• 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.
Posted this evening by SomeAlibi on PMF, regarding my request for clarification of his activity as a defense lawyer:

"I've clarified it for him Solgange. And I got a happy response. With an exclamation mark! "Thanks for the clarification!"

TBH I'm flattered with the stalk that's explicit in his post. However if he thinks he's going to track me down, good luck. I saw this coming months ago"


SomeAlibi, I am highly offended by the suggestion that this was some sort of attempt to "stalk" you. You are the one who declared your credentials very loudly several times on JREF this evening, and I wanted to reconcile what you were claiming with what you've previously stated about your profession. I realise that some people have a weird (and, frankly, rather sick) obsession with trying to discover the true identities of other posters on opposite sides of the debate. But I am not one of these people. And I don't appreciate being accused of that sort of nasty behaviour.

Shame that this little experiment of yours now has to end as far as my engagement is concerned, but I suppose it was to be expected....
 
Matthew Best said:
Well, we're not in court. :D The question is whether Comodi lied or was mistaken about the time of the phone call. Which do you think it was? A lie or a mistake?
Click to expand...


What I'm saying is, what are the objective cellphone records of the timing of Amanda's call from her cellphone on this call? Why don't we have that?
 
LondonJohn said:
Posted this evening by SomeAlibi on PMF, regarding my request for clarification of his activity as a defense lawyer:

"I've clarified it for him Solgange. And I got a happy response. With an exclamation mark! "Thanks for the clarification!"

TBH I'm flattered with the stalk that's explicit in his post. However if he thinks he's going to track me down, good luck. I saw this coming months ago"


SomeAlibi, I am highly offended by the suggestion that this was some sort of attempt to "stalk" you. You are the one who declared your credentials very loudly several times on JREF this evening, and I wanted to reconcile what you were claiming with what you've previously stated about your profession. I realise that some people have a weird (and, frankly, rather sick) obsession with trying to discover the true identities of other posters on opposite sides of the debate. But I am not one of these people. And I don't appreciate being accused of that sort of nasty behaviour.

Shame that this little experiment of yours now has to end as far as my engagement is concerned, but I suppose it was to be expected....
Click to expand...


Cmon LJ lets not be coy. You and I are dead set against each other and you didn't come on the scene until several months after me. That you searched back to my second ever post way before you joined this debate and recalled it now nearly a year later shows that you are interested in me.

We can be fierce opponents. We don't need to be pussycats about it. Come on: I've come in here so you can talk to me. Game on.
 
LondonJohn said:
Posted this evening by SomeAlibi on PMF, regarding my request for clarification of his activity as a defense lawyer:

"I've clarified it for him Solgange. And I got a happy response. With an exclamation mark! "Thanks for the clarification!"

TBH I'm flattered with the stalk that's explicit in his post. However if he thinks he's going to track me down, good luck. I saw this coming months ago"


SomeAlibi, I am highly offended by the suggestion that this was some sort of attempt to "stalk" you. You are the one who declared your credentials very loudly several times on JREF this evening, and I wanted to reconcile what you were claiming with what you've previously stated about your profession. I realise that some people have a weird (and, frankly, rather sick) obsession with trying to discover the true identities of other posters on opposite sides of the debate. But I am not one of these people. And I don't appreciate being accused of that sort of nasty behaviour.

Shame that this little experiment of yours now has to end as far as my engagement is concerned, but I suppose it was to be expected....
Click to expand...



And of course if that wasn't your intention as you express, what could possibly be the problem. Come on LJ lets go. These are real people with a real debate and it's not going anywhere if we can't debate with each other. I will answer *anything* you like.
 
Time's getting pretty late here in the UK. Can I please ask those supporting Amanda to explain their theories of the 2nd of November evidence computer and cellphone evidence versus the "slept in til 10 - 10.30" alibi?

If you can do this for me in a way that would convince a jury, I will be much more minded to change my opinion on this case. As it stands I think I, and anyone else in a jury situation would find it unbelievable. Whatever you think of various other parts of the evidence, how can you possibly square this with the "innocence" of the defendants? Genuinely simply interested to know.
 
SomeAlibi said:
If I were you, I would distance yourselves from him considerably: it's heading for an ugly end. He's taken Amanda's statement she was clipped over the head twice and made that "beaten" and "just short of waterboarding". That tells you everything you need to know, surely? Doesn't it? I mean, really?
Click to expand...

I know I won't be 'distancing' myself from him. I find him extremely credible, and the desperate attempts to discredit him say more about his 'accusers' than they do he.

Those methods now have him on the case full-time, which is the kind of blowback the Gods of Irony would admire. :)
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
How about you answer a question first? And try not to do it with another question this time.
Click to expand...

I said I'd answer any question you like so please post the direct question Matthew. We can ditch the snarky stuff while we're discussing as adults.
 
Kaosium said:
I know I won't be 'distancing' myself from him. I find him extremely credible, and the desperate attempts to discredit him say more about his 'accusers' than they do he.

Ironically those methods now have him on the case full-time, which is the kind of blowback the Gods of Irony would admire. :)
Click to expand...


I understand he's a big figure for your case for the defence now Kaosium. Can you please explain to me, however how Amanda's claim that she was clipped over the head twice by a police officer she can't identify became accurately relayed by Moore as "beaten" and "just short of waterboarding". Wasn't that massive overstatement? Yes or no?
 
SomeAlibi said:
I understand he's a big figure for your case for the defence now Kaosium. Can you please explain to me, however how Amanda's claim that she was clipped over the head twice by a police officer she can't identify became accurately relayed by Moore as "beaten" and "just short of waterboarding". Wasn't that massive overstatement? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Semantics. Simple shorthand for the whole interrogation ordeal. Actually I prefer it when he spells it out in detail, it allows people to get a better picture of what it was like for her getting the screws put to her like that. I hope your outrage in the matter is successful in refining his language so he is a more effective advocate.
 
SomeAlibi said:
What I'm saying is, what are the objective cellphone records of the timing of Amanda's call from her cellphone on this call? Why don't we have that?
Click to expand...

We do have those records.

This post includes an image of Amanda's cell phone records. The country code for the UK is 44, making it easy to pick out the calls to Meredith's UK phone. The phone calls to Amanda's mother in Seattle start with the US country code of 1.
 
Kaosium said:
Semantics. Simple shorthand for the whole interrogation ordeal. Actually I prefer it when he spells it out in detail, it allows people to get a better picture of what it was like for her getting the screws put to her like that. I hope your outrage in the matter is successful in refining his language so he is a more effective advocate.
Click to expand...


Semantics? So you think that being clipped over the head is synonymous with being beaten? You may be a passionate advocate for Knox but I think that suggestion would be laughable to any normal person. Is that what you mean that being clipped over the head is indistinguishable with being beaten?
 
SomeAlibi said:
Semantics? So you think that being clipped over the head is synonymous with being beaten? You may be a passionate advocate for Knox but I think that suggestion would be laughable to any normal person. Is that what you mean that being clipped over the head is indistinguishable with being beaten?
Click to expand...

Ya. It's kind of like the man who hits his wife in the back of the head: "Actually, I didn't beat my wife officer, I only hit her". That seems to be the distinction you want everyone to make.
 
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

Apols - I see you quoted me yesterday/day before and I never responded so I'll jump in here.
This is the point I was making with my 'tenuous comparison' [ me, me ,me :)] - evasion, meandering, obfuscation & forgetfulness simply doesn't fly, not in a courtroom or interview room at any rate.

As regards whether it works elsewhere - YMMV.

If this was just 1 instance* AK might be excused but as part of a pattern the court will draw an inference.
Comodi is not on trial - AK is, and as the records are available to the court the argument over timing is moot.


For some reason AK's response when caught out on a mistake re the Nov 5th issue "Ha they were pressuring me too" comes to mind. That might work in the movies but not in real life.


* If one was being very charitable it could be said that the mother had more reason to remember the call than AK given the circumstances.
 
Some Alibi,

From a defense attorney's perspective, do you find Quintavalle, as a witness, credible? If so, why do you suppose he did not come forward for so long? I think the witnesses in this case are weak with the possible exception of Nara Capezzali.
 
SomeAlibi said:
Semantics? So you think that being clipped over the head is synonymous with being beaten? You may be a passionate advocate for Knox but I think that suggestion would be laughable to any normal person. Is that what you mean that being clipped over the head is indistinguishable with being beaten?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be my choice of words, thus I hope he continues to spell it out in all the garish detail. The last couple clips I've seen of him he stopped using 'beaten,' though obviously I'm not seeing everything in chronological order coming so late to this debate. If he backslid, I hope your efforts are successful as he's a more impressive advocate when he doesn't use that shorthand. However to a pendant, two smacks in the back of the head do constitute 'beating,' however I would chose another description as I find pedantry unbecoming.
.
You seem like a nice enough fellow, but if only you and yours could see how you come across. One trip to that website of yours is cause for anyone with an open mind to back away slowly... :)
 
Kestrel said:
We do have those records.

This post includes an image of Amanda's cell phone records. The country code for the UK is 44, making it easy to pick out the calls to Meredith's UK phone. The phone calls to Amanda's mother in Seattle start with the US country code of 1.
Click to expand...


Ok Kestrel, so if that screenshot is correct, then what is the question? If the testimony of a third party was incorrect then it is still utterly secondary to the primary evidence: the timing is what it is, and Edda and Amanda's inability to agree is still inexplicable.

Since you want it spelt out, the theory as to why Amanda denied the existence of the first phonecall was because Edda started talking about it in the tapped conversations when Amanda was on remand. As anyone who has worked in criminal justice can tell you, Amanda would have been tipped off to the existence of monitoring by the other inmates by that point. This is not fanciful, this is exactly what happens.

So when Edda says (I paraphrase - I can look up direct if you like) "Hang on, when you told me in the first phone call...." Amanda *cuts her off* directly and says "I don't remember that." She actually interrupts her mother to shut her the f up. The reason she did this is because Edda was about to say, on tape, exactly what Amanda had said in that first phonecall, Amanda didn't know if that would cause massive trouble or not so she cuts her off. Thereafter, she had to maintain the pretence she didn't remember that call which is otherwise inexplicable. Edda testified at length about it at the trial and it's just one of innumerable times you have to say "oh it's reasonable that Amanda didn't recall that". Like so many other times in the testimony. You guys haven't done a lot of criminal trials. I have done literally hundreds. The "lack of memory" of these defendants is a massive stand out in the evidence. Not credible.

My personal opinion is that indeed they may not actually remember a huge deal of what they did that night because they were on a complete bender and that actually explains a lot of the confusion in their statements. This is unfortunately blown as a defence alibi by Amanda's stand testimony that she and Raffaele smoked one (a single) joint on the 1st. This is, of course, massively contradicted by Raffaele's diary which has them on a big smoke-up from late afternoon. I think anyone on either side of the debate can agree it's complete BS. The problem is that it's evidence that shows that Amanda definitely lied (for understandable but indefensible reasons) on the stand. You don't do that if you are a stand up, responsible person. I continue to have no idea how you guys can watch the youtube of her testimony and find it believable. It is, by several hundred cases on my part, extremely weak and unconvincing. She's just *awful* as a client.
 
PDiGirolamo said:
Some Alibi,

From a defense attorney's perspective, do you find Quintavalle, as a witness, credible? If so, why do you suppose he did not come forward for so long? I think the witnesses in this case are weak with the possible exception of Nara Capezzali.
Click to expand...


PDi - I personally think Quintavalle is the sort of witness you have to put down to court-experience. The reasons for him being credible are argued, the reasons for him not being credible are argued. In real life criminal trials, a huge amount of the jury's feel about a witness is as to how they come across. Quintavalle is a classic example of this and I think it's impossible to judge outside of that context. I do think that arguing the toss about Quintavalle is one of the less productive online conversations about this case: either side could be true - it's up the jury about who they believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom