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

[Myvice]

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

My mistake I guess.

I'm just going by what you said was quoted from her book in a past post.

Was that not a quote?

 

[Katody]

My mistake I guess.

No problem. There is a lot of source material linked at the beginning of this thread.

 

[Myvice]

No problem. There is a lot of source material linked at the beginning of this thread.

So are you saying that what you posted as a quote from her book stating that she was afraid because of the unflushed toilet is not actually a quote?

I have read most of the sources you pointed me to but I find no value in reading books written by Amanda or Raffeale as far as finding facts. I don't consider them facts.

 

[Myvice]

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

Please look at the testimony of Robin Butterworth. She testified that Amanda told them she found the body.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial#Elisabetta_Lana

 

[SMK]

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

I looked at the testimony (I think June 12 or 13?) and she does seem to indicate that she first called home when the door was broken down and Filomena cried, "a foot, a foot!". ( or perhaps during questioning this was the first opportunity to mention calls home - it is very lengthy so I might have missed something).

 

[SMK]

Please look at the testimony of Robin Butterworth. She testified that Amanda told them she found the body.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Massei_Trial#Elisabetta_Lana

Yes, you're right - she does say Amanda said, "I found her. How do you think I feel?".

 

[Amber29]

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

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

MC:
You said that you called your mother on the morning of Nov 2.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
When did you call her for the first time?
AK:
The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.
MC:
So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.
AK:
It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don't know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first. Later, many other people arrived.

This is the call we are discussing not the first call to Meredith.

YES she testified that her first call to her mother was AFTER Meredith was discovered.

It was only at the insistence of MC that a call to her mother was placed earlier that AK conceded and says "ok fine but I don't remember. I don't remember that call"

 

[Amber29]

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?

I don't know if it's unjustified what I do know is that EM questioned AK about this call and the time line. It was after all her words "but nothing had happened"

Pair that now with AK inventing a detailed conversation with her mom and placing it in the timeline where that call does make complete sense.
If we take Amanda's made up conversation where her mom tells her "call your roommates, tell Raffaele" it makes NO sense because at 12:47 ALL those things had been done.

It's a lie plain and simple, you're able to justify in your mind and I'm not.

IMO she should have struck to her testimony for her book. I'm only interested in reading her book to see how many more of these situations are in it.

 

[Amber29]

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.

BBM

Lots of defense of AK comes off that way to me but its a common curtesy to other posters to not say it, I've been respectful and left out my personal opinion of your posts.

I only would like the same respect!

 

[Katody]

I don't know if it's unjustified what I do know is that EM questioned AK about this call and the time line. It was after all her words "but nothing had happened"

Pair that now with AK inventing a detailed conversation with her mom and placing it in the timeline where that call does make complete sense.
If we take Amanda's made up conversation where her mom tells her "call your roommates, tell Raffaele" it makes NO sense because at 12:47 ALL those things had been done.

It's a lie plain and simple, you're able to justify in your mind and I'm not.

IMO she should have struck to her testimony for her book. I'm only interested in reading her book to see how many more of these situations are in it.

Let's rephrase it. Do you think it is plausible psychologically that she would call her Mom in Seattle having discovered the break-in (and all the other suspicious signs) or it's not something anyone would do?

Would such detail look improbable to an average reader?

 

[Myvice]

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

I thought Amanda explained away the door by saying it was faulty and she thought all the instances of blood in the bathroom were due to Merideth having her period.

That leaves the unflushed toilet that has become such a focal point in the trial. Scary!!!

 

[SMK]

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

MC:
You said that you called your mother on the morning of Nov 2.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
When did you call her for the first time?
AK:
The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.
MC:
So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.
AK:
It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don't know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first. Later, many other people arrived.

This is the call we are discussing not the first call to Meredith.

YES she testified that her first call to her mother was AFTER Meredith was discovered.

It was only at the insistence of MC that a call to her mother was placed earlier that AK conceded and says "ok fine but I don't remember. I don't remember that call"

OK, that is very clear, then. Thanks for this.

 

[Katody]

BBM

Lots of defense of AK comes off that way to me but its a common curtesy to other posters to not say it, I've been respectful and left out my personal opinion of your posts.

I only would like the same respect!

I'm deeply sorry.

Do the reasons for my opinion I provided hold logically? If no, why not?

 

[SMK]

I'm deeply sorry.

Do the reasons for my opinion I provided hold logically? If no, why not?

I would say that logically, yes, it is not at all strange for a young girl to phone her mother after discovering some strange things in the cottage (although as she was waking her up in the middle of the night, she probably ought to have called police first).

It's that later she denied having made the early call, even to her own mother, and then in testimony said she only called home after the Postal Police had broken down the door and found a murder scene. She is the one who finds it strange that she made the early call. She herself calls attention to it.

 

[Katody]

I thought Amanda explained away the door by saying it was faulty and she thought all the instances of blood in the bathroom were due to Merideth having her period.

That leaves the unflushed toilet that has become such a focal point in the trial. Scary!!!

The feces wouldn't have spooked her if there was no blood traces and open door, but I respect that you think different.

 

[Amber29]

I'm deeply sorry.

Do the reasons for my opinion I provided hold logically? If no, why not?

I'm not here to judge your opinion, you are perfectly entitled to it as I am.

All I will say is where I stand and why. We disagree and I feel like I understand your reasoning but choose to still not agree.

I can not write off a complete lie as a mistake. IMO ignorance of the evidence is not an excuse.

 

[quesarita]

Help, please. Regardless of the content, was there a call in the phone records BEFORE 12:47 as well as one at 12:47? Two calls? Or are there discrepancies in the description of the CONTENT of one call at 12:47, which was variously referred to as occurring at noon, midday, etc.?

 

[Katody]

I would say that logically, yes, it is not at all strange for a young girl to phone her mother after discovering some strange things in the cottage (although as she was waking her up in the middle of the night, she probably ought to have called police first).

It's that later she denied having made the early call, even to her own mother, and then in testimony said she only called home after the Postal Police had broken down the door and found a murder scene. She is the one who finds it strange that she made the early call. She herself calls attention to it.

I don't think she ever denied making that call.
To her mother she said she doesn't remember but she never denied making it.
In the courtroom she also accepted she made the call, ( from the transcript: "Obviously I made this call.") even when Comodi falsely stated the time of it.

 

[Amber29]

I would say that logically, yes, it is not at all strange for a young girl to phone her mother after discovering some strange things in the cottage (although as she was waking her up in the middle of the night, she probably ought to have called police first).

It's that later she denied having made the early call, even to her own mother, and then in testimony said she only called home after the Postal Police had broken down the door and found a murder scene. She is the one who finds it strange that she made the early call. She herself calls attention to it.

^ thanks SMK

I completely agree.

To add to that it makes it even worse that now she felt the need to justify a first call to her mother further by making up a whole new conversation and putting in the timeline where that call makes perfect sense.

 

[Katody]

I'm not here to judge your opinion, you are perfectly entitled to it as I am.

All I will say is where I stand and why. We disagree and I feel like I understand your reasoning but choose to still not agree.

I can not write off a complete lie as a mistake. IMO ignorance of the evidence is not an excuse.

I'm just asking if you see any holes or errors in my reasoning. I strive to base my opinions on logic and reason. I'm glad to remain at my position but if there are errors I will change it without regrets.