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

[aa9511]

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.

Amber, you are not illogical in your thinking. ITA with everything you said regarding the call and her newest claims in her book.

Most readers of her book don't know the evidence in the case, it's just like with Kate McCann. They can say whatever they want in their book, change whatever things don't make sense so that they make perfect sense. Do-over, if you will. After they've had time to guage "normal people" reactions, then they change their stories to fit in with what innocent people would have done in the same situation.

If Amanda had, in court, said :well as I was walking back to Raffaele's, well, I called my mom because I was kind of panicking about these things in the cottage....," don't think for a minute that she would have gotten away with that in court, where people actually know the evidence. They would have said, but the first call to your mother was recorded at 12:47pm, so how could that have been when you were walking back to Raffaele's?

Ouch. Caught in a lie.

Is it any wonder she went with the "I don't remember" line?

Is there anyone there to cross-examine her in her own book? No.

She can say whatever she wants, paint whatever picture, do a do-over.

The evidence is all there in this case. She knows she can't change that. It's already been recorded, it's part of the case, and it's there.

So what do you think is more important to he now? Trying to change something she can't change? Or trying to drum up more public support, in an effort to negate whatever ultimate ruling the court gives. And in the process making millions of dollars.

Her book and its effect on readers is more important to her than facts of the case, which she knows she can't change.

 

[aa9511]

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.

How is a lie equivalent to a careless mistake? A lie is something somebody does intentionally, and with thought. Your brain needs to actually think of the lie before it comes out of the mouth.

It's not like she got something wrong concerning oh, what soccer team she played on. Or who her best friend in high school was. Even if she lied about it, let's say she lied about where she went to school in the 3rd grade. That's totally different than lying (or for that matter, making a "mistake"), about some fact in a murder case in which you are the defendant, and in the book you are writing about said murder case.

 

[aa9511]

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.

To make her seem more "normal", normal in this case as in innocent?

Maybe she caught on to the fact that most normal girls call their mothers in times of real stress. Maybe she gleaned this from reading reader comments or other online comments on the interwebz.

Maybe she thought of how close Meredith was to her mother, and how she called her every day, and maybe she used Meredith as a guage for "normal" girls.

That people might perceive her as innocent if she did things like other people do. Instead of what she actually did.

What part of this is so confusing? I just don't get it.

Don't guilty people want to act like innocent people would in that same situation? Most 20-something year old innocent girls would have called their mothers, upon seeing any signs of a "burglary" in their house to ask them what they should do next. Amanda didn't. Amanda made her call at 12:47 pm, way after the time she first noticed the "signs," and after she had
already apparently notified numerous people other than her mother.

I don't get the questions about why she would change the story in her book. A guilty person wants lo look innocent, there is no great mystery to that.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think that the interrogation statements are not a very convenient topic for some of the prosecution supporters.

It's because they and the circumstances of their acquisition have all characteristics of coerced false confession.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/05/248968150/beyond-good-cop-bad-cop-a-look-at-real-life-interrogations



http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/507/confessions

Former DC police detective Jim Trainum tells reporter Saul Elbein about how his first murder investigation went horribly wrong. He and his colleagues pinned the crime on the wrong woman, and it took 10 years and a revisit to her videotaped confession to realize how much, unbeknownst to Jim at the time, he was one of the main orchestrators of the botched confession. (28 minutes)



The interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele are the key to understanding what really happened, what went wrong in this investigation. I think the mere thought that the investigators are fallible, that their mistake can and often does have life and death consequences is very uncomfortable. I can understand that from there comes the need to vehemently deny any wrongdoing or even mistake of the authorities.

Whoa!
"coerced false confession" ????

Neither confessed to any crime!

Amanda instead, like so many guilty people that came before her, pointed to an innocent man and called HIM guilty!
How that's somehow twisted into "coerced false confession." is beyond me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Amber29]

Amber, you are not illogical in your thinking. ITA with everything you said regarding the call and her newest claims in her book.

Most readers of her book don't know the evidence in the case, it's just like with Kate McCann. They can say whatever they want in their book, change whatever things don't make sense so that they make perfect sense. Do-over, if you will. After they've had time to guage "normal people" reactions, then they change their stories to fit in with what innocent people would have done in the same situation.

If Amanda had, in court, said :well as I was walking back to Raffaele's, well, I called my mom because I was kind of panicking about these things in the cottage....," don't think for a minute that she would have gotten away with that in court, where people actually know the evidence. They would have said, but the first call to your mother was recorded at 12:47pm, so how could that have been when you were walking back to Raffaele's?

Ouch. Caught in a lie.

Is it any wonder she went with the "I don't remember" line?

Is there anyone there to cross-examine her in her own book? No.

She can say whatever she wants, paint whatever picture, do a do-over.

The evidence is all there in this case. She knows she can't change that. It's already been recorded, it's part of the case, and it's there.

So what do you think is more important to he now? Trying to change something she can't change? Or trying to drum up more public support, in an effort to negate whatever ultimate ruling the court gives. And in the process making millions of dollars.

Her book and its effect on readers is more important to her than facts of the case, which she knows she can't change.

Thank you aa9511

I competely agree, I only wish these 2 books could be used against them.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Has any progress been made trying to come up with a time they left Raffaele's place?
Guede gave a time of around 9.20pm when Meredith died but Raffaele was watching cartoon at his place. The phones had left the cottage and been dumped by the time the10.13pm mms pinged the tower.

 

[sherlockh]

There is one reason why AK keeps forgetting the phonecall and then places it much earlier and that is because she made it in her room with the postal police in the house.

Postal police testified they arrived at about 12:35 (looked at his watch)
Filomena's bf testified that he arrived about 10 minutes before the girls and saw AK and RS going into her room
Filomena's friend testified she arrived at about 1pm and saw AK coming out of her room.

That fits with the 5-10 minutes needed to make those phonecalls in AK's bedroom.

So to the surprise of her mother she has no memory of her call, then even after her mother reminded her, she keeps forgetting that call in court, then even after the prosecutor reminded her she keeps pretending that phone call never happened, and the judge has to intervene.

Still that phonecall would be ok, if not for the 2 phonecalls to the police that followed. Those are really strange with the police in the house. So what does she do in her book? Put it at 12. Safely before the postal police arrived. Problem solved. JMO.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...alled_112_after_the_Postal_Police_had_arrived

 

[Tugela]

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.

Because in real life when you are constantly bombarded with information about events that happened a long time ago your memory becomes clouded. It is common for people to forget things that didn't happen, and to "remember" things that other people insist happened often enough. Reality becomes blurred.

It is called conditioning.

Memory is not like a tape recorder, the information stored in your memory is constantly changing and altering with time. It is not a fixed thing, and accuracy can become distorted or molded by outside influences and time. Memory does not store a specific fact, rather in stores an impression that is defined by relationships with other impressions. If those other impressions change over time, what you remember about the event will also change. Memory is relative, not absolute, and this is something that most people can't really grasp.

People are not necessarily "lieing" when their recollection does not jive with reality, it is just that their perception of that reality has changed over time.

This is why an eye-witness report or testimony should always be taken with a pinch of salt unless corroborated independently by something else, especially when that testimony relates to something that happened a long time ago.

As to who AK called and when, there is no way that information is still accurate in her memory. If you are getting hung up with what she does or does not remember, you are literally chasing ghosts. By now the only thing she will remember is the general story of what has been reported and what she has been told. The only accurate information about any calls are actual phone records, and this pretty much applies to every person on the planet.

 

[Tugela]

Whoa!
"coerced false confession" ????

Neither confessed to any crime!

