Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

Except they weren't adolescents, they were all adults. We aren't talking about thirteen and fourteen year olds.

You should use this same logic when you talk about Meredith playing with her phone. She was not a child, there is no way she was playing with her phone as suggested by Massei.

 

[Mary_H]

Solange, I will try to answer a few of your questions without repeating too much of what the other posters have already effectively explained.

Why didn't they attend Meredith's vigil?

None of the housemates attended the vigil. My understanding is they were advised to avoid the press.

Why did she seem to revel in the attention she received at trial? That seems awfully narcissistic to me, and not consistent with an innocent person in jail for murder. (Examples, smiling all the time, "All You Need is Love Shirt", laughing while testifying, and just a general nonchalant attitude) Although Ill admit, I haven't seen any footage of the whole trial, so I can't say for sure if she acted like this the majority of the time or part of the time or what, so I'll admit my judgement on this may not be correct.

This, I believe, is cultural. Smiling the way Amanda smiled is a sign of power, in that it suggests you are a whole, happy and healthy person, thus lessening other people's suspicions that you may have problems. This is something Amanda would have learned in her city and in her schools, not something that reflects her personal quirkiness.

I live in Seattle and am familiar with, and participate in, that approach. I met a man from another country, who was working at the UW. He told me that one thing he had noticed about the workplace was that, "Even when something is bad, you have to say it is good." Very true in many places in Seattle.

Another message Amanda's smiling is intended to communicate is that she likes and respects her captors. The Jesuits would have taught her that Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." By letting her enemies know she is okay with them, she is following scripture.

Why can't they remember the simplest of things? She can't remember calling her mom in the middle of the night? Even after being reminded and told the details of the call? I used to use drugs in my young and crazy years, and I tried everything from marijuana to cocaine to "other things". I NEVER forgot as many things as they claim they did. There was one time where I did take so much alcohol and cocaine mixed together that for a period of 6 hours, I remembered nothing of what I did (this included going to different clubs, etc.) But not this nonsense of remembering some parts and not others, etc.

There really isn't that much she couldn't remember. It's important to keep in mind, too, that a lot of time had passed before she was asked about things she couldn't recall; in other words, she wasn't being asked these things the day after the murder. Also, imagine what it's like to be up against authorities telling you your memory of events is mistaken and there is another version you should be recounting. That would be enough to make most people lose confidence in their memories and start to say, "I'm not sure."

Is it true she sat there and blow dried her hair in the large bathroom, even though the feces was in there? Did she leave it there to keep her company? Even if she saw it when she was finishing up, why leave it there still?

Amanda testified to the effect that she would have had to clean the toilet with a brush in order to flush it completely. I can understand why she would not want to do that.

Why did her hair look dirty even though she said she washed it? Is it true police testified that she did not smell as if she had showered?

To me, her hair looks poofy, like most people's hair looks after it has been blown dry. In most on the pictures we see of her in court, her hair is much flatter and glossier than in the ones taken on Nov. 2nd. That's because in the later photos, her hair is completely dry, while on 11/2, it wasn't.

Why sit there and take a shower in a house where the door is open, and blood is visible? I know the excuses, that she thought someone might have taken out the trash and the door doesn't close properly, and that supposedly she assumed Meredith had menstrual issues, but it still doesn't sound right to me.

She did that because she was 20 years old, living in a college town and used to young people coming and going without malice. I mentioned a long time ago on this board that I had a job that took me into high schools, and when I used the restrooms there, I saw a lot of blood. While it was not pleasant, there was nothing alarming about it because I "knew" what it was from. Amanda may have felt the same way.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

1. The police DID investigate the boyfriend's alibi.

2. None of the evidence at Rudy's appeal was offered as evidence in Raffaele and Amanda's trial.

3. Because it tells us nothing new about the giult or innocence of Raffaele, Amanda and Rudy. We already know Rudy was 'there'. We already know he performed a sexual act on Meredith. It certainly wouldn't exculpate Amanda and Raffaele in any way.

