Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[whoanellie]

What is interesting is the follow up after Comodi's lie about the 12:00 phone call "on record".

Both Comodi and Massei ask for the reason of the call.
The reason of the actual call is self evident - there was the broken window, traces of blood, a friend was missing. All of it alarming enough to contact her family for advice.
So the question is quite dumb itself when put in factual context. It makes sense only with the time of the call falsified.

Amanda maybe wouldn't have remembered the call, but she would have pointed all this out if she was told the real time of the phone call.

Agreed. To me, there is absolutely nothing suspicious about the call itself. She grew increasingly alarmed about what she found at her home and her inability to locate Meredith. She grew so concerned that she called her mother in the early morning hours in Seattle. Under normal circumstances it would be an inappropriate time to call. November 2nd in Perugia were not normal circumstances for Amanda.

The fact that she couldn't remember the call doesn't make the call suspicious. Amanda was A) Human and B) under stress. Human beings have imperfect memories especially when they under stress. That is my experience.
I do not buy the idea that just because she says she forgot about the call it must be suspicious.

I would appreciate it if someone could "connect the dots" to make a pro-guilt argument regarding Amanda's phone call to her mother. What is it specifically about the call or her failure to remember it that points to guilt? If you think the call is suspicious what do you think she told her mother in that call. It would be very helpful to me if someone could paint the picture for me.

 

[aa9511]

Thanks for all your help....Well, this is what I have been trying all along to determine. I was sold on the Guede-lone-wolf theory (thanks mainly to Hendry and Fisher) until I read the murderwiki (which I only bothered to do a. because Hellmann was overturned and b. I initially and rashly thought the wiki was put together by the press in conjunction with Wikipedia - I thought it was completely objective). Once I had gone over all the facts there, I felt there was now way, way too much suspicious about Knox and Sollecito to think they did not have some sort of involvement; I even began to suspect that maybe there really had been a lot of spin-doctoring and PR campaigning for this reason.

Then of course as we know the wiki was reported to be an opinion site, and so many of the facts were torn to shreds by counter-facts and so I wound up completely confused. I am trying now to figure out what is left which stands on its own, aloof from any distortion - and what is perhaps being distorted by the opposing side. This case really is messy. I wonder what the lay judges are thinking about all?

bbm

SMK, I admire your tenacity to get to the truth

It's making me see how important the trial "system" is with an impartial judge and jury, just being presented the facts and arguments from both sides. And not 50 different people saying 50 different things on one side, and 50 different people saying 50 different things on the other side!!

 

[Katody]

I did not misunderstand the article, although I am than more than happy to admit that I am not educated in DNA (I suspect that is true of everyone here except CH). I do understand the math in the article (I suspect that is not true of everyone here). Balding accepts that four of the 12 alleles identified by V&C have peaks high enough (>15%) that they can be identified as DNA (rather than stutter), but in reading both the article and the interview, I understand that the four alleles can be a result of "drop-in" DNA, or fragmentary and degraded DNA. That is not ruled out. Knox's DNA is not on the clasp, but there is clear DNA from Sollecito. It is not true that the DNA profiles of four people have been identified on the clasp, only that four alleles are not stutter and no profile has been identified for those alleles. Apparently, one of the contributors of low-level DNA was male.

With regards to the question of whether Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, the answer is a resounding yes. With regards to the question of whether the four alleles that are not stutter are significant, I would say no. Regarding whether someone could have carried the DNA into the bedroom after touching something with Sollecito's DNA, Balding says that it is unlikely (see interview).

Balding confirms the 4 autosomal alleles from unknown contributors discovered by independent experts.

But there is whole lot of Y chromosome alleles that the court experts found. Balding's article doesn't mention them because his method uses only autosomal DNA.

Court experts found that there are several male contributors of the Y chromosomal alleles. It is in their report and it is in the article by Conti that Balding reviewed positively. Quotes were given upthread.

 

[otto]

Well, her mother did recall it in a recorded jail conversation. So there was NO record of this first call having been made? Didn't the prosecution say to Knox on cross-examination that they did have such a record? This is the case of the disappearing facts and evidence.....I can't keep up with all these changes.
Otto, help?

It seems to me that people are discussing this phone call on some other forum and then bringing it here for the purpose of promoting the idea that the prosecution is corrupt, or that something underhanded was done. I believe it was MichaelSmith that introduced this very same point with the very same persepctive a couple of weeks ago. We debated the entire scenario, with numerous links.

I would suggest that anyone that is concerned about the phone call, and how it was discussed during trial, should read two threads back for to find the discussion.

 

[aa9511]

By claiming that a call occurred at 12 noon when she knew that no such call existed, Comodi was telling a bald-faced lie. That is dishonest, and there is no excuse for it.

Maybe the prosecutor had a "confused" moment, maybe she was under a lot of "pressure,' you know, from the whole trial and all. Maybe amidst the thousands of words on her papers, she got one or two mixed up.

Why is it ok to excuse away all of Amanda's lies as either "confusion," "pressure," "language issues," "general ditzi-ness," "misunderstanding," etc. etc.?

I'm sorry, it's not acceptable to me to take the words of a suspect in a case, during that suspect's trial, and not question the motivation behind those words. If we are being asked to question everyone's else motives, then I feel that it's only fair we question the suspect's motives, as well. Only makes sense, the way I see it. Seeing as Amanda on the witness stand was the suspect in her trial

 

[otto]

The discussion about the same phone call that was introduced by MichaelSmith with the same viewpoint a couple of weeks ago appears to have been pasted on the last three pages. See discussion of November 20, 2013 for full details.

11-20-2013, 03:15 AM

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.

<snipped unreferenced quote>

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9991169&highlight=12:00+comodi#post9991169

 

[aa9511]

The issues of whether Amanda's lawyers should have prepped her better or helped correct the confusion after the fact are separate from the issue of a prosecutor lying in court. That is just not acceptable.

bbm

Ah, never Amanda telling a lie. This time it's "confusion."

 

[otto]

Balding confirms the 4 autosomal alleles from unknown contributors discovered by independent experts.

But there is whole lot of Y chromosome alleles that the court experts found. Balding's article doesn't mention them because his method uses only autosomal DNA.

Court experts found that there are several male contributors of the Y chromosomal alleles. It is in their report and it is in the article by Conti that Balding reviewed positively. Quotes were given upthread.

Is this what the prosecutor was referring to when he suggested that specific testing standards were completely acceptable for identifying DNA attributed to Guede, but suddenly the defense expects that different standards should be used for identifying DNA attributed to Sollecito?

If this question remains unanswered again, I'm going to assume that the answer is Yes.

 

[SMK]

Agreed. To me, there is absolutely nothing suspicious about the call itself. She grew increasingly alarmed about what she found at her home and her inability to locate Meredith. She grew so concerned that she called her mother in the early morning hours in Seattle. Under normal circumstances it would be an inappropriate time to call. November 2nd in Perugia were not normal circumstances for Amanda.

The fact that she couldn't remember the call doesn't make the call suspicious. Amanda was A) Human and B) under stress. Human beings have imperfect memories especially when they under stress. That is my experience.
I do not buy the idea that just because she says she forgot about the call it must be suspicious.

I would appreciate it if someone could "connect the dots" to make a pro-guilt argument regarding Amanda's phone call to her mother. What is it specifically about the call or her failure to remember it that points to guilt? If you think the call is suspicious what do you think she told her mother in that call. It would be very helpful to me if someone could paint the picture for me.

BBM
1. I do understand and appreciate all points made above, yes.
2. I think for me, any tendency to "connect the dots" is not from some ill-will toward Amanda, but perhaps toward the American mainstream media. I keep thinking that their jumping on the pro-innocence bandwagon is a bad sign. (I don't care for our media and they are so wrong about so many issues, it is almost a criteria for truth, if they ignore or jump on something )
3. My GUT reaction when I read what Edda said - keep in mind, I say, GUT and NOT logical! - was that Edda was worried re what Amanda may have told police, and that the first call may have been, "Mom, I don't know what to do, horrible situation here; You may have to come over; I may be in big trouble" and the Mom thinking, "Oh, what has she done now?" ---but who knows, it is MY gut, with my history, memories, etc. and so I take it with a big old grain of salt, and store away for future reference.
4. Any other "pro-guilt" ( I consider myself "on the fence", btw) posters want to say what they thought the first call was about???

 

[Katody]

I see your point. I meant, why had Edda asked Amanda why she didn't remember the call, could it be stress, and why had she called "before anything had happened" which made Amanda's lack of memory seem coy. Just a gut reaction. Not trying to demonize Amanda.

bbm

I am quite sure Edda wouldn't have put Amanda's reason for calling into question. That's not accurate representation of the conversation.

Here's how Galati's appeal transcribes the conversation ( bear in mind it's translated twice, from English and from Italian):

A): It was strange. I mean, it’s even difficult for me to remember exactly when... everything happened in the house... because I was shocked. I remember having called Filomena. I don’t remember that I called you, I don’t remember.
M): Oh, oh, really?
A): No, I don’t remember in fact having called you.
M): Well, I... you’d called me three times.
A): Oh, I don’t remember this.
M): OK, you’d called me once telling me...
A): Honestly, maybe I was shocked.
M): Yes, but this happened before anything had really happened, besides the house...
A): I know that I was calling, but I remember that I was calling Filomena; I don’t remember having called anyone else, and so the whole thing of having called you... I don’t remember.
M): Mhmm... why? Do you think? Stress?

That's all. I don't see Edda questioning Amanda's reasons for calling.

 

[Katody]

Is this what the prosecutor was referring to when he suggested that specific testing standards were completely acceptable for identifying DNA attributed to Guede, but suddenly the defense expects that different standards should be used for identifying DNA attributed to Sollecito?

I don't know what you're referring to. Could you give a quote for what he said?

 

[SMK]

bbm

SMK, I admire your tenacity to get to the truth

It's making me see how important the trial "system" is with an impartial judge and jury, just being presented the facts and arguments from both sides. And not 50 different people saying 50 different things on one side, and 50 different people saying 50 different things on the other side!!

thanks muchly yes, it is a very thorny case and very difficult to get at the core of it.

 

[Myvice]

I apologize for jumping in on a different topic but I've been away and wanted some clarification or help if any one can help me out. (TIA).

Harmony posted a picture of a footprint by the bed and to me it looks like it is walking beside the bed as opposed to someone turned as in sitting on the bed. Hope that makes sense.

I would think that if Guede sat on the bed to remove his shoes the prints would be pointing away from the bed and somewhat blurred from the movement of putting them back on. Anyone have any info on this. Thanks a bunch!

 

[otto]

I don't know what you're referring to. Could you give a quote for what he said?

Tweets from Courtroom

La Nazione &#8207;@qn_lanazione 2m
Meredith trial, Crini: "For the PM consultant, this is Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp of the victim"

<modsnip>

https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione

 

[aa9511]

Not at all. I think there is some confusion here. Maybe someone else said it, not me. This is the post I wrote and you replied to:

Quote:
Thanks. People do this? Hard to believe considering the phone records have been posted online for years.

I remember Comodi and Massei introduced a lot of confusion by stating the phone call took place exactly at 12:00 and asking Amanda to hypothesize about it's contents.
When we know the correct time it clarifies a lot because it places the call in the context of unfolding events.

I have re-read it many times, and I still don't think I am confused. Maybe the post should have been worded differently so that that then I could have understood the meaning it was meant to convey.

The meaning I get from the post is that Comodi caused a lot of "confusion" for Amanda by misstating the time of the phone call. Hence, Amanda did not know which phone call she was asking about.

The logical interpretation of that, is that if Amanda had been told the correct time of the phone call, she would have better known which phone call Comodi was referring to.

All of the above is in reference to the time of the phone call.

If Comodi had instead said "Tell me about the 12:47 pm phone call to your mother and what was that about," would that have made the question any clearer for Amanda? IMO, it would have "confused" Amanda even more. My point was that it makes much more sense for Comodi to have said "the first phone call to your mother," rahter than saying "the 12:47pm phone call to your mother," in terms of Amanda's memory of that particular phone call.

If someone asks me, regarding some pivotal day of my life, "what was your first phone call to your mother about on that day?" I am much more likely to remember than if someone asks me "what was your 2:32 pm phone call to your mother about on that day."

 

[Myvice]

bbm

I am quite sure Edda wouldn't have put Amanda's reason for calling into question. That's not accurate representation of the conversation.

Here's how Galati's appeal transcribes the conversation ( bear in mind it's translated twice, from English and from Italian):



That's all. I don't see Edda questioning Amanda's reasons for calling.

I think it's a matter of perception. To me it seems as if Amanda is trying to cut Edda off before she can spill the beans. IMO, Edda is definitely questioning her reason for the first call. She even said but it was before anything really happened.

 

[otto]

I apologize for jumping in on a different topic but I've been away and wanted some clarification or help if any one can help me out. (TIA).

Harmony posted a picture of a footprint by the bed and to me it looks like it is walking beside the bed as opposed to someone turned as in sitting on the bed. Hope that makes sense.

I would think that if Guede sat on the bed to remove his shoes the prints would be pointing away from the bed and somewhat blurred from the movement of putting them back on. Anyone have any info on this. Thanks a bunch!

We could also pose the theory that Guede had hospital booties in his back pocket and that after murdering Meredith, but prior to getting the towels from the bathroom (a claim he makes in his self serving diary), he put on those booties. He did this because he did not want anyone to know that he got towels from the bathroom to aid Meredith.

After getting the towels, he removed the booties, ran down the corridor (luminol prints) and to the exit. It has been suggested that because there is no luminol identification of prints outside the exit, perhaps he did not go out the exit. We could pose that he had a bicycle at the door, and he jumped on that bicycle to eliminate evidence that he left the cottage.

The booties and bicycle are completely fabricated, made up and, to use Knox's words: an imagining. Similarly, there is absolutely nothing to support a theory that Guede removed his shoes to eliminate evidence that he got towels from the bathroom. Before we run with where the footprints are placed, I would like a logical explanation for why Guede would remove his shoes to get towels. If he did not remove his shoes to get towels, then there should be clear bloody shoeprints leading from Meredith to the bathroom and back to Meredith.

If he is lying about getting towels, and there is absolutely no evidence of Guede in the small bathroom, but ample evidence of Guede in Meredith's bedroom, the large bathroom, the corridor, the living room and the exit, then it seems very unlikely that he was in the small bathroom. The only reason that anyone wants to place Guede in the bathroom is to attribute the bloody barefoot print to him, but creating an entire scenario without any evidence just doesn't make sense to me.

So, why would Guede remove his shoes to get towels from the small bathroom?

 

[aa9511]

Although Amber answered this questioned which you addressed to her, I can tell you that the reason this business of whether or not a first call was made (as per jail conv.) and whether Amanda could recall it or didn't want to, struck me as important (when taken together with other oddities) is because it appeared to me that she did not want to commit to knowing more earlier (enough to want to wake her mother - and the mother seemed to question why she had, as well).

This alone made it important to me. I don't care whether she made 6 calls, 7 calls, or could recall them all - only if she was deliberately refusing to acknowledge this first call, for the reason I stated, did it have any import whatever to my thinking. And still would seem so. ( and yes, I only became aware of this through that blasted murderwiki, so am trying to ascertain now whether this is a legitimate point of suspicion or no.)ETA: I would think you wouldn't wake your mother who had work to go to at 2-4 am unless you were certain something of real import had happened.

ITA. It's the combination of Amanda avoiding it, deliberately not wanting to acknowledge it, and IMO lying about it, along with the context of when the call took place as the events were unfolding, and along with the context of the other calls Amanda and RS made during the time. Also her mother questioning her about that specific call, which lends one to think that there was something important about that call pertaining to events surrounding Meredith's murder.

 

[Katody]

I think it's a matter of perception. To me it seems as if Amanda is trying to cut Edda off before she can spill the beans.

It's definitely a matter of imagination filling out the blanks when we don't have the recording to hear. Maybe there was cutting off, maybe long pauses.

More interesting: what were the beans to spill?

IMO, Edda is definitely questioning her reason for the first call. She even said but it was before anything really happened.

You mean this part:

A): Honestly, maybe I was shocked.
M): Yes, but this happened before anything had really happened, besides the house...

To be accurate they're talking about the cause of not remembering, not the reason for calling.

 

[geevee]

The abnormal thing is Amanda has no memory making this call! It was 88secs and she has no memory of it. Edda even felt the need to ask her about it. That is the issue.

12 or 12:47, either way amanda can not explain a call she does not remember.

I really don't get the problem, she didn't try to hide the fact that she called her Mom, with everything that was going on, first seeing signs in the cottage that something was wrong and then all the activity, what difference does it make if she forgot later that in the middle of everything she called her mother? Or even after she saw signs and before others arrived?

Kids have been on cell phones 24/7 since their inception, I'd be surprised if they could remember half the calls they make at any given point. I just don't see that her forgetting that call makes a single bit of difference, or gives the impression that she may be guilty of anything.