.

and this is soley about your individual beliefs.

i, for one, will no longer take part in a thread so choc full of dogma, conspiracy and baseless conjecture. not tomention the constant ad homs and attacks on differing views.

hopefully the mods will soon realise the damage this thread is causing to the cred of the jref and its aims and end it now.

shame

lxxx

Bye then

lxxxxxxxxx

(now where have I heard stuff about wishing this thread closed down before............?)

 

[RoseMontague]

hey all

imho this thread has descended to the point that it is an insult to the jref and its objectives. i suggest you all take a step back and go off to reread the available lit and vids etc. arguments keep surfacing, over and over, that have answers within massei or statements elswhere or whatever. both sides choose to ignore them when it suits their own belief.

and this is soley about your individual beliefs.

i, for one, will no longer take part in a thread so choc full of dogma, conspiracy and baseless conjecture. not tomention the constant ad homs and attacks on differing views.

hopefully the mods will soon realise the damage this thread is causing to the cred of the jref and its aims and end it now.

shame

lxxx

I didn't see you doing much taking part in this thread and the last time I asked you indicated you still had an open mind on the case. Is it your perception that one particular side has engaged in this type of behavior while the other has not? Can you give us some examples of the "dogma" that you have seen here? There is a difference between an attack on a poster's argument and an attack on a poster. One is a part of the concept of a debate and the other is not allowed here any longer without penalty. And what part of either side's position do you define as "conspiracy" and what examples can you give me of this "baseless conjecture" you mentioned in your post? I will be happy to discuss this with you if you chose to remain a part of the discussion.

 

[Malkmus]

i, for one, will no longer take part in a thread so choc full of dogma, conspiracy and baseless conjecture. not tomention the constant ad homs and attacks on differing views.

I don't really ever remember you taking any part in the discussion. You seem to have made about 6 or 7 posts total, none of which discussed any of the evidence, but more simply were your opinions on how we all were viewing the case. Sorry, but your parting speech seems to suffer from delusions of grandeur as if we're losing some important aspect of the thread with your departure. You could have just gone back to your normal behavior in regards to this thread which was not really posting in the first place. Why would the mods close the thread? Even if you think the discussion isn't moving forward - which most of us will disagree with - why do you care whether we continue to discuss this topic? A lot of self-aggrandizing going on here. This thread has taught me more about this case than I would have learned anywhere else.

 

[Malkmus]

Bye then

lxxxxxxxxx

(now where have I heard stuff about wishing this thread closed down before............?)

Maybe they could just restrict the thread to members only, open an arcade, host saturday movie watching parties selected by the mods, and make fun of people's appearance like the real site dedicated to this case does. Never mind, that would feel way too much like a commune.

 

[platonov]

Did you not read that translated portion from Raffaele's appeal I just posted? Last paragraph, rather long quote.

Just scanned it - I dont see where .......

The defence accepts parts of Curatolo's testimony
& having done so

they use parts of it to launch a new alibi.
I see a throwaway 3 lines at the end of several hundred in what is a probably a long appeal doc saying

"If one wishes .........paradoxically ........"

which has the appeal of brevity (always close to my heart if unusual for lawyers on matters of importance ) but indicates they are spending less time on it than this thread has and are instead trying to discredit him completely



Or am I missing something.

Hey I'm happy to accept 3 lines or 300 - we've had 30,000 (wild guess) here.

.

 

[RoseMontague]

Just scanned it - I dont see where .......

The defence accepts parts of Curatolo's testimony
or having done so

they use parts of it to launch a new alibi.
I see a throwaway 3 lines at the end of several hundred in what is a probably a long appeal doc saying

"If one wishes .........paradoxically ........"

which has the appeal of brevity (always close to my heart) but indicates they are spending less time on it than this thread has and are instead trying to discredit him completely



Or am I missing something.

Hey I'm happy to accept 3 lines or 300 - we've had 30,000 (wild guess) here.

.

Tell you what, I will ask LJ, Antony, and Chris C to include the word paradoxically when they say that going by this or that part of Curatolo's statements it would paradoxically give Amanda and Raffaele an alibi, that way we are all good.

And yes, they completely discredit his testimony.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is amazing. It now seems that the current theory has 2 other people involved (now a total of 3) in Sarah Scazzi's death. And there is that whole cell phone tower thing again (thanks for your imput DanO). And a rather large rock.

http://translate.google.com/transla...h-scazzi-le-telefonate-inchiodano-sabrina.php

ETA: The comments are a must read to get a feel for the opinion in Italy on this case.

 

[Danceme]

Where do I say "Conspiracy"? I just made an observation which apparently you are incapable of refuting without attaching derogatory labels.
The seal on the outside door is critical to the chain of evidence within. By skipping past the examination and breaking of the seal, they have degraded the validation of everything that is subsequently taped within.

You didn't say "conspiracy", as in the word, but you wrote a proposition which implies you believe there was one.

He wasn't a toddler. I think it is more likely that the bra strap was yanked hard enough to straighten one of the hooks on the fastener, and the DNA was deposited by one of the two investigators who held that straightened hook between their thumb and forefinger.

Where did they get the DNA which was on their gloves?

Cite

In Raffaele's diary he states, "I am not quiet because if they have found a trace so ridiculous they can find many so many others on the rags and so on ..."

What rags is he referring to?

 

[katy_did]

This is amazing. It now seems that the current theory has 2 other people involved (now a total of 3) in Sarah Scazzi's death. And there is that whole cell phone tower thing again (thanks for your imput DanO). And a rather large rock.

http://translate.google.com/transla...h-scazzi-le-telefonate-inchiodano-sabrina.php

ETA: The comments are a must read to get a feel for the opinion in Italy on this case.

Thanks Rose. It's amazing to see a case play out along such similar lines as the Kercher case: supposedly incriminating cell phone connections, investigators 'convinced' that more people must have been involved. Also very striking that the news seems to be all one-sided at the moment - it makes you realize just how much of a 'head start' the prosecution had in the Kercher case, and the part that may have played in creating a presumption of guilt even before the trial began.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh my! TJMK deserves a read tonight, just as an illustration of the obsession that some have developed with this case. At least Thoughtful had a "normal" reason to be in Perugia. But this latest development is beyond weird. Didn't Mr Quennell also make a special visit to Perugia? So very, very strange.

PS Most people with alcohol dependency issues have periods of relative sobriety - very often in the mornings. And quite how it's possible to tell whether someone was drunk the night before by "smelling them" the following morning is an extraordinary ability to possess....

 

[LondonJohn]

In Raffaele's diary he states, "I am not quiet because if they have found a trace so ridiculous they can find many so many others on the rags and so on ..."

What rags is he referring to?

The ones the police never found? Together with the murder clothes/shoes that the police never found, despite pretty solid evidence that Knox and Sollecito didn't leave Perugia at any time after the murder? (Oh, I forgot, Knox and Sollecito were actually naked and barefoot when they committed the murder......)

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks Rose. It's amazing to see a case play out along such similar lines as the Kercher case: supposedly incriminating cell phone connections, investigators 'convinced' that more people must have been involved. Also very striking that the news seems to be all one-sided at the moment - it makes you realize just how much of a 'head start' the prosecution had in the Kercher case, and the part that may have played in creating a presumption of guilt even before the trial began.

It is indeed very strange how many parallels might be developing here. But again, I'd countenance against any kind of direct read-across comparison, since there is a totally different cast of characters involved here. Although if one is arguing systemic issues within the Italian law enforcement community, then some comparisons might have validity......

 

[JREF2010]

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

When you ask for the page to be translated, it usually only translates the first half. However, you can pick out key phrases and get those translated as you go along.

There may be a translation on Ray Turner's blog, The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. He tends to have everything.

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/

Thanks, Mary H..

I wasn't clear in asking, is there a link to Rudy's Appeal report?

Actually for Micheli's report there seems to be a Google Chrome translate document function (July 2010) that worked really well. I used it this weekend and it seemed to be a much better translation and ease of making a English version of Michelis report. It literally took a minute or two.
It also seemed to be a much improved translation, in comparison to the old 2007 version.

http://translate.google.com/?tr=f&hl=en#