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

[Machiavelli]

Does it also make Romanelli and Laura equally considered suspects and equally as potentially implicated?

I awaited this objection. No it doesn't make them suspect. Because Filomena and Laura actually do have an alibi, not contradicted by anything, and there is no circumstantial evidence against them.
If there was something against them, that element would become actual.

I am happy to see you have issues about something in the prosecution's case. When you can be critical of evidence presented by "your side," it gives you credibility, IMO. Before anyone gets their panties in a wad claiming I am stating Machiavelli is credible, I mean this in a general sense, for either side of any argument.

You make me come to my mind you made some other question the other day, which I left unanswered. I don't remember what.
Another thing I think I need to explain, this too has to do with the legal system. We don't call that "the prosecution's case". The case is something which "belongs" to the judge rather than to the prosecution (now it could be regarded maybe as Massei's case). But I mean there is also something practical in this: the prosecution does not have a right to "chose" their witnesses. I mean if there is a witness saying he has relevant information, let's say about a suspect's alibi, it is not a prosecution's choice to make him testify: the prosecution is obligated to bring his testimony. The question whether the witness will be assessed as less than 100% reliable or unreliable in the end, it's quite secondary to the "prosecution's case" (or "the judge's case"), because the testimony must be assessed by the judge anyway.
Here the prosecution objected some things but in the end they thought Curatolo was reliable (or could be reliable) and it happened that Massei's court agreed. The appeal court failed to provide a legitimate argument to dispute his credibility (they brought as a ground his alleged mental deterioration, while there was no evidence of such).
There will never be a definitive answer about how much we could be sure about Curatolo identifying the two suspects. It's impossible to tell that. But we have his testimony. The element exists. It's for everyone to see. Everyone can make up their own mind.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I think you or I are mistaken Grinder or maybe we are just misunderstanding each other. Maybe Chris or Kaosium or Charlie can help me out.

DNA is DNA is DNA. My understanding is that you cannot look at a DNA profile and determine if the profile's genetic source is from saliva, semen, blood or tissue. So if Amanda brushes her teeth and spits on the sink and then later a drop of Meredith's blood is deposited over the dried saliva, you can't say there was "mixed blood" but you can say that there was mixed genetic material. You could test the blood for antibodies and maybe find two different blood types and that would tell you that it was mixed blood. I'm sure that there may be some other tests as well. But not DNA testing.

acbytesla,

I completely agree that DNA profiling is not a test for any type of tissue, despite some nonsensical arguments in Darkness Descending. However, perhaps Grinder meant that one could test for DNA and test for blood, separately.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The other promise I need you to make is not to get mad when you reverse yourself some time in the future like you did with the pimp thing. And the Amanda could choose not to sleep thing.

The "pimp" story is entirely the product of your mind.
You are lying whenever you make an allegation that I said or implied that.
(I described and implied something incompatible with that)

The product of your mind as it is the "finding of no psychopathology" by Massei, etc.

 

[e740JPH]

Than yours...don't worry everyone gets this one wrong...even Vogt misses this one occasionally I bet.

Actually my arguments are chock full of satirical, dripping mockery that is as offensive as the prosecution case brought against these two innocent persons.

The difference is that I am not trying to do or say anything to justify removing the liberty of innocent persons without a proper case or even any sort of evidence that indicates involvement in any way at all.

I think that it is quite clear by now that Hellmann and Zanetti got it fairly correct except that they still allowed the face saving calunia charge to go forward.

Though the law is clear that an offending party is guilty only when they know the other party is innocent. Something Knox had no way of knowing about Lumumba...even today Lumumba could possibly be a guilty assistant party of Guede.

The evidence is the changed SIM card plus Lumumbas association with Guede...this is undisputed. They knew each other certainly. Guede attended Lumumbas bar and being a rather obvious minority in Perugia is indisputable.

They know each other. Perhaps you can tell us about the demographics in Perugia. What percentage of the population of permanent residents is black? My guess would be less than 5 %...probably less than 1 %.

What does that mean? Not much actually. But I once stayed at a mostly European visited resort area...mother tongue was Spanish, 95 % of visitors were German, French, Italian and perhaps 1 or 2 % were English language visitors. Those 1 or 2 % stuck out (for me) like sore thumbs because we were the severe minority...(oh hi you speak English...blah blah") Lumumba knew Guede...Lumumba may still be involved. He provides no register receipts for certain times that could fall into the proper TOD.

IN short calunia is impossible...so Hellamnn was only semi honest as well. You live in a country that has a different idea about what honesty and integrity means. If you get close is good enough and if not close then at least lets all agree that we will stand together no matter how silly we make ourselves look.

So sure you make a lot of argument. But the answer to all of it is simple...B.S. Nothing more.

Good post, Randy!
Sometimes I think Mach sees himself as one of the few fending off the 'Persian Hordes' at Thermopylae. Good Spartans all, unified in spirit, defending those fat-cat Athenians for the betterment of mankind. How could you possibly challenge such selfless dedication to preserving western civilization?

Of course, in the end it was the Athenians that settled that fight for good.

Has anyone here ever left bustling Athens to visit what is left of Sparta? Google it.

So sorry, just a little walk down memory lane ...

 

[Machiavelli]

Please, they have nothing. Perhaps it is not the prosecution, but just that Curatolo is a liar.

"Perhaps" anyone is a liar; "perhaps" he is, but there is no evidence to suspect this. The courts heared his voice and read hs words and they thought he was sincere. Nobody found any element to suspect he lies. Not even Hellmann did.
The courts ultimately are the ones who have to decide. They found nothing to say he may have lied.

He's the kind of witness that an American attorney would never ever ever put on the stand. He's a homeless heroin addict.

This is what would be called prejudicial in Italy. A pre-judgement.

He has been a witness in 2 or is it 3 murder trials?

He has been a witness in two previous cases, not a key witness, but on both cases his knowledge of the environment of immigrants and homeless people attending the area arouns Piazza Grimana provided information which was later proven correct.

He is incoherent.

Actually he seems quite consistent as a witness to me.

His testimony clearly shows he thinks the day is Halloween and not the day after.

This doesn't mean anything as for being a witness. His testimony is anchored to the night before the discovery of the body.

He admits taking heroin that evening.

It's false. He only talked generically about "that period".
Anyway heroin does not prevent a subject from having precise memories. Heroine is just morphine, acts as morphine and does not cause any other long-lasting effect than natural morphine.

It's dark out and Curatolo says he saw them at a distance.

This is a problem.

And his story is ridiculous.

Actually, it's not ridiculous at all.

Because there is no rationale for Amanda and Raffaele standing in the piazza for a couple of hours in the cold November evening when they could be in the cottage or Raffaele's flat

.

Yes. It's true (even if actually November may be not that cold in Perugia - especially the first weeks).
In normal conditions, that would be unusual. Only, unless they had something peculiar in mind, or something to discuss about like sometimes couples do.
Anyway a young couple did remain almost two hours in Piazza Grimana talking that night. The only question is if it was them.
Curatolo said he knew the suspects already at sight, they are not two unknowns, so this is an aspect that tands to make his testimony rather strong.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla,

I completely agree that DNA is not a test for any type of tissue, despite some nonsensical arguments in Darkness Descending. However, perhaps Grinder meant that one could test for DNA and test for blood, separately.

Thanks Chris for the post. I did say that perhaps we were misunderstanding each other.

This all started when Machiavelli said that there was no probative value for testing the knives at the cottage for DNA because you could expect Meredith's DNA to be there..after all Meredith lived there. However, there is the possibility they could have found Raffaele's DNA on the knives.

But overall, I do I do agree with this Mach that there is little reason to test the knives at the cottage.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a reason to test knives from Patrick's business or home. Mach can deny it all he wants but there was a very scope lock approach to what was tested and what was not.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The difference is that I am not trying to do or say anything to justify removing the liberty of innocent persons without a proper case or even any sort of evidence that indicates involvement in any way at all. (... drivel snipped)

Whatever you say is a concocted building of delusional reasoning based on your dreams (for example you believe that "Mignini" kept Lumumba's bar closed and that was suspicious...).
I mean that you extend your vision to the world, to what countries and places or people are in your mind. You make upe every sort of defamatory allegations about innocent persons without a proper case, or even without any sort of evidence that indicates involvement as for your allegations in any way at all.

You would certainly remove their liberties if you could. The only reason why you "don't do" it, is that you can't.

 

[Bill Williams]

The "pimp" story is entirely the product of your mind.
You are lying whenever you make an allegation that I said or implied that.
(I described and implied something incompatible with that)

The product of your mind as it is the "finding of no psychopathology" by Massei, etc.

...... which is of course an invitation for all to read Massei's report and decide for themselves. I could post it again.

But all I really wanted was an assurance from you that you wouldn't go all squirrelly on us about the knife and the sheet outline.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

. I awaited this objection. No it doesn't make them suspect. Because Filomena and Laura actually do have an alibi, not contradicted by anything, and there is no circumstantial evidence against them.
If there was something against them, that element would become actual.

Laura and Filomena had the same alibis as did Knox and Sollecito, no? They were with their boyfriends. Who, besides the boyfriends corroborated their alibis?

.But I mean there is also something practical in this: the prosecution does not have a right to "chose" their witnesses. I mean if there is a witness saying he has relevant information, let's say about a suspect's alibi, it is not a prosecution's choice to make him testify: the prosecution is obligated to bring his testimony. The question whether the witness will be assessed as less than 100% reliable or unreliable in the end, it's quite secondary to the "prosecution's case" (or "the judge's case"), because the testimony must be assessed by the judge anyway.
Here the prosecution objected some things but in the end they thought Curatolo was reliable (or could be reliable) and it happened that Massei's court agreed. The appeal court failed to provide a legitimate argument to dispute his credibility (they brought as a ground his alleged mental deterioration, while there was no evidence of such).

But yet they certainly didn't strain themselves when it came to their obligation to restore the suspect's computers, to verify their alibis. This is incongruous with what you state above. Where was the prosecution's (or judge's, whichever) obligation to obtain all the relevant exculpatory evidence for Knox and Sollecito?

 

[Strozzi]

"This doesn't mean anything as for being a witness. His testimony is anchored to the night before the discovery of the body.

Machiavelli, his testimony is anchored to Holloween Night. He has multiple busses taking revelers in costumes and masks to the discotheques which were closed the night after Holloween, All Saints Night, the night Meredith was murdered. He talks about the kiosk being open that night, Holloweed night. And we know where Amanda was Holloween night - she was working the Holloween party crowd at Le Chic. And Raffaele stayed home Holloween night to work on his thesis - he is not so much into the Holloween festivities as are the foreign students. And his computer will show he was on his computer working on his thesis.

I thought that Italian law or court procedure mandates that if there are two items of evidence which contradict or conflict with each other and it is not certain which one is correct and the other incorrect, then the judges are required to accept the evidence item that supports the innocence of the defendants. Is that correct?

 

[Grinder]

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.

Their story is compatible with them being drunk and stoned so that is strong evidence that Curatolo provides a perfect alibi. Alibi is a proof of being away from the scene of the crime.

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.

Of course it makes her a potential suspect but it makes all the housemates potential suspects. Having a hand makes for 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.

Not what I read in his testimony.

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.[/QUOTE]

Quintavalle really? He doesn't contradict anything to do with the murder night, denied knowing anything when asked by Volturno and was contradicted by his employee but other than that he nails Amanda pretty good.

 

[kwill]

This doesn't mean anything as for being a witness. His testimony is anchored to the night before the discovery of the body.

But it definitely matters that he knows which night that was, doesn't it? If he saw a couple and also saw buses going to discos on the same night, then his testimony with respect to the mystery couple is anchored to Halloween.

Anyway heroin does not prevent a subject from having precise memories. Heroine is just morphine, acts as morphine and does not cause any other long-lasting effect than natural morphine.

How very odd. Are you suggesting that he was like someone taking pain medication after surgery? He was an addict, correct? A longterm addict, suggesting that neurological impairment was likely.

Yes. It's true (even if actually November may be not that cold in Perugia - especially the first weeks).
In normal conditions, that would be unusual. Only, unless they had something peculiar in mind, or something to discuss about like sometimes couples do.
Anyway a young couple did remain almost two hours in Piazza Grimana talking that night. The only question is if it was them.

Sorry, but this is not logical. Young couples do sometimes go out in public when they have something to discuss; so do friends and couples of other ages. But in the case of young couples, they do so because they can't have privacy otherwise. Amanda and Raffaele had a place to be together and discuss whatever they liked, so it doesn't make sense that they'd prefer to go stand for hours in a cold park where homeless people and heroin users were likely to be.

I think the only question is why you could possibly imagine that it was them.

 

[Grinder]

But there isn't anything such "blood DNA". It's not something that you find, there isn't a thing which has such a "nature" that you could detect.
Most knifes have been in contact with blood and meat, hence they could retain traces of blood components. Most knifes have been in contact with human DNA, so they can retain humen cells.
You can't separate and distinguish these properties.
Meredith's DNA on a kitchen knife which belongs to her would be hardly probative.

Positive tests for blood beyond even TMB and a DNA match on a kinfe that had been put away because it wasn't used would be pretty definitive as to being the murder weapon.

Clearly Amanda's DNA on a knife where she was living has no probative value.

The amount of Meredith's DNA on the knife is clearly small enough of an amount to be secondary or tertiary transfer.

It is also obvious that Amanda's DNA around the house would be much more likely than Meredith's on a stored away knife.

 

[JREF2010]

Machiavelli, his testimony is anchored to Holloween Night. He has multiple busses taking revelers in costumes and masks to the discotheques which were closed the night after Holloween, All Saints Night, the night Meredith was murdered. He talks about the kiosk being open that night, Holloweed night. And we know where Amanda was Holloween night - she was working the Holloween party crowd at Le Chic. And Raffaele stayed home Holloween night to work on his thesis - he is not so much into the Holloween festivities as are the foreign students. And his computer will show he was on his computer working on his thesis.

I thought that Italian law or court procedure mandates that if there are two items of evidence which contradict or conflict with each other and it is not certain which one is correct and the other incorrect, then the judges are required to accept the evidence item that supports the innocence of the defendants. Is that correct?

Some find an OLD HEROIN DRUG PEDDLAR, with a foggy memory merging events together, more credible than two young students who say they were at Raffaeles apartment.

Its a choice of credibility for the crime tourists.

Rudy said the murder happened at 9:20pm, the scream he tells his best friend.
Migninni says its 11pm when the crime happened.
Rudy was there, Mignini is a liar too.

 

[RandyN]

Allow me to say the following Randy. Patrick could be involved like Amanda could be involved, like Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn could be involved as I could be involved.

That is to say there is no reason to think any of these people were involved, but they could be.

I disagree. Patrick has several items of circumstantial against him that the others you list do not have.

Patrick changed a SIM card (how often have you done that and yes I understand the phones are a little different there) at a rather suspicious time which may have been a coincidence or not. His phone pinged a tower near the cottage around the time of the murder....sure this could be untrue...lets ask the police.

You are not and never were a customer of Lumumbas bar. Guede was and he is also small time drug dealer which could be the reason Lumumba also hung out at the student steps where the main business was students purchasing and using drugs there. This is not rocket science. Or do you suppose Lumumba was there to promote his bar? Maybe

The only reasonable conclusion you made was that Amanda could be involved also...this is true. But you and the mayor of Seattle can be excluded unless someone can prove you were in Perugia Nov 2007. So that is just wrong.

The point of the matter is that Lumumba could be involved and there is still no way for Knox to know if he is or is not...either back then or today. And that is a fact. And that fact makes it impossible for Knox to have committed the crime of calunia.

That makes the Italian judges including Hellmann crazy as loons. That includes the ISC! You are free to disagree but you will still be wrong. The issue is a legal matter. The law is clear and yet for every Italian law there is an opposite and equal law. Thats why they can do whatever they want and pretend it is all legal and sane.

Resist the urge to fall into their trap. Its called insanity.

 

[RandyN]

Allow me to say the following Randy. Patrick could be involved like Amanda could be involved, like Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn could be involved as I could be involved.

That is to say there is no reason to think any of these people were involved, but they could be.

I disagree. Patrick has several items of circumstantial evidence against him that the others you list do not have.

Patrick changed a SIM card (how often have you done that and yes I understand the phones are a little different there) at a rather suspicious time which may have been a coincidence or not. His phone pinged a tower near the cottage around the time of the murder....sure this could be untrue...lets ask the police.

You are not and never were a customer of Lumumbas bar. Guede was and he is also small time drug dealer which could be the reason Lumumba also hung out at the student steps where the main business was students purchasing and using drugs there. This is not rocket science. Or do you suppose Lumumba was there to promote his bar? Maybe

The only reasonable conclusion you made was that Amanda could be involved also...this is true. But you and the mayor of Seattle can be excluded unless someone can prove you were in Perugia Nov 2007. So that is just wrong.

The point of the matter is that Lumumba could be involved and there is still no way for Knox to know if he is or is not...either back then or today. And that is a fact. And that fact makes it impossible for Knox to have committed the crime of calunia.

That makes the Italian judges including Hellmann crazy as loons. That includes the ISC! You are free to disagree but you will still be wrong. The issue is a legal matter. The law is clear and yet for every Italian law there is an opposite and equal law. Thats why they can do whatever they want and pretend it is all legal and sane.

Resist the urge to fall into their trap. Its called insanity.

 

[acbytesla]

"Perhaps" anyone is a liar; "perhaps" he is, but there is no evidence to suspect this. The courts heared his voice and read hs words and they thought he was sincere. Nobody found any element to suspect he lies. Not even Hellmann did.
The courts ultimately are the ones who have to decide. They found nothing to say he may have lied.

Actually Hellmann said "Curatolo whose credibility this court very much doubts". This is a polite way of saying old Toto was lying or delusional. I certainly would put it past the old bum to have created a false memory for himself. I also wouldn't put it past him to lie for the attention.

He has been a witness in two previous cases, not a key witness, but on both cases his knowledge of the environment of immigrants and homeless people attending the area arouns Piazza Grimana provided information which was later proven correct.

Proven in the same way that Amanda was convicted and therefore correct? This is circular logic.

This doesn't mean anything as for being a witness. His testimony is anchored to the night before the discovery of the body.

Not really, since, everything about his memory points to Halloween. The only thing that points to November 1st is that Curatolo says he remembers because he saw Martians at the cottage the next day which we assume were the staff of the Scientific Police.

If he can be so mistaken about masks and Halloween, is there any reason not to believe that he is mistaken about the day of the Martians?

Anyway heroin does not prevent a subject from having precise memories. Heroine is just morphine, acts as morphine and does not cause any other long-lasting effect than natural morphine.

Actually it does. There is study upon study upon study that shows that heroin (particularly long term use of heroin) severely effects memory and other cognitive abilities. In fact, it is the kind of details and clear conflation of events by Curatolo that demonstrates this fact.

For example, From THE EFFECT OF HEROIN ON MEMORY
Sladjana Martinović Mitrović, Aleksandra Dickov, Nikola Vučković,Dragan Mitrović& Danijela Budiša
Institute of Psychiatry, Clinical Centre „Vojvodina“, Novi Sad, Serbia

The consumption of heroin over a long time can lead to organic damage of various cerebral structures which results in psychopathological and neuro-physiological consequences which become apparent through cognitive, connative and affective spheres of mental functioning (Lacković2007). Cognitive functions which are in most cases affected by the toxic influence of opiates are: attention, concentration, memory and perceptual-motor speed /coordination[

Yes. It's true (even if actually November may be not that cold in Perugia - especially the first weeks).
In normal conditions, that would be unusual. Only, unless they had something peculiar in mind, or something to discuss about like sometimes couples do.
Anyway a young couple did remain almost two hours in Piazza Grimana talking that night. The only question is if it was them.

No, Toto and only Toto said there was a couple that remained in the Piazza that night and he is the only one. I wonder if he noticed them while he was sticking the needle in his arm?

Why would they discuss this outside when they had both the apartment and the cottage to discuss anything they want? **BTW, night time temperatures ranged was from 8 to 10 degrees. Daytime high was 13 degrees.

Curatolo said he knew the suspects already at sight, they are not two unknowns, so this is an aspect that tands to make his testimony rather strong.

Really? He knew Amanda by sight? AK had spent all of 42 days in Perugia and Toto knew her by sight? Seriously? how do you give any credence at all to this silly testimony?...No please don't answer that. It was rhetorical. I don't want to hear your logic.

 

[kwill]

Funny how all of us can spot the same fallacies in that last M post, eh? They're pretty blazingly obvious.

 

[e740JPH]

Mach wrote:
"Anyway heroin does not prevent a subject from having precise memories. Heroine is just morphine, acts as morphine and does not cause any other long-lasting effect than natural morphine".

Having undergone quintuple heart surgery and consequently having been heavily been medicated with morphine I can assure you that Mach's claim of morphine not creating hallucinations and false memories is utter BS. I had to ask to be taken off the medication as the disadvantages far outweighed the benefits.

Clearly, Mach is of good health and has been able to avoid some of the unpleasantness of life . I hope that will remain so.

However, his comment on morphine shows a willful ignorance bordering on a twisting of the truth. His credibility would be far better served by not twisting reality to his will.

I will admit that more recent developments have now almost completely eliminated the hallucinatory effects of morphine used less than a decade ago.

I cannot comment on the effects of heroin as I have never used it. Perhaps Mach can let us know if his assurance is based on rumor, scientific studies or personal experience?

 

[RandyN]

Whatever you say is a concocted building of delusional reasoning based on your dreams (for example you believe that "Mignini" kept Lumumba's bar closed and that was suspicious...).
I mean that you extend your vision to the world, to what countries and places or people are in your mind. You make upe every sort of defamatory allegations about innocent persons without a proper case, or even without any sort of evidence that indicates involvement as for your allegations in any way at all.

You would certainly remove their liberties if you could. The only reason why you "don't do" it, is that you can't.

I would remove Migninis liberties. Also Stefanoni and Napolini and Biondo for starters.

The police and Mignini kept Lumumbas bar closed as a crime scene well past the time of his illegal detention. Shortly after Lumumbas release from prison he gave one critical interview to the DM for which he received re-numeration...a great deal of re-numeration. In this interview the reporter quotes him as saying that he was beaten by police, held without food or water, called a dirty black, and questioned without the legally required lawyer.

Now Lumumbass bar is kept closed as a crime scene...which is a transparent police tactic to starve him into shutting his mouth about the police abuse thing. There is further evidence of this behavior by police and prosecutor when Mignini attempted the very same thing later by charging Knox parents for a crime for repeating the truth their daughter related to them...also a bastardization of the law...a corrupt abuse that is as transparent and as obvious as Lumumbas bar being kept closed as a crime scene. When we all know that it never was and never could be a crime scene. So what was that? Police and prosecutor corruption and abuse of power and office. A mafia like tactic to get Lumumba to tow the party line. And look...he stopped mentioning the police abuse and started a case against Knox...

Do you think the world is dumb enough to not notice this? Perhaps you can fool a few noobs here but please save it from me. You guys are in it up to your chin...keep stirring the pot and soon you will be gulping shi....you know what.

Comodi will soon be answering questions...how on earth Mignini dodged this bullet is beyond me but anything seems possible in Italy....even ship Captains trip and fall into life boats I hear. And the scientist are too damn dumb to predict earthquakes...WTH?

Your case is transparent. If one wishes to fully investigate the house of cards you and yours have built for yourselves; well maybe you should check in with those earthquake scientists...your house has already started to fall...as it must.

You argue for an illogical mess that is insane baseless mumbo jumbo. Toto is what? He places AK and RS in the plaza during the time of the murder. But your argument is not thoughtful enough to notice that point. You only think that this disproves their alibi but lets not fool ourselves...the world is saying wait...how can they be the killers if the super witness says they are in the park from 9:30 to 12? So Mignini has no choice who to call as witnesses? Fine. Shame I never heard him dispute the Super Witness title for Toto.

You are defending a group of clearly guilty liars...the police and prosecution. No one will ever forget this. You have made it so insane that it is impossible to forget. Had you let it go...it may have started to die down...they even forgot about Kennedy after a time...shot 50 years ago today with an Italian rifle and Italian bullets. Huh!