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

[Katody]

Ok I choose to not over look it. Here's my opinion.

AK gave clear testimony about her first call to her mother in the courtroom.
I have said that I felt if she remembered the "actual first call" she could've easily corrected MC in the courtroom or her lawyer could've guided her to correct it.

Anyways here we are years later and a book written by AK

It's now her chance to set the record straight about the "first call to her mother"

She chooses to LIE and make up a call to her mother that does not exist.
So she chooses to go along with the prosecutors version instead of telling the truth? Why would someone do that, it reminds me of RS telling the "pricking Meredith with the knife story"

I can not write this off as another thing blamed on the prosecutor, amanda made this decision all on her own.

I understand you think it was a deliberate decision to go along with the prosecutor's LIE but I don't understand your reasoning. Why would she do that on purpose?

We know from her testimony and from bugged jail conversation that she didn't remember that call. Comodi and Massei assured her there was such a call, that it was in the phone records, as Comodi said.
It's logical that she believed it and based on it her reconstruction in the book. This is something I can understand.

I don't understand why would she introduce Comodi's LIE into her book in such manner if, as you say, she knew it was a LIE. Could you explain it?

 

[Sigh Sister]

I thought it was the front door was defective, so that's why they had to lock it, to keep it closed? Otherwise, sometimes it flew open with the wind.

Why would Rudy lock Meredith's door, but leave the front door unlocked, when he already had the keys in his hands? And he had already taken the time to find the key to lock Meredith's door?

And also, because the door was defective, Meredith's would have locked it when she came in. So Rudy would have had to unlock it when he was leaving. There are no signs of blood or any signs of him unlocking the front door. Also, he would have first turned the handle, door woulnd't open, maybe tried one more time before realizing it was locked. Then would have to look for key to unlock the door. So wouldn't there be DNA/fingerprints of him on the door when he's trying to open it from the inside?

I realize it seems easy to "dismiss" these small details becauase, in some people's minds, the sole killer has been found so who cares, but these small details are also necessary to find out what generally happened, even if was lone-wolf Rudy.

Again, there is evidence he cleaned up in the bathroom, so there wouldn't have been blood on his hands. Since the door latch was broken and would blow open with the wind, it is conceivable that he didn't even have to touch the door knob when leaving. Simply put the key in the lock, turn and pull. Did they even dust the door knob for prints?

 

[Amber29]

I understand you think it was a deliberate decision to go along with the prosecutor's LIE but I don't understand your reasoning. Why would she do that on purpose?

We know from her testimony and from bugged jail conversation that she didn't remember that call. Comodi and Massei assured her there was such a call, that it was in the phone records, as Comodi said.
It's logical that she believed it and based on it her reconstruction in the book. This is something I can understand.

I don't understand why would she introduce Comodi's LIE into her book in such manner if, as you say, she knew it was a LIE. Could you explain it?

It's also logical IMO that she tells this lie about the made up phone call and detailed conversation knowing many of her readers will believe her at her word and not double check with the facts.

Why not in her book simply say as she stated in court that she didn't remember her first call to her mother?

Instead she chooses to go along with MC "lie" (your word not mine) and create a whole new call and conversation that she magically remembered in time for her book. Why does her book NOT match her court testimony? That is my point.
Why did she feel the need to justify the prosecutors version with a lie?

 

[aa9511]

This doesn't really answer my question. aa9511 wrote:



To which I asked for clarification:
By the cellphone logs evidence she called her mother after discovering the break-in. Why doesn't it make sense?



Anyway, I think Amanda reconstructed it that way in the book because she believed Comodi was telling the truth in the courtroom. Judge Massei reassured her that what Comodi said is true. Do you think there are other reasons?

bbm

I thought the cell phone call to her mom was made way after she had supposedly "left the house" after seeing the signs? In the book except, makes it seem like it's still from the cottage while she was there, which would be immediately after she sees the "signs."

Also, what does Comodi saying Amanda did or did not or here, there, everywhere, have to do with what Amanda knows she did? It's Amanda who knows what Amanda did. Unless you're implying that Amanda was not Amanda during that time frame, but someone else instead....she went into someone else's body and mind, I guess.

 

[Katody]

It's also logical IMO that she tells this lie about the made up phone call and detailed conversation knowing many of her readers will believe her at her word and not double check with the facts.

Why is it logical to tell such "lie" to the readers?

Why not in her book simply say as she stated in court that she didn't remember her first call to her mother?

Instead she chooses to go along with MC "lie" (your word not mine) and create a whole new call and conversation that she magically remembered in time for her book. Why does her book NOT match her court testimony? That is my point.
Why did she feel the need to justify the prosecutors version with a lie?

Because she believed it in 2009 when Comodi said it. She still thought it to be objective truth when writing the book. I can't see a reason why she would write it if she was aware this is false. Can you?

 

[aa9511]

I'm not asking you to overlook it.
I think she used the courtroom transcripts and it didn't occur to her to double check Comodi's words with the actual phone logs. She was too trusting, for sure.
If you see something nefarious here please state your reasoning. I'll gladly discuss it.

