Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

I think you misunderstand that lies should only be relevant where they are of direct probative relevance to the case.

A classic case in point is from the OJ Simpson case, where Detective Mark Fuhrman was asked on the stand if he'd ever used the "n" word in the previous ten years. He replied that he had not, but Simpson's defence lawyers introduced evidence that he in fact had conclusively used that word a few years previously. Thereafter, his important testimony about the discovery of the glove and the entry to Simpson's property were entirely discredited in the eyes of the predominantly-black jury, aided and abetted by not only the defence, but also - astonishingly - the prosecution.

Most legal commentators subsequently agreed that this line of questioning should never have been allowed by Judge Ito, since it was of minimal probative value (and, at the same time, far more inflammatory value). Clearly, the defence was trying to plant the seed that Fuhrman was an avowed racist, who therefore deliberately planted evidence to frame Simpson. But not only is it an incredibly long shot to jump from using the "n" word to wanting to frame black people for murder, there was also evidence that Fuhrman had been unnecessarily lenient with Simpson when called to previous domestic disputes between Simpson and his white wife.

So, as applied here, I'd argue that it's of relatively little probative value if Knox/Sollecito's version of events between 05.30 and 09.30 on the 2nd November 2007 doesn't tally with the computer logs and phone records, since the contested areas don't even place them at the murder scene.

The lies here (as throughout the case) are of direct probative relevance, as well as speaking to credibility.
The Fuhrman anecdote is not relevant or applicable here (except perhaps ..no no ) nor was it in Perugia.

 

[LondonJohn]

The lies here (as throughout the case) are of direct probative relevance, as well as speaking to credibility.
The Fuhrman anecdote is not relevant or applicable here (except perhaps ..no no ) nor was it in Perugia.

Right you are then......

 

[HumanityBlues]

I think you misunderstand that lies should only be relevant where they are of direct probative relevance to the case.

A classic case in point is from the OJ Simpson case, where Detective Mark Fuhrman was asked on the stand if he'd ever used the "n" word in the previous ten years. He replied that he had not, but Simpson's defence lawyers introduced evidence that he in fact had conclusively used that word a few years previously. Thereafter, his important testimony about the discovery of the glove and the entry to Simpson's property were entirely discredited in the eyes of the predominantly-black jury, aided and abetted by not only the defence, but also - astonishingly - the prosecution.

Most legal commentators subsequently agreed that this line of questioning should never have been allowed by Judge Ito, since it was of minimal probative value (and, at the same time, far more inflammatory value). Clearly, the defence was trying to plant the seed that Fuhrman was an avowed racist, who therefore deliberately planted evidence to frame Simpson. But not only is it an incredibly long shot to jump from using the "n" word to wanting to frame black people for murder, there was also evidence that Fuhrman had been unnecessarily lenient with Simpson when called to previous domestic disputes between Simpson and his white wife.

So, as applied here, I'd argue that it's of relatively little probative value if Knox/Sollecito's version of events between 05.30 and 09.30 on the 2nd November 2007 doesn't tally with the computer logs and phone records, since the contested areas don't even place them at the murder scene.

Not to veer too much off topic, but the Mark Fuhrman tapes went a lot further than just the N-word.

 

[platonov]

Minutiae of forensics is a nice turn of phrase, but in an interview, Mignini said that the three strongest pieces of biological evidence were all DNA-related:

"Male interviewer: In the biological evidence, is there any one item which is the one which you consider, especially in terms of the trial, to have had the most value?

Giuliano Mignini: I think that, in terms of the trial, the most important were the knife, the bra hook and also the biological traces in the bathroom. From the point of view of the trial, the knife certainly links the two defendants and the victim. Therefore it was (interrupted).

That is why I have pointed out that Dr. Stefanoni's "theories" of how DNA contamination work are inconsistent with the facts of, for example, the Gregory Turner case.

So the prosecutions use of any forensic evidence - negates my heavily qualified

"In fact if I may hazard a guess perhaps some jurors apply more weight to them than to minutiae of forensics which have so exercised this forum."

I don't think so

 

[christianahannah]

Nice evasive maneuver.

