1540 users online (276 members and 1264 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 77 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1151
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,973
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    Seven witnesses? Cite please using transcripts.
    At the time that Meredith's door was broken, there were seven witnesses:

    Postal Police: two
    Friends of Filomina: two
    Companion of Filomina: one
    Filomina
    Sollecito

    = seven

    Reference: assumed familiarity with the case

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    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.
    I agree. He does not want to give any more details than he absolutely has to (which is none). It makes perfect sense coming from his viewpoint, which is, like I said before, "I was just there but I didn't do anything." What he says in that letter is basically, Amanda and RS were also there. He is trying to not go into the murder itself. Basically he just has them all 3 just sitting there in the villa. That way he can admit to being there (which is indisputable and he knows it), but not admit to anything else.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    I agree. He does not want to give any more details than he absolutely has to (which is none). It makes perfect sense coming from his viewpoint, which is, like I said before, "I was just there but I didn't do anything." What he says in that letter is basically, Amanda and RS were also there. He is trying to not go into the murder itself. Basically he just has them all 3 just sitting there in the villa. That way he can admit to being there (which is indisputable and he knows it), but not admit to anything else.
    Yes, I would agree, and I think it's clear as to what his motive is (as you say, not to ever commit to anything that actually occurred that night; on his own part and on the part of other parties). This leaves room in the future to be viewed as someone who did not commit a crime, but was convicted and imprisoned notwithstanding.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    I think what we are discussing re Guede has it's parallel in what some pro-guilt posters on other forums were discussing re Sollecito: Many had asked why did RS not simply admit in court that he had taken part in a clean-up, but that he was not responsible and that Knox was.

    Leaving aside their innocence for the moment as a motivating factor, I think it's clear to most criminals (and I have seen this with plenty of US cases) that due to future appeals, changes, living in society, etc. - it is always far, far better to admit to nothing. Ever.

    For example Pamela Smart was convicted of having her teen lover and his friends kill her husband nearly 25 years ago. The life insurance policies left to her, witness accounts, and police-recorded wire tapes of her all point expressly to her guilt. She was sentenced to life without possibility of parole - And yet, she still denies.

    There can be changes in political/prison administration which will stand her and others in good stead if they can just remain silent.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Yes, I would agree, and I think it's clear as to what his motive is (as you say, not to ever commit to anything that actually occurred that night; on his own part and on the part of other parties). This leaves room in the future to be viewed as someone who did not commit a crime, but was convicted and imprisoned notwithstanding.
    Yes, I"m very curious as to what he'll do when he gets out. Will he maintain the same silence and not say anything? Or will he try to pin most of the blame on RS and Amanda? Make himself out as some kind of involuntary third party? I'm also curious as to whether Italy has the same kind of double-jeapordy law the U.S. has? Where he cannot be tried again?

    His silence right now is to protect himself until he gets out of prison. But I"m wondering what he's gonna say afterwards. In essence, he can pretty much say anything he wants about RS and Amanda after he gets out, b/c they are denying even being there, so what are they gonna be able to say to dispute him? The only thing they can say is "he's lying." (I'm talking about once he gets out of prison). Because for the rest of their lives, unless they admit something, they are going to have to go with the story of "we weren't there." That leaves them with nothing to refute Rudy with. And if they do one day happen to admit to something, if Italy has double-jeopardy, then they can't do anything else with Rudy, such as jail him again based on the new information RS and Amanda gave.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    At the time that Meredith's door was broken, there were seven witnesses:

    Postal Police: two
    Friends of Filomina: two
    Companion of Filomina: one
    Filomina
    Sollecito

    = seven

    Reference: assumed familiarity with the case
    I'm sorry but that's not in the transcripts.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Cherry picking one thing in a conversation full of lies doesnt make it truth.

    RG was not telling the truth in that conversation. He's either credible or he's not. So if you believe him in that one conversation, why is not credible when he names them as killers in open court?

    Yes Mignini read the letter that RG wrote and Rudy confirmed it and reiterated it.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    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.
    It seems strange that people would believe that Rudy would be honest with his friend but Amanda wouldn't even explain her first call to her own mother. Surely she would trust her own mother that had just flown in from the states to help her.
    All posts are my opinion only unless otherwise stated.
    Thanks!!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Yes, I"m very curious as to what he'll do when he gets out. Will he maintain the same silence and not say anything? Or will he try to pin most of the blame on RS and Amanda? Make himself out as some kind of involuntary third party? I'm also curious as to whether Italy has the same kind of double-jeapordy law the U.S. has? Where he cannot be tried again?

    His silence right now is to protect himself until he gets out of prison. But I"m wondering what he's gonna say afterwards. In essence, he can pretty much say anything he wants about RS and Amanda after he gets out, b/c they are denying even being there, so what are they gonna be able to say to dispute him? The only thing they can say is "he's lying." (I'm talking about once he gets out of prison). Because for the rest of their lives, unless they admit something, they are going to have to go with the story of "we weren't there." That leaves them with nothing to refute Rudy with. And if they do one day happen to admit to something, if Italy has double-jeopardy, then they can't do anything else with Rudy, such as jail him again based on the new information RS and Amanda gave.
    Yes, but if you place yourself inside of Guede's mind, and grasp his internal motives, you have to consider this: He is still very young, and in his future he may have hopes of a wife, children, employers, friends. If he maintains always that he did no wrong, and was convicted and imprisoned due to misfortune, he can be in good standing with his future family and employers, etc.

    Conversely, if he were to admit, "Knox and Sollecito dragged me into this; it was never supposed to end in murder as it did", a future wife or son or employer could always say, "Well, look at that horrific prank you were involved with in your 20s."

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I think what we are discussing re Guede has it's parallel in what some pro-guilt posters on other forums were discussing re Sollecito: Many had asked why did RS not simply admit in court that he had taken part in a clean-up, but that he was not responsible and that Knox was.

    Leaving aside their innocence for the moment as a motivating factor, I think it's clear to most criminals (and I have seen this with plenty of US cases) that due to future appeals, changes, living in society, etc. - it is always far, far better to admit to nothing. Ever.

    For example Pamela Smart was convicted of having her teen lover and his friends kill her husband nearly 25 years ago. The life insurance policies left to her, witness accounts, and police-recorded wire tapes of her all point expressly to her guilt. She was sentenced to life without possibility of parole - And yet, she still denies.

    There can be changes in political/prison administration which will stand her and others in good stead if they can just remain silent.
    I agree. In this case, while each of them is either currently in prison or there is a chance they could go to prison, I completely understand why no one is "talking" in the sense of admitting anything.

    Each of them cares about their own fate. RG's not sitting there in prison thinking, oh I better say something because Meredith's family must be in such pain over not knowing. Or even, I can't believe RS and Amanda might get away with this while I'm stuck in prison. No, all they care about is getting their own but** off the line. All RG cares about is walking out of that prison. He probably couldn't care less what happenes to RS and Amanda, if doing so causes him to get out of prison a day later than he thinks. Whatever he has to say or do to help his own situtation, that's what he's gonna do. Same iwith RS and AK.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Myvice View Post
    It seems strange that people would believe that Rudy would be honest with his friend but Amanda wouldn't even explain her first call to her own mother. Surely she would trust her own mother that had just flown in from the states to help her.
    Not to mention RG still had every reason in the world to lie before he was arrested. Why name anyone and have to admit his full involvement at that point? He was still playing as innocent as he could at that time. By the time he was willing to name them in that letter, his sentence was confirmed and considered definite by SCC.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,973
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    I'm sorry but that's not in the transcripts.
    Is it not documented that two Postal Police were at the cottage?
    Is it not documented that Filomina arrived with her boyfriend and two other friends?
    Is it not documented that Sollecito was there?
    Is it not documented that they were all at the cottage when Meredith's door was broken?

    All of the above?

    I will not take the time to search for a phrase in the transcripts that lists the names of the parties that were at the cottage at the moment that the door was broken. I am assuming that anyone familiar with the case is aware of who was present at the time that the door was opened.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Myvice View Post
    It seems strange that people would believe that Rudy would be honest with his friend but Amanda wouldn't even explain her first call to her own mother. Surely she would trust her own mother that had just flown in from the states to help her.
    Great point.

    And I doubt any of Rudy's friends were the kind he could depend on. And he knew it.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    Cherry picking one thing in a conversation full of lies doesnt make it truth.

    RG was not telling the truth in that conversation. He's either credible or he's not. So if you believe him in that one conversation, why is not credible when he names them as killers in open court?

    Yes Mignini read the letter that RG wrote and Rudy confirmed it and reiterated it.
    I don't think it's cherry picking sifting through his words and statements. He is the killer who admits being in the cottage and in the murder room and to "leaning out Filomena's window" yet a lot of pro guilt posters treat him as a credible witness who just happened to see something. At one point during his appeals he was blaming the guy at the fountain on Nov 2 with the jacket and white cap being the killer while he sat on the toilet listening to an Ipod he didn't own and was never recovered.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    And just to get it out there I don't think RG is credible at all.

    I only ever posted his letter to refute people who claim he has never named AK and RS as killers, when he has.

    RG is a liar, in that there is no doubt and I take anything he says at face value.

Page 3 of 77 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... 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