947 users online (153 members and 794 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 77 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1151
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    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 [estraneità] 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.
    Yes, all of that is a good point. The only thing I would say is, first of all he probably knew that any conversation would be heard by prosecutors. So for that reason, I doubt he would speak any truths, even if was to a friend. Under those circumstances, I mean.

    As for why he didn't call out Amanda and RS, I don't know and that is a genuine question I have. But what I also think is that he told a complete fabrication and lie to the police originally (Meredith let him in, etc.). So now, by bringing RS and Amanda into the picture at that time, first of all, the prosecutors would accuse hiim of lying to them. Because he would then have to change his whole story. So maybe, at the time, he thought that he didn't want to add to his already long list of problems. Because I would assume no criminal being caught in a murder would then want to be so blatantly caught lying to the prosecution, the very people their fate is resting on.

    Also, then there's the situation that bringing in RS and Amanda at that point might make things worse for him....because they would tell exactly what he did and how he did it, and that would be far worse than the story he was telling.

    Just some thoughts.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Plus his letter read in court makes it as clear as it was going to get. There were 3 involved.
    Yep yep. The "letter" he didn't read so Mignini read it for him but he didn't know the meaning of a word in his own letter.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Yes, all of that is a good point. The only thing I would say is, first of all he probably knew that any conversation would be heard by prosecutors. So for that reason, I doubt he would speak any truths, even if was to a friend. Under those circumstances, I mean.

    As for why he didn't call out Amanda and RS, I don't know and that is a genuine question I have. But what I also think is that he told a complete fabrication and lie to the police originally (Meredith let him in, etc.). So now, by bringing RS and Amanda into the picture at that time, first of all, the prosecutors would accuse hiim of lying to them. Because he would then have to change his whole story. So maybe, at the time, he thought that he didn't want to add to his already long list of problems. Because I would assume no criminal being caught in a murder would then want to be so blatantly caught lying to the prosecution, the very people their fate is resting on.

    Also, then there's the situation that bringing in RS and Amanda at that point might make things worse for him....because they would tell exactly what he did and how he did it, and that would be far worse than the story he was telling.

    Just some thoughts.
    Why would he think it'd be heard by police when it was a secretly recorded conversation with his best friend?

    Why didn't Amanda & Raffaele turn on him immediately or each other since none of them really knew each other and Raffaele didn't know Guede at all?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    Yep the "letter" he didn't read so Mignini read it for him but he didn't know the meaning of.
    So in your mind Mignini wrote the letter? Still, the SC ruled there were multiple assailants. The lone wolf theory , to truly stand, would need to have that absolved.

    And then there is the fact that as dgfred points out, it is always better to say that you, and your partners, (if such were ever true, and there are some indicators that it was) are innocent (he never admitted culpability, and when he is released, he will expect to be seen as someone who was at the wrong place at the wrong time). And not to add further withal.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    Why would he think it'd be heard by police when it was a secretly recorded conversation with his best friend?

    Why didn't Amanda & Raffaele turn on him immediately or each other since none of them really knew each other and Raffaele didn't know Guede at all?
    Yes, in terms of pro-innocence, this is an important point. From within the opposing purview, I guess silence is best if none of the 3 is ever going to admit responsibility (IF guilty). If all 3 confessed and admitted culpability, then I would expect much blame and finger-pointing.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    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.
    Exactly. To admit their full and honest involvement, he would have to admit to his own actions.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,242
    AK knew exactly who RG was. I even think RS had seen him too... since they live on the same street not far from each other.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    So in your mind Mignini wrote the letter? Still, the SC ruled there were multiple assailants. The lone wolf theory , to truly stand, would need to have that absolved.

    And then there is the fact that as dgfred points out, it is always better to say that you, and your partners, (if such were ever true, and there are some indicators that it was) are innocent (he never admitted culpability, and when he is released, he will expect to be seen as someone who was at the wrong place at the wrong time). And not to add further withal.
    I don't know who wrote the letter but I do know it's almost paraody the killer went into court and had the prosecutor read the letter for him. You can't make this stuff up!

    Guede even says it was all just a "thought in his head" and it's not up to him to decide who killed Meredith.

    http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/...-rudy-guede-2/

    But, apart from the consideration that to confirm a written letter to one’s own attorneys is certainly not the same as responding to some precise questions on facts of the case, it should be noted that from the responses, given at the hearing of Rudy Guede, it is evident [risulta] that he has not implicated [indicato in] Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the perpetrators of the crime having seen them personally in the act of committing it, but only because this is and has always been a thought of his. Quoting from the transcripts:

    “…DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And so, Mr. Guede, when you write the text that it was “a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean exactly? Had you ever said this?

    WITNESS – Well this, I never said it explicitly in this manner however I always thought it.

    DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – So why did you write it?

    WITNESS – I wrote it because it was a thought that I’ve always had [che è sempre stato dentro di me, lit. "that has always been inside me"].

    DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – But then it’s not true.

    WITNESS – No it is absolutely true [verissimo].

    DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And can you elaborate better? What does that mean?

    WITNESS – It’s absolutely true.

    DIFENSE AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – Do you confirm this fact [circostanza]? By [da parte]?

    WITNESS – Well, I with the … well, like I told you earlier, this is a thought that I’ve always had in my head, it’s a thought that in any case in the end I decided to put in written form after hearing certain absurdities, in my opinion [secondo me] and I [get to] take on all the responsibilities [on] hearing a puppet manipulated by certain people, that’s all. Therefore if I wrote those words it’s because they are [real], I’ve always had them inside of me. It’s not up to me to decide who it is that killed Meredith, I in the statement that I made in my trial I always said who was there on that cursed night in that house, therefore I don’t think that I’m saying anything new, I just put in writing my thoughts and I made them tangible [concreta], that’s all. Therefore I don’t see what other questions I should respond to…”.

