Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[Malkmus]

IF AK and RS were indeed NOT present - I believe they were not, but cannot be 100% certain - then Guede would of course do them a good turn by admitting so.

Possibilities of why Rudy maintains his silence on this matter :

1. They really were there. (I do not think so, but it is possible although to me improbable.)

2. They were not there, but others were: Guede does not want to open up a can of worms about who else was. As Perugia Shock's Frank surmised, owing drug $ and bringing dealers or junkies in is a thing of shame to Rudy.

3. Guede was a lone wolf killer, and does not want to be viewed as such. His 13 years do not amount to much if he was. Easier to allow Knox and Sollecito to help buffer the blows of fortune.

Yeah, I mean here's the thing. If Rudy decides he wants to spill the beans he's going to make damn sure it doesn't backfire on him in any way. So what would that require? Probably a conversation with his lawyer that would itself probably be too risky to even try for a multitude of reasons.

 

[wasnt_me]

No, not at all but it is slightly amusing (if not for the murder that is the REAL point of the discussion) that intelligent individuals would think that the behavior of those 'supporting' AK (most of which her own defense team has basically begged to stop) is both reasonable and authentic. IMO most are just 'yanking the chain' of good-faith posters and don't honestly 'believe' that AK and RS are innocent.
Also IMO it is or should be EMBARRASSING the lengths that the PR firm has obviously gone, it is with CNN's lack of control of a 'show' on their station, it is with the excuses made here/family/bloggers/so-called journalist/interviewers/etc. A girl was murdered, it shouldn't be this way IMO.

Why not admit:
1- They had zero alibi.
2- Both lied at some or multiple points to police and investigators.
3- AK accused an innocent man.
4- AK's behavior/clothing in court was inappropriate.
5- They had a fair trial and there was no 'conspiracy' against them.
6- They were somehow involved, but didn't kill Meredith.

Even one would be a good start, not that it is expected.

Of course every spanking bit of this is from your view and interpretation of facts and the case.

And of course that means they are not required to agree with even one of these things, which means they don't have to admit even one of these things. The exact same things can be said about detractors of AK and RS, but of course with a different laundry list, which would start with why not admit there's not a shred of evidence proving RS and AK were anywhere near the murder room and ending with, why not admit the shaking forensics is weak at least and contaminated at best.

Swings both ways.

 

[wasnt_me]

I want to make sure it is ok to post that

Oh, I know. I was referring to the actual link, cause I'd already read it and was thinking that EXACT thing. Then when I saw you'd removed it, I just posted "that was wild!" it was a wild read and wild that we seemed to be thinking the same thing at the same time.

It's the straw hats. You must have put something in them.

 

[SMK]

The plot thickens....:waitasec:
ETA: Do you think the defense will take this seriously?

I know you removed the link---but just a comment: Frank had once theorized that Rudy owed a drug debt, was being hounded, took the 2 who wanted $$ to the cottage as he thought it might be empty and they could take the collected rent $$, and the 2 killed MK.

 

[Allusonz]

I know you removed the link---but just a comment: Frank had once theorized that Rudy owed a drug debt, was being hounded, took the 2 who wanted $$ to the cottage as he thought it might be empty and they could take the collected rent $$, and the 2 killed MK.

Not only Rudy but IIRC her boyfriend. That was some time ago now

 

[wasnt_me]

Yeah, I remember that theory. And there's always been a theory that RG had a partner. He even half rats his partner out with the whole "black man found, black man guilty" scenerio.

But, I still have to understand how it is that the partner's DNA doesn't seem to be in the room, either, so...

 

[dgfred]

Of course every spanking bit of this is from your view and interpretation of facts and the case.

And of course that means they are not required to agree with even one of these things, which means they don't have to admit even one of these things. The exact same things can be said about detractors of AK and RS, but of course with a different laundry list, which would start with why not admit there's not a shred of evidence proving RS and AK were anywhere near the murder room and ending with, why not admit the shaking forensics is weak at least and contaminated at best.

Swings both ways.

If you honestly believe that then for sure that is your 'decision'.

your list:
There is more than a shred of evidence against both AK and RS regarding being at the crime scene (which is the entire cottage). Why not admit they were involved but did not kill Meredith?

Why is the forensics 'shaking' and 'weak'? Have you seen this evidence? Could the jurors not make a decision on actually seeing it?
Who contaminated it and why?
<modsnip comment>

 

[wasnt_me]

If you honestly believe that then for sure that is your 'decision'.

your list:
There is more than a shred of evidence against both AK and RS regarding being at the crime scene (which is the entire cottage). Why not admit they were involved but did not kill Meredith?

Why is the forensics 'shaking' and 'weak'? Have you seen this evidence? Could the jurors not make a decision on actually seeing it?
Who contaminated it and why?

<modsnip>

Again your opinions.
<modsnip>

 

[Malkmus]

No, not at all but it is slightly amusing (if not for the murder that is the REAL point of the discussion) that intelligent individuals would think that the behavior of those 'supporting' AK (most of which her own defense team has basically begged to stop) is both reasonable and authentic. IMO most are just 'yanking the chain' of good-faith posters and don't honestly 'believe' that AK and RS are innocent.
Also IMO it is or should be EMBARRASSING the lengths that the PR firm has obviously gone, it is with CNN's lack of control of a 'show' on their station, it is with the excuses made here/family/bloggers/so-called journalist/interviewers/etc. A girl was murdered, it shouldn't be this way IMO.

Why not admit:
1- They had zero alibi.
2- Both lied at some or multiple points to police and investigators.
3- AK accused an innocent man.
4- AK's behavior/clothing in court was inappropriate.
5- They had a fair trial and there was no 'conspiracy' against them.
6- They were somehow involved, but didn't kill Meredith.

Even one would be a good start, not that it is expected.

Fred, with all due respect, the "making excuses" line got old and died a smelly death several threads back. There's plenty more relevant news to discuss than your personal belief that you think we're all dishonestly arguing for a girl's innocence that we secretly know is guilty but just won't admit it.

 

[dgfred]

Yeah, I mean here's the thing. If Rudy decides he wants to spill the beans he's going to make damn sure it doesn't backfire on him in any way. So what would that require? Probably a conversation with his lawyer that would itself probably be too risky to even try for a multitude of reasons.

Wouldn't this be the way to go? Instead of claiming contamination, conspiracy, misbehavior by everyone involved, no evidence, etc.

 

[dgfred]

Fred, with all due respect, the "making excuses" line got old and died a smelly death several threads back. There's plenty more relevant news to discuss than your personal belief think we're all dishonestly arguing for a girl's innocence that we secretly know is guilty but just won't admit it.

Whatever, post what you like. You are basically proving my point anyway.

 

[otto]

What's with the "little girl" $hit?! Who calls her that other than you, otto?

She was relatively young and inexperienced at the time of the murder, but who says she was a child?

Good ... I guess we won't be seeing references to the girl from Seattle that was convicted of murder in Italy.

 

[SMK]

Good ... I guess we won't be seeing references to the girl from Seattle that was convicted of murder in Italy.

Well, can she not be a girl without being "a little girl"?:razz:

 

[wasnt_me]

Dfred. Well, then, you don't want an answer to the question you asked.

Why is the forensics 'shaking' and 'weak'? Have you seen this evidence? Could the jurors not make a decision on actually seeing it?
Who contaminated it and why?

 

[Allusonz]

The plot thickens....:waitasec:
ETA: Do you think the defense will take this seriously?

Not sure what to think of it truly. The timing seems odd again to me.

 

[wasnt_me]

Speaking of timing, when does court convene, EST time?

 

[Allusonz]

Oh, I know. I was referring to the actual link, cause I'd already read it and was thinking that EXACT thing. Then when I saw you'd removed it, I just posted "that was wild!" it was a wild read and wild that we seemed to be thinking the same thing at the same time.

It's the straw hats. You must have put something in them.

Must be the rubber straw hats with the rubber bottles of wine :giggle:

 

[wasnt_me]

another article:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/05/20/news/amanda-knox-murder-trial-appeal-hearing-tomorrow-

At about 1:00 a.m. Seattle time tomorrow morning West Seattle raised Amanda Knox, who has spent three and a half years in prison, will appear in court during her appeal hearing where she tries to clear her name for the murder of her college roommate, Meredith Kercher. This hearing could become a tipping point in the trial as Monica Napoleoni will appear.

So according to this, the trial starts about about 4am est.

 

[wasnt_me]

okay, according to the article I just posted:

Stefanoni has been putting the judge off as he has requested files of her findings. Hellmann sent her a handwritten note on April 4 ordering her to produce the files. Tomorrow the judge is expected to ask why she has ignored his requests. dragging the process out of giving over the DNA data. She has refused so far, in a letter to the judge.

Why is this? So if I'm reading this right, she refused in a letter AFTER being a no-show and after the judge sending her a formal letter on April 4th?

Why? Can't she be held in contempt or something. Why is Nova asleep and not in here when I need him? Not to mention the rest of the island gang, who seems to have gone to bed. Y'all know who you are.

:desert:

Wow it also says Mig is trying to prosecute the slander trial when he's the plantiff of it!

 

[otto]

That's only half the equation. The other half is ILE exaggerating if not outright lying to make their suspect look bad in the absence of actual evidence.

Perhaps the police were lying, and Bremner was probably lying too when she said that Knox was simply a restless teenager doing cartwheels.