4. How do you figure that? Since it cannot be dated, it could have got there any time. It would prove nothing.

The substance on the pillow can be dated. The substance is smeared in Rudy's shoe print made on the night of the murder. Photographic evidence confirms this. If the substance is semen and it points to Rudy Guede, the court's entire theory falls apart. This is a possible semen stain at the scene of a brutal murder and it wasn't tested. This is completely unacceptable. There is no defense for this negligence.

 

[Justinian2]

Solange, I will try to answer a few of your questions without repeating too much of what the other posters have already effectively explained.
[...]

Nice reply.

Modern research on truthfullness indicates that a truthful person tends to give MORE information, as Amanda did. Were she a liar she would have repeatedly told the same story and then, perhaps, have changed her story and repeatedly told that simplistic new story.

Of course a "confession" induced by brainwashing techniques would induce confusion in everybody.

There are NO holes in the defense's case, as far as I can tell.

 

[Antony]

I do not believe this is true. It truly seems he is writing about actually pricking Meredith.

The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente].
So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

Meredith is mentioned in the same sentence, but Amanda is mentioned in the previous sentence. How many of us have used a pronoun carelessly in something we've said or written in a way that's confused the meaning of a sentence? Everybody, I would guess.

It's a piece of sloppy writing, that's all. Was it a lie? No - a lie is a statement made with the intention to deceive. This diary wasn't even intended to be read by anyone except Raffaele. It's just malicious gossip to take this private piece of imprecision and call it a "lie".

The irony of course is that there is no DNA on the knife blade. The positive reading was obtained by grossly misusing the LCN process, and is a test that cannot be repeated independently because the claimed DNA sample was "destroyed" in the first test! The far bigger lie here is to pretend that this knife was one of the murder weapons - it is not.

 

[Chris C]

The substance on the pillow can be dated. The substance is smeared in Rudy's shoe print made on the night of the murder. Photographic evidence confirms this. If the substance is semen and it points to Rudy Guede, the court's entire theory falls apart. This is a possible semen stain at the scene of a brutal murder and it wasn't tested. This is completely unacceptable. There is no defense for this negligence.

Bruce, don't forget to add that if it turns out to be semen and its not Guede's or Sollecito's then there is some serious explaining to be done.

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Fulcanelli:
"You're forgetting the bit about Raffaele also dropping her alibi."

Ah, yes, they got Raf to say that he couldn't be completely sure she was with him all night since conceivably she could have been gone while he was sleeping. That combined with their misinterpretation of the text and they were convinced Amanda had met up with Patrick that night. They were wrong. But they convinced themselves this was the correct scenario to the point where, when Amanda denied going out that night, they could only justify it by telling Amanda that she must have been traumatized and didn't remember being there. So they asked her to imagine herself there and what she would have heard and how she would have reacted.

Raffaele "dropped Amanda's alibi" by agreeing with the police that he could not know where she was while he was sleeping. In other words, the two could have been separated for awhile, with Raffaele asleep in bed and Amanda at the crime scene. The police use this possible scenario to add to a suspicion of guilt against Amanda, and to "help" her statement along.

Then they arrest Raffaele. On what evidence?

 

[LondonJohn]

I suppose I could contend that, but I'm not, because I don't know enough about the man or how his relationship with the Knox family stands. That wasn't my assertion.

My point is that the inference of doubt by association has been commonly used here by both sides, and perhaps even less fairly when it has often and explicitly been used to cast aspersions on lab reports.

I don't know the exact nature of the relationship between labs and prosecutors in Italy, but here there are several different levels of association, and not all of them imply a subordinate or cooperative relationship between a prosecutor and the laboratory. A local DA can have evidence sent to any number of facilities which might have resources otherwise unavailable. If the results are favorable to a conviction that does not mean that the lab is "working" for the DA, any more than if the results are exculpatory would mean that the same lab was suddenly "working" for the defense instead.

