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

[whoanellie]

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.

So they were speaking in 'code'?

 

[SMK]

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?

I think what the problem is, is that with Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony , no matter what the feelings about them, there is acknowledgment that a crime was committed, and hence the prosecutor has the right to apply the rack, to get them to give witness. With Knox, there is a vast army of people who feel she ought never have been arrested; ergo the prosecutor ought not be holding her feet to the fire, in the first place.

 

[otto]

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.

Knox discovered the break in at 10:30. The call to Seattle at 12:47 has nothing to do with discovering the break in.

 

[SMK]

So they were speaking in 'code'?

It has quotes around it because this is an expression to describe a subtext. Maybe bad choice of words. I ought to have said, "There was a subtext to their exchange." It's all just theory and hypothesis anyway- noone here will have any say in the ruling.

 

[otto]

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.

Actully, it's antithesis of guilt and pro inconsistent interpretation of Knox behavior.

 

[SMK]

Knox discovered the break in at 10:30. The call to Seattle at 12:47 has nothing to do with discovering the break in.

When was the initial call supposed to have taken place?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Knox discovered the break in at 10:30. The call to Seattle at 12:47 has nothing to do with discovering the break in.

Not true. Amanda discovered the front door open which was defective, the blood spots, and the mess Guede left in the toilet but not the broken window till she returned.

 

[otto]

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.

Can you imagine what her mother was going through for eight days, trying to figure out the conversation that she had with her daughter at 4ish in the morning? As soon as she had a chance, she wanted to discuss that call with Knox, but Knox shut her down really fast.

 

[SMK]

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...

From above linked article:

Knox-Sollecito Prosecution’s Case: In the Toilet
When the story keeps changing, it’s a good bet it isn’t true, whether that story is an explanation for how the cookie jar happened to fall off the kitchen counter or why the United States went into Iraq. And it’s a even better bet that the teller of the story is growing increasingly desperate.

Absolutely; I can agree with this. To my thinking, neither the sex game gone wrong, nor the unflushed toilet does justice to what MIGHT be (not is, but might be) a narrative of prescient culpability on the part of the defendants.

 

[aa9511]

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.

It's not complicated psychologizing, IMO. Amanda and RS and Rudy are the ones complicating things. The point where it gets "fuzzy" is when the lies start coming in. Then, necessarily, things will get "fuzzy," because we have various competing versions of something. And if those people get believed without question, then it becomes even fuzzier.

Let's look at what was written, specifically the points which I've bolded:

- told Filomena in a phone call minutes earlier
- told Cabinieri (after Edda phone call)
- told police (after Edda phone call)
- 'The window is broken, room looks like a mess, there are blood traces, Meredith is missing, her room locked.' (supposedly told her mom, later, much later recounted by the mother)

So let's see.......

Amanda remembers.......moments before the phone call to her mom (Filomena phone call)

She remembers......moments after the phone call to her mom (Cabinieri and police recounting to them what happened)

I don't recall her forgetting about her phone call to Filomena (other than she forgot she didn't tell her about calling Meredith).

I don't recall her forgetting what she told the cabinieri or the police.

I don't recall her forgetting about Luca the "friend" giving them details of the crime in the car, which she seems to remember exactly what he told her in vivid detail.

If she was so disturbed by finding out about the murder, how was it that she is able to remember her conversations with Filomena, with the police, with the cabinieri, and with Luca?

Wouldn't she be kind of "zoned out" for a little while after the discovery, thus "forgetting" other things as well?

When someone point upon point before, during, and after, but mysteriously forgets one specific point, there is something wrong with that picture.

Also, what is the "different" thing in all of those things? EDDA. THE FACT THAT ALL THE OTHERS (FILOMENA, POLICE, CABINIERI, LUCA, etc.) WOULD NOT LIE FOR HER. It was their word versus hers if she decided to deny, deny, deny all of that.

EDDA is the "different" thing. It's not her vs. her mother, it was her mother was on her team and would do whatever needed for her. So she could conveniently lie about that whole situation, as there was no one's word against hers.

 

[otto]

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.

We know that Sollecito's sister was so above board in all of this that she was fired from the Carabinieri.

 

[SMK]

It's not complicated psychologizing, IMO. Amanda and RS and Rudy are the ones complicating things. The point where it gets "fuzzy" is when the lies start coming in. Then, necessarily, things will get "fuzzy," because we have various competing versions of something. And if those people get believed without question, then it becomes even fuzzier.

Let's look at what was written, specifically the points which I've bolded:

- told Filomena in a phone call minutes earlier
- told Cabinieri (after Edda phone call)
- told police (after Edda phone call)
- 'The window is broken, room looks like a mess, there are blood traces, Meredith is missing, her room locked.' (supposedly told her mom, later, much later recounted by the mother)

So let's see.......

Amanda remembers.......moments before the phone call to her mom (Filomena phone call)

She remembers......moments after the phone call to her mom (Cabinieri and police recounting to them what happened)

I don't recall her forgetting about her phone call to Filomena (other than she forgot she didn't tell her about calling Meredith).

I don't recall her forgetting what she told the cabinieri or the police.

I don't recall her forgetting about Luca the "friend" giving them details of the crime in the car, which she seems to remember exactly what he told her in vivid detail.

If she was so disturbed by finding out about the murder, how was it that she is able to remember her conversations with Filomena, with the police, with the cabinieri, and with Luca?

Wouldn't she be kind of "zoned out" for a little while after the discovery, thus "forgetting" other things as well?

When someone point upon point before, during, and after, but mysteriously forgets one specific point, there is something wrong with that picture.

Well stated. thanks for laying that all out in so concise a way.
(*On a psychological note, anyone who has had experience with narcissistic -type family members will find this "revision of history" (whether the history took place years, months, or 10 minutes ago) maddeningly familiar. And the answer is always the same: "I don't remember saying that. I don't remember doing that.")

 

[whoanellie]

It has quotes around it because this is an expression to describe a subtext. Maybe bad choice of words. I ought to have said, "There was a subtext to their exchange." It's all just theory and hypothesis anyway- noone here will have any say in the ruling.

Thanks, but I wasn't responding to one of your posts.
I do disagree with your "theory" but I appreciate that you do realize it is just a "gut feeling" that you have. I can't argue with that.

 

[whoanellie]

duplicate

 

[SMK]

Thanks, but I wasn't responding to one of your posts.
I do disagree with your "theory" but I appreciate that you do realize it is just a "gut feeling" that you have. I can't argue with that.

OK, much appreciated.

 

[SMK]

We know that Sollecito's sister was so above board in all of this that she was fired from the Carabinieri.

What was the reason for her being terminated from the Carabinieri? (sorry; so many facts to keep track of, I can't keep them all straight)
Wasn't she a doctor and a Lieutenant?

 

[MichaelSmith]

We know that Sollecito's sister was so above board in all of this that she was fired from the Carabinieri.

Recent article about Venessa Sollecito

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/exclusive/my-brothers-trial-ruined-my-life

In the meantime, my bosses began trying to push me out. They said if I believed in my brother's innocence, I was contradicting the police. They tried to send me off on a "stress" leave; they cut my assignments. My colleagues grew scornful. I could see them watching me, taking notes. One day, I was told to turn over my pistol. Then I had to retake the exams I had taken to enter the military. In the spring of 2009, I was fired, accused of not having "the right attitude to work as a carabinieri."

More at the link...

 

[otto]

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...

Isn't that quote is from a personal website?

 

[SMK]

Isn't that quote is from a personal website?

uh, oh-- I think I had quoted it above. Thought is was an attorney news site?

 

[SMK]

Recent article about Venessa Sollecito

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/exclusive/my-brothers-trial-ruined-my-life

In the meantime, my bosses began trying to push me out. They said if I believed in my brother's innocence, I was contradicting the police. They tried to send me off on a "stress" leave; they cut my assignments. My colleagues grew scornful. I could see them watching me, taking notes. One day, I was told to turn over my pistol. Then I had to retake the exams I had taken to enter the military. In the spring of 2009, I was fired, accused of not having "the right attitude to work as a carabinieri."

More at the link...

Oh, dear.