Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

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?

But the names and the photographs of Knox and Sollecito were all over the newspapers from the 6th November onwards, and apparently Sr Curatolo was a regular reader of newspapers wasn't he? Therefore, why didn't he come forward at some point in November 2007?

And "from way over in the park"? As SA might say: "Come on, people!". Those on PMF have spent plenty of time and effort trying to show that the gates of the cottage are visible from the edge of the basketball court, and it's only around 100 yards between Curatolo's "home" and the cottage. Somehow, I think a bloodcurdling "scream of death" ((c.) Nara Capezzali) would have been heard in the basketball court and by the news stand, don't you? I mean, really (etc. etc.).

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ahh: you're thinking of one of Mignini's "Superwitnesses", Hekuran Kokomani, whom Mignini deemed worthy of placing before the courts despite his abundantly clear credibility issues. Even Massei had to throw this guy out as completely unbelievable......

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, who suggested DRIVING to Strasbourg and Paris?! Nightmare journeys - especially this evening..... but at least I got additional time to see the Christmas market in Strasbourg and to blow lots of money in Fauchon and Hediard

So........... the big decision today, eh? Looks to me like Knox and Sollecito got the most important things that they asked for. I still can't begin to understand the rationale about not testing the pillowcase stain though: if it's Selenzi's semen or not semen at all, we move on; if it's Guede's then it destroys his whole story and helps Knox/Sollecito; if it's an as-yet unknown person, it throws the hole case into confusion; if it's Sollecito's then he's almost certainly guilty, and by extension so is Knox. What's there to lose by testing it?

On ToD, I wonder if the appeal court believes that it already has enough expert witness testimony? After all, none of the witnesses put the ToD at any longer than 4 hours after Meredith ate her last meal, and the autopsy pathologist himself put it at 2-3 hours. Therefore none of the experts for either side implicitly put the ToD later than 10.30pm. Anyway, we'll see. But the knife and bra clasp will certainly be...interesting....when reviewed. I suspect that Stefanoni's rather unique method of "LCN-style" analysis will come in for special scrutiny.........

And it will also be interesting to see Curatolo and Quintavalle (and maybe also Capezzali) come under new scrutiny. Some interesting months ahead.

By the way, has SA apologised yet in any way, shape or form to Michelle Moore, or is he still clinging to his misguided, disingenuous and erroneous belief in his previous triumphant announcements that she was a liar? Or is he still also implicitly calling Bruce Fisher a liar for explaining what actually happened?

A court doesn't order the testing of something simply because "there's nothing to lose by nesting it". It requires a good REASON to test something, a clear requirement. No test result, whether it isn't semen,...it is semen - whoever's, would change in the slightest the case against Amanda and Raffaele. It wouldn't matter if it was Rudy's and proved he was lying since no court has believed Rudy anyway and he's been found guilty and that's been confirmed already in his final appeal. Why would you need to prove someone guilty who's already been proven and found guilty? How does that help Knox and her sidekick? And as for your 'ifs' a court is not going to oirder the testing of something just because of what it 'might' be when it 'might' also be a great many things not germane to Amanda and Raffaele's guilt...or even the case! For example, Vaseline lip balm...which is what it probably is.

 

[Chris C]

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.

So you posted the pic twice, made the same claim twice, and was corrected twice? Now we are suppose to believe it was an honest mistake due to you just waking up.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

It is not known what the stain is. It is certainly not known to be semen. It has not been tested. It could be anything...Vaseline...make-up...laundry liquid...urine...many things, all of which far more likely then semen.

 

[SomeAlibi]

But the names and the photographs of Knox and Sollecito were all over the newspapers from the 6th November onwards, and apparently Sr Curatolo was a regular reader of newspapers wasn't he? Therefore, why didn't he come forward at some point in November 2007?

And "from way over in the park"? As SA might say: "Come on, people!". Those on PMF have spent plenty of time and effort trying to show that the gates of the cottage are visible from the edge of the basketball court, and it's only around 100 yards between Curatolo's "home" and the cottage. Somehow, I think a bloodcurdling "scream of death" ((c.) Nara Capezzali) would have been heard in the basketball court and by the news stand, don't you? I mean, really (etc. etc.).

