Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

1. Bruce Fisher says that there were no discos open on November 1, 2007. False.
2. Witnesses saw RG in a disco on November 1, 2007, in Perugia. You have no evidence that a bus did not stop at that location.
3. You concede that some discos were open on November 1, 2007.
4. You insist that no disco buses were operating on November 1, 2007 but present no evidence of this.
5. No one on this forum has seen any evidence regarding the differences between the city, tourist or disco buses as they were in 2007.

Yes, it is quite tiresome that you provide zero evidence for your claims.

Clear now?

I know your intention is to try and prove that Curatolo is a credible witness with all of this discussion about the buses. He has already been discredited. You will hear about this shortly as the appeal progresses. You should probably move on to another topic. You got this one wrong.

 

[Chris C]

I know your intention is to try and prove that Curatolo is a credible witness with all of this discussion about the buses. He has already been discredited. You will hear about this shortly as the appeal progresses. You should probably move on to another topic. You got this one wrong.

So Bruce if he is now discredited are you saying there is fixing to be 2 more appeals from the other 2 murder trials Curatolo testified in. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Curatolo placed someone else at a murder scene with his night vision eyesight.

 

[Onofarar]

I recall that Seattle declined to name a park after its sister city of Perugia. One hears a good deal about light rail. Maybe a light rail line could be named for Perugia instead.

Lol - Haha - nice subtlety Chris.

 

[Chris C]

Disco bus (courtesy of SA):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402374d45eed18b817.jpg[/qimg]


City bus*:

http://www.redbubble.com/people/phi...ias-bus-station-italy-a-tilt-shift-simulation


I'd say it was pretty easy to tell the difference between the two. In addition, the out-of-town discos also ran minibuses. Tourist buses are totally irrelevant, since a) there were none running past 10pm, and b) Curatolo specifically "recalls" people waiting at Piazza Grimana for the disco buses.


* Lovely tilt-shift photography there: check out the work of Naoko Honji for some stunning tilt-shift images of London, Tokyo and Africa.

Remember one thing about that bus. If I remember correctly SA was caught in a lie about when those pictures/video were taken.

 

[Onofarar]

It would be a beautiful thing if after Amanda and Raffaele are released the three families forgive eachother, realize who is to blame and join forces to sue the PANTS off of everyone involved in the debacle. ALL of them !

Amen to that Draca!

 

[RWVBWL]

For katy did

That Guede would not have panicked after fatally injuring Meredith is simply your own opinion. To me, it seems at least as likely that he would have reacted in that way as that he would have recognized he'd just fatally wounded someone but decided to continue with the sexual assault regardless, even stopping to arrange the scene beforehand. If Amanda and Raffaele's backgrounds are relevant, then Guede's history has to be equally considered, and he had no real prior history of violence or sexual assault. In this case he entered the house as a petty thief, looking for rent money. That he would've been shocked at the sudden realization he'd probably just killed someone is hardly out of the question, IMO. As I said before, there seems no plausible explanation for the position of the towels, other than that stated by Guede. And if they had been used in an attempt to stop the bleeding, I see no reason it would be so terribly unlikely to find them blood-soaked and left next to or near her body.

As regards the pillow, this seems quite important since Massei's argument that this was used to 'facilitate the sexual assault' seems the only real evidence the sexual assault occurred after the stabbing. I found this argument a bit unconvincing from the start: it wouldn't be an easy task to lift Meredith's lower body to deliberately place the pillow there, and I can't see that it would make a manual assault so very much easier. If Guede were so carried away that he sexually assaulted her after fatally stabbing her, I think he would just have done it, not stopped to arrange the scene first.

I think that the pillow - together with the quilt and everything that had been on the bed - may have already been on the floor as a result of the struggle that happened near the bed. The knife print that was probably made shortly after the stabbing (the knife having still been bloody enough to make a recognizable print) was made on the bed sheet, not on the duvet, meaning the duvet was not on the bed at this stage. And as el buscador noted, there are multiple shoe prints on the pillow (one in the middle of it) which are quite difficult to explain if Guede picked up the pillow from the bed and placed it deliberately beneath Meredith. On the other hand, they are easy to explain if the pillow was already on the floor.

Hi katy did,
Nice to read of your theory!
Here's a question for you:
How and when did the bra clasp get underneath the pillow that was found lying underneath Miss Kercher's pelvis?

Do you think that Rudy cut or ripped it off first, and then continued fighting with Miss Kercher, at which time the pillow - together with the quilt and everything that had been on the bed - fell on the floor as a result of the struggle, and when Miss Kercher was stabbed in the throat, the further removal of her clothing occurred afterwards as she lay on the pillow, with the bra clasp under it?

Thanks for a reply,
RWVBWL

 

[Kaosium]

Latest post from Frank


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

The compatibility that convicts you. Just like The Knife, that is compatible with one and only one wound in Meredith’s neck (actually it was defined non incompatible by the independent experts... and that speaks volumes).

The prints that convict you. Real Rorschach stains in where everyone sees what they want. Just like the bloody one on the bathroom mat of Via della Pergola.

The DNA that convicts you. Never mind if it doesn’t fit the theory. Chiara’s DNA on Alberto’s pedal (but it wasn’t blood), Meredith’s DNA on Raffaele’s knife (but it wasn’t blood), Raniero’s DNA on Simonetta’s bra (but it’s wasn’t saliva). How can those DNAs be crime-related if the substance test disproved it? Simple: the DNA test must be right, the substance test must be wrong: IN DUBIO CONTRA REO.

I recall Machiavelli once said 'compatible' more or less meant 'possible' in Italian legal parlance and it occurred to me that putting together a sequence of possible events was quite a different thing than putting together a string of likelihoods. I asked him how that could possibly square with the concept of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but never got an answer.

 

[Kaosium]

It would be a beautiful thing if after Amanda and Raffaele are released the three families forgive each other, realize who is to blame and join forces to sue the PANTS off of everyone involved in the debacle. ALL of them !

That is a nice dream, I would like to see it come true as well. You know who I'd like to see get just taken to the cleaners? That beacon of sober and responsible media, The Daily Mail. Normally I would be leery of such a thing and the UK is welcome to their liberal libel laws but I wouldn't want to see them here, but reading through all the bilge that was disseminated by them, especially early in the case, just makes me cringe. How could they do that to a twenty year-old girl? I know they probably covered themselves legally for the most part, but I can think of three instances where someone might make a case:

First the 'Streets of Bagdad' piece where the reporter claims the policeman called for back-up, which is not reflected by the police report I've seen Mary post a few times, I'd think an affidavit would suffice along with a copy of that report. Second is the 'soulless' article that quoted Patrick Lumumba extensively. I've read that Patrick didn't speak English, and while I don't know if that's true, I did read a Andrea Vogt story where he claimed the treatment by the police didn't happen, thus one would think he could make a case that direct quotes were falsified, if in fact they actually were. Being as he was ruined by the police in Perugia I'd think he'd look at any opportunity to get something back, he sure has pursued what appears to be a vendetta against Amanda.

Lastly the 'I'm so pretty' one by Nick Pisa as it obviously relied upon leaked tapes between Amanda and her mother, which he must have gotten from the police, and if questioned you know the police in Perugia will just lie through their teeth about it. Thus Pisa's article might have been entirely 'legal' in the strictest sense, but since he spun a girl obviously frightened by the thought she might be sexually abused as being narcissistic, and mocked her being bullied into scrubbing her hands raw by her cellmate, it would be just desserts for tongue-bathing the jackboots.

I'm sure someone, perhaps LondonJohn, will tell me none of this would work, but a man can dream!

Dumb and dumber trash a crime scene.

LOL! Great line Draca!

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
Regarding Curatolo:
The next day, he arrived at his faithful piazza around 12:00pm and eventually around 1:30 or so saw the carabinieri pass, and the police, etc etc. and stated that he watched them at the scene including the CSI people dressed in the full-white suits.
When I 1st found this out and wrote of it,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5986509#post5986509
I wondered how come Antonio did not get up off his park bench and head over to talk with the police. Since it had only happened last night, he could have told the police then that the dico buses were running last night and they maybe could have checked out this fact...

Strangely, 2 members of the pro-guilt community, Fulcanelli and Stilicho, did not agree with my thoughts on this, as you can see if you read past my link I posted.

I wonder something else though: With all of the police activity, surely 1 of them must have seen the local park bench bum hangin' out at his usual spot. Surely 1 of them deduced that it might be a good idea to ask him if he had seen or heard anything the night before when Meredith Kercher lost her life, don't you think?

 

[Chris C]

Hi all,
Regarding Curatolo:
The next day, he arrived at his faithful piazza around 12:00pm and eventually around 1:30 or so saw the carabinieri pass, and the police, etc etc. and stated that he watched them at the scene including the CSI people dressed in the full-white suits.
When I 1st found this out and wrote of it,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5986509#post5986509
I wondered how come Antonio did not get up off his park bench and head over to talk with the police. Since it had only happened last night, he could have told the police then that the dico buses were running last night and they maybe could have checked out this fact...

Strangely, 2 members of the pro-guilt community, Fulcanelli and Stilicho, did not agree with my thoughts on this, as you can see if you read past my link I posted.

I wonder something else though: With all of the police activity, surely 1 of them must have seen the local park bench bum hangin' out at his usual spot. Surely 1 of them deduced that it might be a good idea to ask him if he had seen or heard anything the night before when Meredith Kercher lost her life, don't you think?

when did he leave is sleeping bench?

 

[Chris C]

Machiavelli genuinely seemed to have a difficult time comprehending the idea that someone could be accused of a crime in his country and not be guilty of it.

Well lets look at the Italian law. If a man gives a gift to a woman he isn't married to, they can't have sex because thats considered prostitution. I mean think about it. Buy your girlfriend a ring and if she has sex with you because you gave that ring to her, shes a prostitute.

 

[Mary_H]

Well lets look at the Italian law. If a man gives a gift to a woman he isn't married to, they can't have sex because thats considered prostitution. I mean think about it. Buy your girlfriend a ring and if she has sex with you because you gave that ring to her, shes a prostitute.

This quote from Frank Sfarzo is fitting: "We have learned the secret that allows the Italian justice to be so successful: when there are two options, the one that is viewed to be the truth is always the one against the suspect."

 

[Kaosium]

This quote from Frank Sfarzo is fitting: "We have learned the secret that allows the Italian justice to be so successful: when there are two options, the one that is viewed to be the truth is always the one against the suspect."

Mary!

Don't you realize it's so much easier if you just assume they're guilty, and make the evidence prove them innocent? Naturally there will be times when the evidence appears to prove them innocent, but that's what incompetent computer technicians are for! To apply Frank's maxim thoroughly, if there are no witnesses to the guilty, it is necessary to find them, park benches are a fine place to start. If there's no actual evidence of the guilty at the scene then go to ground and grow galloping granules of guilt! It just moves across the floor if you give it forty-six days.

 

[Mary_H]

.......View from Wilmington seems to allow both sides as well as I made many posts there even when I was leaning towards the side of guilt.

Yeah, you won't find too many blog administrators with a disclaimer like this:

"I reserve the right not to clear comments that fail to cite sources. Sources are not expected when dealing with common knowledge. I will not clear comments that aim offensive language at other commenters. I may not clear comments that are off-topic."

View-From-Wilmington

 

[Mary_H]

Mary!

Don't you realize it's so much easier if you just assume they're guilty, and make the evidence prove them innocent? Naturally there will be times when the evidence appears to prove them innocent, but that's what incompetent computer technicians are for! To apply Frank's maxim thoroughly, if there are no witnesses to the guilty, it is necessary to find them, park benches are a fine place to start. If there's no actual evidence of the guilty at the scene then go to ground and grow galloping granules of guilt! It just moves across the floor if you give it forty-six days.

"....go to ground and grow galloping granules of guilt!" Gosh, that's great!

The funny thing is, it's isn't easier to assume they're guilty! Think of all the effort that went into creating the case and the evidence. Much more dramatic and definitely more fun than reality, I guess -- for the bad guys, that is. These guys need an outlet -- perhaps writing libretti for operas or something.

(You can help them with the alliteration. )

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah, you won't find too many blog administrators with a disclaimer like this:

"I reserve the right not to clear comments that fail to cite sources. Sources are not expected when dealing with common knowledge. I will not clear comments that aim offensive language at other commenters. I may not clear comments that are off-topic."

View-From-Wilmington

Do you know what someone like me thinks when I see something like that? He didn't say I couldn't use naughty words if they're not aimed at someone!

Overuse of them adversely impacts an argument and comes off as juvenile, but there are times the vernacular Anglo-Saxon expresses exactly the right sentiment. Such as what I would like to see occur the next time the police in Perugia go and give themselves medals. I've been thinking about that for a while, but I can't write it here, it's not even that bad a word. If there's one thing I agree with Treehorn on it would be this board inhibits screenwriting skills, you can't even hint at a swear word!

Just kidding though, that's a serious blog with professional grade articles. Not the place to be splitting hairs to be obnoxious.

"....go to ground and grow galloping granules of guilt!" Gosh, that's great!

The funny thing is, it's isn't easier to assume they're guilty! Think of all the effort that went into creating the case and the evidence. Much more dramatic and definitely more fun than reality, I guess -- for the bad guys, that is. These guys need an outlet -- perhaps writing libretti for operas or something.

(You can help them with the alliteration. )

You've a point, but no amount of wordplay will make a coherent case for guilt any easier to assemble. I eventually came up with something just pondering what the prosecution might do, but it could hardly pass muster in a fair courtroom, whereas the Court that convicted Raffaele and Amanda could have convicted either me or you by assembling the same kind of 'evidence.' In a very real sense if they lose the DNA 'evidence' it is easier to make a case and develop a motive for either Mignini (licentiousness--do you recall he wanted the sexual assault in the computer recreation of the crime!) or Curatolo, whom might just have had his 'alibi' for the murder broken if he's discredited...

 

[Kaosium]

I appreciate you posting here. I believe you are leaning towards guilt but not fully convinced. It is difficult being in a middle ground position. You get it from the side of innocence as well as to a lesser degree the other side. IIP maintains a general forum where opinions from both sides are allowed. View from Wilmington seems to allow both sides as well as I made many posts there even when I was leaning towards the side of guilt.

Just curious, what were the main reasons you thought they were more likely to be guilty? I recall you said it was the Massei report that changed your mind, do you remember just what it was that tipped the scales for you?

 

[Mary_H]

Do you know what someone like me thinks when I see something like that? He didn't say I couldn't use naughty words if they're not aimed at someone!

No - read it again, Kaosium. He said, "I will not clear comments that aim offensive language at other commenters."

 

[Kaosium]

No - read it again, Kaosium. He said, "I will not clear comments that aim offensive language at other commenters."

Very clearly qualified!

Though I was completely kidding, I would feel terrible if he is besieged by a bunch of foul-mouthed posters arguing guilt (or innocence) and he is Belgium-ed in the blog wars. Perhaps it's my memory playing tricks, but when reading this thread initially I believe I recall reading he had to moderate everything for a while as it got nasty.

Lots of great articles on the case there, everyone interested in either guilt or innocence should read them.

 

[treehorn]

Mais où sont les neiges d' antan?

It looks as though the 'Q.E.D. set' has left the 'LOL set' to fend for themselves. (It's not a pretty sight.)