Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[otto]

I don't remember even who started it now. I thought the original poster is still part of the discussion?

I do. The discussion was started on November 20 by MichaelSmith, and then again today. However, many people are new to this case and are unfamiliar with the details of the case, so it's understandable that this fact from the trial in 2009 is of particular interest as everyone gets up to speed.

It's a great mystery with this phone call.

On trial Mrs Knox didn't remember a phone call at 12:00 and also the logs of the phone calls doesn't contain a call to her mother at 12:00. The first phone call to her mother was taken at 12:47 after the broken window was discovered.

My theory: The "first" phone call was fiction.

 

[Amber29]

I feel like everything in this case has been beaten into the ground, but this is a discussion board where opinions are sharply divided. Unless new information is released, we will continue to ride the merry-go-round. Of course there is always the option to not participate in discussions that one finds annoying, boring, or decided. I know I have exercised these options!

I completely agree as I haven't said the discussion is any of those things. Instead I have stayed with the discussion.

It is absolutely true all we can do is go round and round. As all the evidence has been discussed repeatedly. Trust me I will opt out when I can't take it anymore.

 

[otto]

I feel like everything in this case has been beaten into the ground, but this is a discussion board where opinions are sharply divided. Unless new information is released, we will continue to ride the merry-go-round. Of course there is always the option to not participate in discussions that one finds annoying, boring, or decided. I know I have exercised these options!

There is new information. Last week, Sollecito hopped a plane in Paris and then took another flight to the Dominican Republic. The Air France flight was detained while it was determined whether Sollecito could board. His father seemed to think that he was at home by the afternoon, but other reports have confirmed that Sollecito is in the DR until after the first week in December. At that time, Sollecito will return to Italy to write an exam for his computer science degree.

 

[whoanellie]

When the ONLY things a suspect "doesn't remember" are those which might contribute to them looking guilty, while at the same time having seemingly perfectly clear memory to remember all sorts of minute details which help them to look innocent...................................then there is a problem. "We have a problem."

How does the call. by itself, make her look guilty? She was calling her mother because of the signs of a break-in at her home and because she could not locate one of her room mates. As I understand it, the phone call only makes her look guilty if one imagines she revealed some guilty knowledge to her mother. There is no evidence that she did so.

 

[Myvice]

How does the call. by itself, make her look guilty? She was calling her mother because of the signs of a break-in at her home and because she could not locate one of her room mates. As I understand it, the phone call only makes her look guilty if one imagines she revealed some guilty knowledge to her mother. There is no evidence that she did so.

For me it's her mothers response of (paraphrasing) but this was before anything had happened.

Did her mother imagine that she knew something before it happened?

 

[Sigh Sister]

There is new information. Last week, Sollecito hopped a plane in Paris and then took another flight to the Dominican Republic. The Air France flight was detained while it was determined whether Sollecito could board. His father seemed to think that he was at home by the afternoon, but other reports have confirmed that Sollecito is in the DR until after the first week in December. At that time, Sollecito will return to Italy to write an exam for his computer science degree.

I did read something about him going to the DR. According to this article, he's back. Did he go there again?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ecito-denies-murder-rmeredith-kercher-retrial

 

[SMK]

For me it's her mothers response of (paraphrasing) but this was before anything had happened.

Did her mother imagine that she knew something before it happened?

Right!
@whoanellie: No, there is no clear evidence, and yes, one has to imagine. But there is a kind of inference one can make. Apparently I am not the only one who inferred in this manner, but also several others have. It's all these little question marks that make some people wonder if there is more than meets the eye.

 

[otto]

How does the call. by itself, make her look guilty? She was calling her mother because of the signs of a break-in at her home and because she could not locate one of her room mates. As I understand it, the phone call only makes her look guilty if one imagines she revealed some guilty knowledge to her mother. There is no evidence that she did so.

And we shouldn't forget that the mean, conniving, underhanded prosecutor tried to mess with Knox when she did not specify that at exactly forty seven minutes and some seconds after the absolute hour of noon a call was made from Knox's phone to a phone in Seattle. Obviously, there's no reason to assume that because the call was made from Knox's phone that Knox made the call. Anyone could have taken her phone and made the call. That would explain why Knox doesn't remember the call. As for her mother asking about that phone call eight days later (imagine waiting eight days to say: hey, why did you call me before anything happened?), clearly the call made no sense to her mother either. Someone other than Knox must have made the call.

 

[Katody]

Well, for one, she had already told her mom she didn't remember it. And when she was talking to her mom, at that point she probably hadn't had time to think up a story, and she really didn't need to think up a story just to please, or convince, her mom. Which at that point (and still now), only her mom knew the details. No one else knew. She didn't need to make up a story, her mom was already on her side. She could explain "everything" to her mom once she got out of there and then they could talk in private and go over everything. I'm sure she has since thought up a story to appease her mom regarding that conversation, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

She couldn't "remember" it when she was talking to her mom in that conversation regarding the phone call, because then the details would have come out and prosecutors would have heard about what was said in the phone call. Which she didn't want. She had to "unremember" it so as to avoid the topic altogether.

I must say this all sounds mighty complicated and just in my opinion unconvincing. I'd expect her to sort out the story about the phone calls with her lawyers when preparing for the testimony.

By your theory Edda must be also lying in her testimony. It doesn't make sense that their stories are not in agreement during testimony in 2009.

Unless both of them are telling the truth. This is much simpler explanation.

So she couldn't all of a sudden, come up with a "story" and remember everythign she had un-remembered previously. That would look even more suspicious, not remembering something a week after it happens, but suddenly remembering the details of it much later.

The prosecution and Massei's court found nothing suspicious about Quintavalle and other witnesses doing just that

 

[Katody]

Let's take the case of Jason Young. He claimed that he was hundreds of miles away at the time of the murder. Should the prosecutor ask what he was doing when he was hundreds of miles away, or should the prosecutor ask him why he switched shoes during the murder? The answer is obvious, and that is how it works when a prosecutor cross examines a murder suspect like Knox.

Where's the analogy? was Jason Young's prosecutor telling outright lies in the court?

It's not about misleading the suspect. It's about misleading the court, the judge, the jury and the public with blatant lies.

Maybe it's expected from a lawyer in some jurisdictions, as some hear claim, but the prosecutor?

 

[aa9511]

Let's take the case of Jason Young. He claimed that he was hundreds of miles away at the time of the murder. Should the prosecutor ask what he was doing when he was hundreds of miles away, or should the prosecutor ask him why he switched shoes during the murder? The answer is obvious, and that is how it works when a prosecutor cross examines a murder suspect like Knox.

Exactly. There were a gazillion examples in the Arias trial. One I remember off the top of my head, Juan Martinez was questioning about Jodi talking to a psychiatrist (who we later found out was Dr. Samuels). She said she "realized" what had really happened after she talked to him, or something along those lines. No one had heard of him up to that point, except for counsels and Jod, the jury didn't know who he was.

Juan asked her, when did you first talk to him?

She said oh, I don't remember when it was.

So he veered off the subject momentarily. Then came back to it. Then he said, something like, "so in June 2010 you talked with Dr. Samuels......," and then Jodi said, "no actually it was February 2010." (I don't know what exact months were said, but the point is she apparently took offense to Juan saying that it was later than it really was, because it looked bad for her the later she told the "real truth." Her meeting with him was actually earlier than what he said, is what I remember).

Then Juan goes, "oh what was that?" And Jodi goes, "yeah, you said June 2010 but it was actually February 2010, not June." hahahahahaahahhaha.

Then Juan goes, "oh so you do remember that, oh I see. Okay, so in February 2010....."

Then in later testimony when Dr. Samuels actually came on the stand, come to find out that Jodi was right and it actually was whenever she said it was.

So now does anyone believe Juan, who knew everything about the case, would get the date wrong, and wrong by months?

No, he did it to trip her up. To show that she was lying. That she actually remembered extremely well when it was she talked to him. That her memory was actually very good. And the most important............that she had lied to him originally when she said "I don't remember." Because it was very, very clear, that she had lied.

It is very very normal and routine for prosecutors to try to trip up suspects on the stand during cross-examination in order to catch them in lies in front of the jury. Because if the jury sees first-hand that they're lying, obviously that is going to make an impact.

 

[aa9511]

Who makes such claims? All the shoeprints in the bedroom are Guede's. And there's a lot of them.

Some are very faint and partial, like the ones on the pillow cover.
During the murder he stepped in blood, then trampled the pillow cover, leaving a lot of fainter and fainter prints on it. When he walked in his shoes to the bathroom which is right next to the bedroom he was already not leaving any visible traces.

he then removed his shoe, washed his pants, his foot got wet.
He stood on the bathmat, leaving the watered-down footprint.
Replaced his shoes and returned to the room.
At some moment later he dipped one of his shoes in blood. That's the trail that goes out of the room, along the corridor then disappears, fading to nothing in the kitchen.

That doesn't account for the invisible, magical, disappearing footsteps going to the bathroom. Either his feet/shoes were bloody or they were not.

Also, it doesn't explain why he would take his shoes off in the bedroom to go to the bathroom to wash his pants (for no logical reason that I can think of). Wouldn't he just walk to the bathroom, and then take his shoes off there?

Also, why would he be worried about his pants, when his shoes were bloody? And his shirt would have been bloody too, as one can see from the pictures which shows blood spattering. The blood must have spattered all over him.

If he had cleaned up in the bathroom, there would be more signs of hiim cleaning up, such blood spatter around the sink or the shower from where he was washing and rubbing his pants (supposedly). Unless he just held it under the faucet, and perhaps even then, there would have been some bloody spatter from washing blood off. Like around the sink, on the window, etc..

 

[aa9511]

Exactly! Why didn't she?
'I called to tell there was a break-in, window is broken, traces of blood, Meredith's room locked, she's not responding.'

Why didn't she have a story prepared, 2 years after the crime and supposedly meticulously preparing herself for her testimony?

Makes no logical sense.

Unless this really was the contents of the phone call, just like Edda testified, and Amanda really had hard time remembering all the events of that shocking day.

Because she had already told her mother in that conversation that she didn't remember. Remembering something farther out than earlier is not how it usually works. Usually people remember something closer to the time it happens, and the memory gets more distant with time.

She was stuck with the lie b/c she had already stated that she didn't remember, and it would look suspicious and draw more attention to the phone call if she said she now all of a sudden remembered it.

In hindisght, she didn't realize some would catch it as a lie and thus focus on it more. But at the time, she thought by saying she didn't remember, it would get the subject to just be dropped.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How does the call. by itself, make her look guilty? She was calling her mother because of the signs of a break-in at her home and because she could not locate one of her room mates. As I understand it, the phone call only makes her look guilty if one imagines she revealed some guilty knowledge to her mother. There is no evidence that she did so.

Indeed. If anything there is evidence to the contrary: the fact that Edda brought the subject up. And at about the same time that Knox was calling her mother, Raffaele was calling his sister, a member of the Carabinieri. It sounds as if they were becoming more concerned.

The bigger problem here is the continuing lack of a narrative/timeline. Without it there are these little atomized bits, bits that look suspicious to some but not to others.

 

[aa9511]

There is new information. Last week, Sollecito hopped a plane in Paris and then took another flight to the Dominican Republic. The Air France flight was detained while it was determined whether Sollecito could board. His father seemed to think that he was at home by the afternoon, but other reports have confirmed that Sollecito is in the DR until after the first week in December. At that time, Sollecito will return to Italy to write an exam for his computer science degree.

Oh, that is a juicy tidbit, Otto. Thank you!

 

[DerKritiker2011]

And we shouldn't forget that the mean, conniving, underhanded prosecutor tried to mess with Knox when she did not specify that at exactly forty seven minutes and some seconds after the absolute hour of noon a call was made from Knox's phone to a phone in Seattle. Obviously, there's no reason to assume that because the call was made from Knox's phone that Knox made the call. Anyone could have taken her phone and made the call. That would explain why Knox doesn't remember the call. As for her mother asking about that phone call eight days later (imagine waiting eight days to say: hey, why did you call me before anything happened?), clearly the call made no sense to her mother either. Someone other than Knox must have made the call.

That's nonsense. The time is not the point.

The prosecution claimed a phone call before anything happend. That claim is wrong and will lead in a confusion.

The first phone call was taken at 12:47 by Mrs Knox, not by another person, AFTER the burglary was discovered. A burglary is a reason to take a call to her mother.