Oh my. So you're suggesting she has not gone over any of the evidence in her case? Even though she's the defendant and it's her case? And even though that information is publicly available.....are you saying some of the posters on here have or know or are aware of more information on her case than she herself does?

I thought she posts transcripts of her trial on her own website. And she has a website devoted to this trial. Do you think she would not even know what the phone records say? And this being even for a book she was writing on her own case?? Do you honestly think online posters would find this "inconsistency," but Amanda being it was she herself who knows everything she herself did, would not find it?

 

[aa9511]

He went into the bathroom and cleaned up before he locked her door?

Ah, so now it's back to the bathroom again. Even though there's no evidence he even went into the bathroom, much less did a full-on clean-up in there.

So did he wash his sweatshirt/shirt/outer-covering, too? Because I would thin fumbling with the doorknob on the front door, trying to get it unlocked, some of the blood from the sleeve of his clothing would have smeared onto the door, doorknow, or both. Or are we completely ignoring the front door now?

 

[Katody]

[/B]

bbm

I thought the cell phone call to her mom was made way after she had supposedly "left the house" after seeing the signs? In the book except, makes it seem like it's still from the cottage while she was there, which would be immediately after she sees the "signs."

No, in the book the call takes place on the way to Raffaele's.

Also, what does Comodi saying Amanda did or did not or here, there, everywhere, have to do with what Amanda knows she did? It's Amanda who knows what Amanda did. Unless you're implying that Amanda was not Amanda during that time frame, but someone else instead....she went into someone else's body and mind, I guess.

I think Comodi and Massei convinced her she did call her mother at 12:00.

 

[Amber29]

Why is it logical to tell such "lie" to the readers?




Because she believed it in 2009 when Comodi said it. She still thought it to be objective truth when writing the book. I can't see a reason why she would write it if she was aware this is false. Can you?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

My question is why she chooses to lie to her readers and somehow you attempt to turn it around.

I guess better to just except the evidence against you as truth and explain it with a lie than tell the truth.

Just another inconsistency in a long list of many.

 

[Sigh Sister]

It's also logical IMO that she tells this lie about the made up phone call and detailed conversation knowing many of her readers will believe her at her word and not double check with the facts.

Why not in her book simply say as she stated in court that she didn't remember her first call to her mother?

Instead she chooses to go along with MC "lie" (your word not mine) and create a whole new call and conversation that she magically remembered in time for her book. Why does her book NOT match her court testimony? That is my point.
Why did she feel the need to justify the prosecutors version with a lie?

Here's my opinion. I think when her mom referred to the "before anything happened" call, she was talking about this very call. I think Amanda was confused by this because something had happened ( open door, poop, blood) and thought her mother meant yet another call where Amanda just called to say "hi". MOO. This whole call issue confuses me because I don't see the significance of it. Is the suggestion that she called her mother and confessed to murder? Or .....?

 

[aa9511]

I understand you think it was a deliberate decision to go along with the prosecutor's LIE but I don't understand your reasoning. Why would she do that on purpose?

We know from her testimony and from bugged jail conversation that she didn't remember that call. Comodi and Massei assured her there was such a call, that it was in the phone records, as Comodi said.
It's logical that she believed it and based on it her reconstruction in the book. This is something I can understand.

I don't understand why would she introduce Comodi's LIE into her book in such manner if, as you say, she knew it was a LIE. Could you explain it?

Because what she's saying now, later, makes more sense. And because her story of "I don't remember" is unbelieavable, even for herself!

It seems some on here choose to steadfastedly believe even what she herself thinks is not believable.

 

[Amber29]

Oh my. So you're suggesting she has not gone over any of the evidence in her case? Even though she's the defendant and it's her case? And even though that information is publicly available.....are you saying some of the posters on here have or know or are aware of more information on her case than she herself does?

I thought she posts transcripts of her trial on her own website. And she has a website devoted to this trial. Do you think she would not even know what the phone records say? And this being even for a book she was writing on her own case?? Do you honestly think online posters would find this "inconsistency," but Amanda being it was she herself who knows everything she herself did, would not find it?

Thank you aa9511 crazy to me too that Internet posters know about the order of phone calls and are aware of the phone logs and the defendant isn't.

Defenders of her innocence have long said MC "lied" to her in open court about her first call to her mother" and that's the reason amanda couldn't remember correctly.

Yet Amanda now chooses in her own book to justify the prosecutors "lies" with an invented phone call and conversation that supposedly took place before she even called Filomena.

 

[Katody]

Oh my. So you're suggesting she has not gone over any of the evidence in her case? Even though she's the defendant and it's her case? And even though that information is publicly available.....are you saying some of the posters on here have or know or are aware of more information on her case than she herself does?

