Even if one of these three is Sollecito (and from the tone and content of the article, I don't think this is the case), we're not discussing whether or not he's a coke dealer. If he did deal coke (and, again, I don't think he did), then he should be prosecuted and convicted of this offence if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But it wouldn't (and shouldn't) materially add to the issue of whether he (and Knox) were participants in the murder of Meredith Kercher - unless the prosecution were able to show that a drugs deal played a part in the murder.
I highly doubt it was Raffaele,
that we would have heard of. One of the boys downstairs sound like a distinct possibility, being as they probably did supply Amanda with a 'stupefying substance' on occasion, and they'd naturally be someone Amanda might call before and after the murder. The translation I read doesn't actually say it was cocaine that the guy gave her, and just because he got busted for coke later doesn't mean that was what he was giving Amanda at the time. The idea that she actually had sex with him seems to date from the 'investigation' and was apparently merely a police 'hypothesis' and might simply reveal something about just what sorts of things the Perugian police were fantasizing about as they helped create the Sex Monster of Seattle, 'Foxy Knoxy.'
And before "some people" start to shout something along the lines of "Oh, so different standards would apply to Sollecito and Curatolo, even if both were rightfully convicted of dealing class A drugs?", well in relation to the murder charges against Sollecito and Knox, different standards most certainly would apply to Sollecito and Curatolo. If Curatolo is a key witness whose testimony might have contributed to the conviction of Sollecito (and Knox), then it's clear that his evidence must be completely untainted by suspicions of untrustworthy conduct, unreliability and/or low credibility in order for it to help convict people of murder.
As far as I'm concerned Curatolo was
already overly tainted with unreliability and low credibility. I also wonder how many people we would have to set free were we to disallow the testimony of those not simon pure? There's cases I can recall where full blown violent criminals get used as testimony, sometimes against each other as 'rats' and and other times an ex-con might be the only possible witness. I don't want any murderers going free because the guy who saw them run out of the place did time in Fulsom prison for armed robbery. I'm sure the defense would press the point, and they should, but I would hope that wouldn't be the only consideration.
As much fun as I can have with a resounding word like 'smack,' the fact Curatolo might have sold heroin in 2003 doesn't discredit his testimony in my mind as much as the fact it made no sense, he claimed seeing things that couldn't have been there that night, and--most especially--that this is apparently his
third murder trial. That suggests to me another thing entirely, something that most certainly damages his credibility beyond all repair.
Were he still dealing smack in 2007, that might just mean he was actually more attentive to his environment, and the time, than one would normally expect of someone in his circumstances. Also, were he really much of a 'dealer' he wouldn't be sleeping on that bench for ten years, which suggests to me that he might just have been someone's dupe, which is more in line with other things I've read about him.