If you measure the distance between Meredith's window and the flats, using Google Earth, you get a distance of about 45-55 metres, having to make a guess for precisely which window it is. Someone may know. If you measure it from Meredith's window to Curatolo's bench just to the side of the newspaper stand, you get 114 metres, over twice as far away and no factoring for wind direction which is unknown.

BTW you aren't contending that the gates aren't visible are you?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

By the way, regarding your "had just woken up" excuse, you're aware (I presume) that you first made the 1st November claim in a post at 7.15pm (UK time) last night, and you repeated it - with interest - in a second post at 12.35am (i.e. just gone midnight). So I'm a bit confused about your sleep patterns. Did you sleep in the afternoon and wake up at 7pm, then write the first post on this issue, then fall asleep again between 7.30 and midnight, then wake up again and repeat the claim in the 12.35am post?

 

[SomeAlibi]

So you posted the pic twice, made the same claim twice, and was corrected twice? Now we are suppose to believe it was an honest mistake due to you just waking up.

The fact that it's a mistake that has already been corrected in public by more than one poster on a board that you all read really does rather tend to support that, right? It's stupid but it is just a repeat mistake. By all means, enjoy the mistake but however much you dislike me, I acknowledge when I make mistakes. Steve could do with a lesson on this one by comparison.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you measure the distance between Meredith's window and the flats, using Google Earth, you get a distance of about 45-55 metres, having to make a guess for precisely which window it is. Someone may know. If you measure it from Meredith's window to Curatolo's bench just to the side of the newspaper stand, you get 114 metres, over twice as far away and no factoring for wind direction which is unknown.

BTW you aren't contending that the gates aren't visible are you?

No I'm not. I am, however, contending that if Capezzali indeed heard a "scream of death" through closed double-glazed windows from 55m away, then Curatolo would have heard the same scream from his position in the open air 114 metres away.

What of course I believe is most likely to be the truth is that there was no such scream at all. Capezzali didn't hear it (even if she thinks she did), and neither did Curatolo or anyone else.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is not known what the stain is. It is certainly not known to be semen. It has not been tested. It could be anything...Vaseline...make-up...laundry liquid...urine...many things, all of which far more likely then semen.

Somebody ought to inform "ace Newsweek professional journalist" Barbie Latza Nadeau of this then, since she misreported quite badly on this issue yesterday. Oh, and she also spelled the presiding appeal judge's name incorrectly. So much for rigorous journalistic accuracy, eh?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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:



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?

I thought he was just a know-nothing homeless bum? How's he supposed to be an expert on exactly which type of bus is which and which goes where? He never describes disco buses anyway, only young people getting on buses to go to discos.

 

[SomeAlibi]

By the way, regarding your "had just woken up" excuse, you're aware (I presume) that you first made the 1st November claim in a post at 7.15pm (UK time) last night, and you repeated it - with interest - in a second post at 12.35am (i.e. just gone midnight). So I'm a bit confused about your sleep patterns. Did you sleep in the afternoon and wake up at 7pm, then write the first post on this issue, then fall asleep again between 7.30 and midnight, then wake up again and repeat the claim in the 12.35am post?

I didn't catch myself at it, just like I didn't when I posted originally on PMF. It's obviously in my brain for some reason and it's erroneous. As you say, I also posted that I flew home on the 1st after placing the flowers at the gate. I seem to remember people here enjoying the original mistake too.

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought he was just a know-nothing homeless bum? How's he supposed to be an expert on exactly which type of bus is which and which goes where? He never describes disco buses anyway, only young people getting on buses to go to discos.

That last sentence is already a shoe-in for quote of the day

 

[katy_did]

He never describes disco buses anyway, only young people getting on buses to go to discos.

I guess it's like he didn't describe young people wearing Halloween costumes, just said that there were young people dressed as witches.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't catch myself at it, just like I didn't when I posted originally on PMF. It's obviously in my brain for some reason and it's erroneous. As you say, I also posted that I flew home on the 1st after placing the flowers at the gate. I seem to remember people here enjoying the original mistake too.

So what made you write that you'd just woken up when you posted here about November 1st? How strange.

 

[Chris C]

The fact that it's a mistake that has already been corrected in public by more than one poster on a board that you all read really does rather tend to support that, right? It's stupid but it is just a repeat mistake. By all means, enjoy the mistake but no need to be childish about it. However much you dislike me, I acknowledge when I make mistakes. Steve could do with a lesson on this one by comparison.

Just woke up?

You posted this:

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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672094&postcount=21582

3 hours later you posted this.

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

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672545&postcount=21618

Katody then attacks the credibility of your photo.

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.

You then defend your previous post with this remark where you claim a 2nd time you took the photo on Nov. 1st.

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. Your arguments are false and malicious and you make yourself look pretty silly. At this point I retreat from this debate - there's literally nothing to be achieved here with you, Withnail and Mary H. I am content to continue to debate with the more credible proponents of Amanda's innocence such as Wilkes and Halides but this conversation has become pointless. I note none of you ever responded to the points of Steve Moore's hyperbole and exaggeration properly.

Its not till someone points out your post on PMF that you admit it was taken on Oct 30 and it was just an honest mistake that you made due to just waking up.
I'm trying to avoid making personal attacks or attacking you as a poster, but you are deliberately posting cropped photos and making false claims on this forum.

In your post you call someones arguments false, malicious and silly for attacking the credibility of your Nov. 1st claims. Yet here it is. I do believe you owe someone an apology for that statement you made against them.

 

[s_pepys]

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?

bobc

bloomin brilliant post. thanks

lxxx

 

[SomeAlibi]

Just woke up?

You posted this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672094&postcount=21582

3 hours later you posted this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672545&postcount=21618

Katody then attacks the credibility of your photo.



You then defend your previous post with this remark where you claim a 2nd time you took the photo on Nov. 1st.


Its not till someone points out your post on PMF that you admit it was taken on Oct 30 and it was just an honest mistake that you made due to just waking up.
I'm trying to avoid making personal attacks or attacking you as a poster, but you are deliberately posting cropped photos and making false claims on this forum.

In your post you call someones arguments false, malicious and silly for attacking the credibility of your Nov. 1st claims. Yet here it is. I do believe you owe someone an apology for that statement you made against them.

Chris, I know it's terribly exciting to catch me making a mistake but I've explained perfectly clearly that I've already made the same mistake on PMF and been corrected there by more than one poster. It would not be a very sensible deception given that we all know you read that board as well.

I've never posted a cropped photo. Where did you get that idea?

 

[bobc]

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.

So are you claiming that these people still believe that the forensic evidence will not be reviewed? If not, then clearly these people have changed their belief in the light of the fact the evidence IS being reviewed. I don't see that as post-rationalization, but of changing belief in view of new facts, which is the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

[JREF2010]

ETA: The 22:13 call was an incoming MMS message. No buttons need be pressed at this time.

Has anyone produced a map for these cell towers? There is clearly a tower on which would fit the description "Guard Mount on Bridge River Road" (someone needs to check my translation too )

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4128[/qimg]

This view is looking over the peak of the roof that is directly over Meredith's window. This cell will have great coverage outside Meredith's window.

This cell could even have good coverage inside her room given that it is positioned to cover a larger area and not one of the micro cells that Perugia needs to cover the many canyons created by the narrow streets and thick walls.

The problem though is that this cell is half way between the cottage and the garden where the phones were found. These areas would be covered by different sectors of that cell. The sectors were listed for the other cell records, why do we not get the sector for this one?

This particular is only an example as I don't currently know if it is even part of Meredith's network. But other cell sites would have a similar problem with the sectors.

the call could have been outside the cottage, in its courtyard was stated, and the call is before the stalled car incident.

so if a person had left with the cell phones this call allows it had left the cottage. Also it might allow the time Alessandra Formicas boyfriend was bumped into.

The cell towers subject is complex, I would like to see a map of the cell tower coverages to view while reading this section in the Massei Report.