Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris_Halkides said:
What Comodi did went a step further and actually misstated the time of the call. In addition, does anyone believe that Comodi was unaware that on that date the time difference between Perugia and Seattle was 8, not 9, hours? I don't; Comodi went beyond what an honest lawyer would do, not once but twice.
Click to expand...

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.

No thanks, I'd rather not play it the suspect's way.
 
YOU

If you see the above word in your posts it may be wise to go back and review your post before hitting submit. At websleuths we do not allow personalization of posts and the use of the word YOU is a good gauge as to whether a post is addressing the post and not the poster.

:tyou:
 
Katody said:
Thank you. Amanda made a lot of phone calls in the short succession before the discovery of the body. She made a lot of calls after it. many of them were with her mother and the family in Seattle and elsewhere. Add to that the obvious shock and stress from the events.
It is normal she wouldn't recall all of it perfectly many weeks later. When her mother asked her about it she was in jail and had a lot of troubles on her head.

When Comodi asked it it was two years after the events. The more reasons not to remember.

That's my position, we can agree to disagree :)
Click to expand...

BBM
Just a quick point. Edda asked her about it DAYS after and she had no memory.
MC referenced this jailhouse conversation when asking amanda about it on the stand. Edda even says before anything had happened, which is where MC got her words. IIRC
 
Amber29 said:
BBM
Just a quick point. Edda asked her about it DAYS after and she had no memory.
MC referenced this jailhouse conversation when asking amanda about it on the stand. Edda even says before anything had happened, which is where MC got her words. IIRC
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
aa9511 said:
Also, there is only disappearing facts and evidence if people are allowed to delete or distort those facts and that evidence.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all your help....Well, this is what I have been trying all along to determine. I was sold on the Guede-lone-wolf theory (thanks mainly to Hendry and Fisher) until I read the murderwiki (which I only bothered to do a. because Hellmann was overturned and b. I initially and rashly thought the wiki was put together by the press in conjunction with Wikipedia - I thought it was completely objective). Once I had gone over all the facts there, I felt there was now way, way too much suspicious about Knox and Sollecito to think they did not have some sort of involvement; I even began to suspect that maybe there really had been a lot of spin-doctoring and PR campaigning for this reason.

Then of course as we know the wiki was reported to be an opinion site, and so many of the facts were torn to shreds by counter-facts and so I wound up completely confused. I am trying now to figure out what is left which stands on its own, aloof from any distortion - and what is perhaps being distorted by the opposing side. This case really is messy. I wonder what the lay judges are thinking about all?
 
Katody said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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
 
aa9511 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Amber29 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you think if MC had referenced the call at 12:47 amanda would have magically remembered the first call to her mother?
 
Katody said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Amber29 said:
So you think if MC had referenced the call at 12:47 amanda would have magically remembered the first call to her mother?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Katody said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Katody said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
SMK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Katody said:
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/contents/examination-of-the-technical-report-on-the-forensic-genetic-tests-by-dr-patrizia-stefanoni/laboratory-analyses-reported-in-the-rtigf-regarding-item-165b/amplification-of-the-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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
SMK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Amber29 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Katody said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. ;)
 
Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/110/30/12241.full?sid=a253ef82-c033-47a6-8d9b-c5abfbd8c926
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 222 more.
Total: 3,868 (members: 223, guests: 3,645)

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
3,645
Total visitors
3,868
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,827
Messages
17,959,701
Members
228,621
Latest member
Greer∆
Back
Top