Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

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.

According to this he left Meredith's at 22:30 went home washed up and went to a boy's house at 23:30. I wonder if that person was interviewed and confirmed the timing of his arrival? It would be hard for him to be in two places at once, that is certain.

 

[Chris C]

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.

And you are missing most of the peoples points here. I'm personally not arguing whether or not knox remembers the 1247 call. I'm arguing that Comodi worded and implied that NOTHING had happened at noon or 1200 when she called her mother. Regardless of what phone call time was made. An open ended question of lieing about events was asked that had no correct answer. All answers to that question pointed to guilt, because it implies nothing had happened yet. When in fact something had happened that caused Knox to call her mother. Further more, Knox is clearly assuming they are asking her about a phone call that was made at 1200 while she was at Sollecito's. Its very possible Comodi is referring to the 1247 call, but its clear that Knox is thinking Comodi is talking about a call that never happened because she doesn't remember making a call at 1200.

Knox her self admits to not remember all the phone calls. Heck I dont remember every phone call i had yesterday. After Comodi finishes questioning knox.
Maresca asks Knox (after Comodi questioned knox) about 3 phone calls Knox made.
The judge clarifies the question for knox.

GCM: So, the question asked by the defense of the civil plaintiff
was: How could you not remember that phone call, even though it was
made at a very, very special time for the person who received the call?

AK: Ah, okay. I do remember one call afterwards, the one that I made
after they sent us out of the house. But, I don't know if it's because I
was thinking about so many things, but somehow I forgot, I don't know.

However, how many of these phone calls did they ever give a specific time. They gave a specific time oh 1 phone call. 1200! So this is basicly how it boils down to. Knox doesn't remember calling her mom at 1247. Apparently has even admitted why, because 3 people question her about the 1247 phone call, if I remember correctly. I think Patrick's lawyers asked her also about the 1247 phone call.

The only difference is Comodi implied in court that knox called her mother before anything had happened. Which is a blatant LIE. He also inplies the phone call happened at 1200 and doesn't correct knox when she answers about not remembering making a 1200 phone call while she was at Sollecitos.

 

[Machiavelli]

I respectfully wait for you to provide the source for that quote you gave:

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".

No, I am just drawing conclusions from other facts. I am not very interested in analyzing the use of the locution "nothing was known" or "nothing was discovered", to establish how precise or factual the wording was. I am considering other facts as the relevant ones to establish whether Amanda denies remembering the 12:47, or if instead maybe she remembers here she is simply talking of something else.
The conclusion is: Amanda claims she doesn't recall the 12:47 call. I think this can be said on factual grounds. These factual ground do not depend on the precision of Comodi's wording.

 

[Chris C]

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.

Doesn't remember the phone call to her mother. Unless you are also saying she doesn't remember talking to everyone else. Such as calling Meredith or talking to Filomena.

 

[el buscador]

According to this he left Meredith's at 22:30 went home washed up and went to a boy's house at 23:30. I wonder if that person was interviewed and confirmed the timing of his arrival? It would be hard for him to be in two places at once, that is certain.

I wonder this also, Rose. From this and other machine translations it seems that rudy did meet someone around 23:30. And, yes, if so that shoots down the prosecution's timeline and the threesome killing.

 

[colonelhall]

For a long time now, the believers in Knox's innocence have tried to link Mignini's problems with the Monster of Florence case with this one. In so doing, they are trying to discredit the prosecution. However, up until now they have ignored the fact that Comodi was also part of the prosecution team. Many people have pointed out that she does not have a stain on her character.

Arguing that calling 12:47 mid day and 4:47 the middle of the night is evidence of further corruption on the part of the prosecution may influence the outcome of the appeal, but I doubt it. I doubt that there is a single fair minded person who would believe this for one moment.

The meaning of the questioning, as has been discussed for some time now, can leave one in no doubt, that Amanda Knox was lying. As she had been doing throughout.

