I doubt there is one - I think it most likely that he was hoping for a "gotcha" moment to cut and paste if one of us didn't parse a statement correctly, and there was no more to it than that. As others have said it's not even a particularly tricky problem (he said not having looked at it until Dan O. and others had already solved it and posted detailed solutions).
I think
this is a lot more interesting if you want do to some maths for fun.
Now back to something that might actually matter, Curatolo.
Various narratives have been proposed here and elsewhere that incorporate the new data points that he was photographed dealing smack several years ago, and that he is only just now being prosecuted. This is a probably incomplete list:
1. Curatolo was being blackmailed by the police to act as an informer and stooge for them. This is why he was a witness in three murder trials, and an important witness in at least two (I do not know about the third, details seem scarce), because the police got him to lie for them. Now he is being scapegoated by the Mignini/Giobbi faction who plan to throw him under the bus and blame him for the Knox conviction.
2. As above, except that he is not being thrown under a bus, Raffaele's family allies in the Carabinieri are charging him to discredit him in the lead-up to the appeal.
3. Curatolo's testimony was entirely unrelated to the police having the dirt on him, and Raffaele's family allies in the Carabinieri are charging him to discredit him in the lead-up to the appeal.
4. As above except that dealing smack from a park bench makes you hyper-vigilant and hence the news that he deals smack makes him
an even more reliable witness! Knox is going down!
Remembering that incorporating a fact into a narrative does not make it evidence, do we have enough information to make rational probability estimates about the likelihood of 1, 2 and 3?
Currently, and this may surprise some people, I don't think we do. I think the possibility of Curatolo perjuring himself because he was threatened with a dealing charge only slightly increases the probability that he perjured himself, because it's always been possible or even likely that he was threatened or bribed in some way and this just suggests a specific mechanism. I've been on the record for some time that I think this is probably what happened, but I don't think this new information adds much weight to that theory.
If prior to this news you believed Curatolo to be a good and upstanding citizen then obviously this news might make you revise your opinion of him, depending on your view of smack dealing.
(I'm not sure where dealing smack fits into the PMF Outrage Scale alongside smoking marijuana, watching animal porn, watching a foursome, calling them scientifically illiterate hate-junkies and other things that they are outraged about... oddly enough in some quarters the rumour that Amanda Knox might have phoned someone who turned out to be a drug dealer is seen as hugely damning evidence of bad character, but in Curatolo's case actually dealing smack himself from a park bench is cast as Curatolo selflessly helping out poor lost junkies dying for a fix out of the kindness of his beautiful Perugian heart - go figure).
The narratives proposed above all fit the facts, and evidence that would allow us to pick a favourite does not currently appear to be available, as far as I can tell. Have I missed anything?
).