For example, Stephanoni has been routinely dismissed and even reviled in these threads as a tool of the prosecution on the basis of the conclusions she drew and the seating placement of the courtroom. I have not seen anything yet which clearly establishes that she was a paid subordinate of the prosecution. It is one thing to disagree with her conclusions on a scientific basis, but another thing entirely to suggest that she distorted or falsified her conclusions in an overt effort to achieve a conviction.

Apparently this is okay with you when those who appear to support the conviction are being discussed, since I have not seen you offer any objection when this tactic has been employed against them, but less appropriate, by your standards, when the individuals in question are defending Knox.

Personally, I think it is wrong regardless of who is being discussed. If evidence of ulterior motive can be offered that is one thing. Other inferences are less persuasive.

It doesn't have to be about ulterior motives at all. In the case of the forensic testing, the lab was not independent - it was attached to the police. And in the most contentious DNA tests, Stefanoni was explicitly told whose DNA to look for. Both of these things go against best practice for DNA analysis, as discussed in this New Scientist article which is linked below but which is unfortunately only available on subscription now:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html

The article cites research which showed that independent labs consistently produced more reliable evidence, and that when DNA testers were told whose specific DNA to look for, they made far more false-positive matches than when they were simply told to find whatever profiles were there (i.e. without a "target" profile).

In addition, as I mentioned in my previous post, I think that caution must be applied to expert witnesses on both sides of a criminal case - prosecution and defence. They are both retained by the respective legal teams to present opinions which correlate with either the prosecution's case or the defence's case as applicable. It's amazing how a prosecution's expert and a defence expert can vehemently disagree on the interpretation of any given piece of evidence.

 

[Solange305]

Anyways, Solange305, this is just my opinion,
a longtime surfer from the beaches of L.A.
Peace out, RWVBWL

I agree 100 percent about the pot and alcohol thing, totally. And you make a lot of good points, I really respect the fact that you are able to debate in such a polite and calm matter, I envy that. Maybe some of you will rub off on me, Im trying

Again, good points though

 

[Solange305]

Quote:
Why was Amanda doing cartwheels and fooling around in a police station, while they are investigating the death of her *ahem* "dear friend"?

She was asked to by the police.

The police asked her to do cartwheels???? Are sure certain of this?

2 years is a long time not to smile. She wore that T-shirt on Valentines day.

Although I see your point about the 2 years, court was what, two or three days a week? Spend the other four days smiling all the time, not in court. Same for the shirt, whether it's Valentines Day, Labor Day, regardless, you are at a murder trial, being tried for murder. However, I am not saying she did it purposely. I really believe she may be a sociapath or have some disorder. People like that seem to never know what is inappropriate in situations like that.

Quote:
Why did Raffaele lie and say he pricked Meredith with a knife while cooking?
There is a ton of articles on this. Ranging from he wasn't talking about pricking Meredith he was pricking Knox to he was just trying to explain to himself something he couldn't explain. If i remember correctly he was writing this in a diary.

I will try to find more out on this, but that still doesn't satisfy me and has me pretty suspicious...

If you want to read the transcript, PMF has a translated copy.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165
Her claims are she smoked pot. All the other hard drugs are claims by haters. The phone call was a misleading question that had no correct answer. They pretty much badgered her giving her misleading information about the calls. For instance they didn't even get the time of the phone call correct. In questioning they jump from one phone call to the next back to the other phone call trying to confuse her. They ask her about what was discussed in these phone calls and if she doens't remember she tells them she dont remember that call. Of course they now claim she is lieing about a phone call she can't remember having. However, how can she remember having a phone call about a conversation she dont remember having. Its a catch 22. If she admits to the phone call she admits to a conversation she says she didn't have. If she says she dont remember THAT call, then they claim she is lieing about a phone call that she can't remember.

Fair enough, but correct me if Im wrong, was she not recorded telling her mother that she didnt remember the phone call? I doubt her mother was the one attempting to confuse her and badger her.... And also, her mother even seemed surprised that she forgot it....

Never heard this before. However, do you clean up after everyone? If someone leaves their shoes on the floor of THEIR bathroom, do you pick them up? I'm not, its their bathroom.

I dont know, maybe you have a point there. I personally would flush rather than leaving it there, but I see RWVBWL's point of leaving it in order to make a point to the person who left it, like hey dude, flush your toilet! I dont know for sure if she stayed and blow dried her hair in there, but if she did, then I definitely think it's strange she left it there, I imagine it smelled bad and I would not sit in a bathroom for 5 minutes with that in there ( one caveat, I heard toilets are there a bit different, so maybe it doesnt show as much as the ones here, maybe someone can clear that up for me and therefore I may be making too much out of this one issue)

Quote:
Why did her hair look dirty even though she said she washed it? Is it true police testified that she did not smell as if she had showered?
Huh?

In the pics of her being interviewed by the cops, her hair didnt look freshly washed. Not dirty, but it didnt look freshly washed and blowdried. Women might be able to notice those things better than men, although RWV said he noticed too, and he said it might have been that Amanda and Raffaele were intimate after she took a shower, which caused her hair to get sweaty)

Quote:
Why say to suffering friend of Meredith's "**** happens" or "what do you think, she *********** bled to death?"
Where you get this one at?

My understanding was that Meredith's friends told either the police or news papers of these things, I will have to get back to you with links though.

Its not like the place was covered in blood. She noticed a few strange things but continued doing what she went there for.

I know, and maybe by itself it wouldnt be a big deal, but I see a pattern of behavior and actions that make me think "this is isnt how the average person in this situation would react". I still find it a little troubling that she stuck around, although I am not saying its altogether unreasonable. This one maybe Im willing to agree with you on, maybe Im making too much of it too.

Hi Fulcanelli,
Do you know how Rudy Guede was paying his rent for the apartment he was living at at the time of Miss Kercher's death?

I saw a photograph of it on another website called Perugiamurderfile.org, not Perugiamurderfile.com though,
that a poster named "thoughtful" had shot and I wondered how he paid his rent, for it doesn't seem that Rudy Guede had a job then.
Any ideas?

Good question RWV, I wonder that too...

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

2 years is a long time not to smile. She wore that T-shirt on Valentines day.

Indeed she did.

When she smiled in court, it was in response to friends and family members greeting her. She wasn't allowed to talk to them, so she smiled. The cameras caught the smiles, but not the context.

What many people don't understand is that her sunny behavior is a coping mechanism rather than some kind of aberrant pathology. Her way of handling adversity is to stay upbeat. When I met her in June, she was cheerful, but she was not flippant or crass. She is optimistic by nature, she knows she is innocent, and she is confident that at some point, reason will prevail and she and Raffaele will go free.

 

[Solange305]

She had spent 2 years in prison for something she didn't do and now there was a chance of the truth coming out; why should she not be cheerful and relaxed? Why should she not smile and wave to her family and supporters? Do you want her to sit quivering, biting her nails and staring at the floor throughout the year-long trial?

Fair enough, but people always say that about guilty people. They say the same thing about Casey Anthony. It's STRANGE to the average person, it just is. I would never, ever try to assign guilt to someone based on those things. But when you have evidence against you, and you sit there and act like Casey Anthony and Joran Van der Sloot, you are NOT helping yourself. At all.

I know people deal with grief in different ways, but it seems like Amanda has all cosmic energy against her. She must be the unluckiest person in the whole world. She gets a crazy prosecutor, abusive police, biased judge and jury, DNA against her and her boyfriend ACCIDENTALLY deposited on suspicious items, witnesses saying they saw her outside the Raffaele's house when she says she was there, AND on top of that, she copes in the same way that sociopaths on trial seem to do. Do you see how someone looking at the big picture might say, this is all absolutely improbable?

 

[Solange305]

What many people don't understand is that her sunny behavior is a coping mechanism rather than some kind of aberrant pathology. Her way of handling adversity is to stay upbeat. When I met her in June, she was cheerful, but she was not flippant or crass. She is optimistic by nature, she knows she is innocent, and she is confident that at some point, reason will prevail and she and Raffaele will go free.

If the cops, justice system, media etc. are all as bad as you guys say, I find it hard to believe that all the smiling is her "optimism". Can you actually say that if you had police trying to frame you, experts saying your dna and boyfriend's dna are on the murder weapon and bra clasp, and witnesses testifying against you left and right, you would be "optimistic"? That sounds delusional to me. I respect that you met her, and you have more authority than me about how she acts, I will agree with you there, but Im sorry, it doesn't seem likely to me...

 

[Mary_H]

If the cops, justice system, media etc. are all as bad as you guys say, I find it hard to believe that all the smiling is her "optimism". Can you actually say that if you had police trying to frame you, experts saying your dna and boyfriend's dna are on the murder weapon and bra clasp, and witnesses testifying against you left and right, you would be "optimistic"? That sounds delusional to me. I respect that you met her, and you have more authority than me about how she acts, I will agree with you there, but Im sorry, it doesn't seem likely to me...

Well, the thing is, she can be optimistic or pessimistic, and being pessimistic not only isn't going to get her anywhere, it's going to make her feel worse than feeling optimistic does. Having the police trying to frame you, experts saying your DNA is on the murder weapon and witnesses testifying against you are hard to believe, but a lot of unbelievable things happen in the world. Just look at how long it took to convince people that priests would molest children. It is still being met with disbelief in many places, in spite of the facts.

 

[Solange305]

Solange, I will try to answer a few of your questions without repeating too much of what the other posters have already effectively explained.

None of the housemates attended the vigil. My understanding is they were advised to avoid the press.

Thank you, that makes sense. I cant hold that against her then, you are right.


This, I believe, is cultural. Smiling the way Amanda smiled is a sign of power, in that it suggests you are a whole, happy and healthy person, thus lessening other people's suspicions that you may have problems. This is something Amanda would have learned in her city and in her schools, not something that reflects her personal quirkiness.

I live in Seattle and am familiar with, and participate in, that approach. I met a man from another country, who was working at the UW. He told me that one thing he had noticed about the workplace was that, "Even when something is bad, you have to say it is good." Very true in many places in Seattle.

I have to disagree, I lived in Federal Way (Im sure you've heard of it, right outside Seattle) for three years. I went to Twin Lakes Elementary and Lakota Junior High. I didnt see any cultural differences that would explain Amanda's differences in behavior. Although there may be other explanations, I just don't know about it being anything to do with Seattle.

Another message Amanda's smiling is intended to communicate is that she likes and respects her captors. The Jesuits would have taught her that Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." By letting her enemies know she is okay with them, she is following scripture.

That is a possible explanation, but so is the one I mentioned. It still doesnt entirely convince me, but at least it's an alternate explanation that I can consider


There really isn't that much she couldn't remember. It's important to keep in mind, too, that a lot of time had passed before she was asked about things she couldn't recall; in other words, she wasn't being asked these things the day after the murder. Also, imagine what it's like to be up against authorities telling you your memory of events is mistaken and there is another version you should be recounting. That would be enough to make most people lose confidence in their memories and start to say, "I'm not sure."

Maybe when I said this I should have referred more to Raffaele, saying he couldnt remember if they had made love or not. Also, the phone call she forgot was forgotten days after the murder, not months....


Amanda testified to the effect that she would have had to clean the toilet with a brush in order to flush it completely. I can understand why she would not want to do that.

I dont get that, that doesnt make sense to me. I dont want to get gross here, so I wont go into too much detail, but Id rather flush it and get most out then leave all of it there, if you know what I mean. But like I said in the posts right above this one, there may be innocent explanations for this one, I can admit that with no problem.


To me, her hair looks poofy, like most people's hair looks after it has been blown dry. In most on the pictures we see of her in court, her hair is much flatter and glossier than in the ones taken on Nov. 2nd. That's because in the later photos, her hair is completely dry, while on 11/2, it wasn't.

Thats a good observation I will take a look at the court pictures again.


She did that because she was 20 years old, living in a college town and used to young people coming and going without malice. I mentioned a long time ago on this board that I had a job that took me into high schools, and when I used the restrooms there, I saw a lot of blood. While it was not pleasant, there was nothing alarming about it because I "knew" what it was from. Amanda may have felt the same way.

That makes sense, I personally never experienced that, but I am aware that just because I havent had it, doesnt mean others havent either. Your experience is a good example of that

Solange, it's refreshing to see posts from someone who hasn't made up his mind and even coming from the "it looks like they're guilty" position is still open to arguments from both sides.

Thank you for that Antony, I appreciate that, I am trying.

 

[Solange305]

Well, the thing is, she can be optimistic or pessimistic, and being pessimistic not only isn't going to get her anywhere, it's going to make her feel worse than feeling optimistic does. Having the police trying to frame you, experts saying your DNA is on the murder weapon and witnesses testifying against you are hard to believe, but a lot of unbelievable things happen in the world. Just look at how long it took to convince people that priests would molest children. It is still being met with disbelief in many places, in spite of the facts.

That is absolutely true. I wish i could be that way. But I still have to say, it is hard for me to believe that someone COULD be that. At the end of the day, it is still suspicious for me. I appreciate your posting your theory on that, and although I cant agree yet, at least I got the answers that I was looking for.

 

[Mary_H]

I know people deal with grief in different ways, but it seems like Amanda has all cosmic energy against her. She must be the unluckiest person in the whole world. She gets a crazy prosecutor, abusive police, biased judge and jury, DNA against her and her boyfriend ACCIDENTALLY deposited on suspicious items, witnesses saying they saw her outside the Raffaele's house when she says she was there, AND on top of that, she copes in the same way that sociopaths on trial seem to do. Do you see how someone looking at the big picture might say, this is all absolutely improbable?

It's helpful to keep the sequence of events in mind. The crazy prosecutor is an anomaly, but once it was a given, a lot of the rest of what happened followed from there. If Mignini hadn't been assigned to the case, everything might have gone very differently. He happened to be in trouble and under indictment, which may have influenced his approach. He also has his own peculiarities when it comes to sexual activity and Manga comics, etc., which another prosecutor might not have had.

The system is definitely set up for the cops and judges to support each other and the prosecutor's case; that's common everywhere, not just in Perugia. Once the premature arrests and announcements had happened, though, much of the rest of the case had to be concocted. It's not hard to find false witnesses. False lab reports are common, too, even when there is not as much at stake as there was in this case.

You are right, though; Amanda was definitely extremely unlucky. Add to that her own willingness to stay in town and help with the investigation, which provided the authorities with a tempting solution to their problem.

 

[Justinian2]

The police asked her to do cartwheels???? Are sure certain of this?

[...]

I know, and maybe by itself it wouldnt be a big deal, but I see a pattern of behavior and actions that make me think "this is isnt how the average person in this situation would react". I still find it a little troubling that she stuck around, although I am not saying its altogether unreasonable. This one maybe Im willing to agree with you on, maybe Im making too much of it too.

Good question RWV, I wonder that too...

I saw two pretty girls and a guy doing cartwheels on the lawn the other day. They were attractive and athletic young teenagers. So I looked and enjoyed watching the free show. I believe that Amanda thought the way to men's hearts was in doing cartwheels. She was a child. She was a child. What I can't understand is why people would read anything negative into this.

I don't get ANY of the Italian/English side. I have TOTAL IRRECONCILABLE Culture Shock!

My daughter looks a little like AK. She was treated rudely in Italy about two years ago. She is partly Italian, but was treated with respect in England, France, and Ireland where they thought she was one of them. In Italy, she was treated kind of the way Muslims are supposed to treat their women in Afghanistan.

I like the Italians. Most of my early friends were Italian Americans. They treated me with respect. What is going on? Is there anti Americanism in Italy? (Although this subject matter may have been part of the "Hidden Mind" that influenced Italy and as influential as evidence, it might be considered off-topic to some...

 

[Dan O.]

Fair enough, but correct me if Im wrong, was she not recorded telling her mother that she didnt remember the phone call? I doubt her mother was the one attempting to confuse her and badger her.... And also, her mother even seemed surprised that she forgot it....

The prosecution seems to have gone to great lengths to set this up to appear incriminating.

At 12:47, in an 88 second phone call Amanda conveys the basic elements of the situation to her mom and her mom says call the police. Similarly, at 12:50, in a 39 second call to his sister, Raffaele is told to call 112. This is two independent sources appraising the situation and concluding that enough has happened to warrant calling the police.

By the evening of November 2nd, the investigators would have the phone records and enough witness statements to piece together a reasonably accurate timeline of this period.

On November 10th, Amanda's mother is recorded questioning Amanda in her prison cell about the phone call at Noon before anything happened^*. Since there was no call at Noon and the first call at 12:47 was after enough had happened to warrant calling the police, this questioning must have been prompted by someone questioning Amanda's mother about a factitious call at Noon. I doubt that the initiator could have been Amanda's lawyers since if they thought this was important they would have prepared Amanda to answer the question in court. That leaves only the investigators/prosecution.

A year and an half later, the prosecutor springs his trap. Manuela Comodi asks Amanda in court why she called her mother at Noon before anything happened. Amanda of course says she doesn't remember any such call. Then Comodi uses the recorded conversation from prison that he set up saying in court: "Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened."

Notice how this lie was seeded and played leaving the impression in the minds of the jurors (and many others) that Amanda had called her mother to say that nothing had happened. The hard evidence tells us that Amanda called her mother AFTER there was enough concern to warrant calling the police. The Italian authorities knew this as early as the evening of November 2nd. Yet they played this intentionally setup lie to win a conviction.

(*) At Noon, Amanda had not even made the first phone call to Meredith. She had found the door open, seen some spots of blood and the mess in the toilet. The broken window was yet to be discovered.

I dont know, maybe you have a point there. I personally would flush rather than leaving it there, but I see RWVBWL's point of leaving it in order to make a point to the person who left it, like hey dude, flush your toilet! I dont know for sure if she stayed and blow dried her hair in there, but if she did, then I definitely think it's strange she left it there, I imagine it smelled bad and I would not sit in a bathroom for 5 minutes with that in there ( one caveat, I heard toilets are there a bit different, so maybe it doesnt show as much as the ones here, maybe someone can clear that up for me and therefore I may be making too much out of this one issue)

The larger bathroom in the cottage is in two parts. The first room off the kitchen contains the shower, washing machine and sink. This is also where the hair dryer was. Through another door is the bath tub and toilet. Amanda didn't notice the dump in the toilet until she was through drying her hair (or more likely, she was through drying her hair when she noticed it).

 

[Mary_H]

By the evening of November 2nd, the investigators would have the phone records and enough witness statements to piece together a reasonably accurate timeline of this period.

Dan, do you know if we have any documentation of this anywhere -- that investigators had the phone records by the second?

Also, someone wrote somewhere recently that Patrick was one of the people who had set up the memorial for Meredith? Has anyone heard that before? If true, it certainly would increase the mystery around why the police did not question Patrick before they arrested him.