He doesn't have to change his story. What's ridiculous is saying he heard someone who sounds like Amanda and someone who might have resembled Raf. Has Rudy implicated them or not? I've heard a million times from those who think all three are guilty that all three knew each other quite well. So why doesn't Rudy recognize Amanda or Raf in his recollection? If all three were there and he was trying to throw them under the bus he would have just said it was them. He did change his story long after the murder and he could have been specific. He never was. It doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking and it certainly doesn't sound believable that Amanda or Raf were there based on his version.
Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
He doesn't have to change his story. What's ridiculous is saying he heard someone who sounds like Amanda and someone who might have resembled Raf. Has Rudy implicated them or not? I've heard a million times from those who think all three are guilty that all three knew each other quite well. So why doesn't Rudy recognize Amanda or Raf in his recollection? If all three were there and he was trying to throw them under the bus he would have just said it was them. He did change his story long after the murder and he could have been specific. He never was. It doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking and it certainly doesn't sound believable that Amanda or Raf were there based on his version.
Not so ridiculous if you do not want to implicate your partners in crime, and just make up a bs story based on what is in the media at that time. He did not want to throw them under any bus. We have discussed this many times and I know you probably don't agree, but this makes the most sense to me and following that angle it is very understandable that he is not more specific.
Later he got stuck in his own story. It would need a total change of story to implicate the other 2. He did add a small part about seeing Amanda which was done in retaliation IMO. He never mentioned Rafaelle until in his letter after his appeal. All this 'not being more specific about the presence of AK and RS' had to do with his own trial and bs toilet story. He simply can not be more specific without admitting his own involvement which unfortunately until now he refuses to do. All JMO.
Why did he change his story to say that he heard what sounded like Amanda and an assailant who looked kind of like Raf? What was the purpose? What makes sense about it?
ETA: Why would he "need a total change of story to implicate the other two"? He could just say he was sure it was them. Easy!
I didn't say anything about a suit. I don't know how such suits work in Italy.
I said it would have been malpractice to ignore exculpatory evidence. Whether that would be grounds for a lawsuit in Italy is another matter.
Whether a defendant testifies is another matter entirely, Steve. I don't think that comparison will help us.
But in the case of AK and RS, the defense lawyers had several witnesses claiming to have heard RG say AK and RS were innocent. They also had a conviction of RG and, in the Motivation Report and a finding by the Supreme Court, declarations that RG did not act alone.
It would have been absurd (and IMO malpractice) not to put those witnesses on the stand--even if the defense believes RG acted alone.
The defense remains free to argue that "RG acted alone, but if you find he did not act alone, then we have several witnesses who heard him say his accomplice was an unknown party and not the defendants."
<modsnip> misapprehension that the defense must develop and be bound by a single, unified theory of the crime. That is not true.
When and how did RS or AF blame RG? They weren't there and have no way of knowing who killed MK.
He added that he heard Amanda. She was there, she confessed to it so it would be rather strange if he hadn't noticed her in the cottage. Raf was already arrested as well and maybe for some strange reason he expected him to be found guilty so he might as well describe him in vague terms and not a 7 foot stranger.
It wouldn't make him very believable if he suddenly recognized the stranger (i am not saying his toilet story was credible but that is the card he played) and at the same time you push Raf in a corner who might just confess what really happened and explain Rudy's involvement. What good would that do?
Neither of them goes straight into identifying the others. They all admit a little and try to fool the police. Raf says Amanda could have done it since she left his house at 9 and came back after midnight. Amanda says the black guy did it but gives him a different name. And Rudy says Amanda was there but the Italian stranger did it. All liars, and all guilty as hell.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,987
I dont recall a single person saying it was or was not okay to leak LEGIT, true information. Leaking lies, yes, that's completely wrong. Lies such as the bloody bathroom picture. Yes, it's very strange not to discern the difference.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,987
Yes, but I think it's more than even that. I think he just wants to stick to his last story to keep himself safe from any further problems. At the times he made up his stories, he did not know if AK and RS had solids alibis or evidence exonerating them. That's why his story is vague. It continues to be vague, because he's not risking changing it to make the situation worse for himself. If it can be worse, I do not know, but he's apparently not risking finding out.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,987
Yes, why not say he met them and went over there, fooled around with MK, went in the bathroom and all hell broke loose while he was gone? Why not say that? I find it very strange that these "co-conspirators" have managed to maintain for all this time that they were not friends, did not know each other, and were not "together" in the sense of hanging out that night.
RG making up a story that he arrived for a double-date with AK, RS, and MK would make more sense. Then he'd say that AK and RS hadn't shown up yet, MK and he fooled around, but got interrupted by his bowels, and then he heard AK and RS arrive and the arguing.
He never did that in his story because he didn't know what AK and RS's true alibi was and if it would be upheld. What if he'd outright lied that he'd been with the couple, as the prosecution and newspapers claimed, but as it turned out, AK and RS developed an unshakable alibi? Then he'd be in the same position AK was with PL, which is additionally getting sued for slander on top of now being the perpetrator. Being vague with his lies had been his best option in the beginning, as his best option now is to just maintain the status quo of his lies instead of adding more to the pot.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,987
Yes, rather strange, which is why after sessions with Mig, RG's statement went from a guy shorter than he with chestnut hair running out of the house to he "heard AK" outside and saw her retreating frame. still in both stories, acting as if he's never met RS before. Why?
I just want to know why you think RG would make up a story about having a date alone with kercher rather than placing the 4 in the cottage at the same time, but still making himself a victim by being in the bathroom. Why did he not choose that route? Just speculation. Why develop all the elaborate lies about seeing MK elsewhere and developing a report with her and making a date? Why pull his friends into said lie and have them come back in court to day they knew nothing of his date or the two seeing each other at the parties before the murder?
Why is he telling all these unneccessary lies instead of saying Yes, we 4 were there hanging out. MK and I fooled around. I went to the bathroom. There was an argument, I came out to find what I found. The end result would be the same. He found some dude that resembled RS doing the stabbing, and he saw what he thought was AK running out the house. Period.
I don't get it. Please help me to understand why RG told all those other lies to set up the situation as if he had a relationship with MK?
What would have made even MORE sense would be to say that he went to the house, met MK, who said AK was in her room, and RS was on the way. RG could then maintain that he'd never met RS before, and RS must have arrived when RG heard the doorbell ring. But RG did NOT say this. Why?
I think he never says it because such lies that are THAT far from the truth hadn't occured to him at the time he first told his story. I don't think it occured to him that the prosecution would actually THINK that he and AK and RS were hanging out together, because it simply was not reality.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,987
Musing about this whole thing, I find it strange the level of cleverness that people attribute to RG, but at the same time the level of dumbness.
1. He's not agile or clever enough to scale the wall or break the window. He must be let in the door by AK.
YouTube - ‪Bad
Wall Climb (Parkour)‬‏
2. He's not clever or charming enough to talk his way into the house, because MK would never let him inside.
3. He's not clever enough to clean up his own footprints and evidence or flush the toilet before he leaves.
4. He's not sensitive or guilty enough to cover MK or lock her door.
6. He lacks the common sense that leads him to say he told his friends about his date with MK when in fact, he did not. He lacks the common sense to know her friends would not back up his stories that he'd been with MK at other parties. He's not sharp enough to figure his friends wouldn't back up any of his claims.
And yet,
1. He's clever enough to devise a story that will not implicate him or direclty implicate his "co-conspirators."
2. He's witty enough to say "Wasn't me" in the CCTV video, and people believe it.
3. He's sharp enough to confuse the time of death by saying he arrived actually 45-50 minutes before the death. This is, in fact, his biggest ruse, since he openly says he arrived early, cased the joint, saw no one there, and returned at 838pm to wait around for his "date." He then says MK was dead by 930pm. And he's so clever that no one believed him when he told the truth.
4. He's smart enough to claim the window wasn't broken and charmingly convincing enough that people actually believe him despite the fact the he actually carried rocks for the window breaking task in his bookbag (so I heard.)
5. He's clever enough to never discuss his crime in jail, like so many other criminals do, and smart enough to pen a letter of denial in handwriting COMPLETELY different from his jail diary. Then clever enough to say he can't read his own writing in court, so that he doesn't put his false statement into evidence himself.
Letter:
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo476174.shtml
diary:
http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/RudysPrisonDiary.pdf
6. And, after all these years, he's been able to hide the secret behind the fact that he, RS, and AK were actually friends to the end who'd never turn on each other---except, wait, is that a shadow I see in the yard?
The man is just brilliant---and stupid at the same time.....
1. He's not agile or clever enough to scale the wall or break the window. He must be let in the door by AK.
YouTube - ‪Bad
Wall Climb (Parkour)‬‏2. He's not clever or charming enough to talk his way into the house, because MK would never let him inside.
3. He's not clever enough to clean up his own footprints and evidence or flush the toilet before he leaves.
4. He's not sensitive or guilty enough to cover MK or lock her door.
6. He lacks the common sense that leads him to say he told his friends about his date with MK when in fact, he did not. He lacks the common sense to know her friends would not back up his stories that he'd been with MK at other parties. He's not sharp enough to figure his friends wouldn't back up any of his claims.
And yet,
1. He's clever enough to devise a story that will not implicate him or direclty implicate his "co-conspirators."
2. He's witty enough to say "Wasn't me" in the CCTV video, and people believe it.
3. He's sharp enough to confuse the time of death by saying he arrived actually 45-50 minutes before the death. This is, in fact, his biggest ruse, since he openly says he arrived early, cased the joint, saw no one there, and returned at 838pm to wait around for his "date." He then says MK was dead by 930pm. And he's so clever that no one believed him when he told the truth.
4. He's smart enough to claim the window wasn't broken and charmingly convincing enough that people actually believe him despite the fact the he actually carried rocks for the window breaking task in his bookbag (so I heard.)
5. He's clever enough to never discuss his crime in jail, like so many other criminals do, and smart enough to pen a letter of denial in handwriting COMPLETELY different from his jail diary. Then clever enough to say he can't read his own writing in court, so that he doesn't put his false statement into evidence himself.
Letter:
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo476174.shtml
diary:
http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/RudysPrisonDiary.pdf
6. And, after all these years, he's been able to hide the secret behind the fact that he, RS, and AK were actually friends to the end who'd never turn on each other---except, wait, is that a shadow I see in the yard?
The man is just brilliant---and stupid at the same time.....
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,987
Rudy was certainly athletic, young, agile, a basketball player, so should not have been beyond him.......
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,933
- Reaction score
- 126,935
It is the lawyer's prerogative to determine that prisoners with a history of presenting false testimony in trials is not going to provide exculpatory evidence, therefore the lawyer is not obligated to parade the lying prisoners through the courtroom.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,933
- Reaction score
- 126,935
"otto is functioning under the misapprehension that the defense must develop and be bound by a single, unified theory of the crime. That is not true" ???
What exactly does the above mean? I don't recall giving you permission to speak for me.
Who are you talking about?
Are you here to discuss the case and if not, why are you here?
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,987
I was reading RG's trial report, and then trying to get clarification on the translation by going over articles that reported the information contained in the doc.
Anyways, C dempsey had his statement where he said he heard a noise downstairs, got spooked and fled. I was thinking that it's possible this happened and he was in the middle of the rape. That could be a reason that he stopped and a reason that he might have ejaculated a little on the pillow and stepped on it, trying to get out of there.
I still think he lost his right shoe in the scuffle and so if he left straight out the front door, you wouldn't see the right shoe print. Then, I think he checked out and saw nothing was going on downstairs. He might have returned to the house, and in looking for the purse or his shoe in MK's room, he might have stepped in some blood, went limping to the bathroom and rinsed his foot off in the bidget or shower, thereby making that print on the bathmat. Went back to the room with the towels at that point? maybe because he realized she was still breathing or was dying? I was thinking it could be a reason they thought he moved the body, but that could only be if he put her into rape position after he returned from checking out the noise.
Just a theory.
Anyways, C dempsey had his statement where he said he heard a noise downstairs, got spooked and fled. I was thinking that it's possible this happened and he was in the middle of the rape. That could be a reason that he stopped and a reason that he might have ejaculated a little on the pillow and stepped on it, trying to get out of there.
I still think he lost his right shoe in the scuffle and so if he left straight out the front door, you wouldn't see the right shoe print. Then, I think he checked out and saw nothing was going on downstairs. He might have returned to the house, and in looking for the purse or his shoe in MK's room, he might have stepped in some blood, went limping to the bathroom and rinsed his foot off in the bidget or shower, thereby making that print on the bathmat. Went back to the room with the towels at that point? maybe because he realized she was still breathing or was dying? I was thinking it could be a reason they thought he moved the body, but that could only be if he put her into rape position after he returned from checking out the noise.
Just a theory.
Uhhh... no. I don't believe Rudy could do anything in these videos.
Maybe more like this:
YouTube - ‪A Good Title‬‏
YouTube - ‪FAT MAN CLIMBS UP WALL‬‏
Anything is possible, but is it PROBABLE. Should find a video of an out-of-shape dude breaking in to a similar scenario. If he could do it, Rudy certainly could.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
