Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

So one of the main prosecution witnesses turns out to be a dealer in street drugs. I wonder if he was also a user?

Still, at least he was fragrant.

Well, it's still nothing more than an allegation (albeit one allegedly backed up with photographic evidence). Interesting timing, though, isn't it.......

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, well, well: what have we here? Todays Corriere del'Umbria (thanks to Jools from PMF) reports that Antonio Curatolo stood in a Perugia courtroom yesterday, accused of dealing heroin to at least one addict in Perugia twice every week over a period of three months in 2003 - it appears from this report that the police have got photos of the "transactions". The report says that Curatolo's case has been adjourned until November:

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=23

Surely this can't be true.....can it?? This "very decent brave man" (by SomeAlibi's expert judgement) who looked, sounded and smelled utterly credible? There must be a terrible mistake here, mustn't there.......?

ETA: Another reason why these allegations simply cannot be true is that surely the police and prosecutors would have bought the charges against Curatolo way back in 2003 or 2004, since that's when they were alleged to have happened, and it's also when the alleged police surveillance operation took place. After all, what conceivable reason could there have been for the authorities to delay bringing charges - it's not as if Curatolo could offer them anything in return now, is it........?

If we go so far as to suppose that the police persuaded him to testify by threatening him with prosecution for heroin dealing, would it follow that they are now throwing him under the bus?

I wonder if this should be ascribed to the upcoming re-examination of his testimony, perhaps? If so, then I applaud the relatively civilized practices of the Perugia police force - in the old days in Queensland, an inconvenient heroin dealer who was in a position to dish dirt on the police might well have turned up dead with a needle in their arm.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, tsig vill ask ze questions around here.

It would be interesting to hear tsig's views on issues concerned with the case itself, rather than just his/her comments about other people's posts. But there you go.....

 

[Supernaut]

It would be interesting to hear tsig's views on issues concerned with the case itself, rather than just his/her comments about other people's posts. But there you go.....

My guess? It ain't going to happen.

 

[tsig]

You must be new to this thread. It's been discussed in great detail over the past year or so.

If you search the thread (you could try using "internalised" "false" and "confession") you will find a great deal of information, replete with links.

I've followed it since the beginning. Maybe you can answer the question
because it seems to me that any lie could be characterized as an internalized false accusation.

 

[LondonJohn]

If we go so far as to suppose that the police persuaded him to testify by threatening him with prosecution for heroin dealing, would it follow that they are now throwing him under the bus?

I wonder if this should be ascribed to the upcoming re-examination of his testimony, perhaps? If so, then I applaud the relatively civilized practices of the Perugia police force - in the old days in Queensland, an inconvenient heroin dealer who was in a position to dish dirt on the police might well have turned up dead with a needle in their arm.

Funnily enough, it made me think about the "good old days" of the cold war, where one of the most common methods of recruiting a spy was to lure your target (usually male) into a compromising position (e.g. in a Helsinki hotel room with a KGB "hooker"), then inviting him to a polite meeting where it was explained to him that perhaps he could pass you the details of the latest NATO anti-tank weapons trials, otherwise the embarrassing videotape of his encounter in the hotel room might just find its way into the hands of both the British Government and his wife........

 

[Supernaut]

I've followed it since the beginning. Maybe you can answer the question
because it seems to me that any lie could be characterized as an internalized false accusation.

Well, if that's how it seems to you, OK.

 

[tsig]

Maybe you could point out to me where my speculation became "wide-ranging"?

Right here:

I wonder what prior relationship (professional, but perhaps also personal) there was between Mignini and Stefanoni. I'm guessing that they had worked closely together before on other cases. And I also wonder whether there's any precedent in Italy (or any other country or that matter) for a laboratory analyst to be invited - and to accept the invitation - to participate in the collection of evidence from a crime scene. One might almost say: hmmmmmmmmmmmm........

 

[tsig]

LJ, tsig vill ask ze questions around here.

Yes, I will, as can any member.

 

[Matthew Best]

Right here:

Well, as a strictly unbiased and dispassionate bystander, I can say that the speculation you pointed out seems quite limited in nature, but we've already established that you tend to see things differently from many other people.

 

[tsig]

It would be interesting to hear tsig's views on issues concerned with the case itself, rather than just his/her comments about other people's posts. But there you go.....

If you're interested then you might try asking questions.

 

[tsig]

Well, as a strictly unbiased and dispassionate bystander, I can say that the speculation you pointed out seems quite limited in nature, but we've already established that you tend to see things differently from many other people.

Not sure when that was "established" maybe you could enlighten me.

 

[Matthew Best]

Not sure when that was "established" maybe you could enlighten me.

Right here:

I've followed it since the beginning. Maybe you can answer the question
because it seems to me that any lie could be characterized as an internalized false accusation.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've followed it since the beginning. Maybe you can answer the question
because it seems to me that any lie could be characterized as an internalized false accusation.

Maybe you can read what has already been posted, and then present an equally informed and relevant response, possibly citing novel sources, bringing us new insights into the case or summarising the important points for the benefit of newcomers?

 

[LondonJohn]

I've followed it since the beginning. Maybe you can answer the question
because it seems to me that any lie could be characterized as an internalized false accusation.

I'll give you a little example to help you out:

Suppose you went to a Shell garage yesterday to fill your car with petrol (gas).

Suppose I then asked you this question: "Did you fill your car with petrol at a Texaco garage yesterday?"

Now, if you answered "yes" to that question, that would be a lie.

Instead, however, imagine that I first of all asked you the question: "Where did you fill your car with petrol yesterday?"

Suppose that you answered (truthfully): "The Shell garage".

Suppose that I then said something like: "But you're lying about that, aren't you? I have security camera footage from the Shell garage from all day yesterday, and neither you nor your car appear on the tape. Furthermore, I also have security camera footage from the Texaco garage, and it clearly shows you arriving there in your car and filling it with petrol".

Suppose that I said this to you time and time again, and coupled it with suggestions that you might not be in a position to trust your own memory about which garage you had visited. Maybe you'd (for some reason) convinced yourself that you visited a Shell garage, but your mind was playing tricks on you and you actually visited the Texaco garage?

After some time of this (particularly if I was in a position of considerable authority relative to you, and if you were tired and somewhat frightened), you might start to believe that your mind was playing tricks on you, and say: "OK - it looks like I was at the Texaco garage".

And that's an internalised false confession.

Here's the important thing:

It's often somewhat difficult to tell a straight lie from an internalised false confession/accusation, without knowing the detailed context in which the statement was made. That - in a nutshell - is why it's incredibly important to know exactly what went on in Knox's interrogation before the false "confession/accusation" took place.

Fortunately, we know enough about the context in its bare bones form to be pretty confident that this was an internalised false confession/accusation. We know, for example, that the police knew of Lumumba's text interaction with Knox, and the contents of Knox's last sent text message (which they misinterpreted). We also know that the interpreter told Knox that it was possible that the trauma of the events had erased the memory of them from her (Knox's) mind - she even told Knox that this had happened to her (the interpreter) once when she broke her leg.

We also, of course, have Perugia Police Chief De Felice's immortal statement on the 6th November that Knox "buckled and made an admission of facts we knew to be correct". QED.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you're interested then you might try asking questions.

Oh OK, if you want to do it that way....

So, firstly: at what time on 1st November 2007 do you think Meredith Kercher was killed, and how would you support your view on the time of death?

 

[LondonJohn]

Right here:

I wonder what prior relationship (professional, but perhaps also personal) there was between Mignini and Stefanoni. I'm guessing that they had worked closely together before on other cases. And I also wonder whether there's any precedent in Italy (or any other country or that matter) for a laboratory analyst to be invited - and to accept the invitation - to participate in the collection of evidence from a crime scene. One might almost say: hmmmmmmmmmmmm........

That would be two discrete points of speculation. At what point do things become "wide-ranging"?

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, well, well: what have we here? Todays Corriere del'Umbria (thanks to Jools from PMF) reports that Antonio Curatolo stood in a Perugia courtroom yesterday, accused of dealing heroin to at least one addict in Perugia twice every week over a period of three months in 2003 - it appears from this report that the police have got photos of the "transactions". The report says that Curatolo's case has been adjourned until November:

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=23

Surely this can't be true.....can it?? This "very decent brave man" (by SomeAlibi's expert judgement) who looked, sounded and smelled utterly credible? There must be a terrible mistake here, mustn't there.......?

ETA: Another reason why these allegations simply cannot be true is that surely the police and prosecutors would have bought the charges against Curatolo way back in 2003 or 2004, since that's when they were alleged to have happened, and it's also when the alleged police surveillance operation took place. After all, what conceivable reason could there have been for the authorities to delay bringing charges - it's not as if Curatolo could offer them anything in return now, is it........?

Wow. Can I say, just Wow.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see things have suddenly gone terribly quiet at the forum where the Curatolo story was originally posted (thanks again, Jools!). I wonder why that might be - it's certainly a very "discussion-worthy" article.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow. Can I say, just Wow.

I believe that, in the circumstances, that might be an appropriate response