    So, also in substantive terms [sotto il profilo sostanziale], the indication of responsibility contained in the letter submitted does not represent the result of an account described in detail of a real story, witnessed [constatata] by the author [Guede] and reported in its particulars, but only the expression of a personal conviction, based on evidence unknown to us [basati su quali elementi non è dato sapere], there being an absence of statements made in this trial by Rudy Guede.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    No, it's certainly not. It's just a lame story he came up with.
    Wow. Meaning we don't have to even pretend it just might be a possibility, because of such-and-such reason and because "everyone is different." And "not everyone does things the same way." And it just might be a possibility.

    I'm curious how we can use this standard for Rudy's statements but not Amanda's? We are expected to give her every possible benefit of the doubt in her "lame" stories.

    Amanda's stories are just as lame as Rudy's.

    To me, her stories are just as outrageous and hard-to-believe as Rudy's are. That's why I sometimes find it very difficult to entertain other ideas other than "that's just her lame story/excuse."
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,981
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post

    Yep, the prosecution proved the girls shared a bathroom sink.

    I'm still at a loss to understand why you keep saying there's no evidence of Guede in the bathroom when he admitted going in there.
    Guede lied. Claiming that he went to the bathroom to collect towels is supposed to make him sound like he cared. We don't know anything about the towels in Meredith's bedroom.

    There is no evidence of Guede in the small bathroom.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,981
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    Filomena didn't speak good English, just basic. It's in her testimony which I uploaded here.
    Filomina may not have spoken English well enough to claim that she was completely fluent, but she spoke English. There were seven witnesses to Knox's claim that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door. It is illogical to claim that all seven witnesses got it wrong.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    Why would he think it'd be heard by police when it was a secretly recorded conversation with his best friend?

    Why didn't Amanda & Raffaele turn on him immediately or each other since none of them really knew each other and Raffaele didn't know Guede at all?
    But the fact is it was secretly recorded. Why would he go and tell his friend, even his "best friend," and risk everything? No, he knew not to trust anyone.

    I've already posted lengthy posts regarding the second part in previous threads. The point is, they are all 3 denying their involvement, Rudy to as much of a degree as he can. By "telling" on another, it would then put them at risk of the other person "telling" on them. Rudy is up to this point trying to fess up to as little involvement as possible. Why would he go and open up that can of worms, the can which would forever shut the door of "I was there but I didn't do anything, I promise." And Amanda and RS have even less incentive to tell on Rudy.....because they are completely denying even being there. That would completely mess up their stories.

    It messes up all 3 or their stories if they tell on each other.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Filomina may not have spoken English well enough to claim that she was completely fluent, but she spoke English. There were seven witnesses to Knox's claim that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom door. It is illogical to claim that all seven witnesses got it wrong.
    Seven witnesses? Cite please using transcripts.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    I don't know who wrote the letter but I do know it's almost paraody the killer went into court and had the prosecutor read the letter for him. You can't make this stuff up!

    Guede even says it was all just a "thought in his head" and it's not up to him to decide who killed Meredith.

    http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/...-rudy-guede-2/

    But, apart from the consideration that to confirm a written letter to one’s own attorneys is certainly not the same as responding to some precise questions on facts of the case, it should be noted that from the responses, given at the hearing of Rudy Guede, it is evident [risulta] that he has not implicated [indicato in] Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the perpetrators of the crime having seen them personally in the act of committing it, but only because this is and has always been a thought of his. Quoting from the transcripts:

    “…DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And so, Mr. Guede, when you write the text that it was “a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean exactly? Had you ever said this?

    WITNESS – Well this, I never said it explicitly in this manner however I always thought it.

    DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – So why did you write it?

    WITNESS – I wrote it because it was a thought that I’ve always had [che è sempre stato dentro di me, lit. "that has always been inside me"].

    DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – But then it’s not true.

    WITNESS – No it is absolutely true [verissimo].

    DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And can you elaborate better? What does that mean?

    WITNESS – It’s absolutely true.

    DIFENSE AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – Do you confirm this fact [circostanza]? By [da parte]?

    WITNESS – Well, I with the … well, like I told you earlier, this is a thought that I’ve always had in my head, it’s a thought that in any case in the end I decided to put in written form after hearing certain absurdities, in my opinion [secondo me] and I [get to] take on all the responsibilities [on] hearing a puppet manipulated by certain people, that’s all. Therefore if I wrote those words it’s because they are [real], I’ve always had them inside of me. It’s not up to me to decide who it is that killed Meredith, I in the statement that I made in my trial I always said who was there on that cursed night in that house, therefore I don’t think that I’m saying anything new, I just put in writing my thoughts and I made them tangible [concreta], that’s all. Therefore I don’t see what other questions I should respond to…”.

    So, also in substantive terms [sotto il profilo sostanziale], the indication of responsibility contained in the letter submitted does not represent the result of an account described in detail of a real story, witnessed [constatata] by the author [Guede] and reported in its particulars, but only the expression of a personal conviction, based on evidence unknown to us [basati su quali elementi non è dato sapere], there being an absence of statements made in this trial by Rudy Guede.
    Well, that's odd testimony - but as I said, he does not absolutely want to commit to anything. He leaves it once removed, as it were.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,242
    Everybody there said it... except AK. IMO the language barrier excuses are just that... excuses.

    She lived there, she was studying there, she had Italian roommates, worked, had an Italian boyfriend, etc. Surely door/locked/un-locked/roommate/knife/joint and some other words she would know fluently IMO.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

Page 2 of 77 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... 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