As the appeal trial for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito slowly grinds forward in Perugia, Italy, it is becoming clear to many that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Both currently stand convicted of murdering Meredith Kercher in 2007 and are serving 26 and 25 years respectively.
The latest appeal hearing put Antonio Curatolo under the
spotlight. For those who do not remember, Curatolo was the only supposedly
credible eye witness brought forward by the prosecution during the first trial.
He is a homeless man that admits to using heroin on a daily basis and on the day
he claims to have seen Amanda and Raffaele. The question and answer session in
court recently with Curatolo left many wondering how his testimony could have
possibly helped to secure the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele in the first
trial.
In 2009, Curatolo testified that he had seen Amanda and
Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, a square overlooking the cottage, on the night of
the murder. He had blatantly contradicted himself in the first trial
when he repeatedly confused the night in question and also confused the time of
his alleged sighting, yet these contradictions were somehow overlooked and his
testimony was deemed reliable.
Saturday’s court appearance did not go so smoothly for Curatolo
when he took the stand. The question and
answer session went as follows:
Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?
Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this
because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes.
That’s how I also know what time it was.
Judge: When is Halloween?
Curatolo: I don't know. Maybe end of October or
beginning of November, I think.
Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in
prison, correct? How long will you be there?
Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me
really. I understand nothing.
Judge: Ok, so how did you live in the park? Were you always there?
Curatolo: Always, yes. I never left. I just lived there. On a
bench mostly.
Judge: What about when you had to go to the restroom?
Curatolo: I went to the bathroom in the wooded area down the hill.
Judge: So you weren’t there all the time then?
Curatolo: What do you mean?
Judge: Never mind. So, are you certain the buses were disco buses
and not tour buses?
Curatolo: Yes, definitely disco buses. They look different from
other buses.
Prosecution: No, no, you must be mistaken?
Curatolo: No. I am certain they were disco buses.
Judge: Do you take drugs?
Curatolo: Yes, heroin.
Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?
Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that
night…but that’s ok. heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything.
Judge: Guards, take him away. I am done.
The prosecution's only eye witness has been fully
discredited. Now, independent experts are currently analyzing the DNA
evidence presented during the first trial and the early reports look very
promising for the defense. Supporters of Amanda and Raffaele remain cautiously
optimistic that this injustice will be corrected. Thankfully, public
opinion is quickly shifting in the favor of innocence and many journalists are
taking note.
Media coverage of this case definitely played a role in the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Amanda
was mistreated horribly by the media with disparaging headlines that were
endless.
Some journalists, such as Andrea Vogt, and Barbie Latza
Nadeau continue to provide false information. For example, in a recent article,
Andrea misrepresented a statement made by Amanda Knox during the initial
investigation. Amanda was heard telling her parents "I was there"
during a taped conversation in prison. Amanda was telling her mother she was at
Raffaele's apartment. Amanda was not talking about the crime scene. When questioned
in court about this statement, Amanda's explanation was accepted by the court
and never brought up again. Andrea was in court on the day of the testimony,
yet she recently reported that the statement suggested that Amanda was at the
crime scene. This amazing omission can only be attributed to total
ineptness or actual malice.
Why would any credible journalist willingly report
misinformation? In another article titled "Knox is no Innocent,"
Andrea judges Amanda's character based on her doodles and eyebrow movements.
Amazingly, she was able to remember those fine details during her court visits
but somehow forgot about Amanda's testimony discussing the "I was
there" comment. It is unlikely Andrea had a simple mental lapse and this
omission was obviously intentional.
Barbie Latza Nadeau writes for the Daily Beast and Newsweek. She
is also the author of "Angel Face," an incredibly biased book on the
case. Barbie repeatedly provides false information in her articles and in her book. As an example, Barbie spread the lie that Amanda
was arrested for a disturbing the peace violation while living in Seattle. Here
is an excerpt from her book:
“Her only brush with the law was a disturbing-the-peace
arrest for a house party she threw.”
The truth is Amanda received a ticket for being a little too loud
during a party she hosted. A photo of the ticket that was issued to Amanda has
been available to the public for a long time now. In fact, this information was
public knowledge long before Barbie wrote her book.
In a rare mention of Raffaele, Barbie spread the lie that Raffaele purchased bleach to clean his apartment after the murder:
“When Raffaele was arrested, police searched his
apartment and found a receipt for Ace brand bleach, purchased the morning of
November 4, 2007, at 8:15.”
During a search of Raffaele’s apartment, investigators
collected all of the receipts in the house and held them up in from of the
video camera. The video shows the receipt mentioned by Barbie. The receipt is
not for bleach, Raffaele bought a pizza.
If Barbie would like to see the photo of the ticket issued
to Amanda and the video capture of the receipt from Raffaele's apartment, I
would be more than happy to provide them to her.
I have only highlighted a couple of Barbie's lies in this
article. I go into much greater detail in my book, Injustice in Perugia, where you can read how Barbie continuously
misinformed her readers about vital evidence and attempted to smear Amanda Knox
with egregious lies about her diary entries.
Thankfully, journalists like Andrea Vogt and Barbie Latza Nadeau will be fully discredited
when this trial comes to an end.
Many journalists that once vilified Amanda and Raffaele are now
reporting that they may be innocent. I appreciate the fact that many have seen
the error of their ways but it does not erase the damage they have caused. I am
not ready to congratulate them for finding a higher moral ground. Though some
may have, others are just jockeying their position so they don’t end up on the
wrong side of the story.
One Journalist that appears
to have shifted his position recently is Nick Pisa. He should be ashamed of how
he reported on this case in the past. Nick Pisa is a journalist in the UK that
writes for The Daily Mail. Here are some of the headlines that
accompany Pisa’s past articles:
"Compulsive Liar Foxy Knoxy Now insists she wasn't at House of
Horrors"
"Lesbian Sex Plea to Knoxy"
"Foxy Knoxy plays the field from her jail cell with new
romance"
"Revealed: Foxy Knoxy's sisters posing happily for ‘macabre’
photos at the house where Meredith died"
“Hayden banned from seeing sex monster Knox”
Headlines like those from Nick Pisa are fading fast. As the truth becomes crystal clear, journalists around the world are finally coming to terms with reality. Amanda Knox and Raffaele
Sollecito are innocent. Andrea Vogt and Barbie Latza
Nadeau are hopeless but other journalists, including Nick Pisa, that have seen the error of their ways, owe Amanda and
Raffaele an apology.
