Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

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

No.

 

[Chris C]

No.

So you believe Comodi implied nothing had happened when Knox called her mother. Which would be FALSE. Something had happened. At that point there was a reason for Knox to call her mother.

 

[platonov]

So you believe Comodi implied nothing had happened when Knox called her mother. Which would be FALSE. Something had happened. At that point there was a reason for Knox to call her mother.

No

 

[Chris C]

No

Its either/or.

 

[platonov]

Its either/or.

Its not ! 4 statements.

 

[Chris C]

Its not ! 4 statements.

Its actually one statement.

1 statement: MC: But at 12:00 nothing had happened yet. That's what your mother also said--

Either you believe he is saying that nothing had happened when Knox called her mother at 1200 or you believe he is not saying that.

 

[katy_did]

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.

I didn't say Comodi asked Amanda whether she remembered the call, just that she was checking whether she did (to determine her further line of questioning). I don't disagree with anything you've written here, but I think it's an extremely partial analysis of the testimony.

For example, you've said nothing about the many times Comodi emphasizes that the call took place at 12:00, when 'nothing had happened'; only about the one time she says "in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet", which doesn't conflict with the idea the call took place at 12. It's clear Amanda understood Comodi to be asking about a call that took place at 12, and that Massei understood Comodi's point to be that the call was made at an inappropriate time, not that Amanda had forgotten it.

I don't think the actual testimony - taken in its entirety - even remotely supports the idea Comodi was talking about Amanda's forgetfulness, and I think that's why the arguments suggesting that she was have stuck to quoting very limited parts of the whole exchange.

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.

Fair enough then, apologies for misunderstanding you. I haven't read very many media stories on Amanda's testimony at all, actually (aside from the bit where she talks about accusing Patrick). I imagine the papers were more interested in 'Foxy Knoxy' knickerless exploits in prison' or similar.

 

[platonov]

Its actually one statement.

1 statement: MC: But at 12:00 nothing had happened yet. That's what your mother also said--

Either you believe he is saying that nothing had happened when Knox called her mother at 1200 or you believe he is not saying that.

Chris C wrote

So you believe Comodi implied nothing had happened when Knox called her mother. Which would be FALSE. Something had happened. At that point there was a reason for Knox to call her mother.


Count them.

Its been explained over and over - not by me so much as I think its beyond simplicity.
As the old saw has it I can explain it to you but ...

Now I think we are done on this issue.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

But we still haven't cleared up the important questions, namely (1) Is Kevin_Lowe an MD, and (2) what exactly did Lalli use for ligatures? Because if it turns out that Kevin_Lowe is not an MD and that the standard material used for post-mortem bowel ligatures is chewing gum or puff pastry (and I emphasise that nobody has yet presented a peer-reviewed paper saying otherwise!) then Massei's theory that imperfectly tied ligatures made all the food slide down the length of Meredith's bowel accidentally must be right.

Until those questions are answered we obviously can't begin to make an intelligent assessment of what is stated by the totality of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the relevant experts.

 

[Chris C]

Chris C wrote

So you believe Comodi implied nothing had happened when Knox called her mother. Which would be FALSE. Something had happened. At that point there was a reason for Knox to call her mother.


Count them.

Its been explained over and over - not by me so much as I think its beyond simplicity.
As the old saw has it I can explain it to you but ...

Now I think we are done on this issue.

Actually your just avoiding the question rather than answering.

Yes or NO. Do you believe Comodi implied nothing had happened when Knox called her Mother?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>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.

Now there is an excellent use of an analogy, platonov.

 

[Chris C]

Actually your just avoiding the question rather than answering.

Yes or NO. Do you believe Comodi implied nothing had happened when Knox called her Mother?

Ok so i did the math. There is actually a 9 hour difference between Italy and Oregon like Knox had said. So normally a 12:47pm call would be 3:47am. However, believe it or not. Italy had just dropped out of Daylight savings time and Oregon doesn't drop out of daylight savings time until the weekend after meredith's murder. So on that day, a 12;47pm call would have been at 4:47am. Just for those that are wondering why there was an 8hr difference instead of 9 like Knox testified to.

 

[Machiavelli]

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


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?

I have no problem.
I acknowledge that you concede my points.
Among them: Amanda claims she doesn't remember of any phone call at 12:47. She said she doesn't remember of any call to her mothr made before the arrival of the police. I explained why I think this is demonstrated. I provided a series of other explanations. I am ready to review this point of conclusion if I see a testimony of Amanda giving evidence of the contrary.
Why don't you quote something to demonstrate the contrary?

I don't even know for what information you are demending sources.

 

[Chris C]

Now there is an excellent use of an analogy, platonov.

There is evidence of planes hitting Sky scrapers before though.

 

[platonov]

Now there is an excellent use of an analogy, platonov.

It's fine but I think you missed my intent ; when I use 'evidence by anecdote' think Abe Simpson.

But I'll happily concede the issue if we can drop the 'evidence by anecdote'.

Now stop or I'll start talking about Jesus.

.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't even know for what information you are demending sources.

I will gladly remind you, because it begins to become mildly amusing.
As I wrote earlier:

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"

Now I await witnessing further evasive maneuvers.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Italian judiciary system

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.

Is it fair to state then, that in the Italian court system, testifying on the stand is akin to being interrogated in the U.S. system? Except the judge(s) is deciding the case based on these interrogations happening in front of him/them? And, if you choose to not answer, or partially answer any questions the judge can use that against your credibility when rendering the verdict?

In the Italian court, are the witnesses sworn in and expected to tell the truth?

 

[Dan O.]

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?

While the innocent-Amanda would have made this call spontaneously when the level of concern reached the point where the mothers support was needed, the guilty-Amanda would have had to specifically create a need to call her mother at a that time. It is therefore compelling that the guilty-Amanda would be more likely to remember the call than the innocent-Amanda and I expect now to see the pro-guilt faction claiming that the guilty-Amanda would have to fake that she forgot making that call in order to be believed innocent.

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.

That is a position that I would accept.


But none of what Amanda did or said from the night of the murder to the day of her testimony in court can explain Edda's questioning of this call in the prison cell on the 10th.

 

[Machiavelli]

I will gladly remind you, because it begins to become mildly amusing.
As I wrote earlier:

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

Now I await witnessing further evasive maneuvers.

Just a moment.
I am not going to explain the previous line in this post. It was not a quote, it was a paraphrase of the content of Amanda's testimony.
But this method is not correct. I will not answer you now, because your question comes after, and you owe me a response on many arguments since before. I don't want you to evade my arguments while instead you reply by putting your questions targeted on points of weakness of the other side, so instead answering you just go on choosing convenient new topics for discussion. I want you to discuss your point of weakness before searching for holes in my posts.

Let's sum up our discussion. My point on this subject originates here:

...

Where I say - on a reply to Chris - that the “12/mezzogiorno” statement by Comodi is the only (possible) case in which the prosecution adds incorrect(?) information to a question. I note there is no objection by the defence at all, and my points are:
Comodi’s incorrect or imprecise time has no consequence on the content of Amanda’s testimony, while instead what matters is Amanda - in her testimonies - doesn’t recall any phone call before the police was already there.

To reinforce the point I also affirmed that, on other grounds, we can say her explanation in court (and her forgetting) can only be matched with the 12:47 call, and the 12:47 call can only be matched with to her explanation.
An open question left, is whether her explanation for her memory hole is credible.

So Katody, if you objcet to this, tell us: what argument, source, evidence did you provide to state the contrary?

Then, I happened to contest some information you provided.
On a RoseMontague’s post where she accused Comodi of "not being interested in the truth" I had replied this conclusion is unsupported and has no logical link with Comodi’s incorrect information. You replied on this post.
I explained briefly my position here:

...

I told you: 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).

You conceded: you didn't reply to those arguments.
So I want to affirm: it is not honest to say Comodi is not interested in the truth, and there is nothing to support this accusation.

If you don't agree: what sources or arguments you brought to the contrary?

While you say I am evasive, from above i see the only problem is the lack of your sources. You are - so it seems reading above - the one who is making a claim, and the one who has no argument and no source, simply: you appear unable to support logically your claim. So what source are you demanding?
You skipped some further points but then you quoted Comodi:

“C: 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.”

And here I rejectd your assertion: it is not true. That was a question. Because it is an audio file and I listened to it. It is available for everyone to hear.

I haven't read any word from you on the topic since then.
So I'd like to know: did you change your mind on the point?

There is a group of commenters who proposed a line of dismissal, of interpretation of the meaning of Amanda’s answer based on Comodi’s imprecise time, like: Kestrel

Amanda doesn't remember calling her mother at noon before anything had happened because there was no such call.

My reply is: No, because Amanda maintains she doesn't recall any phone call that occurred before the police arrival. And I think it is also possible to assert that Amanda said she doesn't remember of a phone call at 12:47, based on the fact that she doesn't remember of any call that can fit with Edda's description.

I encourage you to give evidence of the contrary if you have it.

I also contested your accusation to the police of having destroyed interrogation records. With this explanation:

“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”.

Again, these arguments are followed by your silence.
Your accusation against the police and the prosecutor happens to be totally unsupported, and against a series of arguments, but you don’t feel the need to consider them nor to give proof of something. You seem to be interested in the highlighting difference of Amanda’s cognitive evolution between 12:00 and 12:47 because you claim that “nothing had happened” is the difference to determine if Amanda is truthful or not (on a flawed logical path in my opinion), but you skim over all the arguments made by other people. Instead you complain I don’t provide sources.

 

[platonov]

.......................
..............................................................

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

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.



A That is a position that I would accept.


B But none of what Amanda did or said from the night of the murder to the day of her testimony in court can explain Edda's questioning of this call in the prison cell on the 10th.

A Earlier you claimed it was due to 'the lies of Comodi' - so you now accept this was not the case.

B Indeed ; You have already explained this due to 'the lies of Comodi ' - via retrocausality. Has your position also moved on this & To where ; Katodys police 'mind wipe' ?


.