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

[Diocletus]

What will he do with Curatolo? I've always thought the PGP needed to drop him for sure. Nara doesn't really give a time so her testimony is fungible and worthless.

I think he's gone. Not because he's a junkie, but because it doesn't really know what day he's talking about. So, he's fungible, too.

Did I miss a translation of the RIS report's salient section regarding the analysis of Steffy's knife work.

Well, the Carabinieri performed multiple amplifications, and then told Nencini in response to his question that at least two amplifications should be done for a reliable test. IMO, this is probably the only thing that Nencini will remember about DNA testing. Very easy for him to say "well, Stefanoni did the best with what she had, but alas, there wasn't enough and therefore the test isn't reliable. All of the other evidence tells us that this knife didn't kill anyone, so by osmosis, it's gone."

 

[anglolawyer]

It's gonna be tough.

I think he will go with a pre-10:00 TOD. That means that Nara is toast, which seems to be contrary to what the supreme court clowns thought.

And, I don't think he can really get Sollecito outside of his apartment until 9:30. The window of opportunity--9:30-10:00--is tough to make work without forcing it.

He's up the creek if he wants to come up with a real motive.

The ISC already suggested that the clasp is infirm.

Osmosis (blood tests, reliability of DNA test, wound morphology, imprint, circumstances of the find) tells us that no Kercher DNA got on the knife during the course of the crime.

If he convicts, the opinion is going to be a doozey. That said, I do expect him to convict due to what the clowns said about multiple attackers in Rudy's trial, and because of the calunnia conviction. Cant't wait to read the "logic" behind any such decision.

It also means Curatolo is toast yet I thought the ISC would have empanelled him as one of their number had he not been dead already, such was his reputation for scrupulous accuracy. Therefore, murder before 10 is out - unless they hiked over there, killed the victim right off and then vacated to the Piazza arriving at 9.28 precisely (which is Curatolo's time IIRC) two minutes after Naruto. Then stood around until 11.30/midnight, then went back. Yeah, that works …

Maybe Nencini will disclose he has been reading up at dot org where their resident legal expert has explained we don't need no stinking time line That works too. Not.

 

[anglolawyer]

Curatolo not fungible

I think he's gone. Not because he's a junkie, but because it doesn't really know what day he's talking about. So, he's fungible, too.



Well, the Carabinieri performed multiple amplifications, and then told Nencini in response to his question that at least two amplifications should be done for a reliable test. IMO, this is probably the only thing that Nencini will remember about DNA testing. Very easy for him to say "well, Stefanoni did the best with what she had, but alas, there wasn't enough and therefore the test isn't reliable. All of the other evidence tells us that this knife didn't kill anyone, so by osmosis, it's gone."

Fungible is a great word but I don't think Curatolo is fungible. The ISC said he wasn't fungible and it's just tough if Nencini doesn't like it.

 

[Diocletus]

Fungible is a great word but I don't think Curatolo is fungible. The ISC said he wasn't fungible and it's just tough if Nencini doesn't like it.

I'll have to re-read that. My thought was that Nencini could say that he probably saw them . . . but maybe on a different day.

If they end up getting convicted because of Curatalo's testimony, then well, Curatalo is (was) a dick.

 

[NancyS]

Fungible is a great word but I don't think Curatolo is fungible. The ISC said he wasn't fungible and it's just tough if Nencini doesn't like it.

Nothing says reliable witness like a confused heroin addict with poor night vision

 

[anglolawyer]

Nothing says reliable witness like a confused heroin addict with poor night vision

Galati on Curatolo:

To highlight the witness’ extraordinary accuracy there is, amongst other things, the fact that two members of the Perugia Scientific Police who on November 2, 2007 went on reconnaissance with equipment, Assistant Palmieri and Assistant Montagna, leaving the Questura [=police headquarters] to go to Via della Pergola where there had been a crime reported ‚around 1:40 PM – 1:45 PM‛ (cf. statements of Chief Insp. Claudio Cantagalli and Asst Chief Gioa Brocci, at the hearing of April 23, 2009, p. 86 to p. 126).

It is perhaps not accidental that this paragraph makes no sense - quite apart from the extraordinary accuracy part.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'll have to re-read that. My thought was that Nencini could say that he probably saw them . . . but maybe on a different day.

If they end up getting convicted because of Curatalo's testimony, then well, Curatalo is (was) a dick.

Thanks to you, I have re-read it so you owe me. Big time.

The precise and serious nature of the testimony has been rejected by the judgment without taking into account the correlation with other evidence, on a basis of conjecture (superimposition by the witness of the evening of October 31 with that of the 1 November) that it was not even placed in comparison with data that belied their conclusions.

So Curatolo's evidence is precise and serious and his dock identification (these went out of English jurisprudence many decades ago - "do you see in the courtroom the person you have described?" Er, now let me see, there is a guy in the dock flanked by prison guards. It's him!) as to which the ISC said:

Not to mention that Curatolo had to show up, once called to testify, both at First and Second Instance, and never found it difficult to recognize, even after a long time, the two defendants as those who he had seen on Grimana Square the evening before he noticed men dressed in white in Via della Pergola (who he called "extraterrestrials") and the police. The fact that he was a tramp who was stationed on the square all day, did not allow to rule out a priori his reliability, on pain of collision with the principles laid down in terms of reliability of testimony. In conclusion this cannot be overcome, except by a process of development of his informative contribution data of otherwise demonstrative force, a contribution expressed in terms of certainty, given by the witness at the trial papers, also in renewing the testimony ("absolutely certain as I'm sitting here" as to the fact that he saw the two defendants in the evening before the day on which he saw the ones with the white suits and the police), referring to the status of the author of the contribution.

I included the yellow highlighted text in the hope you would tell us all what it means

 

[Diocletus]

Galati on Curatolo:



It is perhaps not accidental that this paragraph makes no sense - quite apart from the extraordinary accuracy part.

OK. I just re-read the part on Curatalo, and I have also recovered from the ensuing laughing fit.

Here is my summary:

-Curatalo said that he definitely saw Knox/Sollecito on the night before the appearance of the “men in white”. It was illogical for Hellmann to speculate that Curatalo was talking about October 31, because Knox/Sollecito were not in the square then.

-Curatalo’s testimony can be rejected only if contradicted by other evidence. If the white suit testimony is to be rejected on the basis of heroin use, then the rejection must be supported by scientific testimony.

-If Curatalo is not rejected, then the alibi is false and this is evidence of guilt.

So, is there other evidence that renders Curatalo false (i.e., putting aside the heroin, homelessness, craziness, serial witness, in jail, poop in the woods stuff)? I suggest Naruto (9:26 v. 9:28, I know), screensaver, did not mention the scream, did not mention Rudy, and the fact that if he is accurate, Knox and Sollecito would not have had time to commit the murder by 10:00/15.

Mind you, I'm not saying that that's what Nencini will do, but I think that if he wanted to get around Curatalo, that's what he could reasonably say.

 

[anglolawyer]

OK. I just re-read the part on Curatalo, and I have also recovered from the ensuing laughing fit.

Here is my summary:

-Curatalo said that he definitely saw Knox/Sollecito on the night before the appearance of the “men in white”. It was illogical for Hellmann to speculate that Curatalo was talking about October 31, because Knox/Sollecito were not in the square then.

-Curatalo’s testimony can be rejected only if contradicted by other evidence. If the white suit testimony is to be rejected on the basis of heroin use, then the rejection must be supported by scientific testimony.

-If Curatalo is not rejected, then the alibi is false and this is evidence of guilt.

So, is there other evidence that renders Curatalo false (i.e., putting aside the heroin, homelessness, craziness, serial witness, in jail, poop in the woods stuff)? I suggest Naruto (9:26 v. 9:28, I know), screensaver, did not mention the scream, did not mention Rudy, and the fact that if he is accurate, Knox and Sollecito would not have had time to commit the murder by 10:00/15.

Mind you, I'm not saying that that's what Nencini will do, but I think that if he wanted to get around Curatalo, that's what he could reasonably say.

Not bad. Not bad at all. Let's hope Nencini is receiving minute-by-minute reports of this discussion.

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks to you, I have re-read it so you owe me. Big time.



So Curatolo's evidence is precise and serious and his dock identification (these went out of English jurisprudence many decades ago - "do you see in the courtroom the person you have described?" Er, now let me see, there is a guy in the dock flanked by prison guards. It's him!) as to which the ISC said:


I included the yellow highlighted text in the hope you would tell us all what it means

Not to mention that Curatolo had to show up, once called to testify, both at First and Second Instance, and never found it difficult to recognize, even after a long time, the two defendants as those who he had seen on Grimana Square the evening before he noticed men dressed in white in Via della Pergola (who he called "extraterrestrials") and the police. The fact that he was a tramp who was stationed on the square all day, did not allow to rule out a priori his reliability, on pain of collision with the principles laid down in terms of reliability of testimony. In conclusion this cannot be overcome, except by a process of development of his informative contribution data of otherwise demonstrative force, a contribution expressed in terms of certainty, given by the witness at the trial papers, also in renewing the testimony ("absolutely certain as I'm sitting here" as to the fact that he saw the two defendants in the evening before the day on which he saw the ones with the white suits and the police), referring to the status of the author of the contribution.

See above. I think it means that Curatalo is presumed to have seen the defendants in the square unless there are specific facts that disprove this, e.g., if his testimony is accurate, then Knox and Sollecito could not have committed the murder.

It also means that the supreme court judges are clowns, and that they have overridden any right to jury trial on fact issues.

ETA: Based on the Aviello principle, an expert should really be called to testify as to whether a heroin addict is likely to convince himself, a year after the fact, that he really, truly witnessed an event that is just imagined. I would expect that such expert testimony could be found and might be . . . decisive!

 

[Grinder]

So the very earliest time they could have been back at the cottage is 9:40 and you would also have to factor in the meeting Guede on the way. If you then consider the time it takes Guede to poo and the time it takes for Amanda to get changed out of the clothes she had been wearing earlier that day - there can't even be ten minutes possible time left for the murder

While agreeing that there doesn't seem to have been enough time, it theoretically could be that Amanda met Rudy before returning to Raf's but after seeing that she wouldn't need to be working. I forget whether there was proof that she did or didn't look at the SMS while out.

The issues that I see are crucial to debunk are the interrogation statements, the "bloody" luminol footprints, the bathmat print and of course the knife DNA.

Show that those things are specious and the house of cards falls apart.

 

[Grinder]

Nothing says reliable witness like a confused heroin addict with poor night vision

Now he was a perfect candidate for a Perry Mason move. Perry would have Drake find a couple that resembled Amanda and Raf and had them enter the court room or sit at the defendant table (I know it couldn't have been done in Perugia) and have him ID the people he saw in the plaza.

 

[Grinder]

OK. I just re-read the part on Curatalo, and I have also recovered from the ensuing laughing fit.

Here is my summary:

-Curatalo said that he definitely saw Knox/Sollecito on the night before the appearance of the “men in white”. It was illogical for Hellmann to speculate that Curatalo was talking about October 31, because Knox/Sollecito were not in the square then.

-Curatalo’s testimony can be rejected only if contradicted by other evidence. If the white suit testimony is to be rejected on the basis of heroin use, then the rejection must be supported by scientific testimony.

-If Curatalo is not rejected, then the alibi is false and this is evidence of guilt.

So, is there other evidence that renders Curatalo false (i.e., putting aside the heroin, homelessness, craziness, serial witness, in jail, poop in the woods stuff)? I suggest Naruto (9:26 v. 9:28, I know), screensaver, did not mention the scream, did not mention Rudy, and the fact that if he is accurate, Knox and Sollecito would not have had time to commit the murder by 10:00/15.

Mind you, I'm not saying that that's what Nencini will do, but I think that if he wanted to get around Curatalo, that's what he could reasonably say.

I think you missed the most significant errors. We all know them, but I'll repeat them once again. He saw people with Halloween costumes and he saw the disco buses. He also denied seeing anything when questioned the week of the murder and only came forward after being urged by the cub reporter that found almost every witness. Oh and he had an outstanding heroin dealing charge.

As I have mentioned many a time his court testimony clearly (from Google - Briars and other pro guilt Italian speakers refuse to address) states he saw them from 9:27 until just before midnight but Massei moved it to 11:30 because that's when the disco buses would normally be gone. Of course there were no buses on that night. Our friend HarryRag likes to point out that discos were open that night evidenced by Rudy's dancing, but ignores that they were in town locations that didn't use buses.

I would add debunking Curatolo as a primary defense need.

 

[Diocletus]

I think you missed the most significant errors. We all know them, but I'll repeat them once again. He saw people with Halloween costumes and he saw the disco buses. He also denied seeing anything when questioned the week of the murder and only came forward after being urged by the cub reporter that found almost every witness. Oh and he had an outstanding heroin dealing charge.

As I have mentioned many a time his court testimony clearly (from Google - Briars and other pro guilt Italian speakers refuse to address) states he saw them from 9:27 until just before midnight but Massei moved it to 11:30 because that's when the disco buses would normally be gone. Of course there were no buses on that night. Our friend HarryRag likes to point out that discos were open that night evidenced by Rudy's dancing, but ignores that they were in town locations that didn't use buses.

I would add debunking Curatolo as a primary defense need.

The Supreme Court doesn't care about the disco buses or the heroin. According to them, he saw what he says he saw unless there is some other objective fact that undercuts his testimony.

The best one, as you suggest, is the fact that if he saw them as stated on the night of the murder, then they couldn't have committed a murder at 10:00. Therefore, either he is objectively wrong or they are innocent. You decide.

 

[Bill Williams]

The oft stated allegation that Comodi told Mignini she would not be involved in the case if he insisted on the satantic rite theory.

And top of the morning (afternoon) to you.

The allegation as presented here is not an allegation.

It is simply true that Barbie wrote this. If you have an issue with it being a factoid, it needs to be brought up with her.

As long as the caveat is attached to it properly, what's the problem? The caveat is: "Nadeau claims...... ".

 

[Grinder]

The Supreme Court doesn't care about the disco buses or the heroin. According to them, he saw what he says he saw unless there is some other objective fact that undercuts his testimony. The best one, as you suggest, is the fact that if he saw them as stated on the night of the murder, then they couldn't have committed a murder at 10:00. Therefore, either he is objectively wrong or they are innocent. You decide.

Why wouldn't the fact that the buses and people with costumes he used to set the date weren't in fact there that night be "objective evidence" that undercuts his testimony?

 

[Dan O.]

It has been stated that the trip from Raf's to the cottage is just 5 or 10 minutes. The plaza is right there so it would depend how long they stayed there.

At one time there was a stairway leading from the edge of the basketball court to the street below. These metal steps had been removed and the fence continued across the gap. I cannot be positive that they were not there at the begining of November 2007 but they were gone within the next year. I can almost picture what they looked like which makes me think I could have seen them in the early view from Google street view but didn't think it was important enough to save.

Without those steps, in order to get from the railing near the court down to the cottage it is necessary to backtrack to the far side of the court to take the stone steps by the building or go past the news kiosk to come down the road.

 

[NancyS]

ETA: Based on the Aviello principle, an expert should really be called to testify as to whether a heroin addict is likely to convince himself, a year after the fact, that he really, truly witnessed an event that is just imagined. I would expect that such expert testimony could be found and might be . . . decisive!

My current boss is often asked for information on effects of drugs - and I think she would find it incredible that curatolo has been used as a witness.

I work for an addictions team and I'm fairly sympathetic to heroin addicts and often find them easier to work with than alcoholics - however, the one thing they are not is reliable. They are usually taking heroin for a reason and are often self-medicating fairly severe mental health problems. Using other drugs and alcohol at the same time is also common - and a 50-year-old with a long history of drug/alcohol abuse is likely to have some cognitive impairment. If he had been taking heroin at the time, his memory is likely to be very cloudy - I often have to admit heroin users and they always have a last hit prior to admission and they often have no memory of meeting me when I see them next. His night vision would also have been very poor.

He would have been seeing pictures of Amanda and Raffaele every day in the papers - and it is not a huge leap to imagine that he started to believe he remembered something, especially as heroin and withdrawal symptoms can cause delusions and memory distortion. He is also likely to have said anything to a reporter if given some money for more drugs.

 

[Diocletus]

Why wouldn't the fact that the buses and people with costumes he used to set the date weren't in fact there that night be "objective evidence" that undercuts his testimony?

Well, because he said that he saw the men in white on the day after spotting Knox and Sollecito in the square, and that's the end of that. There is no undercutting the date that Curatalo is claiming--you have to confront him on the facts.

It's silly and unfair, but again, this supreme court is not bright.

ETA: So, add to the list the fact that he denied seeing anything right after the murder, and then came up with his story only much later.

 

[Diocletus]

My current boss is often asked for information on effects of drugs - and I think she would find it incredible that curatolo has been used as a witness.

I work for an addictions team and I'm fairly sympathetic to heroin addicts and often find them easier to work with than alcoholics - however, the one thing they are not is reliable. They are usually taking heroin for a reason and are often self-medicating fairly severe mental health problems. Using other drugs and alcohol at the same time is also common - and a 50-year-old with a long history of drug/alcohol abuse is likely to have some cognitive impairment. If he had been taking heroin at the time, his memory is likely to be very cloudy - I often have to admit heroin users and they always have a last hit prior to admission and they often have no memory of meeting me when I see them next. His night vision would also have been very poor.

He would have been seeing pictures of Amanda and Raffaele every day in the papers - and it is not a huge leap to imagine that he started to believe he remembered something, especially as heroin and withdrawal symptoms can cause delusions and memory distortion. He is also likely to have said anything to a reporter if given some money for more drugs.

Agreed. I can easily believe that the guy actually believed what he said. It's just that what he said was something that he made up based on things that he learned afterwards.