• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
By November 2007, Curatolo would have been acting as an informant for some three years (according to my theory). It's likely that his usefulness to the police/prosecutors could have been waning, and/or that they were finding out that he was an unreliable/incompetent informant, partly owing to his continued use of heroin. So when the Meredith Kercher murder occurred, I think it's very possible that the police/prosecutors had another "friendly chat" with Curatolo. I think that in this conversation, they could have told him that they now wanted his assistance in the murder investigation. I think they could again have used the drug charges as currency, in order to "persuade" Curatolo to "remember" seeing Knox and Sollecito on the night of the murder. Essentally, the police/prosecutors could have said something along the following lines to Curatolo: "Agree to become a prosecution witness against Knox and Sollecito, or we'll arrest and charge you immediately on the heroin-dealing charges."


Your lead up to this theory is very good but then you fall apart with the "friendly chat"/conspiracy. If Curatolo had been an informant for 3 years as you said and I believe you could be correct, he would have learned over these years not to disagree with anything to police were saying or even appear to be implying. Look for example at his testimony: When asked how he knew what time it was he takes this as an instruction to come up with the answer that he wears a watch (which is conspicuously absent upon his person). When asked if he can be more precise about the time he complies with a much more precise time that he has somehow remembered after three years.

The police would not have to conspire with Curatolo. Their own ineptitude at conducting an interview would illicit the responses that they want to hear.
 
Yes, of course, absolutely and most certainly, that argument "does not matter".

It came from a person arguing guilt !!!!

Case closed, eh ??

Yawn

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be free this fall and all the lashing out and anger filled rants that will surely continue until that day will do nothing to stop it. Hopefully those who have become consumed with rage over this case will take some time when its all over and actually see the truth.

Hellmann's experts have spoken. It's over.
 
Indeed. Does it matter?...the truth came out in the end :D

AK knew RG well enough for chitchat and smoking up. Not a stranger at all.

When you have to exaggerate reality to this point it is a good sign that the argument has been lost.

I guess I am friends with the cashier at Target, the guy that takes my toll money, the guy that delivers my pizza, the guy that sat next to me a couple of times when we just happened to be waiting for the same train.

I guess I am friends with everyone at the Super Bowl party I attended last year because we ate out of the same chip bowl.

I could go on forever but there is no need. If you need to exaggerate the relationship between Amanda and Rudy to make your theory work, then it's time to rethink your theory.
 
Your lead up to this theory is very good but then you fall apart with the "friendly chat"/conspiracy. If Curatolo had been an informant for 3 years as you said and I believe you could be correct, he would have learned over these years not to disagree with anything to police were saying or even appear to be implying. Look for example at his testimony: When asked how he knew what time it was he takes this as an instruction to come up with the answer that he wears a watch (which is conspicuously absent upon his person). When asked if he can be more precise about the time he complies with a much more precise time that he has somehow remembered after three years.

The police would not have to conspire with Curatolo. Their own ineptitude at conducting an interview would illicit the responses that they want to hear.


Well, the way I look at it, there would be a difference between a) Curatolo informing on the organised crime of hard drug dealing that was going on in and around Piazza Grimana, and b) Curatolo being asked to "remember" seeing Knox and Sollecito in the square that night.

I think that the conversation may have taken the form of a coy game of suggestion and response: "Look Toto, we need you to remember certain things about the night of 1st November. You saw this girl and this guy that night, didn't you? (policeman holds up photos of Knox and Sollecito) What time did you first see them? It must have been around 9.30pm, mustn't it? And were they looking furtive and did they repeatedly look towards the cottage? And you saw them on and off for a good few hours that night? Lovely! Just repeat all that in court, and everything will be fine. And that heroin dealing thing from 2004? What heroin dealing thing?!" (policeman winks knowingly)
 
When you have to exaggerate reality to this point it is a good sign that the argument has been lost.

I guess I am friends with the cashier at Target, the guy that takes my toll money, the guy that delivers my pizza, the guy that sat next to me a couple of times when we just happened to be waiting for the same train.

I guess I am friends with everyone at the Super Bowl party I attended last year because we ate out of the same chip bowl.

I hope the Super Bowl was as joyous an event for you and your friends as it was around here! :)

I could go on forever but there is no need. If you need to exaggerate the relationship between Amanda and Rudy to make your theory work, then it's time to rethink your theory.

Think of how this would have been for Raffaele. Rudy doesn't speak English outside the naughty words, Amanda doesn't speak Italian outside the basics, and Raffaele is the only one who could possibly communicate to coordinate this event, yet he's never seen Rudy and has known Amanda all of six days. So in Mignini's fantasy, at least a couple of them, not only does the wicked little hip-wiggler have to convince Raffaele to participate, she also has to convince him to talk Rudy into it!

At any rate, how well could Amanda have known Rudy anyway? They couldn't really talk. Raffaele spoke English, Rudy did not.
 
I hope the Super Bowl was as joyous an event for you and your friends as it was around here! :)

No! The Super Bowl was not a joyous event. The Bears had their chance to knock out the Packers (when they were hobbled by injuries) in the championship game and failed. This year the Packers come back healthy and I am afraid the Bears have little chance.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

I am sure this will be reported as off topic so read it fast!
 
When you have to exaggerate reality to this point it is a good sign that the argument has been lost.

I guess I am friends with the cashier at Target, the guy that takes my toll money, the guy that delivers my pizza, the guy that sat next to me a couple of times when we just happened to be waiting for the same train.

I guess I am friends with everyone at the Super Bowl party I attended last year because we ate out of the same chip bowl.

I could go on forever but there is no need. If you need to exaggerate the relationship between Amanda and Rudy to make your theory work, then it's time to rethink your theory.

you left out all the people you know, from the internet with fake names, maybe several fake names.

just hope none of them do anything to break the law, or we all might go down! yikes!

We all know the police searched hard to connect the three, and there wasn't a email or cell call.

more fiction evidence.
 
Well, the way I look at it, there would be a difference between a) Curatolo informing on the organised crime of hard drug dealing that was going on in and around Piazza Grimana, and b) Curatolo being asked to "remember" seeing Knox and Sollecito in the square that night.

I think that the conversation may have taken the form of a coy game of suggestion and response: "Look Toto, we need you to remember certain things about the night of 1st November. You saw this girl and this guy that night, didn't you? (policeman holds up photos of Knox and Sollecito) What time did you first see them? It must have been around 9.30pm, mustn't it? And were they looking furtive and did they repeatedly look towards the cottage? And you saw them on and off for a good few hours that night? Lovely! Just repeat all that in court, and everything will be fine. And that heroin dealing thing from 2004? What heroin dealing thing?!" (policeman winks knowingly)

There's something very strange about Curatolo, as you noted, there had to be something going on there, as taking photos of him dealing heroin in 2004 and not prosecuting him until 2010 when he testifies in three murder trials in the interim is downright suspicious. However, wasn't he 'discovered' by the same paper that introduced the court to the 'wisdom' of Nara and Quintavalle, two more that are nearly as ridiculous?

His testimony in the trial of the first instance was just as absurd, with him rambling on and forcing the ToD to be extended an hour past basic possibility anyway, and of course he saw the disco buses then as well. However right as the appeal starts he's thrown in prison on that old charge, yet when he testifies again it's just as bizarre as it was the first time if not more so, and Monica Napoleoni doesn't even show up to try to rehabilitate him, very convenient as there was also testimony given at that time showing the police were told there couldn't have been disco buses by the owners themselves on November first, if the cops who patrol the area every year weren't able to figure that out for themselves.

I wonder if they did decide to use Toto, as they had in the past, when the paper brought him to their attention, but he adamantly refused to do anything but tell his 'story'--as ridiculous as it was. That worked all right for the trial of the first instance as Amanda and Raffaele were condemned before they even walked into court, and Curatolo came at the end when all had basically been decided anyway. However in the interim between trials when they realized he might have to come in again they tried to get him to work with them better and either he refused or was simply incapable of doing so. As a result they realized what a worthless asset he was to them, or perhaps in pique, or maybe a little of both, and they finally brought the hammer down on those charges hanging over his head?

Anyway you slice it, the circumstances surrounding Curatolo are downright weird.
 
It is weird...

There's something very strange about Curatolo, as you noted, there had to be something going on there, as taking photos of him dealing heroin in 2004 and not prosecuting him until 2010 when he testifies in three murder trials in the interim is downright suspicious. However, wasn't he 'discovered' by the same paper that introduced the court to the 'wisdom' of Nara and Quintavalle, two more that are nearly as ridiculous?

His testimony in the trial of the first instance was just as absurd, with him rambling on and forcing the ToD to be extended an hour past basic possibility anyway, and of course he saw the disco buses then as well. However right as the appeal starts he's thrown in prison on that old charge, yet when he testifies again it's just as bizarre as it was the first time if not more so, and Monica Napoleoni doesn't even show up to try to rehabilitate him, very convenient as there was also testimony given at that time showing the police were told there couldn't have been disco buses by the owners themselves on November first, if the cops who patrol the area every year weren't able to figure that out for themselves.

I wonder if they did decide to use Toto, as they had in the past, when the paper brought him to their attention, but he adamantly refused to do anything but tell his 'story'--as ridiculous as it was. That worked all right for the trial of the first instance as Amanda and Raffaele were condemned before they even walked into court, and Curatolo came at the end when all had basically been decided anyway. However in the interim between trials when they realized he might have to come in again they tried to get him to work with them better and either he refused or was simply incapable of doing so. As a result they realized what a worthless asset he was to them, or perhaps in pique, or maybe a little of both, and they finally brought the hammer down on those charges hanging over his head?

Anyway you slice it, the circumstances surrounding Curatolo are downright weird.
-

Kaosium,

from my way of looking at things (and as I've explained before), there is way more evidence that Curatolo helped Guede murder and rape Meredith (if only as a lookout) than Amanda and Raffaele. For Christ sakes (even though he got the days wrong), he admits being near the house when Meredith was killed, has no alibi whatsoever, and since Guede was known to deal drugs now and again, what's to say he didn't get drugs from him to (I don't know) deflect scrutiny away from him in other robberies or murders.

It would be interesting to know what other cases he testified in and where Rudy was during their commission.

Once again, just thinking out loud here,

Dave

P.S. what in 'ell is a Christian Anarchist anyway?
 
Last edited:
No! The Super Bowl was not a joyous event. The Bears had their chance to knock out the Packers (when they were hobbled by injuries) in the championship game and failed. This year the Packers come back healthy and I am afraid the Bears have little chance.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

I am sure this will be reported as off topic so read it fast!

It's like I can hear paws and whiskers twitching from here. ;)

However it does tie into something that might make for an interesting diversion whilst we wait for Daddy Hellmann to deliver his verdict. As a Bears fan, you no doubt have a vested interest in punishing incompetence, it seems to be a common theme amongst members of that curious tribe around here, you might even say there were Packer fans more empathetic towards a certain signal-caller after that game you speak of than the merciless antipathy recorded on the airwaves from his own 'supporters.' Talk about hate cults! :p

However there's something I couldn't help but notice as I was making my list of those most responsible for this travesty occurring: they kinda let the ladies twist in the wind here, didn't they? It was Napoleoni, Ficarra, Zugarini and Domino that had to go into that courtroom and tell that absurdist fantasy about cartwheels cupcakes and tea regarding the interrogation, but there were twelve police officers involved in that interrogation, most of, if not all of the rest of them, male. At least three of them outranking Napoleoni, yet they didn't seem to take any responsibility whatsoever. Isn't that strange?

Everyone whose read the Conti-Vecchiotti Report thanks to the efforts of Komponisto and Katy-Did, knows in exquisite detail what miserable and suspicious work Stefanoni did on the bra clasp and knife, but Biondi, her boss who 'independently' approved her work and may even have ordered it is hardly even mentioned, doesn't the buck stop at the top in most organizations like that? When does he get his day to squirm on the stand? As the prosecutor is the final arbiter of evidence standards assuming a compliant judge, one might look to Mignini as well in this regard, but curiously he made quite clear that Comodi is the DNA expert and he is a humble dealer in spices as far as that kind of evidence is concerned. That works out nicely for him, doesn't it?

If I were to put together a list of which officials are due condemnation, and my list is a large one even if it is never fulfilled, there is a disproportionate inclusion of the female ones, but as I stop and think on it, is that because the most is known about their role simply because the guys are hiding behind their skirts? Perhaps it is merely wishful thinking, but I think it not impossible that there could be fallout that affects more than a couple people here, although most people I've seen seem to think most will skate away unscathed. However while they didn't invent it of course, the Romans are the ones who made the 'object lesson' famous, even added cool new words for people to use about how ineffectual organizations can be punished. Perhaps something of that tradition survives in Italian culture today, so close to Rome itself and so apparently in need of some baleful oversight?
 
Last edited:
As you say, this is a classic example of the authorities rushing to judgement, then employing tunnel vision and fitting the evidence to their pre-judgement of Kiszko's guilt. It's also a classic example of the self-preservation instincts of the law enforcement personnel in their increasing desperation to defend their positions and judgement, even as more and more exculpatory evidence emerged. I would imagine that some of these individuals would be claiming to this day that they had "got the right man" if it weren't for the devastating (and incontrovertible) DNA evidence that became available later, and which proved that another man and not Kiszko was the murderer.

And this is exactly the kind of behaviour that I - and very many other rational thinkers - believe is going on in the Knox/Sollecito case. No "vast conspiracies": just an entirely explicable case of police and prosecutors rushing to judgement (in this case, accelerated by the perceived need to "solve the crime" quickly and efficiently, and to appear competent in carrying out major murder investigations), then suffering from tunnel vision and confirmation bias in their urge to "confirm" their judgement. I'm confident that if there is a proper judicial inquiry once Knox and Sollecito are acquitted, at least some of this will be exposed to the light.

What about the people for which there was no DNA evidence? I'll bet the innocent people exonerated is small in comparison to the number still in jail.

Then there is the other category - those (like Amanda and Raffaele) convicted because of FALSE DNA evidence or planted DNA evidence. The nice thing about those early cases was that they didn't know about DNA evidence and thus couldn't plant false DNA evidence.

And then there are those cases where tag team interrogations elicited false confessions (like the Tucson Four and Amanda).

These are the neo-dark ages.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course, absolutely and most certainly, that argument "does not matter".

It came from a person arguing guilt !!!!

Case closed, eh ??

Yawn

If you're bored, then maybe you should start answering multiple questions about the case that were asked by many here, instead of attacking other members opinions in a not so polite manner.

Start with time of death. The rest is up for you to decide, however, to date, NO ONE from the guilt side offered a plausible scenario about what happened that night. So maybe you could come up with one? Oh and how is it possible for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not leaving any traces in the murder room? Forget the bra clasp. Hellmann's experts ruled it out.
 
Last edited:
A version of the facts we knew to be true

Initially, the American gave a version of events we knew to be incorrect. She buckled and gave a version of the facts we knew to be correct. As a result we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles. (Quoted from memory)​

This notorious quote from Arturo di Felice after the arrests on Nov 6 came from a Newsweek report, and of course it doesn't give much room for any interpretation other than that the police forced Amanda to agree to their version of "the facts" - IOW, her so-called "accusation" against Patrick Lumumba was fed to her by the interrogators.

My question is: is the Newsweek report the original source of this quote? I would think that they would have got it from an Italian language source - if so, what were di Felice's original words in Italian, and what scope is there for any different translation?
 
They could have said "barely knew", but they didn't. They said "never even met"

You are being a little naughty, IMO. That is not a sole basis for anything except that it shows someone was dishonestly misrepresenting AK's relationship to the owner of the palm print in the victim's blood. I think it was most likely AK herself, although it could have been Ciolino's creative urge getting the better of him.

I think we're all on the same page insofar as their statement was wrong. Not very wrong, but certainly wrong.

However I don't see what hangs on this. Knox and Sollecito were not convicted on the issue of whether they had "never even met" Rudy or "had seen him a few times but didn't even know his name". The people who made this mistake were not police or prosecutors and had no control over the outcome of the trial.

The sole point seems to be "Ha ha! Someone on the pro-innocence side got something wrong!". It's true but I don't see where it gets you.

I can't bring myself to condemn the "case closed" remark because it has been thoroughly vindicated. The authorities have my admiration for investigating thoroughly and not doing it the most convenient (and crooked) way by being satisfied with an African man under arrest. (which is exactly what AK and RS hoped/expected they would)

Well now you're just trolling.
 
Mary,

I find your posts much more interesting than long boring lectures on door locks, if that makes you feel any better.

Thank you, HB. :) I feel the same about yours. I almost feel like I may have met you before through the transmission of your energy across the parallel dimensions of time and space. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom