Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

I think it is the before anything happened part that I disagree with and of course Massei's real stretch of a perplex. She succeeded in confusing Amanda because there was some indication that she thought they might still have been at Raffaele's at that time and Comodi cut her off.

Well, Comodi clarified what she meant by before anything happened - before the door was broken down.

Maybe everyone was perplexed by Amanda's forgetfulness and they were trying to help her remember. I still don't see how Comodi's line of questioning makes her a liar or a trickster.

Was she at Raffaele's place at noon? Did she call her Mom while she was at Raffaele's?

Did Comodi accuse Amanda of being at Raffaele's when the call was made? Did Amanda admit to making a call to her mother at Raffaele's?

 

[Mary_H]

I agree with Mary_H (nice to have you back). I also don't think it is appropriate to demand a poster produce personal information.

Thank you, Rose. I was turning blue from holding my breath all week.

 

[Malkmus]

We already had that video with about 30 ? secs of the relevant** audio posted by Katy Did last week.

Some of you obviously missed it - attention to detail guys.

The issue last week was not about a potential confession (although that's an intriguing piece of speculation) rather what AK had to say when faced with the chance to explain the 'internalized false confession' 6 weeks later in the presence of her laywer.

As confirmed by her 2009 testimony at the hands of her own lawyer (see earlier posts) when pressed for clarification the interrogation was terminated by AK / her lawyer.


What's the big mystery ???

"Confirmation bias" I wouldnt accuse anyone of that - inability to parse text and take it in perhaps.

Video could be the way to go ; Roll on Loose Change VI - The Italian Angle

Platonov, thanks, I see Katy did post the video during my (and several others) "lost weekend", so you'll have to excuse my lack of attention to detail over the last week.

As far as I can see from the answers Amanda gave it was the same as what she eventually said in court, and she rather passionately describes how the police told her she must have forgotten she was at the cottage that night and their subsequent denial to listen to her explain that she was uncertain of the accusation she had made. It occurred to me that the most probable reason for her lawyers to halt the interrogation was because she was "slandering" the police. with her explanation. Now since she did go on to restate this story in court it's possible that her lawyers allowed it at that point because they knew a jury was listening.

Platanov, I clearly hear an explanation of her false confession when I listen to the audio. What is it you're not hearing?

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, Comodi clarified what she meant by before anything happened - before the door was broken down.

Maybe everyone was perplexed by Amanda's forgetfulness and they were trying to help her remember. I still don't see how Comodi's line of questioning makes her a liar or a trickster.



Did Comodi accuse Amanda of being at Raffaele's when the call was made? Did Amanda admit to making a call to her mother at Raffaele's?

Comodi said she called her Mom at noon and from that quote I provided Amanda thought she was at Raffaele's at noon (and that would be correct) and no she did not call her Mom until they were at Meredith's place.

Quote:
Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ask your doctor

Ah! Good to see you are still with us, Lowe.

Alas, I can't see how letting us know a little something about your occupation and/or education - in very, very general terms - would be tantamount to revealing "personally identifying information."

Simply confirming whether or not you have a MD is hardly the same thing as giving out your home address!

It's not a trivial point: Your bold, doubt-free assertions about the nature of the human intestine/ displacement of alimentary matter within that organ during autopsy were not supported by reference to 'peer-reviewed scientific journals' and, as such, must be backed by relevant occupational experience/ expertise in order to be taken seriously.

Are you a MD?

If not, how on earth are you able to legitimately claim ANYTHING about the physical properties of the human intestine, during autopsy, with certainty sufficient to undermine the testimony of medical doctors?

Treehorn,

I asked an anesthesiologist how likely it was that Meredith's stomach would not have started to empty its contents after about five hours, and he said zero. I have posted this before, in the hopes that you or anyone else who know surgeons or anesthesiologists would ask them also.

I also disagree with your assessment with respect to what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says. Pro-guilt commenters are fond of quoting a portion of an article by Jaffe, but here is a letter written in response to it.

 

[Danceme]

If Knox said she had a recording of the actual crime on that computer do you think the prosecution would have had it sent to a lab and had it fixed?
Knox says that computer is part of her alibi and it has pictures on there that disprove one of Mignini's many absurd theories concerning this crime. The defense is willing to pay to have it fixed themselves. So the only real speculation should be why wont the Prosecution's office allow it? One of the cold hard facts about this case is, the prosecution is blocking an attempt of Knox to prove her innocence.

I understand its speculation when I say it could show computer activity at the time of the prosecutions ToD. However, if it does show computer activity or has the pictures shouldn't the prosecution want to know they have convicted the right people for the crime. Or is this more about a conviction and less about the right people?

I don't think the prosecution's office can not allow such a thing, only a judge can make that decision. The defense puts in the request and a judge rules on it. Has the defense asked for it in the appeal?

 

[Katody Matrass]

On page 74 of the motivations Massei is summarizing the questions presented to Amanda by Comodi, including the general time of the first call to Amanda's mother, and Amanda's answers.

The time given by Comodi was not general, it was specific.

MC: (...) you first called your mother at 12. At midday.
MC: But at 12:00 nothing had happened yet.
MC: Do you remember when your mother said "But at 12, nothing had happened yet."​

Massei then goes on to state on page 95 of the motivations that the first call to Amanda's mother was made at 12:47. So see, Massei wasn't tricked. And he made sure the time of the call was documented correctly in the motivations.

Sorry for the confusion christianahannah. I obviously meant Massei was tricked during the trial. To repeat what I wrote before:
While Massei is not logical because here he states the 12:47 time (but is he ever?) he fully adopts the point of Comodi's dirty trick. To clarify again - I am sure that at that moment he was already aware of Comodi's foul play. He just found it to be a great idea and used it in the motivation.

I don't think Amanda was tricked because she did not remember the call and did not allude to remembering the call during her testimony.

Here Amanda clearly is aware that at 12:00 she was back at Raffaele's and not left yet to the cottage for the second time, she obviously didn't get Comodi's half hearted clarification, but is impressed by her repetitions of 12:00 time:

AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --​

Comodi then cuts her, because it's clearly true, that Amanda made no call to mother at 12:00, when she was at Raffaele's.

Here Massei obviously either didn't get Comodi's clarification or is playing along with her:

GCM: Excuse me. You don't remember, but the pubblico ministero just pointed out to you a phone call that your mother received in the night.

MC: At three o'clock at night.

GCM: So, it must have been true, it happened. Did you have the habit
of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday
in Italy? At a time where in Seattle...people don't usually call each
other in the middle of the night.

AK: Yes, yes, of course.

GCM: So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.​

I am curious though, why does Comodi have to be lying or playing dirty tricks?

She not once stated the time correctly, yet multiple times emphasized the 12:00 time. You yourself noted that she was fully aware of the time of the call, yet she didn't correct neither judge Massei, nor Amanda.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think the prosecution's office can not allow such a thing, only a judge can make that decision. The defense puts in the request and a judge rules on it. Has the defense asked for it in the appeal?

This is from Injustice in Perugia:

Defense Requests Further Investigation of Computer Damage.
During the preliminary investigation, computers were seized by investigators. These computers were owned by Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith. These three computers were damaged during inspection. This damage has never been properly explained. The electronic boards of all the three hard disks were damaged in such way to hinder any data extrapolation.

The preliminary investigation judge appointed Professor Massimo Bernaschi to investigate the damage caused to the computers and to attempt to recover the data from the three computers. The investigation failed to give reasons for the damage to the computers with certainty.

The defense is asking that these computers be evaluated by their respect[ive] manufacturers (Asus, Apple, Toshiba) to gain insight as to how these computers could have been damaged during inspection. These computers contained valuable information that was beneficial to the defense. Additional testing should be granted to see it this evidence can be recovered.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

I have a hunch those hard disks are long gone.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well, Comodi clarified what she meant by before anything happened - before the door was broken down.

You mean 12:00 was not before the door was broken down?


BTW Even in her, as you call it clarification she didn't miss the opportunity to strengthen the 12:00 message again:

MC: But at midday nothing had happened yet in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet.​

Her clarification was not a clarification, but another blur of hand waving.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Treehorn,

I also disagree with your assessment with respect to what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says. Pro-guilt commenters are fond of quoting a portion of an article by Jaffe, but here is a letter written in response to it.

Something I notice in the letter - the youngest child had 50cc of gastric content and the oldest had 100cc. IIRC, Meredith had 500cc in her stomach. If MK ate between 5 and 10 times the amount of what those kids ate, I think it just may border on a large meal, which takes longer to digest.

Just sayin'.

Also, why the difference between the children's stomach contents when it is explicitly stated the meals were "portion-controlled, uniformly prepared, etc." leading the reader to surmise they all ate the same amount of food. (Or maybe my surmiser is broken.)

 

[Kaosium]

The slander suit

It sounds like the eight are now down to five. Will try to get some clarification.

I kinda curious about this, I don't see much discussion on it anywhere. It was a news report on this last June/July that initially caused me to look into what happened in this case.

Do I have this right? What I can recall reading on this is that:

1. She is being charged with slander and even if acquitted may have to serve up to six years.

2. The 'slander' was saying she'd been whupped upside the back of the head a few times during interrogation and it was in response to a question on the stand.

3. Amanda would have to 'prove' her charge, but all video of that session has been destroyed.

4. There were were twelve policemen present and eight filed the charge, though the other four could join in later. This piece suggests it might be down to five now?

I believe I recall reading somewhere that it was a legal technique, and it isn't as ominous as it initially looked to me. I also have read that the prosecutor has filed around twelve slander suits, though if I recall some of those are years back. Is this unusual in Italy?

 

[Chris C]

Either that, or Knox really did sleep all the way through til 10am or so. It's entirely plausible that Sollecito might have woken up around 5.30, messed around on his computer for half an hour or so, played some music, checked his cellphone for messages, then went back to sleep until his father called him just before 9.30am, then went back to doze/sleep again until around 10am. And all without Knox ever properly waking.

Most people who share a bed with a partner (me included) know how possible it is to wake in the night and put on the TV or play music for a while, without your partner ever waking up. And I've definitely made phone calls before under the same circumstances.

As I mentioned before, I don't believe that Sollecito has ever been questioned in depth about the exact circumstances of that night. If I'd been to bed last night, woke up at 5.30 and watched TV for half an hour, went back to sleep, was woken by the phone at 9.30, then went back to sleep again until 10.00-10.30am, and I was asked what time I'd got up this morning, I'd undoubtedly say "10-10.30".

Maybe the appeal will make things a little clearer...

Its also very plausable that he went to the bathroom at 530 and bumped the computer.

 

[Mary_H]

I kinda curious about this, I don't see much discussion on it anywhere. It was a news report on this last June/July that initially caused me to look into what happened in this case.

Do I have this right? What I can recall reading on this is that:

1. She is being charged with slander and even if acquitted may have to serve up to six years.

2. The 'slander' was saying she'd been whupped upside the back of the head a few times during interrogation and it was in response to a question on the stand.

3. Amanda would have to 'prove' her charge, but all video of that session has been destroyed.

4. There were were twelve policemen present and eight filed the charge, though the other four could join in later. This piece suggests it might be down to five now?

I believe I recall reading somewhere that it was a legal technique, and it isn't as ominous as it initially looked to me. I also have read that the prosecutor has filed around twelve slander suits, though if I recall some of those are years back. Is this unusual in Italy?

A (presumably qualified) legal consultant wrote this note on page 12 of the Motovations.

2
The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as slander” in the English/US media. This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems. The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone‟s reputation. Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the
credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence. The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence. Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint, while calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary. The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code: while diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties, calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.

Michael a/k/a Fulcanelli gave the same explanation in another blog; that is, that it is about accusing someone you know to be innocent.

I can't see any way they can prove that Amanda knew the police to be innocent.

 

[Chris C]

Something I notice in the letter - the youngest child had 50cc of gastric content and the oldest had 100cc. IIRC, Meredith had 500cc in her stomach. If MK ate between 5 and 10 times the amount of what those kids ate, I think it just may border on a large meal, which takes longer to digest.

Just sayin'.

Also, why the difference between the children's stomach contents when it is explicitly stated the meals were "portion-controlled, uniformly prepared, etc." leading the reader to surmise they all ate the same amount of food. (Or maybe my surmiser is broken.)

Stomachs dont empty like drains. They just dont open up and let it all in the duodenum at once. When the food hits its stage of digestion in the stomach it moves to the next stage, regardless of the state of the rest of the meal. In other words it gradually empties.

 

[platonov]

Platonov, thanks, I see Katy did post the video during my (and several others) "lost weekend", so you'll have to excuse my lack of attention to detail over the last week.

As far as I can see from the answers Amanda gave it was the same as what she eventually said in court, and she rather passionately describes how the police told her she must have forgotten she was at the cottage that night and their subsequent denial to listen to her explain that she was uncertain of the accusation she had made. It occurred to me that the most probable reason for her lawyers to halt the interrogation was because she was "slandering" the police. with her explanation. Now since she did go on to restate this story in court it's possible that her lawyers allowed it at that point because they knew a jury was listening.

Platanov, I clearly hear an explanation of her false confession when I listen to the audio. What is it you're not hearing?

Opinions Opinions

What I'm not hearing ............is an acceptance from several posters [ Katody Matrass for e.g. , unlike AK's cuffing I can name names ] that when when pressed for clarification the interrogation was terminated by AK / her lawyer.

What I'm not hearing ............. is an acceptance from several posters [Halidess1 for e.g.] that AK in her own 2009 testimony at the hands of her own laywer stated that it was terminated it as it gave rise to the same feelings as those that prompted the 'internalized false confession' which we are told was due to 'waterboarding' at the hands of the cops. No 'waterboarding' cops present this time & her lawyer is on hand !!!

What I'm not hearing ............is an apology/retraction on the subject of "confirmation bias", but there are also less generous explanations from London John.

.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Quote: "Stomachs dont empty like drains. They just dont open up and let it all in the duodenum at once. When the food hits its stage of digestion in the stomach it moves to the next stage, regardless of the state of the rest of the meal. In other words it gradually empties. "


I know - I've been around for all the KL T(lag) posts. But it is true that certain things such as the size of the meal, stress, activity, and even the contents of the meal (sugar, carbs, etc.) slow the process. Before Kevin jumps in to pontificate, I will state I do not beleive the ToD was as late as the prosecution claims it was. All I am stating is the size of Meredith's meal has been claimed here on JREF as "small to moderate" but in comparison to the oldest child mentioned in the letter referenced by Halides1, MK's meal could have been larger than "small to moderate".

 

[Dan O.]

Its also very plausable that he went to the bathroom at 530 and bumped the computer.

Creating a play list is so simple that Raffaele could have done it in his sleep. If he got up to go to the bathroom and wanted to put on some music to get back to sleep with, he likely would have created a play list to select a few songs that wouldn't disturbed Amanda's sleep.

 

[platonov]

A Would you be willing to clarify what you mean by "beyond hyperbole?"

B We don't need to talk about faith. Jesus Christ is a historical figure. You seem to have missed my point about keeping categories separate. Would it work better for you if used the example of Galileo Gallilei or Desmond Tutu?

You're right, the debate here is not of the form "all convictions are safe," for the most part, colonelhall's arguments sometimes excepted. It does happen in many other forums, though.

C With reference to your last sentence, if you would like to elevate the level of debate even higher, then I would suggest we skip over the part about how laws are relative to cultures, and head right on into a discussion of whether the procedures used by Mignini and his staff were ethical, from as objective a standpoint as we can establish.

A With all due respect ...No, were at an impasse.

B Evidence by anecdote has overrun its course here - that's my point.

C With all due respect ...No, its irrelevant , lets see a treatment of where & how the appeal can overturn the original judgment.

Addendum to B The character you describe as Jesus Christ (I suspect that the term as you use it encompasses much more than my description - apologies if I have misunderstood you ) is not historical. But there is another part of this forum for that 'debate'.

.

 

[platonov]

Its also very plausable that he went to the bathroom at 530 and bumped the computer.

No.

 

[Justinian2]

MK was killed by Magic!

Perhaps we should look at this as if we were magicians exposing a magic trick.
In this case the trick was either performed by Guede, AK and RS, Magnini, Massei and the police.

1) How did Guede enter the house?

2) How, when and why did AK and RS enter the house to stage the break-in, do the murder and clean up only their own evidence?

3) How did the prosecution put DNA on the knife?

1 and 3 are easy to explain.

Look at the magic trick where the lady on the stage is levitated and hoops are passed over her body.

1) The lady is on a pallet and a forklift behind a curtain lifts the pallet. The magician with an oval shaped hoop passes it around the body. Maybe the oval hoop has felt cloth to make it seem like a continuous loop.

2) Magic levitates the body.

3) Wires levitate the body, again on a pallet.

1 and 3 are easy to explain.