Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[aa9511]

Wow, it's like you're in my head-- right down to the sticking to the thanks button!

Wow you guys have a lot of control to not post anything!

 

[MichaelSmith]

Giuseppe Castellini (direttore responsabile de "Il Giornale dell'Umbria") wrote an article for Archivio Penale.ittitled "La ricostruzione di cronaca giudiziaria nei media". He wrote this about the days before the arrests were made:
"La prima svolta avviene il giorno 4 novembre. Francesca Bene e Luca Fiorucci arrivano in redazione con la notizia, ricevuta da ambienti vicini agli inqui-renti, che “Meredith conosceva i suoi assassini”. I due cronisti del Giornale dell'Umbria, nella riunione pomeridiana di redazione, affermano che gli in-quirenti non ci vedono chiaro sul ruolo di Amanda e Raffaele. Mezze notizie, indiscrezioni, ma qualificate. Fois intanto piantona la zona di pazza Grimana, in cerca di testimonianze.
Il giorno dopo usciamo con il titolo “Meredith conosceva chi l'ha uccisa”. Diamo conto che le indagini puntano su un nordafricano (l'indiscrezione può essere stata fatta filtrare ad arte dagli inquirenti per sviare, oppure si è trattato di una confusione sulla nazionalità di Lumumba)."

Translation

"The first turning point happens on November 4th. Francesca Bene and Luca Fiorucci arrives at the editorial office with the news, obtained from sources close to the investigators, that "Meredith knew her killers". The two reporters of the Giornale dell'Umbria, during the afternoon meeting of the editorial staff say that the investigators have doubts [literally "don't see clearly"] about Amanda and Raffaele's role [reported on the afternoon of November 4 but clearly preexisting]. Half news, unconfirmed reports, but well-informed. In the meantime Fois keeps watch on the area around Piazza Grimana, searching for witnesses.
The next day we get out with the title "Meredith knew who killed her". We report that the investigators aim at a Northafrican (the rumor may have been leaked by the investigator purposely to sidetrack, or it was a misunderstanding concerning the nationality of Lumumba). [...] The feeling is that the circle is closing in. Arrests are expected."

Arturo de Felice at the press conference Nov 6 gives it away.

”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.

 

[redheadedgal]

the SCC also seems to contradict itself...

first it asks the remanded judge to conduct a "uniform and global analysis of the evidence". that would include hellman and the report by C&V imo. (as others have also stated)

unfortunately, the SCC directive, er decision, also states that

the (appellate) outcome will... demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of possible scenarios, going from an original plan to kill to a change in the plan which was initially aimed only at involving the young English girl in a sexual game against her will to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild group erotic game which violently took another course, getting out of control.

so, like i asserted previously, the SCC does already appear to dictate the new verdict. that is not how a justice system should operate. no one should be okay with this.

 

[MichaelSmith]

the SCC also seems to contradict itself...

first it asks the remanded judge to conduct a "uniform and global analysis of the evidence". that would include hellman and the report by C&V imo. (as others have also stated)

unfortunately, the SCC directive, er decision, also states that



so, like i asserted previously, the SCC does already appear to dictate the new verdict. that is not how a justice system should operate. no one should be okay with this.

Yep. Another reason I think these Italian courts are kangaroo courts is how are the 6 lay jurors suppose to sift through and understand the thousands upon thousands of pages of transcripts and motivation and appeal documents from the previous trials and work it all out when all they've gotten to hear in this third trial is Aveillo & RIS. What a messed up system that these people will determine the future of two people and they've never even heard any of the evidence. :banghead:

 

[Yellow]

In a pre-DNA time, Knox's false accusation would be very important, as would the changing alibis provided by Sollecito and Knox. Sollecito's statement that he "told a load of rubbish" is important, as is his fabrication about Meredith having dinner at his apartment. The staged break-in leaves little doubt that the only person in a position to do this is Knox. Then, we have the drug abuse by all three suspects, and the claims from Knox that she was so stoned she, in all honesty, doesn't remember anything from the night of the murder. She describes her memory of the events on the night of the murder as "imaginings" and "flashbacks". They claimed that they ate dinner at 10:30 until it was proven that this was a lie. They claimed they slept until 10:30 AM until this was proven a lie.

Luminol and fingerprint analysis have been around for a long time and are typically accepted by the court. DNA is also typically accepted by the court, but in this case, some foreigners have chosen to argue that DNA analysis is, generally speaking, completely unreliable. If we omit the luminol and DNA analysis, I think there is still enough for a conviction.

What evidence? Take away the DNA and the luminal (the DNA especially is non evidence IMO), what is there? Take away Amanda's false confession made by a kid under duress in a foreign language (and in my mind it was not even a confession, it was just ramblings; the Italian SC even agreed that it could not be used). What evidence is left to secure a conviction? All they had really was the DNA on the knife and the bra which if true would have been compelling. But besides the fact that Meredith's blood was not on the knife, IT WAS NOT EVEN THE MURDER WEAPON. So even if MK's blood was on it, if its cut did not match the cuts on the body to be the murder weapon, it would not even matter. And in no way is the bra DNA reliable.

So I don't know what else they have that conclusively ties either to the crime. Rudy Guede did this, in a run of the mill burglary and rape of opportunity, pure and simple, and it is a travesty he only gets 16 years bc the Italian justice system decides to play this game with Amanda and Rafaele. To those who think Amanda is guilty, are you happy with Rudy's sentence? why are you not outraged that a person whose DNA was all over the crime scene is getting away w such a light punishment? How possibly could Amanda and Rafaela been involved with such a bloody murder and not leave any DNA? (The argument that they magically wiped away their DNA while leaving Rudy's is laughable).

I just wish those <modsnip> would turn their energy into outrage at letting Rudy Guede out in a few years to kill again!!!

Everyone seems to forget that Amanda was really just a kid, and if you see her interviews, I think maybe it is just her personality to be a bit odd, a bit detached, quirky, etc. I would like to think how I would act if I was a college student in a foreign country with no friends or family around when my roommate was just murdered. I think she was just naive and maybe did things that some perceived as weird, and then it all got blown up in her face when she said the story about Patrick.

I fear the Italians will want to "save face" so they may end up upholding the conviction, but never go through the process of extraditing her bc they really know she is innocent. They get to keep their pride at the expense of failing to put the real murderer (Rudy)behind bars for life and ruining the lives of Amanda and Raffaele

Again, what is the evidence that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt throwing out the false confession and DNA?

 

[aa9511]

What evidence? Take away the DNA and the luminal (the DNA especially is non evidence IMO), what is there? Take away Amanda's false confession made by a kid under duress in a foreign language (and in my mind it was not even a confession, it was just ramblings; the Italian SC even agreed that it could not be used). What evidence is left to secure a conviction? All they had really was the DNA on the knife and the bra which if true would have been compelling. But besides the fact that Meredith's blood was not on the knife, IT WAS NOT EVEN THE MURDER WEAPON. So even if MK's blood was on it, if its cut did not match the cuts on the body to be the murder weapon, it would not even matter. And in no way is the bra DNA reliable.

So I don't know what else they have that conclusively ties either to the crime. Rudy Guede did this, in a run of the mill burglary and rape of opportunity, pure and simple, and it is a travesty he only gets 16 years bc the Italian justice system decides to play this game with Amanda and Rafaele. To those who think Amanda is guilty, are you happy with Rudy's sentence? why are you not outraged that a person whose DNA was all over the crime scene is getting away w such a light punishment? How possibly could Amanda and Rafaela been involved with such a bloody murder and not leave any DNA? (The argument that they magically wiped away their DNA while leaving Rudy's is laughable).

I just wish those <modsnip> would turn their energy into outrage at letting Rudy Guede out in a few years to kill again!!!

Everyone seems to forget that Amanda was really just a kid, and if you see her interviews, I think maybe it is just her personality to be a bit odd, a bit detached, quirky, etc. I would like to think how I would act if I was a college student in a foreign country with no friends or family around when my roommate was just murdered. I think she was just naive and maybe did things that some perceived as weird, and then it all got blown up in her face when she said the story about Patrick.

I fear the Italians will want to "save face" so they may end up upholding the conviction, but never go through the process of extraditing her bc they really know she is innocent. They get to keep their pride at the expense of failing to put the real murderer (Rudy)behind bars for life and ruining the lives of Amanda and Raffaele

Again, what is the evidence that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt throwing out the false confession and DNA?

Even taking into account a "false confession," what is someone supposed to make of the inconsistencies (to put it nicely) after she reneged on her "false confession" and went back to the claim that she "was not there"? If she was claiming she was at RS place and had nothing to do with the crime, that would not be a coerced confession. The prosecutors are not going to coerce/pressure her into saying she is not guilty. In other words, there can be no alleged false confession subsequent to the first alleged false confession. Because, subsequently, she is denying any involvement.

However, she still says they woke up at 10, when there is computer activity clearly showing someone accessed the computer in the early morning hours, not 10 or anywhere even near there. Remember, she is saying she had nothing to do with the crime. So why lie about that fact? The police are not forcing her to confess that they woke up at 10.

SHe says she went back to the villa, saw numerous things like some blood in bathroom, open door, but thought nothing of it at first. Took a shower. Did a bathmat boogie. Went back and told RS of the things, they both come back to villa.

In the meantime, there was the early morning call to her mom. Which she lies and says she doesn't remember. Why is she lying about that? The police are not forcing her to confess that she doesn't remember the call.

There are the numerious inconsistencies regarding the events surrounding the police arrival. Police records show she called Meredith's cell phone first, but when she calls Filomena and Filomena is worried about Meredith, Amanda doesn't tell her that she called her phone and got no answer. So either Filomena is lying or Amanda is lying. The police did not force her to confess that she talked to Filomena and that she heard Filomena expressing worry about Meredith.

The police did not force her to confess to worrying about Meredith and RS trying to knock her door down. When actually she told police that the closed and locked door was no big deal because Meredith always locks her door when she leaves. The other roomates say differently. So either the other roomates are lying or Amanda is lying.

And there is more.

The point is, the inconsistencies she said subsequent to the alleged forced confession, was by her own volition and done willingly and she is solely responsible for those inconistencies, or untruths (IMO). We cannot blame those on false confession.

 

[redheadedgal]

Just a thought but I wonder if Amanda would have been jealous that Rafaelle was going to help Jovana that night. It seems a little odd that she answered the door at his house. Was she trying to send a message to Jovana that she was lady of the house? Would she have wanted to later send a message to Rafaelle that Guede was interested in her? All speculation of course...

yes, pure speculation. and incorrect.

when AK opened the door, she told JP that RS was in the bathroom. and he came out of the bathroom shortly after that*.

as well, AK invited JP into the house*... hardly the dasterdly deed of a jealous girlfriend.

*JP's testimony @ march 21, 2009

 

[redheadedgal]

That site is the same as TJMK/PMF just the opposite opinion.

no it is not "the same". IIP does not contain titles such as:

--other sockpuppets
--defense dirty tricks
--diversion efforts by...
--the amanda knox trainwreck
--the defense-inspired global hoax
--the new 80,000 pound gorilla in the room

... and so on.

and then we have the lies that both TJMK and MoMK still contain long after they've been debunked...

 

[MichaelSmith]

There's a pro guilt meme debunked a long time ago that still pops up regarding a non existent phone call from Amanda to her mother at 12pm. Amanda made a mistake in WTBH about it.

Comodi exploited a mistake Edda made by telling Amanda an outright lie that she sort of ends up agreeing with not realizing it was BS.

You can see pretty clearly in the transcript Comodi is telling her the 12pm phone exists when it doesn't. Comodi shamelessly tricked her and mislead the court.

Comodi: You said that you called your mother on the morning of Nov 2.

Amanda: Yes.

Comodi: When did you call her for the first time?

Amanda: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was like this. I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.

Comodi: So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.

Amanda: It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don&#8217;t know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first. Later, many other people arrived.

Comodi: But from the records, we see that you called your mother &#8211; not only from the billing records but also from the cell phone pings &#8211; that you first called your mother at twelve. At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it is midday?

Amanda: In Seattle it&#8217;s morning. It&#8217;s a nine hour difference, so, ah, three in the morning.

Comodi: Three o&#8217;clock in the morning?

Amanda: Yes.

Comodi: So your mother would certainly have been sleeping.

Amanda: Yes.

Comodi: But at twelve o&#8217;clock, nothing had happened yet. That&#8217;s what your mother said&#8230;

Amanda: I told my mother&#8230;

Comodi: &#8230;during the conversation you had with her in prison. Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o&#8217;clock in the morning in Seattle, to tell her that nothing had happened.

Amanda: I didn&#8217;t know what had happened. I just called my mother to say that [the police] had sent us out of the house, and that I had heard something said about&#8230;

Comodi: But at midday nothing had happened yet in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet.

Amanda: Hm. Okay. I don&#8217;t remember that phone call. I remember that I called her to tell her what we had heard about a foot. Maybe I did call before, but I don&#8217;t remember it.

Comodi: But if you called her before, why did you do it?

Amanda: I don&#8217;t remember, but if I did it, I would have called to&#8230;

Comodi: You did it.

Amanda: Okay, that&#8217;s fine. But I don&#8217;t remember it. I don&#8217;t remember that phone call.

In the Italian system the judges can ask questions and so Massei interjects here

Massei: Excuse me. You might not remember it, but the Public Minister [prosecutor] has just pointed out to you a phone call that your mother received in the small hours.

Commodi: At three o&#8217;clock in the morning.

Massei: So, that must be true. That did happen. Were you in the habit of calling her at such an hour? Did you do this on other occasions? At midday in Italy, which corresponds in Seattle to a time when&#8230; It&#8217;s just that we don&#8217;t usually call each other in the middle of the night.

Amanda: Yes, yes, that&#8217;s true.

Massei: So either you had a particular reason on that occasion, or else it was a routine. This is what the Public Minister is referring to.

Amanda: Yes. Well, since I don&#8217;t remember this phone call, although I do remember the one I made later, ah. But. Obviously I made that phone call. So, if I made that phone call, it&#8217;s because I had, or thought that I had, something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought even then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I&#8217;d gone to Raffaele&#8217;s place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn&#8217;t know what to think. But I really don&#8217;t remember this phone call, so I can&#8217;t say for sure why. But I suppose it was because I came home and the door was open, and so for me.

 

[Amber29]

There's a pro guilt meme debunked a long time ago that still pops up regarding a non existent phone call from Amanda to her mother at 12pm. Amanda made a mistake in WTBH about it.

Comodi exploited a mistake Edda made by telling Amanda an outright lie that she sort of ends up agreeing with not realizing it was BS.

You can see pretty clearly in the transcript Comodi is telling her the 12pm phone exists when it doesn't. Comodi shamelessly tricked her and mislead the court.

There was a call to her mother 5mins before Raffaele called 112, it's on her phone records. It lasted 180secs and amanda has no memory of it. That is the call they are referring to. There is no trickery going on in that transcript. Even Edda thought it was strange that amanda didn't remember it.

 

[Amber29]

no it is not "the same". IIP does not contain titles such as:

--other sockpuppets
--defense dirty tricks
--diversion efforts by...
--the amanda knox trainwreck
--the defense-inspired global hoax
--the new 80,000 pound gorilla in the room

... and so on.

and then we have the lies that both TJMK and MoMK still contain long after they've been debunked...

Ok great glad to know your thoughts concerning the sites.

 

[MichaelSmith]

There was a call to her mother 5mins before Raffaele called 112, it's on her phone records. It lasted 180secs and amanda has no memory of it. That is the call they are referring to. There is no trickery going on in that transcript. Even Edda thought it was strange that amanda didn't remember it.

No

Comodi: But from the records, we see that you called your mother &#8211; not only from the billing records but also from the cell phone pings &#8211; that you first called your mother at twelve. At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it is midday?

Comodi: But at twelve o&#8217;clock, nothing had happened yet.

First Call was like Amanda said. 12.47pm

Amanda: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house.

Amanda: It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside.

