So in other words, Amanda made two calls to Meredith at 12:07, for 3 and 4 seconds each, and then made no other calls to the phones subsequently, and no texts or voice mails, despite the fact she was "pounding" on the door, "screaming" her name, trying to look into her window, alerting the neighbors, calling the police finally, and terrified something had happened to her. OK.
I would agree with other respondents to your posts, in that I think you're using faulty
ex post facto reasoning to ascribe guilt to Knox's actions in calling Meredith's phones that morning.
Aside from the fact that Knox had no reason to believe that Meredith had come to harm (although it appears that her concern grew as the situation developed), one also has to understand the actual mechanics of these phone calls. Firstly, the timings listed are post-connection timings. In other words, they do not include any time during which the phone was ringing.
Secondly (and a point that many people still don't seem to know/understand) is that on the morning of 2nd November Meredith's UK phone was switched on and connected to the network, while her Italian phone was switched off. Therefore, when Knox was calling Meredith's UK phone, she was hearing a number of ringtones (and Meredith's phone would have been sounding a ring tone - which is how and why it was eventually discovered) until the phone kicked in automatically to voicemail. However, when Knox was calling Meredith's Italian phone, it was diverting straight to voicemail since it was switched off.
Therefore, when the records talk (for example) of a "3 second" call to Meredith's Italian phone, this actually means that the phone kicked automatically straight through to the voicemail message. Obviously it would only take a second or two for any caller (Knox in this case) to realise that the phone was either switched off or out of signal range, and to hang up accordingly. Any subsequent calls would naturally have been similarly short, for the same reason.
And regarding Meredith's UK phone, I also seem to remember that Knox talked about the phone ringing for a long time, then kicking in to a message saying that the person was not available (rather than a voicemail message). If so, then a natural and understandable pattern for Knox calling this phone would be as follows: on the first attempt, Knox let the phone ring and ring (for, say, 20 seconds), then hears a 5-second message. This call would, remember, show up as a 5-second call - not a 25-second call. Then Knox tried again, once more letting the phone ring and ring, and once again finally getting the automatic message. Again, this would register as a short call. After that, Knox tried several more times, but this time she let the phone ring for several seconds, but hung up before the message kicked in.
These calls would not have shown up at all in the billing records, but would have indicated a proper intent by Knox to reach Meredith on her UK phone.
Putting it all together, the records suggest that Knox made several genuine attempts to reach Meredith on her two mobile phones. The short durations of the calls are only related to the connection times (in this case, the connection to the Italian voicemail message in the case of the Italian phone, and the automatic "not available" message in the case of the UK phone). The times do not reflect the amount of time that the phone was ringing (applicable in the case of the UK phone which was switched on and connected to the network, but not in the case of the Italian phone which was switched off).
Still...this is simply one more example of the Italians making up facts that put innocent peoples lives into jeopardy of being wrongly convicted based on idiocy. 
I thought you weren't making a point about guilt but just being genuinely interested in the reply? Whatever, your questions seem perfectly reasonable to me. They might lead you to form the conclusion that she was flighty, heartless, mercenary, illogical, prone to exaggeration etc but also naïve, artless, mercurial and other benign things often associated with pretty maids. Nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence but your last sentence makes more sense, or at least as much, if you delete 'innocent' and write 'guilty' instead.
