Wow, such tortured logic. So is it your belief that if there is evidence that makes it impossible for someone to have been at a murder scene, but this evidence contradicts their alibi, then you assume they can be guilty of the murder because they lied, even though the evidence proves they couldn't have committed the murder. Do I have this correct?
I may suggest to refrain from the practice of attampting to re-construct a reasoning in the shape of a generalizing rule, using universal concepts and categories.
The reasoning here is on Curatolo. About his specific testimony and its timing uncertainities, about the lack of alibies of the defendants after 8:40, about the lack of certainity in the so called (by you) medical conclusions about ToD, and about the verious possibility of how Sollecito and Amanda could be involved in this specific crime.
Stomach content analysis puts ToD between 9pm and 10pm.
Your
opinion puts the ToD between 9pm and 10pm.
There is no scientific certainity, despite I know that posters on this board are used to claim there is such certainity. There isn't. Variants do not allow to formulate a response in the terms that you claim.
But on the other hand, there are witnesses (two) who place a very disturbing woman's scream, obviously to be related to the murder and nothing else (corroborated by the testimonies of two suspects), at a time that is not between 9 and 10 pm. And this is also something called evidence.
Curatolo's testimony, if you believe it, puts Amanda and Raffaele not at the cottage until "right up to midnight".
False. Curatolo's testimony does not consist in a continous observation, and if read literaly, based on the calculation on buses leaving, the last time he spots the defendants may well be at 22:30.
But the overall combination of the uncertainities allows a bigger game between the elements. Even a ToD at 9.00 does not really imply anything about defendants' innocence. They both don't have an alibi after 8:40. They could well have met again at 9:30 after Meredith had been killed, and one of them was present as she was killed while the other was not.
This creates quite the conundrum for you; either you don't believe this witness and therefore their alibi is not being contradicted and they weren't at the murder scene when Meredith died, or you do believe this witness and therefore they weren't at the murder scene when Meredith died.
Absolutely not. I can also believe parts and discredit other parts of a testimony, if I deem there are founded reasons to do so.
Not surprisingly, you seem to want to accept Curatolo's testimony, but in order to make things work, you wish to disbelieve stomach content analysis (i.e., adjust the ToD to your liking) and suggest Curatolo has the right people and the right day, but he's got the wrong time.
No. I never made such statement. I always repeated I have no definitive position about Curatolo's testimony. But there is something which I do reject, and this is the
reasons put forward by posters on this board in order to discredit Curatolo. It is possible - but bear in mind this is not a judgement, merely a teorethical scenario based on the fact I did not listen to the whole CUratolo's testimony - that Curatolo is wrong in identifying the two suspects and gets the wrong people. This is an intrinsic danger. However, I do not accept the theory that he is unreliable because a drug user or possessor, nor that he is lying.
I also reject the reasoning that Curatolo might exonerate Raffaele and Amanda in some cases: it cannot, in principle, because a false alibi constitutes itself always evidence of guilt. And guilt is a wider concept depending on the concept of responsability, not directly depending from a scenario. A false alibi is the covering of a crime.
In this case, also the several different ways for how the two suspect can have participated to the crime, allow us to consider various scenarios, among them also a (teorethically possible) one where Curatolo sees the two after the crime is committed instead of before; and we may also consider that only one of them may have been present in the house as Meredith was killed. This shall not change the verdict by the law, in my opinion.
The verdict of guilt comes from the demonstration that both took part to the cleanup and alteration of the scene, both cover the event by tampering with evidence and lie about their knowledge of facts. And also, both physically touched things and the victim's body and committed crimes in the context of the murder, and there is evidence at least one second person took part to the aggression. There is also obvious physical and logical evidence that the third suspect (who had a link to Knox) did not leave all the physical evidence on the crime scene.
