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

[Katody]

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:

At 12:47 PM on November 2, 2007 nothing particularly alarming had yet occurred

Galati is blatantly lying.

at 12:47 the break-in had been already discovered and Filomena alarmed and informed about it.

See Filomena's testimony on Amanda's blog and phone records of Amanda's phone activity (Massei).


This is really outrageous and I can only explain it that he was hoping for the supreme court's ignorance of the timeline of events.


The actual alarming facts known at 12:47 were:
Meredith not answering calls,
her room locked.
The front door open.
Blood in the bathroom.
Feces in the toilet.
Break-in through Filomena's window.

 

[SMK]

Galati is blatantly lying.

at 12:47 the break-in had been already discovered and Filomena alarmed and informed about it.

See Filomena's testimony on Amanda's blog and phone records of Amanda's phone activity (Massei).


This is really outrageous and I can only explain it that he was hoping for the supreme court's ignorance of the timeline of events.


The actual alarming facts known at 12:47 were:
Meredith not answering calls,
her room locked.
The front door open.
Blood in the bathroom.
Feces in the toilet.
Break-in through Filomena's window.

Well, I don't know about blatantly lying.

I would say rather :

a. exaggerating to make a prosecution theory fit
or
b. in his opinion, nothing particularly alarming had happened yet; you wouldn't call home until Filomena and you had decided upon a course of action. (the window HAD been discovered at that point?) OK

Anyone else have any feedback?

Like all else on the prosecution side in this case, "it could have been better." Had they discovered she called her Mom at 11 AM for instance. It does seem like one more piece of the puzzle crumbling. I don't know....
ETA: At age 20, if I had been all alone, I would have called my mother. If I had a boyfriend, a roommate, and police were being called, I would probably call later, after I had all the details.

 

[Katody]

Well, I don't know about blatantly lying.

I would say rather :

a. exaggerating to make a prosecution theory fit
or
b. in his opinion, nothing particularly alarming had happened yet; you wouldn't call home until Filomena and you had decided upon a course of action. (the window HAD been discovered at that point?) OK

Anyone else have any feedback?

Like all else on the prosecution side in this case, "it could have been better." Had they discovered she called her Mom at 11 AM for instance. It does seem like one more piece of the puzzle crumbling. I don't know....
ETA: At age 20, if I had been all alone, I would have called my mother. If I had a boyfriend, a roommate, and police were being called, I would probably call later, after I had all the details.

Yep, sorry for bad grammar.

 

[otto]

A little off topic, but this is interesting ... in terms of the prosecution switching conjecture regarding the events that may have occurred at the time of a murder. I'm just reading through the appeal document for Jason Young. In the first trial (mistrial), the state alleged that the 2.5 year old child was drugged. In the second trial, the state alleged that the 2.5 year old witnessed the murder.

Such ridicule is heaped on the trial prosecutor and the appeal prosecutor in this trial for rethinking how the murder unfolded. One would almost think that it is completely unheard of for this to happen anywhere in the world except Italy. Yet, the very same thing has happened in NC. It's also interesting to note that his appeal has just been filed, but the murder occurred in Nov 3, 2006. The case is even slower that the Meredith Kercher case in Italy.

 

[SMK]

A little off topic, but this is interesting ... in terms of the prosecution switching conjecture regarding the events that may have occurred at the time of a murder. I'm just reading through the appeal document for Jason Young. In the first trial (mistrial), the state alleged that the 2.5 year old child was drugged. In the second trial, the state alleged that the 2.5 year old witnessed the murder.

Such ridicule is heaped on the trial prosecutor and the appeal prosecutor in this trial for rethinking how the murder unfolded. One would almost think that it is completely unheard of for this to happen anywhere in the world except Italy. Yet, the very same thing has happened in NC. It's also interesting to note that his appeal has just been filed, but the murder occurred in Nov 3, 2006. The case is even slower that the Meredith Kercher case in Italy.

Thanks for this. And yes, a prosecution theory can be revised in some of its aspects or details without indicating that in the former or new case the prosecution are buffoons and not in earnest. And indeed, in the US, the wheels turn even more slowly than in Italy: Jodi Arias committed her crime in 2008 and first went to trial in 2013. thanks again (btw, Otto, what do you think of the posts above RE Galati reasoning about Knox's pre-dawn call to mother?)

 

[otto]

Thanks for this. And yes, a prosecution theory can be revised in some of its aspects or details without indicating that in the former or new case the prosecution are buffoons and not in earnest. And indeed, in the US, the wheels turn even more slowly than in Italy: Jodi Arias committed her crime in 2008 and first went to trial in 2013. thanks again (btw, Otto, what do you think of the posts above RE Galati reasoning about Knox's pre-dawn call to mother?)

I don't think Knox can have it both ways. That is, on the one hand, we know that nothing about the crime scene alarmed her for 2.5 hours. During that time she allegedly showered, did her hair, carried a mop to Sollecito's apartment, mopped the floor, had lunch and then returned to the cottage with Sollecito ... all while they were supposed to be on their way to Gubbio. Next we are to believe that she was suddenly so shocked 2.5 hours later that she woke up her mom in the middle of the night to make a forgetable call. However, something about that phone call was so irregular that her mother asked her about that call eight days later. We see the same no-panic/panic regarding Meredith's bedroom door. First, she and Sollecito were in a panic and they actually cracked the door, and then they were so unconcerned that Knox told police that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door, even when she showered.

In each of those events, Knox's reaction was contradictory - from one extreme to the other, and illogical.

Essentially, I agree with Galati in that the first phone call has no logical place in the sequence of events that day. It cannot be related to the crime scene, as nothing changed in the 2.5 hours between discovering the crime scene and making the first phone call. I believe that Knox made that first phone call because she knew that everything was about to be discovered and she reached out to her mom out of fear of being caught for her involvement in the murder.

 

[SMK]

I don't think Knox can have it both ways. That is, on the one hand, we know that nothing about the crime scene alarmed her for 2.5 hours. During that time she allegedly showered, did her hair, carried a mop to Sollecito's apartment, mopped the floor, had lunch and then returned to the cottage with Sollecito ... all while they were supposed to be on their way to Gubbio. Next we are to believe that she was suddenly so shocked 2.5 hours later that she woke up her mom in the middle of the night to make a forgetable call. However, something about that phone call was so irregular that her mother asked her about that call eight days later. We see the same no-panic/panic regarding Meredith's bedroom door. First, she and Sollecito were in a panic and they actually cracked the door, and then they were so unconcerned that Knox told police that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door, even when she showered.

In each of those events, Knox's reaction was contradictory - from one extreme to the other, and illogical.

Thanks very much for this, because I had had these same thoughts/feelings even intuitively, when I was arguing for her innocence.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Amanda was playing the role of "the girl who couldn't think straight".

(And for what its worth, I just asked two relatives who happen to be here for dinner, and know very little about the case: One said it sounded innocuous. The other, said, "It sounds like she made the call because she was trying to make a record of her innocence" (the call to Seattle as a proof of 'consciousness of innocence' at the time, but hitting wide of the mark, and coming back to haunt her as an indicator of foreknowledge of the dead girl behind the door.) )

 

[aa9511]

If her towel was missing from the bathroom I don't think Amanda would assume it was behind the locked door soaked in her friends blood, she would have thought she forgot her towel......that's what she said.

No, I don't think so, because by the time she made that statement, she knew there had been towels in Meredith's bedroom (used from the murder, I mean). You're talking about her like she's still on the morning of the murder. People sometimes speak as if she has somehow been "paused" on that day, and does not know basic information about the case, her case. That is the only way, IMO, that people can make sense of her inconsistencies/lies, and so they push the REWIND button and then PAUSE her there. That is the only way things will even begin to resemble making any sense, and even then the story does not fall into place.

At the time she made the statement, she would have known whether she "forgot" her towel, or whether her towel was usually there but happened to not be there that day. And putting 2+2 together, which I assume even she is capable of, then she would have realized that her towel, which was always there, wasn't there that day because the killer went and got her towel to use on Meredith.

The problem with that is, even she probably doesn't believe there is evidence that Rudy went into the small bathroom. Or else she probably would've come up with that lie instead. It's one thing to make us online posters believe something, it's quite another to make the judges believe something which isn't backed by evidence. And there is no evidence that Rudy went into the small bathroom.

 

[Katody]

I don't think Knox can have it both ways. That is, on the one hand, we know that nothing about the crime scene alarmed her for 2.5 hours. During that time she allegedly showered, did her hair, carried a mop to Sollecito's apartment, mopped the floor, had lunch and then returned to the cottage with Sollecito ... all while they were supposed to be on their way to Gubbio. Next we are to believe that she was suddenly so shocked 2.5 hours later that she woke up her mom in the middle of the night to make a forgetable call. However, something about that phone call was so irregular that her mother asked her about that call eight days later. We see the same no-panic/panic regarding Meredith's bedroom door. First, she and Sollecito were in a panic and they actually cracked the door, and then they were so unconcerned that Knox told police that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door, even when she showered.

In each of those events, Knox's reaction was contradictory - from one extreme to the other, and illogical.

Essentially, I agree with Galati in that the first phone call has no logical place in the sequence of events that day. It cannot be related to the crime scene, as nothing changed in the 2.5 hours between discovering the crime scene and making the first phone call. I believe that Knox made that first phone call because she knew that everything was about to be discovered and she reached out to her mom out of fear of being caught for her involvement in the murder.

Where does discovering the broken window fit in all of this? If you omit crucial points of evidence it's easy to come up with anything you want.

 

[Katody]

A little off topic, but this is interesting ... in terms of the prosecution switching conjecture regarding the events that may have occurred at the time of a murder. I'm just reading through the appeal document for Jason Young. In the first trial (mistrial), the state alleged that the 2.5 year old child was drugged. In the second trial, the state alleged that the 2.5 year old witnessed the murder.

Such ridicule is heaped on the trial prosecutor and the appeal prosecutor in this trial for rethinking how the murder unfolded. One would almost think that it is completely unheard of for this to happen anywhere in the world except Italy. Yet, the very same thing has happened in NC. It's also interesting to note that his appeal has just been filed, but the murder occurred in Nov 3, 2006. The case is even slower that the Meredith Kercher case in Italy.

I looked into this case and it is as preposterous as the Perugian mess. I predict when some time in the future the real home invader is identified by DNA the prosecutors will claim he and Young acted together, just like in Camm's case.

 

[SMK]

Where does discovering the broken window fit in all of this?

OK, taking the broken window as a new development in this timeline for Amanda: The question still is, why call your mother around the world - and at a sleeping hour for her - before you have spoken to police and gotten their feedback? (then later in the day, call Mom and say, "You wouldn't believe the hellish morning we had here: the police were here...")

And why later omit this pre-dawn call from your email home, your memory to your Mom, your memory to the prosecutor? If Knox was really a Mama's girl and had to speak to Mom even before police , then why didn't she simply recall it and say so? ("I don't care what you all think, in that moment, only my Mom's voice could calm me.")

 

[Katody]

OK, taking the broken window as a new development in this timeline for Amanda: The question still is, why call your mother around the world - and at a sleeping hour for her - before you have spoken to police and gotten their feedback? (then later in the day, call Mom and say, "You wouldn't believe the hellish morning we had here: the police were here...")

Amanda was barely 20 and first time away from home on her own. If you find her call home odd in the circumstances given, we must simply agree to differ.

And why later omit this pre-dawn call from your email home, your memory to your Mom, your memory to the prosecutor? If Knox was really a Mama's girl and had to speak to Mom even before police , then why didn't she simply recall it and say so? ("I don't care what you all think, in that moment, only my Mom's voice could calm me.")

If she really had something to hide about that call, it would be obvious to hide it in plain sight. Which means say that she called home to tell about a break in and all the rest and to ask what to do. She didn't do this because she's telling the truth. She forgot about that call.

 

[SMK]

Amanda was barely 20 and first time away from home on her own. If you find her call home odd in the circumstances given, we must simply agree to differ.



If she really had something to hide about that call, it would be obvious to hide it in plain sight. Which means say that she called home to tell about a break in and all the rest and to ask what to do. She didn't do this because she's telling the truth. She forgot about that call.

Well, I will admit that at 20 I was treated like I was 40 (not expected to call home or act young, needy, or vulnerable in any way). So I do find the call to be outside of my experience. Yes, she may have forgotten the call. If so, it was some kind of repression, and probably has a backstory of its own, from childhood.

 

[Katody]

Well, I will admit that at 20 I was treated like I was 40 (not expected to call home or act young, needy, or vulnerable in any way). So I do find the call to be outside of my experience. Yes, she may have forgotten the call. If so, it was some kind of repression, and probably has a backstory of its own, from childhood.

Some kids are more sheltered then others.
It pains me that you dismissed my theory from the post above ( #598) without argument :tears:

 

[Amber29]

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?

I think this will be last time ill address this call for now (long sigh of relief from others)

I believe she made up that phone call along with the detailed conversation to make her readers feel like it was a totally justified call to mom, make seem like the prosecutor was ridiculous for making a big deal out it. Knowing her most of her readers won't know the case evidence.

The 12:47 call for sure happened, I don't know what was discussed but it could not have been the conversation AK described.

My mind has not swayed one bit.

 

[Footwarrior]

I don't know any parents that would object to being woken up by a troubled child calling for advice at any hour of the day or night.

So why does this stupid talking point about Amanda waking up her Mom have any legs at all?

 

[SMK]

Some kids are more sheltered then others.
It pains me that you dismissed my theory from the post above ( #598) without argument :tears:

True.

Oh, please don't cry. lease: Which one, the "hiding in plain sight?" - yes, if she had something to hide, she should have glossed over it, unless she thought by dismissing memory of it, she would not have to go into any details? Is this the one you meant? ETA: Okie, am going to look right now.......

 

[SMK]

I don't know any parents that would object to being woken up by a troubled child calling for advice at any hour of the day or night.

So why does this stupid talking point about Amanda waking up her Mom have any legs at all?

Well, you never met mine. and I just felt like talking about it, I guess (if I was even the one who brought it up - looking back several pages, I can see that others in fact brought up the call and I simply piggy-backed on it.). Truth be told, it is one of the last things I can think of to pick over (the rest having been picked clean) > Why don't you bring up another subject, then? :seeya:

 

[Katody]

I think this will be last time ill address this call for now (long sigh of relief from others)

I believe she made up that phone call along with the detailed conversation to make her readers feel like it was a totally justified call to mom, make seem like the prosecutor was ridiculous for making a big deal out it. Knowing her most of her readers won't know the case evidence.

The 12:47 call for sure happened, I don't know what was discussed but it could not have been the conversation AK described.

My mind has not swayed one bit.

Thank you
At last I understand! So you do think she still believed the prosecutor had told the truth that there was a call at 12:00 when she was writing her book.

This leads to interesting implications:

It means she really didn't remember the real phone call to Seattle at 12:47. Had she remembered there is no chance she would fall for the trap of Comodi's made up 12:00 call in the courtroom.

 

[SMK]

@ Katody:

Yes, I understand: The phonecall made to Mom after hearing MK was dead would be "encoded" with emotion and so cemented in the memory bank, as it were--- obscuring the prior one, which she had made to many others. I cannot take issue with that except to say that the phonecall may have been a bit different, thus flagged as "do not speak on this". We cannot tell from Galati where the conversation picks up, as he begins where it is already in progress. In any case, Edda did seem surprised.