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

[Myvice]

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

Thank you for that.

It's your opinion that the other things spooked her too but like SMK posted, she draws attention to them herself by ignoring what's important.

After all this time she still writes in her book that it was the feces that did it for her while ignoring an open door and blood.

How is that logical?

You are the one stating that the numerous bloody areas and the open door added to the feces scared her...She doesn't say that. She leaves it out.

 

[SMK]

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.

Yes, I should correct myself: She did not outright deny the call, and did admit that it must have taken place, but for some reason has no memory of it. Whether it is on purpose or truly a memory lapse, we cannot tell, but it stands out as slightly odd.

 

[Amber29]

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.?

There was no call to her mother before 12:47

 

[Katody]

Yes, I should correct myself: She did not outright deny the call, and did admit that it must have taken place, but for some reason has no memory of it. Whether it is on purpose or truly a memory lapse, we cannot tell, but it stands out as slightly odd.

Thank you. It's stands out only when separated from the totality of surrounding events, as the prosecution presented it. JMO

 

[Katody]

Thank you for that.

It's your opinion that the other things spooked her too but like SMK posted, she draws attention to them herself by ignoring what's important.

I don't understand.

After all this time she still writes in her book that it was the feces that did it for her while ignoring an open door and blood.

Not true.

 

[Amber29]

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.

BBM

I feel like I've done this and you don't agree, there really is no more to discuss.

IMO ignorance of the evidence is not an excuse to outright lie by making something up.

We don't agree on this and it's ok

 

[Myvice]

Thank you. It's stands out only when separated from the totality of surrounding events, as the prosecution presented it. JMO

And odd also that her own mother would ask her about it. JMO

 

[Katody]

And odd also that her own mother would ask her about it. JMO

What was the context of that question?

ETA:

Nevermind. The mother didn't ask her. See transcript in Galati's appeal.

 

[quesarita]

There was no call to her mother before 12:47

So Amanda's "first" call that day to her mother was at 12:47, and Raffaele's first call to the police was at 12:51. Meredith's door was still locked, but they were suspicious enough to call the police. Any subsequent calls to her mother would be after Meredith's body was found. It makes sense to me.

 

[Myvice]

I don't understand.


Not true.

Please refer to your own post #553.

In what you're stating as a quote from her book she says maybe there's a reason for the feces to be in the toilet. She doesn't mention the door or the blood.

 

[Katody]

BBM

I feel like I've done this and you don't agree, there really is no more to discuss.

IMO ignorance of the evidence is not an excuse to outright lie by making something up.

We don't agree on this and it's ok

I don't understand because to me the difference between a mistake or error and outright lie is the intent and knowledge.

Maybe it's something cultural, maybe It's really some difference in language that I'm not getting.

 

[Katody]

Please refer to your own post #553.

In what you're stating as a quote from her book she says maybe there's a reason for the feces to be in the toilet. She doesn't mention the door or the blood.

She does mention it just before that quote.

 

[SMK]

Thank you. It's stands out only when separated from the totality of surrounding events, as the prosecution presented it. JMO

Actually, it is the reverse: It is only when added to all the other elements in the prosecution's story, and stands with these, that it's oddness becomes truly suspect.

* note:
(The fact that the original judges report has Patrick as part of a sex game (and later substitutes Rudy) is troubling, as I can understand Knox may have felt driven to "come up with something". (What if the police just couldn't let go of this sex game idea, as it had gone too far?)

This is why I am determined to examine the veridicality of all of the prosecution claims. I want to know if the story had a core of truth, and they were right in following it out, (as the pro-guilt camp fully believe) or if it ought to have been abandoned (as the other side says). )

 

[Coldpizza]

Salem has created an Amanda Knox sub forum which has all the old threads for easy reference. Please take time to look around and utilize the Media and Timeline thread.

Thank you Salem!

 

[otto]

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?

That's the funny thing about this. We know the facts from sleuthing them, but Knox, who is supposed to be telling the truth, can't seem to remember the facts. It seems to me that this could only happen if she's trying to memorize her story and she can't quite keep it all straight.

 

[Katody]

Actually, it is the reverse: It is only when added to all the other elements in the prosecution's story, and stands with these, that it's oddness becomes truly suspect.

* note:
(The fact that the original judges report has Patrick as part of a sex game (and later substitutes Rudy) is troubling, as I can understand Knox may have felt driven to "come up with something". (What if the police just couldn't let go of this sex game idea, as it had gone too far?)

This is why I am determined to examine the veridicality of all of the prosecution claims. I want to know if the story had a core of truth, and they were right in following it out, (as the pro-guilt camp fully believe) or if it ought to have been abandoned (as the other side says). )

I learn a new word every day

I understand your approach.

What I had on mind is that the surrounding events make it plausible psychologically that Amanda didn't recall that one phone call. When the first call was made to Seattle it was in the middle of many calls and talks with basically the same content (i.e. the strange findings, the break-in etc.) she talked with Filomena, with Raffaele, then again with Filomena, then called mother then they called the police.
OTOH the phone to mother she does remember was the first thing she did after the body was discovered. From the many calls she did this day to Seattle understandably this, the most emotional one, is the one she remembers.

Anyway, an interesting fact that just dawned on me is that it's not clear at all that the mother is really questioning Amanda about the phone call.
In fact in the conversation quoted by Galati it's Amanda who brings up that she doesn't remember that phone call, among other things. The context is unknown and it seems Amanda does most of the talking (understandably as she was in isolation for days and it's her first contact with her loved ones).

 

[Amber29]

I don't understand because to me the difference between a mistake or error and outright lie is the intent and knowledge.

Maybe it's something cultural, maybe It's really some difference in language that I'm not getting.

Well key for me is knowledge and that goes with intent.

I can't accept ignorance as an excuse to lie.

Can we not agree that amanda made up this conversation with her mothers that could not have happened?

 

[SMK]

I learn a new word every day

I understand your approach.

What I had on mind is that the surrounding events make it plausible psychologically that Amanda didn't recall that one phone call. When the first call was made to Seattle it was in the middle of many calls and talks with basically the same content (i.e. the strange findings, the break-in etc.) she talked with Filomena, with Raffaele, then again with Filomena, then called mother then they called the police.
OTOH the phone to mother she does remember was the first thing she did after the body was discovered. From the many calls she did this day to Seattle understandably this, the most emotional one, is the one she remembers.

Anyway, an interesting fact that just dawned on me is that it's not clear at all that the mother is really questioning Amanda about the phone call.
In fact in the conversation quoted by Galati it's Amanda who brings up that she doesn't remember that phone call, among other things. The context is unknown and it seems Amanda does most of the talking (understandably as she was in isolation for days and it's her first contact with her loved ones).

I guess, though, that this does not really make a difference insofar as what the mother does express to her [that nothing had happened yet (except the oddities)] and that Amanda has no memory of it.)

This may possibly be innocuous, but apparently Galati does not think so :
pp 72-3 Appeal to Cassation:

Then Ms Knox will make other phone calls to the American number, the one [84] at 1:27.32 PM, the failed attempt at 1:58.33 PM and that of 1:50.06 PM for a good 360 seconds (see first instance judgment p 347).

At 12:47 PM on November 2, 2007 nothing particularly alarming had yet occurred, but that phone call which catches her mother asleep, at 3:47 AM in the morning, nine hours behind because of the time zone difference, lasts a good 88 seconds and it was the longest of the first phone calls made by Knox that morning.

All this was completely ignored by the CAA, who thus presented the sequence of calls as if that of Knox to her mother were simultaneous or directly following that of Sollecito’s to 112 and even to that by the same to his sister Vanessa, – a phone call, therefore, particularly significant of the fact that Ms Knox would have had reason to be worried much more than the circumstances of the moment would have allowed [76
NdT – redacted in this translation for privacy reasons 73 ] her, and she would have felt, the need to give vent to this anxiety to her mother in a conversation of no short duration.

This circumstance, included in the full probative picture described by the Court of Assizes, and emerging from the procedural outcomes at first instance, was strongly indicative of the full knowledge of Ms Knox of the reality of the situation, even before the Postal Police and Ms Romanelli and her friends were to discover Meredith’s body.

From Galati appeal to Cassation; p 71:

“A73 ): 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.
M74): 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?&#8219;

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

 

[DerKritiker2011]

This may possibly be innocuous, but apparently Galati does not think so :

It not interesting, what Galati had written. I don't think, that he realy thought it. We should ask ourselves, if the reason of discovering a smashed window is enough to call the mother.

My opinion: Yes for sure.

 

[Katody]

Well key for me is knowledge and that goes with intent.

I can't accept ignorance as an excuse to lie.

Can we not agree that amanda made up this conversation with her mothers that could not have happened?

Sure, we do agree that the 12:00 phone call is made up.

It's not completely clear to me but it appears that you think she knew there was no such phone call at 12:00 and anyway willingly put it in the book.

So we have two hypotheses:
1. She did it on purpose, knowing there's no 12:00 call
2. She did by mistake, believing there really was a 12:00 call

Now, what evidence supports 1. and what evidence supports 2. ?

for 2. we have the trial transcript I quoted before and the fact that there are no benefits from putting an invented 12:00 phone call in the book when there is a perfectly good 12:47 call (You do agree this is the real time of the call).

for 1. ?

or is there a 3. that I overlooked?