I'm refering to this creative imprecision of Comodi

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.​

as katy_did summarized it much better then I:

It's very obvious she was intending to imply that Amanda had called her mother before there was any reason to do so, and emphasizing that it was "three or four o'clock at night" to suggest the inappropriateness of Amanda calling her at that time to "tell her nothing had happened". That she then 'clarifies' with "in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet" only shows she knew precisely what she was doing - she knew that a lot had happened by that stage, just not the breaking down of the door.

The 112 call happened almost immediately after Amanda's call to her mother, yet strangely Comodi never asks Amanda why she called the police despite the fact that "nothing had happened".

It wasn't an evasive maneuver, I wasn't sure what was being asked.

I would guess, but am not sure, that Comodi's "nothing had happened yet" had to do with the breaking down of the door and the discovery of Meredith's body (which she does clarify during questioning). And perhaps, to show that Amanda's forgetting the call was odd.

I thought it was Raffaele and not Amanda who had called the police. I can't remember from reading Amanda's trial testimony but did Amanda's attorneys bring up the call to the police (made very soon after the phone call to her mother)?

 

[LondonJohn]

Both Amanda's mother and Filomena knew how much Italian she spoke and both still told her to call the police. She didn't.

Where's the evidence that "she was standing right next to her boyfriend"?

Why did they need to speak to three different people (Amanda's mother, Filomena and Raffaele's sister) before deciding to call the police? Amanda voiced her concern to Raffaele at about 11:30 yet no call was made to the police until 12:51.

Maybe it's because you have the ex-post knowledge that Meredith was lying dead in a pool of her own blood behind her bedroom door. Maybe Knox and Sollecito didn't have that knowledge between 12.00pm and 1.00pm that day. Maybe they were feeling mounting concern about the situation, and were wondering whether they would be justified in calling the police. Maybe the discovery of the broken window in Filomena's room and the inability to contact Meredith via her two mobiles at around 12.00pm heightened the concern. Maybe after speaking with Filomena, Knox and Sollecito decided to check the whole cottage again, tried Meredith's door, re-evaluated the blood in the small bathroom, and the level of concern increased further. Maybe at this point Knox decided that she was concerned enough to seek her mother's advice, even though she knew it was still sleeping hours in Seattle. Maybe Sollecito called his sister to seek the same advice - this time from a more professional police perspective. Maybe these two phone calls gave them the final confirmation they needed that they should call the police. Then they called the police.

 

[Kestrel]

Both Amanda's mother and Filomena knew how much Italian she spoke and both still told her to call the police. She didn't.

Where's the evidence that "she was standing right next to her boyfriend"?

Why did they need to speak to three different people (Amanda's mother, Filomena and Raffaele's sister) before deciding to call the police? Amanda voiced her concern to Raffaele at about 11:30 yet no call was made to the police until 12:51.

At this point, you are speculating with 20/20 hindsight. Lets try dealing with the reality of that morning.

By 12:07, Amanda had enough concern to try Meredith's phones and call Filomena. After returning to the cottage, she discovered the broken window and discussing this with Filomena. By 12:47, when Amanda called her mother, she knew that there had been a burglary and that Meredith's door was locked, and she was not answering her phone. It's a reasonable story showing escalating concern as things are discovered.

During the 12:51 call to 112, we know that Amanda is standing next to Raff because we can hear him ask Amanda for the street name and hear Amanda answer.

What we don't hear is the Postal Police. They had yet to arrive.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not to veer too much off topic, but the Mark Fuhrman tapes went a lot further than just the N-word.

Ah very true. But a) the stuff that went a lot further was in the context of helping a screenwriter who wanted to write a controversial screenplay involving rogue cops, and b) the initial question of the "n" word use was the device the defence used to introduce this whole screenplay evidence.

 

[Alt+F4]

Maybe these two phone calls gave them the final confirmation they needed that they should call the police. Then they called the police.

Are you kidding me? It wasn't two phone calls, it was six (four between Amanda and Filomena, one between Amanda and her mother and one between Raffaele and his sister). There was indications of a break-in, blood in the bathroom and Amanda is panicking over Meredith's whereabouts. Yet the honors student and the computer science major needed six phone calls to three other people before calling the police. Why would they need final confirmation? What's wrong with them?

Deal with it, they wanted to draw other people into the discovery of their crime.

 

[Alt+F4]

By 12:07, Amanda had enough concern to try Meredith's phones and call Filomena. After returning to the cottage, she discovered the broken window and discussing this with Filomena.

It was Filomena that called Amanda at 12:34, not the other way around way around. Amanda only called Filomena once, at 12:08, 26 minutes before she even returned to the cottage. Once back at the cottage she did not call Filomena to discuss the situation.

By 12:47, when Amanda called her mother, she knew that there had been a burglary and that Meredith's door was locked, and she was not answering her phone. It's a reasonable story showing escalating concern as things are discovered.

Yet even with this "escalating concern" she didn't even bother to call either of Meredith's phones again for the next 21-25 minutes before the Postal Police arrived. In the entire 44 minute period between Amanda's first call to Meredith's English phone (12:07) and Raffelle's first call to 112 (12:51), Amanda spent only 23 seconds trying to get hold of Meredith by telephone.

During the 12:51 call to 112, we know that Amanda is standing next to Raff because we can hear him ask Amanda for the street name and hear Amanda answer.

No, that didn't happen at the 12:51 call (the police told him to call back), that happened at the 12:55 call.

What we don't hear is the Postal Police. They had yet to arrive.

The Postal Police most likely arrived between 12:55 and 1:00, 21 to 25 minutes after the pair arrived back at the cottage. Why so long to call the police?

 

[katy_did]

Well your question presumes it's a tactic. I would only say that that's pretty loaded since we have to "understand" that Amanda and Raffaele's mixed recollections are all bona fide. To me, a problematic witness statement is one which is an assertion of "fact" which cannot be tested against verifiable evidence. Since the phonecall timings exist as an objective fact, whatever interpretation you want to take of Comodi isn't really terribly relevant. The fact that those records exist and are known to exist, tends to suggest to me that Comodi is recalling as Comodi recalls it rather than trying some dastardly exploit.

This strikes me as an evasive lawyer's answer.

I'm not all that interested in whether Amanda did or didn't forget the phone call, since I don't think that's particularly relevant here. The issue is whether Comodi genuinely didn't know the timing of that phone call, or whether she knew it but lied in order to sway the jury against Amanda. I can't see how any other interpretation is possible from the quotes posted by Katody, particularly this one:

Comodi: 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.

I don't think it's credible that Comodi came to Court with a prepared argument to use in Amanda's questioning, based on her mother's comment that "nothing had really happened yet", without checking the time at which that phone call was made. Timing was crucial to her whole argument: if the call happened at 12, it would be a little surprising that Amanda called her mother at that stage; but if it happened at 12:48, just a few minutes before they called the police, it wouldn't be at all surprising that both sought the advice of relatives first. I don't believe Comodi raised this argument in Court without first checking the timing of that call, and I think the fact she clarifies by saying "in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet" shows that she knew exactly what she was doing.

If she knew the timing of the call, then her misleading questioning in Court (her lie that the call happened at 12) would seem to have been a tactic. She probably thought it was a win-win situation: either Amanda said, "But that call happened just before we called the police, so lots had happened" - at which point Comodi would say, "Aha, so you lied about not remembering it!" - or she continued to say she didn't remember it, leaving Comodi free to imply that Amanda had called her mother for no reason at 3 in the morning, and that therefore she must have known more about the crime than she was letting on. And all of this stemmed from Comodi's lie that the call happened at 12, when "nothing had happened yet".

So again: as a lawyer, what's your view of this sort of tactic? Is it something that surprises you, or that just seems normal in context? Would you do it yourself? I don't care whether your interpretation of Comodi's approach here is relevant to the case or not; I'm just interested, as a non-lawyer, in whether lying in Court is a standard tactic used to 'trap' the defendants, or whether it's something which is considered unethical even within the profession. For all I know, the approach Comodi takes here is pretty standard.

 

[katy_did]

It was Filomena that called Amanda at 12:34, not the other way around way around. Amanda only called Filomena once, at 12:08, 26 minutes before she even returned to the cottage. Once back at the cottage she did not call Filomena to discuss the situation.

Yet even with this "escalating concern" she didn't even bother to call either of Meredith's phones again for the next 21-25 minutes before the Postal Police arrived. In the entire 44 minute period between Amanda's first call to Meredith's phone (12:07) and Raffelle's first call to 112 (12:51), she spent only 23 seconds trying to get hold of Meredith.

Any thoughts on why the 'shocked' Filomena didn't bother trying to call Meredith at all?

 

[Alt+F4]

Any thoughts on why the 'shocked' Filomena didn't bother trying to call Meredith at all?

I must have missed that. Who said Filomena was "shocked"?

 

[katy_did]

I must have missed that. Who said Filomena was "shocked"?

Well alrighty, let's says a "worried" Filomena (thought I had a quote for 'shocked', but can't find it at present). Why didn't a 'worried' Filomena give Meredith's phones a quick call? Amanda spent 23 seconds longer trying to get in touch with Meredith than Filomena did...

 

[christianahannah]

Any thoughts on why the 'shocked' Filomena didn't bother trying to call Meredith at all?

According to the motivations, Filomena did trying calling Meredith. I can't find another reference to confirm this though.

Page 316:

The Police investigators proceeded to analyse the printouts of the phone traffic of the mobile phones in use by the defendants, by the victim, by Romanelli Filomena who, as has been noted, late in the morning of 2.11.07 contacted the mobile phones both of Meredith Kercher and of Amanda Knox, and finally to the father of Raffaele, Dr Francesco Sollecito.

 

[katy_did]

According to the motivations, Filomena did trying calling Meredith. I can't find another reference to confirm this though.

Hmm, thanks for that. I'd seen a quote in a Corriere article which seemed to suggest this, but thought it must have been a mistake, since I hadn't seen any confirmation elsewhere. Why on earth would Filomena have called Raffaele's dad? Did she even know his last name? That sounds really strange...

 

[christianahannah]

Hmm, thanks for that. I'd seen a quote in a Corriere article which seemed to suggest this, but thought it must have been a mistake, since I hadn't seen any confirmation elsewhere. Why on earth would Filomena have called Raffaele's dad? Did she even know his last name? That sounds really strange...

I think the sentence may be constructed oddly - not that Filomena also called Raffaele's father but that the police also analyzed the phone printouts of Raffaele's father (along with Filomena's, Amanda's, etc.).

I could be wrong about this. It is difficult to know for sure without seeing it in its original form.

 

[Dan O.]

So, when the postal police arrive at 12:35, they see everything that Amanda saw, they hear of the missing roommate, the locked door, and they even have Meredith's phones which were found abandoned in a garden up the road. Do they call the police? No! Do they treat the cottage as a crime scene? No! They do nothing for half an hour. They even allow the other roommate to wander in and out of her room where there is visible evidence of a break-in.

So, why again is it that Amanda should have called the police earlier when the postal police themselves with the same information didn't see a pressing need to do anything?

 

[RoseMontague]

Hmm, thanks for that. I'd seen a quote in a Corriere article which seemed to suggest this, but thought it must have been a mistake, since I hadn't seen any confirmation elsewhere. Why on earth would Filomena have called Raffaele's dad? Did she even know his last name? That sounds really strange...

My guess is she couldn't reach Amanda back and she was worried as you suggested so she called Raffaele's dad to get his cell phone number, figuring he and Amanda were together.

I am still trying to see what evidence other than Amanda and Raffaele can't remember phone calls or when they actually woke up or got up or can't get the times exactly right that Some Alibi is using as his beyond a reasonable doubt evidence of murder. There is no evidence that they did anything other than smoked some pot so I don't understand hints that they were into something heavier. Is this case about going to jail for 30 years for either lying or not remembering correctly or is it about going to jail for 30 years for murdering your flat-mate?

 

[katy_did]

I think the sentence may be constructed oddly - not that Filomena also called Raffaele's father but that the police also analyzed the phone printouts of Raffaele's father (along with Filomena's, Amanda's, etc.).

I could be wrong about this. It is difficult to know for sure without seeing it in its original form.

Yes, perhaps; that whole sentence seems confusing. I'll have to dig out the original. Whatever Massei is saying about Filomena's calls, it sounds like he mentioned it earlier, so maybe there's something elsewhere in the report that would help explain it! Thanks for the quote anyway, I must've missed that on previous reads.