Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[aa9511]

Yes. That's what he did but then as time went on kept adding to his story and their involvement which is what someone looking for a deal or got a deal and reduced sentence does.

But my point is that the BIG thing is the murder itself, which he was trying to deny responsibility of - wouldn't the logical thing in his situation be that he blames them for that part - instead of things like stealing money and washing the clothes, which in the grand scheme of things, is not the most damaging part. The damaging part is who held the knives, who stabbed her, who helped in the stabbing in any way which would include any of the following: stabbing, restraining, etc..

 

[SMK]

IIRC just on one tiny clasp and not on the cloth or the clasp section.

Thank you - makes it difficult to understand the logistics of how this would be so.

 

[SMK]

Yes, but to me those are kind of general remarks, like he wanted to allude to them but not actually name them. At that point, he already knew they - Amanda and Raffaele - were suspected. So why didn't he include them in more specific terms? His whole point then and his whole point now, IMO, is to try to deny responsibility of actually wielding the knife and killing Meredith. What better way to deny responsibility of the wielding of knife and of the killing then shift that burden onto the other two - the other two who he already knew by name, who were suspected and then arrested.

Well, see, this is one of the pro-innocence arguments: That if they really were involved, he would openly say so. The vagueness may be because his conscience doesn't really want to fully blame 2 innocents. From the guilty perspective, it is very hard to explain. Say you committed a murder with me, and now you're caught and sentenced, and I am suspected but keep swearing I was never there. Wouldn't you want to set the record straight?

 

[quesarita]

But my point is that the BIG thing is the murder itself, which he was trying to deny responsibility of - wouldn't the logical thing in his situation be that he blames them for that part - instead of things like stealing money and washing the clothes, which in the grand scheme of things, is not the most damaging part. The damaging part is who held the knives, who stabbed her, who helped in the stabbing in any way which would include any of the following: stabbing, restraining, etc..

His story is that he was out of the room when she was killed so he wouldn't know that. He saw Raffaele in the hallway and later he saw Amanda's profile outside on the street, when he looked out Filomena's window (also placing himself in Filomena's room for those who believe he was never in there). This information was in a letter purportedly written by him and presented in his appeal, but he could barely read the letter and would not answer any questions except in the most oblique nonsensical way.IMO. That's how I read it. It's in Hellman, I posted about it yesterday.

IIRC, his testimony in his appeal could not be used against the other defendants and he still would not name them, and by then he certainly had read about them.

 

[MichaelSmith]

But my point is that the BIG thing is the murder itself, which he was trying to deny responsibility of - wouldn't the logical thing in his situation be that he blames them for that part - instead of things like stealing money and washing the clothes, which in the grand scheme of things, is not the most damaging part. The damaging part is who held the knives, who stabbed her, who helped in the stabbing in any way which would include any of the following: stabbing, restraining, etc..

No. You need to look at the timing of his words. First, he said she wasn't involved and had nothing to do with it in the Skype instant message chat and then had over an hour to work out what he was going to tell his friend on the actual Skype Call and was free to make up BS on the fly about what happened which is what he did.

 

[aa9511]

Well, see, this is one of the pro-innocence arguments: That if they really were involved, he would openly say so. The vagueness may be because his conscience doesn't really want to fully blame 2 innocents. From the guilty perspective, it is very hard to explain. Say you committed a murder with me, and now you're caught and sentenced, and I am suspected but keep swearing I was never there. Wouldn't you want to set the record straight?

Conscience? Oh, sorry, I don't believe it has one bit to do with conscience. In the innocence scenario, he did it with full malice, and it is also suggested that he did other evil things like rape her after she was dead. Someone rapes someone after they stab to death, and we are supposed to believe that now suddenly he cares about two innocent people he has nothing to do with.

In the guilt scenario 1 of some kind of assault, he is also malicious, although maybe a step below innocent scenario because it might have been a group dynamic and things got "carried away", understatement of the year. In the guilt scenario 2 of prank gone wrong and perhaps accidental death, he is still pretty malicious to then go ahead and kill her off and then leave her to die.

I don't think he is doing it out of any concern for Amanda and RS well-being or any conscience.

I see it as the opposite:

I am looking at it from the time perspective of the beginning days when he got arrested, not now when it is clearly better for him to stay silent.

- in the guilty scenario, it is very clear to me why he would not fully reveal their involvement, as that would more fully reveal his own involvement and also make him susceptible to having them reveal his involvement.

- in the innocent scenario, I don't understand why he would not blame them for the murder itself? He was trying to deny actually killing Meredith, Amanda and RS were being suspected and arrested for that - thus the natural and most logical thing would be to say that they committed the murder itself, and he had some peripheral role not involved with the killing itself. Yet why this hesitation? I do not believe it's because of some kind of conscience and he doesn't want to hurt two innocent people.

 

[Myvice]

I can't actually see any reason for RG to talk. It should be evident that talking was what got AK and RS into the mess.

RG laid claim to what he said was his part in the matter so saying any more would just lead to more questions. Why take the risk?

 

[aa9511]

His story is that he was out of the room when she was killed so he wouldn't know that. He saw Raffaele in the hallway and later he saw Amanda's profile outside on the street, when he looked out Filomena's window (also placing himself in Filomena's room for those who believe he was never in there). This information was in a letter purportedly written by him and presented in his appeal, but he could barely read the letter and would not answer any questions except in the most oblique nonsensical way.IMO. That's how I read it. It's in Hellman, I posted about it yesterday.

IIRC, his testimony in his appeal could not be used against the other defendants and he still would not name them, and by then he certainly had read about them.

Yes, but in a courtroom it makes sense why he would not want to talk. Risk saying something which could possibly erase his fast-track and put more years on his sentence. Or just add years onto his fast-track.

Why he only saw Raffaele in the hallway and why he only saw Amanda's profile in the street? He already knew they were arrested for something he did - why not put directly the blame on them for the murder itself?

Why such vagueness?

Why not say, they killed her, I was trying to stop them? That would make himself out to look like a hero.

Why not say, I saw them doing it, I was trying to sto them but they woudln't stop? Then I got the towels and I tried to help Meredith. But it was too late. I got scared and ran away, that's why I didn't call police. Again, make himself out to be hero.

I don't understand.

 

[SMK]

Conscience? Oh, sorry, I don't believe it has one bit to do with conscience. In the innocence scenario, he did it with full malice, and it is also suggested that he did other evil things like rape her after she was dead. Someone rapes someone after they stab to death, and we are supposed to believe that now suddenly he cares about two innocent people he has nothing to do with.

In the guilt scenario 1 of some kind of assault, he is also malicious, although maybe a step below innocent scenario because it might have been a group dynamic and things got "carried away", understatement of the year. In the guilt scenario 2 of prank gone wrong and perhaps accidental death, he is still pretty malicious to then go ahead and kill her off and then leave her to die.

I don't think he is doing it out of any concern for Amanda and RS well-being or any conscience.

I see it as the opposite:

I am looking at it from the time perspective of the beginning days when he got arrested, not now when it is clearly better for him to stay silent.

- in the guilty scenario, it is very clear to me why he would not fully reveal their involvement, as that would more fully reveal his own involvement and also make him susceptible to having them reveal his involvement.

- in the innocent scenario, I don't understand why he would not blame them for the murder itself? He was trying to deny actually killing Meredith, Amanda and RS were being suspected and arrested for that - thus the natural and most logical thing would be to say that they committed the murder itself, and he had some peripheral role not involved with the killing itself. Yet why this hesitation? I do not believe it's because of some kind of conscience and he doesn't want to hurt two innocent people.

I suppose you're right; if he could do what he did to Meredith, why suddenly have compassion for Knox and Sollecito? Good point.

So the fact that he mentioned them vaguely, and only in steps, and only at the urging of law enforcement , is because to be open would be to admit his full culpability? Yes, that works.

 

[aa9511]

No. You need to look at the timing of his words. First, he said she wasn't involved and had nothing to do with it in the Skype instant message chat and then had over an hour to work out what he was going to tell his friend on the actual Skype Call and was free to make up BS on the fly about what happened which is what he did.

i seem some disguised, veiled references to her in the Skype call. To me, it sounds like he was trying to steer his friend by giving him some kind of subtle clues as to Amanda's involvement.

Why this vagueness and why this veiled references? Why not "roll with" it? Here were two completely innocent people being blamed for something he did - I would think he want way more to put the blame on them. And keep the blame there.

Why this restraint in regards to Amanda and Raffaele? What was he scared of? There was no negative for him to put the blame onto them.

I still dont' understand.

 

[Katody]

The reason Guede never told a believable story involving Amanda is that he doesn't have one.

If they really were there with him, he would have immediately told about it, minimizing his own involvement.
The story he told instead weaves all the evidence he knew he left and he expected to be found. The DNA in Meredith's body and around, the finger smears on the wall, the feces, the prints, the traces in the bathroom, it's all in his story.
Amanda and Raffaele are not in it because he knew first hand there can be no traces of them.

 

[quesarita]

Yes, but in a courtroom it makes sense why he would not want to talk. Risk saying something which could possibly erase his fast-track and put more years on his sentence. Or just add years onto his fast-track.

Why he only saw Raffaele in the hallway and why he only saw Amanda's profile in the street? He already knew they were arrested for something he did - why not put directly the blame on them for the murder itself?

Why such vagueness?

Why not say, they killed her, I was trying to stop them? That would make himself out to look like a hero.

Why not say, I saw them doing it, I was trying to sto them but they woudln't stop? Then I got the towels and I tried to help Meredith. But it was too late. I got scared and ran away, that's why I didn't call police. Again, make himself out to be hero.

I don't understand.

Maybe, when he said he looked out Filomena's window, they started asking him questions about the window and the state if the room, and he realized he better shut up. He could have said the window wasn't broken etc. (because that happened later as part if the hypothetical staging) or that one of them had broken it earlier (as part if a prank). Instead, since he knew he'd broken the window and entered that way, he decided to give no more details.
Except to say,"If I am a liar, then what is the truth?"

 

[SMK]

The reason Guede never told a believable story involving Amanda is that he doesn't have one.

If they really were there with him, he would have immediately told about it, minimizing his own involvement.
The story he told instead weaves all the evidence he knew he left and he expected to be found. The DNA in Meredith's body and around, the finger smears on the wall, the feces, the prints, the traces in the bathroom, it's all in his story.
Amanda and Raffaele are not in it because he knew first hand there can be no traces of them.

BBM - That does kind of come to mind, doesn't it? In the famous Clutter murders by Hickcock and Smith, immediately upon arrest, Hickcock pinned the whole thing on Smith. It is a sore point that Guede had not tried to do this to Knox and Sollecito. This is one of the main reasons that when I theorized about their involvement, I left them out of the cottage altogether during the murder.

 

[SMK]

Maybe, when he said he looked out Filomena's window, they started asking him questions about the window and the state if the room, and he realized he better shut up. He could have said the window wasn't broken etc. (because that happened later as part if the hypothetical staging) or that one of them had broken it earlier (as part if a prank). Instead, since he knew he'd broken the window and entered that way, he decided to give no more details.
Except to say,"If I am a liar, then what is the truth?"

He did say on the Skype call that the window was not broken when he left. But he had been reading the news stories so who knows.

 

[Myvice]

As far as the bra clasp goes, if you were just quickly pulling it away from her body to cut it, wouldn't it make sense that the part that was protruding due to being bent would be the part you made contact with?

 

[SMK]

i seem some disguised, veiled references to her in the Skype call. To me, it sounds like he was trying to steer his friend by giving him some kind of subtle clues as to Amanda's involvement.

Why this vagueness and why this veiled references? Why not "roll with" it? Here were two completely innocent people being blamed for something he did - I would think he want way more to put the blame on them. And keep the blame there.

Why this restraint in regards to Amanda and Raffaele? What was he scared of? There was no negative for him to put the blame onto them.

I still dont' understand.

bbm - this is what virtually everyone who is open to or believes in guilt asks. To me, it doesn't look good, because Rudy was very forensics oriented: Everything he said was to explain what evidence the newspapers said they found. It's as if he felt there could be no evidence of Knox and Sollecito. In any case, when I entertain guilt, this is a sticking point for sure. He even goes so far to say on the Skype call, "Amanda had nothing to do with it."

 

[SMK]

As far as the bra clasp goes, if you were just quickly pulling it away from her body to cut it, wouldn't it make sense that the part that was protruding due to being bent would be the part you made contact with?

Good thinking, thanks! :great:

 

[aa9511]

I suppose you're right; if he could do what he did to Meredith, why suddenly have compassion for Knox and Sollecito? Good point.

So the fact that he mentioned them vaguely, and only in steps, and only at the urging of law enforcement , is because to be open would be to admit his full culpability? Yes, that works.

What I feel is this: He had perfect opportunity to fully and clearly lay the blame onto them. In innocent scenario, there is no negative for him of doing this. In the guilty scenario, there is negative for him of doing this.

Put the 2+2 together, I see that he did not take his chance because there was some negative for him in doing that. Some negative for him corresponds with Gulty scenario, not Innocent scenario. In Innocent scenario, there is no negative for him, there is only positive for him. "I didn't do it - they did it. I saw them do it." Even better, "I saw them do it and tried to stop them." Now there are multiple positives for him - shift responsibility as well as delve into hero-dom. Make himself out to be the "good" one out of the bunch.

Why this vagueness?

 

[quesarita]

As far as the bra clasp goes, if you were just quickly pulling it away from her body to cut it, wouldn't it make sense that the part that was protruding due to being bent would be the part you made contact with?

From the photos I saw, it looks like the clasp is actually more what I would call a hook, there are two hooks one above the other, too small to actually grab by itself.

 

[aa9511]

The reason Guede never told a believable story involving Amanda is that he doesn't have one.

If they really were there with him, he would have immediately told about it, minimizing his own involvement.
The story he told instead weaves all the evidence he knew he left and he expected to be found. The DNA in Meredith's body and around, the finger smears on the wall, the feces, the prints, the traces in the bathroom, it's all in his story.
Amanda and Raffaele are not in it because he knew first hand there can be no traces of them.

He doesn't have one? What about a made-up one, which all of his stories are? He had no problem making up all kinds of other stories.

Here we have two innocent people who were there to take the blame for him, and yet he never outright gives them that blame?