 

[Katody Matrass]

No, I am just drawing conclusions from other facts. I am not very interested in analyzing the use of the locution "nothing was known" or "nothing was discovered", to establish how precise or factual the wording was. I am considering other facts as the relevant ones to establish whether Amanda denies remembering the 12:47, or if instead maybe she remembers here she is simply talking of something else.
The conclusion is: Amanda claims she doesn't recall the 12:47 call. I think this can be said on factual grounds. These factual ground do not depend on the precision of Comodi's wording.

I understand that regarding your statement

in fact nothing had been discovered by 12:47 more than wnat was discovered at 12:00

you concede and withdraw it.


But I'm still waiting for a source of the quote you gave earlier.

 

[Chris C]

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 Knox didn't have an important reason to call her mother?

 

[Justinian2]

According to this he left Meredith's at 22:30 went home washed up and went to a boy's house at 23:30. I wonder if that person was interviewed and confirmed the timing of his arrival? It would be hard for him to be in two places at once, that is certain.

The following is from "Through the Motivation Report – Part III"

Incredibly, the testimony of this street person is given added weight because two vendors in the area testified that he did, in fact, inhabit a bench there, and spent the night on it. Not only that, but Curatolo actually states that he saw Amanda and Raffaele, out on the street in front of their home for hours, during which time the murder took place. If you believe Curatolo, he actually provides them with an alibi.

Curatolo states that they were on the street between 9 PM and “before midnight.” Meredith’s murder took place at about 9:30 PM. To avoid this inconvenience, the court dissects the expression “before midnight” until it is watered down enough to just allow time for the murder to take place, if you move the time of death to as late as possible.

The prosecution's "super witness" actually gives AK and RS an alibi. Given enough rope, the prosecution has hung themselves. However, absolute power corrupts absolutely, so they may get out of this one. I just hope they can't get out of all their FUBARs and AK and RS walk.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Yes, except one essential point to bear in mind: this is normal prosecution activity, since a prosecutor does not construct arguments and present them to the judge panel in a questioning.
What the prosection does in quetionings - at leas in an Italian court - is to propose arguments in order to challenge the defendant. It is normal that arguments are provocative and aimed to test a reaction. It is the defendant who provides the court with information. You have to understand that a defendant's exam in court is not an interrogation - like for example in a U.S. court - in the Italian trial the defendant is not required to answer to the point, is not required to give answers at all strictly speaking. The "exam" can be more resembling to a dialogue, like a psychological questioning, in which the prosecution only provocates the defendant to talk and unfold topics of his knowledge. The trial debate is the source for the court's, not the prosecution's argument. The argument can be meraly instrumental to elicit some information the use of which the defendant or witness may not imagine in advance. Amanda doesn't object the timing of a 12:00 call, the defence doesn't object, Amanda doesn't correct or reject Comodi's statement to point out how, instead, many things had been discovered meanwhile and she was very anxious. Amanda gave a description of a situation and of a phone conversation which is identical to Edda's descritpion of the 12:47 call, implying she didn't mistake Comodi's question for a qustion about a call from Sollecito's apartment, and then Amanda re-affirmed she doesn't remember of this phone call at all.

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?

It is not that completly forgetting of the phone call is itself incriminating. It is, that it is not credible.
The reason why Amanda completely "forgets" of the call in the trial appears quite simple to me. Because - possibly on a suggestion by her lawyers - she better forget it completely, otherwise the next question would be: why you didn't speak about this call before? And the following prosecutor's argument would be: since you didn't tell us about this call throughout the investigation, maybe you didn't want to speak of the content of your conversation? The fact that Amanda concealed the phone call would stand out as quite obvious if se suddently remembers of it now, only after Edda already rehearesd a version of the phone call.

 

[platonov]

And you are missing most of the peoples points here. I'm personally not arguing whether or not knox remembers the 1247 call. I'm arguing that Comodi worded and implied that NOTHING had happened at noon or 1200 when she called her mother. Regardless of what phone call time was made. An open ended question of lieing about events was asked that had no correct answer. All answers to that question pointed to guilt, because it implies nothing had happened yet. When in fact something had happened that caused Knox to call her mother. Further more, Knox is clearly assuming they are asking her about a phone call that was made at 1200 while she was at Sollecito's. Its very possible Comodi is referring to the 1247 call, but its clear that Knox is thinking Comodi is talking about a call that never happened because she doesn't remember making a call at 1200.

Knox her self admits to not remember all the phone calls. Heck I dont remember every phone call i had yesterday. After Comodi finishes questioning knox.
Maresca asks Knox (after Comodi questioned knox) about 3 phone calls Knox made.
The judge clarifies the question for knox.

GCM: So, the question asked by the defense of the civil plaintiff
was: How could you not remember that phone call, even though it was
made at a very, very special time for the person who received the call?

AK: Ah, okay. I do remember one call afterwards, the one that I made
after they sent us out of the house. But, I don't know if it's because I
was thinking about so many things, but somehow I forgot, I don't know.

However, how many of these phone calls did they ever give a specific time. They gave a specific time oh 1 phone call. 1200! So this is basicly how it boils down to. Knox doesn't remember calling her mom at 1247. Apparently has even admitted why, because 3 people question her about the 1247 phone call, if I remember correctly. I think Patrick's lawyers asked her also about the 1247 phone call.

The only difference is Comodi implied in court that knox called her mother before anything had happened. Which is a blatant LIE. He also inplies the phone call happened at 1200 and doesn't correct knox when she answers about not remembering making a 1200 phone call while she was at Sollecitos.

No I get it - I don't buy it.
As I said at the weekend the point is moot, its irrelevant*, its nonsensical.

Witness could easily have answered any way she choose, and did - the term simplicity doesn't do justice to the point.

I only got involved in this 'debate' to point out the 'temporal anomaly' \ 'mind control' claims of Dan O & Katody Matrass [several posters seemed to indicate agreement -yourself included ? ]which they have failed to defend. Presumably they have been withdrawn , for the moment ?

*there may be a subtle (not very - quite straight forward really ) point or two in this regard but they appear to be beyond the scope** of this debate.

ETA ** Another poster is very capably making them but to no avail it seems.


.

 

[Machiavelli]

I understand that regarding your statement
you concede and withdraw it.

Actually I didn't even discuss it, I consder it a legitimate interpretation, expressed in a shortned form, and you may accept or not accept it depending on what aspect of reality you are interested in.
This was not "my statement", in fact my statement was a bit longer, I expressed another argument, and I was focused on a topic and a conclusion.
So, may I ask you what you understood of the rest?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, except one essential point to bear in mind: this is normal prosecution activity, since a prosecutor does not construct arguments and present them to the judge panel in a questioning.
What the prosection does in quetionings - at leas in an Italian court - is to propose arguments in order to challenge the defendant. It is normal that arguments are provocative and aimed to test a reaction. It is the defendant who provides the court with information. You have to understand that a defendant's exam in court is not an interrogation - like for example in a U.S. court - in the Italian trial the defendant is not required to answer to the point, is not required to give answers at all strictly speaking. The "exam" can be more resembling to a dialogue, like a psychological questioning, in which the prosecution only provocates the defendant to talk and unfold topics of his knowledge. The trial debate is the source for the court's, not the prosecution's argument. The argument can be meraly instrumental to elicit some information the use of which the defendant or witness may not imagine in advance. Amanda doesn't object the timing of a 12:00 call, the defence doesn't object, Amanda doesn't correct or reject Comodi's statement to point out how, instead, many things had been discovered meanwhile and she was very anxious. Amanda gave a description of a situation and of a phone conversation which is identical to Edda's descritpion of the 12:47 call, implying she didn't mistake Comodi's question for a qustion about a call from Sollecito's apartment, and then Amanda re-affirmed she doesn't remember of this phone call at all.




It is not that completly forgetting of the phone call is itself incriminating. It is, that it is not credible.
The reason why Amanda completely "forgets" of the call in the trial appears quite simple to me. Because - possibly on a suggestion by her lawyers - she better forget it completely, otherwise the next question would be: why you didn't speak about this call before? And the following prosecutor's argument would be: since you didn't tell us about this call throughout the investigation, maybe you didn't want to speak of the content of your conversation? The fact that Amanda concealed the phone call would stand out as quite obvious if se suddently remembers of it now, only after Edda already rehearesd a version of the phone call.

So you're suggesting (as, it seems, are Comodi and Massei) that Knox actually said something very incriminating in this first 12.47pm call to her mother, and this is why she chooses to forget that the call even happened?

If so, what do you suggest it was that Knox said which was so incriminating? Or what do you suggest Comodi or Massei thought Knox had said in this call? And what evidence do you or Comodi or Massei have to support this suggestion? Or is it one of these "pulled out of thin air" suggestions?

 

[RoseMontague]

The following is from "Through the Motivation Report – Part III"



The prosecution's "super witness" actually gives AK and RS an alibi. Given enough rope, the prosecution has hung themselves. However, absolute power corrupts absolutely, so they may get out of this one. I just hope they can't get out of all their FUBARs and AK and RS walk.

It is amusing how Mignini has to prod him repeatedly into giving the correct time that would coincide with a certain time of death, showing just how important he felt the nice park bench gentleman's testimony should meld with the lady with the fantastic hearing.

Meanwhile both sides of the War of 1247 have declared victory, now I just want to know who is going to turn the power back on.

 

[Chris C]

It is not that completly forgetting of the phone call is itself incriminating. It is, that it is not credible.
The reason why Amanda completely "forgets" of the call in the trial appears quite simple to me. Because - possibly on a suggestion by her lawyers - she better forget it completely, otherwise the next question would be: why you didn't speak about this call before? And the following prosecutor's argument would be: since you didn't tell us about this call throughout the investigation, maybe you didn't want to speak of the content of your conversation? The fact that Amanda concealed the phone call would stand out as quite obvious if se suddently remembers of it now, only after Edda already rehearesd a version of the phone call.

Since she didn't tell them about this call throughout the investigation?

They had her phones tapped and her phone records within days of finding Meredith's body. How could she be hiding the phone call by not telling them of it. Surely the asked her about it. Got her response. Didn't get the answer they wanted. Why would not telling them she called her mother mean she is guilty. Do you call your mom? I talk to mine every day and i'm 40 yrs old.

The prosecution/judge/civil attorneys made something out of nothing. The fact that you feel she is hiding something because she didn't remember making a phone call in a day full of phone calls is telling. Comodi implied that because Knox called her Mom early in the morning there was malicious intent because she called her mom. My kids have a standing order. If something happens, no matter what, call dad. You think Knox's parents didn't tell her if something happened call us no matter what time it is. Their daughter was in a foreign country.

Its a smoke screen to hide the truth. Knox was worried and called her mom. However because she called her mom she must be hiding something. I can understand people buying into some of the other manipulated evidence. However, people believing knox was hiding something by forgetting she called her mother is absurd.

 

[Chris C]

No I get it - I don't buy it.
As I said at the weekend the point is moot, its irrelevant*, its nonsensical.

Witness could easily have answered any way she choose, and did - the term simplicity doesn't do justice to the point.

I only got involved in this 'debate' to point out the 'temporal anomaly' \ 'mind control' claims of Dan O & Katody Matrass [several posters seemed to indicate agreement -yourself included ? ]which they have failed to defend. Presumably they have been withdrawn , for the moment ?

*there may be a subtle (not very - quite straight forward really ) point or two in this regard but they appear to be beyond the scope** of this debate.

ETA ** Another poster is very capably making them but to no avail it seems.


.

So what your saying is you dont believe Comodi implied, nothing had happened, when Knox called her mother at 1200?

 

[Machiavelli]

If so, what do you suggest it was that Knox said which was so incriminating? Or what do you suggest Comodi or Massei thought Knox had said in this call? And what evidence do you or Comodi or Massei have to support this suggestion? Or is it one of these "pulled out of thin air" suggestions?

I think Amanda thought that something in the phone call could be incriminating.
I don't know what. Hypotheses are open. It is possible for example that Amanda told Edda some detail in grave contradition with what she told the police. For example, she knew some detail of the crime scene, or that the police was already there, or she might have told her mother she was in trouble or maybe asked an incriminating advice of the kind if it was better to escape to Germany. I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball.
I know that a total cancellation from memory of an emergency call is scarcely credible.

 

[Machiavelli]

Since she didn't tell them about this call throughout the investigation?

They had her phones tapped and her phone records within days of finding Meredith's body. How could she be hiding the phone call by not telling them of it. Surely the asked her about it. Got her response. Didn't get the answer they wanted. (..)

In fact, since her response was "I don't remember this call", so she doesn't reveal the content of the call. It's one of the many obscurtities, like the Sollecitos' "I don't remember".

 

[Katody Matrass]

Actually I didn't even discuss it, I consder it a legitimate interpretation, expressed in a shortned form, and you may accept or not accept it depending on what aspect of reality you are interested in.

You wrote
nothing had been discovered by 12:47 more than wnat was discovered at 12:00

You consider it legitimate despite the fact that at 12:00 it was not known that Meredith's room is locked nor that she doesn't answer her phones.
It is indeed not only different aspect of reality, looks like we're on entirely different reality planes, but I'm afraid it's me who is still on the physical plane

This was not "my statement", in fact my statement was a bit longer, I expressed another argument, and I was focused on a topic and a conclusion.
So, may I ask you what you understood of the rest?

I'm still waiting for you to provide the source of the quotation that your argument is based on.

You failed to provide it so far. And you're meandering instead. What's the problem?

 

[katy_did]

Amanda gave a description of a situation and of a phone conversation which is identical to Edda's descritpion of the 12:47 call, implying she didn't mistake Comodi's question for a qustion about a call from Sollecito's apartment, and then Amanda re-affirmed she doesn't remember of this phone call at all.

Here's what I've been able to find on Edda's description of the 12:47 call in her testimony:

The first phone call she said I know it's early but she called because she felt someone had been in her house. She had spent the night at Raf’s. She came back to have a shower and the main door was open. She thought it was odd but it has a funny lock and it did not close well.

She went to have a shower and when she came out she noticed some blood but she thought maybe someone had her menstrual cycle and did not clean when. She then went to her room and then went to the other bathroom to dry her hair and saw there was feces in the bathroom. Thought that was strange because normally girls flushed the bathroom. She went back to Raf’s and told him about the things she found strange. Sometime later she got hold of one of the other roommates.

She tried to call Meredith several times but there was no answer.

They came back to the house and she showed Raf what she found and then they also noticed the broken window.

And now they were pounding on Meredith’s room trying to wake her. All this in the first call? Yes very quickly. I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police. This was the first call.

Here's what Amanda said when questioned by Comodi about the 12:00 phone call:

Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --

Can you explain again how Amanda's description of the 'situation' and Edda's description of the phone call are identical, and especially how this shows Amanda knew Comodi was referring to a call at 12:47?

It is not that completly forgetting of the phone call is itself incriminating. It is, that it is not credible.

Forgetting a phone call is "not credible"? Hmmm. Next time I forget where I put my phone/car keys/ipod I'll just tell myself it's not credible that I should have forgotten where I put them. Hopefully they'll just magically reappear.