I thought she posts transcripts of her trial on her own website. And she has a website devoted to this trial. Do you think she would not even know what the phone records say? And this being even for a book she was writing on her own case?? Do you honestly think online posters would find this "inconsistency," but Amanda being it was she herself who knows everything she herself did, would not find it?

I think she did rely on the court transcripts. I think she didn't catch the inconsistency between what Comodi and Massei assured her are in the phone records and what really was there. She's not a websleuth, clearly.

I note that no alternative logical and reasonable explanation have been provided so far. I must stick to my own theory while there is nothing else in sight.

 

[aa9511]

Again, there is evidence he cleaned up in the bathroom, so there wouldn't have been blood on his hands. Since the door latch was broken and would blow open with the wind, it is conceivable that he didn't even have to touch the door knob when leaving. Simply put the key in the lock, turn and pull. Did they even dust the door knob for prints?

Oh, so now he somehow knew beforehand by some premonition, that the door would definately be locked? That's why he just put the key in even before turning the knob to open the door?

And evidence in the bathroom.....compare what the murder scene looks like to that bathroom. Seems pretty cleaned-up to me. Not like someone just stabbed someone to death, then goes in thh bathroom to clean-up. And I'm not even talking about this case, now. Does that make sense in real-life?

 

[Amber29]

Here's my opinion. I think when her mom referred to the "before anything happened" call, she was talking about this very call. I think Amanda was confused by this because something had happened ( open door, poop, blood) and thought her mother meant yet another call where Amanda just called to say "hi". MOO. This whole call issue confuses me because I don't see the significance of it. Is the suggestion that she called her mother and confessed to murder? Or .....?

Are you referring to the call amanda talks about in her book and placed before she called Filomena?

Or the 12:47 call because the details amanda gives of the conversation for this call would make absolutely no sense if it was this actual call that exists of her phone records.

I don't know what was said in her call to her mother and amanda doesn't seem to remember, until now years later in her book. It confuses me as well because why make a lie up about it? Now we have Edda herself asking amanda about it in jail and amanda now making up a phone call that didn't exist.

This all seems like a lot of trouble to go through for a call that shouldn't matter. IMO

 

[Sigh Sister]

[/B]

bbm

I thought the cell phone call to her mom was made way after she had supposedly "left the house" after seeing the signs? In the book except, makes it seem like it's still from the cottage while she was there, which would be immediately after she sees the "signs."

Also, what does Comodi saying Amanda did or did not or here, there, everywhere, have to do with what Amanda knows she did? It's Amanda who knows what Amanda did. Unless you're implying that Amanda was not Amanda during that time frame, but someone else instead....she went into someone else's body and mind, I guess.

BBM

Are you referring to my post or did you read an excerpt somewhere? If you are referring to my post (or an excerpt from somewhere else) I did not say (nor does her book say) she called from the cottage. She called when she was on her way back the Raffaele's.

 

[aa9511]

Why is it logical to tell such "lie" to the readers?




Because she believed it in 2009 when Comodi said it. She still thought it to be objective truth when writing the book. I can't see a reason why she would write it if she was aware this is false. Can you?

bbm

You don't see a reason why a guilty person would want to lie and make people think they're innocent? Maybe that's the whole problem then...............

 

[aa9511]

No, in the book the call takes place on the way to Raffaele's.



I think Comodi and Massei convinced her she did call her mother at 12:00.

bbm

I do not understand this train of thought at all. It's one thing to say she might have been confused on the stand, it's quite another to say she would be still confused about it much later, off the stand and surrounded her many supporters.

Are you saying her lawyers did not let her know about this inconsistency? That her mother, who was a part of the conversation, did not let her know? That the many "independent" people working on her case on behalf of her, did not let her know?

That she herself did not look at the phone records? That online posters have, but she hasn't?

Are you saying none of the people familiar with the case, read her book before it was approved and sent out for publishing?

Or could it be, that she knew exactly what she wrote, and she wanted to write it to make her story sound more believable. Makes sense to me. If I could go back with a magic wand and "fix" mistakes of my past, I would do that too.

 

[Amber29]

[/B]

bbm

You don't see a reason why a guilty person would want to lie and make people think they're innocent? Maybe that's the whole problem then...............

Not only that but she is clearly aware what she is saying is false.
She made it up! The conversation and phone call does not exist. Of course she's aware what she's writing is false.

Unless she was lying in court, so which is it she is either lying in her book about this call or she's lying on the stand when she says her first call to her mother was to tell her about Meredith being discovered.

Which is it I wonder?

 

[Katody]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

My question is why she chooses to lie to her readers and somehow you attempt to turn it around.

It's a loaded question, a logical fallacy.

If you make a claim that she lied on purpose I would expect you to provide some evidence or reasoning. You by your own admission can't provide any.

The alternative explanation, that she believed Comodi's and Massei's authoritative statements is supported by evidence and reasoning. We know from the testimony that the defence failed to react on Comodi's falsehood and that Amanda took it for the truth. No logical reason can be given for why would Amanda lie in her book about it if she was aware of Comodi's lie.