1002 users online (111 members and 891 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 371
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Myvice View Post
    I would certainly agree that there a lot of insensitive people out there. And obviously not all of them are murderers.

    There may be members here that talk about the unusual behavior of the defendants but I haven't seen anyone that thinks they're guilty based solely on that. If you read back through the threads I think you will find the evidence that those that believe in their guilt hang their hat on. Welcome to the discussion.
    For a second, let's just assume that AK is not guilty in any sense in the murder (just bear with me on this).

    So right after the murder and before the arrest, AK was her usual self (aka insensitive). Why? Because she felt no need to change her attitude as she had no idea she was going to be arrested for the murder. This is how you would expect innocent people to think.

    After being convicted and put in jail, AK changes her attitude. She starts lying about how MK was her friend and how hard she cried, etc etc. So now she is being deceptive. Why? Because she had a reason to be deceptive (i.e. get public sympathy and strengthen her case).

    If she was indeed guilty, she would have been deceptive from the moment the body was discovered. Why? Becuase she would have known that she can come under the microscope given the imperfect crime, staging effort, Guede being an uncontrolleable element and many other factors in the back of her mind. If guilty, she would have pretended to care for MK right from the start, or tried to frame her boss right from the start. This is how you would expect guilty people would think.

    (Now, we are just talking behavioral science here, and that too for the sake of discussion. I know there is a plethora of physical evidence piled up against her).

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Coffeelandia
    Posts
    5,677
    Quote Originally Posted by LinasK View Post
    I'm guessing it was AK since they are both in Seattle. At least it means Amanda hasn't fled yet!!
    Yes. Can't say much, but I just saw her.

    She has not fled. She does look 'absent' if you know what I mean. Gave me the hibby jibbies - which is not evidence of anything I know, but she did.

    I heard in the past from colleagues that hers were empty eyes. I can now attest they are. Vacant.
    Don't take yourself so seriously... nobody else does.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica2012 View Post
    I think they were both very paranoid. I remember when Rudy was caught, Raffaele had admitted being afraid Rudy would frame him. (Why fear this if they had never met Rudy before?)
    Another telling sign was Amanda said Patrick Lumbamba scared her but when asked she said she was not afraid of Rudy at all.

    I do not think Amanda was afraid at all of being left alone. I really believe she thought Raffaele would turn on her, and she really wanted to know what he was asked and what he answered. I never got the feeling RS was afraid Amanda would turn on him, though she did once he took away her alibi. I think she always wanted to remain close to the investigation and monitor it's progression. There was no need for her to stay there at all if she was afraid of being alone, she would have gone home like everyone else did.

    Another thing I find odd is that in one of her interviews (I think it was the very first one after she was released with Barbara Walters) when asked why she broke up with Raffaele she replied that one reason was he took away her alibi and the second was because they were in jail and not able to see eachother. Now in my opinion, if police really harassed her into falsely accusing Patrick, wouldn't she have the same logic as to why Raffaele took away her alibi? She obviously didn't and broke up with him. All my opinion
    Maybe if he hadn't pi$$ed her off with changing the alibi, she would have later agreed to his marriage-get-me-off-the-hook idea .
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by thesetup85 View Post
    For a second, let's just assume that AK is not guilty in any sense in the murder (just bear with me on this).

    So right after the murder and before the arrest, AK was her usual self (aka insensitive). Why? Because she felt no need to change her attitude as she had no idea she was going to be arrested for the murder. This is how you would expect innocent people to think.

    After being convicted and put in jail, AK changes her attitude. She starts lying about how MK was her friend and how hard she cried, etc etc. So now she is being deceptive. Why? Because she had a reason to be deceptive (i.e. get public sympathy and strengthen her case).

    If she was indeed guilty, she would have been deceptive from the moment the body was discovered. Why? Becuase she would have known that she can come under the microscope given the imperfect crime, staging effort, Guede being an uncontrolleable element and many other factors in the back of her mind. If guilty, she would have pretended to care for MK right from the start, or tried to frame her boss right from the start. This is how you would expect guilty people would think.

    (Now, we are just talking behavioral science here, and that too for the sake of discussion. I know there is a plethora of physical evidence piled up against her).
    You bring up very interesting and good points.

    For the sake of discussion, it could be that in the beginning, she was nervous, but felt relatively sure that the investigators would buy her burglar story. IMO, she stayed in Italy because she thought that after a few days and after the initial questioning, she and RS would be off free to do whatever they want and not under suspicion. That, basically, the investigators would buy into the whole burglar story.

    From various things she has said in her book, I got the feeling that she very much wanted to stay in Perugia and continue on with her dream. She states this herself in her book. She says she was being "naiive," and that could actually be the truth. She was naiive to think that the investigators would buy her story and she was naiive to think that this whole situation would just magically fix itself. This is also a version of seeming to not live in reality, which I think even RS said of Amanda. I think she very much deals with problems by pretending they are not there. Most people do this to some degree, but I think Amanda's goes overboard.

    Anyway, but her plan doesn't work out. They are arrested. Now she has to switch gears. Now she has to find other ways to get out of this mess.

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

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by seattlechiquita View Post
    Yes. Can't say much, but I just saw her.

    She has not fled. She does look 'absent' if you know what I mean. Gave me the hibby jibbies - which is not evidence of anything I know, but she did.

    I heard in the past from colleagues that hers were empty eyes. I can now attest they are. Vacant.
    Omg. Thank you for sharing this with us!!
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by LinasK View Post
    Not if they are sociopaths/psychopaths. Just look at the behaviors of killers Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, and Joran Van Der Sloot post-murder for examples. Very similar. Scott Dyleski too.
    I don't know what was the attitude of these people post murder (I know that Jodi feld the city to be with her other male friend, but that resonates a guilty persons behavior, i.e. quicky distancing themselves from the crime scene).

    But the lack of empathy displayed by the two leads me into 2 possible conclusions:

    1) If guilty, they thought that thier efforts to stage the crime scene and construct alibis is air tight, hence its Okay to just be yourself as no one can ever incriminate them.

    2) If not guilty, then never in their wildest dreams, did they think that they'll be under suspisions as they were not at the crime scene, hence its Okay to just be your self as no one can ever incriminate them.

    The reason, why I lean to conclusion 2, is because hey, lets be honest... the crime scene staging was a pretty piss-poor job and the fact that their accomplice RG was on the loose, it would leave AK and RS very very very edgy.... even if they are psychopaths.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    One of her early stories was that she was afraid to be alone because of the murder and that she didn't have anywhere to stay, and because she was staying at Sollecito's apartment she went with him to the police station.

    She could have booked a room somewhere ... youth hostel, cheap hotel, but she was staying with Sollecito. She could have stayed at Sollecito's apartment while he answered questions too. I think they didn't want to be separated because they didn't know how the investigation was going and what would happen next, so they felt better if they were together.
    If she was afraid of being alone (as she said, because of the murder) she could easily have gone to a cafe or public place and waited while RS was at the police station.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by thesetup85 View Post
    I don't know what was the attitude of these people post murder (I know that Jodi feld the city to be with her other male friend, but that resonates a guilty persons behavior, i.e. quicky distancing themselves from the crime scene).

    But the lack of empathy displayed by the two leads me into 2 possible conclusions:

    1) If guilty, they thought that thier efforts to stage the crime scene and construct alibis is air tight, hence its Okay to just be yourself as no one can ever incriminate them.

    2) If not guilty, then never in their wildest dreams, did they think that they'll be under suspisions as they were not at the crime scene, hence its Okay to just be your self as no one can ever incriminate them.

    The reason, why I lean to conclusion 2, is because hey, lets be honest... the crime scene staging was a pretty piss-poor job and the fact that their accomplice RG was on the loose, it would leave AK and RS very very very edgy.... even if they are psychopaths.
    Personally, I think that they thought everyone would believe their burglar story. I mean, just looking at it from an layperson's perspective, not knowing the evidence in the case, it is much easier to believe that a burglar would have come in and raped and murdered Meredith, then to think that oh, 3 people played a prank on Meredith and something happened, and then 2 people came back and cleaned up the cottage and cleaned doors and moved the body around to stage it and staged the window to make it look like a burglary, etc., etc.. Just like from reading this thread, one can see similar things being said from some of those supporting her innocence, even knowing the evidence. So of course a layperson is not going to automatically think the second thing, they are going to think the most obvious thing - the first.

    The problem is, they were thinking of it like how a layperson would view it. They didn't count on how investigators would see it. Investigators who are familiar with these things. They thought someone like you or me would look at it from a very cursory view and think, well, duh, a burglar came in.

    I posted an article on last thread where the author said that most of the times during staging, perps make mistakes because they don't think of things in terms of the way detectives and investigators will see it. They think of things in terms of how a regular person (not in crime investigations) would see it. That's where they make the mistakes.

    So I do think that they were thinking that investigators would buy the story, especially given they had staged everything to make it look that way.

    As far as Rudy goes, I think that they thought that perhaps the investigators would not be able to match anything to Rudy. I mean, how would investigators have known Rudy was even there? Maybe they thought that since Rudy would not be on the radar for this murder, his DNA would not be taken, and thus they would not be able to match it. I think that they just wanted desperately for investigators to believe in the IDEA of the "burglar."

    I think their back-up plan in the case if Rudy was ever matched and found, would be to deny deny deny. That who would believe some Black man over them? But I think this was only their back-up plan in case Rudy was matched and caught, which I don't think they actually thought that they would be able to match the DNA with Rudy.

    The idea of the burglar is what they wanted to be believed.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    SWO :)
    Posts
    4,566
    linda: That's odd. Iirc one of her attorneys was on tv right before the verdict and seemed upset she wasn't going. I seem to recall him saying something about an empty chair is never good for a defendant.
    I'm not sure if he was one of her current lawyers or what. I do know he spoke English with no accent. I'm assuming he was American.
    i thought both her attorneys were/are italian males -- ghirga and della vedova?

    is there a third?

    i know knox made a remark about an "empty chair"...


    aa9511: But you were using that photo to illustrate how the knife supposedly doesn't line up with the outline of the imprint. And I said that, to me, it looks like they are holding a representation of the knife up from the outline about 2-3 inches, and it looks like the shadow from the knife is actually what they are trying to match with the imprint.
    it's unfortunate you can't see what many see... lets remember that even mignini said they don't match. how about this?




    Footwarrior: The knife from Raffelle's kitchen deist fit the wounds in the victim. Nor does it fit the bloody outline left on Meredith's bed. But if with a big hammer, you can force a square peg into a round hole and your loyal supporters can be counted on to applaud it as a perfect fit.

    Interesting how the analysis of a subject matter expert is dismissed because he dares to suggest Amanda is innocent.

    Yet in this same discussion tabloid psychological analysis and pseudo science are accepted at face value.
    *** THIS POST IS JMO (unless a link is provided) AND IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    If she was afraid of being alone (as she said, because of the murder) she could easily have gone to a cafe or public place and waited while RS was at the police station.
    That is an excellent, excellent point.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias


  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    SWO :)
    Posts
    4,566
    Myvice: I'm sorry, I really am not trying to be snarky. I just have a herd time with the saying "unbiased TV station" in this case. You said the same yourself a few posts back I think.
    i said what?

    a tv station in italy investigating the evidence is biased? in what way? or am i misunderstanding?

    TG5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by KateB; 05-22-2015 at 11:46 PM. Reason: repair url tag.
    *** THIS POST IS JMO (unless a link is provided) AND IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
    i thought both her attorneys were/are italian males -- ghirga and della vedova?

    is there a third?

    i know knox made a remark about an "empty chair"...




    it's unfortunate you can't see what many see... lets remember that even mignini said they don't match. how about this?





    I am not doing this to be stubborn, Redhead, but I honestly think that that imprint is just too vague for us to be able to tell anything from it. In the picture you just posted, you see that there is a big red splotch and some red splotches to the outside upper left of your knife outline, which could also be the outline for a bigger knife. I don't think that that imprint proves conclusively that RS butcher knife is not a knife used in the murder. I'm sorry, again I am not trying to be stubborn or just to "argue", just being honest.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,337
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    We better talk fast then.......



    Yes, we better

    Fixing up some

    I just skimmed this thread ... and have lots to say before time runs out ...

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post


    Yes, we better

    Fixing up some

    I just skimmed this thread ... and have lots to say before time runs out ...

    LOL!!!
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    SWO :)
    Posts
    4,566
    otto: Of course they were. When a crime scene is sealed, the public is excluded, but obviously police and investigators access the crime scene. That's their job.
    ok, i see your point (if it was truly sealed), but imo, it's an absolute certainty that contamination occurred anyway b/c meredith's belongings were thrown all about in her room (there are photos of her things in random messy piles) and into the hallway as the scene was investigated. as well, wasn't there at least one other break in at the cottage that december? one cannot claim a "sealed crime scene" if this happened... ?
    *** THIS POST IS JMO (unless a link is provided) AND IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***

Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1131
    Last Post: 02-04-2014, 12:44 PM
  2. Replies: 1062
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 07:15 PM
  3. Replies: 1064
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:29 AM
  4. Replies: 984
    Last Post: 12-02-2013, 08:40 AM
  5. Replies: 1011
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:34 AM

Tags for this Thread