Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vibio]

Sorry CJ, vibio cannot do what you ask. He has chosen to be a member of the guilter family and his continued membership requires that he not speak against the beliefs of that family.

More of the same tactic.

 

[Vibio]

Antonio Curatolo testified twice, in front of Massei (2009-03-28) and again in front of Hellmann (2011-03-26). In each of these events he would have been subjected to direct and cross examination by multiple prosecutors and attorneys. What Hellmann wrote would have been a consolidation of that testimony.

No, no so. The quotes from Hellmann are Curatolo's statements from the appeal.

The original transcripts of Curatolo's questioning at the Massei trial are available. In Italian. I've read them.

 

[Desert Fox]

No, no so. The quotes from Hellmann are Curatolo's statements from the appeal.

The original transcripts of Curatolo's questioning at the Massei trial are available. In Italian. I've read them.

Why does it matter if he was high that specific day or not?
I have posted multiple times a variety of sources which support that human memory is poor in the best of times
I have further posted that the memory of people who use heroin is further impaired.

Conclusion should be that high or not that day, his memory should not be trusted and that he is not a credible witness.

If you disagree, please provide some sources that one can research to see if your arguments are justified?

Edit: While I tend to avoid this, this is an important crux of the matter. As such, unless you can refute the sources, I will assume that you are conceding the argument that he is credible?

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry CJ, vibio cannot do what you ask. He has chosen to be a member of the guilter family and his continued membership requires that he not speak against the beliefs of that family.

More of the same tactic.

Just naming it as a "tactic" is not very revealing. The issue is, is it correct? I believe it is.

 

[Vibio]

Why does it matter if he was high that specific day or not?

Please show me where I have claimed that it matters. That is for another discussion and not what I was adressing here (i.e. Coratolo's statements at the appeal).

I have posted multiple times a variety of sources which support that human memory is poor in the best of times
I have further posted that the memory of people who use heroin is further impaired.

Fine.

Conclusion should be that high or not that day, his memory should not be trusted and that he is not a credible witness.

I understand that you believe that. Fine. No problem there.

If you disagree, please provide some sources that one can research to see if your arguments are justified?

If you want to discuss whether or not Curatolo is a credible witness go right ahead. That is another discussion.

 

[Desert Fox]

If you want to discuss whether or not Curatolo is a credible witness go right ahead. That is another discussion.

No, this is the heart of the matter. . . .It is all that matter in fact. The rest is just busy work. If he is not a credible witness, that his testimony that he saw them should be discarded.

Now, is your argument that he is a credible witness?

 

[Bill Williams]

Two or three days ago, someone posted here a The Telegraph article about Amanda Knox, which actually does represent the problem with how the U.K. media (particularly) has corrupted this case.

There's a blog which briefly captures the skinny on what is wrong with what The Telegraph passed off as news:

Reaching For Amanda Knox​

I agree with every word of the blog.

Reaching For Amanda Knox

As in, a stretch. A real reach.

The Telegraph in the UK reports that Amanda Knox was sexually involved with a cocaine dealer who knew someone else who stabbed yet someone else.

Got that?

This somehow bears upon Amanda Knox’s guilt, because….nope. This doesn’t bear on anything relevant to Amanda Knox’s guilt, even if every word of it is true. There are probably only a few people on the planet that can’t be linked to some kind of criminal act that way; that is, by extension several times removed.

It’s a silly effort at a smear that shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone. And it’s a sign of desperation.

By someone.​

This is even before considering that it is still a Mignini/Machiavelli fantasy that Knox had sex with a "cocaine dealer". That claim is based on what they allege is a single phone number in Knox's 2007 mobile contact list, which no one has ever seen.

What is really real is the concerted, coordinated PR effort to smear Amanda Knox ahead of the coming Cassazione ruling on the Nencini guilty verdict.

 

[codyjuneau]

.

I think Mignini may not have thought of her a a liar and an actress until AFTER she recanted her statement, AND they realized Lumumba was innocent.

It is possible the police originally thought she had done nothing more than facilitate a date at the cottage between Lumumba and Meredith which resulted in Lumumba murdering Meredith. For various reasons they had this theory before, during, and immediately after the interrogation. They thought she was either too afraid of Lumumba to tell anyone, she had blocked it from her memory, or both. When they convinced her that she had blocked the memory out ("She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct") they rushed out and arrested Lumumba and announced case closed to the world. At the time, the police seemed satisfied with her statement that she was cowering in the kitchen holding her hands over her ears while Lumumba was murdering Meredith in the bedroom.

Later, when she re-unblocked her real memory and recanted, and it became apparent that Lumumba had an airtight alibi, Mignini and his minions decided they had been duped and embarrassed by the clever evil American witch bitch so therefore she must be the actual murderer. They never got over it, and any possibility of a fair prosecution and trial after that became impossible.

I am not locked to this theory, but it does explain a lot, and understanding the problem is fundamental to solving the problem. I would like to hear arguments for or against it, particularly with regards to the time-line. For this theory; a sincere police investigation before the interrogation, a prejudiced and dishonest police investigation after Amanda's recanting of her coerced statement.

Interestingly, nothing of the above precludes Rudy from being a police informer, or of some police protecting him. It's just that they either never considered him before the forensic test results were obtained, or if a few did, they never mentioned it.

Cody
.

It's a very interesting interpretation, and I found my self saying, 'hmm, maybe, plausible' at many points.

But I do have a issues I want to raise. These are questions.

What did Mignini believe, and when did he believe it? This is the question I think you're asking, and my problem is it may not be a legitimate question.

I'm not entirely convinced Mignini processes information in a rational way. At times he seems literally possessed by madness, At times, he seems opportunistic, playing the ball where it lies.

Patrick has an alibi they can't beat? No problem, he still has Amanda's "confession" of her involvement, so Mignini reconstructs his theory to fit the crime to Amanda. He can gain support from Stef at the lab, and round up tramp witnesses as he has done in the past.

So what does it really mean to say Mignini believes anything?

When confronted with the identification of the Narducci corpse, that Mignini had exhumed (2002), claiming the body had been switched to conceal a satanic cult murder, Mignini claimed there had been a 'double swap'.

When confronting Spezi at his hearing to be released from jail, after Mignini had Spezi imprisoned for being the actual 'Monster of Florence', the description provided in Preston/Spezi's book "MOF" tells of an enraged Mignini shaking his finger at Spezi for his irrational opposition to Mignini's investigations.

Mignini's Narducci theory, Spezi theory, and Kercher theory (that the murder was related to the rites of Halloween as Mignini originally claimed) were provided by the psychic Gabriella Carlizzi, based on her recounting of her illuminations that she reports receiving from Father Gabriel, a deceased vatican priest and exorcist who had died in (I think 1984). There is every reason to believe that Mignini himself honestly believes Carlizzi's claims of satanic cults and their relationship to the MOF crimes, with which Mignini has been trying to associate himself. (The original MOF investigators all received prominent promotions for achieving discredited convictions against people unrelated to the MOF crimes on the basis of their involvement in satanic cults). (Mignini has also authored two articles published on the website "catholic alliance", where in one he describes a revolt against Napoleon where the war cry of "Viva Maria" was taken up by the locals, and he writes of the simultaneous appearance of 'weeping Madonna statues' and other "confirmed" miracles that fed the "counter-revolutionary" rebellion).

So in attributing to Mignini a rational mind, and a logical flow of ideas based on the discovery of new evidence, is not supported by his previous behavior in the Narducci and Spezi cases. (The Case against 20 Florentines, recently dismissed in the last few weeks, was a continuation and cumulation of those investigations).

Lastly Cody, I have tried to point out my belief that the police, specifically Napoleone, tried to get Amanda to pick up a knife 'compatible with the murder', when they took Amanda to the cottage on November 4th. Had Amanda picked up a knife then, do you doubt Stef would have found a match to both Amanda and Meredith, just as Stef did with the knife selected at random from Raf's kitchen on the morning of Nov 6th?

That event on Nov 4th was before Amanda's naming Patrick. And Raf was warned by a police woman outside the station, also I believe on Nov 4th, that he would "need a lawyer for sure", and gave him a lawyer's card. I think its hard to know how crooked or crazy Mignini and the Italians actually are, as these behaviors are by no means isolated to the Kercher investigation.

So, I guess I'm kind of stumped myself. But a picture begins to emerge of a manifestly insane Mignini, bouncing back and forth between the conflicting mental states of a cynical opportunism on the one hand, and a mad delirium of satanic cult witch hunting on the other - and you ask, what does Mignini truly believe? Both? Neither? Can a schizophrenic be said to actually have a fixed set of beliefs, or are they simply subjected to the whims of neural chemical alternate realities washing over them on the fly?

I'm not sure a diagnosis for Mignini beyond "criminally insane" is feasible for outsiders and non-professionals. Mignini should be formally studied though. He is a modern day Torque Mada, an anachronism in modern times, an "Inquisitor" from the medieval Inquisition pining for his instruments of torture, forcing confessions from those in proximity to evil, all in service of his holy war against the devil.

.

Thanks for the response CJ. I am trying to put myself in the police shoes while they were trying to determine who murdered Meredith. One size shoe does not fit all, but I assume most were initially acting in good faith. The police were speculating based on limited evidence while they waited for the forensic test results. I think it is clear, that at some point they thought Amanda knew more than what she was telling them. That is a meme that has persisted. At that time, I doubt they thought she was a participant in the murder.

So by November 4, when they took her to the cottage, it may have been an attempt to elicit reactions from her that would either cause her to cooperate, or give them clues as to what she knew. Asking her to select a knife the murderer might have used is similar to the interrogation tactic they used later, of asking her to imagine what she would have seen if she was there when the murder took place. It is their method of forcing a suspect to confront reality. When she broke down crying, they probably inferred that she knew a kitchen knife was the murder weapon, and may be the reason they later selected a random kitchen knife at Raffaele's in order to force his cooperation.

As for Mignini, past behaviour is a predictor of future behavior.

In the Narducci case, when the body was exhumed and it was found to be Narducci's, Mignini should have realized his initial theory was wrong and stopped there. Instead he proposed a preposterous conspiracy involving body swapping, family, friends, and reporters.

In the Kercher case, when the forensic test results arrived and clearly showed that a known burglar name Rudy Guede, who had no business being in the girl's cottage, had broken in, assaulted and murdered Meredith, Mignini once again should have realized his initial theory was wrong and stopped there. Instead he proposed a preposterous conspiracy involving Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda.

So Mignini's behaviour is predictable, in hindsight at least. However, Mignini will likely get it right most of the time, because most cases are obvious right from the beginning. Ironically, this one would have been also if they had just waited for the forensic test results to arrive. But that is another irony in itself, because the imminent arrival of Amanda's mother, intended to protect Amanda, prompted the police to do a premature heavy handed interrogation before the forensic test results were obtained, with disastrous results for Amanda. It also had disastrous results for the Kerchers, the Knoxs, the Sollecitos, everybody actually, except for, and the ultimate irony, Meredith's murderer Rudy Guede.

What is incomprehensible to me, is why his co-workers, and the judicial system in Italy, have not only allowed this occasional perverse behavior, but have actively enabled it, both in the Narducci case and in the Kercher case.

Cody
.

 

[acbytesla]

No, no so. The quotes from Hellmann are Curatolo's statements from the appeal.

The original transcripts of Curatolo's questioning at the Massei trial are available. In Italian. I've read them.

I wish we had the original Italian exchange between Zanetti and Curatolo as well. Although I do think it is merely icing on the cake to Toto's incredulous testimony.
It is clear that Toto said in response to Judge Zanetti's question "Were you taking drugs on that night? that Curatolo said "I always take drugs"..."but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything."

So don't you think Vibio, that in fact Toto was answering Zanetti's question affirmatively?

Frankly, just as in the rest of his testimony, I don't think Toto actually could really answer that question with any confidence. I think Toto assumed he probably was high, because he was always high if he could be.

 

[Vibio]

No, this is the heart of the matter. . . .It is all that matter in fact. The rest is just busy work.

If knowing the truth about what Coratolo said at the appeal is not interesting to you, then just scroll on by.

If he is not a credible witness, that his testimony that he saw them should be discarded.

Now, is your argument that he is a credible witness?

My original post that started the discussion is post 5000. So far I have only concentrated on getting a satisfactory answer to my first question. See below:

Question: I'm not informed about Curatolo+heroin, so if any one can help: was it established that Curatolo was high on heroin that evening?

Kaosium said that he said he was at the trial.

But putting together the available info, I find that: at the trial Coratolo never said that he was high that evening.

Does it matter whether he was high that evening? Was he a credible witness? If anyone wants to discuss that, they certainly can.

 

[Desert Fox]

My original post that started the discussion is post 5000. So far I have only concentrated on getting a satisfactory answer to my first question. See below:


Kaosium said that he said he was at the trial.

But putting together the available info, I find that: at the trial Coratolo never said that he was high that evening.

Does it matter whether he was high that evening? Was he a credible witness? If anyone wants to discuss that, they certainly can.

This is a lot of effort to duck and avoid the heart of the issue.

 

[xinonix]

So, If you have murdered someone in Italy, what you need to do is hire a private detective to find 2 other people, who may have helped you do it. Get 2 people who are each others alibi.
Your lawyer can then work out a deal where you opt for the fast track trial and rat out the other two suspects. Your reward for this will be you will get your 30 yr sentence reduced and you will be out on parole in 7 years.

 

[Vibio]

It is clear that Toto said in response to Judge Zanetti's question "Were you taking drugs on that night? that Curatolo said "I always take drugs"..."but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything."

That is not the line of questioning that the Hellmann Report describes. He was not asked if was taking drugs on that night. He says

“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”.

Note too: he does not say "I always take drugs". He says "I have always taken drugs".

 

[Desert Fox]

So, If you have murdered someone in Italy, what you need to do is hire a private detective to find 2 other people, who may have helped you do it. Get 2 people who are each others alibi.
Your lawyer can then work out a deal where you opt for the fast track trial and rat out the other two suspects. Your reward for this will be you will get your 30 yr sentence reduced and you will be out on parole in 7 years.

Not really actually. . . . It is more like they early on focused on Amanda (Raffaele has always been only along for the ride) and when there was evidence of another perpetrator, they could not switch gears.

 

[Kaosium]

That is not the line of questioning that the Hellmann Report describes. He was not asked if was taking drugs on that night. He says

“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”.

Note too: he does not say "I always take drugs". He says "I have always taken drugs".

He can't say the latter because he's been locked up in prison! He mentions that part too.

Are you honestly trying to contend his answer of having "always taken drugs" (when prompted including 2007) doesn't encompass him admitting to being high the night of the murder?

If that's the case, then why do you suppose the prosecution didn't attempt that argument when they appealed? Perhaps because that kind of semantic sophistry was too dishonest even for them?

 

[Desert Fox]

He can't say the latter because he's been locked up in prison! He mentions that part too.

Are you honestly trying to contend his answer of having "always taken drugs" (when prompted including 2007) doesn't encompass him admitting to being high the night of the murder?

If that's the case, then why do you suppose the prosecution didn't attempt that argument when they appealed? Perhaps because that kind of semantic sophistry was too dishonest even for them?

In honesty, I doubt he can remember what days he took drugs and did not.

 

[Vibio]

Are you honestly trying to contend his answer of having "always taken drugs" (when prompted including 2007) doesn't encompass him admitting to being high the night of the murder?

I'm not trying to contend anything.

If you followed my posts on the subject, for the moment I'm trying to have accurate info on what Coratolo said at the appeal. Something wrong with that?

Not what Kaosium says he said. Not what Kaosium thinks he said. But what Coratolo said.

--

 

[Anode]

What can you say CJ? Of course you are right. I'm very uncomfortable trying to censor the press. But then when I read things that I know are total fabrications and see the damage that they can do, it just makes me angry.

I think the author of that article got a little background information and used his imagination to fill in the rest knowing that no one would call him on any of it. And why would they, he (Andrew Malone) and the Daily Mail had published countless other stories fabricated out of whole cloth.

Check out the article below about just a few of the Daily Mail's tabloid articles.
http://www.septicisle.info/2007/12/daily-mail-has-absolutely-no-shame.html

I'm trying to wrap my head around that top headline: "Could God Being an Astronaut Spread AIDS in our Schools?" LOL!!

 

[acbytesla]

I'm trying to wrap my head around that top headline: "Could God Being an Astronaut Spread AIDS in our Schools?" LOL!!

That's the Daily Mail for you.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not trying to contend anything.

If you followed my posts on the subject, for the moment I'm trying to have accurate info on what Coratolo said at the appeal. Something wrong with that?

Not what Kaosium says he said. Not what Kaosium thinks he said. But what Coratolo said.

--

I can't believe I'm saying this. But I think Vibio makes a fair point. It's clear that Curatolo said he was always taking drugs in 2007, it's just not clear that he says he took heroin on that specific night.

That said, it is also fairly clear that the implication that he was high that night is also true because he uses the caveat that heroin doesn't cause hallucinations. So from Curatolo's perspective, whether or not he may or may not have been high is irrelevant.