• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
It is selective indignation. No problem with considering a party ticket as meaning Amanda is anti-social. Which would be a stronger indicator?
Click to expand...


dont presume to tell me what i think. im no guilter or innocentisti balls! I dont think amandas "party ticket" bares any relevance whatsoever.

lxxx
 
Mary_H said:
Like SomeAlibi, you assume that because I call Curatolo mentally ill or cognitively disabled I am insulting him. It seems to me you are attaching more shame to his condition than I am.
Click to expand...


You have entirely failed to show that Mr Curatolo is mentally ill or cognitively disabled which would go to his credibility as a witness. You predicated it on the fact that he was simply homeless. Calling a rational person mentally ill is generally considered an insult by anyone I would know. Since it is baseless, it's also a pure personal attack with zero credibility, whatever twisting and turning you are attempting now to get away from it.

So again, please explain why being homeless means you are mentally ill? You've failed to answer the question so far.
 
SomeAlibi said:
Can you explain why you think homeless people are homeless by choice and because the "truly desire" to sleep on benches and outdoors?
Click to expand...


I said this: "...I have never read about or seen any homeless individual who truly desires to sleep on a bench for ten years who would not be considered to be in need of help for mental health issues."

That is not what you are saying I said.

I have worked for homeless charities and I find your posts baseless and deeply insulting to homeless people. I invite anyone on this board who supports Mary's contentions to speak up publicly.
Click to expand...


I am the one saying that anyone who is homeless for ten years needs help. Can you really disagree with that? Do YOU know anyone who wants to be homeless for ten years?
 
katy_did said:
One of the most important decisions in the case, IMO.

The judge is supposed to have said something like he wanted to "put the value of the forensic evidence beyond reasonable doubt", or WTTE (sorry to be vague, going from news reports!). Presumably that indicates he doesn't think it's beyond reasonable doubt at the moment.
Click to expand...


I don't think you can make that assumption. What the judge is doing is being seen to be as even handed as possible - there's no upside to the appearance of due process and justice by turning down the request. A lot now turns on the findings of that independent review of course. As I previously posted, I support this action. As I've also posted before, Amanda and Raffaele's best chance in this case is on a policy type decision by the courts to establish a precedent that LCN testing is inadmissible in Italy. That's possible. I have no idea if it's likely.
 
SomeAlibi said:
You have entirely failed to show that Mr Curatolo is mentally ill or cognitively disabled which would go to his credibility as a witness.
Click to expand...

We'll soon find out I think. If he goes on the stand again, I think he has a good chance of going to jail for perjury. Then the prison will diagnose his mental state as per normal procedure.
 
The Third Man said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Third Man: You raise an interesting question. The Lone Wolf theory proposes that Rudy was already in the cottage when Meredith returned home at around 21:00. One supposition is that Rudy was on the toilet when Meredith entered. The attacked then began within minutes (Meredith goes to her bedroom; maybe Rudy tries to leave by the door but it is locked; he confronts Meredith in her bedroom; murders her). He then spends some time (10-15 minutes?) cleaning himself up, picks up Meredith's keys and phones and departs. That would be about 21:30. So why would Rudy still have the phones in his possession at 22:00?
 
christianahannah said:
Meredith's phone was a Sony Ericsson model K700i according to the motivations. Image of phone and user guide linked below:



Thanks for this, I've had a quick scan thru and Dan O's right you can access voicemail by pressing and holding down on the 1 button. Do you know whether this was the exact model that Meredith had, i.e. is this the latest version of that model; would it have been different in 2007? I still find it a bit inconsistent with Rudy trying to turn the phone off, especially when the off button, as with the majority of phones is on the top.
Click to expand...
 
SomeAlibi said:
I don't think you can make that assumption. What the judge is doing is being seen to be as even handed as possible - there's no upside to the appearance of due process and justice by turning down the request. A lot now turns on the findings of that independent review of course. As I previously posted, I support this action. As I've also posted before, Amanda and Raffaele's best chance in this case is on a policy type decision by the courts to establish a precedent that LCN testing is inadmissible in Italy. That's possible. I have no idea if it's likely.
Click to expand...

Had he just granted the request, perhaps. If he said he granted it to put the forensic evidence "beyond reasonable doubt", then that presumably means he doesn't believe it is currently beyond reasonable doubt. However, I'm going on what a reporter said the judge said, so we'll see what quotes from the judge's summary come out. An absolutely essential decision for Knox and Sollecito, nonetheless.
 
katy_did said:
No worries, Rose. The reporter said that Amanda and her mother were in tears after they heard the decision - must have been a relief...
Click to expand...

katy_did - please let us know if you hear anything about whether the witnesses will be questioned again. I heard worrying information that they will not be. Thanks.
 
katy_did said:
One of the most important decisions in the case, IMO.

The judge is supposed to have said something like he wanted to "put the value of the forensic evidence beyond reasonable doubt", or WTTE (sorry to be vague, going from news reports!). Presumably that indicates he doesn't think it's beyond reasonable doubt at the moment.
Click to expand...

katy_did do you understand this to be a review (as opposed to new testing) on just the bra hook and the knife and not the other requests (i.e. stain on pillowcase, etc.)?

Also, in addition, were the two defense witnesses allowed to testify (or letters of such to be submitted), Rudy's Supreme Court documents and the other trial documents to be admitted and an extension on the verdict of the appeal to be 90 days longer from June 2011 and what of Curatolo's testimony?

I am including various links from Google.it for the above items to be clarified by anyone.

http://news.google.it/nwshp?hl=it&tab=wn&q=amanda knox
 
SomeAlibi said:
You have entirely failed to show that Mr Curatolo is mentally ill or cognitively disabled which would go to his credibility as a witness. You predicated it on the fact that he was simply homeless.
Click to expand...


It might go to his credibility as a witness, but the other factors I cited take precedence -- his claims are mistaken and he has testified at other trials. I didn't predicate it exclusively on his homelessness -- I provided a quote saying he was wheeled into the courtroom in an office chair and he wore a hat, coat and gloves throughout his testimony. Why did the reporter choose to report on those features? Did anyone in the courtroom think Curatolo was "normal?"

Calling a rational person mentally ill is generally considered an insult by anyone I would know. Since it is baseless, it's also a pure personal attack with zero credibility, whatever twisting and turning you are attempting now to get away from it.

So again, please explain why being homeless means you are mentally ill? You've failed to answer the question so far.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I have said that being homeless means you are mentally ill. I do believe that Curatolo is mentally ill, and I don't think it is an insult to say that about him. I have a mental illness -- it is called major depression with melancholic features, and it is controlled by medication. You may call me mentally ill if you like; I won't be insulted. :)

The thing about Curatolo's long-term homelessness is that it's kind of a chicken-egg thing. Even if he wasn't mentally ill when he decided to sleep on a park bench every night of the year, I find it unlikely that his lifestyle for the past ten years would not have affected his mental health through the sheer isolation and unnecessary discomfort of it.
 
christianahannah said:
katy_did do you understand this to be a review (as opposed to new testing) on just the bra hook and the knife and not the other requests (i.e. stain on pillowcase, etc.)?

Also, in addition, were the two defense witnesses allowed to testify (or letters of such to be submitted), Rudy's Supreme Court documents and the other trial documents to be admitted and an extension on the verdict of the appeal to be 90 days longer from June 2011 and what of Curatolo's testimony?

I am including various links from Google.it for the above items to be clarified by anyone.

http://news.google.it/nwshp?hl=it&tab=wn&q=amanda knox
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that Alessi/Aviello will be allowed to testify if the defence want them to since the prosecution didn't offer any objection, and the judge said that the documents from Rudy's appeals/trial can be admitted. The 90 days extension was granted as well.

I'm not sure about the rest - he definitely granted an independent review of the knife/bra clasp, but I don't know about anything else, the audiometric testing, other witnesses and so on. Not sure either about the distinction between new testing/review of those two pieces of evidence (perhaps it would depend on whether or not new tests can be carried out? Obviously that's not the case with the knife, apart from maybe removing the handle etc).

ETA: OK, they're saying "full review of the forensic evidence", whatever that means (could just apply to the knife/bra clasp).
 
Last edited:
YES!

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman has also apparently agreed to the requestioning of a tramp who put Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime, but referred to buses in his evidence which would not necessarily have been running on the Bank Holiday that Miss Kercher was killed.


YOU'RE BACK ON THE STAND CURATOLO YOU PERJURING SWINE!

hope you enjoy jail!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom