• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Before I turn in for the night, a quick note on the significance of the question mark in Lalli's autopsy report:

Lalli writes that he identifies "recognizable caseosis (mozzarella?)" among Meredith's stomach contents. I understand that he is unequivocal that the matter he's identified is recognizable as being caseous (cheese-like), and I understand that he is suggesting that the particular cheese-like matter he's identified might be mozzarella. Hence the question mark. He's sure that it's cheese-like matter, but is only suggesting that more specifically it might be mozzarella. Hope that makes things a little clearer.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Because the insinuation that the call was made at midday implies that Knox was seemingly very concerned at midday, and that her mother told her at midday to call the police, yet the police were not called until 12.50. If so, this would be hard for Knox to explain.

However, since this first call actually took place at 12.47, Knox's state of concern and her mother's advice to contact the police are followed directly (within 5 minutes) by Sollecito calling his sister and then the Carabinieri. Suddenly, there's no inexplicable gap between Knox's first concerned call to her mother and the first call to the police.

So the timing is fairly important. I'm sure you knew that.
Click to expand...


Sorry you guys post a lot so I'm trying to keep up. If the timing if established from the phonecall records, presumably there's no issue for the appeal. I personally don't think the timing of the first call established much at all - it was the lack of agreement between mother and daughter which was interesting but in my opinion non-conclusive. I have been frustrated about the summary version one gets in Massei - we are all miss details on calls including a couple of key details on Raffaele's calls.

The truth of the matter is that the case for the prosecution wasn't even put on a number of fronts of evidence: they found the "big" stuff so compelling that they didn't even bother with a lot of things which in other capital crime charges would have been very significant. It is very unusual for that to be the case in my experience: usually you are fighting about a number of pieces of evidence in a fairly constrained case.
 
SomeAlibi said:
I admit I wait for others answers on this but I don't think so because of all the estimates on the timing of it. And I don't know any jurisdiction that retries from scratch. Even if it did, the problems would remain the same eh?
Click to expand...

Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed breach of rule 7.


Please do not post on behalf of another member.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=55003#p55003
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Katody Matrass said:
LOL, let me bring it down to the simplest form than:

Did she lie or didn't she?

Even simpler: She lied?

yes or no?
Click to expand...



If you "LOL" me, I suspect I'll stop answering your questions because it's infantile when I've posted very clearly an open and honest request for clarification.

It's a very strange question: how do I know if she lied or not? Well I can't know and it's impossible to know unless we look at objective cellphone data records which should establish the truth, as I've already posted. What do the cellphone records say? Human beings are fallible and indeed the fallibility of their memory is something that Amanda and Raffaele rely on hugely for their defence. Beyond any defendants I have ever come across by the way by a considerable margin. So we need the objective data or this is all just fluff.
 
Danceme said:
SomeAlibi, I have another question. Could the defense have had the supposed semen stain on the pillowcase tested themselves or were their hands tied and they were forced to petition the court to have the testing done? In other words, can the defense do any investigative testing of evidence themselves?
Click to expand...


Danceme - I'm afraid that is a question of Italian law and I don't know the answer to it.
 
daydreamer said:
Your buoyancy comment is correct, but I am 62 years old and weigh about 50pounds more than Rudy (bad knees to boot!) and I have duplicated the maneuver on a retaining wall in our local park (pushing off with one leg) and luckily there was no flood. Not really that hard to do, give it a try. BTW, he would not need his knees at ledge height, just hips, I have scaled drawings if you are interested. PM me for details.
Click to expand...

____________________

Daydreamer,

I admire your hands-on efforts at duplicating the LONEWOLF'S maneuver. But I'm wondering whether the wall you climbed is genuinely comparable to climbing the wall under Filomena's window. The climb doesn't entail reaching the top of a wall, but ascending a wall until one is placed on a ledge protruding from that wall. In particular, in Massei's reconstruction of this maneuve the hinged window casements have not yet been unlatched and swung open so the LONEWOLF must reach the exterior windowsill, just a few inches in depth, before unlatching those casements....

"He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise,...." (English Translation, PMF.)

So, according to your study of this wall-climbing, would Rudy have been able to unlatch the window casements---and swing them open---while he was still standing on the lower iron grille?

image.php

Filomena's Window

///
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I agree that they should have called their lawyers. But I'm not sure it's the very first call I would make if a housemate of mine had been murdered and I knew I had nothing to do with it. Maybe that's just me.....

But you can be certain that if Knox had taken the same course of action (calling a lawyer), that would have been presented as solid evidence that she had something to hide. And the very fact that she sought no advice from either a local lawyer (and she knew of course that both her Italian housemates worked for law firms, so she'd have had no trouble finding a lawyer) or the US Consulate, indicates to me either that she had nothing to hide or that she was extremely, extremely audacious and cunning, and thought she could outwit the police all by herself in a foreign country. I tend to believe the former.

In addition, if Knox were culpable, she could have easily ascertained (and maybe she actually did know) that Filomena and Laura had contacted lawyers immediately, and that therefore there was probably very little downside-risk to her doing the same. Yet she remained blissfully free of legal advice until it was too late.
Click to expand...


Any legal counsel would tell you that the earlier she could have got access to advice, the better off she would have been. Seems entirely obvious, whatever side of the debate you're on. I didn't know this idea that Filomena and Laura called lawyers first. Is there evidence this was the case because I've never seen it?
 
SomeAlibi said:
It's a very strange question: how do I know if she lied or not? Well I can't know and it's impossible to know unless we look at objective cellphone data records which should establish the truth, as I've already posted. What do the cellphone records say?
Click to expand...
It was you who stated that as a fact, and now you're not sure about your sources?
SomeAlibi said:
Human beings are fallible and indeed the fallibility of their memory is something that Amanda and Raffaele rely on hugely for their defence.
Click to expand...

Looks like not only they do. So you vaguely remember that in fact it was not 12:00 when the call was made, and in fact Comodi's statement that "nothing had happened yet" is a bit away from truth.
So it was not like she tried to confuse the court, the witness and create an impression that the phone call was inexplicable and extremely suspicious? Comodi simply forgot the time, human memory is fallible. Apparently she had no idea about the timeline of events too. Maybe she forgot to bring her notes to the court too.

I wonder what could cause such forgetfulness? It's not like Comodi were traumatized or in shock or something..
 
my question was about Comodi

SomeAlibi,

Katody and I have now asked you about Comodi, and you have not been responsive, unless your comment #10948 was about Comodi rather than Knox (I took it to be about Knox). Did Comodi lie, or did she simply make a mistake?

With respect to Amanda’s answer, I enjoy playing dime store psychologist as much as the next person. Maybe Amanda keyed in on the time in Comodi’s question being wrong, and she and answered accordingly. Maybe she was sick and tired of ILE trying to get her to remember things that did not happen.

As for having many questions to answer, I feel your pain.
 
Last edited:
Guys, I didn't raise Comodi - you seem to have had some sort of pre-existing thread on it. All that matters about Amanda's first call in terms of timing is the objective cellphone records. Nothing else matters as to timing.

As to the existence of the call, her mother says it happened and she explained at length what happened in the call. Amanda says she can't recall it.

What else is there as objective evidence? I don't actually care what Comodi says if i) timing and ii) fact is established. What would opinion add after that? I'm totally confused.
 
halides1 said:
SomeAlibi,

Katody and I have now asked you about Comodi, and you have not been responsive, unless your comment #10948 was about Comodi rather than Knox (I took it to be about Knox). Did Comodi lie, or did she simply make a mistake?

With respect to Amanda’s answer, I enjoy playing dime store psychologist as much as the next person. Maybe Amanda keyed in on the time in Comodi’s question being wrong, and she and answered accordingly. Maybe she was sick and tired of ILE trying to get her to remember things that did not happen.

As for having many questions to answer, I feel your pain.
Click to expand...

In my opinion they chose that phone call as an "attack vector" exactly because they knew from the bugged conversations that Amanda lost the memory of it. Worth noting that call was made minutes before a shocking discovery that her friend had been murdered.
The prosecution apparently didn't try to win anything more then jury impression. They knew they were bluffing/lying and the defense was apparently taken by surprise on this. Of course no trace of this exploit made it to the Massei report.
 
SomeAlibi said:
Guys, I didn't raise Comodi - you seem to have had some sort of pre-existing thread on it. All that matters about Amanda's first call in terms of timing is the objective cellphone records. Nothing else matters as to timing.

As to the existence of the call, her mother says it happened and she explained at length what happened in the call. Amanda says she can't recall it.

What else is there as objective evidence? I don't actually care what Comodi says if i) timing and ii) fact is established. What would opinion add after that? I'm totally confused.
Click to expand...

If I am a juror hearing this Knox-Comodi exchange I see one more example of Knox's flight from truth.

Knox is at all costs evading the question. How is it that a phone call her mom remembers in detail draws a total blank. That is the point of the exchange.

Not even her mom's vivid description of the call prompts an admission that the call was made. It was one more example of avoidance of facts by the defendant and there was hell to pay.
 
piktor said:
If I am a juror hearing this Knox-Comodi exchange I see one more example of Knox's flight from truth.

Knox is at all costs evading the question. How is it that a phone call her mom remembers in detail draws a total blank. That is the point of the exchange.

Not even her mom's vivid description of the call prompts an admission that the call was made. It was one more example of avoidance of facts by the defendant and there was hell to pay.
Click to expand...

piktor, finally :)

What about your opinion? Comodi deliberately lied about the times and events or simply forgot?
 
Out to bed, because "vedo i flash, vedo i flash" :)
Thanks SomeAlibi, piktor, platonov and everyone else for great fun discussion!
piktor, I hope you're not evading the question at all costs ;)

good night!
 
Katody Matrass said:
In my opinion they chose that phone call as an "attack vector" exactly because they knew from the bugged conversations that Amanda lost the memory of it. Worth noting that call was made minutes before a shocking discovery that her friend had been murdered.
The prosecution apparently didn't try to win anything more then jury impression. They knew they were bluffing/lying and the defense was apparently taken by surprise on this. Of course no trace of this exploit made it to the Massei report.
Click to expand...


You're not making a point for the defence. What you are saying is that the prosecution said that Amanda made a call according to her own mother's testimony and Amanda didn't recall it. That's objective based on the testimony of Edda and Amanda respectively. That's not an 'exploit' - it's two pieces of testimony and the jury can then make a judgement any which way they see fit on whether they take anything from it or not.

Come on Katody - there's plenty in this case to argue for the defence, done right, but when you argue silly stuff like this it undermines you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom