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

[Strozzi]

It was dark so they didn't worry about being bloody. They took the knife and had it with them.

Is that about it?

Grinder, you forgot how they were able to clean up Meredith's blood that was on them without leaving even a drop of Meredith's blood at Raffaele's place. Here's how they did it. They jogged 3 miles to a four-star hotel with an indoor pool. Talked the bell clerk out of a pool pass. Went skinny dipping in the pool but none of the other hotel guests in the lobby late that night thought it was strange to see the blood-soaked murderers pass through the lobby. They rinsed their clothes in the pool, too, then dried them in the sauna around 1 am. Put them on and went home to Raffaele's. I guess Raffaele must have brought his computers with him so that he could interact with them so nobody would realize what happened that night. That is why 3 or 4 days later when Officer Finzi entered Raffaele's place to search high and low and pick up one knife from among many in the cutlery drawer he remarked that the place smelled of bleach. It wsn't bleach, it was chlorine from the swimming pool permeating their clothes that they rinsed in the hotel pool. Does that line up pretty well with Briars' theory?

 

[Strozzi]

In any case, both the knife and the bra-clasp were exposed to contamination at numerous points in the collection/testing cycle. There is even a video on YouTube of the bra-clasp collection, showing the investigators handling it with dirty gloves. The existence of unattributed DNA on the bra-clasp is actually proof that contamination did occur.

Antony, are you aware that the investigator holding the bra clasp the longest, turning it over in her dirty-gloved hands, and then appearing to stroke the hook area of the bra clasp with her dirty-gloved finger is the lead forensic police scientist Dr. Stefanoni herself. Yes, that's her. The crack scientist who understands DNA and contamination. The one who collects evidence, smears evidence, stores it inappropriately, uses inadequate instrumentation that cannot handle LCN evidence to prepare and examine LCN evidence, and deliberately misinterprets data so as to be able to claim that it matches whoever she wants it to match - victim or defendant.

 

[kwill]

I've always found it interesting that the PGP says Curatolo is totally truthful, yet only selectively believe him.

Agree, it's very strange.

QUESTION - 21:30 So there together on park bench
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
ANSWER - No, they were not ... I was on the bench, their
were on the low wall of the basketball court .
QUESTION - two of them were always there continuously ?
ANSWER - Yes, until before midnight, I go away ,
I think so because they were there.
QUESTION - So it's not that they are gone and returned , are
always been there ?
ANSWER - No , I am neither left nor returned , there were
sitting around talking to each other.

Isn't that the homeless heroin addict saying that Amanda and Raffaele spent all the time between 9:30 pm and midnight on the night of the murder sitting on the low wall of the basketball court?

Here's the truth: Amanda and Raffaele never left his flat that night. Rudy had already killed Meredith by 9:30 pm. The heroin addict has -- absurdly -- given them an alternate alibi, which they don't need. If the guilters insist that he's reliable, they must also conclude that Amanda and Raffaele are definitely innocent.

QUESTION - two of them were always there continuously ?
ANSWER - Yes, until before midnight

 

[Kaosium]

Wow that's chilling.

LOL! I didn't mean it that way!

I like leaving him in. You read Italian right? If so, please translate his testimony because it is pretty clear that if you take him at his word there is no way they could have killed Meredith around 10:15 which is Briar's guess at Meredith's TOD.

I don't read Italian, I use what's left of my French to guess at what Google translate spits out by re-arranging the words so they make sense. Success varies in that endeavor.

Curatolo and his testimony doesn't get any better if employed as an 'alibi.' He's utterly absurd. He knew nothing about what happened that night in the cottage and I'm gobsmacked at the credulity of those who think he did.

 

[Poppy1016]

Antony, are you aware that the investigator holding the bra clasp the longest, turning it over in her dirty-gloved hands, and then appearing to stroke the hook area of the bra clasp with her dirty-gloved finger is the lead forensic police scientist Dr. Stefanoni herself. Yes, that's her. The crack scientist who understands DNA and contamination. The one who collects evidence, smears evidence, stores it inappropriately, uses inadequate instrumentation that cannot handle LCN evidence to prepare and examine LCN evidence, and deliberately misinterprets data so as to be able to claim that it matches whoever she wants it to match - victim or defendant.

This is clearly evident to us. Why do the judges not see it?

 

[acbytesla]

Agree, it's very strange.

Isn't that the homeless heroin addict saying that Amanda and Raffaele spent all the time between 9:30 pm and midnight on the night of the murder sitting on the low wall of the basketball court?

Here's the truth: Amanda and Raffaele never left his flat that night. Rudy had already killed Meredith by 9:30 pm. The heroin addict has -- absurdly -- given them an alternate alibi, which they don't need. If the guilters insist that he's reliable, they must also conclude that Amanda and Raffaele are definitely innocent.

QUESTION - two of them were always there continuously ?
ANSWER - Yes, until before midnight

The problem is that the PGP want it both ways. They want to believe Toto, but only selectively believe him. But it shouldn't work that way. Either Toto's lying, and therefore Amanda and Raffaele are innocent or he's not lying and Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. It's really that simple.

 

[kwill]

Curatolo and his testimony doesn't get any better if employed as an 'alibi.' He's utterly absurd.

I know. That's the point, eh? The people who want him as a prosecution witness are seriously kidding themselves, because he's clearly blabbing nonsense. Some of his blubbering happens to mean that Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have gone into the cottage, but they still want to believe the parts that don't.

Laughable.

 

[Kaosium]

Oh I believe him unlike a couple of defendants who continue to lie. He testified and helped in a couple other cases. Actually helped in a productive way, Living outside and being available has its merits apparently.

He was a drug-addled fanaticist. Even if he wasn't, coming forward eight months later and claiming he had critical knowledge of a murder that had slipped his mind until then but with a story that makes no sense and him associating that memory with things that happened on another night is enough to dismiss entirely what he thinks he remembers about people he didn't know that he saw at a significant distance eight months before.

 

[Kaosium]

I know. That's the point, eh? The people who want him as a prosecution witness are seriously kidding themselves, because he's clearly blabbing nonsense. Some of his blubbering happens to mean that Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have gone into the cottage, but they still want to believe the parts that don't.

Laughable.

Laugh so you don't cry!

ETA: Here is an excerpt from the Hellmann Report on Curatolo:

The presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Piazza Grimana between the hours of 9:30 pm and 11:30 pm of 1st November was, in fact, reported only by witness Curatolo, whose credibility this court very much doubts for the following reasons.

First, the deterioration of his intellectual faculties, revealed by the responses given before this Court during his testimony (hearing of 3.26.2011) and resulting from his type of lifestyle and from his habits.

[Mr. Curatolo] is a tramp who at the time lived on the streets whereas today he is detained serving a sentence [detenuto in espiazione di pena] for drug-trafficking [spaccio di sostanza stupefacente] and who, when asked why he had chosen this type of life (at times, in fact, such choices are motivated by idealistic reasons), he responded: “…Because … really I’m an anarchist however I have read the bible and I became a Christian anarchist… and so this is what I chose…”.

However – the Court observes – this idealistic urge [spinta ideale] to follow the example of Jesus (to quote “…to follow the life of Christ I chose to follow this type of life…”) did not prevent him from committing many crimes, such that, when questioned about the types of crimes committed, he replied: “Several, several, you know, some precedents for drugs, some precedents for political reasons…”.

Nor did it prevent him from selling drugs or making use of them himself, so that when questioned on the point, he responded: “…I have always taken drugs” and to the question “even in 2007?”, “yes” and on the type of drug “…I always took heroin” adding immediately “I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen…”.

Today he maintains that he no longer takes drugs because – as noted – he is being detained serving a sentence [espiazione di pena] but, when asked to clarify whether he knows whether he is imprisoned for a definitive conviction [condanna definitiva, i.e. a conviction confirmed by the Cassazione], he responded: “er [boh], I still haven’t understood anything however I think so… they took me and they put me in prison”.

Now, it cannot be absolutely excluded that a person of his type, who has a tendency to cover himself in an idealistic choice of lifestyle (anarchic christian) while taking heroin and above all else selling drugs, and that is so confused that he does not even know whether he is in prison serving a definitive sentence [esecuzione di una condanna definitive] or not, can have nevertheless reported as a witness facts that really were perceived and can have recognized the two current defendants as the youngsters seen that evening in Piazza Grimana. But certainly, when evaluating the credibility or otherwise of the witness we must proceed with particular caution, considering the personal circumstances identified [attese le condizioni personali evidenziate].

The rest, which is worth reading as well, shows that the story this clown testified to in court that supposedly 'breaks' Amanda and Raffaele's alibi repeately refers to things that happened on October 31st and weren't present on November 1st, such as students in masks and costumes and the disco buses which weren't running on All Saint's Day but did run on Halloween.

The saddest (or funniest!) thing of all?

Curatolo may not be the most unreliable witness the prosecution presented in court. Kokomani may have been less credible.

 

[MichaelB]

They should have been very concerned with the break in blood and locked door. Amanda in one account wrote she pounded on the door screaming her name. The peek into the keyhole was morbid curiosity by raff to see what might be seen on the floor. There is no excuse for not calling again or successfully breaking down the flimsy door. The front door was open the window smashed no Meredith , her purse on the bed blood etc. MY TOD does work with the sleepy women not sure of the time. It works with Formica and maybe even Kokomani.
Curatolo was reading did he look up 2 or 3 times? that would be hard for him to remember. I find it amazing the slack given to the accused for their improving and changing memory here. One example out of dozens Amanda initially cannot identify the woman who slapped her she recalls many people in the room but there were only three. Just in time for her book she not only remembers who it was but now this woman actually says I'm sorry I slapped you on the stairs. Like the phantom emails RS sent the story continues to evolve as they try to spin the loose and untidy ends.

P

Witness is Marsi

LAWYER - I am attorney Giulia Bongiorno. When Amanda showed you these bloodstains in the bathroom, was she alarmed? Were the patches obvious, or was it not something obvious?

WITNESS - No, there was not a particularly large patch, they were marks left behind probably by someone who had dirty hands, there was not a round patch where the blood had pooled. Speaking in an Italian she said: "Here it's dirty even in here, I am frightened, I have not touched anything," she told me.

PRESIDENT - Sorry, where were these blood stains?

WITNESS - The sink, the faucet, and also on the mat that was under the sink.

LAWYER - At this point, did you immediately report to Battistelli?

WITNESS - Yes, we were there while Amanda showed me the traces of blood, Battistelli spoke with Raffaele, I then went to Romanelli's room and I told him, we talked about this, these traces of blood ..

Filomena said it never crossed her mind something terrible had happened when she arrived at the cottage.

 

[davefoc]

He is trying to explain why he said there was no theft. He writes it was after the officer growled at him and was fixated on the thief being cut. This account in his book is false as anyone can hear or read in the transcripts. When people go out of ther way to explain by changing something it shows they know it to be a problem.

Oh I believe him unlike a couple of defendants who continue to lie. He testified and helped in a couple other cases. Actually helped in a productive way, Living outside and being available has its merits apparently.

Is your first comment above about one of those lies that Solecito told? Based on the transcript of the call that was posted in this thread it appears you were wrong. Were you lying, mistaken, misunderstood or do you dispute the transcript?

It looks like you are interpreting minutiae that has been reported about this case in strange ways as evidence to support your beliefs and sometimes you just make stuff up to support your beliefs. I did not suspect that this was the situation until you said something and it was shown where you are probably wrong and you didn't acknowledge your error. Yet you continue to claim that Sollecito lied. How much of the claim about Solecito's lies is based on stuff you just make up or are you mostly just assigning absurd significance to insignificant events to bolster your confirmation biases?

 

[davefoc]

Briars,
This is the man you find credible and who you think should be believed:

The presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Piazza Grimana between the hours of 9:30 pm and 11:30 pm of 1st November was, in fact, reported only by witness Curatolo, whose credibility this court very much doubts for the following reasons.

First, the deterioration of his intellectual faculties, revealed by the responses given before this Court during his testimony (hearing of 3.26.2011) and resulting from his type of lifestyle and from his habits.

[Mr. Curatolo] is a tramp who at the time lived on the streets whereas today he is detained serving a sentence [detenuto in espiazione di pena] for drug-trafficking [spaccio di sostanza stupefacente] and who, when asked why he had chosen this type of life (at times, in fact, such choices are motivated by idealistic reasons), he responded: “…Because … really I’m an anarchist however I have read the bible and I became a Christian anarchist… and so this is what I chose…”.

However – the Court observes – this idealistic urge [spinta ideale] to follow the example of Jesus (to quote “…to follow the life of Christ I chose to follow this type of life…”) did not prevent him from committing many crimes, such that, when questioned about the types of crimes committed, he replied: “Several, several, you know, some precedents for drugs, some precedents for political reasons…”.

Nor did it prevent him from selling drugs or making use of them himself, so that when questioned on the point, he responded: “…I have always taken drugs” and to the question “even in 2007?”, “yes” and on the type of drug “…I always took heroin” adding immediately “I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen…”.

Today he maintains that he no longer takes drugs because – as noted – he is being detained serving a sentence [espiazione di pena] but, when asked to clarify whether he knows whether he is imprisoned for a definitive conviction [condanna definitiva, i.e. a conviction confirmed by the Cassazione], he responded: “er [boh], I still haven’t understood anything however I think so… they took me and they put me in prison”.

Now, it cannot be absolutely excluded that a person of his type, who has a tendency to cover himself in an idealistic choice of lifestyle (anarchic christian) while taking heroin and above all else selling drugs, and that is so confused that he does not even know whether he is in prison serving a definitive sentence [esecuzione di una condanna definitive] or not, can have nevertheless reported as a witness facts that really were perceived and can have recognized the two current defendants as the youngsters seen that evening in Piazza Grimana. But certainly, when evaluating the credibility or otherwise of the witness we must proceed with particular caution, considering the personal circumstances identified [attese le condizioni personali evidenziate].

Do you realize that in an almost unbroken string that Machiavelli has never made a single post in this thread questioning any piece of evidence presented by the prosecution and yet he has his doubts about Curatolo's testimony? Just what in your mind could make this witness any less credible than he is?

 

[Planigale]

With regards to MK DNA on the knife.It is worth remembering that NO blood was detected on the knife, no cellular material was found. The sample on the blade that was tested showed NO DNA. If a sample containing NO DNA is put through analysis and comes up with a low level of MK DNA that proves laboratory contamination. The fact that the negative controls have never been made available reinforces this. Contamination is proven because a sample that was tested as containing no DNA produced a result. It produced exactly the result one would expect for laboratory contamination in a laboratory not set up to do low copy DNA replication carrying out an attempt at low copy DNA replication. The laboratory results prove contamination. The fact that no duplicate sample exists is odd. Stefanoni appeared to think she had a significant amount of DNA so there would appear to be no good grounds for not splitting the sample. In terms of DNA replication considering the number of replication cycles halving the amount of DNA being rum really makes no difference to your outcome. There is no good excuse for such a breach in standard lab procedure. But the the whole process appears to be a breach of standard protocols, so one cannot be sure that the protocols to prevent contamination were followed.

With regards to the bra strap, we know the bra strap was not recovered at the time of the immediate crime scene investigation. We know no trace of RS DNA was found on samples recovered immediately. We know that the bra strap moved around on the floor, we know when it was recovered it was handled with dirty gloves, picked up, put down, photographed, picked up. When analysed on one spot was DNA of several males detected including RS. The fact that no DNA of RS was found on the samples immediately recovered, that mixed DNA was found on the bra strap that is observed to be handled by multiple people, put down, picked up then put in to wrong type of receptacle such that it subsequently rusts, and this is the only RS positive DNA sample strongly favours that this sample was contaminated between the crime and collection. It should be remembered plentiful DNA from RG was found, so this was not a scene when little DNA evidence was left behind by the perpetrator.

I think the case for contamination is proven.

 

[Samson]

Laugh so you don't cry!

ETA: Here is an excerpt from the Hellmann Report on Curatolo:



The rest, which is worth reading as well, shows that the story this clown testified to in court that supposedly 'breaks' Amanda and Raffaele's alibi repeately refers to things that happened on October 31st and weren't present on November 1st, such as students in masks and costumes and the disco buses which weren't running on All Saint's Day but did run on Halloween.

The saddest (or funniest!) thing of all?

Curatolo may not be the most unreliable witness the prosecution presented in court. Kokomani may have been less credible.

Stunning retrieval of Hellmann to enjoy, he seems sane as sane can be, not really criminal at all. Thank you for the reminder Kaosium.

 

[Kaosium]

With regards to MK DNA on the knife.It is worth remembering that NO blood was detected on the knife, no cellular material was found. The sample on the blade that was tested showed NO DNA. If a sample containing NO DNA is put through analysis and comes up with a low level of MK DNA that proves laboratory contamination. The fact that the negative controls have never been made available reinforces this. Contamination is proven because a sample that was tested as containing no DNA produced a result. It produced exactly the result one would expect for laboratory contamination in a laboratory not set up to do low copy DNA replication carrying out an attempt at low copy DNA replication. The laboratory results prove contamination. The fact that no duplicate sample exists is odd. Stefanoni appeared to think she had a significant amount of DNA so there would appear to be no good grounds for not splitting the sample. In terms of DNA replication considering the number of replication cycles halving the amount of DNA being rum really makes no difference to your outcome. There is no good excuse for such a breach in standard lab procedure. But the the whole process appears to be a breach of standard protocols, so one cannot be sure that the protocols to prevent contamination were followed.

With regards to the bra strap, we know the bra strap was not recovered at the time of the immediate crime scene investigation. We know no trace of RS DNA was found on samples recovered immediately. We know that the bra strap moved around on the floor, we know when it was recovered it was handled with dirty gloves, picked up, put down, photographed, picked up. When analysed on one spot was DNA of several males detected including RS. The fact that no DNA of RS was found on the samples immediately recovered, that mixed DNA was found on the bra strap that is observed to be handled by multiple people, put down, picked up then put in to wrong type of receptacle such that it subsequently rusts, and this is the only RS positive DNA sample strongly favours that this sample was contaminated between the crime and collection. It should be remembered plentiful DNA from RG was found, so this was not a scene when little DNA evidence was left behind by the perpetrator.

I think the case for contamination is proven.

Great post!

Italy is trying to treat contamination as a feature and not a bug. By disregarding or just going through the motions of the typical safeguards for high template samples, police and prosecutors can find what they need at the low template level and produce the result in court as 'evidence' then reverse the burden of proof by forcing the defense to prove it's contamination.

It's flawless. It's not science, it's not justice, but the naughty part of me can't help but admire the brazen shamelessness of it.

 

[Kaosium]

Stunning retrieval of Hellmann to enjoy, he seems sane as sane can be, not really criminal at all. Thank you for the reminder Kaosium.

What's even funnier is reading through the attempts of the prosecution to 'rehabilitate' Curatolo's testimony. They countered that some discos were open, however they were the ones without the disco buses. The Hellmann Court called in the disco owners that used shuttle buses and the bus company managers to testify they weren't open and they didn't run buses that night, so the prosecution moved on to saying it was a big party night anyway because they (~2011) had specials on Thursdays without addressing whether it was the case in 2007 or ever true on All Saint's Day! (why did Patrick text Amanda not to come in? ) They wouldn't just drop this guy, perhaps because he's so important to their case, so they kept coming up with ways the story he told might have been about November first.

You see Curatolo couldn't tell them what day it was, he associated those 'memories' with the disco buses and the 'pandemonium' by all the students in masks boarding them.

Which happens on Halloween, not November 1st.

 

[Samson]

What's even funnier is reading through the attempts of the prosecution to 'rehabilitate' Curatolo's testimony. They countered that some discos were open, however they were the ones without the disco buses. The Hellmann Court called in the disco owners that used shuttle buses and the bus company managers to testify they weren't open and they didn't run buses that night, so the prosecution moved on to saying it was a big party night anyway because they (~2011) had specials on Thursdays without addressing whether it was the case in 2007 or ever true on All Saint's Day! (why did Patrick text Amanda not to come in? ) They wouldn't just drop this guy, perhaps because he's so important to their case, so they kept coming up with ways the story he told might have been about November first.

You see Curatolo couldn't tell them what day it was, he associated those 'memories' with the disco buses and the 'pandemonium' by all the students in masks boarding them.

Which happens on Halloween, not November 1st.

Hellmann requests from his countrymen (people) who will take responsibility for (wrongful) incarceration of these 2 for 26 years. Hands up, but what sanction if wrong.

 

[Strozzi]

This is clearly evident to us. Why do the judges not see it?

There are four possibilities for how the judges see this. Early judges accepted the thrust of Mignini's claims because of their assumption that he must have solved the murder even if he got some of it wrong. They gave deference to his authority rather than applied critical thinking. Other judges may have been so ignorant of science as to not comprehend DNA evidence contamination. Yet others (Hellman) saw it for the travesty it is, rejected it, and found the defendants innocent of the murder.

What we will see with the current trial's judges is whether or not they have personal integrity or are more concerned with protecting the reputation and scientific myth of the often corrupt police and Italian legal system. If it is the latter, the judges will not want to rock the boat and they will buck the case forwards where it is likely to ultimately end in front the European Court of Human Rights.

Lab science students will study this case - especially the videos and commentary on Dr. Stefanoni's questionable collection and lab methods - to learn what not to do. This case will be the subject of many graduate theses in the coming decades.

 

[Briars]

Is your first comment above about one of those lies that Solecito told? Based on the transcript of the call that was posted in this thread it appears you were wrong. Were you lying, mistaken, misunderstood or do you dispute the transcript?

It looks like you are interpreting minutiae that has been reported about this case in strange ways as evidence to support your beliefs and sometimes you just make stuff up to support your beliefs. I did not suspect that this was the situation until you said something and it was shown where you are probably wrong and you didn't acknowledge your error. Yet you continue to claim that Sollecito lied. How much of the claim about Solecito's lies is based on stuff you just make up or are you mostly just assigning absurd significance to insignificant events to bolster your confirmation biases?

Dave clearly you do not not what you are talking about here and should apologize. The dispatcher had been polite , had not memtionedn

 

[Strozzi]

Dave clearly you do not not what you are talking about here and should apologize.

Don't apologize, Dave.