Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[Katody]

Next myth dispelled by Edgardo Giobbi is the length of the interrogation.

Edgardo Giobbi admits that each time Amanda was called to the station she was questioned for 3-4 hours. He states that the last time was the longest. He says it took from after 10pm to 5 or "a little before" 5am when finally they stopped and called Mignini.

We know the interrogation continued then, Mignini extracted another signed statement from Amanda.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Trascrizioni-2009-May-29-Sbardella-Politi-Codispoti-Giobbi.pdf

 

[Amber29]

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2008-01-03_Eng.pdf

Findings related to the home of Rudy Herman Guede:

148) 3 samples of presumed blood substance carried out on a towel found in the bathroom: DNA analysis have provided a profile attributed to Rudy Guede.

149) sampling performed on the plastic filter sink drain: analysis with TMB to the nature of the track blood gave a positive result, the DNA analysis have provided a profile attributable to Rudy Guede.

150) n.3 campionature eseguite su un pantalone jeans: le analisi del DNA hanno fornito profili incompleti anche misti, tuttavia apparentemente riconducibili a Rudy Guede; le analisi sono ancora in corso.

151) sampling of a ticket to an exhibition "Chagall Wonderland" to a Roman museum in May 2007: an analysis with TMB to the nature of the track blood gave a positive result, the DNA analysis have provided a profile attributable to Rudy Guede.

I thought the only traces attributed to RG blood was in his OWN bathroom? Are we now trying to state that these are from Meredith's bathroom?

Eta never mind I see you said his bathroom.
Although I don't know what it proves? So none of Meredith's DNA was found on RGs pants?

 

[Amber29]

That's a suspicious lack of Meredith's blood for someone who went home drenched and dripping her blood without cleaning himself up at all at the cottage bathroom.

As there's a serious lack of this DNA found in Meredith's bathroom if he cleaned up there?

 

[Katody]

As there's a serious lack of this DNA found in Meredith's bathroom if he cleaned up there?

How so? There was a lot of Meredith's DNA in her bathroom.
As expected, after all Guede washed off her blood there leaving visible traces.

 

[SMK]

I think a logical assumption would be that any notable movement probably occurred when the Postal Officer went into the room. I believe he had to check to see what was under the duvet, and upon his discovery to check if she was deceased.

MOO

I think Micheli was talking about movement prior to the Postal Officers checking. I think the PP were trained enough in protocol not to unduly change the position of the body - plus drag marks showed this changing of the position and the cutting of the bra had occurred hours earlier.

 

[Amber29]

Of course prosecutor Comodi was merely mistaken when she invented the phone call in the courtroom, wasn't she?

No she wasn't she said midday.

It's no ones fault that AK is unfamiliar with the evidence in her case, except her own. Period

Some can blame her ignorance of the evidence as an excuse and IMO I should NOT know her phone records better than her.

If all of us websleuths can know these facts then she should brush up on the evidence, especially before writing a book.

Either way the phone call she made up for her book was not included in her testimony. So when MC asked her about this midday call, why didn't she give this description from her book as her testimony, if its the truth in her mind?

 

[Amber29]

How so? There was a lot of Meredith's DNA in her bathroom.
As expected, after all Guede washed off her blood there leaving visible traces.

So he was only shedding DNA in Meredith's room and when he got home?

Was Meredith's DNA found on his pants?

 

[SMK]

Umm, what would be the point of "not dripping outside the bedroom"?

I don't think some people understand the concept, at times, that GUEDE DID NOT LIVE IN THAT HOUSE. Why would he care whether the bedroom was bloody, but the hallway and bathroom were clean?

Did he not realize that investigators would conclude MURDER even if the scene wasn't contained to just the bedroom? DId he think, if they found no blood in hallway/bathroom, they would dismiss the case or throw their hands up and fugetta bout it?

The only, THE ONLY, reason any clean-up in the hallway/bathroom makes sense is if it was done by people associated with Meredith, who would be connected to Meredith in some way after the discovery of the body.

Yes, OK, points extremely well taken. I think I just meant he did not want to leave extra evidence, but of course that's silly as he left evidence in the murder room. :blushing:ETA:Although I also think what I had meant is that Rudy was hoping to leave no traces of himself at all, and get away with the crime wholly. Did he know that he had left evidence (not of the sexual stuff, as he could say as he later did that it was consensual) but of the evidence of being at the blood scene (which he later tired to cover, as evidence in the newspapers came out, with his story of having "helped" MK after an unknown assailant had knifed her).

 

[Katody]

Reading on the Perugian cops' testimony about the interrogation.

The Golden Raspberry Award for the worst actress goes to Anna Donnino, for 22 years serving as a a translator for the Perugian police.

Honorary Razzie goes to Mignini for the worst original screenplay in the category of fiction and of course for directing.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Trascrizioni-2009-May-13.doc

Donnino when directed by Mignini's helpful and leading questions manages to keep up. "Yes, we asked her if she maybe wants a lawyer, she said no, of course then the interrogation was halted, yes, everyone was very very nice".
She falls into the ridiculous when acting out supposed Amanda's confession "It's him! He's bad!".

It's when the defence ask questions when Donnino utterly and completely falls apart. She just can't remember. She remembered very well just minutes before when the prosecutor asked, now the defence asks and it's all gone out of her head! She was supposedly sitting there all night at Amanda's side, until 8 in the morning, yet she can't recall anything of what happened.

One thing they got her to confirm is that she did acted as a "mediator" not just translated. And the most important part:

She had to confirm that she did tell Amanda a story about losing her memory after a traumatic event. She couldn't remember any reason why would she tell her something like this in an interrogation where Amanda's own recollection was being questioned by the interrogators.

Of course it wasn't to suggest her that she may have an amnesia because she witnessed the murder. Naah... that would be like a textbook false confession case...



http://www.vera.org/files/saul-kassin-false-confessions-transcript.pdf

In these cases, we see a number of these cases where the suspect starts to get confused and disoriented and starts to question his or her own innocence. And often the conversation then turns to questions about memory and consciousness. And there are cases on record where suspects who we now know are innocent, not only confessed and signed a confession, but they concluded and inferred that they must actually have committed this crime.

 

[Myvice]

No she wasn't she said midday.

It's no ones fault that AK is unfamiliar with the evidence in her case, except her own. Period

Some can blame her ignorance of the evidence as an excuse and IMO I should NOT know her phone records better than her.

If all of us websleuths can know these facts then she should brush up on the evidence, especially before writing a book.

Either way the phone call she made up for her book was not included in her testimony. So when MC asked her about this midday call, why didn't she give this description from her book as her testimony, if its the truth in her mind?

IMO, any defense attorney would tell you that if you don't understand a question that you should ask for clarification. It's that simple. They expect that you will be asked questions to trip you up. That's the way it works.

 

[Katody]

No she wasn't she said midday.

It's no ones fault that AK is unfamiliar with the evidence in her case, except her own. Period

Some can blame her ignorance of the evidence as an excuse and IMO I should NOT know her phone records better than her.

If all of us websleuths can know these facts then she should brush up on the evidence, especially before writing a book.

Either way the phone call she made up for her book was not included in her testimony. So when MC asked her about this midday call, why didn't she give this description from her book as her testimony, if its the truth in her mind?

First of all Comodi multiple times said "at twelve", but she did clarify it was midday, yes

For the bolded part I cannot agree. Here's an excerpt from Galati's appeal that quotes trial transcript

PRESIDENT: So it must have been, if there was, otherwise you would have the habit of calling her on other occasions at that hour, at noon in Italy, which corresponds to a time in Seattle... usually calls are not made in the middle of the night.
DEFENDANT: Yes, yes, sure.
PRESIDENT: So either there’s a particular reason or it’s a habit, this is what the Public Prosecutor is asking.

DEFENDANT: Now, because I don’t remember this phone call, I remember the one I made after. Obviously I made this call. If I made this call it was because I thought that I had something to say to her, maybe I thought at that moment that there was something strange. Because at that moment, when I had gone to Raffaele’s, I thought that there was something strange, but I didn’t know what to think. So honestly I don’t remember this phone call, so I can’t tell you for sure why, but I suppose it was because I had arrived home when the door was open, so for me it was a strange thing.

page 70

http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Galati_cassation_English1.pdf

The underlined (by me) part is very close to the description in her book. So it's not like there are two versions in her testimony and in the book:

By the time I was a block from home I was second-guessing myself. Maybe I was overreacting. Maybe there was a simple reason for the toilet being unflushed. I needed someone to say, “Amanda, you’re right to be scared. This isn’t normal.” And if it wasn’t okay, I wanted someone to tell me what to do. My skittering brain pulled up my mom’s mantra: when in doubt, call. Forgetting the nine-hour time difference between Perugia and Seattle, I pressed the number sequence for home.

Knox, Amanda (2013-04-30). Waiting to Be Heard: A Memoir (p. 66). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Finally, I'm glad that there is no ridiculous claim in your post that she wrote that in her book to somehow prop up the image of her innocence. I agree that it was a mistake and the book could have been better researched.
I don't think she had free access to all of the case file including the various data records while in jail. It also seems she wasn't consulting the book with a careful panel of lawyers or PR specialists when writing it.

My own opinion is that it exemplifies how easily false memories are created in the situation of stress, pressure and accompanied by compliance.
From the trial transcript above it seems to me that Amanda has a trait of compliance to seniority and authority. Massei and Comodi forcefully persuade her into believing the 12:00 call exists. She is prompted to explain why and what was in this call. She does, and in the process internalizes the story as a plausible reconstruction (or even recollection) of facts.

Apparently after the years no one pointed out this detail of the case to her and it ended up in the book as is.

 

[SMK]

First of all Comodi multiple times said "at twelve", but she did clarify it was midday, yes

For the bolded part I cannot agree. Here's an excerpt from Galati's appeal that quotes trial transcript



The underlined (by me) part is very close to the description in her book. So it's not like there are two versions in her testimony and in the book:






Finally, I'm glad that there is no ridiculous claim in your post that she wrote that in her book to somehow prop up the image of her innocence. I agree that it was a mistake and the book could have been better researched.
I don't think she had free access to all of the case file including the various data records while in jail. It also seems she wasn't consulting the book with a careful panel of lawyers or PR specialists when writing it.

My own opinion is that it exemplifies how easily false memories are created in the situation of stress, pressure and accompanied by compliance.
From the trial transcript above it seems to me that Amanda has a trait of compliance to seniority and authority. Massei and Comodi forcefully persuade her into believing the 12:00 call exists. She is prompted to explain why and what was in this call. She does, and in the process internalizes the story as a plausible reconstruction (or even recollection) of facts.

Apparently after the years no one pointed out this detail of the case to her and it ended up in the book as is.

Although not addressed to me, I do understand compliancy in the face of authority figures, internalization of inserted memories, etc. If one is viewing her through the lens of innocence, all of these lapses and incidents of confusion can of course be explained away. And I have often seen it just this way.

That's why for me it is so important to determine the veracity of things such as the testimony of the witness Qunitavalle, the simulation of the burglary, indications of a clean-up, the cutting of the bra hours after death, and whatever forensic evidence can be determined to be valid.

These are the only aspects, IMO, which can determine if there is innocence or probable culpability - or if Guede (alone, or with a partner) is responsible and Knox and Sollecito are simply victims of happenstance. In an incident such as the case of Ryan Ferguson, there simply existed no evidence tying him to the crime scene, and many believe this is the truth of Knox and Sollecito as well.

This is why I keep going over and over these other pieces of circumstantial evidence to determine if there really is a big arrow pointing back to these defendants. Sometimes I am certain there is, other times, I begin to question as evidence is refuted. It is very frustrating because one wants to be on the side of truth, no matter what that may ultimately prove to be.

But it can never revolve around things such as "forgetting" the first call to the mother. This is innocuous UNLESS it is part and parcel of these other aspects; then it becomes one more red flag. For example, my making a midnight call to a friend has no suspicious meaning unless I am also doing a lot of other strange things, such as putting something in the trunk of my car, wiping down the floor, etc.....

 

[Amber29]

First of all Comodi multiple times said "at twelve", but she did clarify it was midday, yes

For the bolded part I cannot agree. Here's an excerpt from Galati's appeal that quotes trial transcript



The underlined (by me) part is very close to the description in her book. So it's not like there are two versions in her testimony and in the book:






Finally, I'm glad that there is no ridiculous claim in your post that she wrote that in her book to somehow prop up the image of her innocence. I agree that it was a mistake and the book could have been better researched.
I don't think she had free access to all of the case file including the various data records while in jail. It also seems she wasn't consulting the book with a careful panel of lawyers or PR specialists when writing it.

My own opinion is that it exemplifies how easily false memories are created in the situation of stress, pressure and accompanied by compliance.
From the trial transcript above it seems to me that Amanda has a trait of compliance to seniority and authority. Massei and Comodi forcefully persuade her into believing the 12:00 call exists. She is prompted to explain why and what was in this call. She does, and in the process internalizes the story as a plausible reconstruction (or even recollection) of facts.

Apparently after the years no one pointed out this detail of the case to her and it ended up in the book as is.

BBM

My opinion of this has not changed, please do not insinuate that my post/opinion is ridiculous.

I STILL fully believe this is a self serving lie that attempts to make her first call to her mother make sense to her readers. Considering she testified that her first call was to tell her mother about discovering Meredith. So now I can assume she lied in her testimony if she now has memory of another call to her mother.

 

[Myvice]

I don't know how to quote the quote inside Katody's post that I assume comes from Amanda's book, but I just can't get past the idea that all she was "scared" about was the unflushed toilet. Or maybe she just didn't want her readers to reminded of the blood?

 

[SMK]

BBM

My opinion of this has not changed, please do not insinuate that my post/opinion is ridiculous.

I STILL fully believe this is a self serving lie that attempts to make her first call to her mother make sense to her readers. Considering she testified that her first call was to tell her mother about discovering Meredith. So now I can assume she lied in her testimony if she now has memory of another call to her mother.

BBM - Did she actually testify to this?

It is interesting, because in her email home she also says,

this is m account of how i found my roommate murdered the morning of friday, november 2nd

which is an odd way of putting it (because she did not find her, but the Postal Police did). Not telling in an of itself, but when added to other oddities....

@ AmberOK, actually, I see you are right here. In her testimony, she acts as though the first call to Seattle is when the door is opened and Filomena is saying, " a foot, a foot!".

 

[Katody]

BBM

My opinion of this has not changed, please do not insinuate that my post/opinion is ridiculous.

I STILL fully believe this is a self serving lie that attempts to make her first call to her mother make sense to her readers. Considering she testified that her first call was to tell her mother about discovering Meredith. So now I can assume she lied in her testimony if she now has memory of another call to her mother.

It's just my opinion that such idea is ridiculous unreasonable and illogical. If it was the case, she would have just written that she called first after discovering the break-in. Just like the real phone records indicate (unlike those Comodi had with her ). Voila, nothing to make "make sense to her readers".

If you look closer at the testimony I quoted, she says
"Obviously I made this call."
So if you consider only that she first testified about the other call, you're operating on incomplete information.

 

[Myvice]

BBM - Did she actually testify to this?

It is interesting, because in her email home she also says,

this is m account of how i found my roommate murdered the morning of friday, november 2nd

which is an odd way of putting it (because she did not find her, but the Postal Police did). Not telling in an of itself, but when added to other oddities....

I could be mistaken but I also thought she said that at the police station that she found the body when she stated that Merideth hadn't died quickly and she fing bled to death

 

[Katody]

I don't know how to quote the quote inside Katody's post that I assume comes from Amanda's book, but I just can't get past the idea that all she was "scared" about was the unflushed toilet. Or maybe she just didn't want her readers to reminded of the blood?

I think that you're not familiar with the case documents and with her book. If you look into either you'll see that she lists all the reasons that worried her at that moment:
1. the door left open
2. blood traces in the bathroom
3. the unflushed toilet

 

[Katody]

BBM - Did she actually testify to this?

No she didn't. She testified she first called Meredith.

 

[Katody]

amber29,

It downed on me, that maybe we're talking past each other because there is a misunderstanding on my side:

Is your position that the 12:47 call Amanda made to Mom is unjustified? That it doesn't make sense and there was nothing worrying enough to call Seattle?