Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Thanks Dan O.

The hypothesis that the lie about a "call before anything had happened" was planted as early as 10 Nov 2007 fits the picture and is coherent with what Machiavelli wrote about ILE tactics of deceit.

I have another question. From the trial transcript it occurred to me that the defense lawyers strengthen some other possible paths of attack ( related to the Nov 10 bugged conversation, the Dec 17 interrogation etc. ) by asking preemptive questions. But it is not so regarding that forgotten phone call. It appears that they were unprepared for such an attack and they hadn't rehearsed it with Amanda.
Do you think it was an undisclosed ace in the sleeve of the prosecution, or were there some clear indications earlier that they will attack in this direction?

IMO its not that they where not prepared. Its more along the lines, that if they interceded at that particular point they could do more damage. As an example. The defense knew the exact time. The prosecution knew the exact time. However, the judge and prosecution was using noon or 1200 or 3am in seattle as their times for this line of questioning. If the defense objects and asks them to be more specific about the time. Knox might still answer she dont remember the call because at this point she is confused. So long as they are using the wrong time if it comes up during the appeal process they can just throw those questions in with their many objections about the prosecutions evidence and questioning.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

---------------

Edda is perplexed because she was told her daughter called before anything had happened. Amanda is perplexed because the first call she remembers was 47 minutes later after lots of things happened. Comodi is the liar that caused this.

-----------------------





We have another temporal anomaly here OR The conspiracy has got wider ; Edda is involved.

Have we evidence that Comodi got to Edda before she spoke to AK on Nov 10.

If not why did she pretend to be perplexed - is she in on it ??

.

Machiavelli - given your knowledge of ILE tactics of deceit , is this possible.

Given his insight into Einsteinian physics London John can hopefully speak to the temporal anomaly aspect.

.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks Dan O.

The hypothesis that the lie about a "call before anything had happened" was planted as early as 10 Nov 2007 fits the picture and is coherent with what Machiavelli wrote about ILE tactics of deceit.

I am curious about where I made this description. I am wondering what post/s of mine you are citing, to follow what you are saying.

 

[Dan O.]

christianahannah, Are you ever going to get to the point and tell us how Amanda calling her mother (or not remembering calling her mother) makes her guilty? Comodi just wanted to get to the point where she could play her tape. The tape doesn't even prove anything except that Edda somehow thought there was a call before anything happened. We know for a fact that there was no call before anything happened so why is Comodi even addressing this topic? Why do you continue to address it?

 

[platonov]

I am curious about where I made this description. I am wondering what post/s of mine you are citing, to follow what you are saying.

In light of this I withdraw my Q - I took Katody Matrass at her word.

.

 

[Dan O.]

A fine for a "loud party"?!

I checked out the public record, online, at the Seattle Municpal Court's website.

It was a conviction for "Residential Disturbance."

Seattle Municipal Code 25.08.225:
“Residential disturbance” means a gathering of more than one (1) person at a residential property located in a single family or multifamily zone, as defined SMC Section 23.84.048 between the hours of 10:00 P.M., (11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights) and 7:00 A.M., at which noise associated with the gathering is frequent, repetitive or continuous and is audible to a person of normal hearing at a distance of seventy-five (75) feet or more from the property.​

The provision under which Knox was charged allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

Penalties: Officers may issue a civil infraction (citation) on the spot. The fine for the infraction is $250. A person who continues to be in violation of this ordinance after receiving an infraction or who again violates this ordinance within 24 hours of receiving an infraction, can be charged with a crime. If found guilty, a judge may impose a maximum sentence of up to 180 days incarceration in jail, and/or a fine up to $500.
​

If the police had received a second call from frightened neighbors and motorists that evening, Knox would have been facing that penalty.

Guess what didn't happen.

 

[Kaosium]

A fine for a "loud party"?!

I checked out the public record, online, at the Seattle Municpal Court's website.

It was a conviction for "Residential Disturbance."

The provision under which Knox was charged allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had received a second call from frightened neighbors and motorists that evening, Knox would have been facing that penalty.

The citation was police-issued, to Knox and Knox alone (none of the other partygoers were charged), and included a warning, to Knox, about rock throwing (at passing cars).

Have you read the article in the Daily Mail?

[Knox has sued other reporters/ publishers in respect of far less damaging stories, but she's never sued the Daily Mail for their account of the rock throwing incident. We're almost 3 years down the road and the Daily Mail has never been forced to retract a word of it. My guess: the story is true and, as a result, Knox has no ground to sue for damages and a retraction.]

How on earth do you reduce the range of antisocial conduct described in that article as being limited to "loud music"?!

I'm an aging frat boy and have witnessed my share of police action at parties run amok, but I've never- ever- seen the police charge a woman. Never even heard of it! It would be an understatement to say it's "highly unusual."

I think this is one of the indications that Knox was far from 'well-adjusted'/ symptom-free before she left for Europe.

Yeah, I read that account in the Daily Mail. That's the one with the 'Streets of Bagdad' line? I recall rolling my eyes and chuckling as I read it

They probably never sued because it's a British paper, and who cares? The story discredits itself. That's the reason the cop just gave her a ticket for loud music. You were a frat boy and never had the cops show up? They find out whose on the lease or who is the homeowner and they issue a warning and write a ticket. If it seems there's a lot of overly drunk people underage they'll come in and give them underage drinking tickets. Then they go home and the fine is paid. If it was as the reporter described no policeman would ever just write a ticket and walk away, he'd call for back-up.

 

[treehorn]

The countries were different.
The nationalities were different.
The place of the killing was different (by a stream)
The mode of killing was different (kicks to the head and drowning)
The number of people was different 8, then 2 versus an alleged 3
The relationship of the killers (and the accused) was different.
What the couples were doing before the murder is different.
The background of all the participants is different
The ages are different
The murderess in your precident bragged that she finished the victim off and led friends on guided tours where the murder happened.
The reason for the killing was different

25 percent correlation.

The murder was in Vancouver, Canada - about a 2.5 hours drive from Seattle, Knox's hometown.

Do you really think teenagers in Seattle are significantly different from teenagers in Vancouver?!

I've been to both cities and can see no difference at all.

The killing per se was pinned on Ellard and Glowatski. That's 2 killers, not 8.

The killing flowed from a group-bullying incident sparked by petty school girl jealousy. Do you not see a parallel with some of the case theories advanced by the "guilters"?

The fact that the bullies-turned-killers were 4-5 years younger than Knox hardly works in Knox's favor! If high school-age teenagers, with no history of homicide, could engage in a brutal hazing/murder of this kind, why couldn't 20 year olds, high on alcohol and street drugs, do the same thing ?!

Of course, I agree that there are some differences, but then no two crimes are exactly alike, and I submit that it can well be argued that the 'relevant similarities' outweigh the 'relevant differences'.

Alas, there is, with good reason, no 'correlation test' as a threshold test for the prosecution of an accused in respect of any violent crime - you simply go where the evidence takes you.

 

[Chris C]

And could you show us those objections? I think it is not true. The defence never objected that the prosecution added false information to the questions, they did not state the prosecution added false information - nor as absolute statement nor in a way limited to a specific topic - fore sure they did not state this kind of objection "many times".
It would be, after all, irrelevant if they made such objection, meaning that it would be ok and regular: the evidence is formed by the debate, not by the wording of the prosecution.
But in the actual case, the defence did not express the objection of "false information" as you claim.
Even on this point the defence did not object to Comodi's question.

CDV: My objection concerned the way the pubblico ministero presented his
question, appearing to contest the fact that in the Dec 17 interrogation,
Amanda also explained that she turned off her phone because she didn't want to be called by Patrick, because she didn't want to be disturbed. This doesn't correspond to the truth, because on page 40 of the minutes, she actually says "So, I turned it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and call me in."

LG or CDV: I object to that remark! That is a personal evaluation!
Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable
conclusion. He can ask a question, but this is a personal opinion. It
seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes.

CDV?: The suggestions of the PM before asking the question are inopportune,
because he is suggesting and making suggestive...

CDV? It seems to me that the pubblico ministero, in presenting his
questions, always makes references which go as far as actually suggesting
the answers, and also --

CDV? In the question he just asked, he mentions the memorandum and says it confirms. Now, this might be a specific question, but it should not be an
assertion on the part of the pubblico ministero, followed by another question.
If we look in the minutes, we find a series of unilateral declarations
which all go to show what interests the pubblico ministero. To my mind,
this mentality goes against our way of examining the accused. I just want
to make this clear.

CDV: I object to this question! Because the reference to the transcription
was read out with one sentence skipped by the lawyer for the civil plaintiff.

Here are just a few objections I ran across for you to read. Its not hard to see where he is talking about adding information to questions. If the questions pertain false informations, then he is objecting to false information or opinions being added to questions directed at Knox. There is even one question where there prosecutor words a question with evidence that doesn't correspond to the truth.

 

[tsig]

You aint' seen nothing yet Colonel. You must have had a sheltered military career.

I invite you to revisit (on this thread) the perplexity over how one could possibly break a (inward opening) window from within a room by striking the outer face of the window pane - before adding to that the confusion between the inner and outer 'shutters'.

The confusion/confidence over analysis of gastric content and DNA evidence seem positively tame by comparison.

He should also review the 2 or 3 pages of 'two girls, one bra'.

 

[Magister]

treehorn
The Daily Mail is a right wing UK tabloid.
If any rocks were thrown and had hit any cars then that would have constituted criminal damage. Neither the police nor the drivers' insurance companies took any action.

 

[platonov]

He should also review the 2 or 3 pages of 'two girls, one bra'.

Indeed but some of this stuff is better, if in a different way.
If one ever tires of say ploughing through Ulysses in Russian,
assuming you you don't read Russian and don't like Joyce, its a must read.

I may post on it insofar as it impacts on the 'peer review' debate.

.

ETA The bra issue came up again in the last day or two.

 

[treehorn]

Yeah, I read that account in the Daily Mail. That's the one with the 'Streets of Bagdad' line? I recall rolling my eyes and chuckling as I read it

They probably never sued because it's a British paper, and who cares? The story discredits itself. That's the reason the cop just gave her a ticket for loud music. You were a frat boy and never had the cops show up? They find out whose on the lease or who is the homeowner and they issue a warning and write a ticket. If it seems there's a lot of overly drunk people underage they'll come in and give them underage drinking tickets. Then they go home and the fine is paid. If it was as the reporter described no policeman would ever just write a ticket and walk away, he'd call for back-up.

The Seattle Municipal Court's judgment indicated that they found Knox, and Knox alone, guilty of having committed the offense of "Residential Disturbance."

Provisions that can result in penalties entailing onerous fines and imprisonment (like the provision under which Knox was convicted) would be struck down as unconstitutional if they could be imposed on citizens that did not, themselves, commit the offense in question.

As a matter of law, the police do not, and cannot, show up at a scene, write up a citation and ask for 'volunteers' to step forward.

The police select THE person(s) that they believe, on reasonable and probable grounds, to have committed an offense under the statute in question.

BTW, of what possible difference could it make that the paper was British?

The story was not only damaging to Knox in the 'court of public opinion', it was used against her in her murder trial - it is difficult to think of a scenario in which an accused would have more incentive to sue for a retraction.

Money was obviously not an issue: didn't Curt Knox claim he and his ex-wife had spent upwards of one million dollars on Amanda's defense?

Even if it were, there'd be no shortage of publicity-hungry British lawyers willing to take on a defamation action 'pro bono' in exchange for a little of the TV time/ ink-spillage that this high profile case entails.

 

[Kestrel]

Seattle Municipal Code 25.08.225:
“Residential disturbance” means a gathering of more than one (1) person at a residential property located in a single family or multifamily zone, as defined SMC Section 23.84.048 between the hours of 10:00 P.M., (11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights) and 7:00 A.M., at which noise associated with the gathering is frequent, repetitive or continuous and is audible to a person of normal hearing at a distance of seventy-five (75) feet or more from the property.​

I should also point out that this is a municipal infraction, not a crime. There was no conviction as treehorn claimed. Simply a payment of a fine. It's the same class of offense as a parking ticket. But I doubt that will ever sink into the minds of people who see it as proof that Amanda is a sociopath.

ETA: For an example, look at treehorn's post just prior to this one.

 

[tsig]

Indeed but some of this stuff is better, if in a different way.
If one ever tires of say ploughing through Ulysses in Russian,
assuming you you don't read Russian and don't like Joyce, its a must read.

I may post on it insofar as it impacts on the 'peer review' debate.

.

ETA The bra issue came up again in the last day or two.

I think I remember a brief revival but I've had this thread on 'scan' for a while.

Like Joyce this thread is word glue, everything gets stuck together.

 

[platonov]

I think I remember a brief revival but I've had this thread on 'scan' for a while.

Like Joyce this thread is word glue, everything gets stuck together.

Not quite ..

Justinian2 posted .......


If RS did remove the bra clasp, how do we know the bra wasn't borrowed from Amanda?
How do we know it didn't just pick up dandriff from the floor? As a test were any of the bra clasps of Amanda tested to see if they had any of RS's DNA? If the bra was cut off, why was there any DNA on it? (I can probably cut off a bra clasp without depositing DNA.)
I couldn't even begin to put a number of either confidence or probability on this piece of evidence showing any useful information. The judge should have thrown this 'evidence' out.

.

 

[Chris C]

I should also point out that this is a municipal infraction, not a crime. There was no conviction as treehorn claimed. Simply a payment of a fine. It's the same class of offense as a parking ticket. But I doubt that will ever sink into the minds of people who see it as proof that Amanda is a sociopath.

ETA: For an example, look at treehorn's post just prior to this one.

Traffic Violations are crimes also. Did you know you can get arrested for driving without a drivers license. Yet its not a misdemeanor. Its just a ticket. In most states you even have to bond out. Which the bond is set at the value of the ticket. In Louisiana, certain parishes take you to jail for traffic violations and make you pay the bond of whatever ticket you just received before allowing you to continue. Even if its just for driving 1mph over the speed limit. In Mississippi, I've seen them set up road blocks with atm's attached to them.

 

[Kaosium]

The Seattle Municipal Court's judgment indicated that they found Knox, and Knox alone, guilty of having committed the offense of "Residential Disturbance."

As a matter of law, the police do not, and cannot, show up at a scene, write up a citation and ask for 'volunteers' to step forward.

The police select THE person(s) that they believe, on reasonable and probable grounds, to have committed an offense under the statute in question.

Yeah, the homeowner or the person on the lease. They're responsible for noise coming from a party on their property.

BTW, of what possible difference could it make that the paper was British?

Why would someone from Seattle care overmuch about what a tabloid in Britain wrote? Especially the Mail? What could they do about it anyway?

The story was not only damaging to Knox in the 'court of public opinion', it was used against her in her murder trial - it is difficult to think of a scenario in which an accused would have more incentive to sue for a retraction.

Money was obviously not an issue: didn't Curt Knox claim he and his ex-wife had spent upwards of one million dollars on Amanda's defense?

Even if it were, there'd be no shortage of publicity-hungry British lawyers willing to take on a defamation action 'pro bono' in exchange for a little of the TV time/ ink-spillage that this high profile case entails.

Because the whole thing is silly and no one cares? It's the Daily Mail. I read it sometimes for entertainment, like The Onion. It's a step down from The Sun, which at least has pretty girls in various stages of undress.

 

[Kestrel]

Traffic Violations are crimes also. Did you know you can get arrested for driving without a drivers license. Yet its not a misdemeanor. Its just a ticket.

The words "municipal infraction" have a special meaning in most states. It's a class of crimes that includes parking tickets, failure to shovel your walkway, not picking up after your dog and other minor offenses. It's not even in the same class as a moving violation.

 

[Diastole]

I read that post last night, replied to it and look forward to hearing from the doctor in respect of my reply.

Thanks for the reply, treehorn. I'll admit to sharing your scepticism of on-line personae (with the exception of RWVBWL of course, whom I'm personally convinced is living my dream). I would agree that there are few absolutes in medicine. And no, I'm not an Italian pathologist, nor did I stand at Dr. Lalli's side during Meredith Kercher's autopsy. But, as LondonJohn has suggested, ask your brothers, if you will, what they feel is the probability of an empty duodenum and jejunum five hours after a meal? What is the probability of completely evacuating a small bowel by manipulation during a laparotomy? (Incidentally, if they have actually attempted such a manoeuver, I'd also be interested to know who provides their medicolegal representation!)

Judge Massei certainly seems comfortable (if not, unfortunately, adept) in assessing probabilities. In a case full of irreproducible DNA tests, 2 cm blades that "match" 8 cm wounds, and a time of death pinpointed by the effect of a diuretic on an elderly bladder, I would suggest that Kercher's empty duodenum is, in fact, one of the more reliable pieces of evidence.