Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

If Withnail can offer evidence that Curatolo suffered some impairment which of itself caused his testimony to be impeachable then the argument is a fair one. If he is predicating that impeachment simply on the fact that the man was homeless then it is not.

Curatolo is a well-known Perugia nutter. My source is Frank from Perugia Shock.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, sort of. Incivility and insult directed towards non-members of the JREF message board will generally not be actionable by the moderators according to the MA. I suspect this is what you meant, and if so you are correct.

OTOH, an ad hominem argument is usually a fallacious one, which means that whether it merits censure by the mods or not it it is still probably poor reasoning.

If Withnail can offer evidence that Curatolo suffered some impairment which of itself caused his testimony to be impeachable then the argument is a fair one. If he is predicating that impeachment simply on the fact that the man was homeless then it is not.

Reading various updates on the appeal hearing today, the prosecution did not object to the defense requests to hear testimony of the two prison inmates but do argue against new testimony from or regarding Curatolo. They have objected to just about every other request by the defense for new testimony and testing. It looks like they may rule on these requests today.

 

[Juror]

Charlie, I know you aren't going to believe me but seriously, this is total nonsense if you go there. I hope you get the chance one day but trust me this is utterly bogus. The climb from below is much more credible than this relatively speaking.

Massei does not have an issue with Rudy making the climb.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Here's my evidence of it:

"Wheeled to the witness stand in an office chair, Curatolo, who has a long, gray beard and wore a coat, hat and scarf in court, said that he had been sleeping on a park bench in Perugia's Piazza Grimana for eight or nine years."

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

Sorry, where is the evidence of mental health issues in that quote?

 

[Withnail1969]

Reading various updates on the appeal hearing today, the prosecution did not object to the defense requests to hear testimony of the two prison inmates but do argue against new testimony from or regarding Curatolo. They have objected to just about every other request by the defense for new testimony and testing. It looks like they may rule on these requests today.

Well it's easy to see why they don't want Curatolo on the stand again.

 

[Kestrel]

Hi Folks, I’m new to this forum, so hallo to everyone.

Welcome to JREF.

I’ve been reading up on this case recently and have become fascinated by it, because it’s either very straightforward or very complex, and I think most people can’t decide which.

Now I know you all take exception to people asking questions when they’ve been discussed before so I’ve had a shot at going over previous posts in both this and the original thread but I confess I didn’t go over every post; because it’s just too time consuming. Basically I want to clear a few things up in my own head that have occurred to me but don’t seem to have been discussed in detail, and are a bit vague in the Massei report. From what I can see there are people on this forum that have been posting for a long time and seem to have an in depth knowledge of the case. So I hope you’ll all indulge me and maybe provide some answers to some of my unresolved musings; even if they’ve been asked before.

I have to say at this point that having read a great deal of the conflicting evidence on this case I was leaning toward the lone wolf theory until I came across the following.

Okay firstly, am I right in interpreting the Massei report on Meredith’s phone activity at 22.13 as indicating that the phone was either in the cottage, in the vicinity of the cottage, or somewhere between the cottage and the phones final location, but definitely not actually at the final location, at this time?

The 22:13 activity, (probably an incoming picture message) connected via the cell at Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia. That cell can be reached from the cottage, but it also covers the park area near where the cell phones were found.

If so does this mean that we are supposed to infer that the attempted voicemail and bank calls at around 22.00 were carried out by Meredith herself?

The prosecution theory is that Meredith was playing with the buttons on her phone. But that doesn't make any sense. She had studying to do that night, laundry to take out of the washing machine and hadn't bothered retrying the call to her Mother.

Because, if the lone wolf burglary theory stands up, Guede would either have to be in the cottage and murdering Meredith at shortly after 21.00 in which case she can’t make those calls, or, he hangs around in the toilet for an hour and then kills her, which is highly unlikely.

The evidence Guede left in the toilet indicates he broke into the cottage shortly before Meredith returned. If he had visited the toilet after the murder, there would probably be traces of blood in that bathroom.

There is the third scenario where he breaks in after 21.00 and she catches him in the act and so because the front door is deadlocked she runs for her room where he catches and kills her (I do think this theory has some substance, given the physical evidence). But it is unlikely that he would hang around in the cottage and casually go to the toilet afterwards (although it occurred to me that it could be to do with the effects of adrenaline in the body; could someone confirm whether medically/biologically this is feasible?); and If I have my facts correct his footprints lead straight out of the cottage don’t they?

There are footprints of Rudy's shoe leading out of the cottage. But all that indicates is that he stepped in the blood with his shoes on and then left. My take is he went back to Meredith's room to look for the front door key and cash and stepped in the blood before leaving.

Therefore, am I right in concluding that this is one of the key pieces of evidence against the lone wolf theory, because Meredith’s calls at 22.00 mean that it is impossible for her to have been killed before 22.00 and therefore also highly unlikely that Guede’s faeces would have been deposited before that time; and so, if she was killed afterwards someone must have let Guede into the property and staged the break-in?

It's Meredith's phone, but there is no indication that Meredith made the two calls around 22:00. It's quite possible that Guede was messing with the phone after leaving the cottage. His probable route would be outside the city walls to avoid being seen heading back from the vicinity of the cottage with bloodstained clothes. This route also take him past the garden where the cell phones were found the next morning.

Apologies if some of the above questions are obvious, as I stated previously, I’m just trying to get the facts straight in my head.

Just to add, it’s difficult to see past the partisan nature of this case and the websites and forums dedicated to discussing it. I just wanted to say for my part that although I’m English I’m completely unbiased, it’s what makes this case so interesting; I just can’t make my mind up either way.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I'm still waiting on SomeAlibi to explain how Rudy was getting wasted with Knox/Sollecito from 8:30pm till 11:30pm. A time period where the Prosecution's super witness gives them a solid alibi and doesn't spot Knox/Sollecito getting wasted or spot Rudy with them.

You mean 9.30 to 11.30 and I already replied on this point twice.

 

[SomeAlibi]

colonelhall,

In an earlier message you wrote, "Knox offered a written statement, but it has been claimed that this only came about as a result of 'waterboarding' and non-stop questioning for 14 hours. This claim continues to be made."

Since you have so many men under your command, maybe you could order them to help you explain a few things. Where does your figure of 12:00 come from (I was under the impression it was around 11 PM)? Do you claim that Steve Moore maintains it was waterboarding and that it was for fourteen hours? If so, could you cite something? Maybe you can explain to me why you never said anything when Stilicho claimed that ILE barely had time to set up the chairs in the interrogation room before Amanda named Patrick. Is that not a distortion? You are being selective in your criticism. Why the double standard?

Most posters on the pro-prosecution side say 11pm.

On Steve Moore, the videos of him claiming "waterboarding", "beating" and 14 hours are up on PMF. Since he did say these things, what do you have to say to it. Silly and gross exaggeration which very much undermines his credibility...isn't it? There's been a bit of a deafening silence on my earlier post.

 

[Withnail1969]

You mean 9.30 to 11.30 and I already replied on this point twice.

What was your reply consistent with the witness statements including the absence of Rudy, lack of opportunities to get high, and Nara's scream of death?

 

[tsig]

I don't believe that it matters whether the interview that night was almost three hours or some other number. Techinically, it's been oft repeated that the actual interrogation that night lasted less than three hours. What is the transcript of the interview? It's all important what was said.

Nice goalpost move there.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, sort of. Incivility and insult directed towards non-members of the JREF message board will generally not be actionable by the moderators according to the MA. I suspect this is what you meant, and if so you are correct.

OTOH, an ad hominem argument is usually a fallacious one, which means that whether it merits censure by the mods or not it it is still probably poor reasoning.

If Withnail can offer evidence that Curatolo suffered some impairment which of itself caused his testimony to be impeachable then the argument is a fair one. If he is predicating that impeachment simply on the fact that the man was homeless then it is not.

The point of SomeAlbi's post seemed to be found in his second sentence, not his first: "When do the mods ban you is a reasonable question." Matthew picked up on it, too, and responded in Post 21335.

Here is the usual way of defining an ad hominem argument:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

SomeAlibi chastised Withnail for making an ad hominem statement, not an ad hominem argument.

ETA: That's why I put the winky face on my post.

 

[The Third Man]

Welcome to the board.

The opinion on the cell phone activity as stated by the defense team in Raffaele's appeal differs drastically from that of the one stated by Massei. Here is a summary of that topic discussed in the appeal provided by thoughtful (translator from PMF):



There has been a lot of discussion on these various points in the last 6 months or so here at JREF with some additional information and many opinions on the subject. I hope this is helpful as a start, in any case.

Thanks Rose, that's useful info,
I think that those two attempted calls made at 21.58 and 22.00 are very interesting. I don't really agree with the defense that they could happen involuntarily, the second one to the bank potentially could, but the phone book would already have to be open. As for the first one, isn't it the case with most mobile phones that you actually have to dial a number, in my case it's 151, to retrieve voicemail; I would have thought that this is inconsistent with a random hitting of the keys, as you would have to hit that exact sequence of numbers followed by the call button. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that she dialled the number and terminated the call because something interrupted her? Again apologies if this has been discussed before.

 

[Withnail1969]

Thanks Rose, that's useful info,
I think that those two attempted calls made at 21.58 and 22.00 are very interesting. I don't really agree with the defense that they could happen involuntarily, the second one to the bank potentially could, but the phone book would already have to be open.

Amanda and Raffaele's defence doesn't argue that the calls were made involuntarily. They argue that they were made by the murderer (Rudy) possibly in an attempt to switch off the phones.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, where is the evidence of mental health issues in that quote?

Do you really want to go there, SomeAlibi? I challenge you to ask a legitimate mental health professional what their opinion is of someone who sleeps on a park bench, year round, for a decade.

 

[RoseMontague]

Most posters on the pro-prosecution side say 11pm.

On Steve Moore, the videos of him claiming "waterboarding", "beating" and 14 hours are up on PMF. Since he did say these things, what do you have to say to it. Silly and gross exaggeration which very much undermines his credibility...isn't it? There's been a bit of a deafening silence on my earlier post.

IIRC when I was doing some research on this my opinion is that the questioning of Amanda started around 11:15 or so. Some of the confusion may be in regard to Anna Donnino's testimony as to when she arrived around midnight. The interrogation was already in progress at that time.

I agree with you that Mr. Moore tends to exaggerate and overstate his case and I have also stated he is not correct on some of the facts. I am not sure if that constitutes a "bit of a deafening silence". It is my opinion that a lot of posters think his valid points outweigh his tendency to exaggerate and overstate. I still feel that most of his comments are directed at people that only have a passing familiarity of the case and are under the impression that there is little dispute regarding the prosecutions case and the court's verdict. I do believe he is sincere in his opinion that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Do you really want to go there, SomeAlibi? I challenge you to ask a legitimate mental health professional what their opinion is of someone who sleeps on a park bench, year round, for a decade.

You think homeless people are homeless by choice? That the tens of millions of homeless people around the world all have mental health problems?

Your insult against the homeless is absolutely breathtaking. Try going and working for a homeless persons charity for a couple of days and educating yourself. What a terrible statement to make.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks Rose, that's useful info,
I think that those two attempted calls made at 21.58 and 22.00 are very interesting. I don't really agree with the defense that they could happen involuntarily, the second one to the bank potentially could, but the phone book would already have to be open. As for the first one, isn't it the case with most mobile phones that you actually have to dial a number, in my case it's 151, to retrieve voicemail; I would have thought that this is inconsistent with a random hitting of the keys, as you would have to hit that exact sequence of numbers followed by the call button. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that she dialled the number and terminated the call because something interrupted her? Again apologies if this has been discussed before.

It probably depends on the make/model of the phone and I believe that is stated in one of the various reports. I don't remember it being discussed if you want to see if you can track it down and try to find a corresponding users guide on the web. If not, I will try to find it tomorrow as I will be heading out shortly for a good portion of the day. If we have covered this perhaps someone can remind me and direct me to that discussion.

 

[The Third Man]

Amanda and Raffaele's defence doesn't argue that the calls were made involuntarily. They argue that they were made by the murderer (Rudy) possibly in an attempt to switch off the phones.

Hi Withnail,
Yes, but wouldn't that amount to the same thing, unless they are saying that he was attempting to turn the phone off by dialling her exact message retrieval number?

 

[Withnail1969]

That the tens of millions of homeless people around the world all have mental health problems?

Of course not, but Antonio Curatolo does. He needs help, which he simply isn't getting in Perugia. The Peruginas are seemingly quite happy to let the poor old duffer rot on his bench without doing anything to help him.

 

[Withnail1969]

Hi Withnail,
Yes, but wouldn't that amount to the same thing, unless they are saying that he was attempting to turn the phone off by dialling her exact message retrieval number?

Meredith's phone may have had a voicemail button. Given that that call was accompanied by other completely pointless calls and that Meredith did not phone her sick mother that night, i think it was the murderer.