Amanda instead, like so many guilty people that came before her, pointed to an innocent man and called HIM guilty!
How that's somehow twisted into "coerced false confession." is beyond me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Was this not the period when LE were trying to get her to "hypothesize" what happened?

IMO they created the reality they were looking for I part due to their poor investigative and interrogation techniques, and in part no doubt due to language misunderstandings.

If you think that could not happen because she "understood" Italian, let me assure you that misunderstanding between people who speak different languages poorly is very common.

Many years ago, when I was doing post-docs in assorted labs, I would often be assigned to work with visiting scientists from other countries. In theory these people could speak English, but in practice they could only speak enough to get by at a basic level. They could say stuff like "let's go to lunch", or "my wife has three feet". But try to have a conversation with one of these folk in order to co-ordinate and explain a project where detail and accuracy was important, where everything has to be right, was a mind blowing exercise in frustration. To this day I flat out refuse to work with anyone who is anything other than fluent in English because of that experience. There is a huge chasm between being functionally fluent and being able to "get by". If someone is not fluent, the potential for confusion and misunderstanding is massive.

AK is English speaking, maybe had done some basic Italian language courses before arriving, and had been in Italy for a short period of time. There is absolutely no way that she would have been fluent enough to comprehend what was going on in an interrogation in Italian that lasted many, many hours, nor is there any way that the local LE would have understood English well enough to converse fluently with her.

Remember, in an interrogation like this it is critical to be accurate, and one thing we can be darned sure about is that under the circumstances it would have been far from accurate.

 

[sherlockh]

Was this not the period when LE were trying to get her to "hypothesize" what happened?

IMO they created the reality they were looking for I part due to their poor investigative and interrogation techniques, and in part no doubt due to language misunderstandings.

If you think that could not happen because she "understood" Italian, let me assure you that misunderstanding between people who speak different languages poorly is very common.

Many years ago, when I was doing post-docs in assorted labs, I would often be assigned to work with visiting scientists from other countries. In theory these people could speak English, but in practice they could only speak enough to get by at a basic level. They could say stuff like "let's go to lunch", or "my wife has three feet". But try to have a conversation with one of these folk in order to co-ordinate and explain a project where detail and accuracy was important, where everything has to be right, was a mind blowing exercise in frustration. To this day I flat out refuse to work with anyone who is anything other than fluent in English because of that experience. There is a huge chasm between being functionally fluent and being able to "get by". If someone is not fluent, the potential for confusion and misunderstanding is massive.

AK is English speaking, maybe had done some basic Italian language courses before arriving, and had been in Italy for a short period of time. There is absolutely no way that she would have been fluent enough to comprehend what was going on in an interrogation in Italian that lasted many, many hours, nor is there any way that the local LE would have understood English well enough to converse fluently with her.

Remember, in an interrogation like this it is critical to be accurate, and one thing we can be darned sure about is that under the circumstances it would have been far from accurate.

The 'interrogation' did not take many, many, many hours. It took about one hour. Interpreter arrived at 12:30am and statement was typed up at 1:45am. The police was completely surprised that AK came up with the accusation. Police officer was so nice to her that he comforted her by holding her hand.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Anna_Donnino's_Testimony_(English)

A bit too much IMO, but the opposite of what AK says about evil Italians hitting her on the head. The interpreter was translating. Language was not an issue. AK understood everything and she signed the statement. After a few hours of resting she demanded to make a spontaneous statement, and without any questioning repeated basically the same statement with some more details about how scared she was of Patrick. 2nd Statement typed up at 5:45am which took about half an hour and again signed by AK herself.

the minutes of the spontaneous declaration was taken at 5.45, it maybe lasted half an hour because no questions were asked

http://amandx-knox-interrogation.wikispaces.com/Mignini-CNN-interview

By now, the timeline is well known and the 'many hours' theory does not match the facts.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession

 

[otto]

The 'interrogation' did not take many, many, many hours. It took about one hour. Interpreter arrived at 12:30am and statement was typed up at 1:45am. The police was completely surprised that AK came up with the accusation. Police officer was so nice to her that he comforted her by holding her hand.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Anna_Donnino's_Testimony_(English)

A bit too much IMO, but the opposite of what AK says about evil Italians hitting her on the head. The interpreter was translating. Language was not an issue. AK understood everything and she signed the statement. After a few hours of resting she demanded to make a spontaneous statement, and without any questioning repeated basically the same statement with some more details about how scared she was of Patrick. 2nd Statement typed up at 5:45am which took about half an hour and again signed by AK herself.

http://amandx-knox-interrogation.wikispaces.com/Mignini-CNN-interview

By now, the timeline is well known and the 'many hours' theory does not match the facts.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession

04/22/09
"Amanda Knox, the American student on trial in Italy for the murder of her British flatmate Meredith Kercher, was repeatedly beaten during the all-night interrogations that led to her being named as a suspect in the brutal killing, her stepfather has claimed."

...
"[Chris Mellas] claimed that one of the policewomen, who allegedly hit her on the head, faces six charges of beating other suspects during interrogation in earlier cases."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/22/amanda-knox-stepfather-my_n_177753.html

Feb. 15, 2011
"Part of her defense is that she was abused by police who grilled her for hours without an attorney present. She also claims the police cuffed her on the back of the head, denied her food and water, and yelled at her."

...
"Her parents, who repeated their daughter's explanation in an interview with Sunday Times of London in 2009, have now also been ordered tried for libel. "

http://abcnews.go.com/International...d-italian-judge-stand-trial/story?id=12919741

 

[otto]

"The preliminary hearing judge charged that "in particular, [Knox's Mother/Stepfather] said, contrary to the truth, that Amanda had not been assisted by an interpreter, that she hadn't been given food or water, that she had been abused both physically and verbally," and finally "that she had been slapped on the back of the head and threatened," according to the Italian news agency ANSA."

http://abcnews.go.com/International...d-italian-judge-stand-trial/story?id=12919741

 

[Katody]

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

This is simply incorrect. She didn't replace it. The 12:47 call is in the book.

 

[otto]

I'm having difficulties finding the original link, so I took a screen shot from a regular contributor to the thread (until recently).



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6129568&highlight=deprived+food+water#post6129568

 

[Katody]

To make her seem more "normal", normal in this case as in innocent?

Maybe she caught on to the fact that most normal girls call their mothers in times of real stress. Maybe she gleaned this from reading reader comments or other online comments on the interwebz.

Maybe she thought of how close Meredith was to her mother, and how she called her every day, and maybe she used Meredith as a guage for "normal" girls.

That people might perceive her as innocent if she did things like other people do. Instead of what she actually did.

What part of this is so confusing? I just don't get it.

Simple, all of the above is covered much better by the real 12:47 call that is in the book.

Don't guilty people want to act like innocent people would in that same situation? Most 20-something year old innocent girls would have called their mothers, upon seeing any signs of a "burglary" in their house to ask them what they should do next. Amanda didn't. Amanda made her call at 12:47 pm, way after the time she first noticed the "signs," and after she had
already apparently notified numerous people other than her mother.

I see, so you appear to be on the far opposite edge of the spectrum from SMK who thinks that any call home at all was unnecessary. I'm glad to have you on my side with this, unexpectedly

OTOH I don't see the reasons you gave as compelling. Take out the 12:00 call from the book - would it leave the readers on the edge, saying "come on, why don't she call her mother in the middle of the night already!"
I don't think so.
You say it adds to the image of innocence, I see it doesn't, exactly because of the time difference that asks for separate explanation itself.

 

[otto]

No idea. I don't read tabloid style agenda driven conspiracy theory sites but had a look at your link and stopped reading when I realized that article was written by the blogger who claims to be Jesus.

It is reported that Chris Mellas, amongst others, described him as a poor guest. He spent two months with Knox's mother/stepfather. Is he still welcome there, or were there problems?

There are independent reports in several countries supporting his legal problems.

I thought that the activities of the author of the Perugia Shock website might be of interest to those that believe that the Italian Judicial System is broken. He is the author of this angle. He is aligned with Douglas Preston and Spezi - who is also facing trial related to bad reporting.

 

[otto]

This is simply incorrect. She didn't replace it. The 12:47 call is in the book.

Did Knox, in her book, claim that there was a phone call prior to the 12:47 call?

 

[Katody]

Thank you aa9511

I competely agree, I only wish these 2 books could be used against them.

Too bad Crini decided not to use them.

 

[Katody]

Because in real life when you are constantly bombarded with information about events that happened a long time ago your memory becomes clouded. It is common for people to forget things that didn't happen, and to "remember" things that other people insist happened often enough. Reality becomes blurred.

It is called conditioning.

Memory is not like a tape recorder, the information stored in your memory is constantly changing and altering with time. It is not a fixed thing, and accuracy can become distorted or molded by outside influences and time. Memory does not store a specific fact, rather in stores an impression that is defined by relationships with other impressions. If those other impressions change over time, what you remember about the event will also change. Memory is relative, not absolute, and this is something that most people can't really grasp.

People are not necessarily "lieing" when their recollection does not jive with reality, it is just that their perception of that reality has changed over time.

This is why an eye-witness report or testimony should always be taken with a pinch of salt unless corroborated independently by something else, especially when that testimony relates to something that happened a long time ago.

As to who AK called and when, there is no way that information is still accurate in her memory. If you are getting hung up with what she does or does not remember, you are literally chasing ghosts. By now the only thing she will remember is the general story of what has been reported and what she has been told. The only accurate information about any calls are actual phone records, and this pretty much applies to every person on the planet.

Thanks for this insightful post, Tugela!

 

[Katody]

Was this not the period when LE were trying to get her to "hypothesize" what happened?

IMO they created the reality they were looking for I part due to their poor investigative and interrogation techniques, and in part no doubt due to language misunderstandings.

If you think that could not happen because she "understood" Italian, let me assure you that misunderstanding between people who speak different languages poorly is very common.

Many years ago, when I was doing post-docs in assorted labs, I would often be assigned to work with visiting scientists from other countries. In theory these people could speak English, but in practice they could only speak enough to get by at a basic level. They could say stuff like "let's go to lunch", or "my wife has three feet". But try to have a conversation with one of these folk in order to co-ordinate and explain a project where detail and accuracy was important, where everything has to be right, was a mind blowing exercise in frustration. To this day I flat out refuse to work with anyone who is anything other than fluent in English because of that experience. There is a huge chasm between being functionally fluent and being able to "get by". If someone is not fluent, the potential for confusion and misunderstanding is massive.

AK is English speaking, maybe had done some basic Italian language courses before arriving, and had been in Italy for a short period of time. There is absolutely no way that she would have been fluent enough to comprehend what was going on in an interrogation in Italian that lasted many, many hours, nor is there any way that the local LE would have understood English well enough to converse fluently with her.

Remember, in an interrogation like this it is critical to be accurate, and one thing we can be darned sure about is that under the circumstances it would have been far from accurate.

Very good points!

Edgardo Giobbi testified she was interrogated from around 10pm to around 5am.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Trascrizioni-2009-May-29-Sbardella-Politi-Codispoti-Giobbi.pdf (p. 205-206)

Anna Donnino admitted to telling Amanda in the course of the interrogation how a traumatic event left her with amnesia. Clearly she was working along with the interrogators to undermine Amanda's recollection and make her 'hypothesize'. That rules her out as a proper impartial interpreter. She described herself as working as "mediator" in her own testimony.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Trascrizioni-2009-May-13.doc (original p. 168)


It seems there was quite a lot of pressure during the overnight interrogation.