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

[Dan O.]

thx, no pics of all of rafs knives?

There is a pan of the drawer in the video of November 16th. All of the knives are there except of course that huge kitchen knife.

(and only 5 of the 6 steak knives can be seen but don't tell anyone)

 

[Mary_H]

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

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

Well, we certainly wouldn't want that.

Personally, I think Curatolo was Rudy's accomplice. C'mon, here it’s just a reality check.

If Curatolo were an upper class businessman, with a well-paid job, living with a wife and children, a regular social life with his acquaintances and relatives, who would have dinner every night at 9 pm, in a cool apartment in some other neighborhood downtown… then, his profile and lifestyle would appear "not compatible" with a scenario of him testifying for money, doing favors for the prosecution, and hanging out with a criminal.

Curatolo was a 50+-year old who had been a heroin addict and dealer for decades. As a drug addict he was “only interested in pleasure” and completely detached from reality. His proclivity for living on a park bench for ten years can only be described as excessively abnormal. He is a person who would drift around town looking for drugs, and would do God-knows-what to get them. Witnesses described him as being wheeled into the courtroom on an office chair, dressed in a coat, hat and scarf, which he did not remove once on the witness stand. He must have known Guede for the entire time Guede had lived in Perugia. Obviously, he had psychological issues, drug addiction being first and foremost among them. He admitted to using heroin all the time. His companions were other dealers and, no doubt, users of all kinds in Perugia, where police turn a blind eye to the active drug trade.

Your objection is that he was credible because he sounded credible to you, and that he was not brain-damaged because heroin is nothing more than morphine.

You may try to disagree on the interpretation of some of the details listed above, but you can perfectly see the basic data about the person’s profile.

The profile of Curatolo is just compatible with a scenario in which it is likely he committed crimes with Rudy Guede. Every rational person can see that.

Just say it’s compatible and move on.

 

[Antony]

But it makes no sense for the prosecution to fabricate specifically this lie.
If they wanted a lying witness, they could have instructed a witness to offer some far more suspicious and incriminating lie. As for your logic, they could have put in Curatolo's testimony whatever they wanted to. Curatolo could have said he say all three suspects, including Guede, meeting altogether in Piazza Grimana at a more convenient time and walk down towards the cottage for example.

Actually you have a point here, but it says much about the state of Italian Justice.

Nothing about the prosecution case ties together. It's a mishmash of dubious and contradictory witness statements, botched evidence collection and key evidence items produced by conjuring tricks.

The shame is that they don't even need to contrive any convincing evidence. They have Judge Massei and the Italian Supreme Court on their side.

 

[Samson]

Actually you have a point here, but it says much about the state of Italian Justice.

Nothing about the prosecution case ties together. It's a mishmash of dubious and contradictory witness statements, botched evidence collection and key evidence items produced by conjuring tricks.

The shame is that they don't even need to contrive any convincing evidence. They have Judge Massei and the Italian Supreme Court on their side.

Of course the filling in this sandwich is Hellmann, who PQ confidently attests is now a social outcast in his home town.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

"Perhaps" anyone is a liar; "perhaps" he is, but there is no evidence to suspect this.


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.

Here is that inconsistency of the thought process again. Curatolo was purely believable and an overall good guy, a credible witness despite the heroin problem BUT...
Knox can't be believed because she was a drug-seeking whore, all because she allegedly had a drug dealer's phone number in her phone (or vice versa -- whatever.)

 

[LondonJohn]

You have far bigger things to apologize and explain. Speaking about catalyzers and condescending remark about others' scientifical education, to start....

Hehehehe. As I said, no need to apologise

Yes. The video is 23 minutes long. Other questions?

Yes, seven questions actually:

1) Please could you provide a cite for the duration of the animation?

2) How did you learn the precise duration, given that the video's details have been kept hidden by the Perugia PMs?

3) Do you have any idea why it appears that the invoice from nventa id is dated 2nd February 2010, while the Procura Della Repubblica di Perugia documents indicate that the invoice was only paid over a year later, on 15th March 2011?

4) Why does it appear that items 1 and 2 appear to be missing from the nventa invoice (the animation and the database are listed as items 3 and 4)? Could items 1 and 2 have been related to electronic surveillance activities?

5) Do you agree that the documents in evidence suggest that there was never an written estimate given by nveta id in advance of embarking upon the work? And if that's the case, do you think it's appropriate that the likes of Comodi or Mignini should have the authority to order contract work of this financial magnitude without even getting pre-work sign-off on the quantum of money at stake (let alone without putting such work out to proper competitive tender)?

6) If the animation really is 23 minutes long, do you think that this length of animation is appropriate? Why wouldn't any animation - even if deemed necessary - have only needed to illustrate the dynamics of the attack itself (which can have lasted no longer than a minute of actual dynamic activity)? Why would it have been at all necessary to animate any alleged precursor to the attack or any alleged aftermath of the attack?

7) How much do you think it would cost to produce even a 23-minute animated video, given that a) only one small room and four characters needed to be constructed; b) cheap and easily-available software (running on regular computer hardware) is perfectly capable of producing decent-quality wireframe animation; c) no detailed facial animation would have been required, no lipsynch would have been required, and no detailed surface texturing would have been required?


Many thanks in advance

 

[acbytesla]

Here is that inconsistency of the thought process again. Curatolo was purely believable and an overall good guy, a credible witness despite the heroin problem BUT...
Knox can't be believed because she was a drug-seeking whore, all because she allegedly had a drug dealer's phone number in her phone (or vice versa -- whatever.)

But Amanda is the demon..I mean defendant. Anything she does is wrong. Right? The last thing that Machiavelli would apply is a double standard.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'll help you. You may say: "Machiavelli believes there is no conclusive evidence that the stain on the sheet is incompatibe with the kitchen knife".

or shorter:

"Machiavelli doesn't think the bed sheet stain is incompatible with the kitchen knife".

Do you like it?

Nope.

There's actually a logical similarity to be found between a properly-reasoned analysis of the knife imprint and a properly-reasoned analysis of the bathmat partial print:

For the bathmat partial print, one can say that it's compatible with a foot of a certain general size and shape (i.e. a "normal" shaped foot corresponding to a shoe size of around 41-44). One can therefore say with confidence that it's not compatible with, say, a foot corresponding to a shoe size of 36.

For the knife imprint, one can say with confidence* that it's compatible with a small knife whose blade profile is long and slender, tapering to a narrow point. One can therefore say with confidence that it's not compatible with Sollecito's kitchen knife, which has too wide a blade to have made the imprint, and which has a significantly different blade profile.

* In fact, one can analyse the knife imprint with far more accuracy and confidence than the bathmat print, since the knife print has sharply-defined edges and was made on a smooth, flat surface.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have been mulling over the issue of Comodi being investigated for ordering payment to the contractor for EUR 182,000. With no specific info to go on at this point except what was in the Italian newspaper article which included damage to the Treasury, I surmise that Comodi really blew a large hole in someone's budget. And that someone is really mad.

One issue is that there are contracting requirements which specify what can be paid for a task, and Comodi ordered an office to pay the large bill that was in violation of those requirements. It is probably something that cannot be resolved by going back to the contractor and getting a revised bill that more properly itemizes time, labor, allowable overhead, etc., because if that was the problem it would have been done already to avoid and head off a disciplinary court hearing. Which suggests it is not an invoice-clarification issue, but an issue of paying too much (exceeding permissible payment amounts) for labor, overhead, allowable profit, etc.

The contract was originally for production of an animation product. Later an additional task was added (database development work) to the contract. I wonder if that additional database task was added to disguise the fact that the original amount being spent for the animation was excessive - so excessive that it had to be obfusciated? What would the public have thought if it became known that the prosecutor was spending EUR 50,000 or 100,000 or 150,000 for a brief animation?

From the evidence we have available at the moment, it doesn't even appear that there was any form of contract drawn up before the commencement of the work. In matters of this financial magnitude, I am almost certain that it would be mandatory for the client (i.e. the Perugia PMs' office) to present the contractor (nventa id) with a procurement document outlining the requirements for the work to be done, the contractor would respond with a price quote and schedule of work, and the client would then get the quote signed off at the appropriate level before a contract was signed and any work was commenced.

And that's before we even get to the question of competitive tendering. In my view, for amounts of this magnitude, it would very likely to be a mandatory requirement for the work to be put out to tender.

Who knows: maybe in time evidence will emerge of the sort of document trail that should be present if the correct processes were followed. They haven't turned up yet though. And Comodi's upcoming starring role in front of her regulatory body tends to strongly suggest that they never will turn up, for the simple reason that they never existed.

 

[NancyS]

Heroin (or diamorphine) is a form of morphine, although it's stronger, faster acting and has a much greater euphoric effect.

One of the main reasons people don't like taking morphine is because it leaves them feeling sleepy and confused and visual hallucinations are not uncommon - the one thing it definitely doesn't allow is precise memories

It's only in this case that they can argue that cannabis turns you into a violent killer - and that heroin makes you a reliable witness with precise memories. You just couldn't make it up.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Yes - and this is a crucial point that bears repeating over and over again.

Basically, anyone who a) doesn't have a cast-iron alibi for 9pm-11pm on 1st November 2007 and b) could conceivably have been in Perugia at that time, is a potential suspect..... if one ignores the need to actually have positive evidence of guilt.

The Perugia police might just as well have found anyone in Perugia or the surrounding area who couldn't prove their whereabouts for the time in question, and charged them with involvement in the murder. And even couples who spent the evening/night at home quietly together would be in potential trouble, if they couldn't prove beyond doubt that they were inside their homes during the entire period between 9pm and 11pm.

The whole point is that an alibi is only a DEFENCE to a charge. Not having an alibi is not in itself any evidence of guilt of the charge*. The court has to judge that there's sufficient evidence that the defendant actually committed the crime to show proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Not having an alibi does not constitute any element of this positive proof (while, by contrast, having an unimpeachable alibi DOES constitute positive proof of non-guilt/innocence).

* Unless one is talking about conspiracy to commit a crime (e.g. a man hires a hitman to kill his wife, and is guilty of murder and conspiracy to murder, even if he can prove that he was nowhere near the murder scene at the time of the murder). That's obviously not an issue in the Kercher case though - and nor is it an issue in the vast majority of criminal charges.

 

[LondonJohn]

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...).

Perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us as to

a) how long Lumumba's business premises were kept closed by the authorities in 2007/2008;

b) exactly why it was necessary or relevant to the investigation to keep Lumumba's bar closed for that length of time;

c) who mandated the closure of Lumumba's bar, and who (whether the same individual or someone different) ultimately authorised its reopening.


Again, thanks in advance.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

The profile of Curatolo is just compatible with a scenario in which it is likely he committed crimes with Rudy Guede. Every rational person can see that.

And look at the glaring inconsistencies in his story about the night of the crime - people walking around in costumes a full day after Halloween, for Christ's sake. I don't know how you could fail to say he was involved, unless you were exhibiting a clear case of "confirmation bias".

 

[acbytesla]

And that's before we even get to the question of competitive tendering. In my view, for amounts of this magnitude, it would very likely to be a mandatory requirement for the work to be put out to tender.
[/QUOTE]
I love the way you talk LJ. Us Yanks would say out to, or for bid.

Who knows: maybe in time evidence will emerge of the sort of document trail that should be present if the correct processes were followed. They haven't turned up yet though. And Comodi's upcoming starring role in front of her regulatory body tends to strongly suggest that they never will turn up, for the simple reason that they never existed.

I'd say you are right. The simple fact that they are putting Commodi's feet to the fire over this animation shows that the powers that be are very suspicious of how this contract was awarded.

I'll say this though, not every government procurement requires an open bid. There are more variables than we could possibly discuss. My experience is that a contract this size would require at least a few people's approval and almost always be required for open bid or as you say tender.

However, special expertise and immediate need can sometimes expedite and bypass standard procedures for bidding. But I can't imagine any government issuing a 180K Euro purchase order without a written explanation why it is necessary to bypass standard procurement processes and being signed off by at least 3 officials. It would include both the urgency and the special expertise of the contractor that shows that they would certainly win the bid any way if it went out to bid.

On the other hand,..this is Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes - and this is a crucial point that bears repeating over and over again.

Basically, anyone who a) doesn't have a cast-iron alibi for 9pm-11pm on 1st November 2007 and b) could conceivably have been in Perugia at that time, is a potential suspect..... if one ignores the need to actually have positive evidence of guilt.

The Perugia police might just as well have found anyone in Perugia or the surrounding area who couldn't prove their whereabouts for the time in question, and charged them with involvement in the murder. And even couples who spent the evening/night at home quietly together would be in potential trouble, if they couldn't prove beyond doubt that they were inside their homes during the entire period between 9pm and 11pm.

The whole point is that an alibi is only a DEFENCE to a charge. Not having an alibi is not in itself any evidence of guilt of the charge*. The court has to judge that there's sufficient evidence that the defendant actually committed the crime to show proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Not having an alibi does not constitute any element of this positive proof (while, by contrast, having an unimpeachable alibi DOES constitute positive proof of non-guilt/innocence).

* Unless one is talking about conspiracy to commit a crime (e.g. a man hires a hitman to kill his wife, and is guilty of murder and conspiracy to murder, even if he can prove that he was nowhere near the murder scene at the time of the murder). That's obviously not an issue in the Kercher case though - and nor is it an issue in the vast majority of criminal charges.

Well this is why I was defending Lumumba. Not that Patrick couldn't have been some kind of partner with Rudy, but we don't have a shred of evidence that it is true. So really, what right do we have to speculate that he did?

As you and I have both said, unless you have some ironclad alibi of where you were for three hours that night you are a possible suspect. (not that I think the window should be three hours). But the Perugian authorities have always seemed willing to modify that TOD window to get a conviction.

What cracks me up, is there must be a very large number of people who stayed in and watched some TV sitcom that night. (How do you say "Big Bang Theory in Italian? ) Maybe with a loved one..not that their providing an alibi will matter. We'll just charge her/him as an accomplice.

 

[billyryan]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want that.

Personally, I think Curatolo was Rudy's accomplice. C'mon, here it’s just a reality check.

If Curatolo were an upper class businessman, with a well-paid job, living with a wife and children, a regular social life with his acquaintances and relatives, who would have dinner every night at 9 pm, in a cool apartment in some other neighborhood downtown… then, his profile and lifestyle would appear "not compatible" with a scenario of him testifying for money, doing favors for the prosecution, and hanging out with a criminal.

Curatolo was a 50+-year old who had been a heroin addict and dealer for decades. As a drug addict he was “only interested in pleasure” and completely detached from reality. His proclivity for living on a park bench for ten years can only be described as excessively abnormal. He is a person who would drift around town looking for drugs, and would do God-knows-what to get them. Witnesses described him as being wheeled into the courtroom on an office chair, dressed in a coat, hat and scarf, which he did not remove once on the witness stand. He must have known Guede for the entire time Guede had lived in Perugia. Obviously, he had psychological issues, drug addiction being first and foremost among them. He admitted to using heroin all the time. His companions were other dealers and, no doubt, users of all kinds in Perugia, where police turn a blind eye to the active drug trade.

Your objection is that he was credible because he sounded credible to you, and that he was not brain-damaged because heroin is nothing more than morphine.

You may try to disagree on the interpretation of some of the details listed above, but you can perfectly see the basic data about the person’s profile.

The profile of Curatolo is just compatible with a scenario in which it is likely he committed crimes with Rudy Guede. Every rational person can see that.

Just say it’s compatible and move on.

Ten out of ten for that post Mary,why not Rudy and Curatolo committed the murder together,he was by his own admission in the area that night,he obviously has great eyesight yet he at no stage saw Rudy who admits he was there at a stage when Curatolo should have seen him,there is unacounted for DNA and finger prints in the murder room

 

[RoseMontague]

Here's a few comparison photo's of The Knife vs The Bloody Outline Stain on Miss Kercher's bed sheet:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9589955&postcount=3489


[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img607/5656/dd6k.jpg[/qimg]

The trace O and an unsuccessful attempt to make it match The Knife. (above)

It is obviously not a match, the knife imprint on the bed is much smaller than the kitchen knife. Machiavelli is simply wrong about this.

 

[acbytesla]

It is obviously not a match, the knife imprint on the bed is much smaller than the kitchen knife. Machiavelli is simply wrong about this.

Of course he's wrong. But he prefaces it by saying he 'believes".

It's like the guys who tell you they believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old and that evolution and global warming are myths.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If one looks at the image, you can clearly see the sharp edges of the knife. Not only is the cooking knife larger but the shape of the blade is different. But what are you going to do Rose when someone says up is down and red is blue?

 

[Rolfe]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

That's my subject you're talking about. My contribution to science. I found out WHY that is so. You want to know? How long have you got?

The point is, that behaviour makes sense. In contrast, as it were.

Rolfe.

 

[Dan O.]

The picture that is emerging is that the prosecution is incompetent. This could be by design because it's not a crime simply to be incompetent.

Curatolo comes across as being highly suggestible. He doesn't know anything in the days immediately after. But with the police suggesting that he might have seen something and reinforced by his reconstruction over the next months what he might have seen, he now believes that he did see the pair on the court that night.

The prosecution is disparate to support their case so they use Curatolo without first digging into the contradictions to insure that the information is accurate. Supporters of Curatolo skip over the inconsistencies and try to use the apparent consistencies to prop him up. Like seeing the white suits and ambulance the next day. This is something that Curatolo cannot see from his bench but would be easily viewed in the papers he was reading in the following weeks. Supporters of Curatolo then manufacturer that he saw the ambulance and white suits from the carpark. It's strange that Curatolo never provides this detail. It's one of the points that a competent investigation would have clarified.