Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Perhaps the apology was addressed to the court

Hi everybody,
As I doubt that any who debate this brutal murder case attended any of they OG trial hearings, please allow me to help whack a mole again, as Dan O. calls it, for this this concerns Amanda Knox's lack of apology for allegedly fingerin' Patrick Lumumba to the cops, something which really seems to bother members of the pro-guilt crew elsewhere.


So check this out. I was reading a little about a diary that Amanda Knox had written in while in prison back in Nov. 2007. Just after she had finished writing in it again, the police came into her cell and took this diary from her on Nov. 29, 2007.

What she had written was that she had 3 goals for her court appearance the next day, Nov. 30, 2007:

1) She wanted to confirm the memoriale the she had written on Nov. 6th, expressing doubt about the Patrick story.
2) To tell the judges that she was "SURE" that she was not there when Meredith Kercher died.
3) To assure them she'd only named Patrick Lumumba because "I was stressed and pressured by the police. They brainwashed me."*


Interestingly, when court was over the next day, a person who attended the hearing had this to say:
"She proclaimed her innocence and to convince the court, she used tears, the weapon of talent. She claimed she'd spent the night at Raffaele's place. She also apologized to Patrick. The scene was beautiful, but the judges didn't burst into applause.*"
Author: Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock

How come some pro-guilt believers constantly keep on saying that Amanda did not apologize to Patrick? It seems that Amanda Knox did so waaaay back on Nov. 30, 2007. If you were in court that day, maybe you too would have heard the apology.


*Ref: Page 230+231, Murder in Italy, Author: Candace Dempsey

RWVBWL,

I seem to recall that the people who claimed that she did not apologize were parsing her words in an extremely (and in my view, unduly) narrow way. Possibly she apologized to the court for naming Patrick, as opposed to apologizing to Patrick. One link here. Earlier link here.

 

[Diocletus]

*sigh*

"The Machine" posts the following misrepresentation on .org in his latest attempt to discredit elements of the pro-acquittal argument:




Hmmm. Is "The Machine" ignorant of the true argument here, or is (s)he simply flat-out lying in an attempt to mislead? Either way, let me clear up the ways in which this sentence is wrong in every single way:

Firstly, let's talk about buses. It's a straw man and a misdirection to discuss the issue of there being other buses in Piazza Grimana on the night of November 1st 2007. As "The Machine" very well knows, Curatolo made explicit reference to disco buses in his testimony, and he backs this up with explicit "recall" of groups of students/young people in masks and costumes in a party mood queuing up to get on these buses. Curatolo had lived in that square for roughly a decade: he was very well aware of the difference between disco buses (older-style white buses with no liveries or advertising) and either municipal buses (bright blue or yellow modern buses with copious advertising on their sides) or tourist buses (usually liveried, and if they were even present in Piazza Grimana at that time of night, they would most definitely have been disgorging passengers rather than picking up hordes of people). Curatolo asserted that there were disco buses present that night. There were no disco buses running that night. Therefore Curatolo's testimony is severely discredited.

Secondly, let's deal with this issue of discos/bars/clubs being open. It appears that "The Machine" is still either ignorant of the truth on this issue, or (s)he is too stupid to understand it. Here is the truth: all of the large out-of-town clubs/discos were indeed closed on the evening of 1st November 2007. These clubs/discos hire buses to ferry people from the population centre (i.e. Perugia) out to the clubs - the clubs are essentially in the middle of nowhere, and they therefore lay on the buses in order to get people there and back with ease. By contrast, most of the bars and clubs within Perugia itself were open on the evening of 1st November. But these bars/clubs/discos do not lay on buses to ferry people to their premises: there is no point in them doing so, as they are in the middle of Perugia and thus easily accessible for potential customers.

So "the groupies" do not in fact think that the only buses running in Piazza Grimana that evening were disco buses, and nor do we think that all the bars/clubs/discos in and around Perugia were closed that evening. But it's irrelevant what other buses might have been in Piazza Grimana that evening, since Curatolo specifically referred to disco buses in his testimony. And there were no disco buses running that night, because all the large out-of-town clubs/discos (the only ones to lay on such buses) were indeed closed that evening.

