Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

Find me one legitimate, well-respected, working mental health professional (by name) who will categorically state that a person who lives on a park bench for ten years is incapable of offering reliable testimony in court ... on the basis of that information alone.

I see no constructive purpose in both sides taking up space in this thread to demand proof of irrelevant claims neither side ever made in the first place.

Nobody ever said there was proof Curatolo was mentally incompetent to testify.

Nobody ever said there was proof Curatolo was mentally competent to testify.

It doesn't bloody matter either way, given that the evidence shows that he was wrong regardless, because Knox and Sollecito were at home.

 

[Chris C]

Not all homeless people or alcoholics, drug addicts or mentally ill, but the statistical likelyhood is much higher then the likelyhood of a random person to be alcoholic or mentally ill.




Source About Homeless People & Drugs

True, but in Curatolo's case you are talking about a homeless person that has been homeless for 10 years in 1 area and is known by the residents even before the Knox case. Yet nothing has been done to assist the guy in finding better shelter than that park bench. At some point, even after the knox case, you think something would have been done to help the poor guy. Yet he is still homeless. The really only conclusion is the guy has a mental illness. (It doesn't mean he has a crazy I want to eat the world mental illness) It just means there is something wrong with the guy. Yet if someone thats not a guilter points this out about the guy, we get accused of hating on homeless people or mentally ill people. Yet when you think about it, its the city of perugia thats hating on this guy for not doing something to help him sooner.

 

[Rhea]

Alcoholism is well known to affect homeless people. It has been reported to affect 53%–73% of homeless adults, with a high frequency of heavy alcoholism (i.e., > 20 drinks/day).

People with chronic alcoholism are frequent users of crisis health services such as the emergency department (ED); at one centre, alcoholism was a characteristic of 81% of homeless people who sought care. ED visits because of alcohol intoxication, withdrawal or its complications are recurrent. In addition, homeless people have higher rates of chronic illnesses, longer hospital stays with higher costs and increased mortality compared with those who have home addresses.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/174/1/45.pdf

 

[quadraginta]

Even if they were to it would still not do anything to support the unspoken assertion that whatever condition may have contributed to their homelessness is some sort of evidence that their testimony in court is intrinsically unreliable.

Again, you're accusing me of saying mental illness is bad, when my position is that mental illness that can be treated by medication is not any more shameful than physical illness (in fact, it is physical illness).

Again?



I haven't "accused" you of anything at all, except perhaps in the most hyperbolic sense.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

My point, which I believe was explained quite clearly, is that "mental illness" is not a single condition about which broad assumptions can be made. There are circumstances ... including mental illness ... which may contribute to long term homelessness. It is not a given that those same circumstances will provide a priori evidence that such a person's testimony in a court of law must therefore be suspect.

I said nothing whatsoever about whether it was "bad" or "shameful". Your assumptions addressed competence for testimony. I took issue with that. Any other baggage you may carry about the homeless or the mentally ill is something that you will have to wrestle with on your own. I have made no comment regarding that.

I don't see Curatolo necessarily as being any more non-credible than the other witnesses who testified for the prosecution. Unlike Kokomani and possibly Capezalli, Curatolo described something that actually could have happened -- he just got the date wrong. What might be more questionable than Curatolo's mental health is the judgment of the prosecutor who thought it would be a good idea to put Curatolo on the witness stand.

This kind of stereotyping of mental issues is the most simplistic and objectionable of all.

What stereotyping? Curatolo appears to me to be in an extremely small minority group -- people who choose to sleep on park benches for ten years. He doesn't represent the homeless as a group and he doesn't represent all mentally ill people.

The stereotype that because he has been homeless for a long time he must therefore not be competent to offer reliable testimony in court.

What part of this is confusing you.

Either you are making the claim ... or more properly, the insinuation that the man's habitual homelessness is evidence of "mental illness" and therefore that "mental illness" is reason of itself to impeach his testimony, or you are not. Which is it?

If you are not then the entire line of discussion is completely pointless. If you are then it is your burden to demonstrate that this man's "mental illness" is of itself cause to make his testimony suspect. Painting him as mentally ill because he is homeless and criticizing his reliability as a witness on no more basis than that is stereotyping of the rankest sort.

 

[Rhea]

True, but in Curatolo's case you are talking about a homeless person that has been homeless for 10 years in 1 area and is known by the residents even before the Knox case. Yet nothing has been done to assist the guy in finding better shelter than that park bench. At some point, even after the knox case, you think something would have been done to help the poor guy. Yet he is still homeless. The really only conclusion is the guy has a mental illness. (It doesn't mean he has a crazy I want to eat the world mental illness) It just means there is something wrong with the guy. Yet if someone thats not a guilter points this out about the guy, we get accused of hating on homeless people or mentally ill people. Yet when you think about it, its the city of perugia thats hating on this guy for not doing something to help him sooner.

I don't know if that's the only possible reason, there are a few people who really want to live outside, I wouldn't categorically state that a person must be mentally ill if they choose to live that way.

But I see a high possibility that somebody might have "issues" who is leaving on the street. It's also possible that a homeless person would give a false testimony to receive some attention or getting some cash by a journalist.

There are various possibilities, why he might have given that testimony …

 

[quadraginta]

I see no constructive purpose in both sides taking up space in this thread to demand proof of irrelevant claims neither side ever made in the first place.

You do realize that you can choose to scroll past those posts which you do not personally find relevant. Right? It is not incumbent upon you to devote any of your valuable time responding to them, especially when your response consists of nothing more than a complaint about the waste of that time.

Nobody ever said there was proof Curatolo was mentally incompetent to testify.

Is it your contention that no one in this thread has suggested that Curatolo's testimony was suspect because his homelessness cast doubt upon his reliability?

We could review the posts and look, if you like.

Nobody ever said there was proof Curatolo was mentally competent to testify.

It doesn't bloody matter either way, given that the evidence shows that he was wrong regardless, because Knox and Sollecito were at home.

You believe that the two were at home, therefore Curatolo's testimony must be wrong?

Certainly one or the other must be wrong, but nothing other than personal conviction (yours, in this instance) has resolved this conflict beyond all question within these threads.

 

[Chris C]

I don't know if that's the only possible reason, there are a few people who really want to live outside, I wouldn't categorically state that a person must be mentally ill if they choose to live that way.

But I see a high possibility that somebody might have "issues" who is leaving on the street. It's also possible that a homeless person would give a false testimony to receive some attention or getting some cash by a journalist.

There are various possibilities, why he might have given that testimony …

True. Yet we are talking about a 1st world country. I dont believe this guy is hunting, planting crops, or fishing to help feed himself. I'm wondering what he does in the winter. Is he allowed to build a fire? Does the city of perugia have a place for him to get warm at. Do people donate him blankets to keep him from freezing or have they finally gotten him a home. Is he completely self sufficient?

Now I was talking about the guy himself and why hasn't some form of shelter been found for this guy. Dont get me wrong, America would let that guy freeze to death. Yet this guy has been a witness in 2 different murder trials. Whats the population of Perugia(166k?) and whats the percentage of murder trials this guy has been a witness in?

 

[Mary_H]

I see no constructive purpose in both sides taking up space in this thread to demand proof of irrelevant claims neither side ever made in the first place.

I saw no constructive purpose in the discussion of World War II history. However, I don't have to see a constructive purpose to in order to tolerate other posters' thoughts.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip> The really only conclusion is the guy has a mental illness. (It doesn't mean he has a crazy I want to eat the world mental illness) It just means there is something wrong with the guy. Yet if someone thats not a guilter points this out about the guy, we get accused of hating on homeless people or mentally ill people.<snip>

Exactly.

 

[Mary_H]

Again?



I haven't "accused" you of anything at all, except perhaps in the most hyperbolic sense.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

My point, which I believe was explained quite clearly, is that "mental illness" is not a single condition about which broad assumptions can be made. There are circumstances ... including mental illness ... which may contribute to long term homelessness. It is not a given that those same circumstances will provide a priori evidence that such a person's testimony in a court of law must therefore be suspect.

I said nothing whatsoever about whether it was "bad" or "shameful". Your assumptions addressed competence for testimony. I took issue with that. Any other baggage you may carry about the homeless or the mentally ill is something that you will have to wrestle with on your own. I have made no comment regarding that.

The stereotype that because he has been homeless for a long time he must therefore not be competent to offer reliable testimony in court.

What part of this is confusing you.

Either you are making the claim ... or more properly, the insinuation that the man's habitual homelessness is evidence of "mental illness" and therefore that "mental illness" is reason of itself to impeach his testimony, or you are not. Which is it?

If you are not then the entire line of discussion is completely pointless. If you are then it is your burden to demonstrate that this man's "mental illness" is of itself cause to make his testimony suspect. Painting him as mentally ill because he is homeless and criticizing his reliability as a witness on no more basis than that is stereotyping of the rankest sort.

You're off on a tangent. I tried to address the sequence of posts about this yesterday, but apparently you didn't read what I wrote.

This did not start with a question of Curatolo's credibility or the relevance of his testimony. Katody called Curatolo "Toto," and SomeAlibi took it as an opportunity for grandstanding and showboating. After Withnail, Fulcanelli and I joined the conversation, you and s_pepys followed suit behind SomeAlibi, as if homelessness and mental illness are causes dear to your heart.

No, wait -- for SomeAlibi, there was an additional motive: to let the whole crowd here know he has actually met the man with the gentle eyes in person. Let us all bow down.

Do you guys really think Curatolo is offended by our discussion of him in this venue? Do you really think our discussion about this subject matter is doing any harm to anyone?

Do you really think I need to be condemned, criticized, chastised, instructed, lectured or educated in any way about the homeless or about mental illness? Or are you just trying to convey how much you dislike me?

Save yourself the keyboarding -- I already know.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You do realize that you can choose to scroll past those posts which you do not personally find relevant. Right? It is not incumbent upon you to devote any of your valuable time responding to them, especially when your response consists of nothing more than a complaint about the waste of that time.

Attacking the arguer instead of the argument is equally a waste of everybody's time, and does nothing to redeem this useless subthread you are wallowing in.

Why don't you want to discuss issues of more substance, such as whether you have any remotely sane theory of the crime that fits with the known facts?

Is it your contention that no one in this thread has suggested that Curatolo's testimony was suspect because his homelessness cast doubt upon his reliability?

It is my contention that this subthread consists primarily of you and Mary redefining each other's claims to suit yourselves then demanding evidence for your straw men. You have just done exactly this again, only to me. Please stop doing this. It is a waste of electrons and clutters up the thread. I cannot stop you wasting everyone's time this way, as it is a free forum, but by the same token you cannot stop me pointing out that this subthread is pointless.

You believe that the two were at home, therefore Curatolo's testimony must be wrong?

Certainly one or the other must be wrong, but nothing other than personal conviction (yours, in this instance) has resolved this conflict beyond all question within these threads.

Resolving something beyond all question in a debate involving one or more zealots who will never admit that the other side has a point even when they are relentlessly and tirelessly beaten over the head with multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers that flatly contradict their faith-based (or perhaps I should say hate-based) position is not an achievable goal hence I lose no sleep if I do not achieve it.

I don't think it's realistic to hope that the prosecution is going to be able to show that the error logs don't prove human activity was occurring all night. No pro-guilt analysis has even held out faint hope that the logs might have been misinterpreted. If it happens I'll of course gladly change my stance but for now I think the reasonable course is to assume the logs show what the defence claims they show, and examine the conclusions that follow.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

And just like a year ago, you are trying to change the subject. The subject is that the electronic data files were never released to the defense, not the separate subject of the prosecution failing to give the defense adequate advance notice of the testing. Moreover, even if the prosecution had given the defense adequate notice, that is no substitute for having the files. Please see a quotation from Dr. Krane upthread in comment 9010 on this very question if you are unsure why. To answer your question, there were multiple testing dates, and it is important to know which samples were tested on which dates.

Ann Wise wrote, “In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing. These dates are important, Gino said, ‘because they would tell us what samples were tested together on the same day, which might indicate if some of them could have been contaminated.’” According to Dr. Jason Gilder, ‘The file contains the full electropherogram trace information along with other information about the testing conditions (e.g., date, time, injection time, voltage, temperature, current, the RFU threshold used by the analyst).’” It is true that the electronid data files have more than just the dates, but the dates are a portion of what makes them useful.

The defence know all the dates, since they were invited to attend each of the tests. It's not the prosecution's fault if the defence don't check their invites.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

I noticed that you declined to answer my question about Mr. Maresca. Here is a news report:

Francesco Maresca, a lawyer for the Kercher family who had opposed the review, said that "if the court has any remaining doubts, it does well to try to remove them. And now we'll see what these experts will conclude."
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ew/story-e6frfku0-1225973376818#ixzz18b4wmi6V
highlighting added

What was the question?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Science supports a time range of between 30 minutes and 3 hours for well over 99.5% probability of the stomach starting to empty. Science can also say that it's as good as impossible for Meredith's stomach to still be retaining all of a small/moderate meal over 4 hours after the start of ingestion (unless - possibly - she was overcome by either severe trauma or extreme fear about 3 hours in, and held continuously in that state for well over an hour).

This is not absolutes - it's a range based on an experimentally-determined bell curve (which is slightly asymmetric and therefore not strictly classifiable as a normal curve). The studies which I and others have cited actually aimed to provide a set of reference data for healthy adults, to assist others who wanted to compare the reference data either with very sick patients or patients whose digestive system had been compromised in some way.

Where have I been declaring absolutes? Science can't say that Meredith died at exactly 9.15pm. But it can say that, given that we know that Meredith was still alive at 9pm, she must have died between 9pm and 10pm (and most likely before 9.30pm). Not absolutes. Just good application of experimentally-produced statistical data, coupled with a firm knowledge of the 9pm start of the range.

It also 'supports' a wider time range. But 'support' is not enough.

And stomach emptying...that's not science. It's...to use a term someone recently used here...hoodoo looking for voodoo.

In any case it's moot. The judge has refused a review of TOD, so you and Kevin's going on and on about it has been in vein. So, now the judge has ruled it off-topic can we we also do so here? It's just that you're boring me to death. Thanks.

 

[Chris C]

The defence know all the dates, since they were invited to attend each of the tests. It's not the prosecution's fault if the defence don't check their invites.

Knox and Sollecito were invited? Or do you mean they notified their attorneys 2 hours prior to testing when their attorneys were more than 2 hours away.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The defence know all the dates, since they were invited to attend each of the tests. It's not the prosecution's fault if the defence don't check their invites.

Fulcanelli, do you have any coherent theory of the crime which fits with the facts as we now know them and has Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder?

I keep asking pro-guilt posters, and for some reason I mostly keep getting answers that ignore the stomach contents evidence, or ignore the computer forensics evidence, or both. The people who even make a decent attempt at fitting their theory to those facts comprehensively fail to present anything remotely plausible as to why and how Knox and Sollecito supposedly murdered Kercher.

Since you've spent years immersing yourself in the pro-guilt case I thought maybe you would have such a theory. After all if you don't, then who does?

 

[Fulcanelli]

No you haven't. You've seen multiple sources explaining the limitations of stomach contents analysis, then you have cherry-picked the one sentence or fragment of a sentence from those sources that seems to say what you want to hear - that stomach contents analysis is utterly worthless - and you latch on to that one fragment.

Has it occurred to you that if stomach contents analysis was as worthless as you want to believe, the rest of those articles wouldn't even exist? They would just be one sentence saying "Stomach contents evidence is utterly worthless, period".

It's worth noting that this conviction of yours arose out of the blue when you found out that the stomach contents evidence falsified your beloved Massei narrative. Up until the science told you something you didn't want to hear, you were perfectly happy with it.



What nonsense are you talking here?

The evidence-based time of death has never been based solely on stomach contents. How can you not know this?

It is based on stomach contents plus eyewitness evidence plus the body temperature. Those factors taken together constrain the time of death to 21:05-22:00 or so, with the most likely time of death at the very early end of that range.



I really think you need to go back and read the previous posts on this issue. Your misunderstandings are many and serious.

In any case, as has been explained to you and your disciples many, many times now, the evidence-based time of death does not hinge on anyone's personal authority. It relies solely on the objective facts about Meredith's last meal and the way the human digestive system works, which can be verified by anyone with a basic level of scientific literacy who has access to the relevant literature.

Don't feel too bad. Lots of amateurs come to the JREF forums absolutely convinced that they are an authority on some topic or other only to be promptly shown up with a very minimal amount of work by more scientifically literate forumgoers. This happens all the time.

If you say so Kevin. I know what I've read and I know what they say. That makes it end of subject for me.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It also 'supports' a wider time range. But 'support' is not enough.

And stomach emptying...that's not science. It's...to use a term someone recently used here...hoodoo looking for voodoo.

Actually it's science. It's science carried out by scientists published in scientific journals after being peer-reviewed by scientists, aimed at an audience of scientists. If you believe that it is not science this merely demonstrates that you have false beliefs about what science is.

In any case it's moot. The judge has refused a review of TOD, so you and Kevin's going on and on about it has been in vein. So, now the judge has ruled it off-topic can we we also do so here? It's just that you're boring me to death. Thanks.

Cite where the judge has refused a review of the time of death.

 

[Fulcanelli]

odeed,

I think that machine logs would have some of the same information (dates), but there is also going to be some kinds of information that is unique to one or the other. I contacted several of the nine scientists who are either authors or co-signers of the letter, most extensively Drs. Krane and Gilder. Dr. Gilder told me that they had made the request for the files through the defense to the prosecution on more than one occasion and were refused by the prosecution each time. It is difficult to see why the defense would refuse them. Dr. Johnson, in particular, made statements to the press defending Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito.

I see. So someone told You who had told someone else who had told someone else who had....

Sounds like a game of Chinese whispers.

 

[quadraginta]

You're off on a tangent. I tried to address the sequence of posts about this yesterday, but apparently you didn't read what I wrote.

This did not start with a question of Curatolo's credibility or the relevance of his testimony. Katody called Curatolo "Toto," and SomeAlibi took it as an opportunity for grandstanding and showboating. After Withnail, Fulcanelli and I joined the conversation, you and s_pepys followed suit behind SomeAlibi, as if homelessness and mental illness are causes dear to your heart.

No, wait -- for SomeAlibi, there was an additional motive: to let the whole crowd here know he has actually met the man with the gentle eyes in person. Let us all bow down.

Do you guys really think Curatolo is offended by our discussion of him in this venue? Do you really think our discussion about this subject matter is doing any harm to anyone?

Do you really think I need to be condemned, criticized, chastised, instructed, lectured or educated in any way about the homeless or about mental illness? Or are you just trying to convey how much you dislike me?

Save yourself the keyboarding -- I already know.

You insist on making claims of personal attacks, placing yourself as the victim. This is a characterization which speaks less well of you than of anyone else.

Katody's post used a derogatory nickname to describe Curatolo. You got that much right in your interesting recreation of the dialogue. However, SomeAlibi's response commented upon this as disrespectful as only one part of a post which was referring to several different aspects of testimony, including, but not limited to Curatolo's.

This was Withnail's interjection into the exchange at that point.

It's well-known in Perugia that Curatolo has mental problems - he's a 'simpleton', for want of a better word. He claimed to know that Amanda and Raffaele turned up at the basketball court at exactly 21:27 'because he has a watch', but when asked to show his watch in court, he didn't have one.

Don't try to wrap up your hate for Amanda with concern for the homeless.

Fulcanelli took issue with this allegation that there was any proof that mental health compromised Curatolo's testimony, and you promptly moved in to support the allegations of mental illness, specifically using a description of his appearance while in court as an example.

This is ridiculous. Where's your evidence that Curatolo had mental problems?

Here's my evidence of it:

"Wheeled to the witness stand in an office chair, Curatolo, who has a long, gray beard and wore a coat, hat and scarf in court, said that he had been sleeping on a park bench in Perugia's Piazza Grimana for eight or nine years."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7197242&page=1

And then you later went on in other posts at great length to support your case concerning the relationship between homelessness and "mental illness". I'll spare you the quotes for now. I expect you are as aware of them as I am.

It is beyond disingenuous for you to try and make the claim that ... "This did not start with a question of Curatolo's credibility or the relevance of his testimony." That is nothing more than the most transparent of sophistries.

It was and is most certainly about an attack on Curatolo's credibility as a witness based solely on his status as a homeless person and the "mental illness" assumed to be debilitating to his credibility as a result.

You may try to take refuge in accusations of personal animosity if you wish, but no such thing has happened. Belated attempts to reinvent the substance of a clearly documented posting history will not change that.