Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[otto]

How entertaining

http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/0...knox-case?videoChannel=2602&videoId=216077954

 

[SMK]

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?

God forbid! that is not justice!

 

[SMK]

How entertaining

http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/0...knox-case?videoChannel=2602&videoId=216077954

very eerie photography of Mario. Very surreal look.

 

[otto]

God forbid! that is not justice!

Dr Sollecito seemed to think very early on that some sort of political intervention was needed in order to get the justice he wanted for his son.

 

[SMK]

Dr Sollecito seemed to think very early on that some sort of political intervention was needed in order to get the justice he wanted for his son.

Well, if he thinks he is innocent, of course a father will protect his son "by any means necessary". But a pay-off is not the answer, nor is ought it to be necessary. :snooty:

 

[SMK]

Some on IIP believe Rudy will come clean and admit he acted alone, but I agree more with those who say he will do what the prosecution wants him to do, and as he did in the past. ( and that is what the I Ching is indicating, as well :razz: )

 

[SMK]

The more I contemplate it, the less promising it seems:

(AGI) Perugia - Perugia's Court of Assizes are allowing Ivorian Rudy Guede's testimony to counter validate that of Mario Alessi.

The latest development relates to the Meredith Kercher murder trial. The Ivorian has a 16-year sentence pending and is currently serving time in Viterbo.

The Guede hearing has been set at June 27 next. Guede will be heard alongside 2 fellow-detainees and two Perugia officers. . .http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201106181812-cro-ren1063-guede_testimony_allowed_in_kercher_trial

 

[otto]

Some on IIP believe Rudy will come clean and admit he acted alone, but I agree more with those who say he will do what the prosecution wants him to do, and as he did in the past. ( and that is what the I Ching is indicating, as well :razz: )

Rudy will have to do a lot of explaining regarding all the evidence that points to more than one assailant in the murder ... in fact, I suspect that if he claims he acted alone, the jury will disregard his testimony because it is in complete conflict with the evidence.

 

[SMK]

Rudy will have to do a lot of explaining regarding all the evidence that points to more than one assailant in the murder ... in fact, I suspect that if he claims he acted alone, the jury will disregard his testimony because it is in complete conflict with the evidence.

Now how do you figure that? :floorlaugh: ETA: Really not laughing here, am close to a melt down. This is a mess that seems to be unfixable.

 

[otto]

Now how do you figure that? :floorlaugh:

Perhaps you have forgotten about the footprint on the bathmat, the one that in no way matches Rudy's foot.

 

[SMK]

Perhaps you have forgotten about the footprint on the bathmat, the one that in no way matches Rudy's foot.

Otto, read my ETA: I was fooling with you, dear.

 

[otto]

If Rudy claims he acted alone, he could face new charges for staging the break in to mislead police. Would he take that risk?

 

[otto]

Otto, read my ETA: I was fooling with you, dear.

Thx ... Actually, I think that even though Rudy's final appeal is done, he has to be very careful at this point in order to not have his sentence lengthened by new charges.

 

[SMK]

Thx ... Actually, I think that even though Rudy's final appeal is done, he has to be very careful at this point in order to not have his sentence lengthened by new charges.

You are right. I cannot envision him risking all. If he claims to have acted alone, they might give him 30 years - life, and charge him with framing 2 people. This seems to be a train wreck for the Defense. I wish I could say otherwise. I have even run it by some people who know next to nothing about the case, linked them to today's videos. All they could say is, "what a mess, do you think she will ever get help?". :loser:

 

[otto]

You are right. I cannot envision him risking all. If he claims to have acted alone, they might give him 30 years - life, and charge him with framing 2 people. This seems to be a train wreck for the Defense. I wish I could say otherwise. I have even run it by some people who know next to nothing about the case, linked them to today's videos. All they could say is, "what a mess, do you think she will ever get help?". :loser:

At some point we have to recognize the fact that if there were legitimate witnesses and evidence, we would be seeing that during the appeal. Instead, we are seeing this "circus" situation. However, I will admit that this may have been a ploy to force Rudy's hand and require him to testify, although that may also backfire.

 

[SMK]

At some point we have to recognize the fact that if there were legitimate witnesses and evidence, we would be seeing that during the appeal. Instead, we are seeing this "circus" situation. However, I will admit that this may have been a ploy to force Rudy's hand and require him to testify, although that may also backfire.

I think it already has.

I think I have finally figured it all out:

1. For reasons unclear to me (the High Court ruling that Guede did not act alone?) the Defense was forced to abandon the Lone Wolf scenario.
2. Hence, if not Knox and Sollecito, then who?
3. Ergo, the 5 witnesses come in to cause confusion.
4. Thereby, causing the Prosecution to sic Guede on the Defense.

Hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Nova]

Knox testified in court that her blood was not there the day before the murder.

So someone spilled grapefruit juice in Meredith's bedroom and everyone has now decided that it's semen? That's funny.

You know, otto, despite differences of opinion, most posters here still do you the courtesy of reading what you post before responding. I think you could do the same with us.

To wit, yes, I know what Knox said about the blood. What I said was that since she wasn't looking for blood, she doesn't really know whether it wasn't there or she merely neglected to notice it.

As for the "semen" stain, I explained quite clearly that, yes, we all know it has yet to be tested and identified as semen. But it looks like semen to some observers and is called "the semen stain" here provisionally to distinguish it from other stains.

Since the fact that it hasn't been tested (and identified) is precisely the point, it isn't necessary to keep playing "gotcha" over it.

 

[Nova]

Take any trial and, during appeal, parade 5 jailed convicts through the courtroom as proof of innocence, but have all of them tell conflicting stories ... who is going to take it seriously! I think it will be very difficult to argue that the pair didn't have every opportunity to present a defense.

It's true that exonerating testimony from jailhouse confidants is often disregarded by juries.

And yet defendants are CONVICTED on the same sort of testimony every day. Hmmm....

 

[Nova]

Yeah, there were some people debating that in this other board I read, and they were talking about if you look at what italians write for see you later back before this incident, you'll see that it's normal to say it how she did in the text.

I didn't go back to 2007 and pull it up. I just took their word for it. It just means something to me that PL didn't reply to her, asking her what she meant. We know that he didn't meet her or intend to meet her, so if she'd said it to him, I feel he would have corrected her, so she wouldn't show up at work. I mean that was the purpose of the texting, so she wouldn't show up at work. So if she said "Okay, see you later, good night." and he took that to mean she didn't understand him, he would have texted back, "No, I'm saying DO NOT come to work."

Know what i mean?

I'm sorry, wm, I knew EXACTLY what you meant and I think it's a great point.

And then I suddenly realized I had always assumed the actual text was in Italian and thought I should check: we're talking about a misunderstanding of Italian vernacular, not a misunderstanding of English slang by Italian readers, right?

 

[otto]

You know, otto, despite differences of opinion, most posters here still do you the courtesy of reading what you post before responding. I think you could do the same with us.

To wit, yes, I know what Knox said about the blood. What I said was that since she wasn't looking for blood, she doesn't really know whether it wasn't there or she merely neglected to notice it.

As for the "semen" stain, I explained quite clearly that, yes, we all know it has yet to be tested and identified as semen. But it looks like semen to some observers and is called "the semen stain" here provisionally to distinguish it from other stains.

Since the fact that it hasn't been tested (and identified) is precisely the point, it isn't necessary to keep playing "gotcha" over it.

I am well aware of what you are suggesting: that Amanda's blood was in the sink but Knox didn't see it. If that's the case, then she should have testified that she did not know if her blood was in the sink the day before Meredith was murdered. As it stands, she testified that it was not there the day before Meredith was murdered. I'm not prepared to make or accept excuses for Knox when she herself did not provide those excuses during trial.

You can call it semen, and I will call it grapefruit juice to be consistent with all the other grapefruit juice that some people think was all over the crime scene.