• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
My guess as to the latter is that he probably was getting something, I do know they're generous with the sedatives with people who aren't suffering withdrawals as per Amanda refusing the tranquilizers in prison, so I cannot see why they couldn't find something to mitigate his condition whether it was methadone (which I've heard causes its own problems) or something else.

They always wean people off of heroin. It is actually dangerous to go through withdrawals so they try to bring addicts off it slowly replacing heroin with a milder drug and then lessening the doses of that. That does mitigate the withdrawal.

Indeed it probably should be remembered that Curatolo had spent a decade or so sleeping on the streets which is what happens to those who are heroin junkies, which is what Curatolo was. Those are the ones who answer questions by saying they were 'always' high. :p
 
IIRC there was also a squirrel involved

London John,

I agree with you in principle, and you have stated it very clearly. However, Farah Jama had an alibi, but the jury didn't believe him. They chose to believe DNA evidence that is now agreed to have arisen from contamination. Jonathan Fleming had an alibi (he was in Florida), but he was convicted of murder on the basis of a witness who did crack. It was at night and she was 400 feet away (the crime took place in Brooklyn). Or consider Juan Rivera, who was electronically monitored using a bracelet; (IIRC) he was under house arrest. Yet he was convicted. It would seem that alibis don't always mean much to prosecutors or juries.

Absolutely !

Although I think LJ's version pales into insignificance when compared with the argument put forward by Justinian a while back which also mentioned Tom Cruise and something about a bunch of nuts.

I wont bother looking for the link - but I think my recall on this issue should give pause to those who claim all human memory is inherently unreliable, it varies greatly among individuals.
Indeed this case & this thread provide many examples of this variation - the groundhog day effect if you want.

But all that aside, your comment is somewhat superfluous as in this case neither of the white kids have an alibi.
Even worse - she claims him as one, but he doesn't reciprocate.

When he is not being reticent(to put it mildly), he is downright unhelpful in this matter.
 
Last edited:
They always wean people off of heroin. It is actually dangerous to go through withdrawals so they try to bring addicts off it slowly replacing heroin with a milder drug and then lessening the doses of that. That does mitigate the withdrawal.

Heroin use in Italy is very high. Probably less now than in the past... but it's always been popular.

I live not far a methadone clinic. Lots of familiar faces come and go.

The guy in the apartment next to me (and this a "good" building) has been in and out of rehab. I suspect it's for heroin. He's well to do, always perfectly dressed and groomed.

I have a casual friend who uses heroin, and he has for years. He's a construction worker.

There are people who are addicts, but not junkies as we would imagine junkies to be. People can and do live with their habit. The habit takes it's toll. But lots of people function normally and are in control of their use of the drug.
 
Last edited:
Heroin use in Italy is very high. Probably less now than in the past... but it's always been popular.

I live not far a methadone clinic. Lots of familiar faces come and go.

The guy in the apartment next to me (and this a "good" building) has been in and out of rehab. I suspect it's for heroin. He's well to do, always perfectly dressed and groomed.

I have a casual friend who uses heroin, and he has for years. He's a construction worker.

There are people who are addicts, but not junkies as we would imagine junkies to be. People can and do live with their habit. The habit takes it's toll. But lots of people function normally and are in control of their use of the drug.

Curatolo spent about a decade sleeping on the park bench or the equivalent. He would probably not be considered a 'functional' junkie.
 
But all that aside, your comment is somewhat superfluous as in this case neither of the white kids have an alibi.
Even worse - she claims him as one, but he doesn't reciprocate.

When he is not being reticent(to put it mildly), he is downright unhelpful in this matter.

Citation please. And please make the citation from either Sollecito himself or Bongiorno as Raffaele said.

The guilter method is "truthiness" in the hopes that through sheer repetition it becomes true!
 
Absolutely !

Although I think LJ's version pales into insignificance when compared with the argument put forward by Justinian a while back which also mentioned Tom Cruise and something about a bunch of nuts.

I wont bother looking for the link - but I think my recall on this issue should give pause to those who claim all human memory is inherently unreliable, it varies greatly from among individuals.Indeed this case & this thread provide many examples of this variation - the groundhog day effect if you want.

