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

[aa9511]

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

Yes, exactly. I ditto all of that.

 

[aa9511]

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

Problem solved, indeed. It's like I said, a do-over. All the things she would have done-over that would have made her seem innocent.

 

[aa9511]

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.

I don't think memory works in a way where you don't remember something a week after it happened, but you remember it 3,4, 5 years down the line, and remember it very clearly and with details like what you said, what the other person said, about what time it was, etc..

 

[aa9511]

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.

Because of this "language problem," there was no need for her to then add extra information to her story. "I didn't do it," or "I have no idea what happened," should have been pretty easy and simple for the translator to translate for her. Instead, she is the one who volunteered extra information, which she then later wanted tossed out.

It doesn't make sense that a language problem would then encourage you to add MORE WORDS and confusion when you're already "confused."

 

[aa9511]

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

Except in her book, the call she makes is not at 12:47. It's when she first leaves the cottage after her shower. That was not at 12:47. So she either invented a whole new call, or she replaced that call.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I don't think memory works in a way where you don't remember something a week after it happened, but you remember it 3,4, 5 years down the line, and remember it very clearly and with details like what you said, what the other person said, about what time it was, etc..

If people can forget where they left their keys, wallet or purse minutes or hours earlier then why couldn't people not remember or get confused over inane details about something that happened a week earlier?

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

She was lying when she pointed to an innocent man.
That was not conditioning. That was a lie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Katody]

She was lying when she pointed to an innocent man.
That was not conditioning. That was a lie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I think she was coerced and manipulated.

 

[aa9511]

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

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.

bbm

How much time passes between when Amanda is in the cottage, seeing the signs, and 12:47 pm? How many people does she notify of the "signs" between the time she first sees the signs, to her call to her mother at 12:47pm?

Her claim, after she "remembered," is that she called her mother because she was worried about the signs and her mother had told her "when in doubt, call me." Amanda is trying to emphasize, by claiming she called her mother way earlier than she did, that this means that she really was worried about her good friend Meredith, that she had seen some things and was not careless about her good friend Meredith's safety, and so she called her mother right away.

If she claims she called her mother at 12:47 because she was "worried" about the signs, that makes no sense, because at that point, it had been 2+ hours since she first saw the "signs." And she had already contacted Raffaele, Filomena, and postal police were already there.

She is trying to connect the call to her mother with her "concern" over her "good friend" Meredith. Calling her 2+ hours laters and claiming it was because of "concern" doesn't make her sound well-intentioned.

And why would a guilty person want to sound well-intentioned? Let's think about that.

 

[aa9511]

I think she was coerced and manipulated.

Coerced and manipulated to let someone else take the heat for her? Oh ok, I see, so the interrogators were actually helping her, in that case........

So much for the "coerced and manipulation" theory, she was so "coerced and manipulated" that she did something to benefit herself.....wow.

 

[Katody]

bbm

How much time passes between when Amanda is in the cottage, seeing the signs, and 12:47 pm? How many people does she notify of the "signs" between the time she first sees the signs, to her call to her mother at 12:47pm?

Her claim, after she "remembered," is that she called her mother because she was worried about the signs and her mother had told her "when in doubt, call me." Amanda is trying to emphasize, by claiming she called her mother way earlier than she did, that this means that she really was worried about her good friend Meredith, that she had seen some things and was not careless about her good friend Meredith's safety, and so she called her mother right away.

If she claims she called her mother at 12:47 because she was "worried" about the signs, that makes no sense, because at that point, it had been 2+ hours since she first saw the "signs." And she had already contacted Raffaele, Filomena, and postal police were already there.

She is trying to connect the call to her mother with her "concern" over her "good friend" Meredith. Calling her 2+ hours laters and claiming it was because of "concern" doesn't make her sound well-intentioned.

And why would a guilty person want to sound well-intentioned? Let's think about that.

You left out the fact that she just discovered the break-in before calling her mother. Also, postal police arrived much later, as their testimony indicates.

 

[aa9511]

If people can forget where they left their keys, wallet or purse minutes or hours earlier then why couldn't people not remember or get confused over inane details about something that happened a week earlier?

hahaha....then you don't remember 5 years later where you put your keys or parked your car.

Oh yeahhhh, so that's where my car is.....I better go and get it now. Let me take my 5-year old son who wasn't even born then.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think she was coerced and manipulated.

So ....she was coerced, manipulated and suffers from a foggy unreliable memory....

Or ....she's just another liar & killer.

My money is on what's simple & obvious to me....





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO Amanda turns like a worm on a hook...trying to wiggle off.

No different than so many other criminals...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[MichaelSmith]

So ....she was coerced, manipulated and suffers from a foggy unreliable memory....

Or ....she's just another liar & killer.

My money is on what's simple & obvious to me....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Hi Linda, welcome to the discussion. Any idea what time Amanda & Raffaele headed to the cottage because Raffaele was watching a cartoon at his aparemnt when the unemployed criminal and burglar Rudy Guede said Meredith died around 9.20pm and we have video of her arrival home at 9.01pm which lines up nicely with when Sophie said goodbye to her except Amanda was watching Ameile at Raffaele's which ended at 9.10pm.

 

[quesarita]

Seriously though, to convict someone of murder there has to be much more than suspicious behavior or phone calls.
If Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder, there would be plenty of their presence inside the bedroom where Meredith was killed; the bedroom was clearly not cleaned from the photos.
If Amanda was involved but did not participate, she would have known about Rudy, why not implicate him instead of someone else?
If she didn't implicate him because she thought he would tell of her involvement, why didn't he do that once he was arrested? I mean, lay out the crime in a convincing way that fits with the evidence, instead of the ramblings that did get him a lesser sentence but still didn't lead to a clear picture of that night or definitive proof of the other parties' guilt.
Why wouldn't Raffaele or Amanda, facing 25 years in prison, rat out each other at some point?
Why do any scenarios that involve Amanda and Raffaele have to be loaded with speculative motives - made-up fights or satanic sex?

 

[SMK]

Seriously though, to convict someone of murder there has to be much more than suspicious behavior or phone calls.
If Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder, there would be plenty of their presence inside the bedroom where Meredith was killed; the bedroom was clearly not cleaned from the photos.
If Amanda was involved but did not participate, she would have known about Rudy, why not implicate him instead of someone else?
If she didn't implicate him because she thought he would tell of her involvement, why didn't he do that once he was arrested? I mean, lay out the crime in a convincing way that fits with the evidence, instead of the ramblings that did get him a lesser sentence but still didn't lead to a clear picture of that night or definitive proof of the other parties' guilt.
Why wouldn't Raffaele or Amanda, facing 25 years in prison, rat out each other at some point?
Why do any scenarios that involve Amanda and Raffaele have to be loaded with speculative motives - made-up fights or satanic sex?

Quesarita and also @ MichaelSmith too:
I agree there are many questions and the evidence is not as solid or as ample and clear as it ought to be.

That's why I waver between:

a.possible scenario of Guede-as-lone wolf/Knox and Sollecito wrongly drawn in (although too many things of a dubious nature bother me)

or

b. some peripheral role which led to their discovery/foreknowledge/possible staging and some sense of guilt/culpability (which they feel it is far too late in the game to ever come clean about now)

- if the latter is true, they might still be acquitted because their role simply isn't clear enough. It will be really interesting to see where the court lands a little over a month from now.

 

[quesarita]

SMK, so would you agree that Rudy is proven to be a murderer in this case and that Amanda's and/or Raffaele's possible peripheral roles are not known or describable by Rudy?

 

[DerKritiker2011]

b. some peripheral role which led to their discovery/foreknowledge/possible staging and some sense of guilt/culpability (which they feel it is far too late in the game to ever come clean about now)

That's unlikely. Nobody will take the risk of a life sentence or 26/30 years in this case.

We have to look at the pressure they are still in.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Seriously though, to convict someone of murder there has to be much more than suspicious behavior or phone calls.
If Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder, there would be plenty of their presence inside the bedroom where Meredith was killed; the bedroom was clearly not cleaned from the photos.
If Amanda was involved but did not participate, she would have known about Rudy, why not implicate him instead of someone else?
If she didn't implicate him because she thought he would tell of her involvement, why didn't he do that once he was arrested? I mean, lay out the crime in a convincing way that fits with the evidence, instead of the ramblings that did get him a lesser sentence but still didn't lead to a clear picture of that night or definitive proof of the other parties' guilt.
Why wouldn't Raffaele or Amanda, facing 25 years in prison, rat out each other at some point?
Why do any scenarios that involve Amanda and Raffaele have to be loaded with speculative motives - made-up fights or satanic sex?

I never speculate about motives in murder cases when it's not obvious because... Well... There simply is never a "good" reason. Motive is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2