1450 users online (290 members and 1160 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 67 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1002
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    You're right. The bugged conversation is dated 10th of November. Still it's more than a week after the events. Amanda was in jail.

    Why do you think Amanda forgot that phone call? What's your theory?


    ETA: I hope it's an acceptable usage of the word you
    I believe it is acceptable.

    I honestly don't have a theory about why it was forgotten. I don't think it proves anything as far as guilt, it's just another hole in Amanda's story. IMO

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    600

    Comodi fails ethics 101

    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Ah, by honest I see you mean play the game the way Amanda wanted it to be played. Let her think of her answers LONG AND SLLOOWWWLLLYY so she could come up with just the "right" answer.
    By claiming that a call occurred at 12 noon when she knew that no such call existed, Comodi was telling a bald-faced lie. That is dishonest, and there is no excuse for it.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    600

    Comodi fails ethics redux

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    I disagree with you. I think as I've said that IF she had memory of the FIRST call she could've easily corrected MC.

    Is it not true that amanda Testified that her FIRST call was to tell her mother about Meredith being discovered? Was that the 12:47 call?

    I love that amanda having no memory of first call is the prosecutors fault...that is the problem with this whole case. It's always someone else's fault, never amanda herself.
    The issues of whether Amanda's lawyers should have prepped her better or helped correct the confusion after the fact are separate from the issue of a prosecutor lying in court. That is just not acceptable.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
    By claiming that a call occurred at 12 noon when she knew that no such call existed, Comodi was telling a bald-faced lie. That is dishonest, and there is no excuse for it.
    I get it this prosecutor is held at a different standard and should've spoon fed amanda the facts because that's what all lawyers do.

    Lets forget that this is common practice for trial lawyers.

    Also lets forget that it's the prosecutors fault that Amanda doesn't know the contents of her first call to her mother, regardless of the time.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
    The issues of whether Amanda's lawyers should have prepped her better or helped correct the confusion after the fact are separate from the issue of a prosecutor lying in court. That is just not acceptable.
    So you think if MC had referenced the call at 12:47 amanda would have magically remembered the first call to her mother?

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    You're right. The bugged conversation is dated 10th of November. Still it's more than a week after the events. Amanda was in jail.

    Why do you think Amanda forgot that phone call? What's your theory?


    ETA: I hope it's an acceptable usage of the word you
    Although Amber answered this questioned which you addressed to her, I can tell you that the reason this business of whether or not a first call was made (as per jail conv.) and whether Amanda could recall it or didn't want to, struck me as important (when taken together with other oddities) is because it appeared to me that she did not want to commit to knowing more earlier (enough to want to wake her mother - and the mother seemed to question why she had, as well).

    This alone made it important to me. I don't care whether she made 6 calls, 7 calls, or could recall them all - only if she was deliberately refusing to acknowledge this first call, for the reason I stated, did it have any import whatever to my thinking. And still would seem so. ( and yes, I only became aware of this through that blasted murderwiki, so am trying to ascertain now whether this is a legitimate point of suspicion or no.)ETA: I would think you wouldn't wake your mother who had work to go to at 2-4 am unless you were certain something of real import had happened.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    So you think if MC had referenced the call at 12:47 amanda would have magically remembered the first call to her mother?
    What is interesting is the follow up after Comodi's lie about the 12:00 phone call "on record".

    Both Comodi and Massei ask for the reason of the call.
    The reason of the actual call is self evident - there was the broken window, traces of blood, a friend was missing. All of it alarming enough to contact her family for advice.
    So the question is quite dumb itself when put in factual context. It makes sense only with the time of the call falsified.

    Amanda maybe wouldn't have remembered the call, but she would have pointed all this out if she was told the real time of the phone call.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    What is interesting is the follow up after Comodi's lie about the 12:00 phone call "on record".

    Both Comodi and Massei ask for the reason of the call.
    The reason of the actual call is self evident - there was the broken window, traces of blood, a friend was missing. All of it alarming enough to contact her family for advice.
    So the question is quite dumb itself when put in factual context. It makes sense only with the time of the call falsified.

    Amanda maybe wouldn't have remembered the call, but she would have pointed all this out if she was told the real time of the phone call.
    You are right, if only Amanda could remember this. She doesn't, that is the point I've been trying to make. The court did feel it was really that simple, hence they could not understand why amanda had no memory of making the call.

    Her testimony is clear, the first call she made to her mother was to tell her of finding Meredith's body. Period.
    Does not matter that the wrong time was referenced.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    Not at all. I think there is some confusion here. Maybe someone else said it, not me. This is the post I wrote and you replied to:
    Quote:
    Thanks. People do this? Hard to believe considering the phone records have been posted online for years.

    I remember Comodi and Massei introduced a lot of confusion by stating the phone call took place exactly at 12:00 and asking Amanda to hypothesize about it's contents.
    When we know the correct time it clarifies a lot because it places the call in the context of unfolding events.


    BBM

    I don't see what the confusion is? You stated that it was not fair that Comodi misstated the time, and then asking Amanda to hypothesize about its (phone call's) contents. This was all in reference to the time, so I don't understand how I'm confused. Then the post goes on to say, that "when we know the correct time it clarifies a lot......"

    Who did you mean by "we"? Do you mean we as in the general public get clarification from the exact time being known? Or do you mean we as in Amanda? Because the two would be very different, as one (general public) was not present for the said phone call, and one (Amanda) was. Our level of confusion about the call should not be equal to Amanda's, as she was there and we weren't.

    I don't think I misunderstood anything.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Although Amber answered this questioned which you addressed to her, I can tell you that the reason this business of whether or not a first call was made (as per jail conv.) and whether Amanda could recall it or didn't want to, struck me as important (when taken together with other oddities) is because it appeared to me that she did not want to commit to knowing more earlier (enough to want to wake her mother - and the mother seemed to question why she had, as well).

    This alone made it important to me. I don't care whether she made 6 calls, 7 calls, or could recall them all - only if she was deliberately refusing to acknowledge this first call, for the reason I stated, did it have any import whatever to my thinking. And still would seem so. ( and yes, I only became aware of this through that blasted murderwiki, so am trying to ascertain now whether this is a legitimate point of suspicion or no.)ETA: I would think you wouldn't wake your mother who had work to go to at 2-4 am unless you were certain something of real import had happened.
    Honestly IMO What makes it more suspicious about the contents of the call is Edda asking Amanda about it saying it was before anything had happened.

    Why does Edda feel this way about the call. All the prosecutor did was point this out and Amanda's answer is I don't remember that call.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    Thanks for the link, Otto.

    First of all, you misunderstood the article completely. The four additional peaks Balding confirmed come from autosomic STRs, not the Y chromosome. It means there were certainly some contributors (male or female) apart from Meredith and Raffaele.

    Y Chromosome amplification, which is not analysed by Balding in this article at all, provides us with evidence of several additional contributors. They are certainly male, because only males have Y chromosome:

    http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/c...-y-chromosome/

    The conclusion is:
    Balding confirms the 4 autosomic peaks not attributable to Meredith or Raffaele (i.e. additional contributors)
    Balding concludes there is Raffaele's profile in the sample nonetheless:



    Bolding mine.
    I did not misunderstand the article, although I am than more than happy to admit that I am not educated in DNA (I suspect that is true of everyone here except CH). I do understand the math in the article (I suspect that is not true of everyone here). Balding accepts that four of the 12 alleles identified by V&C have peaks high enough (>15%) that they can be identified as DNA (rather than stutter), but in reading both the article and the interview, I understand that the four alleles can be a result of "drop-in" DNA, or fragmentary and degraded DNA. That is not ruled out. Knox's DNA is not on the clasp, but there is clear DNA from Sollecito. It is not true that the DNA profiles of four people have been identified on the clasp, only that four alleles are not stutter and no profile has been identified for those alleles. Apparently, one of the contributors of low-level DNA was male.

    With regards to the question of whether Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, the answer is a resounding yes. With regards to the question of whether the four alleles that are not stutter are significant, I would say no. Regarding whether someone could have carried the DNA into the bedroom after touching something with Sollecito's DNA, Balding says that it is unlikely (see interview).

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Although Amber answered this questioned which you addressed to her, I can tell you that the reason this business of whether or not a first call was made (as per jail conv.) and whether Amanda could recall it or didn't want to, struck me as important (when taken together with other oddities) is because it appeared to me that she did not want to commit to knowing more earlier (enough to want to wake her mother - and the mother seemed to question why she had, as well).

    This alone made it important to me. I don't care whether she made 6 calls, 7 calls, or could recall them all - only if she was deliberately refusing to acknowledge this first call, for the reason I stated, did it have any import whatever to my thinking. And still would seem so. ( and yes, I only became aware of this through that blasted murderwiki, so am trying to ascertain now whether this is a legitimate point of suspicion or no.)ETA: I would think you wouldn't wake your mother who had work to go to at 2-4 am unless you were certain something of real import had happened.
    I see.

    The theory is that Amanda lied about not remembering the phone call.

    because...

    "she did not want to commit to knowing more earlier"

    I'm not sure I understand what you exactly mean by this phrase but I think that discovering an apparent break-in, traces of blood and traces of presence of a stranger in the house, together with the fact that Meredith was not answering her phone and her door was locked justify the phone call.

    Consider that the phone call was made at 12:47, when all this was already apparent, not at 12:00, before the discovery of the break-in or calls to Meredith, as prosecutor Comodi falsely stated.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    Honestly IMO What makes it more suspicious about the contents of the call is Edda asking Amanda about it saying it was before anything had happened.

    Why does Edda feel this way about the call. All the prosecutor did was point this out and Amanda's answer is I don't remember that call.
    BBM -Yes, me too. When I saw the transcript of the conversation, it was these things Edda said which raised a red flag for me also.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    I see.

    The theory is that Amanda lied about not remembering the phone call.

    because...

    "she did not want to commit to knowing more earlier"

    I'm not sure I understand what you exactly mean by this phrase but I think that discovering an apparent break-in, traces of blood and traces of presence of a stranger in the house, together with the fact that Meredith was not answering her phone and her door was locked justify the phone call.

    Consider that the phone call was made at 12:47, when all this was already apparent, not at 12:00, before the discovery of the break-in or calls to Meredith, as prosecutor Comodi falsely stated.
    I see your point. I meant, why had Edda asked Amanda why she didn't remember the call, could it be stress, and why had she called "before anything had happened" which made Amanda's lack of memory seem coy. Just a gut reaction. Not trying to demonize Amanda.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
    On the previous thread Otto wrote, "Essentially, it is well known that Balding concludes that Sollecito's DNA is a good sample.

    In the UK, 10, not 15, is the cutoff. Conti Vecchiotti identified 12 alleles. Balding reduced that to 4 DNA alleles. The four are negligible. There are two strong DNA contributors."
    One, I was discussing the YSTR profile whereas Dr. Balding was discussing the autosomal profile. Two, there is evidence of additional contributors in both the autosomal DNA and the Y-chromosomal DNA. Conti and Vecchiotti wrote with respect to the YSTR analysis, "The electrophoretic graph relative to the Y chromosome markers shows, besides the peaks indicated in the RTIGF as alleles, the presence of additional peakswith heights that exceed the threshold of 50 RFU which, despite not being in stutter position, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant. It follows from this that in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B are present several minor contributors which were not revealed by the Technical Consultant, confirming what was already observed in the electropherograms of the autosomic STRs." Stefanoni tried to sweep this information under the rug, either from bias or incompetence.
    That's true. The initial analysis interpretted 12 alleles as stutter. V&C, citing Gill, identified 24 alleles. Balding states that only 4 are relevant.

    "Vecchiotti and Conti (2) agreed with the alleles originally identified but also reported many additional epg peaks. They cited recommendation 6 of Gill et al. (4) in concluding that all peaks in stutter positions should be regarded as allelic. Of the 24 additional peaks identified by Vecchiotti and Conti (2), of which 6 had heights below the threshold of 50 relative fluorescence units, 9 are included in the profile of the other codefendant, Knox, providing apparent support for the presence of DNA from her. However, four of her alleles were not observed, including two homozygotes, which are less prone to dropout."

    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/1...b-c5abfbd8c926

Page 4 of 67 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 943
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 10:01 AM
  2. Replies: 1026
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 08:07 AM
  3. Replies: 1064
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:29 AM
  4. Replies: 1013
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 05:30 AM
  5. Replies: 1011
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:34 AM

Tags for this Thread