Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[JREF2010]

There is no evidence in a PIP's mind, but in others there is Toto the hobo, Amanda, Raff as well, that mysterious footprint of Rudi, the bra clasp the knife, the staged break in and the list just goes on and on. I am fully aware how you PIPs discredit all of this, I'm also aware how everyone connected to this case is a liar, incompetent, dumb and crooked, and I'm also aware how this encompasses the entire police force, the scientific community and the judges and prosecutors and almost everyone connected to this case that doesn't agree with the PIP way of thinking.

If we are reasonable, its a prosecutor and a few police in Perugia, its not Italy or an entire system. Stefonani, and Edgardo Giobbi from Rome, and their odd behavior. Edgardo on video saying he uses gut instinct to tell and doesnt need science, Stefonani and her obstinate and alarming responses refusing to being transparent.

The lawyers want to fight, the ISC has thousands of cases and this is one of them. I doubt they spent as much time on this case as most of the people on the forum.

Toto is a delusional heroin addict, busted for peddling dope...and allowed to continue for years, until suddenly he is put in prison and then he dies all of a sudden. Hollywood cant write storys with so many twists and curves...

Can police be wrong and dishonest? Ask Napoleoni... ask Migninni....

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, I would think that impossible, and not all of them are connected to the prosecution, how is Filomena connected for one.

Did anyone say Filomena is a liar, incompetent, dumb or crooked?

Wrongful arrests, convictions and imprisonments take place all the time. How do you think they happen? (I would put Human Error in the "incompetent" category, since the people who make these mistakes are trained to do otherwise.)

 

[MDDVS]

There is no evidence in a PIP's mind, but in others there is Toto the hobo, Amanda, Raff as well, that mysterious footprint of Rudi, the bra clasp the knife, the staged break in and the list just goes on and on. I am fully aware how you PIPs discredit all of this, I'm also aware how everyone connected to this case is a liar, incompetent, dumb and crooked, and I'm also aware how this encompasses the entire police force, the scientific community and the judges and prosecutors and almost everyone connected to this case that doesn't agree with the PIP way of thinking.

What scientific community? Patrizia Stefanoni is not a community. The idea that many Italian judges and prosecutors and corrupt, dumb and/or incompetent is not exactly radical. The Italian judicial system promotes corruption by design.

Also, I'll play your game and say that, from your point of view, everyone connected to this case that doesn't share your opinion is a liar, incompetent, dumb and crooked. I'm also aware this encompasses the scientific community (well, if you can say this I'll say it too), the judges,the lawyers and the prossecution. The real question is, what exactly is gained by this kind of argument?

Regarding Toto, he's evidence of what exactly? Amanda and Raf? The bra clasp and the knife have been shown to be result of contamination, and the knife is unrelated to crime anyway (doesn't fit the injuries nor the inprint left on the bed sheet). There's nothing mysterious about the footprint. I haven't seen any evidence that the break in was staged. Being suspicious because you think it's not the most likely entry point is not the same thing as evidence. The rest of the list is essentially a pile of ********.

 

[Grinder]

Toto??, you mean Curatolo? the hobo that admitted to taking heroin that night and whose testimony is contradicted by the Kiosk proprietors?

The kiosk operators confirmed that Curatolo was in the piazza that night. I don't recall them contradicting Curatolo. The disco club operators testified that they weren't running buses that night, perhaps that's what you were referring to.

 

[acbytesla]

The kiosk operators confirmed that Curatolo was in the piazza that night. I don't recall them contradicting Curatolo. The disco club operators testified that they weren't running buses that night, perhaps that's what you were referring to.

Yes, that is the contradiction. They contradicted his testimony not his existence. Not that they needed to contradict his testimony. For the life of me, I don't understand anyone finding Curatolo credible.

Ignore the fact that this is the 3rd or is it the 4th murder trial he has been a witness for the prosecution.

Ignore the fact that Curatolo didn't come forward for almost a year, or that Curatolo admitted taking heroin on the night in question. Just focus on his testimony. The buses were running, there were kids standing around in costume. Both which were not true. How can you believe the rest of his testimony?

 

[codyjuneau]

The accusations of racism just sidetrack the discussion of the evidence. Which is probably the purpose of the accusations to begin with. My suggestion is just ignore it as Charlie also suggested earlier.

.
Speaking of side tracking evidence, I am still pondering the new to me revelation that the police 'guessed' Raffale's login password.

Was this the same police that cannot clone hard drives using a read only cloner, without destroying them beyond repair?

We know the Perugian police lie. They do it all the time. So is this another lie? Like the bomb threat prankster kid lie. The tea and cookies interrogation lie. The acting like a notary lie. The non reason for the hard drive destruction. The missing recordings of the interrogations or Raf, Amanda, and Patrick lies. The failure to obtain CCTV recordings lie. The missing DNA controls lies. The vanishing knife striation lie. The 'oops, I accidentally testified it was a much larger DNA sample size lie. The 'oops, I accidentally destroyed the bra clasp' lie.

So the question is, if it is a lie, how DID they get Raffaele's login password? And why lie about it? Was he an official suspect at the time?

Thoughts, idea?

acbytesla, I am glad to see you are back. I am very interested in your opinion on this.
.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, that is the contradiction. They contradicted his testimony not his existence. Not that they needed to contradict his testimony. For the life of me, I don't understand anyone finding Curatolo credible.

Ignore the fact that this is the 3rd or is it the 4th murder trial he has been a witness for the prosecution.

Ignore the fact that Curatolo didn't come forward for almost a year, or that Curatolo admitted taking heroin on the night in question. Just focus on his testimony. The buses were running, there were kids standing around in costume. Both which were not true. How can you believe the rest of his testimony?

While I totally agree that Curatolo is a sad joke as a witness, the kiosk operators didn't contradict anything about him or his testimony. They affirmed he was there that night, as always.

I think his background and altered state are more significant than the details of that night. Had he come forward in the next days and had the detail of the what buses were running wrong I'd be much more likely to believe him especially had he described the kids before arrest.

How's that TBM doing?

 

[Grinder]

.
Speaking of side tracking evidence, I am still pondering the new to me revelation that the police 'guessed' Raffale's login password.

Was this the same police that cannot clone hard drives using a read only cloner, without destroying them beyond repair?

We know the Perugian police lie. They do it all the time. So is this another lie? Like the bomb threat prankster kid lie. The tea and cookies interrogation lie. The acting like a notary lie. The non reason for the hard drive destruction. The missing recordings of the interrogations or Raf, Amanda, and Patrick lies. The failure to obtain CCTV recordings lie. The missing DNA controls lies. The vanishing knife striation lie. The 'oops, I accidentally testified it was a much larger DNA sample size lie. The 'oops, I accidentally destroyed the bra clasp' lie.

So the question is, if it is a lie, how DID they get Raffaele's login password? And why lie about it? Was he an official suspect at the time?

Thoughts, idea?

I think there is no way they guessed the password unless there is a cultural bias to use family names as passwords. I happen to use the first name of one my parents in combination with a year and then some letters that are different for different sites and I use a birth city for the computer sign in but it too has a another character added.

A very strange claim they made.

 

[acbytesla]

While I totally agree that Curatolo is a sad joke as a witness, the kiosk operators didn't contradict anything about him or his testimony. They affirmed he was there that night, as always.

I think his background and altered state are more significant than the details of that night. Had he come forward in the next days and had the detail of the what buses were running wrong I'd be much more likely to believe him especially had he described the kids before arrest.

How's that TBM doing?

They certainly did contradict his testimony. Toto, said in his testimony the buses were running. The Kiosk owner said that they weren't. Clearly you and I have a different definition of contradiction.

Off topic. The TBM is almost entirely reassembled and in the launch pit. I believe that they are about to start running tests in the next couple of weeks and they will be begin boring away in August or early September. Knock on wood. Check out the construction camera of the project. See the SR 99 tunneling machine launch pit. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaduct/Traffic/ConstructionCam

I'm particularly fascinated by how they will be moving the soil via conveyor belt to the barges that will deposit the soil in a gravel pit on the Peninsula or maybe it is one of the Puget Sound Islands. Two barges a day.

Here's hoping the project proceeds without a hitch.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please what is complete about the luminol revealed "evidence"?

Or where you just cheating when you want to use that as something meaningful?

The principle of completeness means that the evidence must be brought entirely.

The luminol footprints was a piece of evidence brought in and discussed thoroughly and entirely.

It is also meaningful. It is a strong piece of evidence, despite the innocentisti denials.

 

[Grinder]

They certainly did contradict his testimony. Toto, said in his testimony the buses were running. The Kiosk owner said that they weren't. Clearly you and I have a different definition of contradiction.

Bongiorno introduced the disco club owners to testify the buses weren't running. I believe she did this at the appeal. It isn't the definition of contradiction that is at issue, it's the facts. I don't think the kiosk owner testified that the buses weren't running. Since I can't prove a negative, perhaps you could set me straight by giving a cite.

From Massei, the kiosk owner only testified to the general disco bus behavior at best or corroborated his testimony at worst for your mistaken statement:

Mr. Curatolo said he remained on the bench until he saw the buses driving young people to a disco and witness Maurizio Rosignoli (see page 131, hearing of 19.6.2009) reported that from Piazza Grimana buses depart to the disco and at a time between 23.00 and 23.30 they are already there.
[73] Based on these elements it is therefore considered that the Curatolo left the bench in Piazza Grimana between 23.00 and 23.30 (where he could see the buses leaving for discos and that Rosignoli has located precisely in that time frame) and when he left the bench the young couple were gone. Therefore at about 23:00 pm (minute by minute) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were no longer in Piazza Grimana where Curatolo had seen them several times starting from 21:30 pm to 22:00 pm of that November 1st. The declaration of Maurizio Rosignoli just mentioned is also important in another respect. Mr. Rosignoli, who runs the kiosk in Piazza Grimana held that in fact in that that period Antonio Curatolo used to frequent that area. A similar statement was made by Alessia Ceccarelli, also occupied in the management of the kiosk. Alessia Ceccarelli therefore reported she knew Mr. Curatolo and she specified that at that time he was placed on the bench next to her kiosk. She added that when she opened the kiosk on November 2 2007
82
Curatolo was there (statements by Alessia Ceccarelli, hearing of June 23, 2009, pages 122 and 126).
The statements by Rosignoli and Ceccarelli show thus how in that period Curatolo frequented the area as indicated by Curatolo himself, and that one by Ceccarelli gives confirmation of Curatolo being in the area of Piazza Grimana on November 2 2007,

Now I'm glad you made check this because clearly Massei set the time Curatolo left the piazza based on when the non existent disco buses were not at the piazza. What a joke.
ETA - guess I was able to prove a negative.

 

[Dan O.]

The principle of completeness means that the evidence must be brought entirely.

The luminol footprints was a piece of evidence brought in and discussed thoroughly and entirely.

It is also meaningful. It is a strong piece of evidence, despite the innocentisti denials.

But the prosecutor is a snooty liar. Look at what he is saying in regard to the luminol footprints as echoed in the ISC motivation:

As for the bare foot prints enhanced by luminol along the corridor of the house in Via della Pergola, the reasoning of the lower courts was considered illogical, that the prints would be compatible with that of the two defendants left on other occasions, since luminol enhances mainly traces of blood, and as there was no evidence that on the floor there had been other sensitive material sensitive to luminol; it can be argued that Knox and Sollecito had their feet smeared with blood during a previous occasion other than as a result of the murder (!)

He completely ignores the fact that luminol reacts to substances other than blood and that the prints cannot be attributed positively to anyone.

The ISC buys this crap and they are supposed to represent the pinnacle of intellect in Italy.

 

[Dan O.]

Since this is a skeptics board, it shall be the burden of anyone espousing the claims of the prosecution to show though evidence of a scientific standard that those claims are valid.

 

[Mary_H]

The principle of completeness means that the evidence must be brought entirely.<snip>

That would be nice.

 

[Grinder]

But the prosecutor is a snooty liar. Look at what he is saying in regard to the luminol footprints as echoed in the ISC motivation:

​

He completely ignores the fact that luminol reacts to substances other than blood and that the prints cannot be attributed positively to anyone.

The ISC buys this crap and they are supposed to represent the pinnacle of intellect in Italy.

Given that the prints tested negatively with TMB if it was blood it would be very diluted if it was from blood. Chris has given us the number IIRC it is like one in 10,000, which means a very very small amount of blood mixed with water. Since blood will stay for years the luminol prints can't be dated. If someone that lived there at anytime had a small amount of blood in the shower water and then walked around, those prints found could be from that time. Those luminol prints are less dated than the "semen" stain yet the court decided the opposite.

Since there is no evidence that anyone stepped in Meredith's blood, and they match no one's foot they aren't evidence of anything.

 

[acbytesla]

The principle of completeness means that the evidence must be brought entirely.

The luminol footprints was a piece of evidence brought in and discussed thoroughly and entirely.

It is also meaningful. It is a strong piece of evidence, despite the innocentisti denials.

It is only strong in the crazy world of Italian justice. In science or justice in the US it is not. Luminol is a presumptive test for blood. It reacts with lots of other chemical compounds. Alone it means little. It is not conclusive, this is why other tests such as TMB and others are usually performed as they react to other compounds within blood. The simple fact that no other tests confirmed and actually contradicted the positive Luminol result would certainly lead a reasonable person to reject the idea that this test has any probative value at all.

 

[Grinder]

Tesla do I need to provide more evidence that the kiosk owners didn't contradict Curatolo?

 

[acbytesla]

Bongiorno introduced the disco club owners to testify the buses weren't running. I believe she did this at the appeal. It isn't the definition of contradiction that is at issue, it's the facts. I don't think the kiosk owner testified that the buses weren't running. Since I can't prove a negative, perhaps you could set me straight by giving a cite.

From Massei, the kiosk owner only testified to the general disco bus behavior at best or corroborated his testimony at worst for your mistaken statement:

Mr. Curatolo said he remained on the bench until he saw the buses driving young people to a disco and witness Maurizio Rosignoli (see page 131, hearing of 19.6.2009) reported that from Piazza Grimana buses depart to the disco and at a time between 23.00 and 23.30 they are already there.
[73] Based on these elements it is therefore considered that the Curatolo left the bench in Piazza Grimana between 23.00 and 23.30 (where he could see the buses leaving for discos and that Rosignoli has located precisely in that time frame) and when he left the bench the young couple were gone. Therefore at about 23:00 pm (minute by minute) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were no longer in Piazza Grimana where Curatolo had seen them several times starting from 21:30 pm to 22:00 pm of that November 1st. The declaration of Maurizio Rosignoli just mentioned is also important in another respect. Mr. Rosignoli, who runs the kiosk in Piazza Grimana held that in fact in that that period Antonio Curatolo used to frequent that area. A similar statement was made by Alessia Ceccarelli, also occupied in the management of the kiosk. Alessia Ceccarelli therefore reported she knew Mr. Curatolo and she specified that at that time he was placed on the bench next to her kiosk. She added that when she opened the kiosk on November 2 2007
82
Curatolo was there (statements by Alessia Ceccarelli, hearing of June 23, 2009, pages 122 and 126).
The statements by Rosignoli and Ceccarelli show thus how in that period Curatolo frequented the area as indicated by Curatolo himself, and that one by Ceccarelli gives confirmation of Curatolo being in the area of Piazza Grimana on November 2 2007,

Now I'm glad you made check this because clearly Massei set the time Curatolo left the piazza based on when the non existent disco buses were not at the piazza. What a joke.
ETA - guess I was able to prove a negative.

I know I should provide the cite of the Kiosk owners. But I know, like me, you consider Curatolo not credible. So I'm not going to dig for who contradicted Curatolo about the buses. And like you, I believe this to be a minor point in the overall credibility of Mr. Curatolo. And considering the fact that if Curatolo is actually correct in his testimony, he actually provides an alibi for Amanda and Raffaele as the TOD certainly would have been during the time that Curatolo said that Amanda and Raffaele were in the piazza.

 

[Bill Williams]

The principle of completeness means that the evidence must be brought entirely.

The luminol footprints was a piece of evidence brought in and discussed thoroughly and entirely.

It is also meaningful. It is a strong piece of evidence, despite the innocentisti denials.

You mean "complete" in the sense that as long as one first assumes the guilt of the two innocents, then one can arrive at the right conclusion?

One thing is for sure. The ISC motivations report is going to be held up to international scrutiny. Machiavelli - can you name one other court in the world, other than an Italian one, which has the method of "completeness" that the ISC describes?

Also, it is very strange to hear you encouraging this principle of completeness, when you will not even attempt a comprehensive theory of the crime which involves the two innocents.... no wonder you don't try.

It must not be osmoticly possible.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - be a good chap and answer a question for me.

If the Florence court genuinely determines that AK and RS are innocent, does the ISC ruling of March 26, 2013, leave them free so to do?

(I do not know why I ask Machiavelli straightforward questions. His answer to my question about why Knox's clothes were neither gathered nor tested by PLE was, "when did you stop beating your wife." He said about that, too, that one had to look at the total of everything before an answer could be attempted. I do believe he called me an idiot for asking a simple question.... why did the PLE not gather the clothes Knox said she wore, even if she'd been lying about wearing those clothes?

I feel a similar evasion coming up.... about the theoretical possibility of the Florence court finding AK and RS innocent. Will the 26 Mar ISC ruling make that impossible?

Here goes nothing.)