• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
You argue that the 'relevant similarities' outweigh the 'relevant differences'

Lane99 and I argue the opposite.



1) See Lane99's quote.

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



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.

The main difference is really the individuals and the social dynamics. There are any number of cases where teenagers have formed a pack and killed one of their peers. The circumstances are all over the map, but the common denominator is that the kids in question have problems.

Here's a drawing that was found in Kelly Ellard's locker at school:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kelly_ellard_cartoon.gif
 
I think I wrote clearly of "what have been discovered".

No, Machiavelli, it's there for everybody to see what you wrote:

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​
I understand you retract that statement?



Because Amanda - bear in mind - doesn't remember at all of any phone call by this time and never mentions it. 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?

First - it was not the first thing she decided to do nor was it her first phone call about it. It was in a middle of developing events, minutes before police arrival and the shocking discovery.

If without any anxiety Comodi can forget that the call was at 12:47 or that almost everything happened before that call or what Edda really said, if Mignini can forget what Amanda said during interrogation while having the transcripts in from of him - why should I question that Amanda can't remember one of multiple phone calls during a very eventful day? Bear in mind - she can't remember it when asked about it more then a year after the events. And apparently she hadn't been couched about it. If she rehearsed it with her lawyers, she would knew very well that the question is about the 12:47 call.

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".

I'm sorry Machiavelli, but you're not factual again. Please stick to the facts because it's hard to discuss with you when instead of replying to your arguments I must check if you're not imprecise again. Please check with the sources before you state something as a fact.

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.
Again, you're discussing something you've made up, not what Amanda said.
 
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.

It does seem to be a bit more interesting than Comodi's deceptive examination techniques. Here is the Italian if someone else wants a shot at it.

Arrivato a casa, aveva lavato gli indumenti, quindi - ancora in preda a una forte agitazione - si era cambiato ed era nuovamente uscito, dirigendosi verso la casa di A.: qui giunto, vi trovava anche l’altro amico P., cominciando a scambiare qualche parola ma ancora sentendosi quasi in trance, facendo notevoli sforzi per rimanere calmo e dare un’impressione di normalità. L’imputato indicava all’incirca nelle 23:30 l’ora in cui era entrato a casa dell’altro ragazzo, dove si era trattenuto sino a mezzanotte e mezza o giù di lì, per poi fare un giro in centro, incontrare un altro amico americano e andare al solito “Domus” (ma forse non anche A., che aveva avuto screzi con il personale di quel pub): qui erano rimasti più o meno sino alle 02:30 / 03:00, e da lì erano andati al “Velvet”, dal momento che uno dei suoi amici doveva parlare con qualcuno dello staff del locale.
Risalendo con i tempi a ritroso, anche in base alle distanze coperte a piedi ed alla durata della sua permanenza in Via del Canerino per ripulirsi, ipotizzava di essere uscito dalla casa di Via della Pergola intorno alle 22:30, o qualche minuto più tardi.
 
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).
:D:D

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.

Just because it's worth re-posting.
 
It does seem to be a bit more interesting than Comodi's deceptive examination techniques. Here is the Italian if someone else wants a shot at it.

Thanks RoseMontague, it's a death blow to the prosecution's ToD. If there really are witnesses that met Rudy about 23:30 it's no wonder Mignini could only change the ToD at the very last moment, to not allow the defense to challenge it.
 
Perhaps Manuela Comodi also forgot for a year and a half that the luminol footprints were tested with TMB and the prints were found negative for blood?

It surely would have been difficult to forget this as she insinuated with derision to the jury that it was beyond ridiculous that it could be anything else but blood.

"At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor" "and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide."

I would say in evaluating her intentions in regard to the 12:47pm phone call that her willingness to lie by omission by not revealing the TMB tests shows a pattern of deception.

It is also my understanding that when she told Amanda that she HAD made the call she did so in a very 'gotcha' voice.
 
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.

8-12 hearings taking 4-5 months?
You are aware of the dictum "justice delayed is justice denied" ?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...e+system+dysfunction&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
 
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.
Greetings to you, Machiavelli in far away Italy!
Speaking of Italy, I was wondering something...

You write, as Prosecutor Comodi stated in court also, that Amanda Knox called her Mom in the middle of the night...

Allow me to help set you, and maybe Prosecutor Comodi right...

On Nov. 1, 2007, the sun set at 5:52 pm on Nov. 1st, 2007 in Seattle.
On Nov. 2, 2007, the sun arose at 7:55 am on the morning that Amanda Knox 1st called her Mother in Seattle.

4:47 AM is not the middle of the night, heck it is not even close!
4:47 AM is the pre-dawn morning...
It is near the same time I have arisen many a day to hit the road to score some great "Dawn Patrol" surfing!

Why do you folks in Italy think the pre-dawn hours are "middle of the night"?
With 14:03 hours of darkness happening that night, I would think middle of the night would be closer to midnight, or 1:00 AM at the latest,
not 4:47 AM in the morning...

As Prosecutor Manuela Comodi insinuated, and you do too Machiavelli, it seems to imply a sinister, guilty of something pre-planned motive that made Amanda call and awake her Mom in the "middle of the night", when we can surely see that she called and awoke her Mom in the pre-dawn hours due to the concerns she had at her new household in a 'far away from home', place...

I hope that my typing this out 1 peck at a time has helped clarify this for you...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
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.


8-12 hearings taking 4-5 months?
You are aware of the dictum "justice delayed is justice denied" ?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...e+system+dysfunction&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Nice link Magister, I have not seened that one before.

Regarding Michiavelli's comment.
If the appeal documents are weak, I would hate to see some strong ones. Almost every piece of evidence and every witness is dismantled and the reasoning in the Massei report is made to look childish.
 
No, Machiavelli, it's there for everybody to see what you wrote:

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​

I understand you retract that statement?

First - it was not the first thing she decided to do nor was it her first phone call about it. It was in a middle of developing events, minutes before police arrival and the shocking discovery.

If without any anxiety Comodi can forget that the call was at 12:47 or that almost everything happened before that call or what Edda really said, if Mignini can forget what Amanda said during interrogation while having the transcripts in from of him - why should I question that Amanda can't remember one of multiple phone calls during a very eventful day? Bear in mind - she can't remember it when asked about it more then a year after the events. And apparently she hadn't been couched about it. If she rehearsed it with her lawyers, she would knew very well that the question is about the 12:47 call.

I'm sorry Machiavelli, but you're not factual again. Please stick to the facts because it's hard to discuss with you when instead of replying to your arguments I must check if you're not imprecise again. Please check with the sources before you state something as a fact.

Again, you're discussing something you've made up, not what Amanda said.

Actually, I am very factual, and I think you perfectly understood my reasoning. I told Amanda was talking of the 12:47 call, the she knew it was about that call, and I told you why this can be demonstrated.
I do not consider the facts you like in the way you like.
I told you - by the way - in fact nothing had been discovered by 12:47 more than wnat was discovered at 12:00, because this is true in a sense, on factual ground. Unless you consider phone calls to Filomena as "discoveries" and Amanda's panic as a "discovery". I think you know discussing this is a loss of time, because we both know exactly what happened - by Amanda's claims - between 12:00 and 12:47. And certainly I am not scandalized to hear Comodi to refer as "nulla si sapeva" about such a time frame. But this is not my main argument.
My argument is: Amanda affirmed she didn't remember the 12:47 call. There is no doubt she knew it was the call we are talking about. And she did not mistake the question with simply a question on another phantom call from Sollecito's house which instead she doesn't remember, and to which she answers. There is no argument involving Comodi that can deny this, this is because of multiple reasons coming from the testimony as a whole, first of them is Amanda's answer to the same question when she describes the call.
Thus my conclusion is: Amanda stated she didn't remember at all of the 12:47 call. Is it clear?
 
Last edited:
This argument is fallacious in two aspects...

Thanks for the warning. But your argument appears to be fallacious in more than just two aspects. Throughout, when it's not arguing against assertions I never made, it unwittingly supports the implications of what I actually had written.
 
Greetings to you, Machiavelli in far away Italy!
Speaking of Italy, I was wondering something...

You write, as Prosecutor Comodi stated in court also, that Amanda Knox called her Mom in the middle of the night...

Allow me to help set you, and maybe Prosecutor Comodi right...

(..)

As Prosecutor Manuela Comodi insinuated, and you do too Machiavelli, it seems to imply a sinister, guilty of something pre-planned motive that made Amanda call and awake her Mom in the "middle of the night", when we can surely see that she called and awoke her Mom in the pre-dawn hours due to the concerns she had at her new household in a 'far away from home', place...

I hope that my typing this out 1 peck at a time has helped clarify this for you...
RWVBWL

No, not Manuela Comodi, but Judge Massei affirmed (not "insinuated") that a phone call in the middle of the night is abnormal, unless it is a custom for the person to call at those times.

It is not normal to call people at 3:00 am as well as at 5:00: either this is a habit, or something not normal must have happened.

If you call me at 5:00 you better have an important reason to do so, believe me: the fact sun raises at 5:27 is not a good reason. The concerns in household must be of a kind that constitutes really urgent issue and requiring an urgent advice, like maybe a flooding, considering that Amanda did not call her mother often at "pre-dawn" hours.

So I would replace your definition of "sinister, guilty of something pre-planned", as something "very urgent and not normal going on".

The problem - as I explained - is not that a non normal and urgent call took place. The problem is how Amanda explains it, how she doesn't mention it in all her previous recollections of events and questionings, and how she still doesn't remember of it in court.

However, the main problem for Amanda is that this is only one of the many inconsistencies in her story.
 
Machiavelli, did the call take place at 12:00? No, so how could Amanda remember a call that NEVER took place.
 
:D:D



Just because it's worth re-posting.

I think it's extremely telling that in the two or three months since this subject has been seriously discussed, not ONE medical expert's opinion or piece of literature has been produced to counteract our propositions regarding the stomach/intestinal evidence.

Not ONE piece of evidence to suggest that a healthy adult ingesting a moderate-sized meal in a relaxed, sedentary environment would still retain that entire meal within their stomach over 4.5 hours later.

Not ONE piece of evidence to suggest that a pathologist could possibly manipulate chyme along over 4 metres of small intestine "by accident" or "through incompetence".

I have near-100% certainty that some people have been trying very hard indeed to find such evidence. After all, if our position is correct (and it is correct....), then Meredith must have met her death well before 10.00pm. And that throws the whole prosecution case into some disarray.

Of course, the reason that these people haven't been able to find evidence refuting our positions is simple: such evidence doesn't exist. But the silence is still deafening.
 
No, not Manuela Comodi, but Judge Massei affirmed (not "insinuated") that a phone call in the middle of the night is abnormal, unless it is a custom for the person to call at those times.

It is not normal to call people at 3:00 am as well as at 5:00: either this is a habit, or something not normal must have happened.

If you call me at 5:00 you better have an important reason to do so, believe me: the fact sun raises at 5:27 is not a good reason. The concerns in household must be of a kind that constitutes really urgent issue and requiring an urgent advice, like maybe a flooding, considering that Amanda did not call her mother often at "pre-dawn" hours.

So I would replace your definition of "sinister, guilty of something pre-planned", as something "very urgent and not normal going on".

The problem - as I explained - is not that a non normal and urgent call took place. The problem is how Amanda explains it, how she doesn't mention it in all her previous recollections of events and questionings, and how she still doesn't remember of it in court.

However, the main problem for Amanda is that this is only one of the many inconsistencies in her story.

Of course it's unusual to call people at 4.47am. And these were unusual circumstances. To me (and others), its entirely clear that Comodi was trying to construct the following argument:

1) Knox called her mother at an unusual and anti-social time of night

2) But "nothing had happened yet" when this call was placed, so...

3) ...why would Knox elect to wake her mother up at such a time over "nothing"?

4) This suggests (in Comodi's reasoning) that something very real HAD "happened" in Knox's mind, contrary to what she "ought to have known" had "happened" at that point in time. Something which worried her enough to have woken her mother up in the middle of the night. Therefore.....

5) ...Knox knew more than she "ought" to have done at the time of this call, therefore.....

6) ...Knox knew that Meredith had been murdered at the time of this call.

To me, this is exactly the suggestion that Comodi was quite deliberately trying to plant in the minds of the judicial panel through this line of questioning. Massei actually assisted her by reinforcing the unusual nature of the timing of the first phone call.

Of course, as so often, the truth is probably far more simple. Knox had ample reason to call her mother at 12.47pm Perugia time. By now, she and Sollecito had discovered the broken window in Filomena's room, and had tried and failed to contact Meredith. And, when put together with the blood in the small bathroom (which now began to take on a more sinister connotation in the light of the broken window and the failure to locate Meredith), and the strange faeces in the large bathroom, all of this would certainly count as sufficient grounds to call one's mother for advice and support.

And it's equally explicable why Knox might have forgotten this first call to her mother. It took place as the first in a fast series of calls which culminated in Sollecito's emergency call to summon the Carabinieri, and the Postal Police almost certainly arrived shortly after this series of calls took place. So a lot happened in a short period of time (within 10 minutes). And once the Postal Police had arrived, events quickly escalated further, culminating in the horrific discovery of Meredith's body, and the distressing aftermath of the discovery,

What I completely fail to understand is why it is in any way incriminating that Knox claims to have forgotten this first call to her mother. As I've explained, she had every legitimate reason to have made it, given how concerned Knox and Sollecito say they had become by 12.47pm. And anyhow, just supposing that Knox DID kill Meredith and knew exactly what was behind her bedroom door, why would she deliberately lie to deny calling her mother at 12.47pm when - as discussed above - she had a ready-made "innocent" reason to have called her?

I think that the reason the Knox claimed not to remember the 12.47pm call to her mother is that........she actually didn't remember the 12.47pm phone call to her mother.
 
Last edited:
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...

Comodi actually asked Amanda “When did you call her for the first time?” not whether Amanda remembered the call. Comodi also goes on to clarify the statement “nothing had happened,” to “But at midday nothing had happened yet in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet.” Amanda says several times she does not remember the call and Comodi, along with Massei, proceeds to question her about this not remembered call.

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).

Correct. Amanda not remembering the call allowed for a different line of questioning from Comodi than if Amanda remembered the call. I would imagine Comodi was prepared for either situation. Afterall, it had been more than a year and a half since the Amanda’s prison conversation with her mother.

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.

Perhaps if Amanda had said she remembered the call Comodi would have compared her recollection of what Amanda told her mother in the 12:47 phone call to the recorded prison conversation or to Edda’s recollection of the 12:47 phone call.

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...

Not at all. I am always interested in reading the various articles or forums about this case. The relevance is only as it pertains to my interest. I just wondered if you had read any information concerning the public perception of Comodi’s questioning. Obviously, what is in the court record is what matters.
 
It does seem to be a bit more interesting than Comodi's deceptive examination techniques. Here is the Italian if someone else wants a shot at it.

The free translator translates it as follows (I copied a little longer segment). Human translation is better..

I arrived home I had washed the clothes, then - still in the grip of a strong agitation - had changed and was out again, heading towards the house of A.: come here, there was also another friend P., beginning to exchange a few words but still feel almost in a trance, making great efforts to remain calm and give the impression of normality. The defendant indicated about 23:30 in the hour when he entered a boy's home, where he was held until half past midnight or so and then take a stroll downtown, meet another American friend and usually go to the "Domus" (but perhaps not by A., who had disagreements with the staff of this pub): there had been more or less up to 02:30 / 03:00 and from there went the "Velvet", as one of his friends had to talk with anyone in the staff room.
Going back to the times, even to distances covered on foot and the duration of his stay in Via del Canerino to clean up, assumed to be out of the house on Via della Pergola around 22:30 or some minutes later. Also indicated in more than five or six minutes the amount of time elapsed since he had heard the cry of the girl at the time of the unknown attacker had been away from home, wanting to stress that the struggle was prolonged. In a subsequent application, remember also that he had heard when he was in the bathroom, the sound of the bell of the front door, as he had already declared in the first interrogation in Germany.
 
Of course it's unusual to call people at 4.47am. And these were unusual circumstances. To me (and others), its entirely clear that Comodi was trying to construct the following argument:

1) Knox called her mother at an unusual and anti-social time of night

2) But "nothing had happened yet" when this call was placed, so...

3) ...why would Knox elect to wake her mother up at such a time over "nothing"?

4) This suggests (in Comodi's reasoning) that something very real HAD "happened" in Knox's mind, contrary to what she "ought to have known" had "happened" at that point in time. Something which worried her enough to have woken her mother up in the middle of the night. Therefore.....

5) ...Knox knew more than she "ought" to have done at the time of this call, therefore.....

6) ...Knox knew that Meredith had been murdered at the time of this call.

To me, this is exactly the suggestion that Comodi was quite deliberately trying to plant in the minds of the judicial panel through this line of questioning. Massei actually assisted her by reinforcing the unusual nature of the timing of the first phone call.

Of course, as so often, the truth is probably far more simple. Knox had ample reason to call her mother at 12.47pm Perugia time. By now, she and Sollecito had discovered the broken window in Filomena's room, and had tried and failed to contact Meredith. And, when put together with the blood in the small bathroom (which now began to take on a more sinister connotation in the light of the broken window and the failure to locate Meredith), and the strange faeces in the large bathroom, all of this would certainly count as sufficient grounds to call one's mother for advice and support.
Nice reply LondonJohn!
You know, some young gals might not have even called their Mom for any of the odd findings that Amanda Knox saw that morning.
They just don't have that kind of relationship with their Mom.
I know a few gals like that...

My last girlfriend, whom I had a 6 year relationship with, has a 1st born daughter only a couple of years older then Amanda is right now.
And these 2, Mom and daughter, would talk, sometimes it seemed, over a dozen times a day, being best of friends, besides just Mom and daughter...

I imagine the same thing went for Amanda Knox, (another 1st born daughter) in her relationship with her Mother. Lucky her...
Have a good day,:)
RWVBWL
 
Actually, I am very factual, and I think you perfectly understood my reasoning.
I respectfully wait for you to provide the source for that quote you gave:
"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"


I do not consider the facts you like in the way you like. I told you - by the way - in fact nothing had been discovered by 12:47 more than wnat was discovered at 12:00, because this is true in a sense, on factual ground. Unless you consider phone calls to Filomena as "discoveries" and Amanda's panic as a "discovery".

OK let's set apart multiple calls made to Meredith's phones before 12:47 but not before 12:00. I understand that discovering that Meredith's door is locked and she doesn't respond to banging on it is not a discovery in your sense?
I guess I was mistaken that you were insinuating that nothing substantial changed between 12:00 and 12:47. You simply have an unorthodox understanding of the term "factual ground".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom