Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

In that specific case in fact there is not even a logical implication, given Amanda’s explanation about her phone calls to her mother. Amanda said she doesn’t remember of any phone call but the ones made later when the police was already there. There is no ambiguity, no possible mistake on which call they are talking about, because her explanation (and her forgetting) can only be matched to the 12:47 call and the 12:47 call can only refer to her explanation.
The only logical question to answer is whether her explanation is credible.

Do you have that testimony where she said that the only calls she made to her mother were when the police were already there?

 

[christianahannah]

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?

My point had nothing to do with Amanda being guilty because she didn't remember a call to her mother. I don't think that is the case and believe I have stated so.

My point is I don't think Comodi is a liar, etc.

I address it when others reply to a post I have made. In the past when I haven't responded to a post it has been said I was being evasive so I don't want to give that impression.

As far as the recordings, why is it that Comodi couldn't play the conversation between Amanda and her mother in court? If I recall there was a conversation between Amanda and Filomena played in court by Amanda's defense I believe.

 

[Fuji]

At least with people who murder for insurance money or inheiritance, they take years to plan their crimes. Consequently staging something is plausible in a murder for insurance money or inheiratance, but not this.

This is not correct. There was a particularly notorious case in the UK a few years ago in which, not only was the crime not planned "years" in advance, there was not even an attempt made at staging the scene!

By contrast, an even higher profile case from a few decades back involved crime scene staging where the primary motive for the murder was neither insurance money nor an inheritance.

Mind you, these are merely prominent cases that I recalled from memory. I am reasonably sure that more thorough research would reveal other murder cases where crime scene staging was conducted in more or less impromptu fashion, even in cases without a pecuniary motive.

 

[Fuji]

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.

Which formulae did you utilize to arrive at your determination of "25 percent correlation"? How did you decide which variables to include for analysis? Are you assuming normal distributions of your variables? What was your p-value?

 

[Fuji]

That true believers in Knox's guilt can not come up with a single example of an uncontroversially proven case that would parallel the conspiracy that Knox and her boyfriend were supposedly part of, should give any sensible person reason to question their guilt.

This argument is fallacious in two aspects.

First, this represents an argument from self-knowing. There may in fact be a parallel* instance of the Kercher murder case, but it may simply not be known, either to you or your hypothesized "sensible person". With how many of the millions of murder cases that have occurred in human history are you or your "sensible person" familiarized? I can hazard a guess that any such sample size as this may represent would fall far, far below the level required to make any statistically meaningful inferences as to the nature of the totality of the cases.

Second, an even more serious logical criticism is that there is also implied an argument from incredulity. Even given an encyclopedic knowledge of the totality of all murder cases and consequently the knowledge that a parallel instance of the Kercher murder case does not actually exist, this by no means necessarily dictates that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

By way of example - we have no parallel instance of two 110-story skyscapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves. Yet, this clearly did occur once.


*The definition of "parallel" presents an entirely new set of problems of classification and comparison, but is assumed as a given for the purpose of my arguments.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

I'm refering to a particularly insightful post of yours. It's context was a question whether the planting of falsehoods in the media by ILE were deliberate or just incompetence. You wrote:

There is another element of the game, a method. The fact is the Italian investigators in these cases pursue one main achievement: confession, or contradictions by the suspect. This accumulation of dubious elements stacked in an accusation scenario are not directed to the press, they are directed to the defence, as a method, in order to put pressure and induce the suspect to provide more evidence.

I see it as possible and in fact probable that before the wiretapped conversation with Amanda someone from the ILE told Edda:
"You know, your daughter called you first time at 12:00, but at that time nothing happened yet. Isn't it strange?"
That way they could plant a dubious element in order to elicit some more incriminating information. That would also explain why on earth Edda would direct such a strange question at Amanda at all.

Thanks, and I hope I clarified it a bit.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you have that testimony where she said that the only calls she made to her mother were when the police were already there?

Do you have that testimony where she said that the only calls she made to her mother were when the police were already there?