 

[aa9511]

How does the call. by itself, make her look guilty? She was calling her mother because of the signs of a break-in at her home and because she could not locate one of her room mates. As I understand it, the phone call only makes her look guilty if one imagines she revealed some guilty knowledge to her mother. There is no evidence that she did so.

bbm

I would say that regarding this now-famous not-phone-call, the evidence is her claim that she "doesn't remember" the content of the call.

How that claim stacks up with the other evidence, and with her other comments.

That is what contributes to the big picture, which points to her guilt, IMO. \

It's not a be-all, end-all. It's one point out of many. It's just another thing.

Not remembering that phone call, but for example, remembering details of a conversation she supposedly had with RS at his apartment that night.....the one of they were both "outsiders" in high school, etc..

Not remembering the phone call, but remembering the phone call soon after that VERY CLEARLY.

Not remembering the phone call, but remembering IN DETAIL seeing the blood in the house, the open door, the feces.

Not remembering the phone call, but remembering exactly what the order of events were for that day.

Not remembering the phone call, but remembering when she called Filomena and what she told Filomena, oh except for the part that would make her look guilty.

Not remembering the phone call, but able to, it's been claimed, remember precise details of what Luca told them about what he heard from the police about Meredith's body.

Not remembering the phone call, but remembering precisely when they called cabinieri in the order of events, and when postal police arrived at their cottage.

Hmmm.....................

 

[Myvice]

Exactly. There were a gazillion examples in the Arias trial. One I remember off the top of my head, Juan Martinez was questioning about Jodi talking to a psychiatrist (who we later found out was Dr. Samuels). She said she "realized" what had really happened after she talked to him, or something along those lines. No one had heard of him up to that point, except for counsels and Jod, the jury didn't know who he was.

Juan asked her, when did you first talk to him?

She said oh, I don't remember when it was.

So he veered off the subject momentarily. Then came back to it. Then he said, something like, "so in June 2010 you talked with Dr. Samuels......," and then Jodi said, "no actually it was February 2010." (I don't know what exact months were said, but the point is she apparently took offense to Juan saying that it was later than it really was, because it looked bad for her the later she told the "real truth." Her meeting with him was actually earlier than what he said, is what I remember).

Then Juan goes, "oh what was that?" And Jodi goes, "yeah, you said June 2010 but it was actually February 2010, not June." hahahahahaahahhaha.

Then Juan goes, "oh so you do remember that, oh I see. Okay, so in February 2010....."

Then in later testimony when Dr. Samuels actually came on the stand, come to find out that Jodi was right and it actually was whenever she said it was.

So now does anyone believe Juan, who knew everything about the case, would get the date wrong, and wrong by months?

No, he did it to trip her up. To show that she was lying. That she actually remembered extremely well when it was she talked to him. That her memory was actually very good. And the most important............that she had lied to him originally when she said "I don't remember." Because it was very, very clear, that she had lied.

It is very very normal and routine for prosecutors to try to trip up suspects on the stand during cross-examination in order to catch them in lies in front of the jury. Because if the jury sees first-hand that they're lying, obviously that is going to make an impact.

I agree totally. And I remember how the defense did everything they could to muddy the water and try to make Martinez out as the bad guy attempting to demonize the poor young Jodi that couldn't kill a spider in a bathtub.

I guess when you know you can't win the case outright the strategy is to demonize the prosecution.

At least the jury was able to see through her lies and "the fog" and put her away to protect society.

 

[whoanellie]

Indeed. If anything there is evidence to the contrary: the fact that Edda brought the subject up. And at about the same time that Knox was calling her mother, Raffaele was calling his sister, a member of the Carabinieri. It sounds as if they were becoming more concerned.

The bigger problem here is the continuing lack of a narrative/timeline. Without it there are these little atomized bits, bits that look suspicious to some but not to others.

And the rationales for why the various bits are suspicious are themselves contradictory. It's not Amanda's behavior that's inconsistent it's the pro-guilt interpretation of her behavior that's inconsistent.

 

[SMK]

and the rationales for why the various bits are suspicious are themselves contradictory. It's not amanda's behavior that's inconsistent it's the pro-guilt interpretation of her behavior that's inconsistent.

...........