Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

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.

So where are you going to load it all up Charlie? What's the addy?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Huh? This all started by me asking you what time you think Meredith died. You won't give your opinion on this, which is your prerogative. Instead, you make a nebulous reference to "time ranges" in the Massei report.

For what it's worth, I believe that the expert witnesses who testified in the first trial were able to implicitly narrow Meredith's death down to some time between 9pm and 10.30pm, based on the stomach/duodenum contents found at autopsy. I further believe that only one of the expert witnesses - Dr Lalli - gave an accurate assessment of ToD after eating (2-3 hours after eating). My belief in this is through talking with professionals in the field, and reading (and understanding) medical research literature.

I therefore believe that Meredith probably died between 9pm and 9.30pm, and almost certainly before 10pm. And I believe that the appeal court will either reach a similar conclusion (in a way that Massei inexplicably did not), or that it will allow the defence to introduce new expert witnesses who will testify convincingly to this effect.

But I can understand why you don't want to get pinned down on ToD. It rather drives a coach and horses through the prosecution's original case, doesn't it?

You're incorrect. The court has ruled that it won't reopen ToD. ToD is a range and you did ask me about the upper range. Now, please answer the questions - what range are you working with? Why do you consider the upper range important? You look like you're dodging the question here.

 

[SomeAlibi]

So where are you going to load it all up Charlie? What's the addy?

Yes please, this would be a massive contribution to this case. Can you tell us how to get hold of it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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'......

Yeah. Does that answer your question?

Where do I get the idea that you're one homogeneous group? Alright, sit back while I tell you. One of you will say 'a' 'b' and 'c'...'a' and 'c' may be completely incorrect and not a single one of you will correct it. At best, you endorse it with silence, or worse excuse it and at the very worst you jump on the bandwagon and repeat it. That makes you all homogeneous and equally culpable. Does that compute? Was it concise?

And as for Curatolo..really, we can diagnose him from afar but not Amanda? Amanda for whom we have lots of subject matter to examine, lots of behaviour and words...yet all you've got on Curatolo is that he slept on a bench???? I don't see the comparison really...perhaps you can help me out?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Oh I see, now I understand. All this time you didn't realise Nara's flat was only 41 metres from the cottage and not blocked by any buildings, unlike Curatolo who was twice as far away and behind the buildings. I can see how the mix-up happened. Well...that's the case, we learn as we go along. It just takes longer for some then others to grasp the basic facts.

 

[Justinian2]

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?

That statement was a casualty as the actual reference was to a PATTERN. I know guilters aren't big on pattern recognition or associations (otherwise why would they associate Guede with Amanda and Raffaele). Furthermore, guilters belongs to the association of the people that believe that the association of Guede with Amanda and Raffaele exists.

What do we have without associations (such as guilters). We have entropy, or the gradual disorder of the universe. What is disorder but chaos? We don't want disorder and we don't want to stave off differentiation (why Amanda and Raffaele aren't associated with Guede)

Of course without the ability to associate or differentiate we have chaos which is another word for low IQ and the behavior of animals.

Consequently I am for calling a guilter a guilter and in finding patterns, associations and differentiations. I vote for intelligence.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're incorrect. The court has ruled that it won't reopen ToD. ToD is a range and you did ask me about the upper range. Now, please answer the questions - what range are you working with? Why do you consider the upper range important? You look like you're dodging the question here.

I already told you. I'm working from the range which was testified to by all four of the relevant expert witnesses (two for the prosecution, one for the defence, one for the victim). All of them said that Meredith died - in their opinion - within either 2-3 hours of eating or 3-4 hours of eating (depending on the expert). Since I believe that it's also been established through other testimony that Meredith's pizza meal started at around 6.30pm (and it's the start of the meal that's relevant, and it's the pizza that's relevant since bits of it were found in Meredith's stomach), I therefore believe that the ToD indicated by the four experts is between just before 9pm (when it's agreed that Meredith was still alive) and 10.30pm (four hours after 6.30pm).

As I already said, I believe that some of the experts (including, laughably, the defence's own expert) were wrong in their testimony on ToD. I'm sure we can agree that at least one of the four experts MUST by definition have been wrong, since one of them (Lalli) said 2-3 hours maximum, and others said 3-4 hours - which contradict each other. My belief is that Lalli is correct, and that Meredith must have died within 3 hours or eating her final meal - i.e. by 9.30.

Also, are you sure that the appeal court won't allow new witnesses on ToD? I'm quite certain you're wrong if you're suggesting by your use of the words "the appeal court won't reopen ToD" that it won't reconsider ToD. The only thing it was ruling on yesterday was whether to allow new witnesses or forensics tests. It most certainly will allow new arguments based on existing witness testimony. That's what this appeal is: a trial de novo, but based mainly upon testimony given in the original trial. The prosecution and defence will both make arguments based upon the existing evidence, and I'm quite confident that the defence teams will be asking the court to re-consider the ToD based on the existing witness testimony, even if no new experts are allowed.

And it seems to me that the court has in any case merely deferred ruling on other witnesses (including those related to ToD) until after the DNA re-examination has been conducted. Do you have anything reliable that would show otherwise?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.).

How else was he supposed to recognise them and that they pertained to the case?

I suppose you disapprove of police publishing reconstruction videos, criminal mugshots in appeals for witnesses and things like that, just in case a witness may see them?

Perhaps you can list what the police CAN do.

By the way, what's your view of the witness who was the Conad store assistant, who only came forward a year + later?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic discovery

Exactly.

Fulcanelli,

The prosecution has not released electronic data files, standard operating procedures, or machine logs to the defense. Looks to me as if they are the ones who want to win more than they want to seek justice. Why has Mr. Maresca not called for their release, instead of opposing everything for which the defense asked? Where do you stand on the issue of forensic discovery?

 

[Dan O.]

When I get a call that that doesn't connect I usually call the number back if I am not busy. If I call the number and it either just rings or I get voice mail I figure the person is otherwise engaged, called me accidentally, or didn't hear the tone announcing an incoming call. I don't assume the person is in trouble.

What I don't understand is your idea that Rudy was trying to alert Meredith's friends that she was in trouble. First, the buttons on the phone that were touched are associated with the bank and voice mail--not one of the numbers in her address book. Second, if for example Rudy had pressed Amanda's number, what do you think Amanda would have done after calling her back and getting no response?

What DID Amanda do after calling Meredith and getting no response: She called another one of her roommates and then called both of Meredith's phones which at that time were not even ringing. Then she got her boyfriend and went back to the cottage where they found the broken window and Meredith's door locked. Then they called the police. Perhaps this is what Rudy was hoping would happen only 12 hours earlier.

Now what would have happened if Rudy dialed 112? First, he would know that the call would be recorded so if he said anything his voice would be on tape calling from the victim's phone. Rudy probably also knows that the police can track mobile phones so they would know where he was at that instant.

What if Rudy just dialed 112 and hung up? What would Rudy believe the police response would be then? They could trace the owner and send a unit to the cottage. But they would probably trace the location of the phone and send the unit there (where Rudy is) first. This is assuming that they respond at all.

The proper thing to do would have been to call 112 immediately from the cottage. But Rudy didn't do that. Rudy claims that he didn't know where a phone was even though he had to brush past the phone in the entryway to get out the door.


And, you are factually incorrect. Abbey Bank was the second entry in the phone book according to Massei (pg 350):

3. 22.00 pm to make up the number "08,459,724,724" which, under the heading of the two cell corresponds to the user "Abbey".
​

(I wonder if Voice Mail was number 1)

 

[SomeAlibi]

I already told you. I'm working from the range which was testified to by all four of the relevant expert witnesses (two for the prosecution, one for the defence, one for the victim). All of them said that Meredith died - in their opinion - within either 2-3 hours of eating or 3-4 hours of eating (depending on the expert). Since I believe that it's also been established through other testimony that Meredith's pizza meal started at around 6.30pm (and it's the start of the meal that's relevant, and it's the pizza that's relevant since bits of it were found in Meredith's stomach), I therefore believe that the ToD indicated by the four experts is between just before 9pm (when it's agreed that Meredith was still alive) and 10.30pm (four hours after 6.30pm).

As I already said, I believe that some of the experts (including, laughably, the defence's own expert) were wrong in their testimony on ToD. I'm sure we can agree that at least one of the four experts MUST by definition have been wrong, since one of them (Lalli) said 2-3 hours maximum, and others said 3-4 hours - which contradict each other. My belief is that Lalli is correct, and that Meredith must have died within 3 hours or eating her final meal - i.e. by 9.30.

Also, are you sure that the appeal court won't allow new witnesses on ToD? I'm quite certain you're wrong if you're suggesting by your use of the words "the appeal court won't reopen ToD" that it won't reconsider ToD. The only thing it was ruling on yesterday was whether to allow new witnesses or forensics tests. It most certainly will allow new arguments based on existing witness testimony. That's what this appeal is: a trial de novo, but based mainly upon testimony given in the original trial. The prosecution and defence will both make arguments based upon the existing evidence, and I'm quite confident that the defence teams will be asking the court to re-consider the ToD based on the existing witness testimony, even if no new experts are allowed.

And it seems to me that the court has in any case merely deferred ruling on other witnesses (including those related to ToD) until after the DNA re-examination has been conducted. Do you have anything reliable that would show otherwise?

If, as you say, you put four expert witnesses up against each other and three say three to four hours and only one says two to three hours, why would you support the single person who is at odds with three other experts?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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......

Yet we all know, had Kokomani been testifying for the defence, you'd still be quoting him as hard evidence. After all, you people still quote the testimony of Christian and Baro, even though they were also thrown ouy for being unreliable.

In any case, your post is a straw man. Nobody here is arguing guilt on the basis of Kokomani's testimony...or perhaps you can prove me wrong and quote such a post. Don't think so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

41 metres.

 

[LondonJohn]

How else was he supposed to recognise them and that they pertained to the case?

I suppose you disapprove of police publishing reconstruction videos, criminal mugshots in appeals for witnesses and things like that, just in case a witness may see them?

Perhaps you can list what the police CAN do.

By the way, what's your view of the witness who was the Conad store assistant, who only came forward a year + later?

The police can take photographs of the suspects round to local potential witnesses (together with stock photos, to form a photo ID parade), just as they did with Quintavalle. The lack of Sub-judice laws in Italy mean that the police were allowed to release photographs of the suspects to the media, and the media were allowed to freely report on the suspects from the moment of their arrest onwards.

My view of the witness you're referring to is that she had nothing to report - she wasn't a witness. How should she have thought it was relevant that she didn't see Knox in the store on the morning of 2nd November? She remembers (as does the police officer) that the police came in and showed photos of Knox and Sollecito to her and Quintavalle a week or two after the murder, and that neither she nor Quintavalle remembered having seen either Knox or Sollecito on the morning after the murder. But then Quintavalle seemingly had a remarkable jolt to his memory a year down the line. But we'll see what the court makes of Quintavalle in the appeal, won't we?

 

[Draca]

[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.

Burn !

Even if it was true though there is no law that the buses would have to be scheduled the same way three years later.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

Write to her if you have an issue with her. Don't complain to me.

 

[The Third Man]

Just out of interest does anyone know whether the attempted 20.56 call registered with the cell, as it doesn't appear to be in the Massei report.

Also the defence states that the voicemail call was 'totally anomalous in respect to Meredith's usual phone habits' does anyone know whether there is more detail published anywhere about her usual phone habits?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yet we all know, had Kokomani been testifying for the defence, you'd still be quoting him as hard evidence. After all, you people still quote the testimony of Christian and Baro, even though they were also thrown ouy for being unreliable.

In any case, your post is a straw man. Nobody here is arguing guilt on the basis of Kokomani's testimony...or perhaps you can prove me wrong and quote such a post. Don't think so.

"We all know" that, do we? "You people"? I wonder why you've become so defensive since last night.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Just out of interest does anyone know whether the attempted 20.56 call registered with the cell, as it doesn't appear to be in the Massei report.

Also the defence states that the voicemail call was 'totally anomalous in respect to Meredith's usual phone habits' does anyone know whether there is more detail published anywhere about her usual phone habits?

No, it didn't register with the cell network. It only showed as a dialled number on Meredith's handset. So either the call was aborted before the cellular connection was made (i.e. within about a second of the "call" button being pressed), or the phone was out of cellular signal strength at the time the call was attempted. Either way, it's inexplicable as to why Meredith never called back - unless she was confronted and attacked very shortly after this call was attempted.

 

[LondonJohn]

Write to her if you have an issue with her. Don't complain to me.

I wasn't complaining, much less complaining to you. I was merely pointing out an instance of sloppy and incorrect reporting on the case by someone who's apparently held up by some as a meticulously accurate and reliable reporter.....