The testimony I am using is the one she gave in court. She didn’t state explicitly “the police were already there during the other calls”, but this can be inferred logically by crossing her statements with the rest of the testimonies. Her mother Edda testifies about this call in the same terms as described by Amanda, and her description can only be matched with the 12:47 call, with the additional detail that it was a call which awoke her, and cannot be matched to the following calls, while we know that during the following calls the police were already there. The fact that the following calls were made after the arrival of the police is also ascertained by testimonies of other people who were present when the calls were made, and by the recollection of these calls given by Amanda herself, as well as by observing the call lenght in phone records.

 

[RoseMontague]

Do you have that testimony where she said that the only calls she made to her mother were when the police were already there?

The testimony I am using is the one she gave in court. She didn’t state explicitly “the police were already there during the other calls”, but this can be inferred logically by crossing her statements with the rest of the testimonies. Her mother Edda testifies about this call in the same terms as described by Amanda, and her description can only be matched with the 12:47 call, with the additional detail that it was a call which awoke her, and cannot be matched to the following calls, while we know that during the following calls the police were already there. The fact that the following calls were made after the arrival of the police is also ascertained by testimonies of other people who were present when the calls were made, and by the recollection of these calls given by Amanda herself, as well as by observing the call lenght in phone records.

I assume when she is asked about the noon call and she makes reference to being at Raffaele's and not Meredith's that she does not remember a call to her Mom at noon from Raffaele's. She is correct both in the place she was at that time and the fact that she did not call her Mom at that time.

 

[platonov]

Dan O & Katody Matrass

As you haven't responded on the issue of....

How the questions posed by Comodi in 2009 caused Edda, on Nov10 2007, to be perplexed at AK's forgetfulness .

OR

How Edda was induced to perplexity on Nov 10 2007 by Comodi otherwise.

...... We can take it that the 'Comodi lied' issue has been concluded and the prosecution finally rests.

While many may breathe a sigh of relief a response would have welcome on the grounds that any good conspiracy theory can always be improved with the addition of tachyons & mind control.

.

 

[Machiavelli]

I see it as possible and in fact probable that before the wiretapped conversation with Amanda someone from the ILE told Edda:
"You know, your daughter called you first time at 12:00, but at that time nothing happened yet. Isn't it strange?"
That way they could plant a dubious element in order to elicit some more incriminating information. That would also explain why on earth Edda would direct such a strange question at Amanda at all.

Well, about such a communication to Edda I don't see any evidence, but on what concerns the question to Amanda, I think there is more than one possible explanation for why Comodi said "mezzogiorno" instead off 12:47 (and I am not interested in the point at all), one of the elements in play is that certainly questions may be constructed with the purpose of eliciting information, not to give information.

There is another point anyway: things that already happened - meaning: things Amanda discovered on the scene - at 12:47 were about the same things that she already discovered at 12:00, with the only (possible) difference of the discovery of the broken window in Filomena's room. Since - as far as they know - this latter element could be absent from the phone conversation, the proposeal to place of the call at midday, a time defined as when "nothing happened yet" can have also the purpose to elicit this piece of information, or its absence, in the phone call. I think its' logical for the prosecution to put this question: the defandant is left free to build her explanation spanning on a time including the eraliest possibility when nothing had been discovered.

 

[Machiavelli]

I assume when she is asked about the noon call and she makes reference to being at Raffaele's and not Meredith's that she does not remember a call to her Mom at noon from Raffaele's. She is correct both in the place she was at that time and the fact that she did not call her Mom at that time.

But you missed the point: we can determine she said she didn't remember any call before the ones made when the police were already there, because the call Edda describes is exaclty the one Amanda doesn't remember, and cannot be another one. It doesn't matter if she is mistaking the time and thinking at where she was at noon: she doesn't remember, at all, the call Edda recalls, since Amanda states she doesn't remember at all the reason for her first call in the middle of the night and doesn't remember anything of the convrsation and just infers it with a deduction, and that can only be the 12:47 call and the call described by Edda.

 

[RoseMontague]

But you missed the point: we can determine she said she didn't remember any call before the ones made when the police were already there, because the call Edda describes is exaclty the one Amanda doesn't remember, and cannot be another one. It doesn't matter if she is mistaking the time and thinking at where she was at noon: she doesn't remember, at all, the call Edda recalls, since Amanda states she doesn't remember at all the reason for her first call in the middle of the night and doesn't remember anything of the convrsation and just infers it with a deduction, and that can only be the 12:47 call and the call described by Edda.

I think the main point is that Amanda was telling the truth and that Comodi was not interested in the truth.

 

[platonov]

I see it as possible and in fact probable that before the wiretapped conversation with Amanda someone from the ILE told Edda:
"You know, your daughter called you first time at 12:00, but at that time nothing happened yet. Isn't it strange?"
That way they could plant a dubious element in order to elicit some more incriminating information. That would also explain why on earth Edda would direct such a strange question at Amanda at all.

Thanks, and I hope I clarified it a bit.

So the mind control by Comodi is gone to be replaced with mind control by the cops - they made AK forget (or guessed she would) and primed Edda to be perplexed while wiping Edda's own memory of the contents of the first [04.47] call.

That's still 'out there' - never mind the lack of evidence for the Cops/Edda conversation.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Here “this doesn’t correspond to the truth” does not refer to something stated by the prosecution, it is referred to its interpretation as “appearing to contest”. The defence here only wants to an add a piece of information to the prosecution question, in order to highlight a different contextual meaning of Amanda’s statements: the defence claims that the citation, by the wording of the prosecution, is incomplete, and if taken alone it might suggest a conclusion that is not true, therefore they want to recall another. The defence only wants to highlight that two different statements by Amanda do not form a contradiction, never affirms that the prosecution states anything false.

OK Let's consult Publico Ministero on this:

GM: Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another.​

Sorry but to me it looks like a falsehood and nothing else. Mignini tried to plant that falsehood in a not-so-subtle way. No matter how you word it what the defense is really doing is straightening that lie.

 

[el buscador]

The Micheli report seems to me to indicate that Rudy left Meredith's at 22:30 (meaning a TOD earlier than that) and that he met someone at about 23:30 going by the Google translation.

Umm, there is a witness to the fact that rudy was at his place by 23:30?

 

[RoseMontague]

Umm, there is a witness to the fact that rudy was at his place by 23:30?

That is how it appears from the Google translation. Perhaps Michiavelli can provide a short translation of that brief reference posted from the Micheli report.

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

 

[Justinian2]

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.

You argue that the 'relevant similarities' outweigh the 'relevant differences'

Lane99 and I argue the opposite.

Less than 25%. Even if we accept the prosecution's lurid fantasies, the situations and dynamics are fundamentally dissimilar.

As for comparisons between Knox and Ellard, well, they are both females. That's pretty much were the similarities end.

It is simply an ignorant and/or incompetent argument to claim there is a strong correlation between Knox and Kelly Ellard. Ellard has been a vicious person since childhood and has a long history of violent outbursts and attacks. For example, while she was out on bail awaiting trial on the luring and murder of Renna Virk, she was arrested for luring an elderly woman to a park one evening, where Ellard and one of her punk friends beat the hell out of the woman.
That true believers in Knox's guilt can not come up with a single example of an uncontroversially proven case that would parallel the conspiracy that Knox and her boyfriend were supposedly part of, should give any sensible person reason to question their guilt.

1) See Lane99's quote.

It's true that MK was killed primarily by Guede and, in your precident,

Virk managed to walk away, but was followed by two members of the original group, Ellard and Glowatski. The pair dragged Virk to the other side of the bridge, made her remove her shoes and jacket, and beat her a second time. It is believed that Ellard forced Virk's head under the water and held it there with her foot until Virk stopped struggling.

Glowatski kicked Virk in the head and probably caused the fatal injury.

2) However, in the Perugia case, the prosecution's evidence against AK and RS was primarily really dubious LCN DNA from a lab that could have been highly contaminated as "The White Queen of DNA" wore the same gloves unless they got liquid blood on them. In the Canadian case, witnesses testified that Ellard bragged about finishing the victim off and led them on a tour of the murder scene.

One difference is eyewitness accounts versus dubious DNA results.

 

[Kestrel]

But you missed the point: we can determine she said she didn't remember any call before the ones made when the police were already there, because the call Edda describes is exaclty the one Amanda doesn't remember, and cannot be another one. It doesn't matter if she is mistaking the time and thinking at where she was at noon: she doesn't remember, at all, the call Edda recalls, since Amanda states she doesn't remember at all the reason for her first call in the middle of the night and doesn't remember anything of the convrsation and just infers it with a deduction, and that can only be the 12:47 call and the call described by Edda.

So according to your logic, any imperfection of memory is the sign of a criminal. All innocent people have perfect recall, and never get confused on the witness stand. Even when questions are asked in a way intended to lead to confusion.

Do you believe that Jesus comes down from heaven and help the innocent get everything right?

Get a clue. Amanda doesn't remember calling her mother at noon before anything had happened because there was no such call. That the prosecutor claimed such a call happened doesn't make it true.

On a related issue, all of Amanda's phone calls made after the murder was discovered were tapped and recorded. When she met with her lawyers in prison, the conversations were recorded. Her cell was bugged to capture everything she said. Her parents and relatives phones were tapped. The same thing was done with Raffaele and his relatives. Yet in all those hours of recordings, the prosecution could not find a smoking gun proving guilt. All they came up with was trivial differences in how people remembered what happened.

Anyone who has studies witness accounts knows that such differences are normal. We don't have a TIVO machine inside our head that will play back exactly what happened. One would think that anyone who made mistakes on a school test would realize that memory isn't perfect. Yet all too often in a discussion of a criminal trial, we run into the assumption that perfect recall is the norm.

A skeptic should know better.

 

[platonov]

So according to your logic, any imperfection of memory is the sign of a criminal. All innocent people have perfect recall, and never get confused on the witness stand. Even when questions are asked in a way intended to lead to confusion.

Do you believe that Jesus comes down from heaven and help the innocent get everything right?

Get a clue. Amanda doesn't remember calling her mother at noon before anything had happened because there was no such call. That the prosecutor claimed such a call happened doesn't make it true.

On a related issue, all of Amanda's phone calls made after the murder was discovered were tapped and recorded. When she met with her lawyers in prison, the conversations were recorded. Her cell was bugged to capture everything she said. Her parents and relatives phones were tapped. The same thing was done with Raffaele and his relatives. Yet in all those hours of recordings, the prosecution could not find a smoking gun proving guilt. All they came up with was trivial differences in how people remembered what happened.

Anyone who has studies witness accounts knows that such differences are normal. We don't have a TIVO machine inside our head that will play back exactly what happened. One would think that anyone who made mistakes on a school test would realize that memory isn't perfect. Yet all too often in a discussion of a criminal trial, we run into the assumption that perfect recall is the norm.

A skeptic should know better.

Kestrel

You have misunderstood yet again - 18 mths before the "12.00 call" Q was posed by Comodi AK's own mother was perplexed by AK's forgetfulness about the first 12.47 (no dead body yet, just a break- in) call.

Its not that difficult really.

The 12.00 issue has no bearing unless you wish to invoke tachyons or mind wiping.

Regardless of the reasons for the forgetfulness unless you grasp this the prosecutions point will be lost on you.

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel

You have misunderstood yet again - 18 mths before the "12.00 call" Q was posed by Comodi AK's own mother was perplexed by AK's forgetfulness about the first 12.47 (no dead body yet, just a break- in) call.

You are still expecting witnesses to have perfect recall.

After Amanda had real cause for concern, she called her mother for advice. Her mother told her to call the cops. The call to the police was made a couple minutes later.

It's just another event in a series that shows Amanda's increasing concern for Meredith. Concerns that were rather vague when Amanda first returned to the cottage, but became more focussed after the attempts to call Meredith's phones and the first call to Filomena. They escalated with the discovery of the broken window and more phone conversations with Filomena.

Less than a half hour after the call to her mother, Amanda finds that her flatmate has been murdered. She makes several more calls to her mother. Considering the trauma of discovering a rumor, I don't find it odd that Amanda's memory of that first phone call to Mom isn't perfect. Nor should anyone who understands the science and psychology involved in human memory.