Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[wasnt_me]

All right, now I got some serious questions after reading this:

One day, Guede took him by the arm and led him to a corner of the prison yard where they would be out of view of closed-circuit cameras, he said. Then, Guede told him that the real truth was that a drunkard who had gone to Kercher's flat with Guede from the disco had sexually assaulted her and then killed her to avoid "rotting in prison" for the rape.



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...tify-in-Knox-appeal-1430190.php#ixzz1PfX8G181

1. Thought discos were not open?

2. Disco is open at 8pm on a holiday?

Anyway, I'm on pins and needles about RG, and I pray that he tells the truth, whatever that truth is. I haven't anticipating hearing someone testify so much in my life. Oh my Gosh, I hope they grill him like a burnt steak! I want the prosecution to go after him and the defense. I want JUSTICE!

You know, I was wishful thinking...

What if this is also the prosecution's way to save face? Because it f I'm not confused by what I read, it seemed that the prosecution had something to do with the mob brother being there. So what if the prosection ALSO wants RG there, because getting the truth out of him will give the prosecution an out for this farce of a trial?

I know, it's wishful thinking, but would be awesome.

:websleuther:

 

[wasnt_me]

SMK, I believe you hit the nail on the head when you previous wrote:



Rudy on the stand - imagine what will happen if Rudy then points the finger at AK/RS

Let him do it. Because if MK's lawyers are able to ask questions, and THEY represent the family, do you think THEY will nto get the truth out of him? They will. Oh, man, that's what I want. I want MK's lawyers to question him. Then we will hear the truth, because that's their only interest for MK.

Oh, please, please let it happen this way. In the end, even if all three sides gang up on him and the truth boils down to AK and RS, so be it, but I don't think it will. I think RG will finally see that "The cheese stands alone...the cheese stands alone...hi ho the dairio, the cheese stands alone..." and he is the cheese.

 

[OldSteve]

RG should be connected to a lie detector while he gives his testimony!
IMO he has a vested interest in involving AK/RS - he might believe by implicating AK/RS he is doing something "good" for the prosecution, and will thereby get better treatment in prison.

 

[SMK]

All right, now I got some serious questions after reading this:

One day, Guede took him by the arm and led him to a corner of the prison yard where they would be out of view of closed-circuit cameras, he said. Then, Guede told him that the real truth was that a drunkard who had gone to Kercher's flat with Guede from the disco had sexually assaulted her and then killed her to avoid "rotting in prison" for the rape.



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...tify-in-Knox-appeal-1430190.php#ixzz1PfX8G181

1. Thought discos were not open?

2. Disco is open at 8pm on a holiday?

Anyway, I'm on pins and needles about RG, and I pray that he tells the truth, whatever that truth is. I haven't anticipating hearing someone testify so much in my life. Oh my Gosh, I hope they grill him like a burnt steak! I want the prosecution to go after him and the defense. I want JUSTICE!

You know, I was wishful thinking...

What if this is also the prosecution's way to save face? Because it f I'm not confused by what I read, it seemed that the prosecution had something to do with the mob brother being there. So what if the prosection ALSO wants RG there, because getting the truth out of him will give the prosecution an out for this farce of a trial?

I know, it's wishful thinking, but would be awesome.

:websleuther:

Yes, this is an exciting development, but very scary as well. Will have to see how it plays out. I hope your wishful thinking contains some reality......It is unbelievable that Guede is on the 27th, and DNA review report is on the 30th!

 

[SMK]

RG should be connected to a lie detector while he gives his testimony!
IMO he has a vested interest in involving AK/RS - he might believe by implicating AK/RS he is doing something "good" for the prosecution, and thereby will get better treatment in prison.

Yes, that is a troubling thought. Maybe even more reduced time?????

 

[otto]

After the parade of muppets the prosecution displayed during trial and appeal, why even react to baiting by guilters? At least when the defense makes a mistake, you are able to admit it. Guilters never admit iprosecution mistakes. So let them have their fun. For some, the case is about entertainment, not true justice. Some people just want to be right that AK is an evil, guilty killer. Some people just want the truth and justice, some want to convict despite evidence. Any trully inbiased person tbat is in search of the truth, would not be so snide about it.

I suspect that everyone wants justice for Meredith. The only difference is that some people trust the jury and believe that justice has been done, while others don't trust the jury and believe justice will be done by parading convicted child murderers and mafia through the court.

 

[otto]

Yes, that is a troubling thought. Maybe even more reduced time?????

Look at it from the bright side, maybe someone has offered Guede a nice financial benefit if he clears Knox and Sollecito in court.

 

[wasnt_me]

"Rudy links arms with me, inviting me to take a walk with him, he has something important to tell me," he said, adding that Guede was worried because "I don't know whether to tell the truth or not, and that the truth is altogether different from what you hear on TV."

According to Alessi, Guede said he and a friend went to the house Miss Kercher shared with Knox with the intent of having sex with Miss Kercher and that when she refused, the scene turned violent.


Mario Alessi said he believed Knox and Sollecito were not at the house at the time of the murder
He said Guede told him he had gone to the bathroom and upon coming back he had seen his friend holding Miss Kercher to the ground.

Eventually, "a knife appeared, almost out of nowhere," Alessi said, quoting Guede as saying that it was pointed at Miss Kercher's throat.

Alessi claimed that as she was fighting, her throat was slit. Guede tried to help her, but his friend stopped him, saying "we've got to finish her, otherwise we'll rot in jail".

Guede did not reveal the identity of his alleged accomplice, according to the witness.

Alessi said he and Guede had become friends but eventually he broke it off as he realized that Guede had said two innocent people were in jail and had done nothing about it.

Alessi said he then contacted lawyers representing Sollecito.

At the court's request Guede is to be heard as a witness on 27 June.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13823473

It just sounds to me like RG's conscience won't let it go unless someone, anyone believes his version of events. If he didn't wield the knife, why is he not fighting, as AK and RS are?

Also, MA might have some strange code of ethics. Criminals apparently do, as I've heard. Like harden criminals in the usa might turn against people in jail who commit crimes that they feel are disgusting. For example, I'd find it logical if prisoners ganged up on MA because of what he was convicted of. Maybe MA is a sick person, but feels strongly about innocence. Ironic, considering his crime....

I can't see the scenerio they are talking about unless the "unknown accomplice's" DNA is alson on the bra somewhere, the semen/substance stain belongs to him, or there's unidentified DNA on MK's body or clothes that we don't know about. I need some kind of proof, same proof as I need that AK and Rs did it.

I also do not really buy this talking off camera thing, either. It's possible, but why would RG want to take it off camera? esp if the camera can't hear what you're saying? Unless their cells are bugged, so he wanted to find a place in the yard that was totally private to talk. That's sketchy to me, though.

Also, it might be that these men wanted RG to be their "Bit**" so to speak, and he refused, so they got revenge with this testimony. That would explain why the 4th inmate bailed on them. However, if that were the case, I'd expect them to be saying RG did it, and he did it alone.

Otherwise, I see this story as RG committing the crime with his alternate personality because there's no evidence to of his "accomplice."

 

[iluvmua]

Where was this witness when the trial was going on?

WHY didn't he testify THEN?

I do believe that AK/RS are guilty...... BUT if there is a 1 % chance they did not do this WHY WHY WHY was this guy Not in court to testify at their trials????

I don't believe this witness for a second, I might have believed him if they brought him in to testify for Amanda/Raf at the time both of their trials were going on.

But 1 1/2 years later, just does not make any sense to me.

 

[wasnt_me]

RG should be connected to a lie detector while he gives his testimony!
IMO he has a vested interest in involving AK/RS - he might believe by implicating AK/RS he is doing something "good" for the prosecution, and will thereby get better treatment in prison.

No, he should be connected to a live generator, and once his testimony is concluded, he should be fried for what he did to MK. But I'll take a lie detector test, too.

Is he a prosecution witness, a defense witness? Can he invoke the "fifth amendment?" I know Italy doesn't have the 5th, but does it have something like it?

I can imagine every question's answer. "I plead the fifth on the grounds that it may incriminate me.....I plead the 5th, I plead the fif....5...1-2-3-4--fif!" anything you say...Fifth!"

(That's from a Dave chappelle skit. If you watch it below, and listen to the very end, the senator says he got the sentence reduced, which is about how RG's trial went)

http://www.pp2g.tv/vYH1-Y3U_.aspx

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, that is a troubling thought. Maybe even more reduced time?????

Can they do that legally after the supreme court ruling? I thought we'd debated before about the fact that the prosecution can't offer deals? I thought we did it when we talked about the homeless man. And in the USA, I don't think you can do that after the conviction, either. Knowledge is power, so let me know if that's wrong.

 

[otto]

Where was this witness when the trial was going on?

WHY didn't he testify THEN?

I do believe that AK/RS are guilty...... BUT if there is a 1 % chance they did not do this WHY WHY WHY was this guy Not in court to testify at their trials????

I don't believe this witness for a second, I might have believed him if they brought him in to testify for Amanda/Raf at the time both of their trials were going on.

But 1 1/2 years later, just does not make any sense to me.

He has changed his story several times in the last few years. He was in court, but because his appeals were going on at the same time, he could have compromised his own appeal ... depending on what he said. His appeals are over, and he will be compelled to answer questions, but there is no reason to believe anything he says. He is a convicted murderer - no different than the 5 other convicts that were paraded in court.

Basically, he said that he saw Amanda running away from the cottage and that someone like Raffaele (although he's changed his story about whether he wore glasses or not) was also there.

 

[otto]

Is anyone actually taking the word of the child murderer and his buddies seriously?

 

[SMK]

Look at it from the bright side, maybe someone has offered Guede a nice financial benefit if he clears Knox and Sollecito in court.

I sure hope NOT! :razz:

 

[wasnt_me]

Where was this witness when the trial was going on?

WHY didn't he testify THEN?

I do believe that AK/RS are guilty...... BUT if there is a 1 % chance they did not do this WHY WHY WHY was this guy Not in court to testify at their trials????

I don't believe this witness for a second, I might have believed him if they brought him in to testify for Amanda/Raf at the time both of their trials were going on.

But 1 1/2 years later, just does not make any sense to me.

Although I do not know which of the 5 who testified you are referring to, I can say that MA claims the conversations happened about a year ago? Is that right? If I'm right, that was after the first trial. Anyway, the other guy, the mob brother, I don't believe him at all, but he's been pushing his story for quite some time, too. The prosecution ignored his statements (as maybe was prudent to do), but two of the other three were just there to bolster MA's testimony. And the last one wanted nothing to do with it for reasons that I WOULD LOVE to know.

That's just the problem with the witnesses in this case:

They are either druggies, convicts, purportedly half def (but certainly can't heard across that street a scream from a locked up house), or confused about dates.

Also many came forward a year after the crime and after talking to journalists. Those witnesses for the prosecution should be discredited in your eyes for the same reason you discredit this defense witness.

Off the top of my head, the shop owner came forward a year later. I'd have to research about others, if you want to know.

 

[SMK]

Where was this witness when the trial was going on?

WHY didn't he testify THEN?

I do believe that AK/RS are guilty...... BUT if there is a 1 % chance they did not do this WHY WHY WHY was this guy Not in court to testify at their trials????

I don't believe this witness for a second, I might have believed him if they brought him in to testify for Amanda/Raf at the time both of their trials were going on.

But 1 1/2 years later, just does not make any sense to me.

The Prosecution would not allow them in, until this new judge and independent panel allowed them to submit their testimony in court.

 

[SMK]

Can they do that legally after the supreme court ruling? I thought we'd debated before about the fact that the prosecution can't offer deals? I thought we did it when we talked about the homeless man. And in the USA, I don't think you can do that after the conviction, either. Knowledge is power, so let me know if that's wrong.

I think you may be right....I sure hope so...............

 

[otto]

I sure hope NOT! :razz:

Dr Sollecito already tried to pervert the course of justice through political connections ... "make water run uphill" in his words. What's to prevent him from offering Guede a little bonus for when he's released early after being a cooperative witness?

 

[wasnt_me]

I hope so, too, because it's senseless to go threw three courts, and then on the sidelines give him a benefit that the court has to prove--after he has no more court dates left?

 

[SMK]

I am sure this will be claptrap to everyone but me, but my Philosophy mentor taught me to consult the I Ching as a contemplative tool, being a book of antiquity and philosophy. So I always do. :snooty: You ask a question of the oracle, and roll the coins, and you receive a hexagram and a changing line or 2. This is what I got when I asked "What will be the outcome of Guede's testimony?". I post this just in case there are any other philosophical types here, which is doubtful: take it for what it is worth.

Hexagram 13, Line 4
"The Union of Men"
Zhung Zăn (or 'Union of men') appears here (as we find it) in the (remote districts of the) country, indicating progress and success. It will be advantageous to cross the great stream. It will be advantageous to maintain the firm correctness of the superior man.

Line 4 :
Taking advantage of one's city wall,
they will not be able to attack.
Good fortune.

One is protected against attack by the people one is with. Things go well.

And the illustrious scholar James Legge's interpretation of the same line:

4. The fourth NINE, undivided, (shows its subject) mounted on the city wall; but he does not proceed to make the attack (he contemplates). There will be good fortune.
Line 4 is strong, but in an even place, which weakens its subject, He also would fain make an attempt on 2; but he is afraid, and does not carry his purpose into effect.