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

[aa9511]

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.

bbm

What would that be? Having a conversation with Amanda and having her "sort it all out" for you, clear up the misunderstandings?

I thought that was the point of her book.

So I guess now she needs a 2nd book to clear up the inconsistencies from the 1st book.....I can already see it now...................

 

[Katody]

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.?

What if she believed Comodi and Massei? How would she be aware of it then?

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.

You forgot that Comodi corrected her in court, saying it's in the phone records that she made a first call at 12:00.

 

[Sigh Sister]

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?

:floorlaugh: Yeah, I guess he would have to try the door first. I didn't think that one through. I still think he did clean up in the bathroom, so would not have blood on his hands.

 

[aa9511]

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?

The answer is neither. Neither is the truth. Because if the truth is not something she wants to be heard, by necessity each of her versions would have to be a lie.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Wouldn't a simple question for her attorney have resolved this "confusion" in her mind regarding the phone call?

And besides, she was there. Only she can know what she did. And apparently she didn't and still doesn't.

The question is that how does someone "not remember" at one, or actually make that two, points, only to "remember" much later, and remember it with details and all.

 

[Amber29]

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.

Please stop trying to insinuate that I'm trying to say something I can't prove.

Amanda's version in her book was quoted, I have shown that it is inconsistent with her trial testimony. I hope we can agree on this.

Your opinion is that she made that phone call up because she believed MC "lies"

My opinion is that I don't understand the need to justify the prosecutors version with a lie. When you supposedly told the truth on the stand.

It may be illogical reasoning in your opinion but its not in mine.

 

[otto]

[/B]

bbm

What would that be? Having a conversation with Amanda and having her "sort it all out" for you, clear up the misunderstandings?

I thought that was the point of her book.

So I guess now she needs a 2nd book to clear up the inconsistencies from the 1st book.....I can already see it now...................

We've known that Knox is a malicious liar since the day Meredith was murdered. That is when the documentation of her lies began. Today, Knox is a convicted murderer that is appealing the conviction. She has already spent four years in jail for making false accusations of murder. She owns that conviction for the remainder of her life. Rather than compensate her victim, as ordered by the court, she fled the country and has since claimed that the millions she received for her fictional account of the case is spent.

Knox is a dangerous woman.

What everyone should know is that Knox lies to benefit herself and I doubt that anyone is spared.

 

[Katody]

[/B]

bbm

What would that be? Having a conversation with Amanda and having her "sort it all out" for you, clear up the misunderstandings?

I thought that was the point of her book.

So I guess now she needs a 2nd book to clear up the inconsistencies from the 1st book.....I can already see it now...................

Let me rephrase it into a more direct question. I hope for a clarification.

In your opinion what does Amanda gain by writing to unsuspecting readers that she called her mother first? How is it better then the truth from the phone records saying she called her mother after the discovery of the break-in?

 

[aa9511]

:floorlaugh: Yeah, I guess he would have to try the door first. I didn't think that one through. I still think he did clean up in the bathroom, so would not have blood on his hands.

Ok, I can take that. I feel we are making some progress with this post.

 

[Katody]

Amanda's version in her book was quoted, I have shown that it is inconsistent with her trial testimony. I hope we can agree on this.

We don't agree. Amanda had been told by Comodi the first call was at 12:00. She agreed with it and even speculated about the contents of that call prompted by Massei. That's consistent with the book, if not factual.

Your opinion is that she made that phone call up because she believed MC "lies"

My opinion is that I don't understand the need to justify the prosecutors version with a lie. When you supposedly told the truth on the stand.

It may be illogical reasoning in your opinion but its not in mine.

Let's try answering this simple question, maybe we'll find consensus:
What does Amanda gain by writing to unsuspecting readers that she called her mother first? How is it better then the truth from the phone records saying she called her mother after the discovery of the break-in?

 

[otto]

Please stop trying to insinuate that I'm trying to say something I can't prove.

Amanda's version in her book was quoted, I have shown that it is inconsistent with her trial testimony. I hope we can agree on this.

Your opinion is that she made that phone call up because she believed MC "lies"

My opinion is that I don't understand the need to justify the prosecutors version with a lie. When you supposedly told the truth on the stand.

It may be illogical reasoning in your opinion but its not in mine.

There is nothing illogical in your reasoning.

 

[aa9511]

We've known that Knox is a malicious liar since the day Meredith was murdered. That is when the documentation of her lies began. Today, Knox is a convicted murderer that is appealing the conviction. She has already spent four years in jail for making false accusations of murder. She owns that conviction for the remainder of her life. Rather than compensate her victim, as ordered by the court, she fled the country and has since claimed that the millions she received for her fictional account of the case is spent.

Knox is a dangerous woman.

What everyone should know is that Knox lies to benefit herself and I doubt that anyone is spared.

bbm

There are many people who lie/twist the truth to benefit themselves, just not to the degree Amanda has done and usually not regarding something so serious. In this case, Amanda has a great deal of motivation/incentive to lie, seeing as her freedom is on the line. If people can lie about small things to "benefit themselves," why is it hard for people to believe that Amanda would not possibly lie to benefit herself, when she has one of the highest incentives to do so if she's guilty?

 

[aa9511]

Let me rephrase it into a more direct question. I hope for a clarification.

In your opinion what does Amanda gain by writing to unsuspecting readers that she called her mother first? How is it better then the truth from the phone records saying she called her mother after the discovery of the break-in?

To emphasize the point that she was really, no she really was, worried about the house and thus about Meredith.

Do you not see the incentive she would have to make people believe her earnest worry and stress over her "good friend" Meredith?

That, no, the reason I called my mother "the first time," was not because I was in hot water, me, me, me, but because oh look, look how kind and what a gentle soul I have, and look at the honest fear I had for my "good friend" Meredith and her safety. Rose petals, hugs to me.

 

[aa9511]

We don't agree. Amanda had been told by Comodi the first call was at 12:00. She agreed with it and even speculated about the contents of that call prompted by Massei. That's consistent with the book, if not factual.



Let's try answering this simple question, maybe we'll find consensus:
What does Amanda gain by writing to unsuspecting readers that she called her mother first? How is it better then the truth from the phone records saying she called her mother after the discovery of the break-in?

I don't think she wrote in her book that she was "speculating." :banghead:

 

[Katody]

To emphasize the point that she was really, no she really was, worried about the house and thus about Meredith.

Do you not see the incentive she would have to make people believe her earnest worry and stress over her "good friend" Meredith?

But that's not what she's trying to emphasize. In fact she writes the opposite

By the time I was a block from home I was second-guessing myself. Maybe I was overreacting. Maybe there was a simple reason for the toilet being unflushed.

by her own description she didn't initially worry about Meredith and Filomena was more worried then her, urging her by phone while she took time to eat breakfast with Raffaele.

 

[Katody]

I don't think she wrote in her book that she was "speculating." :banghead:

Obviously not. She took Comodi's lie as the truth, after all.

 

[Katody]

Knox is a dangerous woman.

:floorlaugh: Thanks for the comic interlude

 

[Amber29]

We don't agree. Amanda had been told by Comodi the first call was at 12:00. She agreed with it and even speculated about the contents of that call prompted by Massei. That's consistent with the book, if not factual.



Let's try answering this simple question, maybe we'll find consensus:
What does Amanda gain by writing to unsuspecting readers that she called her mother first? How is it better then the truth from the phone records saying she called her mother after the discovery of the break-in?

Exactly you answered your own question with mine. Why did she not tell the same "truth" she told on the stand in her book? That she does not remember the first call to her mother. Maybe she adds this elaborate phone call story so her readers will go "yes it makes perfect sense why she called her mother in the middle of the night"

When truly that call she describes doesn't fit the timeline at all. Why does she add to the list of inconsistencies with a made up story?

I guess when you are writing a book about how innocent you are, you shouldn't include things that didn't happen, should probably stick with the "truth" you told on the stand.

 

[Katody]

Exactly you answered your own question with mine. Why did she not tell the same "truth" she told on the stand in her book? That she does not remember the first call to her mother. Maybe she adds this elaborate phone call story so her readers will go "yes it makes perfect sense why she called her mother in the middle of the night".

Do you seriously think discovering an unflushed poo is a better reason for the call than discovering a break-in?

When truly that call she describes doesn't fit the timeline at all. Why does she add to the list of inconsistencies with a made up story?

Exactly, why? She doesn't gain anything. What is your explanation?

 

[Amber29]

Do you seriously think discovering an unflushed poo is a better reason for the call than discovering a break-in?



Exactly, why? She doesn't gain anything. What is your explanation?

Katody

I do SERIOUSLY believe what I posted otherwise I would not post it.

It's not her reason for the call that is suspicious IMO.

It is completely making up a conversation that did not exist. I've given you the reasoning behind my opinion repeatedly. I don't know what else I can say. I have already said we will have to agree to disagree

Not once have I insinuated your post is illogical or that you "can't be serious". I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Here are my final thoughts.

An innocent person does not need invent "truths" to convince people of their innocence. I think AK knows a lot of people will read her book that aren't "websleuths" and take her at her word is why she chose to say some things. For me I have done my homework and know she isn't being honest because she testified that her first call to her mother was after the discovery. She should have stuck with her version if it were the truth.

Now you disagree with me and that is ok.