Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Andrea Vogt:
Citing the need to achieve justice by concluding "beyond a reasonable doubt," Presiding Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman said he wanted the independent expert to retest the items, if possible. If not possible, he wants the expert to reanalyze the existing DNA results.

Frank Sfarzo:
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.

Apparently there is already reasonable doubt about DNA and unless the review doesn't dispel this doubt there is no need to bother with the rest of the evidence.

That does make sense. If Curatolo is discredited the alibi is not broken and if the DNA on the clasp and knife blade is shown to be dubious then the case pretty much falls apart and there would be no need to investigate these other things.

 

[Katody Matrass]

By all means dispute my photos from 1st of November if you like. It was extensively covered contemporaneously that I was there. Your arguments are false and malicious and you make yourself look pretty silly.

[sigh] SomeAlibi, this is low. Very low. I thought the manipulated photo was a single, isolated stumble. I really hoped for a discussion in good faith and free from such foul moves.

Yet again I'm forced to double check everything you present as truth. And it is more and more confusing. Searching elsewhere I found this post of yours. It contains the same photo. You wrote then:

Someone asked about the buses that gather in the square by the basketball court to ferry people to the clubs in Perugia - the so called disco buses.

Saturday night, 11.13pm​

Saturday night. That was your truth then. Right.
Now you have better truth. You say it was Monday, Nov the 1st.

Since it's your another truth, and we all know none of the "busing" discotheques are open neither on Mondays nor on the All Saints Day I find it harder and harder to believe that the disastrous series of factual mistakes you make is just a coincidence.

 

[katy_did]

Andrea Vogt:
Citing the need to achieve justice by concluding "beyond a reasonable doubt," Presiding Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman said he wanted the independent expert to retest the items, if possible. If not possible, he wants the expert to reanalyze the existing DNA results.

Frank Sfarzo:
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.

Apparently there is already reasonable doubt about DNA and unless the review doesn't dispel this doubt there is no need to bother with the rest of the evidence.

I think so too; it seems quite significant that the Judge is already invoking the principle of 'reasonable doubt', taking into account that the defence appeals put so much emphasis on it. The Repubblica article quotes the Judge:

The theory [put forward by the defence on the need for forensic testing] was accepted by the judges, according to whom "respect for the law set down by article 533 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (pronouncement of a sentence only if the accused appears guilty of the crime of which he is charged beyond any reasonable doubt) does not allow us to share completely the decision of the Court of Assizes of first instance [when it denied requests for further testing]".

Also, a comment from Al-Fakh on IIP (always reluctant to write his name in full, LOL) who's generally been either neutral or pro-guilt:

Obviously this judge is not too convinced of the strength of the evidence brought to the first trial.
I've seen this before in Italy.
There is a now a rather high chance of acquittal for the two.
And if the President of the Court of Appeal (a Supreme Court judge, let's not forget) says acquit, the Giudice a latere and the giudici popolari will fall like domino pieces to his will.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ahhh that's very interesting. So the DNA review could start a domino effect in regard to the other evidence and witnesses. I wonder why some journalists reported that the judges had flat-out refused the other defence requests? Maybe they heard what they wanted to hear, or they simply didn't understand correctly.

In any case, I look forward to reading Peter Quennell's forthcoming article on TJMK about why the judges' ruling was so terribly bad for Knox and Sollecito

I don't understand how it could be worse, the first court already accepted the testimony of Curatolo and the DNA results. This is not a discussion on the mitigating factors so an affirmation of these things makes no difference in their present condition. Not sure how the spin on this will play out, I imagine it will be imaginative. My guess is they will say it could make it harder at the Supreme Court appeal stage if the results are confirmed. That may be true but it's not the focus of the defense teams. I believe they think there is a very good probability that the results will not be confirmed.

 

[katy_did]

Since it's your another truth, and we all know none of the "busing" discotheques are open neither on Mondays nor on the All Saints Day I find it harder and harder to believe that the disastrous series of factual mistakes you make is just a coincidence.

I am quite certain it was just another innocent mistake, Katody.

Leaving that aside, a post from a high-profile PMF/TJMK poster on the subject of the buses:

Yeah the Perugia city buses (which are huge - so large that they make you laugh) and the shuttle buses (which are small, maybe 12 seaters, to head up through the city gate there) do look quite different.

I wonder how Curatolo managed to mistake one of the huge city buses (presumably like those in SomeAlibi's picture) with one of the 12 seater shuttle buses?

 

[snook1]

I don't want to interrupt the buss conversation, but can anyone tell me what are Alessi and Aviello's s stories? I know one of them said that Guede told him that Amanda and Raffaele weren't on the murder scene that night and the second one said that his brother killed poor Meredith. The latter story is interesting. Does he mention Rudy ?

 

[LondonJohn]

[sigh] SomeAlibi, this is low. Very low. I thought the manipulated photo was a single, isolated stumble. I really hoped for a discussion in good faith and free from such foul moves.

Yet again I'm forced to double check everything you present as truth. And it is more and more confusing. Searching elsewhere I found this post of yours. It contains the same photo. You wrote then:

Someone asked about the buses that gather in the square by the basketball court to ferry people to the clubs in Perugia - the so called disco buses.

Saturday night, 11.13pm​

Saturday night. That was your truth then. Right.
Now you have better truth. You say it was Monday, Nov the 1st.

Since it's your another truth, and we all know none of the "busing" discotheques are open neither on Mondays nor on the All Saints Day I find it harder and harder to believe that the disastrous series of factual mistakes you make is just a coincidence.

And....SHAZZAM! Saturday 30th October 2010 magically turns into Monday 1st November 2010. Now that's magic!

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack on another poster

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, I see people elsewhere crowing about the ToD issue, but there are two important points as I understand it:

1) If Frank is correct in his reporting of proceedings, the path is still open for new expert witnesses to testify for the defence on ToD (and other issues) once the new DNA testing has been conducted;

2) Even if no new ToD experts are called in, this absolutely does not mean that the appeal court accepts the first court's reasoning in putting ToD at 11.45pm. After all, even the witnesses heard in the first trial (including all the prosecution experts) put ToD from stomach/intestine analysis at no longer than 4 hours after eating, and the police's own autopsy pathologist (Lalli) stated that Meredith can't have died any longer than 3 hours after eating.

Since it's been fairly well established through her friends' testimony that the pizza meal was eaten at around 6.30pm, the first court was clearly incorrect in finding the ToD as 11.45pm. And 11.45pm was pretty much the only possible time that would tie together the prosecution case. Any ToD before 10.30pm, and the prosecution "witnesses" start to get thrown out, and it starts to become more and more improbable that Knox or Sollecito were involved. And if the appeal court goes with Lalli's (correct) 3-hour upper limit, then it's clear that Meredith was killed between 9pm and around 9.30pm. By Guede. Alone (or conceivably with others as yet unidentified).

 

[bobc]

Interesting digression... I might argue that we drew a rough stalemate, but we could replace our losses more easily than the enemy could, so we won. In fact, we were certain to win from the moment the first bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor, but not quickly and not without an enormous cost. That is the situation we face with Amanda and Raffaele.

It's interesting that the case of Knox and Sollecito is being likened to a war. As we all know, the first casualty of war is truth. Shouldn't we be more concerned here about the facts, rather than who wins?

 

[Fulcanelli]

That wasn't my argument. Fulcanelli asked someone for evidence that Curatolo is mentally ill. I provided some. As I stated to SomeAlibi, Curatolo's testimony is false for other reasons.

No Mary, you provided no evidence Curatolo is mentally ill. You evidenced only that some homeless people are mentally ill. I don't understand how that can be applied to a specific person. And it is insulting. It is not insulting to call someone mentally ill when they are, bur it is when they are not.

And we come to rank hypocrisy again. Time and again you Amanda defenders have have insisted that claims about whether Amanda is a sociopath, or even gave an opinion that she is, let alone state it as fact...must not be made unless she is personally studied and diagnosed by a psychiatrist. Yet the same is not required of Curatolo to declare him mentally ill.

The double standards just keep on coming!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's interesting that the case of Knox and Sollecito is being likened to a war. As we all know, the first casualty of war is truth. Shouldn't we be more concerned here about the facts, rather than who wins?

I have made an immense effort to obtain and catalog the facts of this case, and I am happy to share them with all who are interested.

 

[Chris C]

Can anyone make it clear how does Aviello and Alessi's statements help the case? What will they say? What about Rudy? Is he involved in their version of the events that took place on Nov 1st 2007?

Its a chess match between Defense and Prosecution over Rudy. The prosecution will get to admit Rudy's statements into evidence which will force the defense to call Rudy to the stand. Neither side wants to call Rudy as a witness mainly because neither side knows what he will say. The defense wants to enter witnesses that say Knox/Sollecito didn't do it, to counter the Rudy statements. One of the witnesses says rudy told him Knox/Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder. If that witness is allowed to testify it would force the prosecution to call Rudy, thus allowing the defense to question Rudy without being the one that calls him to the stand.

Atleast thats the way I understand it.

 

[bobc]

And this is just one amongst dozens of similar reverse ferrets on this issue - Kelvin Mackenzie would be so proud!

Hmm, I would give credit to anyone who is willing to change their mind when presented with new information. It's the people who adamantly stick to one belief despite whatever facts are presented I worry about.

 

[snook1]

Its a chess match between Defense and Prosecution over Rudy. The prosecution will get to admit Rudy's statements into evidence which will force the defense to call Rudy to the stand. Neither side wants to call Rudy as a witness mainly because neither side knows what he will say. The defense wants to enter witnesses that say Knox/Sollecito didn't do it, to counter the Rudy statements. One of the witnesses says rudy told him Knox/Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder. If that witness is allowed to testify it would force the prosecution to call Rudy, thus allowing the defense to question Rudy without being the one that calls him to the stand.

Atleast thats the way I understand it.

Then it's even more complicated than I thought.
The witness that said that his brother murdered Meredith mentioned Rudy at all in his revelations? The DNA evidence against Guede are overwhelming, but where are the evidence against the other guy, if he was there and killed ms Kercher? I think it's a tricky one here. They better be careful with this new witnesses.

Thanks for your answer.

 

[LondonJohn]

No Mary, you provided no evidence Curatolo is mentally ill. You evidenced only that some homeless people are mentally ill. I don't understand how that can be applied to a specific person. And it is insulting. It is not insulting to call someone mentally ill when they are, bur it is when they are not.

And we come to rank hypocrisy again. Time and again you Amanda defenders have have insisted that claims about whether Amanda is a sociopath, or even gave an opinion that she is, let alone state it as fact...must not be made unless she is personally studied and diagnosed by a psychiatrist. Yet the same is not required of Curatolo to declare him mentally ill.

The double standards just keep on coming!

Has Mary ever made previous arguments about diagnosing mental illness? I'm not sure that she has. If she has, then you might justifiably be able to accuse her personally of double standards. But where on earth do you get this idea that we are one homogeneous group, all "singing from the same hymn sheet"? I would suspect that many on the guilt side hold informal "strategy" sessions amongst themselves (for want of a better term), but as far as I know everyone on the innocence side speaks purely for him/her self.

In any case, I think it's not presumptuous to make a suggestion that someone who has slept rough on a park bench for a decade, in a westernised country with a good social security safety net, might have some mental health issues. It's interesting, though, how this position quickly became twisted (by those with an agenda to pursue) into something akin to "Mary's claiming that homeless people by definition have mental health problems".

Curatolo is a middle-aged man who has spent ten years living on the streets, who would without doubt have state-paid accommodation available to him if he so desired (or if he played by the rules). Therefore, he has either chosen to live rough through ten hot summers and ten cold winters, or he is incapable of meeting the most basic criteria of behaviour eligibility for state housing. This is a whole world away from diagnosing somebody with NPD or sociopathy from studying a few statements and a ticket for noise violation and disturbance at a house party.

Self-righteous indignation can be very ugly if it's used inappropriately. Just sayin'......

 

[Chris C]

Then it's even more complicated than I thought.
The witness that said that his brother murdered Meredith mentioned Rudy at all in his revelations? The DNA evidence against Guede are overwhelming, but where are the evidence against the other guy, if he was there and killed ms Kercher? I think it's a tricky one here. They better be careful with this new witnesses.

Thanks for your answer.

No that witness doesn't mention rudy. Instead he mentions his brother and I think an albanian, whose name I can't remember. The lab didn't bother checking the dna against anyone but Knox, Sollecito, Rudy and Meredith. Possibly Patrick.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Mary H!
What I really, really wonder about Antonio Curatolo is how come he did not approach the police the next day to tell them of what he saw the night before?
He could have easily scored some "brownie points" with the men+women of law!

Especially seeing how a few years earlier he had also been a witness, -(a "Super Witness"?) in another murder trial!

Gosh, most neighborhoods have a few homeless bums living there, you know, the ones who sleep on benches or in bushes and rummage thru garbage cans for food and/or treasure!
I see them all the time in Venice Beach and Santa Monica, California too.

Does Mr. Curatolo fit that bill? I wonder...
BUT not as much as I wonder why a brilliant, park-bench-sleeping, garbage-can-rumaging kinda guy who saw something strange the night that a young woman was murdered
DID NOT even tell the cops that he saw a white guy+girl hangin' around at 9:27pm that cold night when the murder investigation started the next day!

NOR did he tell them about "the scream" that surely must have reverberated thru the neighborhood on a cold, clear/cloudy(?) night!

Now that, IMHO, is very strange...
RWVBWL

PS-Before some of you homeless advocates start cryin' that I, RWVBWL, am talkin' crap about Mr. Curatolo,
read here what a Perugian local says about Antonio Curatolo:

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

Too funny!
RW

Why? Is sitting in a park illegal? What's two youngsters minding their own business got to do with the cottage? How was Curatolo to know they had anything to do with the crime? What was Curatolo supposed to have done, rushed down the police station screaming "I Saw two youths sitting on a park bench!!!"? In that case with that logic, should he also not have gone down and reported seeing...people walking though the park or driving by it...or reported the kiosk vendor for being in the park? What made Raffaele and Amanda so in need of immediately reporting to the police as opposed to any of the other people he may have seen in or driving by the park...what had they done in front of him to indicate that they had anything to do with the murder? What was there to report before they were arrested?

How would he have heard a scream from way over in the park which had buildings in between it and the cottage?

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmm, I would give credit to anyone who is willing to change their mind when presented with new information. It's the people who adamantly stick to one belief despite whatever facts are presented I worry about.

Errr.... but the whole point is that this is not about people changing their minds in the light of new information. It's about people rationalising the situation to fit with their prior beliefs. What we have here is a group of people who announced (often with astonishing - and astonishingly non-prescient - levels of certainty) prior to the ruling that the forensic evidence would not be reviewed, since it was of high quality to start with and was clear evidence of Knox's and Sollecito's guilt.

Then, after the ruling was announced, the same people - almost to a man/woman - suddenly decided that the judges were correct to order new testing, and that it was a good thing. In doing so, they employed interesting new rationalisations such as "It's good to be sure that everything's watertight", or "they allowed the tests since they wanted to give the battered defence teams a little crumb of comfort", or "it's all part of some master strategy by the appeal judges that will culminate in the confirmation of the convictions".

That's what's known in Fleet Street as a reverse ferret: changing one's stance on an issue, then pretending that the new position was one's view all along.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Actually I've made the same mistake that I made on PMF and which has already been corrected there by other posters as you all well know. The picture is from Saturday 30th October. Once was daft, twice is stupid. Had just woken up. Sorry to rob you from your deductive reasoning win since it had already been done for you already on PMF.

 

[katy_did]

How would he have heard a scream from way over in the park which had buildings in between it and the cottage?

Same way Nara heard it from inside her double-glazed flat?