Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

incorrect. that's not what the Massei report says. Is it Massei vs Micheli now?

What I said is correct. If you think the Massei Report says anything different you can cite from it where it does. In addition, PMF it's own reporter (Stewart Home) present when Curatolo testified. He made very clear that Curatolo only looked up from his magazine twice during the whole period.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Curatolo was bribed, and since he isn't mentally a full sixpack I can see him folding under rigorous questioning.

Let's start supporting these accusations with some evidence...shall we?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hey, SomeAlibi

I checked in the appeals. Looks like they did catch it. They point out that Massei used a cell tower that covers Raffaele's to conclude Amanda wasn't there. What do you think about it?

Nothing. Until they prove it in court. Until then it's just an assertion.

It seems that some seem to think something needs only be written in the defence appeal document and that makes it proven.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Looks like she wasn't very certain of anything. But it was about outside shutters.

Massei makes very clear in his report that Filomena was absolutely certain she closed the outside shutters. The court accepted her testimony.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Isn't that some kind of light at the bottom of the stairs?

Yes. But it doesn't mean it would be on. Or even that it works.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No, they count for something alright - in the same way the 'truther' videos of 'coke can' or lego models of the twin towers counted for something as regards their argument.

At least they made their own videos. Actually no, that's unfair of me - I believe there is a video of somebody closing a door behind his back. I haven't seen it myself - I'm waiting for the directors cut.

It's interesting you mention truthers. A few years ago, I briefly followed a truther thread about Flight 93, the one that crashed in rural Pennsylvania on 9-11. The truthers noted the absence of recognizable debris as "proof" the crash had been staged. In response, somebody found video of an Air Force experiment in which a fighter jet was smashed into a concrete barricade. The clip showed how the jet disintegrated into confetti-like debris, similar to what was found at the Flight 93 crash site.

The truther response was predictable: Fighter jets are different. Show us a video where a passenger jet does that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sorry, but that's what he said. He saw them for two hours. Last time just before midnight, as he was leaving. That's a major point of both appeals actually, they quote his testimony.

No, that isn't what he said.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, she didn't ask to be heard again. What you're discussing is a specific legal term, you can't just base all your assumptions on the English word one translator chose to use for that term and assume it's exactly the same as its English equivalent, with all the same implications.

But this has all been said before.

Yes she did. Had the police or the prosecutor asked to question her statement would not have been spontaneous, unsolicited or voluntary. The legal record shows that it was.

The word is valid and accurate. I stand by it. Probably because after three years I've come to understand the Italian legal system in how it pertains to the various elements of this case. Although, it seems the newbies are still struggling to get their heads round it, despite Machiaveli's and my best attempts to try and explain it to them.

Now, if you want to keep arguing the toss, I suggest you provide some hard evidence for it.

But I'm glad you finally realise we are talking about a precise legal term which has a precise legal meaning. Maybe one day you'll also finally work out that that legal meaning is that Knox requested to make the statement.

 

[Fulcanelli]

By the way Fulcanelli, did you manage to unearth the reasons for which Micheli rejected the defence's argument on the Naruto file yet?

Why are you asking me? I thought you knew everything.

 

[Dan O.]

It might be possible to open one shutter - the way you describe. But the rock-throwing and window-climbing could not possible be done from this place (the porch/the planter).
And as it has been stated so often, there is not a single trace neither on the ground, nor on the wall, nor on the window-sill,nor in the room, that proves that Rudy Guede entered the house on this way.

Quoting the mantra may work in other circles. But we have been through this in great detail. Draca's links show what the prosecution has in terms of investigating evidence of the break in. But I prefer the images from the defense that show scuffing right where a foot would have assisted the climb.

I also don't believe the rock was thrown from below or from the porch/planter. the obvious place from which to pitch the rock is the free throw line in front of the fence straight across from the window.

You are quite right though. This is not proof that Rudy entered the house through the window. Rudy says he was let into the house by Meredith and that Filomena's window was not broken at the time he left.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stefanoni said they didn't test for blood after using luminol. Yet didn't they do 1 more additional test. Stefanoni was present for it. So she lied about the additional test.

Curatolo's statement is a fabrication. He KNEW the exact time they arrived, even though he didn't have a watch. Plus he was wrong about the buses. Thats not counting the fact that he changed his statements from seeing people dressed up in costumes to seeing buses instead.
PS Curatolo stayed there for over 2 hours and claimed to see them while reading the newspaper and didn't see them leave until at/around 1130pm. So apparently according to Curatolo, Knox and Sollecito where all willing to stand there in the November cold for 2 hours. Meanwhile Rudy has been standing outside Meredith's place for 1 hour in the cold before Knox/Sollecito ever arrived at that park. Well thats according to Curatolo.

Quintavalle contradicted by 3 people.

She didn't, as it's not a blood test. It's simply an indicator blood might be present, in which case a confirmatory test would have to be made. It cannot be used to exclude the presence of blood. It therefore wasn't mentioned because it's irrelevant.

Curatolo was wrong about the buses? I remember, not too long ago, much energy exerted to the FOAKers to arguing that witnesses often remember things wrong. Misremembering a detail, in and of itself, does not render a testimony false. If it is true that there were no buses, if there were normally buses, I can see why he may have confused the memory of seeing them with another night. Ciratolo did have a watch. There was also a clock in the square.

Quintavalle wasn't contradicted by three people.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You appear to have forgotten that the passage from someone's on-line lecture notes that you have on PMF as your source on stomach contents evidence (not exactly peer-reviewed literature but I realise the distinction is mostly lost on your target audience) states quite clearly that you can have reasonable medical certainty that t(lag) is not more than three or perhaps four hours. That's the Massei narrative exploded right there by your own preferred source.

This is pretty much what Dr Lalli and Professor Ronchi also concluded. Read the Massei report if you want to check that.

Now none of those people appear to be quite up to date on the literature and its application in highly unusual cases like the murder of Meredith Kercher. If they had been, they could have told you the likely time of death with significantly more precision.

You know all this very well however, since we've been patiently explaining this to you and your disciples for months.

Really, your argument has passed the point at which mockery is even meaningful when you are trying to position "statement analysis" woo on a higher level than the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

That's my only source is it? I've seen multiple sources all saying the same thing...some of which have been posted here and on PMF. They all say that stomach content should not be used to determine TOD...period.

Lalli and Ronchi did not base the TOD on stomach contents, they based it on multiple factors. And even there, TOD must not be determined on medical factors alone if possible, but also on other evidence.

I'm not placing statement analyses above peer reviewed scientific literature, I'm placing it on a higher level then 'you'. And let's face it, you're not a fan of the literature when it says things you don't like and so promptly ignore, like not to determine TOD on stomach contents as it's unreliable. Selective acceptance of the literature relegates your claimed expertise to mere opinion.

 

[Chris C]

She didn't, as it's not a blood test. It's simply an indicator blood might be present, in which case a confirmatory test would have to be made. It cannot be used to exclude the presence of blood. It therefore wasn't mentioned because it's irrelevant.

Curatolo was wrong about the buses? I remember, not too long ago, much energy exerted to the FOAKers to arguing that witnesses often remember things wrong. Misremembering a detail, in and of itself, does not render a testimony false. If it is true that there were no buses, if there were normally buses, I can see why he may have confused the memory of seeing them with another night. Ciratolo did have a watch. There was also a clock in the square.

Quintavalle wasn't contradicted by three people.

So no additional testing was done to see if the luminol reacted to blood? In other words the luminol reaction is irrelevant. Since they didn't want to know if it was blood because it was proven not to be by a different test. So in fact calling the prints made from blood would be a lie.

So then if there was a watch and a clock, then according to his testimony Knox and Sollecito didn't leave the court until after 11:30. How does this fit with somealibi's/prosecutions theory that Knox, Sollecito and Guede was getting wasted between 8:30pm and 11:30pm. Or are you now going to say he was wrong about them leaving, wrong about their arrival, wrong about Guede not being at the court with them. Heck he even said they where there after 11:30. How does that fit in with Meredith's TOD. If Knox and Sollecito at the court till 11:30pm or later. When does Rudy start doing the following list below.

Rudy still has to:
Take a crap, drink from the fridge,
Beat up Meredith, sexually assault her, stab her in the neck,
Go fetch towels from the bathroom and wash his hands,
Come back to her while she is still alive and leave the towels with her body, Rummage through her purse and then leave.
Go home and change cloths,
Then go clubbing.

Quintavalle was contradicted by 1 cop and 2 employees.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I also don't believe the rock was thrown from below or from the porch/planter. the obvious place from which to pitch the rock is the free throw line in front of the fence straight across from the window. <snip>

This would be in the little parking area for the cottage?

I guess it was also clothed in inky blackness and completely obscured from the view of any passers-by on the road, unlike the balcony.

How canny of Guede to so cleverly and consistently seek out impenetrable concealment. Instead of committing the conspicuous social faux pas of standing on a balcony he wisely chose to trot back and forth around the house a few times.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What accusations? Those are facts! That he was caught after breaking into a kindergarten. That he was caught with items from another burglary done by breaking window with a rock. That some link him to other burglaries, too. Fulcanelli, I beg you, just a bit of basic common sense...

If he's found guilty in yet another crime, that looks exactly like a burglary he is linked with, and you want to say "no, it's not him and it's not a break-in", and you want to use it in a murder case against others, then the burden of proof lies on you. And it's a heavy one. Because a break-in is common sense here. Staging to prove a three way orgy accident, ritual-killing, murder because of hygiene disagreements, whatever, now that's extraordinaire.

Bit it's not a fact he broke into the offices. And for the record he didn't 'break-in' to the kindergarten either...he entered illegally but didn't force entry.

It doesn't look like the burglary he was linked with. Indeed, Massei also goes to some length himself laying out how the two were different. The only similarities are that a rock, window and first floor entry point were factors but there the similarities end. And since the break-in to the cottage was staged there are none at all.

I don't know if you missed it, but the burden of proof has already been met...in an eleven month trial, a unanimous guilty verdict and a judges' motivations report.

 

[platonov]

It's interesting you mention truthers. A few years ago, I briefly followed a truther thread about Flight 93, the one that crashed in rural Pennsylvania on 9-11. The truthers noted the absence of recognizable debris as "proof" the crash had been staged. In response, somebody found video of an Air Force experiment in which a fighter jet was smashed into a concrete barricade. The clip showed how the jet disintegrated into confetti-like debris, similar to what was found at the Flight 93 crash site.

The truther response was predictable: Fighter jets are different. Show us a video where a passenger jet does that.

Not that interesting, you previously made the comparison and I responded HERE.

On a more current (if related) topic, do you think sneering at a young rape/murder victim (even by implication) is good PR.
I'm of the opinion much of the campaign is at (& appeals to) this 'atavistic' level but letting the mask slip is not a good move. No ?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why do you think the judge and prosecutor thought a statement made by a suspect without a lawyer could be used as evidence against her? Are they that ignorant of the law?



Is it a requirement for interviews with a suspect to be recorded? That was my understanding.

I don't know the prosecutor thought that at all. I imagine he was more concerned with how it may help him to further the investigation and get a dangerous sex murderer off of the streets, not whether in a year or so tome he could use it as evidence against Knox in a trial.

As for the judge, she's a judge more specialised in moving the investigation forward (the evidence), not procedure, other then whether someone's arrest should be formalised and whether they should be remanded or not. But I'll tell you what, why don't you write to Matteini and ask her if it bothers you so much? Personally, I don't consider it remotely important.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Reading back I see that I was wrong and the cartwheel thing isn't quite a joke, we really are arguing again about whether "Amanda confessed after 14 hours of interrogation" is in any way a reasonable claim. I could slit my wrists.

By the way, a few pages back I think it was mentioned that Charlie still has Gigs of data relating to the case that hasn't been shared. Do we have a reason for this? Back in April/May the reason was bandwidth and PMF offered to host it. has anything moved on?

Of course not

 

[Fulcanelli]

Massei motivation:

He reported of having seen the two young people until before midnight.​

Trial testimony:

Fino a prima di mezzanotte che mi ero un po’ stufato di leggere, mi ero acceso una sigaretta, guardo sempre la gente che passa, il movimento che ci sta a piazza Grimana e poi dopo non li ho più visti.​

Up to midnight before I had a little 'tired of reading, I had lit a cigarette, I always look at the people passing, the movement that is close to square Grimana and then after I have not seen again.​

DOMANDA – Esatto, quindi gli avrà dato un’occhiata quattro o cinque volte mi ha detto nel giro di un’ora o un’ora e mezza.
RISPOSTA – Quasi due ore.​

Q. - That's right, so will have had a look at four or five times he told me in an hour or an hour and a half.
ANSWER - Nearly two hours.​

So he saw them four or five times, apparently every time he looked.
Why do you think they were on piazza, shouldn't they be getting high in the cottage already according to your theory?

That's not a lot in a stretch of two hours. Especially when one discounts the first look when he first saw them and the last look when he last saw them...that leaves only two or three times in the space of two hours. They could easily have disappeared for thirty or forty minutes and returned between glances.

It's hardly watching them the whole time, is it?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Yes. But it doesn't mean it would be on. Or even that it works.

You are the one who asserted "At night that area isn't lit, being at the back of the house rather then the front areas which are close to the road and street lights."

You shouldn't seem so certain until you are sure of the status of that light. It very well could have been that Filomena's window was only brightly illuminated by the headlights of passing cars but the balcony was constantly illuminated by that light. It just may make a huge difference in a burgular's point-of-entry choice.