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

[Footwarrior]

Yes, I don't think dishonesty is ever called for. If there is a case, prosecutors and police shouldn't have to lie. So it should have been worded that a call was placed to Mom (didnt Edda say 'leave and phone police' ?) when things were noticed to be quite amiss, but before it was known that a murder had occurred.

So there WAS an earlier call, but it was not placed before "discovering" things were quite amiss at the cottage.

So the prosecutor might have said, "There was an earlier call to your mother, prior to the police knocking down the door and discovering the victim. Why was this?"

and Knox might have answered, "To tell her things seemed awry at the cottage." ------ THEN the prosecutor might have skillfully said, "and you knew, didn't you, that things were far more awry than merely a simply break-in, right?" JMO:moo:

What the prosecution did in court was dishonest. The kind of trick that would result in a reprimand in most US courts.

But it is a staple of courtroom TV dramas. The idea that any time you can get a defendant confused, it is proof of guilt. Even if you caused the confusion by lying to the defendant. It plays on a misconception just about everyone has about how human memory works.

 

[dgfred]

Was her mom trying to confuse her too?

 

[SMK]

Was her mom trying to confuse her too?

Yes, I do recall Eda asking her why she couldn't remember the earlier call, and offering, "Was it stress, you think?" or something to that effect.

 

[dgfred]

Is this call-argument to show she was innocent because it doesn't seem like it?

Is it to argue the facts of the case? It seems just to be to try to discredit the prosecutors... after the fact.

Is this 'time problem' being hashed out at appeal or has it already gone by the wayside?

Does anyone think her not remembering that call shows she murdered Meredith? I know I don't.

The point IMO that the prosecutor was making is and has stayed the same =

Why did you call your Mom in the middle of the night before 'anything had happened'????

That was their entire point of the testimony/questions.

Not what time the call was exactly.

 

[otto]

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?

So, if I understand correctly, before we form an opinion about the case, we should remove the DNA evidence of Sollecito and Knox throughout the crime scene, remove the luminol evidence of Sollecito and Knox throughout the crime scene, remove Knox's voluntary false accusation of murder against an innocent man, remove the murder weapon with evidence of the victim, believe that 20 and 24 year old adults are kids, but believe that a 20 year is not a kid when his name is Guede, assume that Guede is a rapist (Meredith was not raped), include DNA from Guede, include luminol evidence of Guede ... and then we should form an opinion about the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Why would we do that? Doesn't that seem like an odd way of interpreting a murder ... first pretending that evidence doesn't exist and then concluding that the suspect must be innocent?

note: there was no false confession

 

[Yellow]

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.

All this makes sense... Because she was stoned! People seem to ignore the fact that amanda was a 20 year old college kid. I don't think when I was in college - let alone if I was drunk/stoned- I could recreate my events exactly every day. Some people are also very nervous people - they clam up or they get all confused when they are in tight situations. Her roommate was just murdered and she was alone in a foreign country, think how you would react, not now as a full grown adult but as a stupid stoned college kid.

None of these alleged inconsistencies could support even an arrest let alone a conviction in an American courtroom. You need alot more to make this a circumstantial case. You need the knife to match, you need Amanda's DNA to at least be in the room, you need some physical evidence to link her to the crime.

 

[Amber29]

What the prosecution did in court was dishonest. The kind of trick that would result in a reprimand in most US courts.

But it is a staple of courtroom TV dramas. The idea that any time you can get a defendant confused, it is proof of guilt. Even if you caused the confusion by lying to the defendant. It plays on a misconception just about everyone has about how human memory works.

I'm sorry but not only do prosecutors do these sorts of things all the time but defense lawyers do it as well. There are many times watching live trial streams where I see a question asked where things are taken out of context. That too is misconception and lawyers do not get reprimanded on it even in the US.

It was Amanda's lawyers job to rehab her on cross about these phone calls. Thats how it would've been done in the US.

 

[dgfred]

<modsnip>. Could you explain about (for example) the Scott Peterson, Brad Cooper and Jason Young convictions. They were in the US. Thanks.

 

[MichaelSmith]

http://www.umbria24.it/omicidio-mer...csm-per-il-video-da-180-mila-euro/234991.html

The deputy prosecutor will appear before the Higher Council for the Judiciary on December 6 next

Meredith murder, the prosecutor Manuela Comfortable front of the CSM for the video to 180 thousand euro

It will be the Disciplinary Division of the Supreme Judicial Council on December 6 next to take care of the costs for the advice of more than 180 thousand Euros, liquidate made by the prosecutor, Manuela Comfortable, the prosecutor of Perugia, in the trial phase of the trial for the death of Meredith Kercher occurred in Perugia on November 1 of 2007.

Video In particular, the deputy prosecutor Manuela Comfortable expected to report to the CSM to an expense of &#8364; 182,740, of which over 30,000 for the VAT paid to the company 'Nventa Id Srl' and an animated reconstruction of the setting of the scene in 4D the crime.

The prosecution objected According to prosecutor, "the settlement was laid out with a visa affixed to the edge of the bill by a stamp bearing the style formula asserting the withholding regularity of the supply or price matching, on the other entirely anticipated by the State Treasury on 30 June 2012 '. According to the charges
leveled at the magistrate would be "failed to state reasons for payment of the decree and the consequent lack of policy application and tables specially equipped for proper anticipation of the amount outstanding."

Damage to the Treasury According to the prosecutor general of the Supreme Court, the episode had caused undue damage to the Treasury and ilo same judge, that the dispute would have implemented "uncritically and in full", "without even proceed, despite the conspicuous amount of money paid, the distinction between the sums due to the reconstruction of the crime scene and one to reconnect to the creation of the data base. "

also

http://www.gonews.it/2013/il-csm-pr...re-180mila-euro-danno-allerario/#.UozwXBN-9D8

 

[Amber29]

All this makes sense... Because she was stoned! People seem to ignore the fact that amanda was a 20 year old college kid. I don't think when I was in college - let alone if I was drunk/stoned- I could recreate my events exactly every day. Some people are also very nervous people - they clam up or they get all confused when they are in tight situations. Her roommate was just murdered and she was alone in a foreign country, think how you would react, not now as a full grown adult but as a stupid stoned college kid.

None of these alleged inconsistencies could support even an arrest let alone a conviction in an American courtroom. You need alot more to make this a circumstantial case. You need the knife to match, you need Amanda's DNA to at least be in the room, you need some physical evidence to link her to the crime.

You need Amanda's DNA in the room? Are you under the impression a murderer always leaves DNA? How did we ever catch criminals before DNA evidence?

She was not stoned the day Meredith was found. This was midday.

I agree the phone call does not make her guilty.

 

[otto]

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

Of course her mother remembers the call and the phone records confirm that Knox made the call. I really don't understand why anyone would want to argue that a phone call doesn't exist other than to skew the facts and create confusion.

Knox and her mother were recorded during a prison conversation. The mother asked Knox why she made the first phone call at 4am Seattle time, before anything had happened. The court asked the same question. Knox didn't have an answer for either party. Knox claimed to have yet another of her frequent memory lapses, something that was common when she did not have a good answer to a question.

 

[Yellow]

So, if I understand correctly, before we form an opinion about the case, we should remove the DNA evidence of Sollecito and Knox throughout the crime scene, remove the luminol evidence of Sollecito and Knox throughout the crime scene, remove Knox's voluntary false accusation of murder against an innocent man, remove the murder weapon with evidence of the victim, believe that 20 and 24 year old adults are kids, but believe that a 20 year is not a kid when his name is Guede, assume that Guede is a rapist (Meredith was not raped), include DNA from Guede, include luminol evidence of Guede ... and then we should form an opinion about the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Why would we do that? Doesn't that seem like an odd way of interpreting a murder ... first pretending that evidence doesn't exist and then concluding that the suspect must be innocent?

note: there was no false confession

The Supreme Court of Italy threw out her alleged confession, which was not really a confession at all, it was her imaging a scenario at the polices insistence. There is no DNA evidence, none of Meredith on the knife and the bra clasp was not reliable so said an independent panel of experts.

Ok, so what then are you left with?rudy's DNA was all over the crime scene, and his DNA was in the toilet- he has no right being in that house, and he admits he was there when the crime happened, and he then fled. And his DNA was found inside her body, sure sounds like a rape to me.

No one established that knife was the murder weapon either (even if it has Meredith's DNA on it). If you brutally stabbed someone multiple times, would not the knife have lots of blood on it? This knife did not. Also, there would be no debate that the knife would fit the cuts on the body - this did not.

I don't see how the luminal proves anything, they were in the house, they might have stepped in the blood. More telling, why was not their a bloody footprint of theirs in Meredith's room? How did they do this brutal murder yet leave no evidence in the bedroom?

How could they do this brutal murder yet not leave their DNA all over the bedroom and the body? (Like Rudy did). Rudy did this in a burglary gone bad to perhaps he even wanted to rape amanda or Meredith and went there w that intention.

Amanda's actions can equally be interpreted as her being a dumb kid. And just bc you interpret one persons actions as a kid does not mean you need to interpret another's of the same age as a kid. Just because someone is the same age does not mean they act alike. Rudy, I don't think, went there to actually murder MK, I think he wanted to get w her or amanda (as most 20 year old guys do), & wanted to steal some money (as he tried this a few days earlier). Unfirtunately, these type of crimes happen every day here & they just do not get the media attention this one did.

It is a shame MK's real murderer is not being punished more. I cannot believe people - even those who think AK is guilty- would be happy with RG's light sentence

 

[Footwarrior]

You need Amanda's DNA in the room? Are you under the impression a murderer always leaves DNA? How did we ever catch criminals before DNA evidence?

In many cases, the investigators relied on other physical evidence. In other cases the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and psychological factors and the wrong person was sent to jail.

The evidence in this case points straight to Rudy Guede. The problem for the prosecutors is that they had already announced and jailed three others before the evidence was fully examined. They had also leaked lots of defamatory but false information about these other suspects to the press.

 

[Yellow]

You need Amanda's DNA in the room? Are you under the impression a murderer always leaves DNA? How did we ever catch criminals before DNA evidence?

She was not stoned the day Meredith was found. This was midday.

I agree the phone call does not make her guilty.

Perhaps other websleuthers know more about other cases, but it is usually the case that in such a personal murder like this, you are literally touching the victim when doing the crime. Wouldn't Amanda's DNA be somewhere on the body if she was stabbing her? And if she was in the room wouldn't her fingerprints be on the counter, etc? Why was Rudy's DNA all over? I mean didn't the prosecutors allege AK was holding her down? Well then why was there no physical evidence of this? Would not MK fight back and leave some kind of mark,etc in AK? I think MK was maybe even stronger than AK.

You do not need physical evidence in a strong circumstantial case. But I don't see how you have any circumstantial case here let alone a strong one. AK was stoned the night of the murder, I could see how she might not remember when she called her mother, etc. You need alot of circumstantial evidence to make up a case that has no physical evidence, and this does not have it,

Also, generally for a jury, without physical evidence you need a strong motive. Although not legally required, juries need it if they have no physical evidence, you need a motive to tie the circumstantial evidence together. Here you have no motive on why a kid would turn on their roommate. This would be the first case in mankind where someone was killed bc the victim complained they did not flush the toilet.

Remember even though I believe AK is 100% innocent, even if I thought she was 95% guilty, that still is not enough to convict. There is no way this case proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, People may believe AK did it, but without strong physical evidence you cannot make a case here. The circumstantial evidence is consistent with how a quirky kid would act, alone in a foreign country, and subject to a traumatic event.

 

[aa9511]

All this makes sense... Because she was stoned! People seem to ignore the fact that amanda was a 20 year old college kid. I don't think when I was in college - let alone if I was drunk/stoned- I could recreate my events exactly every day. Some people are also very nervous people - they clam up or they get all confused when they are in tight situations. Her roommate was just murdered and she was alone in a foreign country, think how you would react, not now as a full grown adult but as a stupid stoned college kid.

None of these alleged inconsistencies could support even an arrest let alone a conviction in an American courtroom. You need alot more to make this a circumstantial case. You need the knife to match, you need Amanda's DNA to at least be in the room, you need some physical evidence to link her to the crime.

Please look over the Kent Heiholt case (if you choose to), there is a thread on here. It's about Ryan Ferguson, you might have heard of him in the news recently. He was just released because his conviction was overturned, and he spent 10 years in prison. He was convicted on 2 witness accounts, both of whom later admitted they were lying. There was absolutely NO OTHER EVIDENCE tying him to the crime. He was convicted and spent TEN YEARS in prison before being released on the decision of a high court.....and that is in the U.S.A.. THere was far, far, far less evidence in that case than in this one. A lot of DNA was found at the crime scene, none matching his. There was hair found, shoeprints, fingerprints, etc.. None matched his. There was no connection with the victim (State claimed it was a robbery gone bad). State claimed he stole the money to coninue drinking at the nearby bar he was at, even though the bar closed 50 minutes before Kent was murdered. His car was searched and nothing found. The 2 witnesses were lying....one is a confused friend who was blacked-out drunk that night and thought (2 years later) he might have been the one to commit the murder because of a "dream" he had. He later admitted that he brought Ryan into the story because he was scared in the moment to be the only one taking the "blame." No one still knows whether he really believes he himself did it based on the dream, or what is going on in his mind. The other "witness" was a janitor who originally stated he saw two white men walking around that time, but couldn't see their faces clearly. Then this witness did something which put him in jail. There he got a visit from a prosector in the Kent case, a fact which was not disclosed to the defense. All of a sudden, the "witness" can suddenly clearly reemember Ryan's face and pointed him out in court. He later admitted he was lying becvause he thought it would help him get a lighter sentence for his own problems.

This is what got him convicted, by a jury in a supposedly fair trial, in the U.S.A..

Not only was he arrested, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 40 years in prison. And he spent 10 years in prison before being released due to the overturning of the conviction. All based on, as it turns out, nothing.

 

[Yellow]

In many cases, the investigators relied on other physical evidence. In other cases the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and psychological factors and the wrong person was sent to jail.

The evidence in this case points straight to Rudy Guede. The problem for the prosecutors is that they had already announced and jailed three others before the evidence was fully examined. They had also leaked lots of defamatory but false information about these other suspects to the press.

The Italians wanted it to be AK And Patrick. Once Patrick had an alibi, and the physical evidence pointed straight to Rudy, they had to figure out what to do w Amanda. Remember this was international news at this point. I recall seeing this in Good morning America and they were going with this crazy sex game thing. So for the Italians to turn around and say AK had no involvement, and this was just a run of the mill burglary and rape/murder would have been a huge embarassement, they needed AK to be part of the crime.

 

[Yellow]

Please look over the Kent Heiholt case (if you choose to), there is a thread on here. It's about Ryan Ferguson, you might have heard of him in the news recently. He was just released because his conviction was overturned, and he spent 10 years in prison. He was convicted on 2 witness accounts, both of whom later admitted they were lying. There was absolutely NO OTHER EVIDENCE tying him to the crime. He was convicted and spent TEN YEARS in prison before being released on the decision of a high court.....and that is in the U.S.A.. THere was far, far, far less evidence in that case than in this one. A lot of DNA was found at the crime scene, none matching his. There was hair found, shoeprints, fingerprints, etc.. None matched his. There was no connection with the victim (State claimed it was a robbery gone bad). State claimed he stole the money to coninue drinking at the nearby bar he was at, even though the bar closed 50 minutes before Kent was murdered. His car was searched and nothing found. The 2 witnesses were lying....one is a confused friend who was blacked-out drunk that night and thought (2 years later) he might have been the one to commit the murder because of a "dream" he had. He later admitted that he brought Ryan into the story because he was scared in the moment to be the only one taking the "blame." No one still knows whether he really believes he himself did it based on the dream, or what is going on in his mind. The other "witness" was a janitor who originally stated he saw two white men walking around that time, but couldn't see their faces clearly. Then this witness did something which put him in jail. There he got a visit from a prosector in the Kent case, a fact which was not disclosed to the defense. All of a sudden, the "witness" can suddenly clearly reemember Ryan's face and pointed him out in court. He later admitted he was lying becvause he thought it would help him get a lighter sentence for his own problems.

This is what got him convicted, by a jury in a supposedly fair trial, in the U.S.A..

Not only was he arrested, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 40 years in prison. And he spent 10 years in prison before being released due to the overturning of the conviction. All based on, as it turns out, nothing.

And they freed him now. The evidence if true would have been enough to support a conviction, there were 2 eyewitnesses including the other murderer who copped to 25 years. There was enough to convict,

But once that turned out not to be true, it was wrong for the trial judge not to let Ryan go. Now that correction has been made and Ryan is free.

Situation is not the same here.the jury in Ryan's trial had every right to believe the eyewitnesses - it is pretty damning for your co murderer to cop to 25 years if he did not do it. And then to be backed up by an eyewitness who saw him in the lot - So the evidence presented to the jury showed guilt and I could understand how a jury could find him guilty. But once it was proven that the evidence was a lie, the jury's verdict crumbled.

The same should happen here w AK. The DNA used to convict has been proven by independent experts to be a joke- her conviction should be overturned or at minimum she should be given a completely new trial. In Ryan's case, the evidence (though faulty) would have been, if true, a strong case for guilt. Here, there is nothing for them to rely on.

 

[otto]

Nope. It doesn't exist.

Page 323 of the Massei Report

http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

Call made from Knox to Seattle at 12:47 before anything had happened
Knox claims that she has no memory of this call.
No one is trying to trick Knox. Knox made the call. Neither Knox nor her mother were able to completely describe what they talked about.

 

[aa9511]

I'm sorry but not only do prosecutors do these sorts of things all the time but defense lawyers do it as well. There are many times watching live trial streams where I see a question asked where things are taken out of context. That too is misconception and lawyers do not get reprimanded on it even in the US.

It was Amanda's lawyers job to rehab her on cross about these phone calls. Thats how it would've been done in the US.

Amber, you are exactly right with everything you just said. I have also seen this in numerous trials, both from defense and prosecution. As you said, it is then the opposing counsel's job to spot these and then go back on re-direct with their client and point out the inconsistencies.

I have even seen lawyers try to, essentially, IMO, trick the jury. For example, in Jodi Arias case, the ME made a mistake in his report and said the brain cranium (or something like that), was NOT penetrated. If that had been true, then there was a chance the bullet would not have penetrated the brain, which the ME stated multiple times on the stands that the bullet definately penetrated the brain and there was no other possibility. The ME was called to the stand multiple times, first in direct testimony, and then in rebuttal. So the defense had multiple opportunities to question him on that sentence in his report, which if correct, would have been huge for their case.

Then in rebuttal, the defense called their own person who supposedly was an expert on pyschology AND on forensic stuff. The defense asked HIM about what it meant that the ME wrote in his report, that the cranium had not been penetrated? Their expert said that would mean the bullet did not penetrate or pass through the brain. This was a huge point for the defense as it was a central point for the prosecution that the bullet passed through the brain and thus the victim was unconscious and incapacitated very quickly.

The actual ME comes on the stand again, called by prosecution. Again, no question about this to the ACTUAL ME by the defense, even though they had extensively covered the ME's sentence with their own expert.

The prosecutor (Juan Martinez) also doesn't bring up the defense's finding of the sentence in his report, I'm assuming because he didn't want to draw attention to it because he knew it was just an error.

AND thennnnn...............at the very last chance that the ME could get on the stand in the trial, there comes a jury question. One of the jurors asked about his report and why did he say the cranium had not been penetrated? THe ME is surprised, and says, "oh that is just an error, a typing error, sorry."

WHOA. Talk about deflating the balloon.

Now why did the defense not ask the person himself who wrote the report, the ME? Instead of not only asking about it from their own expert witness, but making a big deal about it?

Could it be, becaues they didn't want to ask him, because they knew he would then admit that it wsa simploy an error? Because they knew all along that it was just a typo.

But they didn't want his confirmation on record that it was a typo.

So that they could then go back during closings, when the ME didn't have a chance to respond, and say, Oh look at what he wrote!!!! See, he said right here, that the brain didn't get penetrated!! See, see, jury, right here! Talk about trying to fool the jury!!!!!

I believe the prosecutor knew this, but didn't bring it up because he didn't want to make a big deal about it and make the jury think it was a big deal, when in reality it wasn't, only a typo.

If it hadn't been for the jury question, the jury would have not known the truth and would have just been confused at the end about this whole "brain penetration" thing. Because surely the defnse would have tried to fool them.

Prosecutors do it too. Juan Martinez EXPERTLY caught Jodi Arias in a lot of lies. If he had spoken SLLOOOWWLLLYY and given her time to think of the answers, she would have had time to make up some lie to suit her story. But he went at her, bam, bam, bam, she didn't have time to think and that when the truth of her all her lies came out.

I don't agree that it's wrong for the prosecutors to employ the tactic. Obviously, if you give a killer time to think up answers to suit the evidence, THEY WILL! Do we really think the killers care about lying to the jury??

 

[otto]

No need to be confused. Her mother gets a pass on timing and sequence of calls and memory about them but a prosecutor doesn't get a pass telling outright lies about phone records that don't exist.

Are you thinking that the prosecutor should be helping Knox with her testimony? Knox phoned her mother at 12:47 before anything had happened. That is the point. If the prosecutor said noon, or 12, how is that a problem? Knox is supposed to be telling the truth, so she should have said that she called her mother at 12:47 before anything happened because ______________. Anything less can be interpreted as deception.

Every prosecutor is eager to cross examine a suspect. It is normal that a prosecutor will attempt to catch the suspect in a lie. It is the responsibility of the suspect to tell the truth, thereby not getting caught in a lie. Too bad for Knox if she was mixed up during cross examination.