Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[colonelhall]

Still at it?

According to some: Comodi calls "12:47" noon and she's a liar!

Knox makes a number of calls to her mother, but forgets the FIRST one. The one that woke her mother up. The one that her mother remembers vividly. It's not just details that she doesn't remember, it's the whole call!

According to some, it is not fair to have perfect recall.

It is the fact that people spend a huge amount of time arguing this that convinces me that the whole "innocence" debate is a lost cause.

 

[platonov]

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.

Nobody is expecting anything - merely that if you are going to challenge the courts inference, which you are now doing here (fair enough), you have to first understand the issue.

You now seem to do so - so try & explain it to Katody Matrass, Dan O, RoseMontague etc.

 

[el buscador]

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

Hopefully Michiavelli is hard at work providing that short translation because it's hard to have a threesome murder around 23:30 if one of the murderers has a witness saying he couldn't have been there.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

I think you don't have proof nor tight to sate Comodi was not interested in the truth, and I think you have no evidence to state Amanda was telling the truth.

The only things we can say for certain is Amanda maintains: 1) she doesn't remember having made any phone call to her mother prior to the arrival of the police 2) she doesn't remember a phone call her mother remembers very well; and we can say that 3) she certainy made a call that woke up her mother, which Edda places before Amanda knew of postal police arrival, 4) in both defense teams there was nobody who objected to Comodi's question nor to Amanda's explanation

I think on this ground, the point whether Amanda was telling the truth is yet to be established.
I also think Amanda's answer to the question cleans any possible question related to Comodi's previous statements and nullifies its relevance.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well, about such a communication to Edda I don't see any evidence,

Well we don't see a lot of evidence in this case. E.g. there is absolutely zero evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room, on her body or on her belongings and it doesn't seem to be a problem to some people at all

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

Sure, but I'd love to see an explanation of this statement (as it is not a question at all):

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.​

It is interesting that actually Comodi for a long time doesn't ask any questions. She just makes a speech, shamelessly pushing her insinuation.

MC: So your mother was surely sleeping.
MC: But at 12:00 nothing had happened yet. That's what your mother also said--
MC: -- during the conversation you had with her in prison. 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.

That's similar to the way Mignini pushed his insinuation that Amanda changed her earlier testimony.


It's striking how hard Comodi tries to twist the facts to create suspicion while in reality there is nothing out of ordinary there:

FM: So, you called your mother three times. Do you remember that?

AK: I remember calling my mom. I don't remember how many times. There was so much to think about right then.​

 

[Kestrel]

Still at it?

According to some: Comodi calls "12:47" noon and she's a liar!

Knox makes a number of calls to her mother, but forgets the FIRST one. The one that woke her mother up. The one that her mother remembers vividly. It's not just details that she doesn't remember, it's the whole call!

According to some, it is not fair to have perfect recall.

It is the fact that people spend a huge amount of time arguing this that convinces me that the whole "innocence" debate is a lost cause.

You didn't seem to notice that your side kept engaging in the debate. Repeatedly posting the same bogus claims. Pretending that somehow that a forgotten phone call proves that Amanda is guilty.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

No. Amanda maintains she doesn't recall of any phone call that occurred before the police arrival. I think this information is expressed with no doubt by her testimony and Edda's, and this is all what I said (I didn't speak of memory imperfections, neither of memory imperfections implying guilt).

I think Amanda said she doesn't remember of any phone call at 12:47, because she doesn't remember of any call that matches Edda's description, because she doesn't remember any "first call" before the police arrival at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sure, but I'd love to see an explanation of this statement (as it is not a question at all):

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.​

No this is a question. This was a question (provocative or rethoric, but a question). It was a question and should be written with a question mark "?", I heard it, I listened to Comodi putting this question.

 

[samba]

Thanks! So it doesn't sound too dissimilar to the US system. I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up more often because it's just one more item that casts doubt on their involvement. If I was guilty of a crime, was being told that there was a lot of evidence to my guilt, and had no long term relationship to my partner in crime (6 days!), I'd plea bargain for a reduced sentence.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think you don't have proof nor tight to sate Comodi was not interested in the truth, and I think you have no evidence to state Amanda was telling the truth.

I think you have no evidence for Comodi stating the truth. To the contrary - it's either she's lying openly, or she forgot the time of the call, what happened before the call and what Edda really said. Oh, there's also a probability that she forgot to bring her notes with her. Or the dog ate them, just like some interrogation recordings.

We can for sure say that Comodi maintains that Amanda called before "anything happened yet", that Amanda "called to tell that nothing happened", and that she called at 12:00. All of that is not factual.

 

[pilot padron]

And the beat goes on (ad nauseam) about Prosecutor Comodi's questions

Interesting to see that the focus of this seemingly endless argument has progressed from Prosecutorial Conspiracy, to Prosecutorial Misconduct, and now to Prosecutorial Questioning techniques that should have been objected to by the Defense Counsel.

Although this was Defense Counsellor Dalla Vedova's first ever trial as a criminal defense attorney, his prolific efforts thru his objections during the eventually unanimous convicted murderess's testimony, were numerous enough that he was spoofed as being a 'jack in the box'.
This for his repeated efforts through his objections to protect Knox *from herself* during her testimony.

In addition to supplying Defense Attorneys with the TOD and Forensic 'evidence' provided here, these latest suggestions today for improving the Defense Attorneys' courtroom tolerance of the Assistant Prosecutor's (apparently quite successful ) questioning techniques, would I am sure, be given as much attention as they rightfully merit by the Defense Team.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

Sorry, but I only now realized how far from the facts is your statement above.

Apart from the discovery of the break-in (the only difference according to you) until 12:47:

• Filomena was notified of the suspicious findings and voiced anxiety too.
• Meredith didn't respond to phone calls. Both of her phones were already either offline or on voicemail.
• it was discovered that Meredith door was locked.
• She didn't respond to screaming and banging at her door.
• It became apparent that Meredith whereabouts were not known.
• Filomena was notified about the break-in and asked to call the police.

All of that had not yet happened at 12:00, but already happened at 12:47. As you see the break-in was hardly the only difference between 12:00 and 12:47.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry, but I only now realized how far from the facts is your statement above.

Apart from the discovery of the break-in (the only difference according to you) until 12:47:

• Filomena was notified of the suspicious findings and voiced anxiety too.
• Meredith didn't respond to phone calls. Both of her phones were already either offline or on voicemail.
• it was discovered that Meredith door was locked.
• She didn't respond to screaming and banging at her door.
• It became apparent that Meredith whereabouts were not known.
• Filomena was notified about the break-in and asked to call the police.

All of that had not yet happened at 12:00, but already happened at 12:47. As you see the break-in was hardly the only difference between 12:00 and 12:47.

I think I wrote clearly of "what have been discovered". And everything is linked to Amanda's explanation and must be seen under the final crystallization of Amanda's testimony: Amanda says she got worried only after the iscovery of the break in and after Meredith didn't answer, and she doesn't remember having called her mother but probably she did so because she got worried for the things she had found.

But in fact, all this things you mention is exactly what makes Amanda's explanation not so credible. Especially her panic and banging on Meredith's door. In this situation, she doesn't remember of having done a phone call to her mum wakng her up in the middle of the night. Because Amanda - bear in mind - doesn't remember at all of any phone call by this time and never mentions it. She doesn't reply to Comodi: "No, wait a minute: it was when I started to panic and Meredith wasn't answering, it is then that I called my mother". And in fact, in such a situation of anxiety and adrenaline, how could she forget about the first thing she decided to do, calling her mother? Calling her mothr for the first time, wking her up in the middle of the night?
Instead, she doesn't even care about the imprecise timing, she doesn't mention any call at all, but answers: "well I don't remember, if I did a call (that woke up my mother) it was probably because I found an open door and Meredith didn't answer the phone". This answer is inantural, and moreover by this answer Amanda herself is placing this "forgotten" call in the place where she was getting worried, and Edda is placing the same content decribed by Amanda in the 12:47 call, exactlt the content Amanda guesses but doesn't remember.

 

[Justinian2]

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.

My challenge was for anyone to show a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance, then I would like to hear it.

I can give you the case of the Craig's List killer which is a 'lone wolf' case similar to the fundamental case against Guede.

The precedent that I give of the Perugia murder is of the Craigslist Killer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Markoff

The case of the Craig's List killer is a lone wolf case that I think is an accurate precedent to the Guede murder. There are a lot of precedents similar to the Guede - as lone wolf - murder.

If you have a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance, then I would like to hear it.

 

[platonov]

Interesting to see that the focus of this seemingly endless argument has progressed from Prosecutorial Conspiracy, to Prosecutorial Misconduct, and now to Prosecutorial Questioning techniques that should have been objected to by the Defense Counsel.
Although this was Defense Counsellor Dalla Vedova's first ever trial as a criminal defense attorney, his prolific efforts thru his objections during the eventually unanimous convicted murderess's testimony, were numerous enough that he was spoofed as being a 'jack in the box'.
This for his repeated efforts through his objections to protect Knox *from herself* during her testimony.

In addition to supplying Defense Attorneys with the TOD and Forensic 'evidence' provided here, these latest suggestions today for improving the Defense Attorneys' courtroom tolerance of the Assistant Prosecutor's (apparently quite successful ) questioning techniques, would I am sure, be given as much attention as they rightfully merit by the Defense Team.

Not quite - a few posts back we had a repeat of the claim that the prosecution conspiracy started prior to the bugged Nov 10 conversation between Edda and AK with Edda being got at by the cops. (Comodi is no longer mentioned)

Either way it will be interesting to see if Machiavelli's more nuanced approach w.r.t."Before the police arrived" versus " Before the body was 'discovered' " bears fruit.
I wouldn't necessarily dispute the distinction but given the retrocausality claims & the broken window perplexity noted earlier, well ........???

.

 

[RWVBWL]

In the case of JREF/FOA vs Comodi...... [a private action] on the heinous charge of telling lies!

Could the court be advised when the case for the prosecution will rest ??

Vey little (if any) 'evidence' has been produced and counsel is making speeches
[or in the opinion of the court - repeating the same speech].

Greetings platnov,
You know, personally I do not find any thing sinister with Amanda Knox's actions on the morning of the day that Miss Meredith Kercher was found dead.

However, I do find it sinister that Prosecutor Comodi is seemingly lying to the court about the timing of an important phone call,
it's meaning and what had transpired before said phone call, insinuating that Amanda Knox was guilty of...

But hey, that's just my opinion from a surfer in Los Angeles.
Have a great rest of the day,
RWVBWL

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you have no evidence for Comodi stating the truth. To the contrary - it's either she's lying openly, or she forgot the time of the call, what happened before the call and what Edda really said. Oh, there's also a probability that she forgot to bring her notes with her. Or the dog ate them, just like some interrogation recordings.

We can for sure say that Comodi maintains that Amanda called before "anything happened yet", that Amanda "called to tell that nothing happened", and that she called at 12:00. All of that is not factual.

Somebody accused Comodi of not being interested in the truth. And there is no evidence nor clue of this.
A prosecutor is supposed to be interested in the truth, not to be stating the truth in a questioning. A prosecutor puts questions, doesn't provide information. I don't care at all if Comodi purposely gave an incorrect indication or if she was simply mistaking or not interested in getting the precise time, or if she simply used a colloquial way of speaking (do you know, for example, in many Italian areas midday is a solar concept: here in Emilia Romagna "la mezza" - midday - commonly means 12:30).

Nobody ate the interrogation recordings. The interrogation recordings don't exist. And if they existed, Massei's court would have refused to listen to them.
And even if recordings of the interrogation were listened to, they would be devoid of information, because they would be identical to the description given by Amanda, which is not different from the descritpion given by Mignini and by the police officers (with the exception of the hitting on the back of the head).
And even if there was any kind of new information in those tapes, this won't change anything: Amanda incriminates herself again in her hand written note, in her e-mail, in her 18. december interrogation, in her pre-hearing statement, in her diary and in her court testimony, and she is incriminated by Sollecito's statements.

 

[Magister]

The appeal in Italy is a brand new trial, but not a brand new investigation, neither a brand new process.

I confirm that the appeal hrarings do not last 2 or 3 years. Usually the appeal verdict requires 2 or 3 years in average, starting from the beginning of the process.

How long do you think the Knox and Sollecito appeals will last?

 

[Machiavelli]

How long do you think the Knox and Sollecito appeals will last?

If the semen stain is tested and the new witnesses are heared and old witnesses are heared again, between four and five months, and 8-12 hearings. Otherwise, if there is no new evidence admitted, three weeks and 3 hearings.
It's just a guess on something not predictable in advance.
I think the appeal documents are weak. On them alone the appeal would be desperate, there is no hope to win it.

 

[katy_did]

I have had that said to me before, however, it doesn't change the perception of what I read.

Amanda is first asked by Comodi when did you first call your mother on November 2. No time has been stated by Comodi other than she wants to know the first call Amanda made to her mother. Amanda states the first call to her mother was right after the police had sent them all from the house upon the discovery of Meredith's body. From phone records that is not the first call Amanda made to her mother. Comodi, being a prosecutor is going to ask about that first call which is missing from Amanda's recollection.

You're talking about how Comodi started the questioning - by checking whether Amanda remembered the call - but you haven't discussed at all how Comodi then develops that argument. It's a line of questioning that clearly focuses on the 'fact' the call was made when 'nothing had happened', not on Amanda's forgetfulness, as many quotes from the testimony have demonstrated...

Of course, Comodi's planned series of questions also required her to establish from the outset that Amanda didn't remember the call (since if she had, the whole obfuscation over the timing and the repeated claims that 'nothing had happened' would have been easily refuted by Amanda).

Do you think that the call might not have been brought up if there had not been a recorded conversation about it between Amanda and her mother on November 10?

Well, no - if Comodi hadn't been aware that Amanda had forgotten the call, she wouldn't have been able to use this line of questioning at all; she also wouldn't have had that handy quote from Edda that "nothing had really happened" with which to hammer the "nothing had happened...why did you call when nothing had happened?" point home. And certainly, the fact Amanda didn't remember the call would be an obvious area for the prosecution to address, as you say.

But again, none of this seems particularly relevant to me since it doesn't address the way Comodi developed the argument in Court, only the reasons she may have honed in on the call in the first place.

Do you know if there any media articles which reported on Comodi's purposely ambiguous, risky action, and plan to push a falsehood in questioning Amanda about her first call to her mother?

I have no idea. Are you saying that might be relevant to the discussion about what Comodi said? If so, that seems like an odd appeal to authority - if it wasn't reported in the papers, it didn't happen...