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

[aa9511]

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.



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

Yes, the human brain probably goes through a complicated, yet lightning-quick, set of thoughts when formulating a lie. By necessity, it would have to be complicated on a very molecular level, as the brain has to "juggle" many different things at once. Thinking about the past, present, and future all in one moment, while at the same time having to go against what is already "stored" in the brain as the truth. POOR BRAIN! Just thinking about what the brain has to do, hurts my brain! :floorlaugh:

Amanda's brain must be really hurting by now.

How could Edda later claim that she didn't remember the phone call when she was the one who first brought it up?

What is confusing about Amanda being "stuck" in a lie? If she suddenly on the stand said, oh yes, I remember what that was about. Yes, yes, the blood, door, all of that. Yes, now I remember. And then the prosecutor would go, "but remember at the time, one week after the phone call, you didn't remember? Remember, you told your mother you didn't remember that phone call?" And then what would Amanda say? Oh no, I didn't remember one week afterwards no, but now.....see now, I remember. My memory has become clearer as the time has passed." That makes no sense, and everyone would have known she was lying, or maybe not..............................

 

[aa9511]

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.

bbm

Actually, Juan has said something very similar to that. After his last trial, when the defense went for "prosecutorial misconduct" to try to throw out the case or get a re-trial, he said something like, "when it's not going their way, they resort to attacking the prosecutor." To be fair, he was talking specifically about the defendants, not their counsel.

I have a feeling that if Juan-derful was prosecuting Amanda's case, the view of those currently supporting her innocence would be vastly different.

 

[SMK]

How could Edda later claim that she didn't remember the phone call when she was the one who first brought it up?

Yes; once more, it was Edda which made it seem suspect. Not Amanda or the prosecutor (not initially).

Too bad there is not more to discuss. We've been over the call, the bathmat print, the luminol. Who wants to talk about Quintavalle now?

 

[Katody]

Yes, the human brain probably goes through a complicated, yet lightning-quick, set of thoughts when formulating a lie. By necessity, it would have to be complicated on a very molecular level, as the brain has to "juggle" many different things at once. Thinking about the past, present, and future all in one moment, while at the same time having to go against what is already "stored" in the brain as the truth. POOR BRAIN! Just thinking about what the brain has to do, hurts my brain! :floorlaugh:

Amanda's brain must be really hurting by now.

How could Edda later claim that she didn't remember the phone call when she was the one who first brought it up?

What is confusing about Amanda being "stuck" in a lie? If she suddenly on the stand said, oh yes, I remember what that was about. Yes, yes, the blood, door, all of that. Yes, now I remember. And then the prosecutor would go, "but remember at the time, one week after the phone call, you didn't remember? Remember, you told your mother you didn't remember that phone call?" And then what would Amanda say? Oh no, I didn't remember one week afterwards no, but now.....see now, I remember. My memory has become clearer as the time has passed." That makes no sense, and everyone would have known she was lying, or maybe not..............................

It's just much simpler and more logical that they were both telling the truth, Amanda and her mother.

If according to you Amanda revealed her guilt to Edda in a phone call, what sense does it make for Edda to bring it up in a jailhouse conversation? By that time she had two lawyers who instructed her that every visitation is recorded and monitored, every letter read by the police.

Why was nothing of it revealed before the arrest? Amanda's phone had been bugged and every phone call recorded for days. She and her mother wouldn't suspect anything and could talk freely yet nothing came out?

Another problem - there is zero evidence of any Amanda's lie here.
Prosecutor Comodi's trick question misfired. Failed to trip Amanda in any way and no lie was revealed by it like in the other cases that were given as examples here.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Oh, so now it's us? It couldn't possibly be that Amanda's lies are inconsistent, could it? Kind of hard to follow things when the suspect is going like this --~~~&&&&#####))))*****5%%4##^^&^*^&^&^%%)(7.

 

[SMK]

It's just much simpler and more logical that they were both telling the truth, Amanda and her mother.

If according to you Amanda revealed her guilt to Edda in a phone call, what sense does it make for Edda to bring it up in a jailhouse conversation? By that time she had two lawyers who instructed her that every visitation is recorded and monitored, every letter read by the police.

Why was nothing of it revealed before the arrest? Amanda's phone had been bugged and every phone call recorded for days. She and her mother wouldn't suspect anything and could talk freely yet nothing came out?

Another problem - there is zero evidence of any Amanda's lie here.
Prosecutor Comodi's trick question misfired. Failed to trip Amanda in any way and no lie was revealed by it like in the other cases that were given as examples here.

Yes, points extremely well taken .

The only thing I can think of for the bolded above is, Edda was trying to get a feel of the situation; trying to make sure that the call would not be brought up again. In my post on p 5 (#122) I gave my opinion of what the "code" might be. And I admitted this is not proveable but an intuition which I and a few others have had.

I don't think Amanda revealed her guilt per se in the first call - but she may have said something in a panic which made Edda think she could be implicated on some accessory level. Insofar as her lawyers guiding her, she certainly said and did nothing which would provoke their disapproval.

 

[Katody]

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

Let me restate the post you answered to:

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.

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?

he then removed his shoe, rinsed his pants, his foot got wet.
He stood on the bathmat, leaving the watered-down footprint.
Replaced his shoes and returned to the room.

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.

I can't see any pictures showing where he got blood on himself but I think he cleaned himself up as well as could.

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..

I don't think so. I think he tried to rinse his pants while still wearing them possibly using the shower head. He obviously washed his hands, but not before touching the light switch. The traces are just right for such activity.

 

[aa9511]

It's just much simpler and more logical that they were both telling the truth, Amanda and her mother.

If according to you Amanda revealed her guilt to Edda in a phone call, what sense does it make for Edda to bring it up in a jailhouse conversation? By that time she had two lawyers who instructed her that every visitation is recorded and monitored, every letter read by the police.

Why was nothing of it revealed before the arrest? Amanda's phone had been bugged and every phone call recorded for days. She and her mother wouldn't suspect anything and could talk freely yet nothing came out?

Another problem - there is zero evidence of any Amanda's lie here.
Prosecutor Comodi's trick question misfired. Failed to trip Amanda in any way and no lie was revealed by it like in the other cases that were given as examples here.

bbm

It's not that Edda knew Amanda was guilty. It's that Edda, of course, believed her daughter's story, and believed her in her daughter's innocence. As one would expect, that is her own child. And yet.....there was this thing that was "off" in the whole events surrounding everything, something which was nagging at her and she couldn't get out of her mind, and she wanted an explanation for. And she felt sure Amanda could give her the explanation. That doesn't sound too complicated to me. It actually sounds very reasonable and logical, considering it was a mother-daughter, parent-child relationship. It could have been something like i suggested earlier, where Amanda told her she might need her help, to come now. That would not be telling the mother, point-blank, "hey mom, I killed Meredith and I need help right now." It could have been something like what I said earlier, which Edda, in hindsight, couldn't make sense of in her own mind.

Again, IMO, she felt sure Amanda could give her an explanation. If someone truly believes someone's innocent, then then know that person will have an explanation. It was just a point of confusion in her mother's mind, is what I believe. She just wanted an explanation, coming from Amanda.

The only problem is, Amanda didn't have an explanation. And the mother then dropped it. What questions that left unanswered for her mother, we will never know.

By Amanda purposely avoiding it and denying it, the mother knew not to press that topic any more. Is why she dropped the whole topic. When she realized that Amanda didn't have an explanation, she didn't push it and risk her daughter getting caught in something she couldn't get out of.

This all makes perfect sense to me.

I guess, like you said, it's just different interpretations we have.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, points extremely well taken .

The only thing I can think of for the bolded above is, Edda was trying to get a feel of the situation; trying to make sure that the call would not be brought up again. In my post on p 5 (#122) I gave my opinion of what the "code" might be. And I admitted this is not proveable but an intuition which I and a few others have had.

I don't think Amanda revealed her guilt per se in the first call - but she may have said something in a panic which made Edda think she could be implicated on some accessory level. Insofar as her lawyers guiding her, she certainly said and did nothing which would provoke their disapproval.

I think the "code" was actually used by Amanda trying to get her mom to get the point of "Let's not talk about that first phone call." By deliberately saying first that she didn't even remembering calling her. It was not actually Edda who brought it up, it was Amanda, IIRC, she was talking about calling Filomena, and then said but she didn't remember calling her mom.

It only semi-backfired in the beginning because Edda didn't get the message.

 

[SMK]

I think the "code" was actually used by Amanda trying to get her mom to get the point of "Let's not talk about that first phone call." By deliberately saying first that she didn't even remembering calling her. It was not actually Edda who brought it up, it was Amanda, IIRC, she was talking about calling Filomena, and then said but she didn't remember calling her mom.

It only semi-backfired in the beginning because Edda didn't get the message.

Oh, OK - from the text I have, it appeared Edda brought it up. So Amanda did....OK, maybe (if this scenario holds) then Amanda did not want it discussed further.

 

[Katody]

bbm

It's not that Edda knew Amanda was guilty. It's that Edda, of course, believed her daughter's story, and believed her in her daughter's innocence. As one would expect, that is her own child. And yet.....there was this thing that was "off" in the whole events surrounding everything, something which was nagging at her and she couldn't get out of her mind, and she wanted an explanation for. And she felt sure Amanda could give her the explanation. That doesn't sound too complicated to me. It actually sounds very reasonable and logical, considering it was a mother-daughter, parent-child relationship. It could have been something like i suggested earlier, where Amanda told her she might need her help, to come now. That would not be telling the mother, point-blank, "hey mom, I killed Meredith and I need help right now." It could have been something like what I said earlier, which Edda, in hindsight, couldn't make sense of in her own mind.

Again, IMO, she felt sure Amanda could give her an explanation. If someone truly believes someone's innocent, then then know that person will have an explanation. It was just a point of confusion in her mother's mind, is what I believe. She just wanted an explanation, coming from Amanda.

The only problem is, Amanda didn't have an explanation. And the mother then dropped it. What questions that left unanswered for her mother, we will never know.

By Amanda purposely avoiding it and denying it, the mother knew not to press that topic any more. Is why she dropped the whole topic. When she realized that Amanda didn't have an explanation, she didn't push it and risk her daughter getting caught in something she couldn't get out of.

This all makes perfect sense to me.

I guess, like you said, it's just different interpretations we have.

Hmmm...

It just seem more plausible to me that Amanda simply called at 12:47, while Raffaele was calling to his sister if I'm not mistaken, and told exactly the same thing she told Filomena in a phone call just few minutes earlier and that they told Carabinieri and later to the police that arrived.

'The window is broken, room looks like a mess, there are blood traces, Meredith is missing, her room locked.'

It's reasonable to me that the shock of discovering the murder just minutes later blurred her memory.

Complicated psychologizing doesn't appeal to me in this case.
The reason is the very coherent simple and complete scenario in which Guede during his burglar crime spree breaks into the place and murders Meredith when she walks in on him.

It's logical, it explains all the evidence. If I see a competing theory, it better be even simpler and more coherent. Meandering gut feelings don't cut it.

 

[SMK]

(RE Quintavalle; the witness who says he saw Amanda early in the morning of Nov 2 standing in front of his shop, waiting for it to open.)

I was reading in the Galati Appeal (PDF document; pp 37 - 41) that Galati believed Hellmann had dismissed the witness (whom he feels helps support 'the falsity of the alibi' taken together with other evidence) because "it took him a year to be sure he had seen [Knox]."

Galati believes this is a false argument: At the time Quintavalle was first questioned by police, they were asking for bleach receipts, and not about Ms. Knox:

Quintavalle did not take a year to convince himself of the accuracy of his perception: his doubt was in regard to the usefulness of the date – his having seen the girl on the morning of November 2, – and in this regard a reading of the statements of Quintavalle (cf. transcript of the first instance hearing March 21, 2009) contradicts what, in contrast to the truth, was written by the CAA on this point.

It should be thus noted that precisely such hesitation (is it useful or not? Am I going to say this or not?) makes it entirely plausible that Quintavalle had not on his own volition communicated to Inspector Volturno his having seen the girl, but limited himself to answering specific questions that, as mentioned, were put to him and which were focusing on the purchase of items and not on people.

He goes on to say that Quintavalle did correctly describe Amanda, and that his testimony ought not be dismissed as unimportant: It compiles part of the evidence.:seeya:
ETA: And imagine if not Quintavalle, but a webcam, had caught Knox there at opening time. What then?

 

[SMK]

bbm

It's not that Edda knew Amanda was guilty. It's that Edda, of course, believed her daughter's story, and believed her in her daughter's innocence. As one would expect, that is her own child. And yet.....there was this thing that was "off" in the whole events surrounding everything, something which was nagging at her and she couldn't get out of her mind, and she wanted an explanation for. And she felt sure Amanda could give her the explanation. That doesn't sound too complicated to me. It actually sounds very reasonable and logical, considering it was a mother-daughter, parent-child relationship. It could have been something like i suggested earlier, where Amanda told her she might need her help, to come now. That would not be telling the mother, point-blank, "hey mom, I killed Meredith and I need help right now." It could have been something like what I said earlier, which Edda, in hindsight, couldn't make sense of in her own mind.

Again, IMO, she felt sure Amanda could give her an explanation. If someone truly believes someone's innocent, then then know that person will have an explanation. It was just a point of confusion in her mother's mind, is what I believe. She just wanted an explanation, coming from Amanda.

The only problem is, Amanda didn't have an explanation. And the mother then dropped it. What questions that left unanswered for her mother, we will never know.

By Amanda purposely avoiding it and denying it, the mother knew not to press that topic any more. Is why she dropped the whole topic. When she realized that Amanda didn't have an explanation, she didn't push it and risk her daughter getting caught in something she couldn't get out of.

This all makes perfect sense to me.

I guess, like you said, it's just different interpretations we have.

Yes; this is exactly, precisely, as it hit me. On an intuitive level, it is just as you set forth here. Thnx

 

[SMK]

Hmmm...

It just seem more plausible to me that Amanda simply called at 12:47, while Raffaele was calling to his sister if I'm not mistaken, and told exactly the same thing she told Filomena in a phone call just few minutes earlier and that they told Carabinieri and later to the police that arrived.

'The window is broken, room looks like a mess, there are blood traces, Meredith is missing, her room locked.'

It's reasonable to me that the shock of discovering the murder just minutes later blurred her memory.

Complicated psychologizing doesn't appeal to me in this case.
The reason is the very coherent simple and complete scenario in which Guede during his burglar crime spree breaks into the place and murders Meredith when she walks in on him.

It's logical, it explains all the evidence. If I see a competing theory, it better be even simpler and more coherent. Meandering gut feelings don't cut it.

I was hoping it would come across differently to you. :blushing:

And this is certainly not "psychologizing for the mere sake of psychologizing".
Different perceptions from different natures, is more likely.

Not everyone feels right about the "2 kids railroaded" meme. Although of course logically, it holds up. And I for one feel Knox and Sollecito do present in many ways as sweet, and worthy of much compassion. I absolutely harbor no hate for them.

But there are more things than mere logic: Such as, strange questions unanswered, strange contradictions.
Perhaps not meandering gut hunches, but a meta-analysis, with its own logic and order, cuts through the mainstream meme.

 

[otto]

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.

Thank you for that. That is exactly what prosecutor's do. I am astounded that anyone thinks that a murder suspect in Italy should be treated any differently. Apparently only prosecutors in the US should do their job properly?

 

[otto]

It has been suggested that the prosecutor has completely changed the motive and no longer alleges a sexual motive. Not true

"Prosecutor Alessandro Crini called for 26-year sentences for Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, her co-defendant and former boyfriend, following more than 10 hours of closing arguments over two days. Knox and Sollecito deny any involvement in the killing.

Crini departed from past scenarios by suggesting the crime was not so much sexually fueled — an erotic game that got out of control, as the lower court prosecutor described it — but an act of physical violence with a sexual expression.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...lls-for-26-year-sentence-for-Amanda-Knox.html

 

[MichaelSmith]

It has been suggested that the prosecutor has completely changed the motive and no longer alleges a sexual motive. Not true

"Prosecutor Alessandro Crini called for 26-year sentences for Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, her co-defendant and former boyfriend, following more than 10 hours of closing arguments over two days. Knox and Sollecito deny any involvement in the killing.

Crini departed from past scenarios by suggesting the crime was not so much sexually fueled — an erotic game that got out of control, as the lower court prosecutor described it — but an act of physical violence with a sexual expression.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...lls-for-26-year-sentence-for-Amanda-Knox.html

From the article

Mr Crini argued that Rudy Guede - a native of Ivory Coast now serving a 16-year sentence for the murder - may have inflamed tensions between Knox and Kercher after he defecated in a toilet inside the women's apartment and didn't flush

What a farce :facepalm:

 

[aa9511]

Oh, OK - from the text I have, it appeared Edda brought it up. So Amanda did....OK, maybe (if this scenario holds) then Amanda did not want it discussed further.

IDK, maybe I have it wrong.

In any case, at one point, it is clear that Amanda wanted the topic of that phone call shelved permanently.

At least, that's what it seems like to me.

 

[whoanellie]

Hmmm...

It just seem more plausible to me that Amanda simply called at 12:47, while Raffaele was calling to his sister if I'm not mistaken, and told exactly the same thing she told Filomena in a phone call just few minutes earlier and that they told Carabinieri and later to the police that arrived.

'The window is broken, room looks like a mess, there are blood traces, Meredith is missing, her room locked.'

It's reasonable to me that the shock of discovering the murder just minutes later blurred her memory.

Complicated psychologizing doesn't appeal to me in this case.
The reason is the very coherent simple and complete scenario in which Guede during his burglar crime spree breaks into the place and murders Meredith when she walks in on him.

It's logical, it explains all the evidence. If I see a competing theory, it better be even simpler and more coherent. Meandering gut feelings don't cut it.

Makes sense to me.

 

[MichaelSmith]

http://mindhuntersinc.com/knox-sollecito-prosecutions-case-in-the-toilet/

But apparently, the prosecutorial logic goes, it really grossed out the prim, proper Meredith, yet was accepted and tolerated by the free-spirited Amanda. Tensions grew between the two young women (again, no evidence), and finally reached crisis level.

And Meredith got mad enough at her that Amanda decided to stab her flat mate repeatedly, slit her throat and have her two male “dominions” sexually assault her?

You’d be forgiven for wondering if the prosecution really went this route, but it was reported by the Associated Press.

Of all the cases John Douglas has investigated, and he and I have studied and analyzed, this has never come up as a motive in a murder. Why? Because it’s ridiculous.

More at the link...