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

[Katody]

@ 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.

IMO it is important that Galati doesn't quote the supposed question that initiated the conversation. I don't think the context that is omitted supports Galati's claim.

Other thing that paradoxically works in favor of Amanda is the fact that she fell for Comodi's bluff about 12:00 call being in the phone records.

I think those things add up to the case of her telling the truth about it.

 

[Myvice]

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?

For me, that's one of the reasons it is so strange.

If this was what was happening why would her mother ask about it? If she thought it was normal, why would she ask Amanda about it? Something wasn't normal about the call. MOO

 

[SMK]

For me, that's one of the reasons it is so strange.

If this was what was happening why would her mother ask about it? If she thought it was normal, why would she ask Amanda about it? Something wasn't normal about the call. MOO

Is there some way to find out where that recorded jail conversation really begins? As we view Edda as having brought up the call, while others say it was Amanda herself. To me , Amanda sounds as though she is responding and not bringing the subject up herself. But others refute this.

 

[Myvice]

Is there some way to find out where that recorded jail conversation really begins? As we view Edda as having brought up the call, while others say it was Amanda herself. To me , Amanda sounds as though she is responding and not bringing the subject up herself. But others refute this.

I'll try to find it. I can't remember right off so it may take a bit.

From my memory, Edda asks about it and it seems as if Amanda is trying to get her to leave it alone. Then Edda comes up with Oh you must have been shocked or something like that.

I'll try to find it.

 

[Katody]

Is there some way to find out where that recorded jail conversation really begins? As we view Edda as having brought up the call, while others say it was Amanda herself. To me , Amanda sounds as though she is responding and not bringing the subject up herself. But others refute this.

In fact neither Massei nor even Galati claims that her Mother "asked", or "questioned" Amanda about it. Neither of them gives the initial question in the quote. Neither of them claims Amanda is responding to any question about it.

Distinctly both of them only notice that the mother "shown perplexity", which is evident in the quoted transcript but means little in itself and absolutely doesn't support the claim that the mother felt the need to "question" Amanda.

To me it's evident that Galati and Massei are trying to cherry pick out of a context that doesn't support their claim. They're just too cryptic about it all.

 

[SMK]

I'll try to find it. I can't remember right off so it may take a bit.

From my memory, Edda asks about it and it seems as if Amanda is trying to get her to leave it alone. Then Edda comes up with Oh you must have been shocked or something like that.

I'll try to find it.

That is how I took it, as well. OK, thanks.

 

[SMK]

In fact neither Massei nor even Galati claims that her Mother "asked", or "questioned" Amanda about it. Neither of them gives the initial question in the quote. Neither of them claims Amanda is responding to any question about it.

Distinctly both of them only notice that the mother "shown perplexity", which is evident in the quoted transcript but means little in itself and absolutely doesn't support the claim that the mother felt the need to "question" Amanda.

To me it's evident that Galati and Massei are trying to cherry pick out of a context that doesn't support their claim. They're just too cryptic about it all.

Well, maybe so.

I found it pretty simple when I first read it, didn't really see anything other than straightforward Edda confused/Amanda amnesiac about it, until others pointed it out.

I cannot recall where, but somewhere mention was made that it had perplexed Edda that AK made no mention of the call in her email home....
*addendum:
I think I inferred that Edda had posed the question to Amanda, by her, "But you called me three times!" exclamation.

 

[Amber29]

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.

Sorry I'm forced to reply...

No I do not believe she thinks the prosecutor had told the truth.
I think AK is an ADULT and one that's capable of knowing the evidence (we are infact very close in age)

She very clearly lies, makes up a phone call what ever you need to call it to justify it in your mind.
It's a flat out lie in my mind.
All I can say is she should've stuck with her "truth" from her testimony for her book and there would be no argument over whether its a little mistake that is the prosecutors fault or a lie.

 

[Katody]

Well, maybe so.

I found it pretty simple when I first read it, didn't really see anything other than straightforward Edda confused/Amanda amnesiac about it, until others pointed it out.

I cannot recall where, but somewhere mention was made that it had perplexed Edda that AK made no mention of the call in her email home....
*addendum:
I think I inferred that Edda had posed the question from her, "But you called me three times!" response to Amanda.

The most extensive quote we have comes from Galati. Massei is much more tightlipped. For a reason. I think Galati quoting more somewhat lessened the impact:

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?​

page 71

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


I think the memories we form that we think are objective are often colored.
You wrote

"But you called me three times!"

But the transcript really contains:
M): Well, I... you’d called me three times.
Which is subtly different and not really an exclamation.

What is the question that Amanda is replying to here:

It was strange. I mean, it’s even difficult for me to remember exactly when... everything happened in the house... because I was shocked.

Or is she? Or maybe she's just telling her story?

 

[Amber29]

Just for the record here is amanda in her own testimony on their arrival time at the station

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony


And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
AK:
Thank you. So, here is...how I understood the question, I'm answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I'm sorry, I don't know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation.

So now who is lying AK on the stand or RS in his interviews?

 

[Katody]

Sorry I'm forced to reply...

No I do not believe she thinks the prosecutor had told the truth.
I think AK is an ADULT and one that's capable of knowing the evidence (we are infact very close in age)

She very clearly lies, makes up a phone call what ever you need to call it to justify it in your mind.
It's a flat out lie in my mind.
All I can say is she should've stuck with her "truth" from her testimony for her book and there would be no argument over whether its a little mistake that is the prosecutors fault or a lie.

Thank you for clarification!
That means you support the the theory 1. from my post #600
1. She did it on purpose, knowing there's no 12:00 call

There are serious logical problems with this theory that I'm unable to overcome, namely:
* There are no benefits from putting an invented 12:00 phone call in the book when there is a perfectly good 12:47 call which she in fact described in the book, too.
* The 12:00 is jarring and doesn't fit the flow of events, while the real one (12:47) does.
* If she was aware that the 12:00 call was made up by Comodi, why did she fall for her bluff?
* If we assume that she became aware that Comodi made up the 12:00 call only after the courtroom hearing, there's still no sensible reason or benefit from putting it in the book along the real 12:47 call.

 

[SMK]

The most extensive quote we have comes from Galati. Massei is much more tightlipped. For a reason. I think Galati quoting more somewhat lessened the impact:

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?​

page 71
http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Galati_cassation_English1.pdf


I think the memories we form that we think are objective are often colored.
You wrote
But the transcript really contains:
M): Well, I... you’d called me three times.
Which is subtly different.

What is the question that Amanda is replying to here:

Or is she? Or maybe she's just telling her story?

OK, yes, I see I did insert, "But you called me three times!" when the text is slightly different. Memory is not exact, for sure. Yes, I cannot be sure if she is responding or simply bringing it up....

 

[SMK]

At the risk of running this whole phone calls subject into the ground, I might add that I found that AK and RS appeared to be over-calling that morning, and if one wants to view that with a suspicious eye, it seems like over-compensation.

Maybe I was very independent in my youth, but it does seem like two adults (aged 20 and 26) could see things amiss in the cottage, and especially at the point of the broken window, call 112. After all, that IS what both Mom and sister told them to do. What ELSE were they going to tell them? For one to call his sister, and the other, her Mother a continent away in the pre-dawn hours, seems more the actions of 13 year olds, to me. (I know others will disagree with me here).

I cannot help getting the feeling that they were creating a record of their "innocence" ( we called Mom, Sister, Filomena, Meredith, 112 - see how worried and shocked we were?) -- much like the husband who having killed his wife, will phone her sisters or Mom and say, "Hey , have you seen Linda?" to make a record of his bafflement for all to see.

 

[otto]

Just for the record here is amanda in her own testimony on their arrival time at the station

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony


And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
AK:
Thank you. So, here is...how I understood the question, I'm answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I'm sorry, I don't know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation.

So now who is lying AK on the stand or RS in his interviews?

Thank you for finding that. We know that Knox and Sollecito arrived at the police station at about 10:40 PM, after they had dinner with Sollecito's friends at their place. Sollecito and Knox, both convicted murderers, have been paid an extraordinary fee to muddy the waters with more of their self-serving lies. I am surprised that anyone would give known liars an opportunity to tell yet another lie, but who am I to judge.

They are both still lying because they are both still manipulating the public. Sollecito, for example, has been soliciting funds from anyone that will give him money. With that money, he has spent time vacationing in the Dominican Republic. Prior to this, he had plenty of money ... enough to move to Switzerland with a plan to set up a computer based company. He was thrown out of Switzerland because he lied on official paperwork about his ongoing criminal trials. Where did all that money go? It's similar to Knox with her $4.2 milion, and simultaneous claims that she cannot afford the flight to attend her trial.

 

[miley]

Sorry I'm forced to reply...

No I do not believe she thinks the prosecutor had told the truth.
I think AK is an ADULT and one that's capable of knowing the evidence (we are infact very close in age)

She very clearly lies, makes up a phone call what ever you need to call it to justify it in your mind.
It's a flat out lie in my mind.
All I can say is she should've stuck with her "truth" from her testimony for her book and there would be no argument over whether its a little mistake that is the prosecutors fault or a lie.

so, she got something wrong, big deal - Don't forget she was in prison most of the time - I'm impressed she's able to function on a daily basis considering the hell she's been through and besides that, we've all been 20, and none of us can say with certainty what we would have done in this situation.

 

[SMK]

so, she got something wrong, big deal - Don't forget she was in prison most of the time - I'm impressed she's able to function on a daily basis considering the hell she's been through and besides that, we've all been 20, and none of us can say with certainty what we would have done in this situation.

Miley, I hope you know that one can theoretically be suspicious or reflecting on the possible guilt of defendants while still viewing them as humans and thus worthy of compassion and fair judgment. Can only speak for myself, but even as I entertain the possibility of guilt, I bear no ill-will toward Amanda (or RS) (no secret animus outside of this crime, in other words) and if innocent, then of course she deserves to be absolved. And I do have compassion about what she suffered in prison, yes. Just wanted to throw that out there. :seeya:

 

[miley]

Could you please tell me where the weather station is that reports for the region that includes Perugia?

Did you look at the link I provided - it's safe, wot gives it a green light.

here:
(translated) Data recorded by the meteorological station of Perugia Sant'Egidio.
Rained on the 30th, not on the 31st or 1st
http://www.ilmeteo.it/portale/archivio-meteo/Perugia/2007/Novembre
I don't believe it was raining but what difference does it make... is it because Crini claims it was raining and it wasn't?

 

[aa9511]

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.

Yes, that is an excellent question. Where does the broken window fit in? So did Amanda not see the broken window during her "shower scene" at the cottage because Filomena's door was closed? If so, who closed it? Did Rudy close Filomena's door but leave the front door wide open? Did Amanda not think that Filomena's closed door could because Filomena actually came back sometime last night? That maybe she had a guy friend with her, who left the poo in the large bathroom? That maybe that would also explain the menstrual blood? Did she not go and check Filomena's room to see if those could be the result of her coming back early?

So when Raffaele comes to check the "signs," was Filomena's door open then, or did he open it? If he didn't open it, who opened it other than Amanda? Did Rudy come back into the house and open the door for Raffaele to see the broken window?

It's amazing this house with the magically opening and shutting doors.

 

[aa9511]

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.

bbm

Even Amanda has dropped the "forgot about that call" line (in her book, discussion upthread). Only online posters seem to keep believing things she herself has even discarded.

 

[Amber29]

[/B]

bbm

Even Amanda has dropped the "forgot about that call" line (in her book, discussion upthread). Only online posters seem to keep believing things she herself has even discarded.

Right she's replaced it with a whole new call that didn't happen at all.