Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

The call was made at 12:47 in the afternoon.

And as has been pointed out before, the issue is not the exact timing of the call. It's the false claim that it was made "before anything had happened". The call was made after finding a door left open, blood in the bathroom, a locked door, a missing flatmate who wasn't answering her phone and a broken window. The call was made when there was ample cause for concern over what happened to Meredith. Concern that was proven justified only a short time later.

Sigh;
...... made *to* a time zone corresponding to "middle of night"; previously well known and avoided by caller (and tirelessly parsed, Googled, conjectured upon and nit picked to ad nauseam by the endless argument here), from which I now respectfully distance myself).

 

[Kestrel]

Sigh;
...... made *to* a time zone corresponding to "middle of night"; previously well known and avoided by caller (and tirelessly parsed, Googled, conjectured upon and nit picked to ad nauseam by the endless argument here), from which I now respectfully distance myself).

Is it really that odd that a young lady might call her mother for advice in such a situation?

You seem to be assuming guilt, then pointing to perfectly normal actions as evidence of guilt.

 

[colonelhall]

Kestrel"The call was made at 12:47 in the afternoon. "

But as we all know, that was 4:47 in the morning in Seattle. Well before most people are up.

Wouldn't it have been better to have called the police, well before this time?

Why were there no alarm bells ringing when Knox claims that she took a shower?

Did she not relay some of her suspicions to the boyfriend earlier in the day?

All questions that immediately spring to mind. Diverting attention towards Comodi and accusing her of lying is a bit rich in my opinion.

 

[Dan O.]

"But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --"

So Knox is imagining why she would have made the phone call. The answer reveals that she was thinking of a phone call that was made from her flat, not sollecito's. She knew what was being discussed. She knew that they were talking of a call that was made just before the door was broken down.

Have I got this right? Some of the lengthy discussions here make even the simplest things sound confusing.

No. You have it wrong. What time did Amanda come home and discover the door open? Where was she at Noon? If you actually followed this case you might understand what the rest of us are talking about.

 

[treehorn]

Why would someone have staged a bloody murder in their own flat in the first place?

Staged a murder?! One of us is confused.

If you're asking why AK and RS staged a B & E, I repeat:

To deflect suspicion/ blame away from AK (and RS) and toward someone - anyone - that did not live at the girls' cottage (or have legitimate reason to visit the girls in that cottage).

If you're asking why someone would concoct a plan to murder a roommate, I cannot say. Who can? My suspicion is that AK did not 'plan' a murder. However, I think there are some pretty compelling indicators that support the notion that AK 'planned' a Halloween/ Day of the Dead hazing/ "rape prank" of the roommate she'd grown to resent. Street drugs and alcohol (and a good dose of mental illness and/or immaturity) allowed the prank to get out of hand.

 

[Matthew Best]

To deflect suspicion/ blame away from AK (and RS) and toward someone - anyone - that did not live at the girls' cottage (or have legitimate reason to visit the girls in that cottage).

Like Patrick Lumumba, you mean?

But wasn't he the employer of two of the girls in the flat? He probably would have had a legitimate reason to visit them, then, wouldn't he?

 

[LondonJohn]

May I suggest that the multi-page, multi day profusion of arguments about Prosecutor Comodi's examination of later unanimously convicted murderess Amanda Knox's call to Edda have become a very circular tirade, tiredly redundant and just plain meaningless.

Judge Massei negated the thousand word or so effort here to nit pick what the actual time was and motivation for any mistakes about it, when he found it necessary to inject himself into the testimony.

His extremely crystallizing observation about the call being made 'in the middle of the night'; a time when such calls are not ordinarily made seems to me to make more repeated Google cut and pasting of time zones and conjecture about Prosecutor's Comodi's mistake and/or motives to be little more than a pointless exercise in futility.

Judge Massei's subsequent final direct statements to Amanda showed just how evasive and deceitful her convenient parsing about 'not remembering' really was.

Amanda's reply surely seems sufficient to be the 'last words' on this matter.
Amanda's answer to the Judge ..."Yes, yes, of course"

Knox made the 12.47pm call to her mother when both she (Knox) and Sollecito had discovered the broken window and mess in Filomena's room, and Knox had tried in vain to reach Meredith via her two mobile phones. This, coupled with the earlier discovery of blood in the small bathroom and the strange deposit of faeces in the large bathroom, had made Knox and Sollecito concerned enough for Knox to wake her mother up in the middle of the night.

Comodi (and Massei) seemed to be implying that Knox seemed to have somewhat "unnecessarily" woken her mother up in the "middle of the night" (in fact, almost 5am), when "nothing had happened". This was clearly designed to sow the seed of the following argument: why would Knox wake her mother up in the middle of the night when nothing was ostensibly wrong yet? The inference being: Knox KNEW that something was wrong - i.e. she knew that Meredith had been murdered.

Oh, by the way, to parse a sentence of text (in a linguistic context) is to split it out into its constituent parts of speech (subject, verb, adjective, object etc). Nothing more or less than that. I'm not sure what you think it means though.

 

[treehorn]

I'm intrigued by the assertion (by most people opposed to our revisitation of the stomach/intestine evidence) that medical knowledge is only available (and comprehensible) by those within the medical profession. Were we conducting this debate in 1725 in a coffee house in the City of London, I'd wholeheartedly agree this to be the case. But we're conducting this debate online in 2010, at a time when practically all medical knowledge is available for us mere mortals to inspect and analyse.

But, by the way, many thanks to Diastole for another confirmation from within the medical community. I would be very, very interested to hear directly from a medical professional contradicting what you and we have been asserting...

Are you under the impression that articles in peer-reviewed medical journals are intended for, and best evaluated by, lay people?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a murder trial but defendant Knox chose to treat it as a hide-and-seek exercise. "Stubborn naivety" comes to mind.

With her stories, Knox put herself where she is now.

So it wasn't evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that she was involved in Meredith's murder which put her where she is now?

(And as a point of law, being a "flight risk" and "at risk of re-offending" are actually what put Knox where she is now. She's innocent until the end of the final appeal. But you knew that.)

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel"The call was made at 12:47 in the afternoon. "

But as we all know, that was 4:47 in the morning in Seattle. Well before most people are up.

And in your life experience, no young person would ever call a parent and wake them up to ask advice.

Wouldn't it have been better to have called the police, well before this time?

Why were there no alarm bells ringing when Knox claims that she took a shower?

Did she not relay some of her suspicions to the boyfriend earlier in the day?

You are using 20/20 hindsight. Assuming that murder was the only explanation for the odd things Amanda saw on her first visit to the cottage that day.

Even later, after it had been confirmed that Meredith wasn't answering her phone and the door was locked, the Postal Police were reluctant to break down Meredith's door.

All questions that immediately spring to mind. Diverting attention towards Comodi and accusing her of lying is a bit rich in my opinion.

The problem is that Comedi was lying when she claimed that the 12:47 phone call was before anything had happened. It seems however that you are incapable of admitting that a prosecutor could lie.

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you under the impression that articles in peer-reviewed medical journals are intended for, and best evaluated by, lay people?

Straw man, anyone?

I pointed out that such articles are accessible to lay people. And while most of them are written in scientific language, the language is not so arcane that people with a decent scientific education cannot interpret and understand them. And in the case of written research on stomach/intestinal contents, I am very confident that I am capable of correctly understanding what is being written, even though I do not have the competence to reproduce the research myself.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it possible to reach a consensus on this board about the evidentiary value of the footprint on the bathmat?

The strongest argument SomeAlibi presented was his claim that the print on the bathmat matched Sollecito’s foot print with ‘millimeter precision’. That was such a bold claim that at first I took him at his word.

Now that I have read the discussion about the foot print, and looked at the photo evidence, I find Some Alibi’s claim to be absurd, frankly, and a self-disparaging argument to have made, in that his credibility dropped precipitously.

Is there anyone here still making the claim that Sollecito’s foot matches the footprint on the bathmat to millimeter precision?

Or are you arguing, it can’t be Guede’s , therefore it must be Sollecito’s?

My personal view (as I've said before) is that the bath mat print cannot be matched definitively to anyone - including Sollecito and Guede. I think the best identification that can be made with any certainty is that it was made by an adult male with a foot size corresponding approximately with a shoe size of 40-48 (Euro sizes). Although, of those two people, I'd suggest that Guede's foot matches the bath mat print in more respects than Sollecito's (but I don't think it should be used as evidence against Guede either).

I believe that the whole "science" of this sort of footprint evaluation has been thoroughly debunked. It belongs in the same file as graphology or polygraph testing, as unverifiable pseudo-science, which should hot be put before a court of law as hard evidence.

 

[treehorn]

Like Patrick Lumumba, you mean?

But wasn't he the employer of two of the girls in the flat? He probably would have had a legitimate reason to visit them, then, wouldn't he?

Yes, based on the fact that AK decided to bear false witness against Lumumba, it seems AK was willing to do whatever she had to in order to pin the blame on someone else and keep the police on the wrong track. (Staging the B&E was only the tip of the iceberg.)

Alas, I believe Lumumba was not MK's employer, but had offered MK a 'star turn' as a bartender on account of her popularity (a lot of female friends to draw into the bar) and her skill at mixing a certain drink (I can't recall what it was now...a Mojito???).

Is that enough of a 'connection' to provide an innocent reason to deposit DNA traces in the girls' cottage??? Probably not.

Ergo Lumumba was as good as any other stranger to the girls' cottage for the purposes of AK. Indeed, the fact that he was black made him an especially good choice for AK:

If RG was her accomplice, it was wise for AK to suspect RG may have left an African hair at the scene, or been witnessed near/leaving the scene, in which case her decision to name Lumumba (also of African descent) was a logical means to keep the police on the wrong track.

Indeed, to the extent AK may be a sociopath (and, yes, there are indications), resentment of Lumumba for favoring MK with a more prestigious post may have given AK added incentive to falsely accuse Lumumba/ fail to retract the accusation.

 

[Kestrel]

I believe that the whole "science" of this sort of footprint evaluation has been thoroughly debunked. It belongs in the same file as graphology or polygraph testing, as unverifiable pseudo-science, which should hot be put before a court of law as hard evidence.

The claim to be able to detect deception from "tells" as has been recently made in this thread is also pseudo-science. The problem is that few in the general public or even the legal profession are aware of the research that proves the techniques used to detect lying don't actually work.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, based on the fact that AK decided to bear false witness against Lumumba, it seems AK was willing to do whatever she had to in order to pin the blame on someone else and keep the police on the wrong track. (Staging the B&E was only the tip of the iceberg.)

Alas, I believe Lumumba was not MK's employer, but had offered MK a 'star turn' as a bartender on account of her popularity (a lot of female friends to draw into the bar) and her skill at mixing a certain drink (I can't recall what it was now...a Mojito???).

Is that enough of a 'connection' to provide an innocent reason to deposit DNA traces in the girls' cottage??? Probably not.

Ergo Lumumba was as good as any other stranger to the girls' cottage for the purposes of AK. Indeed, the fact that he was black made him an especially good choice for AK:

If RG was her accomplice, it was wise for AK to suspect RG may have left an African hair at the scene, or been witnessed near/leaving the scene, in which case her decision to name Lumumba (also of African descent) was a logical means to keep the police on the wrong track.

Indeed, to the extent AK may be a sociopath (and, yes, there are indications), resentment of Lumumba for favoring MK with a more prestigious post may have given AK added incentive to falsely accuse Lumumba/ fail to retract the accusation.

NO, it would make very little sense for Knox to try to frame Lumumba. She knew with 100% certainty that he was working in his bar that night. A bar is a somewhat public environment, where she would have known that Lumumba would have been witnessed by customers, friends and staff. Had she known that Lumumba lived alone and was planning a quiet night in, then naming him might have made more sense.

Alternatively, what makes a whole lot more sense is that the police became utterly convinced that Knox's text message to Lumumba was confirming a meeting between the two later on that evening. And what makes sense is that the police then concluded that Knox was lying about being in Sollecito's apartment all evening - as "proved" by the text message, and that therefore she was lying to hide something. It then makes sense that they confronted her with "a version of events" which they "knew to be correct" (viz Police Chief De Felice), and that Knox finally broke under this accusatory pressure, and agreed that she'd met with Lumumba and that he'd killed Meredith.

 

[Justinian2]

Staged a murder?! One of us is confused.

If you're asking why AK and RS staged a B & E, I repeat:To deflect suspicion/ blame away from AK (and RS) and toward someone - anyone - that did not live at the girls' cottage (or have legitimate reason to visit the girls in that cottage).

If you're asking why someone would concoct a plan to murder a roommate, I cannot say. Who can? My suspicion is that AK did not 'plan' a murder. However, I think there are some pretty compelling indicators that support the notion that AK 'planned' a Halloween/ Day of the Dead hazing/ "rape prank" of the roommate she'd grown to resent. Street drugs and alcohol (and a good dose of mental illness and/or immaturity) allowed the prank to get out of hand.

You got it. I tried to edit that to read "Stage a break-in", but my 2 hour limit was up.

As for the murder, this type of murder is not normal among murders. Can you find a precident where two people and a third that they didn't previously know got together to kill another with a knife?

The only murder that comes to mind as even remotely similar were the Manson murders. However, those murders were enormously different; they lived in a cult and were fruitcakes. Furthermore they didn't murder one of their own in their home.

Find a similar murder that was not done for profit, insurance, inheritance or to end a bad marriage.

I double dare you!

 

[LondonJohn]

The claim to be able to detect deception from "tells" as has been recently made in this thread is also pseudo-science. The problem is that few in the general public or even the legal profession are aware of the research that proves the techniques used to detect lying don't actually work.

Ah, but Giobbi would beg to differ with you

Actually, I believe that sometimes (but by no means always), techniques such as these can be useful in helping investigators focus in on suspects - in other words, they can be of assistance in helping to direct the investigation. However, investigators then have to find proper incriminating evidence against such suspects. I certainly don't think (as I said before) that these pesudoscience techniques should ever be put before a court as evidence of guilt in and of themselves.

 

[Justinian2]

Here's a thought that should be passed to the defense.

They should digitize the footprints of RS and Guede and the one on the mat. Then they should mathematically convolve each footprint with the one on the bath mat. They would that way get a number that they could use. The two convolutions would probably be pretty close - maybe one percent different. I suspect the one for Guede would be higher.

If the mathematical convolution were about the same, it would prove that the footprint could not be used for evidence.

 

[treehorn]

Straw man, anyone?

I pointed out that such articles are accessible to lay people. And while most of them are written in scientific language, the language is not so arcane that people with a decent scientific education cannot interpret and understand them. And in the case of written research on stomach/intestinal contents, I am very confident that I am capable of correctly understanding what is being written, even though I do not have the competence to reproduce the research myself.

Straw man?!

I had no intention of mischaracterizing your argument/ assertions.

Personally, I detest the tactic for it gets in the way of a good faith discussion of the evidence.

I simply do not agree with your assertion that lay people are competent to evaluate (and extrapolate from) the studies and commentary in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Journals in pharmacology or forensic pathology are not geared toward - nor best understood by - school teachers, mechanics, pilots, or lawyers.

Further, to the extent that you are suggesting that an education in one scientific field is as good as an education in any other, I cannot agree: someone with, say, a PhD in Physics is likely to know a lot less about, say, electrophoresis than a BSc in Genetics.

I stand by my assertion that, in order to be considered legitimate, Lowe's unsupported claims in respect of the 'elasticity' of the human intestine, and the displacement of matter within that organ during autopsy, must be backed by personal experience/ expertise that only a medical doctor could possess.

I also stand by my assertion that, unless Lowe has training/ education in a scientific discipline germane to the functioning of the human digestive system (zoology, physiology, etc.), he is simply not in a position to legitimately evaluate and apply the scientific literature in question.

 

[katy_did]

Interesting.

Of course, I have no way of knowing whether you really are a MD, but, for the sake of argument, I'll take you at your word.
[...]
I just don't understand what you're seeing: We simply don't know whether, when, what and how much may have been consumed after Meredith parted with her friends (indeed, we have only notoriously inaccurate eye-witness testimony in respect of the food and beverages consumed before and during the movie).

No one (including you and Lowe) has seen the autopsy video.

Have you transcripts of trial testimony from the medical experts in respect of the stomach contents and the 'ligature issue'? Are you Italian? Were you in the courtroom?

Of course, you are aware that the translation of the 427 page judgment is not a complete document (it's devoid of all of the reports, sworn statements, exhibits, testimony, etc., referred to throughout the judgment).

We're simply missing far, far too much information to warrant the boldness with which Lowe has advanced his rather simplistic, nuance-free argument.

Treehorn, what was the point of asking Kevin_Lowe so many times whether he was an MD, if when an actual MD posts to confirm what KL has been saying you just dismiss his/her opinion by falling back on the old argument that 'stomach contents don't prove anything anyway'? If you don't think it gives someone extra insight into this aspect of the case, then why were you even asking?