Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

exaggeration

Wow halides1.

platonov,

You are killing electrons without making solid arguments again. You do show a certain flair for calling people liars and not getting suspended by the moderators. My comment pointed out that those who said that Steve Moore said that Amanda was waterboarded were exaggerating. Do you concede this point? There is nothing else in your comment or related to your comment that is worth discussing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

breach of contract

I contacted Pepperdine to provide them all of the online content of Steve Moore's interviews etc to save them time. Since Steve stands by them, I believe you couldn't object to that. I also pointed out the factual errors in them. After that I've left it. Pepperdine's lawyers are in house and they are rather bright. They're going to do Steve for breach of contract, not for anything to do with this case.

SomeAlibi,

Why would his interviews be a breach of contract? In addition, his interviews were about this case, so I don't see how the case can be unrelated.

 

[Tricky]

By the number of posts sent to AAH recently, it appears a number of you seem to have forgotten earlier moderation of this thread. So let me remind you. If you habitually violate the MA (and tolerance is much lower in this thread) you may be subject to infractions and suspensions or even banning. If you've had a number of posts moved to AAH recently, then take that as a hint that you are breaching the MA.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Katody Matrass]

What, like these ones taken at 11.13pm on Nov 1st?

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=12&image_id=2038

SomeAlibi, you understand that after your previous stunt with manipulated and misleading photos it's quite hard to take just your word that the photo shows what you say it shows. How do we know it's Nov 1?
And even if it is, it's 2010, not 2007. Prosecution so far didn't present anything to prove there were disco buses there on Nov 1 2007. OTOH defense made it's point well enough to get Mr Curatolo back on the stand.

I will disclose to you, that from good sources I know Mr Curatolo has some notoriety as a serial witness, and not a reliable one. High Court found him unconvincing twice already. You think he will make it this time?

Even the theory you presented goes completely against his testimony. You want AK and RS getting stoned with Rudy in the cottage, while Curatolo places them on the piazza 'til midnight or at least 23:00, whichever of his versions you'd like to believe. How do you reconcile this? You went strangely silent on this subject.

 

[RWVBWL]

Semen Stain...

Greetings Fulcanelli,
It appears that a stain we have previously discussed is now considered indeed to be a semen stain.

The Daily Beast journalist Barbie Nadeau reports:
"That pillowcase also had a spot of semen that had never been tested.
The defense wants the spot tested to see whose it is, but the prosecution maintains that it likely belonged to Kercher’s boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi."

Link here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...-evidence-will-be-retested/?cid=hp:mainpromo1

The court does not appear to want to test this semen stain to see whom it really belongs too,
for the prosecution believes that it belonged to Meredith Kercher's boyfriend.
In a sexual assault murder case, I find that decision to be extremely odd.

But anyways Fulcanelli,
drop me a note if you ever wanna buy me a case of beer!
That would be mighty kind of you. Bud Light sounds pretty good right now!

Peace,
RWVBWL

 

[platonov]

platonov,

You are killing electrons without making solid arguments again. You do show a certain flair for calling people liars and not getting suspended by the moderators. My comment pointed out that those who said that Steve Moore said that Amanda was waterboarded were exaggerating. Do you concede this point? There is nothing else in your comment or related to your comment that is worth discussing.

I wasn't making an argument as such - I was dealing with one of yours and you, unsurprisingly, seem to have no response.

Waterboarding W is an extreme and painful form of torture - 'just short of waterboarding' implies torture also.
You first sought to downplay Moores use of the term by talking of 'important distinctions' then characterizing waterboarding as being on a continuum of 'touchless coercion' before handwaving it away with talk of being nervous on TV or somesuch. Which led to what you then conceded as 'misstatements'.

That you cant defend even the first part of this argument is apparent so you just ignore my post completely. That's very transparent - if the argument cant be defended, withdraw it.
Nor did I call you a liar, I described your argument in support of Moore's lies as mendacious.

PS One cant kill electrons either (fundamental particle), I thought you would have known that. Lets hear no talk of positrons either, apart from the fact that they are verboten in most electronic systems, I strongly suspect the very concept was a drunken joke of Diracs [at Oppenheimers expense - a row over a woman, no doubt] that got out of hand. Nor has this thread been going for ~10*25 yrs (or anywhere approaching this order of magnitude) much though it feels like it.

 

[Dan O.]

Dude, Rudy was on the toilet when it all went down!

This is all conjecture on your part!

Conjecture it may be. But you have not shown any instance where it is refuted by any evidence. Therefore, it completely blows away the conjecture that there was too much time between Meredith coming home at 21:05 and the phone activity at 21:58 and 22:00 to fit a theory of the lone wolf taking the phones.


BTW: Lebowski is the Dude. I am Dan O..

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi,

Why would his interviews be a breach of contract? In addition, his interviews were about this case, so I don't see how the case can be unrelated.

Ummm well it's pretty simply contract law. Usually there's a clause that says that you won't bring your employer into disrepute or negatively affect their reputation. You can disagree whether Moore did that or not, but that's the basis of the action. Very simple.

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi, you understand that after your previous stunt with manipulated and misleading photos it's quite hard to take just your word that the photo shows what you say it shows. How do we know it's Nov 1?
And even if it is, it's 2010, not 2007. Prosecution so far didn't present anything to prove there were disco buses there on Nov 1 2007. OTOH defense made it's point well enough to get Mr Curatolo back on the stand.

I will disclose to you, that from good sources I know Mr Curatolo has some notoriety as a serial witness, and not a reliable one. High Court found him unconvincing twice already. You think he will make it this time?

Even the theory you presented goes completely against his testimony. You want AK and RS getting stoned with Rudy in the cottage, while Curatolo places them on the piazza 'til midnight or at least 23:00, whichever of his versions you'd like to believe. How do you reconcile this? You went strangely silent on this subject.

I've repeatedly responded to these points above. Anyone who has read the past few pages has seen the responses. Curatolo was found credible by the court of first instance. Cite you contrary claims please.

By all means dispute my photos from 1st of November if you like. It was extensively covered contemporaneously that I was there.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attacks and addressing the arguer

 

[bobc]

I for one am glad the evidence will be reviewed by professionals and not internet amatuers. Maybe some topics might actually get cleared up now. Heres to hoping.

I think it's good from the point of view of justice that a thorough look at the evidence is made. I don't think it is necessarily that good for the innocence campaign, though. It could end up reaffirming the previous verdict, and it would be very hard then to argue about lack of due process.

Assuming that the items that are reviewed (DNA, witnesses) are found to be unreliable, would that result in a retrial?

 

[The Third Man]

Meredith's mobile

Conjecture it may be. But you have not shown any instance where it is refuted by any evidence. Therefore, it completely blows away the conjecture that there was too much time between Meredith coming home at 21:05 and the phone activity at 21:58 and 22:00 to fit a theory of the lone wolf taking the phones.


BTW: Lebowski is the Dude. I am Dan O..

A possible scenario that was going round in my head was that Meredith was actually attacked between the 21.58 call which was an attempt by her to check to see if her mother had tried to call as she had not been able to get through earlier, and the 22.00 call which was an attempt to call someone in panic. The reason that the first call was terminated before connection is that Meredith is disturbed and goes to investigate. Obviously this theory would be given weight if that particular mobile phone required you to dial a specific number to access your voicemail, because the attacker is unlikely to do this.

However, the manual for the phone posted earlier is dated 2004 so presumably it's the one that covers Meredith's as there doesn't appear to be a later model. Apparently that phone displays/alerts depending on the network used when you receive a voicemail message; so that would tend to preclude the necessity of speculatively checking her voicemail, given that there doesn't seem to be any documented evidence of her having a message waiting.

So it looks like it was the murderer who created that activity at 21.58 and 22.00 after all, why he would hold the 1 button down for more than a couple of seconds is beyond me though. I still think it’s a bit of a stretch on the defences’ part to suggest that it was Rudy trying to turn the phone off.

 

[bobc]

I will disclose to you, that from good sources I know Mr Curatolo has some notoriety as a serial witness, and not a reliable one. High Court found him unconvincing twice already. You think he will make it this time?

I know this was not addressed to me... but I find the witness evidence in this case to be quite dubious. Eyewitness evidence is fundamentally unreliable anyway, but we have people recalling unremarkable events from a long time ago which I think has been backfitted onto the defendants.

Over the time Curatolo has been visiting that square he must have seen thousands of people, he could easily be mistaken about seeing Knox and Sollecito that particular night. At the time their behaviour would not be that suspicious, only later with knowledge that they were suspects would it be so.

However, Curatolo cuts both ways. He apparently provides an alibi for Knox and Sollecito, even though that contradicts Knox and Sollecitos statements. If Curatolos evidence is thrown out, then they lose the alibi provided by Curatolo, and must rely on the small amount of evidence provided by computer logs. TBH, I think the loss of Curatolo's evidence would not hurt the prosecution case, nor help the defence.

 

[bobc]

So it looks like it was the murderer who created that activity at 21.58 and 22.00 after all, why he would hold the 1 button down for more than a couple of seconds is beyond me though. I still think it’s a bit of a stretch on the defences’ part to suggest that it was Rudy trying to turn the phone off.

It seem to me that the aborted calls and odd connections are likely to be accidental activations.

It's quite common for phones to be activated in pockets or bags, if the keyguard is not activated. This might be the case if someone not familiar with the model of phone had taken it in a hurry.

But we simply can not say who triggered the activations, so I would not regard the information as indicative of anything.

 

[Chris C]

I think it's good from the point of view of justice that a thorough look at the evidence is made. I don't think it is necessarily that good for the innocence campaign, though. It could end up reaffirming the previous verdict, and it would be very hard then to argue about lack of due process.

Assuming that the items that are reviewed (DNA, witnesses) are found to be unreliable, would that result in a retrial?

Italy's justice system works differently concerning retrials than America's. Atleast thats my understanding.

In America, what would happen is the judge would probably declare mistrial. Then the DA would be allowed to refile, though I'm not sure if they would have to go through a grand jury again or not.

In Italy, declaring evidence unreliable or what not, at the second trial doesn't mean they get a new trial. The 2nd trial is their new trial.


When considering Italy's 1st trial, you should look at it as a Grand Jury in the states. There is a lower standard of evidence needed at the Grand Jury level for the prosecution to take a case to trial. So anything that is deemed unreliable basicly wont be allowed at the 2nd trial in Italy. Though I'm sure Machi or one of the other Italians can come up with a better description.

 

[Mary_H]

.......How long does Rudy sit on Meredith's bed going through her life in the contents of her purse and pounding the wall with his fist after realizing what he had done? How long does he sit there trying to decide what to do next?

What Rudy does next is take the cash, credit cards, cell phones and keys and heads home locking behind him the mess he has created in Meredith's room.

Rudy says he went home by going through town through the basketball court. But Rudy would know this path would have a high probability of encountering someone that would recognize him. I believe he is making this claim to distance himself from where the phones were found. Rudy would have taken a path outside the city walls and through the park.

How long does Rudy spend alone in the dark in the park outside the city wall contemplating his pathetic existence and reliving the nightmare of the last hour? Rudy comes to convince himself that Meredith was still alive when he left her. Is he also thinking that if he calls her friends and hangs up they will start to worry about her and might save her? That probably is a detail that only Rudy can fill in.

There are sufficient events, some with open time frames, to easily account for the time between Meredith arriving home at 21:05 and the phones being activated at 21:58/22:00.

Very thoughtful post, Dan.

 

[Chris C]

I know this was not addressed to me... but I find the witness evidence in this case to be quite dubious. Eyewitness evidence is fundamentally unreliable anyway, but we have people recalling unremarkable events from a long time ago which I think has been backfitted onto the defendants.

Over the time Curatolo has been visiting that square he must have seen thousands of people, he could easily be mistaken about seeing Knox and Sollecito that particular night. At the time their behaviour would not be that suspicious, only later with knowledge that they were suspects would it be so.

However, Curatolo cuts both ways. He apparently provides an alibi for Knox and Sollecito, even though that contradicts Knox and Sollecitos statements. If Curatolos evidence is thrown out, then they lose the alibi provided by Curatolo, and must rely on the small amount of evidence provided by computer logs. TBH, I think the loss of Curatolo's evidence would not hurt the prosecution case, nor help the defence.

Yes but on the same point, Curatolo's testimony was used to prove they where lying about being at Sollecito's apartment. If Curatolo's testimony is declared unreliable, it then gives more weight to the testimony of the people in the broke down car. They testified to have seen no activity at the apartment.

After all, why do Knox/Sollecito need to sneak into Knox's apartment before a crime is committed? You then have computer logs atleast up until the car breaks down. Add that to eyewitness testimony and you know no one approached the apartment until after that broke down car left. Though oddly Rudy does say he saw the couple in the broke down car when he left the scene.

So Knox/Sollecito have no reason to sneak into the apartment before Meredith's murder and you have Rudy sneaking out of the apartment before 10:30pm. Which means Rudy would have had to already been in the Apartment before the car broke down, or his approach would have been noticed by the broken down car people. After all, if he was invited over(regardless of who did the inviting), he would have no reason to sneak by the people in the broken down car.

 

[RWVBWL]

I dig it when Frank Sfarzo works late into the night, for he posts new updates, directly from the scene!

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/12/dna-study-admitted-for-knox-and.html

I found this part interesting:
"Pratillo Hellmann also admitted the discotheque witnesses, who will come to testify that on November 1st their clubs were closed,
so the bum Curatolo, was wrong in seeing Amanda and Raffaele while the buses were leaving for the clubs; it must have been another day.
Curatolo had already stumbled into other murky details, and his testimony made no sense at all.
But still they believed him. They believed him because they wanted to believe him.
This time, discotheque buses or not, a man who wants to make things clear (the judge), will hopefully get rid of this poor lunatic, who has been making fun of the whole court. And at least now, this institution will be respected."

Earlier today I had wondered if Mr. Curatolo fit the bill, so to say, of a bum,
for in my humble opinion that is what guys who dig in garbage cans are!
And I think it's kinda funny that Mr. Sfarzo thinks it so too...

At some time in the future I will have to ask Mr. Sfarzo if he was arrested after he chatted with "Toto" back in April of '08,
as SomeAlibi seems to think.

Kinda funny that reading the same story as SomeAlibi, I just gathered that Frank Sfarzo
who wrote "Now I'm busy. Get me arrested some other time" simply meant that he split after Mr. Curatolo called "the director of Corriere dell'Umbria and the police."But what can I deduce, I'm simply a surfer, not a lawyer!

Link:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/toto-witness.html

See you all later,
RWVBWL

 

[The Third Man]

It seem to me that the aborted calls and odd connections are likely to be accidental activations.

It's quite common for phones to be activated in pockets or bags, if the keyguard is not activated. This might be the case if someone not familiar with the model of phone had taken it in a hurry.

But we simply can not say who triggered the activations, so I would not regard the information as indicative of anything.

You're right it is quite common to activate a phone and make unintended calls, but I would argue that activating voicemail is not so random. Whether it's dialing a number or pressing on a key with force for a period in excess of 1second, it shows human interaction and intent. On this basis, and it's just my opinion, I think it demonstrates that either the killer or the victim has purposefully chosen to do this. Also consider, within two minutes, the phone if activated without intent, would have to move from the #1 button being pressed down for more than a second, position; to accessing the menu, a three touch (and on this model) 'not directly sequential' process.

 

[RoseMontague]

I dig it when Frank Sfarzo works late into the night, for he posts new updates, directly from the scene!

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/12/dna-study-admitted-for-knox-and.html

I found this part interesting:
"Pratillo Hellmann also admitted the discotheque witnesses, who will come to testify that on November 1st their clubs were closed,
so the bum Curatolo, was wrong in seeing Amanda and Raffaele while the buses were leaving for the clubs; it must have been another day.
Curatolo had already stumbled into other murky details, and his testimony made no sense at all.
But still they believed him. They believed him because they wanted to believe him.
This time, discotheque buses or not, a man who wants to make things clear (the judge), will hopefully get rid of this poor lunatic, who has been making fun of the whole court. And at least now, this institution will be respected."

Earlier today I had wondered if Mr. Curatolo fit the bill, so to say, of a bum,
for in my humble opinion that is what guys who dig in garbage cans are!
And I think it's kinda funny that Mr. Sfarzo thinks it so too...

At some time in the future I will have to ask Mr. Sfarzo if he was arrested after he chatted with "Toto" back in April of '08,
as SomeAlibi seems to think.

Kinda funny that reading the same story as SomeAlibi, I just gathered that Frank Sfarzo
who wrote "Now I'm busy. Get me arrested some other time" simply meant that he split after Mr. Curatolo called "the director of Corriere dell'Umbria and the police."But what can I deduce, I'm simply a surfer, not a lawyer!

Link:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/toto-witness.html

See you all later,
RWVBWL

Frank commented on the pillow stain:

The judge reserved the right to decide --after the results of the DNA study-- about the stain on the pillow, the jail witnesses, the audiometric study and other requests. DNA comes first.
As Maori pointed out: Now the trial starts. A long trial, with the lovebirds still attending it from jail.

 

[Justinian2]

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.

I've seen few bench sleepers that weren't also alcoholic. People that drink a lot are prone to hallucination, especially when waking or going to sleep.