Yes we knew but the Massei recounting doesn't reflect what he said in court but rather what he had said earlier presumingly in a statement to the police that wasn't recorded for budgetary reasons.
In the statement in court he doesn't say they were missing at times but rather says they were there when he looked up.
Curatolo never saw anything, but if he saw what he said in court it was their alibi.
Btw, the footprint doesn't match anybody and shouldn't be used in court.
This is the problem when it comes to innocentisti logic. A most important point: whatever Curatolo saw, independently from its probative value, it can't be their alibi.
In this case, 'alibi' would mean something that confirms their versions. They did not declare they were at Piazza Grimana that night, so if Curatolo tells the truth they are lying. And if they are lying, this would be anyway a piece of circumstantial evidence about their implication.
You also need to have clear in mind that Amanda Knox does not need to be on the murder scene in order to be implicated: the murder occurred in her apartment, which under some condition is considered a link itself; the simple fact that she lived in that house makes her a potential suspect and is a potential ground of implication.
TRegardless of budgetary reasons police statements of witnesses cannot be recorded, they must be redatcted, and anyway recordings/transcripts cannot be used in court by the law (unless it's a preliminary hearing or an investigative judge under some conditions).
There is no condradiction between Curatolo's previous statement, anyway, and his statement before Massei. The only difference is that in his previous statement he was not asked about the time when he arrived and doesn't say that. But he never says they were missing at times. The only important difference is the lack of this time of beginning of his observation.
Actually Curatolo's testimony is perfectly consistent and totally reliable, soo it looks to me.
The only problem in his testimony is the 30 meters distance.
This is an element which always made me think about.
I heve this element of doubt, which is entirely about the identity of the people he saw. This is the only problem I can see with Curatolo.
It's not an irrelevant problem. But I always considered Curatolo's testimony as marginal, actually irrelevant. (I did not list it among the evidence, as you may have noticed).
Curatolo did not witness to the suspects actually committing the murder, nor in a suspicious attitude. The only logical value of his testimony is that it denies their stories. But this is totally unnecessary since their stories are already proven false by other evidence, they are contradicted by Quintavalle and by phone records, and by the inconsistencies in the suspects' own accounts.
