Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Why do you suppose common law appellate courts are loath to second guess findings of fact made by trial jurors?

I'm rather surprised that you don't understand the "de novo" nature of appeal trials in Italy - despite your legal training.......

 

[LondonJohn]

So what he's basically saying is that:

- he saw Amanda and Raffaele arguing vividly in front of the cottage while there were kids in the masks, the disco buses were also there
- at the same time he claims he's sure that the next day "the white suits" came and police asked questions.

How's this reliable? How's this possible? How can any guilter say that Curatolo is credible? How?

Curatolo is now rendered utterly incredible (in the strict definition of the word). I also find it interesting that he apparently readily admits to taking heroin throughout 2007 - almost as if he's providing himself with some sort of get out: "Oh I was on smack, so it's not my fault if I mixed up days and events...".

I wonder if the lovely, kindly Curatolo smelled of heroin in October 2010......

 

[LondonJohn]

a) the shop keeper has not been discredited, has he?

b) Raffaele is still refusing to back Amanda's version, no?

c) what about the computer logs, cell tower pings and telephone records?

Their alibis are, in point of fact, an unmitigated disaster, hence their current addresses.

Were you really under the impression that the homeless man was the entire case?!

a) Oh, he will be, if the appeal trial even ever gets that far. I guarantee it.

b) Simply not true

c) What about them? How, pray, are they indicative of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt?

PS: I'm performing my dance quintet at Crane Jackson's Fountain Street Theatre on Tuesday night, and I'd love it if you came and gave me notes

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL. Yes, I consider myself flogged on that one, and I will take your criticism constructively. No, I have not seen a report that indicated he was using heroin on that particular night, although I am not certain any longer of what night it is he is even talking about.

Rose, if this is representative of the best arguments that people like PP can come up with regarding Curatolo's credibility, I think we can safely agree that the game's over

 

[bri1]

Good to see you back LondonJohn.
I agree, the wriggling from some on the pro-guilt side is pathetic, and bordering on Orwellian. Toto is completely discredited- the combination of the disco buses and the masks, and the fact he himself says it was halloween, means that Toto was definitely referring to 31st October in any assertion that he saw AK and RS at the basketball court. The fact that Amanda was definitely not where Toto says on Halloween either, rules out a straight-forward confusion on Toto's part, and means he's lying about having seen them at all. Any night.
This lie might not be one that Toto himself is particularly conscious of. We've seen how good the ILE can be at 'suggesting' things to people, and making them believe they have memories they don't have. The confusion of Toto about which night the lie is supposed to be about, is some quirk of a confused (and violated) mind. I believe the ILE and the prosecution have victimised and used and violated Toto iin similar, although less severe ways, as they have Amanda and Raffaele.
This might sound convoluted to a pro-guilt commentator, and one thing that has been a hallmark of pro-guilt thinking is the idea that a 'defensive' account of what happened both before, during and after the crime, and the investigation should be simple, with all the small oddities and discrepancies explained. Real life is messy, people go through the mundanities of everyday life in ways that might seem odd to others, and psychology is quirky.

 

[pilot padron]

LOL. Yes, I consider myself flogged on that one, and I will take your criticism constructively. No, I have not seen a report that indicated he was using heroin on that particular night, although I am not certain any longer of what night it is he is even talking about.

......although I am not certain any longer of what night it is he is even talking about.

To borrow from the Urban Dictionary, all I can add is.......Touche

1)to admit that an opponent in an argument has made a good point
2)to admit when someone has said a good comeback line

Additionally, if I may just offer an admittedly somewhat 'agenda driven' spin myself:

1) He absolutely maintains that it was the night before he saw the forensic police "extraterrestrials" in front of the cottage and the night before police were in making inquiries near his 'home' in the Plaza.

2) It is pretty much accepted that masks were worn by Students near his 'home' on a couple nights before and after Halloween

3) Why did the defense attorneys who so clamored for his appearance not use the opportunity to ask the tough cross examination questions that the learned Judge Hellman perceived to be pertinent enough that he had to intervene ?

 

[LondonJohn]

......although I am not certain any longer of what night it is he is even talking about.

To borrow from the Urban Dictionary, all I can add is.......Touche

1)to admit that an opponent in an argument has made a good point
2)to admit when someone has said a good comeback line

Additionally, if I may just offer an admittedly somewhat 'agenda driven' spin myself:

1) He absolutely maintains that it was the night before he saw the forensic police in front of the cottage and the night before police were in making inquires 'near his home'.

2) It is pretty much accepted that masks were worn by Students near his 'home' on a couple nights before and after Halloween

2) It most emphatically is NOT accepted. Because it is incorrect. 1st November is a sombre religious holiday when most young Italians have a meal with their families. They are NOT out and about in Halloween costumes. And "PMF reporter" Stuart Home is either ignorant, misinformed or willfully misleading if he says that people typically wander around in Halloween costumes in Italian cities on 1st November. Get it right please.

PS Why don't you post under the same user name you use on PMF?

 

[Danny]

Do you know for a fact that as you strongly infer, that Mr Curatolo testified that he used (was under influence of) heroin the night he testifies he saw the two convicted murderers near his bench ??

What night did he see the convicted murderers near his bench?

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW Some media accounts do seem to have Curatolo admitting to using heroin on the night(s) in question in November 2007. And it also appears that "Toto" has previous convictions for drugs offences and matters "relating to his political beliefs"*, and that he believes he's living the life of Christ. Oooooooo-kayyyyyyyyyyy. Still, at least he smells nice

*Wonder why these previous convictions didn't come up when the first court was trying to assess his credibility as a prosecution witness? Sounds like another ball-up by the defence teams in the first trial to me.

 

[LondonJohn]

What night did he see the convicted murderers near his bench?

I really think that it's time for even the most irrational pro-guilt advocates to pack up their tents on the issue of Curatolo. He's worthless and tainted as a prosecution witness - that's perfectly clear to anyone with even an ounce of objectivity.

Sad how some still try to spin the Curatolo issue as neutral at worst, or even positive for the prosecution. It lowers my respect for their argumental skills yet further.

 

[pilot padron]

Curatolo is now rendered utterly incredible (in the strict definition of the word). I also find it interesting that he apparently readily admits to taking heroin throughout 2007 - almost as if he's providing himself with some sort of get out: "Oh I was on smack, so it's not my fault if I mixed up days and events...".

I wonder if the lovely, kindly Curatolo smelled of heroin in October 2010......

Quite a stretch to spin a direct reply to a question from the Judge into a conspiratorial, evil, underhanded.... ' some sort of get out' '...tisn't 'tit...

 

[LondonJohn]

......although I am not certain any longer of what night it is he is even talking about.

To borrow from the Urban Dictionary, all I can add is.......Touche

1)to admit that an opponent in an argument has made a good point
2)to admit when someone has said a good comeback line

Additionally, if I may just offer an admittedly somewhat 'agenda driven' spin myself:

1) He absolutely maintains that it was the night before he saw the forensic police "extraterrestrials" in front of the cottage and the night before police were in making inquiries near his 'home' in the Plaza.

2) It is pretty much accepted that masks were worn by Students near his 'home' on a couple nights before and after Halloween

3) Why did the defense attorneys who so clamored for his appearance not use the opportunity to ask the tough cross examination questions that the learned Judge Hellman perceived to be pertinent enough that he had to intervene ?

3) You don't understand the Italian legal process, clearly. The judicial panel question witnesses in the same way as the counsels for the prosecution and defence, and indeed they have the right to conduct their own investigations. Surely you've been following this case long enough to know that?

I'm also supposing that the defence teams had heard enough out of Curatolo's mouth to prove their point that he could not properly remember the crucial night in question, since he's already confused it demonstrably with Halloween. That - in and of itself - rendered his "testimony" about seeing Knox/Sollecito on the night of the 1st November completely worthless, and that's all the defence needed to show. The judge's (his name's Hellmann, by the way) additional questioning re his heroin use and previous convictions only served to show what a sad, pathetic figure Curatolo cut, and further questions Mignini's actions in promoting him as a major witness in the first place.

 

[Danny]

I really think that it's time for even the most irrational pro-guilt advocates to pack up their tents on the issue of Curatolo. He's worthless and tainted as a prosecution witness - that's perfectly clear to anyone with even an ounce of objectivity.

Sad how some still try to spin the Curatolo issue as neutral at worst, or even positive for the prosecution. It lowers my respect for their argumental skills yet further.

Not one newspaper report I have read so far indicates anything other than that Curatolo has been totally discredited. A typical headline would be 'Key witness for the prosecution changes his story'.

Not one newspaper has even raised the possibility that there actually were people in masks and disco buses running on Nov 1st. The reports just flatly say the buses weren't running.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quite a stretch to spin a direct reply to a question from the Judge into a conspiratorial, evil, underhanded.... ' some sort of get out' '...tisn't 'tit...

"tisnt 'tit"? What does that mean?

Curatolo could easily have offered a non-committal or simply a negative answer to such a question - after all, how could the court ever prove whether or not he was using heroin in 2007? Either way, he cuts a pretty unsubstantial, shambling figure - not only as of today, when he was brought from prison to testify, but also in 2007.

 

[Danny]

BTW Some media accounts do seem to have Curatolo admitting to using heroin on the night(s) in question in November 2007. And it also appears that "Toto" has previous convictions for drugs offences and matters "relating to his political beliefs"*, and that he believes he's living the life of Christ. Oooooooo-kayyyyyyyyyyy. Still, at least he smells nice

*Wonder why these previous convictions didn't come up when the first court was trying to assess his credibility as a prosecution witness? Sounds like another ball-up by the defence teams in the first trial to me.

Curatolo needs help, both drug rehab and psychological help. This has been obvious from the start. Instead Mignini chose to exploit this vulnerable man and convince him to perjure himself on the stand. I hold Mignini not Curatolo responsible for this farce.

 

[pilot padron]

PS Why don't you post under the same user name you use on PMF?

Is it necessary to remind such an experienced poster as yourself about on topic protocol here as well as Moderator boxed warnings ?????

Some off-topic posts moved to AAH.

Other forums are not the topic of this thread. Thanks

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7001238#post7001238

 

[lane99]

I must say that I find it quite entertaining...you seem oblivious to the possibility that people reading your comments will not be impressed.

Irony, thy neck wears a towel.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it necessary to remind such an experienced poster as yourself about on topic protocol here as well as Moderator boxed warnings ?????

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7001238#post7001238

I wasn't discussing another forum - I was discussing your posting style. But I'm guessing this is a subject you're not keen to expand upon, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Katody Matrass]

LondonJohn!
Great to see you back and good to know you were around all the time

His absolute trustworthiness, Toto the Tramp indeed said he used to enjoy heroin during 2007 and apparently was drugged also at the time when he "saw what he saw".

I wonder what experienced defence lawyers think about it?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I think things will get a little heated in here today. News-wise, this was not a good day for guilters.