It's strange that someone who has been so very deeply involved with commentating on this case for so long can still get basics like this so wrong. Perhaps his Italian lawyer can put him straight on a few things......?


* "Groupies" is the standard pro-guilt term of insult for pro-acquittal or pro-innocence commentators, for those who were unacquainted with the term.

It seems to me that the truth is that Curatalo is a heroin junky. Who cares about buses.

 

[Diocletus]

Top 10 Reasons That We Know The Cops Hit Knox

1. Giobi heard her, from outside the room, yelling during the interrogation. This suggests severe mistreatment.

2. The Ficarra addendum to the second statement claims that Knox was hitting herself, possibly a sign that Ficarra was doing the hitting and was trying to gainsay an explanation for her own hitting of Knox.

3. The Gift statement is a prompt allegation of hitting, boldly provided by Knox directly to the police. Knox at that time would not directly accuse the police of hitting if it hadn't really happened.

4. There are no interrogation tapes. This despite the fact that the cops were taping all sorts of Knox communications and interviews with other witness. And despite the fact that Knox speaks a foreign language, and was being interrogated via interpreter.

5. The authorities have given conflicting reasons for the lack of tapes: they "forgot" to tape/they had no budget for taping. This indicates deception.

6. The cops had motive and opportunity to destroy the tapes after reading the Gift Letter. In addition to proving the hitting allegation, the tapes also would also would have demonstrated that the cops believed that Knox was a suspect from the beginning of the interview and therefore they violated her right to counsel, as the Supreme Court has already held. Therefore, multiple persons with access to the tapes, including Napoleoni, Ficarra and Mignini, would have wanted them destroyed.

7. Cop testimony about the interrogation is deceptive. Come on. We know they thought that she was involved and that they gave her the third degree. It was an interrogation. If they had just said that they raised their voices and put a lot of pressure on her, I think we could believe that. But this description of all of the niceties is artificial, not credible, and demonstrates deception.

8. Knox testimony is credible. She said the cops mistreated her and hit her. We know for a fact that she was heard yelling during the interrogation. Her testimony is not overstated--she never said that they punched her, just that the slapped her on the back of the head. This is consistent with all of her statements about the treatment, including the contemporaneous Gift letter.

9. Lumumba has also confirmed that the cops hit him. These cops are hitters, particularly of people who they believe are weak and vulnerable.

10. The authorities have refused to investigate the interrogation. Comodi says that there is no investigation to be done, demonstrating the futility of pursuing the claim with the Perugia authorities. Where are the tape logs/interview notes? Where are the witness accounts of what happened? The refusal to conduct any kind of investigation suggests subterfuge.

Conclusion: The cops hit her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the mixed blood fallacy

It was also repugnant to hear Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt discussing their thoughts on the 'mixed blood'. How do they still not have it clear after almost 4 years of reporting that there is absolutely no proof that there was 'mixed blood'? It makes me want to throw something at the TV in frustration, similar to a blown ref call during an NFL game.

Andrea Vogt in particular mentions discussing this with an expert. She is obviously talking about the notorious Luciano Garofano whose comments in Darkness Descending about 'mixed blood' should see his expert title removed permanently.

Draca,

It cannot be overemphasized that DNA profiling is not even a presumptive test for blood, let alone a confirmatory one, as I have documented here on many occasions. Mixed DNA does not imply mixed blood, and a positive reaction with luminol is not that uncommon, let alone a confirmatory test for blood.

I also repeat the following challenge to Barbie, Andrea, and anyone else: Take a few drops of diluted blood from someone who does not live in your house, and put it on or near the drain plug of your bathroom sink. Ask a lab tech. to swab it and to profile the results for DNA. If this were done 10 times, I would hazard a guess that we would see more than one case in which DNA from someone besides the donor of the blood showed up.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems to me that the truth is that Curatalo is a heroin junky. Who cares about buses.

This is true. And by his own admission he was very probably using on the night of the murder (and all the surrounding nights as well). And this is before we've even touched on the mysterious issue of why the police had irrefutable evidence of his heroin dealing way back in 2004, yet didn't charge him of this crime until late 2010.

In my opinion (and yours, and indeed that of anyone with objectivity and half-decent reasoning skills), these things on their own would be enough to raise sufficient questions about the reliability, accuracy and veracity of Curatolo's testimony, as well as the motivation behind it. But we also have the bonus of being able to show that Curatolo was demonstrably wrong in some of the specific details he used in an attempt to add credibility (oops!) to his testimony.

There were no disco buses: none of the clubs/discos that used such buses were open on the evening of November 1st 2007. There were no people in masks and costumes: November 1st is a very sober religious holiday in Italy, where people remember dead relatives, and it's still widely observed and respected by most Italians including the younger generation. There were categorically no people wandering around Perugia in ghoul masks and costumes - that would have been a supremely disrespectful thing to do on All Saints' Day, the evening of which is typically marked by a sober family meal where family members who've died are remembered and commemorated.

All of this together adds up to a categorical demolition of Curatolo's testimony, and a fairly damning criticism of the prosecution for putting him forward as a key witness in the first place. And the important questions still remain: did prosecutors know of Curatolo's heroin-dealing evidence when they put him on the stand? If not, why not? Why wasn't this information disclosed to the defence in the first trial? And the biggest question of all: why did it take over SIX years for police/prosecutors to use the cast-iron evidence collected against Curatolo to arrest/charge him with heroin dealing?

 

[Diocletus]

And the important questions still remain: did prosecutors know of Curatolo's heroin-dealing evidence when they put him on the stand? If not, why not? Why wasn't this information disclosed to the defence in the first trial? And the biggest question of all: why did it take over SIX years for police/prosecutors to use the cast-iron evidence collected against Curatolo to arrest/charge him with heroin dealing?

Good point. Another in a long list of exculpatory items that the prosecution destroyed, attempted to hide, or never disclosed.

What an absolute disgrace the discovery practice has been in this case.

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
And the important questions still remain: did prosecutors know of Curatolo's heroin-dealing evidence when they put him on the stand? If not, why not? Why wasn't this information disclosed to the defence in the first trial? And the biggest question of all: why did it take over SIX years for police/prosecutors to use the cast-iron evidence collected against Curatolo to arrest/charge him with heroin dealing?

I'm sure Yummi would tell you that unless the defense specifically asked the prosecution if Curatolo was a heroin dealer and user, there was no reason for them to be told.

It took them 6 years because they needed Curatolo away from the press and the defense when they finally charged him. The risk became too great to allow him to talk freely so they put him away.

 

[Grinder]

Pilot,

Please explain how this PR company can control the media?

Explain one more time how wine and pasta convinced reporters (well Pisa is a reporter) to say what Dateline wanted them to say.

You all should check out Barbie's and Andrea's work before Nov. 1, 2007 - they were travel magazine stringers.

 

[Dan O.]

The last activation was at 06:22 which indicates activity on the computer ended just after 06:02 which just happens to be the time raffaele's phone received the SMS from his dad.

How do you conclude that? There were multiple active and inactive periods between 6:00 and 6:22.

You are right. The two periods lasting only 8 and 4 minutes between activations of the screensaver seem to be too short for the default time. This interval can be set to as short as 3 minutes but it is more probable that a "Hot Corner" was defined to activate the screensaver manually.

Then there is the message from Raffaele about the keyboard light log which appears to be additional confirmation of activity.

What is that message? I can't recall anything like that.

That was a private email. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it.

The defense requested that an independent expert be appointed te reexamine the computer data. Hellmann apparently didn't think this was necessary. The prosecution made no response even though the had access to the same data and the documentation was explicit about what data was being discussed."

Regardless of Hellmann or the prosecution the defence has the disk.
How is it that they have not found anything after 21:26?

You all seem to expect that there will be some exculpatory findings on the computer.
But the truth is that even Raffaele did not expect it.
And he must know why.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there were exculpatory findings on the computer which the prosecutions experts had overlooked or deliberately ignored.

None of us expect that we will need to prove our whereabouts on any given night. The burden of proof must be on the prosecution to prove that Raffaele was not at home. If you allow that burden to be shifted, you could be the next victim of an overzealous prosecutor.

Most of the evidence that would exist on that computer would have been overwritten by subsequent use. If Raffaele had even suspected that he could have been a suspect, he should have made his own backup of his computer and sequestered it with a lawyer. But why would he suspect that he would be suspected? He was nowhere near the cottage that night.

 

[christianahannah]

RWVBWL,

I seem to recall that the people who claimed that she did not apologize were parsing her words in an extremely (and in my view, unduly) narrow way. Possibly she apologized to the court for naming Patrick, as opposed to apologizing to Patrick. One link here. Earlier link here.

I think some of this subject of a non-apology to Patrick came from Amanda's testimony during her June 2009 court appearance where she was asked whether she had apologized to Patrick and she replied no.

There is another source (besides Frank) which also says Amanda offered an apology (to the court for Patrick or to Patrick himself):

The American stuident, who appeared in court wearing brown trousers and a sweatshirt, said: “I am sorry for Patrick and for the whole situation.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2974731.ece

Amanda has recently made an apology to Patrick during one of the appeal court hearings. And she has been quoted (through her attorney) in Il Messaggero concerning Patrick (though there is some dispute about this interview).

 

[davefoc]

Draca,

It cannot be overemphasized that DNA profiling is not even a presumptive test for blood, let alone a confirmatory one, as I have documented here on many occasions. Mixed DNA does not imply mixed blood, and a positive reaction with luminol is not that uncommon, let alone a confirmatory test for blood.

I also repeat the following challenge to Barbie, Andrea, and anyone else: Take a few drops of diluted blood from someone who does not live in your house, and put it on or near the drain plug of your bathroom sink. Ask a lab tech. to swab it and to profile the results for DNA. If this were done 10 times, I would hazard a guess that we would see more than one case in which DNA from someone besides the donor of the blood showed up.

I wonder if bolint or pilot padron might respond to this.

bolint in particular has expressed a willingness to view this case with an open mind.

What do bolint and pilot padron think of the "mixed blood" evidence? Do they find any probative value whatsoever in this "evidence"? What do they think of people that after four years are still parroting the prosecution's theory about this? How would either of them feel about staking their personal freedom on the kind of test proposed by halides1 above?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

This week at Newsweek

In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Barbie Nadeau wrote, “The experts say the DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime was compromised by shoddy police work.” Hello? Is this a fair characterization?

 

[Diocletus]

In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Barbie Nadeau wrote, “The experts say the DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime was compromised by shoddy police work.” Hello? Is this a fair characterization?

Expert says Nadeau reporting compromised by her lack of intelligence.

 

[Draca]

In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Barbie Nadeau wrote, “The experts say the DNA linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime was compromised by shoddy police work.” Hello? Is this a fair characterization?

Expert says Nadeau reporting compromised by her lack of intelligence.

lol. Hilarious Diocletus.

Such a very Barbie Nadeau thing to write.

 

[Diocletus]

CBS naturally picked up the full tab for the food, gratuities and the several bottles of wine for all the 'talkers' that CBS was professionally taping for upcoming programs.

Pilate--If what you're trying to say is that only someone who is blind-drunk would suggest that there is "mixed blood" of Knox and Kercher, then yeah, I'm with you.

Do you also think that Barbie and Andrea have serious drinking issues outside of this dinner? Because I thought they were just dumb as confirmed by the looks Nick Pisa was giving them. But maybe you have a point there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a hypothetical

If you need further clarification I am happy to provide it.

If pro-guilt commenters at a different web site posted photoshopped images of commenters here with an intention to ridicule the JREF members, would you take that as evidence that the pro-guilt commenters had run out of decent arguments or not. Strictly hypothetically speaking, of course.

Assuming that you believe that all three are involved, at what time did Amanda meet up with Rudy? What did she say to him to entice him to her flat and in what language? What was Raffaele's reaction to Amanda's invitation to Rudy?

 

[Lothian]

If pro-guilt commenters at a different web site posted photoshopped images of commenters here with an intention to ridicule the JREF members, would you take that as evidence that the pro-guilt commenters had run out of decent arguments or not. Strictly hypothetically speaking, of course.

I don't think posts in Sept 2011 affect what happened or make guilt more or less likely

Assuming that you believe that all three are involved, at what time did Amanda meet up with Rudy? What did she say to him to entice him to her flat and in what language? What was Raffaele's reaction to Amanda's invitation to Rudy?

I am not going to embarrass myself by making wild uninformed guesses when there are so many here who are experts at it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Don't forget the 'clean' marketplace...

This is true. And by his own admission he was very probably using on the night of the murder (and all the surrounding nights as well). And this is before we've even touched on the mysterious issue of why the police had irrefutable evidence of his heroin dealing way back in 2004, yet didn't charge him of this crime until late 2010.

In my opinion (and yours, and indeed that of anyone with objectivity and half-decent reasoning skills), these things on their own would be enough to raise sufficient questions about the reliability, accuracy and veracity of Curatolo's testimony, as well as the motivation behind it. But we also have the bonus of being able to show that Curatolo was demonstrably wrong in some of the specific details he used in an attempt to add credibility (oops!) to his testimony.

There were no disco buses: none of the clubs/discos that used such buses were open on the evening of November 1st 2007. There were no people in masks and costumes: November 1st is a very sober religious holiday in Italy, where people remember dead relatives, and it's still widely observed and respected by most Italians including the younger generation. There were categorically no people wandering around Perugia in ghoul masks and costumes - that would have been a supremely disrespectful thing to do on All Saints' Day, the evening of which is typically marked by a sober family meal where family members who've died are remembered and commemorated.

All of this together adds up to a categorical demolition of Curatolo's testimony, and a fairly damning criticism of the prosecution for putting him forward as a key witness in the first place. And the important questions still remain: did prosecutors know of Curatolo's heroin-dealing evidence when they put him on the stand? If not, why not? Why wasn't this information disclosed to the defence in the first trial? And the biggest question of all: why did it take over SIX years for police/prosecutors to use the cast-iron evidence collected against Curatolo to arrest/charge him with heroin dealing?

Hi LondonJohn,
Can you pass this onward to The Machine?:

Hi everyone,
Most recall that Antonio Curatolo said he saw Amanda and Raffaele hangin' outside specifically from 9:28pm onward the night Meredith Kercher was killed. He also said that the disco buses were running, which has been proven wrong. But get this. He also said that the place was clean, since the outdoor market, held Tuesdays and Thursdays, had occurred. Guess what, it appears that the market did not happen that Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007, for wasn't it All Saints Day, as LondonJohn pointed out above?

Flipp over at IIP had posted this awhile back so I dug up an older post, it further weakens Toto's testimony, IMHO:
"Raffaele's defense found additional contradictions in Curatolo testimony before the court last March 26th. This time is related to the regional open air market that takes place in Grimana square.

"The square was clean because it seems to me that there had been the market. The market takes place in Grimana square on Tuesdays and Thursdays" said Curatolo answering questions from the prosecutor. The defense wants to introduce documents that prove that the open air market didn't took place on Thursday, 1st November, the day of the murder.

Here was the original link in Italian:
http://www.agi.it/perugia/notizie/20...arole_curatolo

I translated it in Google:
14:29 May 7, 2011

(AGI) - Perugia, May 7 - On November 2007, in Piazza Grimana, was not held the local market, as it was anticipated that the previous day. And 'the arguments of the lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito, Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno, in a defense aimed, once again, to demonstrate the unreliability' of the witness Antonio Curatolo who heard the appeal process to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher, said he had seen the night of the crime (the one between the first and 2 November 2007), the two former sweethearts together in Grimana Square, not far from the house where Mez and 'was killed. The lawyers, in its statement before the Court, recalling the statement made by the homeless last hearing on March 26, in particular the conditions under which the square was the day that claims to have seen the two defendants.

"It was clean place 'cause it seems to me that there had been on the market. Tuesdays' and Thursdays' are in the market square Grimana" said Curatolo classroom answering questions from the prosecutor. For the defense to urge, pero ', 1 November 2007, it took place on the local market and to show what', has acquired a series of documents by the city of Perugia to support their thesis. For legal then, "is so obvious the need 'to obtain the documents issued by the municipal offices, pending the indispensability' of such acts for the evaluation of the error 'of the statements made by the heads Curatolo, whose unreliability' is and 'already ' amply-examination conducted during the March 26 "last year. (AGI) Pg2/Mav

It seems like ol' Curatolo, high on heroin the night Meredith Kerecher was brutally slain, was hallucinating a bit or maybe he just gets the day wrong.

A clean square?

Isn't this the same guy who also, when pressed by the court, said that he specifically saw Amanda and Raff at 9:28pm exactly? And people like The Machine, after all these years, still believe his crap?

 

[js202]

I don't think posts in Sept 2011 affect what happened or make guilt more or less likely


I am not going to embarrass myself by making wild uninformed guesses when there are so many here who are experts at it.

Interesting. And yet, based on zero evidence that doesn't require special pleading to get it to stand upright and stagger a couple steps before it falls down again, you are convinced that two innocent persons are guilty of aggravated murder.

This should be quite sufficient embarrassment for you, I would think.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi LondonJohn,
Can you pass this onward to The Machine?:

Hi everyone,
Most recall that Antonio Curatolo said he saw Amanda and Raffaele hangin' outside specifically from 9:28pm onward the night Meredith Kercher was killed. He also said that the disco buses were running, which has been proven wrong. But get this. He also said that the place was clean, since the outdoor market, held Tuesdays and Thursdays, had occurred. Guess what, it appears that the market did not happen that Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007, for wasn't it All Saints Day, as LondonJohn pointed out above?

Flipp over at IIP had posted this awhile back so I dug up an older post, it further weakens Toto's testimony, IMHO:
"Raffaele's defense found additional contradictions in Curatolo testimony before the court last March 26th. This time is related to the regional open air market that takes place in Grimana square.

"The square was clean because it seems to me that there had been the market. The market takes place in Grimana square on Tuesdays and Thursdays" said Curatolo answering questions from the prosecutor. The defense wants to introduce documents that prove that the open air market didn't took place on Thursday, 1st November, the day of the murder.

Here was the original link in Italian:
http://www.agi.it/perugia/notizie/20...arole_curatolo

I translated it in Google:
14:29 May 7, 2011

(AGI) - Perugia, May 7 - On November 2007, in Piazza Grimana, was not held the local market, as it was anticipated that the previous day. And 'the arguments of the lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito, Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno, in a defense aimed, once again, to demonstrate the unreliability' of the witness Antonio Curatolo who heard the appeal process to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher, said he had seen the night of the crime (the one between the first and 2 November 2007), the two former sweethearts together in Grimana Square, not far from the house where Mez and 'was killed. The lawyers, in its statement before the Court, recalling the statement made by the homeless last hearing on March 26, in particular the conditions under which the square was the day that claims to have seen the two defendants.

"It was clean place 'cause it seems to me that there had been on the market. Tuesdays' and Thursdays' are in the market square Grimana" said Curatolo classroom answering questions from the prosecutor. For the defense to urge, pero ', 1 November 2007, it took place on the local market and to show what', has acquired a series of documents by the city of Perugia to support their thesis. For legal then, "is so obvious the need 'to obtain the documents issued by the municipal offices, pending the indispensability' of such acts for the evaluation of the error 'of the statements made by the heads Curatolo, whose unreliability' is and 'already ' amply-examination conducted during the March 26 "last year. (AGI) Pg2/Mav

It seems like ol' Curatolo, high on heroin the night Meredith Kerecher was brutally slain, was hallucinating a bit or maybe he just gets the day wrong.

A clean square?

Isn't this the same guy who also, when pressed by the court, said that he specifically saw Amanda and Raff at 9:28pm exactly? And people like The Machine, after all these years, still believe his crap?

An excellent find! Thanks! We can add this one to the ever-growing list of discredit for the shambles that is Antonio Curatolo.