I do agree with you about the highlighted part. It does vary greatly among individuals. But how does a jury tell whether one human has a great memory and great recall not to mention identification skills?

The fact is that among the general population memory and identification is inherently unreliable but not universally unreliable. It has been proven with study after study after study, that our memories are easily influenced and tainted every day by new information. Are there exceptional people platanov? Yes, but not nearly as many as you might believe.

What is a jury to do? Believe the eyewitness or not?
Now that DNA has exonerated more than 230 men in mostly sex crimes and murder cases, criminologists have been able to go back and study what went wrong in those investigations.
What they've honed in on is faulty eyewitness testimony: over 75 percent of these innocent men were convicted in part because an eyewitness fingered the wrong person.
At the heart of the problem is the fragility of memory. As one researcher told 60 Minutes, we now know that memory is not like a videotape recorder - you don't just record an event and play it back.
Instead, memory is malleable, full of holes, easily contaminated and susceptible to suggestion, as in the case of Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton.
"Before this case, did you think that there were a lot of innocent people put away?" Stahl asked Detective Gauldin.
"No," he said with a smile. "No, I didn't. Innocent people aren't convicted of crimes they didn't commit. I believed that."
Asked what he thinks now, Gauldin told Stahl, "I know better. I mean, well over 200 cases nationally. We've had a half a dozen in this state alone. The first, of course, was my case."
And as these innocent men have been freed in one state after the next, we've learned something else: that in all the cases where eyewitnesses were wrong, the real perpetrator was not in the initial lineup.
"When you're sittin' in front of a photo lineup, you just assume one of these guys is the suspect. It's my job to find it," Thompson explained.
And she did her job. She found the suspect's photo. The problem is the suspect, Ronald Cotton, was not the rapist.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eyewitness-how-accurate-is-visual-memory/4/
 
Last edited:
Heroin use in Italy is very high. Probably less now than in the past... but it's always been popular.

I live not far a methadone clinic. Lots of familiar faces come and go.

The guy in the apartment next to me (and this a "good" building) has been in and out of rehab. I suspect it's for heroin. He's well to do, always perfectly dressed and groomed.

I have a casual friend who uses heroin, and he has for years. He's a construction worker.

There are people who are addicts, but not junkies as we would imagine junkies to be. People can and do live with their habit. The habit takes it's toll. But lots of people function normally and are in control of their use of the drug.

There are functional alcoholics as well Vibio, but as you said, it takes its toll. Both of these drugs effect people's cognitive skills.

Frankly, I find Curatolo's heroin use to be only one of the issues potentially damaging his credibility. There is the fact that he is homeless which means he is not likely to be good with dates as he doesn't have to be anywhere at any given time or date. There is the fact that he came forward 6 months later. There is the fact that he is recalling what must have been a casual and inconsequential event.

One only need to see the difficulty that Meredith's friends had in remembering that evening very well to grasp the issue.
 
I beg you, Sir

Citation please. And please make the citation from either Sollecito himself or Bongiorno as Raffaele said.

The guilter method is "truthiness" in the hopes that through sheer repetition it becomes true!

Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill

Are you accusing me of being repetitive.

I know we are on opposite sides of this 'debate' but if I may allow my emotions to overcome my Chekist training for a moment - let me say this.

An accusation of this sort coming from a poster such as yourself is deeply hurtful :o

Please withdraw it.
 
Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill

Are you accusing me of being repetitive.

I know we are on opposite sides of this 'debate' but if I may allow my emotions to overcome my Chekist training for a moment - let me say this.

An accusation of this sort coming from a poster such as yourself is deeply hurtful :o

Please withdraw it.

I duly note you did not provide a citation. Fair enough. The allegation seems to be enough for you to repeat ad nauseum.

ETA - the claim being repeated over and over is that Raffaele is not giving Amanda an alibi any more. I've provided Raffaele's appeals' document to Cassation which says different. Platonov would rather deal with irrelevant stuff.
 
Last edited:
Raffaele's appeal's document makes many references to alibi's, both for Raffaele and for Amanda.

One of them is that even if taken at face value - the 1st memorandum, the one written for Amanda and signed at 1:45 am on Nov 6, is an alibi for Raffaele. It concerns the police misconstruing what "See you later" means, but the point is - this police-theory has Amanda leaving the apartment not Raffaele.

The time of death assumed in the Nencini court is also a de facto alibi for both Raffaele and Amanda. Further, at another place in the Nencini report, Nencini says that the time of death is actually irrelevant. ("Contrary to what and Amanda is claimed in judgment, there were the specific acts elements that would allow him to determine the time of death through analysis of the victim's phone.")

Rudy's first recorded accounting for a time of death (Skype call) has Rudy estimating a time of death for a time when the defendents ("plural", senza contare che in quell’orario gli imputati si trovavano certamente a casa di Raffaele Sollecito (con conseguente alibi).), when BOTH Amanda and Raffaele have an alibi.

Bongiorno reiterates on page 99. that the "time of death" consistent with Curatolo's testimony is actually an alibi for both Knox and Sollecito. Bongiorno repeats this on p. 120, saying that both Sollecito and Knox are in effect exonerated by Curatolo.

Bongiorno (p. 124) says that Quintavalle is unreliable as a witness against Knox, because he only came forward a year after the events of Nov 2, 2007.

Bongiorno argues (p. 175) that the claim that Knox was trying to shift the blame to Lumumba, is not a challenge to any alibi Raffaele might have, regardless of if the allegation against Amanda is true or not. To include this as a reason to convict Raffaele, "The reasoning followed by the Court to support the falsity of the excuse Sollecito therefore leads to the denial of the presumption of innocence and the rejection of the principle not to incriminate oneself."

Bongiorno says on the same page that both Amanda and Raffaele have had the burden of proof reversed against them by Nencini's court - in essence having to prove that allegations are not true, rather than having the prosecution first prove the allegations.

In short, there is nothing in Raffaele's appeal's document which suggests, hints, or out-right says that he is withdrawing himself as Amanda's alibi. In many places it says that the alibi for Raffaele is also an alibi for Amanda, although it is clear that this appeal's document is focussing on Raffaele's innocence. Amanda's is assumed in it, but not outright argued.

It is clear in running through it that at the very worst......

...... Raffaele does not want to be condemned by evidence which supposedly has to do with Amanda, not him. He also wants the Supreme Court to recognize that even in contested evidence related to Amanda, that contested evidence (cf. the 1:45 am memorandum, Curatolo's testimony) actually tends to exonerate him - yet is it used to condemn him as well.

So, whatever you think about Raffaele, he is most certainly not withdrawing his alibi for Knox. This is guilter-wish.
 
Last edited:
Old Peugot's

Greetings all,
It looks you've all had fun over the last day discussing that Questura document, real or fake.

But I wanna go somewhere else in the discussion,
for, as often happens, when I look for a link or piece of evidence, I get disracted by something else, like right now.

Meredith Kercher's cell phones were found late on the morning of 2, November 2007.
They could have been thrown there in the nighttime or in the morning, correct?

For years now I have believed that they were tossed from a car. Not thrown by someone walking by the road.
Why? Because 1 was found a lot further from the road than the other, BUT in the same area. As if they were tossed from a car, together.

Simply put,
I feel that if a dude was walking by a roadway and wanted to make sure the phones woulda been hard to find, he woulda heaved each those phones into the forrest as hard as he could, as far apart from each other as possible and would have thrown them a very great distance from the roadway.

Or buried them along the same roadway.
That was not the case.

But if 2 phones were thrown together from a moving car,
who knows where they woulda landed,
1 possibly closer than the other,
in the same general area,
by the side of a roadway?

As I did not attend any of the original trials or any of AK + RS's other trails for that matter, (I betcha you too did not attend any trials, right?) I often wonder while at the beach+looking for Great White sharks to breach in the waters off Los Angeles, what some folks, like Mr. Sfarzo, who did attend these trials, writes about.
Dig this report from Old Perugia Shock from Dec. 2 of 2008,
Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182529/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html

Regarding the early morning of 2. Nov. 2007,
the day Miss Kercher was found murdered a few hours later:
A fifth new witness recalled that later in the same morning there was an old Peugeot in the garden. So they went to try take the body with that car that Rudy had borrowed from someone. But maybe the car arrived too late, and carrying the body in the daylight became too risky. So they just took Meredith cellphones, they drove away and they tossed them from the car (just outside Rudy and Raffaele's house...).



Question:
Didn't Hekuran Kokomani drive an old Peugot?
Is it possible that Miss Kercher's cell phones were tossed into E. Lana's yard in the morning from an old Peugot?
Rudy Guede did not own a car, right?
Sorry to disrupt the flow of the debate,
but I'm justa wonderin' out loud once again...
RW


PS-Hey Cody Juneau,
According to this really, really good article by KP,
http://groundreport.com/meredith-kercher-crime-scene-instigation/
the crank calls to E. Lana's house had been happening for weeks before,
and her house robbed, before Miss Kercher was horribly murdered:
Alessandro Biscarini found one of Meredith’s cell phones in his mother’s garden; it was the Italian phone that Filomena had lent to her. Meredith carried two phones, one for England and one for Italy, as cell coverage in the EU sometimes required.

Alessandro had spent the night with his parents after they had received a bomb threat about 10pm the night before. Elisabetta Lana and her husband had received several prank calls in the past weeks and were robbed as well, but this call had upset them because the prankster had instructed them to “not to sit on the toilet because it would explode.” Mrs. Lana called the police and asked Alessandro to come over. The police had arrived by 10:30pm to investigate but couldn’t find anything, so it was deemed another prank call, and they left about 11pm.

Think about it for a moment, a bomb scare about an hour after Meredith’s murder at the very house where her phones would be found some twelve hours later, such an odd coincidence even if it was a prank call.

Elisabetta Lana would testify in the trial of the First Instance that she and her husband were on their way to give a statement to the Postal Police (who deal with phones and mail related crime) when Alessandro found the cellphone at the edge of the lawn. Mrs. Lana checked with police before leaving, thinking that the phone had been “lost by one of the officers who had come the evening before,” she was advised to bring it along and the arrived at the police station about 10:15am.
<snip>
Just after Noon
While Amanda and Raffaele are discovering the break-in, Elisabetta Lana’s daughter, Fiametta Biscarini, called to say that she had found a second cellphone in the same garden a short distance from where the first phone had been found, she had heard it ringing and a call from “Amanda” was noted. The British cellphone is turned into the Postal Police at 12:46pm and the Lana family is later shocked to find out that both cellphones belong to a murder victim.



PSS-I recall Sfarzo looking for her keys at some point in time before,
so if he's back in Perugia, I'd contibute $20.00 to a fund to buy Frank Sfarzo a metal detector like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Bounty-Hunter-Digger-Metal-Detector/dp/B0002J1LNO,

Go use it to walk along the same length of roadway from the girls flat and then past where Meredith's cell phones were found, heck maybe he'd find Meredith's keys or the murder weapon.

He'd better video film any search though,
other wise PM Mignini might say HE murdered Miss Kercher!
lol...
 
Last edited:
Here is a great article about memory and how it works..

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

Heh, it's also a great example of how much an alibi is actually worth if the police suspect you:

"Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV. (Baddeley, 2004)."​
 
Last edited:
Evidence against Raffaele

This is directed toward those who believe he was present at/involved in the murder.

What is the evidence against him, exactly?

My understanding is that the bra clasp is it. The clasp that was left in an unsecured room for weeks, was visibly changed (dirtier) between first sighting and eventual collection, was the site of multiple male DNA providers, and has now been destroyed. We're told that we can know beyond reasonable doubt that no matter how the other DNA got there, his must have been deposited during the murder and at no other time.

The other allegation I've seen is that the smeared blood/water footprint on the bathmat can be definitively assigned to him. This, in spite of the fact that it's a blurred shape . . . we're told that we can know beyond reasonable doubt that it was left by his foot.

It's also been said that he was unable to give a definitive account of what happened during the evening of Nov 5th under questioning. Others (the English women) were also unable to give a definitive account of what they did during that evening. And we're told that beyond reasonable doubt this means that he was lying.

I really want to know, what else is there? Because even by the osmotic reasoning of the court, this doesn't seem like near enough to convict a man with no motive and no criminal history.

What am I missing? Is this really the whole case against him?

Clasp, footprint, unstable memory of Nov 5th . . . these add up to murder?
 
Heh, it's also a great example of how much an alibi is actually worth if the police suspect you:
"Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV. (Baddeley, 2004)."​


Unbelievable isn't it? Check out the case of Russ Faria. Faria was convicted of the murder of his wife even though he had an alibi established by two gas station security cameras, cell phone towers, an Arby's receipt, and four witnesses who were with him that evening.

It's amazing that people with that kind of alibi can be convicted of murder and languish in prison.
 
Last edited:
Unbelievable isn't it? Check out the case of Russ Faria. Faria was convicted of the murder of his wife even though he had an alibi established by two gas station security cameras, cell phone towers, an Arby's receipt, and four witnesses who were with him that evening.

It's amazing that people with that kind of alibi can be convicted of murder and languish in prison.

That jury was horrid though. . . .One admitted he was not certain of guilt and had grave doubts.
In that case you are suppose to acquit
 
That jury was horrid though. . . .One admitted he was not certain of guilt and had grave doubts.
In that case you are suppose to acquit

Yea...like that makes it better.. :rolleyes: Of course you are, but Russ Faria is in prison today.
 
Unbelievable isn't it? Check out the case of Russ Faria. Faria was convicted of the murder of his wife even though he had an alibi established by two gas station security cameras, cell phone towers, an Arby's receipt, and four witnesses who were with him that evening.

It's amazing that people with that kind of alibi can be convicted of murder and languish in prison.

I wonder how many police and prosecutors would make cases like that were there some fear of repercussions for the egregiously bad ones?
 
Why did Rudy Guede LEAVE an hour before the murder?

Man,
I just luv pokin' holes in pro-guilter theories!

I was just diggin' around again,
ya know, lookin' for something I have read or posted about before and found this tidbit.
It was not what I was lookin' for, but it still is classic.
:D

It's for all you guilters who believe that Rudy Guede,
along with Raffaele Sollecito, whom Poor Rudy had never met,
and Miss Amanda Marie Knox,
raped and murdered Miss Meredith KERCHER.

Have a read if ya like:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9719892#post9719892

You pro guilt folks have heard of Alessandra Formica before, right?
I've mentioned her name many a time, here on the JREF and elsewhere.

She saw a black man running up the stairs who bumped into her date,
as they walked down the stairs to her car. It happened around 10:30pm.
The black man seemingly did not wanna be seen,
I've heard he didn't even apologize for bumping into Alessandra's date,
IIRC. Excuse me, BUT whata kook*!
(*-Surfer slang for idiot, dummy, barney, stupid ****, etc...)

Most of you pro guilters think this is Rudy Guede,
right?

Why is Rudy running away from the crime scene
if Miss Kercher is not even murdered yet for another hour?

What, was his date over,
did he already orgasim and so then split the scene and left Raff and Amanda to do thy dirt deeds?
Or did he leave to get something and then come back to the party at the House of Horrors?

According to Nara C.
she heard a horrible scream,
this about 2 hours after she went to sleep,
making The Scream occur about 11:30 pm.

Why did Alessandra see Rudy running away an hour before Meredith was killed,
running up the stairway as she went down to retrieve her car with her date?
To get some condoms? Or beer? Or wine? Or whiskey? Wasn't it a holiday weekend?
Weren't the small stores all closed up by 10:30pm that night?

Come on pro-guilters,
give me a decent timeline and make all of the prosecutions "Super Witnesses" work out, please!
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many police and prosecutors would make cases like that were there some fear of repercussions for the egregiously bad ones?

I do too.

But, I really don't blame them for considering him a strong suspect.
He was convicted because they found his wife's blood on his slippers in their closet. His wife was stabbed 55 times so it seems personal. Or at least that is what the news said. And her friend Pam Hupp said that the two of them were having marital problems.

But none of that is conclusive.

I just don't understand how the police and a jury can dismiss that strong an alibi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom