738 users online (99 members and 639 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 77 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1151
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    7,486

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    7,486

    Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    7,486
    When posting please adhere to the following guidelines:

    *Broad negative characterizations of opposing views= no
    *Personalizing or name calling= no
    *Mocking a post or poster= no
    *Condescension= no.
    *Attacking posters= no


    **Reasoned, well sourced and linked arguments= yes

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,951
    Quote Originally Posted by otto
    Knox speaks English, so her comments were made in English. Filomina obviously speaks English.

    Knox's claim that Meredith routinely locked her door was not a "casual comment". It was part of a crucial discussion about whether police should break the door.

    Filomina asked the Postal Police to break down the door. The police stated that they were not authorized to do that, and that they would not take responsibility for damage to the door. Knox stated that Meredith routinely locked her door so there was no reason to break the door. Filomina completely disagreed and accepted full responsibility for costs associated with repairing the door. She insisted that police break the door.

    Filomina knew that Meredith never locked her door except when she visited family in England. I suspect that Knox's bizarre claim that Meredith routinely locked her door made Filomina more concerned about Meredith.
    And I think you also have to take into account that in her email home, Knox spoke of the concern and knocking on the door, and checking from outside; also Sollecito's attempting to break it down - and this is diametrically opposed to the later assertion that the locked door was not anything to be unduly concerned about.

    In the end, it is all these little holes, these odd contradictions, that raise the red flags. Such as Sollecito on the first 112 call, telling the police that there was a broken window, and a mess, and some blood - and when the officer asks him if the blood was likely from the person breaking in through the window, Sollecito says, 'erm...' and hangs up the phone. Then calls back a few seconds later. It's as if he was asking Knox about what he should say. None of these things is much of anything on it's own, but when you put them all together, it leaves you with a feeling of strong pause.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    7,486
    please read the following:

    YOU

    If you see the above word in your posts it may be wise to go back and review your post before hitting submit. At websleuths we do not allow personalization of posts and the use of the word YOU is a good gauge as to whether a post is addressing the post and not the poster.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,910
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    And I think you also have to take into account that in her email home, Knox spoke of the concern and knocking on the door, and checking from outside; also Sollecito's attempting to break it down - and this is diametrically opposed to the later assertion that the locked door was not anything to be unduly concerned about.

    In the end, it is all these little holes, these odd contradictions, that raise the red flags. Such as Sollecito on the first 112 call, telling the police that there was a broken window, and a mess, and some blood - and when the officer asks him if the blood was likely from the person breaking in through the window, Sollecito says, 'erm...' and hangs up the phone. Then calls back a few seconds later. It's as if he was asking Knox about what he should say. None of these things is much of anything on it's own, but when you put them all together, it leaves you with a feeling of strong pause.
    Very strong pause...it's like a giant jigsaw puzzle and Amanda is most certainly among the pieces. IMO she was intimately involved.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Nosy by Nature and a Websleuther by choice

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,306
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    And I think you also have to take into account that in her email home, Knox spoke of the concern and knocking on the door, and checking from outside; also Sollecito's attempting to break it down - and this is diametrically opposed to the later assertion that the locked door was not anything to be unduly concerned about.

    In the end, it is all these little holes, these odd contradictions, that raise the red flags. Such as Sollecito on the first 112 call, telling the police that there was a broken window, and a mess, and some blood - and when the officer asks him if the blood was likely from the person breaking in through the window, Sollecito says, 'erm...' and hangs up the phone. Then calls back a few seconds later. It's as if he was asking Knox about what he should say. None of these things is much of anything on it's own, but when you put them all together, it leaves you with a feeling of strong pause.
    Thank you for pointing this out. The 112 call is very strange indeed, it adds to so many "things that make you go hmmm".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    One of the things I find strange that make me go hmmm is Guede (as they closed in on him) telling his best friend "Amanda wasn't involved".

    Imo, he knew they were innocent so started telling his SODDI story knowing/expecting Amanda & Raffaele would be released just like the <modsnip> Lumumba was.

    Why would Guede say Amanda wasn't involved if she'd staged the crime scene looking like his MO?

    As Hellmann said: http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/...-rudy-guede-2/

    On the contrary, the content of the chat between Rudy Guede and his friend Giacomo Benedetti on the day of 11.19.2007, heard also by the police, can be considered in favor of the two defendants.

    Regarding the use of the transcript of that chat, listened to by the Police with the agreement of the friend of Rudy Guede, Benedetti, it should be noted that it is a document filed in the court records [acquisito agli atti] with the consensus of all parties and not against any standard of positive law [norma di diritto positive], as revealed by the Corte di Assise di Appello that tried Rudy Guede, especially since, in the case under examination, these statements are not being used against the person who made them, obtained possibly [in ipotesi] in violation of a defendant’s rights, but, on the contrary, are being used in favor of the two defendants and coming from a third party, so that a violation of defendant’s rights concerning the third party would have no relevance. With regard to the two current defendants, the content of the chat assumes relevance as a mere historical fact and not as a means of investigation [of them].

    And so, during this chat with the friend, when he was still abroad, where he had fled after the crime [fatto], Rudy Guede does not implicate in any way Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as perpetrators of the crime. And in that moment, because he was abroad, and therefore in a certain way safe, or because he was convinced he was conversing just with a friend, perhaps his only real friend, he would not have had any reason to keep quiet on such a matter. Which leads us to believe, being himself, on the contrary, certainly a perpetrator, alone or with others (here it does not matter), of the crimes committed on Via Della Pergola, that if Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had also participated, he would have in that moment revealed it to his friend.

    Nor can one assume that to keep quiet a fact of that kind, even hypothetically, could have been due to a need to distance himself from the suspects to try to avoid finding himself also involved, since, being already aware that in that moment they had already been arrested, he would not have had reason to nurture the hope that, remaining silent during the conversation with the friend, he could in some way affect the legal situation [situazione processuale] of the other two and, so, improve his own personal situation, having reason, on the contrary, to fear that they, if really present with him in Via della Pergola, would have been able, being by now arrested, accuse him and only him of committing the crime in an attempt to exonerate themselves, perhaps recognizing their own presence in that house but nevertheless [asserting] their non-involvement [estraneitÓ] in committing the crime. With the result that he would have had interest in attributing to them, in that chat with the friend, the responsibility for what happened on Via Della Pergola: this is why the Rudy Guede of the chat seems more credible and this is why Rudy not having attributed to them, in the chat, the responsibility for the homicide represents an element of a certain reliability in favor of the current defendants.

    In that chat, also, Rudy Guede confirms having been on Via Della Pergola between the hours 9:00 pm and 9:30 pm; which, significantly putting back the time of death of Meredith Kercher compared to that claimed in the ruling being appealed, does not accord with the prosecution’s hypothesis against the current defendants that, even if we were to find credible some evidence brought by the prosecution to sustain its own hypothesis, at that time they were certainly at the house of Raffaele Sollecito and not on Via Della Pergola. Also on this point Rudy Guede, despite his tendency to lie, would not have had any reason to do so: once he had confessed to the friend that he was in any case present in the house on Via Della Pergola at the moment of the crime, even in the case he were not responsible, he did not have any need to bring forward the time of the crime [consumazione] to 9/9:30 pm.

    Instead, the subsequent statements made by Rudy Guede (in the current trial, however, not usable for reasons explained) appear less credible, being made in a different context from that of the first disclosures to a friend, when defensive strategies or even a mere desire to improve his image [rivalsa sociale] could have induced him to describe a different version from that really experienced.
    Last edited by Harmony2; 11-22-2013 at 11:10 AM. Reason: snipped for name calling of player

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,951
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    One of the things I find strange that make me go hmmm is Guede (as they closed on on him) telling his best friend "Amanda wasn't involved".

    Imo, he knew they were innocent so started telling his SODDI story knowing/expecting Amanda & Raffaele would be released just like the opportunist media tart Lumumba was.

    Why would Guede say Amanda wasn't involved if she'd staged the crime scene looking like his MO?
    Yes, that is a question. Is anyone who believes in their culpability able to answer it?

    The only thing I can think of is that Guede did not want to admit to anyone's involvement, including his own.

    Did he ever actually admit to involvement in a murder (I know that burglary and simulation were not attributed to him)? Or did he attempt to say he had a consensual time with the victim, and someone else harmed her, and he attempted to help?

    ETA: I see that you have added an enormous amount of text to your original post, so I am reading now. SMK

    *** Furthermore, I have also seen posters recently on PMF, pose the question as to why Guede to this day maintains his baffling, profoundly perplexing , silence. So this must not be ignored or dismissed at all, but has to be taken well into account. As well as his times, and the change in his presentation after many months and years.

    One idea would be their non-involvement (which leaves many questions unanswered). Anyone have any further ideas?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Yes, that is a question. Is anyone who believes in their culpability able to answer it?

    The only thing I can think of is that Guede did not want to admit to anyone's involvement, including his own.

    Did he ever actually admit to involvement in a murder (I know that burglary and simulation were not attributed to him)? Or did he attempt to say he had a consensual time with the victim, and someone else harmed her, and he attempted to help? ETA: I see that you have added an enormous amount of text to your original post, so I am reading now. SMK
    He says he was there on a date with Meredith and admitted to being in the murder room and "leaning out the window" in Filomena's room yet tells his best friend in a secretly recorded call "Amanda wasn't involved" yet she and Raffaele are suppose to have staged the crime scene to look like his recent MO of second story window entry breaking glass with a rock.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,237
    RG admits being there because he had too. He took the fast track trial because his guilt was sealed IMO. He has NEVER admitted to being part of the murder.

    What would AK/RS say if he accused them of being the killers? Do they admit it or stick to their current (or next addition) story? Do they say yes we did it but RG did too? Do they say we didn't do anything but RG did? I don't see any benefit whatsoever for him.
    It would take some remorse to tell the truth... none of the three has shown any IMO.

    He could be close to parol by the time the other two enter prison.

    Say nothing more... get out soon.
    Talk... ???

    Seems an easy choice at this point.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,951
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    He says he was there on a date with Meredith and admitted to being in the murder room and "leaning out the window" in Filomena's room yet tells his best friend in a secretly recorded call "Amanda wasn't involved" yet she and Raffaele are suppose to have staged the crime scene to look like his recent MO of second story window entry breaking glass with a rock.
    Well, is it believable that Kercher would make a date with him when she had a new boyfriend? And yes, he says Knox was not involved. But he also says he was not.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,237
    Plus his letter read in court makes it as clear as it was going to get. There were 3 involved.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Omigosh, now Harmony why did you have to go and put up pictures of foamy lattes/cappucinos with pretty designs.........MY FAVORITE! Now every time I come on here I'm gonna be drooling.....LOL!
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Well, is it believable that Kercher would make a date with him when she had a new boyfriend? And yes, he says Knox was not involved. But he also says he was not.
    No, it's certainly not. It's just a lame story he came up with.

Page 1 of 77 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 943
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 10:01 AM
  2. Replies: 1026
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 08:07 AM
  3. Replies: 1064
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:29 AM
  4. Replies: 1013
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 05:30 AM
  5. Replies: 1011
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:34 AM

Tags for this Thread