Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[Sonata]

Yes, but if one has experience with petty criminals, Rudy fits the stereotype of the repeat b & e trouble maker. Poor Meredith, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Speaking of which, in the fall of 2007 a woman in Perugia had her cottage broken into via a window break, and set on fire when the burglar accidentally left a silk scarf over a light bulb. Her cat died of smoke inhalation, and it took 3 years to rebuild the cottage. When Rudy was arrested she wondered if she now knew who had ruined her cottage and killed her cat.

I would not doubt it, proof or no proof. Some things just take common sense. If the police in Perugia had not been so lax with Rudy Guede, (further points to his being a drug informant, rumor or not - many rumors are true) poor MK, AK, and RS would not have been destroyed:



forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=31

Gosh! Top notch sleuthing there SMK; I am mightily impressed! The gold watch thing is extremely intriguing. I wonder if it was ever identified.

 

[SMK]

Gosh! Top notch sleuthing there SMK; I am mightily impressed! The gold watch thing is extremely intriguing. I wonder if it was ever identified.

Thanks! Yes, it is very suspicious : Her cottage is broken into via a window, and her mother's gold watch taken. Then they find Rudy with a woman's gold watch while he is under suspicious activity of break and entry, with stolen goods in his backback, yet again. And yet, no arrest. But supposedly the idea that Rudy was a drug informant and hence had free pass from Perugia police is nothing but an "internet rumor". Yeah, right. :maddening:

 

[For The Kids]

I would not doubt it, proof or no proof. Some things just take common sense. If the police in Perugia had not been so lax with Rudy Guede, (further points to his being a drug informant, rumor or not - many rumors are true) poor MK, AK, and RS would not have been destroyed:



forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=31

No offence but...thats kinda a matter of opinion ..poor AK and RS? As it stands all three are implicated in POOR Merediths murder ...i dont see why its poor them at all and as it stands nor does the law.

By the way because someone is a petty thief it doesnt mean they automatically murder people.
MOO

 

[Sonata]

No offence but...thats kinda a matter of opinion ..poor AK and RS? As it stands all three are implicated in POOR Merediths murder ...i dont see why its poor them at all and as it stands nor does the law.

By the way because someone is a petty thief it doesnt mean they automatically murder people.
MOO

Well, if you believe they aren't guilty, which many of the posters here do then it is not hard to see why someone would say poor them. Obviously if you don't believe that you won't, but I am sure you can see how it seems to those who do believe they are innocent.

 

[SMK]

No offence but...thats kinda a matter of opinion ..poor AK and RS? As it stands all three are implicated in POOR Merediths murder ...i dont see why its poor them at all and as it stands nor does the law.

By the way because someone is a petty thief it doesnt mean they automatically murder people.
MOO

Well, I am of a certain opinion, for certain. What can I say? An opinion I am basing on certain facts, just as you are, conviction or no. Convictions may be faulty, and over turned. A petty thief (Rudy was known to brandish a knife) can turn murderer if things go wrong. Probably best not to break and enter in the first place.

 

[SkewedView]

No offence but...thats kinda a matter of opinion ..poor AK and RS? As it stands all three are implicated in POOR Merediths murder ...i dont see why its poor them at all and as it stands nor does the law.

By the way because someone is a petty thief it doesnt mean they automatically murder people.
MOO

Being a burglar (a different thing entirely from being a petty thief) doesn't make one a murderer, but does make it more likely that one will become a murderer, as burglary-turned-murder is not a rare occurrence. Murder out of nowhere because of the influence of pot and Japanese comic books, however...

If AK & RS are innocent, then they are deserving of pity. Should people who believe in that innocence really censor their expressions of pity because you personally believe otherwise? It doesn't reduce our sadness over Meridith's cruel fate, contrary to what you seem to be implying here.

 

[SMK]

Well, if you believe they aren't guilty, which many of the posters here do then it is not hard to see why someone would say poor them. Obviously if you don't believe that you won't, but I am sure you can see how it seems to those who do believe they are innocent.

Thank you.

 

[SMK]

Being a burglar (a different thing entirely from being a petty thief) doesn't make one a murderer, but does make it more likely that one will become a murderer, as burglary-turned-murder is not a rare occurrence. Murder out of nowhere because of the influence of pot and Japanese comic books, however...

If AK & RS are innocent, then they are deserving of pity. Should people who believe in that innocence really censor their expressions of pity because you personally believe otherwise? It doesn't reduce our sadness over Meridith's cruel fate, contrary to what you seem to be implying here.

Well stated. :clap:

 

[sherlockh]

Well, I am of a certain opinion, for certain. What can I say? An opinion I am basing on certain facts, just as you are, conviction or no. Convictions may be faulty, and over turned. A petty thief (Rudy was known to brandish a knife) can turn murderer if things go wrong. Probably best not to break and enter in the first place.

No, Rudy was not known to brandish any knives. Another rumor <modsnip>. I wonder who makes up all these rumors. Oh, I think I know

 

[SMK]

It is of course very true that "Meredith is the victim here" can be refuted by saying that if wrongfully convicted - and much points to this, for many intelligent and reflective people - AK and RS are no less victims. It is not either/or. One can feel extremely sorry for what Guede did to MK and also feel enraged at what he did to AK and RS.

 

[sherlockh]

Thanks! Yes, it is very suspicious : Her cottage is broken into via a window, and her mother's gold watch taken. Then they find Rudy with a woman's gold watch while he is under suspicious activity of break and entry, with stolen goods in his backback, yet again. And yet, no arrest. But supposedly the idea that Rudy was a drug informant and hence had free pass from Perugia police is nothing but an "internet rumor". Yeah, right. :maddening:

The easy answer that the 2 watches were not related must have slipped you?

 

[SMK]

No, Rudy was not known to brandish any knives. Another rumor <modsnip>. I wonder who makes up all these rumors. Oh, I think I know

<modsnip>. Guede was found with a knife in his back-pack, and a couple testified that he brandished a knife when burglarizing their place. Many rumors abound on the other side, too, you know, but it really is no matter at this point. Who stabbed MK and why was Guede there? I guess he is A-OK in your opinion. <modsnip>.

 

[SMK]

The easy answer that the 2 watches were not related must have slipped you?

Uh huh. Show me where it was found that the 2 watches were not related, please.

 

[sherlockh]

I really do not need the sarcasm. Guede was found with a knife in his back-pack, and a couple testified that he brandished a knife when burglarizing their place. Many rumors abound on the other side, too, you know, but it really is no matter at this point. Who stabbed MK and why was Guede there? I guess he is A-OK in your opinion. Sarcasm can cut both ways.

He was found with a knife in his backpack that he took from the kitchen where he was found. In other words, where is the proof that he carried one around? The nursery was the only place where it was proven that he stole something. And even there there was no sign of any break-in. Furthermore, it was proven that he had stolen stuff in his backpack. Those are the only proven facts.

I don't know what couple you talking about but maybe you mean Cristian Tramontano who couldn't even positively id Rudy? I don't have to proof anything about any watches. It is pretty obvious the media and the defense teams would be all over it if there was any truth in it.

 

[otto]

That is true. Good point. Though the discussion ages ago about the rock being a test to see if anyone is home is a possibility.

The thing is, if they were staging it they must have been aware of the height of the window and the implausibility. Not to mention the hassle. When there is a balcony they could have just walked out onto and chucked the rock through. It does seem weird whichever way you look at it. That's why I think there might be some other explanation.

Murderers always make mistakes. Are we assuming that two drugged up crazies with wiped memories were rational enough to decide the best way to break into the cottage?

 

[emyr]

Did Frank Sfarzo sign the statement? Did he raise this point in the Florence court when his blog was shut down by Google? I understand that he was quietly shut down and that no defense was offered.

What did you get from Lumumba before he was arrested? Nothing after and nothing before means nothing ... that is, he was not beaten.

Furthermore, Frank's complaints about the police relate to him jostling with a camera too close to the Kercher family during the trial. He posted that video on his blog ... the one where he was rough-housed. He and many others were forced to give the Kercher family a respectfully wide berth during the trial ... blogger cameras in their faces were not allowed. It's unfortunate for Frank that he feels victimized because he could not shove a camera in the faces of the victim's family ... but that's how it goes.

I seem to remember something from the trial proceedings that Patrick was not beaten by police, but I haven't gone back to read the transcripts for a link because I simply don't have time.

Do you have a link to the transcripts for Lumamba, I'll look through them? Again, I don't remember anything about being beaten. I vaguely remember an article quoting him when he was released, complaining about being put in isolation, frightened by threatening and aggressive questioning, and the fact that his bar was still shut down.

I disagree with your "furthermore" statement about Frank's complaints being related to jostling cameras near the victim's family. It seems like his complaint relates to being beaten, and threatened as I quoted above. Whether he was able to introduce into evidence the hospital records and hospital eyewitnesses is unknown.

What appears to be a fact is that after finding that Lumamba had an air-tight alibi, the police continued to shut his business down for a period of 3 months, and offered him no compensation in relation to that. Which, by itself, is egregious. If you read through the rest of the Citizen's to Protect Journalists article, they itemize numerous complaints about aggressive and threatening tactics committed by law enforcement there.

 

[emyr]

No offence but...thats kinda a matter of opinion ..poor AK and RS? As it stands all three are implicated in POOR Merediths murder ...i dont see why its poor them at all and as it stands nor does the law.

By the way because someone is a petty thief it doesnt mean they automatically murder people.
MOO

I don't get it. Do you want us to review the facts on Rudy to make sure he was involved in the murder?

 

[emyr]

Murderers always make mistakes. Are we assuming that two drugged up crazies with wiped memories were rational enough to decide the best way to break into the cottage?

But a drugged up, going to-the disco hours later, proven to be a guy that fell asleep on the toilet with a crap in it, Rudy was the person who was MORE rational? He was the one to choose the more rational way to break in, but Amanda was not?

Perhaps he is the murderer who is not rational and made a mistake about the best way to break in because he was not operating on all cylinders.

Also, reading what all of you have posted about the other incidents, it sounds like Rudy was stealing food. I always thought the orange juice thing was a casual situation, but if he was truly cut off from his family, how was he eating?

 

[Sonata]

Murderers always make mistakes. Are we assuming that two drugged up crazies with wiped memories were rational enough to decide the best way to break into the cottage?

Are you arguing that they were or were not drugged and/or that their memories were or were not wiped?

It seems to me that those who argue that they are guilty of murder seem to argue that their memories were not in fact wiped and that was in fact a lie on their part. I would imagine if they were guilty that the memory thing would be a lie. In which case it doesn't factor into this scenario. Now the drugs, if it was indeed just marijuana, then I really don't see how they would commit a violent act whilst stoned. Anyone who has experience of marijuana should be able to back me up here, although I am aware this is an assumption rather than evidence.

If it was something stronger, and more likely to make the user violent, then I don't see why they would be seemingly rational enough to do a clean-up in the way that people are suggesting they did, and yet NOT be able to rationalise how best to stage a break in. Also it is worth noting that if trying to stage a break in in a state of mental unclarity, I would still imagine the easiest option would be taken - ie opening the door to the balcony, walking out and hurling a rock at the door.

I do think that even if they wouldn't have considered the best way to make the break in look real, they probably would have considered the easiest way to complete the task.

 

[otto]

They had exactly as much experience with burglary as they had with murder.

Neither were complete strangers to breaking the rules. Sollecito had his history with drug possession and was being monitored because of his animal *advertiser censored* videos, Knox had a disturbance of the peace problem and issues with doing the right thing (blowing off Bundesreublic jobs). Neither amounts to burglary or murder, but both demonstrate an attitude of the rules being for "other people".