The day of 2.11.07
&#8722; 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 00447841131571 belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the cell at [346] Via dell&#8217;Aquila 5-Torre dell&#8217;Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell is picked up at Sollecito&#8217;s house)
&#8722; 12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell&#8217;Aquila 5-Torre dell&#8217;Acquedotto sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito&#8217;s house)
&#8722; 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell&#8217;Aquila 5-Torre dell&#8217;Acquedotto sector3)
&#8722; 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith&#8217;s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell&#8217;Aquila 5-Torre dell&#8217;Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito&#8217;s house)
&#8722; 12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348-4673590); Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell&#8217;Aquila 5-Torre dell&#8217;Acquedotto sector 3 (still at Raffaele&#8217;s house)
&#8722; 12:20:44 (lasting 65 seconds) Romanelli F. calls Amanda, who receives the call connecting to the cell in Via dell&#8217;Aquila 5-Torre dell&#8217;Acquedotto sector 9 (good for Corso Garibaldi 30)
&#8722; 12:34:56 (48 seconds): Filomena calls Amanda who receives it from the cottage on Via della Pergola 7 (the cell used is that on Piazza Lupattelli sector 7. As mentioned, Raffaele also used the same cell when he called the service centre at 12:35 hours to recharge [the credit of] his mobile phone)
&#8722; 12:47:23 (duration of 88 seconds): Amanda calls the American (USA) number 00120069326457, using the cell on Piazza Lupatetlli sector 7; the phone call takes place prior to the one which, at 12.51.40, Raffaele Sollecito will make to &#8218;112&#8219;, connecting to the cell on Via dell&#8217;Aquila 5-Torre dell&#8217;Acquedotto sector 1, which gives coverage to Via della Pergola 7)
&#8722; 13:24:18 (duration of 162 seconds): Amanda calls the same American number which corresponds to the home of her mother, Mrs Edda Mellas, using the same cell. It is obvious that the young woman is inside the cottage, where by this point, several minutes earlier, the Postal Police had shown up, [347] represented by Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi, who were engaged in the task of tracking down Filomena Romanelli, who was the owner of the Vodafone phonecard contained in the mobile phone found earlier in the garden of the villa on Via Sperandio
&#8722; 13:27:32 (duration of 26 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350 , still using the cell at Piazza Lupattelli sector 7.
&#8722; 13:29:00 (duration of 296 seconds) Amanda receives [a call] from No. 075/54247561 (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)
&#8722; 13:58:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to her mother&#8217;s number
&#8722; 13:50:06 (350 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350 by using the Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell
&#8722; 14:46:14 (102 seconds) Amanda receives a call from the German number 494154794034, most likely belonging to her aunt Doroty

 

[Amber29]

the SCC also seems to contradict itself...

first it asks the remanded judge to conduct a "uniform and global analysis of the evidence". that would include hellman and the report by C&V imo. (as others have also stated)

unfortunately, the SCC directive, er decision, also states that



so, like i asserted previously, the SCC does already appear to dictate the new verdict. that is not how a justice system should operate. no one should be okay with this.

Oh it does include Hellmann but in a "what not to do" way. Hellmann disregarded evidence and simply didn't mention some evidence. All the circumstantial evidence he singled out and gave his own explanations to explain it away. Instead of looking at the whole picture that the circumstantial evidence creates. For instance RS listening to music at 5:30am for half an hour. Hellmann says well it's perfectly normal after a sensual night to get up and listen to music. I mean who needs an alibi when your judge is going to create it for you. When the problem with the computer activity is that RS had said he slept late that morning, he never mentioned getting up before dawn and listening to music.

 

[Amber29]

No

Comodi: But from the records, we see that you called your mother – not only from the billing records but also from the cell phone pings – that you first called your mother at twelve. At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it is midday?

Comodi: But at twelve o’clock, nothing had happened yet.

First Call was like Amanda said. 12.47pm

Amanda: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house.

The day of 2.11.07
&#8722; 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 00447841131571 belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the cell at [346] Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell is picked up at Sollecito’s house)
&#8722; 12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito’s house)
&#8722; 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector3)
&#8722; 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)
&#8722; 12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348-4673590); Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (still at Raffaele’s house)
&#8722; 12:20:44 (lasting 65 seconds) Romanelli F. calls Amanda, who receives the call connecting to the cell in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (good for Corso Garibaldi 30)
&#8722; 12:34:56 (48 seconds): Filomena calls Amanda who receives it from the cottage on Via della Pergola 7 (the cell used is that on Piazza Lupattelli sector 7. As mentioned, Raffaele also used the same cell when he called the service centre at 12:35 hours to recharge [the credit of] his mobile phone)
&#8722; 12:47:23 (duration of 88 seconds): Amanda calls the American (USA) number 00120069326457, using the cell on Piazza Lupatetlli sector 7; the phone call takes place prior to the one which, at 12.51.40, Raffaele Sollecito will make to ‚112&#8219;, connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1, which gives coverage to Via della Pergola 7)
&#8722; 13:24:18 (duration of 162 seconds): Amanda calls the same American number which corresponds to the home of her mother, Mrs Edda Mellas, using the same cell. It is obvious that the young woman is inside the cottage, where by this point, several minutes earlier, the Postal Police had shown up, [347] represented by Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi, who were engaged in the task of tracking down Filomena Romanelli, who was the owner of the Vodafone phonecard contained in the mobile phone found earlier in the garden of the villa on Via Sperandio
&#8722; 13:27:32 (duration of 26 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350 , still using the cell at Piazza Lupattelli sector 7.
&#8722; 13:29:00 (duration of 296 seconds) Amanda receives [a call] from No. 075/54247561 (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)
&#8722; 13:58:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to her mother’s number
&#8722; 13:50:06 (350 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350 by using the Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell
&#8722; 14:46:14 (102 seconds) Amanda receives a call from the German number 494154794034, most likely belonging to her aunt Doroty

That 12:47 call is the one they are referring to. Amanda has NO memory of making that call. The first call she remembers making to her mother was AFTER Meredith had been discovered. So what that they referred to it as a noon call, it was made in the noon hour. So what is your argument? That amanda remembers that call? She clearly says the first time she called her mother was to tell her about a foot.

 

[MichaelSmith]

That 12:47 call is the one they are referring to. Amanda has NO memory of making that call. The first call she remembers making to her mother was AFTER Meredith had been discovered. So what that they referred to it as a noon call, it was made in the noon hour. So what is your argument? That amanda remembers that call? She clearly says the first time she called her mother was to tell her about a foot.

Comodi is telling her they have phone records proving she made a phone call to her mother at 12pm "before anything had happened" yet it was placed at 12.47 which isn't 12pm and a lot had happened.

Amanda gets confused over this because Comodi is telling her an outright lie.

Comodi: But from the records, we see that you called your mother &#8211; not only from the billing records but also from the cell phone pings &#8211; that you first called your mother at twelve. At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it is midday?

Comodi: But at twelve o&#8217;clock, nothing had happened yet.

 

[Amber29]

What evidence? Take away the DNA and the luminal (the DNA especially is non evidence IMO), what is there? Take away Amanda's false confession made by a kid under duress in a foreign language (and in my mind it was not even a confession, it was just ramblings; the Italian SC even agreed that it could not be used). What evidence is left to secure a conviction? All they had really was the DNA on the knife and the bra which if true would have been compelling. But besides the fact that Meredith's blood was not on the knife, IT WAS NOT EVEN THE MURDER WEAPON. So even if MK's blood was on it, if its cut did not match the cuts on the body to be the murder weapon, it would not even matter. And in no way is the bra DNA reliable.

So I don't know what else they have that conclusively ties either to the crime. Rudy Guede did this, in a run of the mill burglary and rape of opportunity, pure and simple, and it is a travesty he only gets 16 years bc the Italian justice system decides to play this game with Amanda and Rafaele. To those who think Amanda is guilty, are you happy with Rudy's sentence? why are you not outraged that a person whose DNA was all over the crime scene is getting away w such a light punishment? How possibly could Amanda and Rafaela been involved with such a bloody murder and not leave any DNA? (The argument that they magically wiped away their DNA while leaving Rudy's is laughable).

I just wish those who so hate Amanda would turn their energy into outrage at letting Rudy Guede out in a few years to kill again!!!

Everyone seems to forget that Amanda was really just a kid, and if you see her interviews, I think maybe it is just her personality to be a bit odd, a bit detached, quirky, etc. I would like to think how I would act if I was a college student in a foreign country with no friends or family around when my roommate was just murdered. I think she was just naive and maybe did things that some perceived as weird, and then it all got blown up in her face when she said the story about Patrick.

I fear the Italians will want to "save face" so they may end up upholding the conviction, but never go through the process of extraditing her bc they really know she is innocent. They get to keep their pride at the expense of failing to put the real murderer (Rudy)behind bars for life and ruining the lives of Amanda and Raffaele

Again, what is the evidence that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt throwing out the false confession and DNA?

You say RGs DNA is "all over", yet you want all the DNA thrown out against AK/RS. Why is all that evidence agaisnst RG good and against the others no good. It was all collected by the same people in the same way and some of RGs was found and collected the same day as the bra clasp. I'm not disagreeing with you as to the evidence agianst RG, I just disagree that that only evidence against RG should stand.

Even with all the DNA evidence out of the picture, there is still circumstantial evidence to overcome. It doesn't get explained away as easily for me as others. Way too many contradictions and lies that are unexplainable IMO.

I also don't agree with calling AK a kid, she was 20 years old. When does one become an adult?

RG took a fast track trial option. In exchange for being able to present very limited evidence and witnesses, he gets his sentence cut in half. Wile I disagree with it, that is how their system works. They don't offer "plea bargains" for murder in Italy, fast track trial is their option. It doesn't differ greatly from what some one who pleas to 2nd degree/manslaughter in America.

It is absolutely terrible that RG gets so little time. Especially in my eyes because I support the death penalty, I am from Texas after all.

 

[aa9511]

There's a pro guilt meme debunked a long time ago that still pops up regarding a non existent phone call from Amanda to her mother at 12pm. Amanda made a mistake in WTBH about it.

Comodi exploited a mistake Edda made by telling Amanda an outright lie that she sort of ends up agreeing with not realizing it was BS.

You can see pretty clearly in the transcript Comodi is telling her the 12pm phone exists when it doesn't. Comodi shamelessly tricked her and mislead the court.

Ah, the "I don't remember." How many times have we heard that in cases we've followed? I would say, A LOT. Every time they get caught in something on the spot and don't have time to think up the answer, they default to the "I don't remember."

 

[Amber29]

Comodi is telling her they have phone records proving she made a phone call to her mother at 12pm "before anything had happened" yet it was placed at 12.47 which isn't 12pm and a lot had happened.

Amanda gets confused over this because Comodi is telling her an outright lie.

Comodi: But from the records, we see that you called your mother &#8211; not only from the billing records but also from the cell phone pings &#8211; that you first called your mother at twelve. At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it is midday?

Comodi: But at twelve o&#8217;clock, nothing had happened yet.

The simple fact you are attempting to over look here is that the FIRST call amanda remembers making to her mother is AFTER Meredith had been found. Whether they confused her with the time doesn't matter, she doesn't recall the 12:47 call she made and what she discussed with her mother. That is the point comodi is making, what is yours?

Not to mention prosecutors do this sort of thing all the time.

 

[MichaelSmith]

The simple fact you are attempting to over look here is that the FIRST call amanda remembers making to her mother is AFTER Meredith had been found. Whether they confused her with the time doesn't matter, she doesn't recall the 12:47 call she made and what she discussed with her mother. That is the point comodi is making, what is yours?

Amber you're teasing me surely? She remembers perfectly when she called her mother.

Comodi: When did you call her for the first time?

Amanda: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house.

Amanda: It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside.

Yet....

Comodi tells her and the court an outright lie that's not true and they have evidence she called her mother at 12pm...midday....before anything had happened.

 

[SMK]

Amber you're teasing me surely? She remembers perfectly when she called her mother.

Comodi: When did you call her for the first time?

Amanda: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house.

Amanda: It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside.

Yet....

Comodi tells her and the court an outright lie that's not true and they have evidence she called her mother at 12pm...midday....before anything had happened.

But didn't her mother also remember the earlier call?