Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

Couple final thoughts on the witness discussions

Long ago in a University level Safety Board Accident Investigator Course, I was personally startled when the Instructor started a lecture with the admonition that often eye witness reports are not only the least helpful sources to determine final cause; but can actually be unhelpful.
Particularly if *individual* reports are given undue weight in the overall Investigation.

The point which IMHO was indeed well taken and had particular application here is that until *all* the evidence is collected, and *all* the individual eye witness reports are compared *and correlated*; attempts to state final cause (verdict) are not only premature, but probably inaccurate.
Especially since the *individual* reports usually contain some conflicting and/or impossible parts.

Many of the points about Mr Curatolo, Ms Capezzeli, etcc that you bring up here are certainly worthy of discussion. (and also difficult to defend)
However until the final examination of *all* the evidential ingredients by trained individuals privy to the incredible huge amount of evidence that we are not, is completed, the witness discrepancies so far are 'discussion worthy' but hardly 'game changers'.

Several of the posters here who I have (admittedly rarely announced) admiration for (and there are several), often resort to asking a dissenter to produce a full theoretical scenario.
(sometimes as a 'put up or shut up' challenge)

Asking this from another who also has at best very scant knowledge of *all* the evidence is unfair and often not helpful.
However, may I suggest the request of itself verifies and adds credence to the Safety Course Instructor's lesson objective about *individual* eye witnesses.

PS:
Por Favor; (please and thank you); save me (and the PhD Instructor) the agony of enduring a collectively chanted chorus of the tired and tedious talking point about 'arguing from authority'... I get that too.

 

[Alt+F4]

Is it true that the court will not reconvene again until May 21st?

 

[snook1]

Is it true that the court will not reconvene again until May 21st?

Yes.

 

[Chris C]

How does the "broken-down car" close off a time before 11:30?

It doesn't close off the time before 11:30pm, it closes off a ToD between 10pm to 11:30pm.
It closes off the time because 3 people that have committed no crime have no reason to sneak into a house where 1 of the 3 live. No lights are turned on either. So all 3 of them would have had to sneak into the house and kill Meredith without turning lights on. The prosecution/judges believe this crime to be not pre-meditated. Sneaking into a house would be a pre-meditated act.
The prosecution uses Nara to say she heard Meredith scream. People outside the house don't hear a scream. So the scream would have to be heard after 11:30.
So basicly even if Curatolo's testimony gets tossed they still have to stick with the after 11:30 scenario. Because the only person that has a reason to sneak into a house is someone that has no reason to be there.

 

[Chris C]

a) To say that "Frank" writes better than Nadeau is to depart wholly with reality; are you making a joke?

b) Who told you that anyone was jealous of "Frank", was it "Frank"?

c) I saw a picture on "Perugia Murder File" yesterday purporting to depict "Frank" sitting next to the accused's step father (Mellas), behind the lap top they used to start a pro-Amanda blog.

To wit, "Frank" traded objectivity for "access" to the accused's parents.

Indeed, he may well be paid by the accused's family (whose use of PR agents is no secret).


How is that objective journalism (assuming that you could call someone without a J school education a journalist in the first place)?

Thats a hypocritical statement. You accuse Frank of taking money from a pr campaign in an attempt to make him sound less credible without trying to discredit what he writes. However, its ok for all those journalists and book writers to write false information that has been discredited as a bunch of nonsense and take money for what they write, so long as the false information they get are from the people trying to convict them.


You need to look up the definition of objective journalism. When you are done looking up the definition, you need search through all the articles that support guilt and innocent and determine if they are objective. Since sometime in early 2008 or maybe even 2007, I dont think Frank has claimed anything other than that he believes Knox/Sollecito to be innocent. You dont need a J school education to write the truth or to write well. Some of the best writers went to school for something other than writing.

 

[Chris C]

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?!

Discredited in what way. Other than his employees not backing his version of the events that morning and the investigators testimony in which he says Quintavalle gave a different version to him. I guess if you want, you can claim him as credible if you feel its ok to change your story to a reporter. Heck maybe the investigator cuffed him a few times to get him to say he didn't see knox that morning.

Yeah I really wish Sollecito would change his mind and say he would be 100 percent positive that Knox couldn't have gotten out of bed while he was passed out from smoking dope and then left and returned before he woke up. Yeah thats a real alibi breaker there.


You mean the computer logs that showed someone was accessing the computer at the time of Meredith's murder or the cell phone records that show neither Knox or Sollecito had any contact with Guede? Well any contact in which Guede wasn't stalking Knox and Meredith. I mean if you read what that guy wrote about knox. About how amazed by her he was the first time they met and she was so good at smoking pot. Those wonderful things he observed were observed from across the room.

 

[Chris C]

......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 ?

Your right about one thing. On the night before he saw the forensic police in their white outfits at around 1pm to 2pm, he was a regular heroin user that wasn't hallucinating when he saw Knox/Sollecito, buses and halloween costumes.

 

[Chris C]

Chris, did you actually read that ugly army cadence you linked to? If you did, why would you chime in and try to stick up for this guy?



Seconded.



You appear to be in the same camp as Chris, not in the least offended by it.

I didn't stick up for him. He asked about it and I told him to google it. Maybe you should reread what I wrote?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Chris, did you actually read that ugly army cadence you linked to? If you did, why would you chime in and try to stick up for this guy?

Seconded.

You appear to be in the same camp as Chris, not in the least offended by it.

Can we please stick to the topic?

Whether or not someone's username offends you is irrelevant to the case. Start a new thread if you want to talk about it.

I swear, it's almost as if you guys want to talk about something other than the new evidence: the facts that the DNA results cannot be replicated and Toto's testimony has gone down the toilet, leaving no evidence whatsoever that Amanda and Raffaele were ever outside their house on the night of the murder, or ever present in the murder room.

 

[Alt+F4]

I swear, it's almost as if you guys want to talk about something other than the new evidence: the facts that the DNA results cannot be replicated...

When was this new evidence released? I thought the DNA experts had until May to present their findings to the court.

 

[Danceme]

Another OT. Just watching a show called The Investigators, an American true crime show. A couple were killed in their home in Virginia and the initial hypothesis, based on what appeared to be imprints resembling the number six on the floor, is that it was a form of satanism or ritualistic killing. Do cops the world over learn in Policing 101 that this is a common cause of murder or what? How many murders are actually proven to be related to satanism I wonder?

 

[Chris C]

Another OT. Just watching a show called The Investigators, an American true crime show. A couple were killed in their home in Virginia and the initial hypothesis, based on what appeared to be imprints resembling the number six on the floor, is that it was a form of satanism or ritualistic killing. Do cops the world over learn in Policing 101 that this is a common cause of murder or what? How many murders are actually proven to be related to satanism I wonder?

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=5806

I have always wondered what the guideline used for determining something as a ritualistic killing. What guideline did they use for initially thinking Meredith's murder was ritualistic?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

When was this new evidence released? I thought the DNA experts had until May to present their findings to the court.

I said talk about the new evidence, not pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[billyryan]

When was this new evidence released? I thought the DNA experts had until May to present their findings to the court.

The prosecution got a head start in this case by leaking lies,now the truth is been leaked by the court appointed DNA experts and the prosecution are crying fowl,there was probably never any dna on the knife either Amanda's or Merridiths, anyone that believes storing the bra clasp in a jar of liquid happened by accident needs to have a serious chat with themselves it was done to try and cover up how they were framing Raffaele Sollecito

The other big news apart from Curatolo is that the brave Monica Napoleoni failed to show up today,if Stefanoni was unable to cover up her treachery, she is now haunted by the prospect of whether or not she can get away with destroying the tapes of her hitting Amanda Knox,now she has the same problem as Rudy after he breaks in a second story window she cannot control her bowels and was unable to risk removing her arse long enough off the toilet bowl to attend court,

 

[Darth Rotor]

You appear to be in the same camp as Chris, not in the least offended by it.

Nor am I.

What almost offends me (it actually amuses me) is the amount of brain power and energy wasted on this thread.

What skin do you folks have in this game?

 

[Alt+F4]

I said talk about the new evidence, not pretend it doesn't exist.

Again, where is this new evidence regarding the DNA? You said in in post #5794 that:

the DNA results cannot be replicated

When was this "new evidence" submitted to the court?

 

[Draca]

Isabella Lucarelli and Monica Napolenoi - No testimony

The other big news apart from Curatolo is that the brave Monica Napoleoni failed to show up today,if Stefanoni was unable to cover up her treachery, she is now haunted by the prospect of whether or not she can get away with destroying the tapes of her hitting Amanda Knox,now she has the same problem as Rudy after he breaks in a second story window she cannot control her bowels and was unable to risk removing her arse long enough off the toilet bowl to attend court,

Another officer, Isabella Lucarelli, was suppose to testify that Toto Curatolo meant a regular bus and not a Disco bus. In court today Toto apparently said firmly numerous times that he was SURE it was a DISCO bus. It was pointless for the officer to even testify that he was simply mistaken at that point and she never testified. The same may have happened with Monica Napoleoni if she had shown up.

 

[Alt+F4]

In court today Toto apparently said firmly numerous times that he was SURE it was a DISCO bus.

Could you provide a link to his verbatim testimony so we could actually know what he said as opposed to what the media said he said?

 

[Draca]

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.

I agree with this. Toto is park bench tramp with no credibility. He was used in this trial, and most likely two other trials, to help the prosecution team. The prosecution knew full well that he didn't see anything, they used him to frame innocent people. I can't hate Toto for being a troubled, homeless, heroin addict and liar. The news today said he's around 54 yrs old and he looks 15yrs older. Mignini, Comodi, Maresca,Massei, etc. on the other hand .......

Quintavalle will have no such excuse. He is neither OLD or a HOMELESS ADDICT. He's a despicable liar end of story. He should be charged with perjury. Even in his case I find the prosecution more guilty. Massei new his testimony had been refuted and accepted it anyway because he needed it convict innocent college students.

 

[HumanityBlues]

So I think it's pretty obvious that the tide is turning in this case. Some guilters will disagree, but let's be honest-----not that perceptive to begin with. All I want to know is, if AK and RS are released, will we see the steadfast translation effort for Hellman's motivation document on PMF?

I kind of already know the answer, but it would be great if someone would raise that on PMF. I of course would myself, but c'mon, I'd be banned in like two seconds.