WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Rudy wandered down the hall thinking to score with Meredith, and she protested, it would seem an extreme thing to me to begin threatening her with a knife. And that would then be Rudy's responsibility. Would not really be Amanda and Raffaele in trouble, but Rudy. To join in at that point would be a huge and sudden escalation. I have always had more of an intuition that possibly Amanda and Raffaele had suggested to Rudy that he go rob Meredith because no one was home (I recall Rudy had been saying he needed rent money). They may have just been talking; maybe feeling annoyed with M. Then went to check on things later that night, saw what had occurred, and felt that to call the police now would only bring to light that they had opened the door to all. In reality, if such occurred, far better to come clean and let all point to the actual perpetrator. But imagine trying to explain to authorities and parents that you had suggested to this casual drug acquaintance Rudy that he go in there? And they may have imagined a caught Rudy saying, "Well it began when A and R told me I should go in, because the cottage would be empty." Of course, we don't know that any of this happened. It is only a nagging intuition. That scenario is as far as my mind goes when I try to picture that maybe AK and RS are not completely innocent or ignorant in all of this. I can never see the 3 of them attacking Meredith as real - unless they really were in a horrid, horrid fight with M, and M had been harsh and nasty and cruel and had gotten them enraged. But that does not sound like M, from all accounts I have heard.
Just afterthoughts: The reason I cannot see any of it as premeditated, is that if you are going to have a sex game and use knives, you will still have to see the person the next day, and then what? Amanda lived with Meredith, after all. Plus, this crime seemed disorganized: there was no attempt to dispose of the body. If they had, Meredith might have been like thousands of girls who "go missing" and are never found. Also, if they wanted to make this seem a random breakin by a stranger, they would have flushed the toilet, since they seemingly had a connection with Rudy. The more one tries to puzzle this out, the less it makes sense...:waitasec:
 
:waitasec:In a sense though, all of the above ruminating annoys me, as there is no real evidence to suggest any of this occurred. Otto, don't you believe that skeptical intellectuals of forums such as JREF must at least have some reasonable causes for feeling that solid evidence of a 3 on 1 is really sorely lacking??? One post from that forum which they do allow you to link to, echoes my own belief about Amanda's "confession", and the more you think on it, the more it appears that LE in Perugia had tunnel vision and jumped to conclusions: Knox had been traumatized by the murder at the cottage, was having nightmares, which is typical in trauma, so they convinced her, as Amanda later says, "that my dreams are real".

But what I am suggesting is that the interrogating police had made the connection between the timing of the text from Knox to Lumumba, the content of that text (which they mistakenly interpreted to mean that Knox had arranged to meet Lumumba), and the fact that Knox was insisting that she'd been with Lumumba inside his apartment all night on 01/02 NOV 2007.

I'm suggesting that the interrogating police might therefore have concluded that Knox was lying when she said she'd been with Sollecito in his apartment all night.

I'm then suggesting that the police came to the conclusion that the only explanation for Knox lying was that she was involved in the murder, and that the meeting with Lumumba was an integral part of the crime.

And then I'm suggesting that the police might have put it to Knox that she was lying, and that they had evidence that she'd met Lumumba (or "the person to whom you sent this text message") and perhaps they told her that they had other evidence firmly connecting her to the murder scene.

I'm then suggesting that the police "suggested" to Knox that she was suppressing her menory of these horrific events, and that if she tried harder, she'd remember what "actually happened". The interpreter (Anna Donnino) gave evidence in court that she told Knox that once she'd broken her ankle, and that the trauma of the accident had caused her to forget the actual moment of the fall. This conversation would have made no sense unless the police were suggesting to Knox that she needed to remember the "truth".


I have no idea whether all this is what actually happened. It's just what I think might have happened, and I think it's a credible explanation as to why Knox suddenly placed herself at the murder scene and accused Lumumba.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6893207#post6893207
 
OMG when I was about 26 living in Portland, OR, I met a guy from Lyon, France who was there on a temporary work visa. We had nothing in common but the love of laughter and fantastic sexual chemistry. Who cared that I could not speak French? We were obsessed with each other and inseperable. It certainly is not uncommon for a girl to fall madly in love with a sensitive guy with a sexy accent.

There is no evidence that Amanda was a hard core drug abuser...sheesh she smoked some pot. BFD. Even if they had taken something to enhance their sex lives (which you don't really need to do when there is intense infatuation and sexual attraction and the relationship is brand new) it's not the type of drug that makes one want to hurt someone to have sex. Otto...do you know anyone who rolls or have you ever? That is THEE drug to take for sexual enhancement and it's not likely to increase violence.

BTW, after separating for 20 years, the Frenchman found me on Google and called me up at my business four years ago...the minute I heard his voice I knew it was him. We are now facebook friends and he's getting married! We will never forget each other. It's a shame that AK and RS had to have their romantic fling tarnished.

I really can't even go much further in this case because the prosecutor's scenario is so outlandish and unbelievable. That is where the doubt begins and ends.
 
OMG when I was about 26 living in Portland, OR, I met a guy from Lyon, France who was there on a temporary work visa. We had nothing in common but the love of laughter and fantastic sexual chemistry. Who cared that I could not speak French? We were obsessed with each other and inseperable. It certainly is not uncommon for a girl to fall madly in love with a sensitive guy with a sexy accent.

There is no evidence that Amanda was a hard core drug abuser...sheesh she smoked some pot. BFD. Even if they had taken something to enhance their sex lives (which you don't really need to do when there is intense infatuation and sexual attraction and the relationship is brand new) it's not the type of drug that makes one want to hurt someone to have sex. Otto...do you know anyone who rolls or have you ever? That is THEE drug to take for sexual enhancement and it's not likely to increase violence.

BTW, after separating for 20 years, the Frenchman found me on Google and called me up at my business four years ago...the minute I heard his voice I knew it was him. We are now facebook friends and he's getting married! We will never forget each other. It's a shame that AK and RS had to have their romantic fling tarnished.

I really can't even go much further in this case because the prosecutor's scenario is so outlandish and unbelievable.
That is where the doubt begins and ends.
thanks for this great post.....what memories! And your post, in addition to the fact that I was reading Waterbury's analysis today, has made me feel so ill that this whole Knox affair has even occurred. Do you yourself have hope that the conviction will be overturned?
 
Sadly I don't have hope. I've followed a lot of cases and when the fixation occurs and the police start using their evidence to "fit" their theory instead of truly following the evidence, they actually are so committed to their theory, no matter how crazy and impossible it seems and no matter how little hard evidence there is. that their zeal seems to make them credible - and then there is the "police can't be wrong" feeling that most people have and "the person would not have been arrested if they weren't guilty" etc. Throw in some Barry Bond's size egos and the need to be right, along with a system that abhors the "re-trial" of any facts and give deference to the prosecutors, and you have a recipe for injustice. The Titanic turns ever so slowly and the damage is already done.

I must add that for the knife to have ended up as the murder weapon, one of them would have had to taken it (Amanda the villian of course) across town with the INTENT at that time to use it to kill someone. There were knives in AK and Meredith's house already. The intent had to be formed prior to leaving RS's- this does not fit.

An infatuated girl is so not going to leave her sexy man to engage in something like that - Amanda seemed to just be content to have RS all to herself and immerse herself in her euphoric euro-adventure. I don't find it at all disgusting that they were constantly practically entwined - it's a very rich and exhilerating feeling to have that little snapshot of an experience with someone made even more romantic and surreal knowing that you will eventually have to say goodbye and go home to your home country.

I just read an update in the Seattle paper online - I hope I am pleasantly surprised.
 
Sadly I don't have hope. I've followed a lot of cases and when the fixation occurs and the police start using their evidence to "fit" their theory instead of truly following the evidence, they actually are so committed to their theory, no matter how crazy and impossible it seems and no matter how little hard evidence there is. that their zeal seems to make them credible - and then there is the "police can't be wrong" feeling that most people have and "the person would not have been arrested if they weren't guilty" etc. Throw in some Barry Bond's size egos and the need to be right, along with a system that abhors the "re-trial" of any facts and give deference to the prosecutors, and you have a recipe for injustice. The Titanic turns ever so slowly and the damage is already done.

I must add that for the knife to have ended up as the murder weapon, one of them would have had to taken it (Amanda the villian of course) across town with the INTENT at that time to use it to kill someone. There were knives in AK and Meredith's house already. The intent had to be formed prior to leaving RS's- this does not fit.

An infatuated girl is so not going to leave her sexy man to engage in something like that - Amanda seemed to just be content to have RS all to herself and immerse herself in her euphoric euro-adventure. I don't find it at all disgusting that they were constantly practically entwined - it's a very rich and exhilerating feeling to have that little snapshot of an experience with someone made even more romantic and surreal knowing that you will eventually have to say goodbye and go home to your home country.
Oh, I agree, I thought they looked sweet holding eachother. But I am afraid I must agree with you about the idea that people have gone the route of "the police can't be wrong" and "you don't get arrested unless...." (i.e., "where there's smoke, there's fire")---this is really upsetting, the thought that if the convictions are upheld, many people will be gloating, even though still horribly, horribly in the wrong. I keep thinking there must be something that can be done....:(
 
Actually, when I read the references I posted, I think all but the a couple mention the leak without mentioning dinner. The courts clearly conclude that dinner was before the leak.

I gave the page references so you are most welcome to read the context ... a context that clearly places the leak after doing the dinner dishes. Here's the document: http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

I know that you don't want to believe this, and have said that you don't put much faith in the Judge's summary ... but that is not a reason to conclude that I am making things up. I am stating documented facts and referencing them. That you do not want to accept or believe those documented, referenced facts is not a reflection of my accuracy, but an indication of your skepticism.

Apparently I wasn't clear, otto. I apologize. I was AGREEING that you had proved your point.
 
Dempsey carefully documents the conversations that Amanda initiated with Meredith, and also with Laura and Filomina, about whether she was cheating on DJ. She raised the issue after she was seeing Raffaele (and another guy while she was seeing Raffaele), saying that she felt guilty because of DJ. DJ, on the other hand, said they'd split up. Amanda agreed and knew this ... so why did she repeatedly raise the issue about monogamy in relationships. Meredith did not judge, but was in favor of monogamy ... something that Amanda tried to justify breaking (with reference to DJ). That strikes me as weird. Amanda knew perfectly well that she and DJ were not an item, so why did she talk about feeling guilty with DJ and cheating on her non-boyfriend?

Thinking out loud ...

Meredith disagreed with Amanda's loose and carefree attitude towards men. Amanda was quite comfortable lying to police and accusing an innocent man of murder. She's a bold woman. After scoring hard drugs in the square with Rudy, and the three of them getting loaded while Meredith is settling in for the night ... how do we know that Amanda didn't think it would be a good drugged up idea for Rudy to think that Meredith had the hots for him? How do we know that Rudy didn't wander down the hall to Meredith's bedroom, thinking he would get lucky, while Amanda and Raffaele listened or even snickered in the kitchen. Perhaps, when things went wrong, Amanda and Raffaele went to the bedroom and realized that things were already out of hand with Meredith ... that is, she was not going to let this go.

I don't like Amanda because she is not a very nice person. She's a liar. I don't like people like that ... I find them to be a waste of time and mental energy. She put an innocent man in jail and then remained silent for two weeks, at which time he was freed without a word from her. That makes her a liar of the worst kind. I also don't like her because she takes advantage of people, as we saw with her uncle in Berlin. I see her as an opportunist who thinks she's smarter than everyone else, someone that will exploit people if it suits her.

According to Dempsey, other than ordering pizza, Amanda couldn't speak Italian. Raffaele couldn't speak English.

"How do we know she didn't..." are problematic words when used with reference to someone convicted of murder.

If AK felt guilt about "cheating on an ex-boyfriend," doesn't that indicate a heightened moral sensibility? (Actually, it's probably just a matter of habit and sentimentality, but I'm curious as to your point.)

Despite AK's faults (and Lord knows they've been gone over with a fine-tooth comb since the murder), I just don't see her thinking that MK would be receptive to advances from RG. "Come to my house and we'll do drugs," maybe. "Sure, you can use my bathroom," perhaps. But "Come put the moves on my roommate?" I just don't see it. And I don't see scrubbing the apartment to cover for a relative stranger, not unless one is very, very, VERY involved in the murder.

But assuming that's what happened, I don't understand why neither AK nor RS have ever said so, not even when they were bowing to pressure and saying whatever they thought would get them out of the interrogation room. Even assuming ILE doesn't plea bargain as American cops and DAs do, it's still very odd neither kid ever gave up RG in an attempt to curry favor with ILE or the Court.

As for Dempsey, which language test did she administer to AK? I'm guessing none. I know from personal experience with Spanish that I can communicate and understand far more speaking one-on-one slowly than I can with a group or under pressure. Maybe AK and RS didn't discuss Kierkegaard, but that doesn't mean they didn't communicate at all.

But what's oddest is that those who insist AK spoke NO Italian will also insist that she was somehow able to enter into a conspiracy with two men who spoke NO English!
 
You are right. The report deduces that dinner occurred prior to the leak.

8:42, Raffaele told his father that the pipe was leaking.
Amanda told police that they ate dinner and the leak occurred while doing dinner dishes.
Deductively, those two pieces of information mean that they had dinner before 8:42.

Yes, they do. It was AK's testimony I didn't know about, so the Court's logic seemed a leap. I appreciate the clarification.
 
Sadly I don't have hope....

I don't have much either, but I think what hope there is lies in the fact that the first appeal in Italy seems to be something very different than an appeal here in the States.

Some posters here and elsewhere claim reversals are more common in Italy, but I haven't seen any hard figures.
 
I don't have much either, but I think what hope there is lies in the fact that the first appeal in Italy seems to be something very different than an appeal here in the States.

Some posters here and elsewhere claim reversals are more common in Italy, but I haven't seen any hard figures.
Very true. Problem is, this case has garnered so much attention in Europe and US,(even if some argue it is "just internet and media"--well, that DOES constitute public attention these days!) it makes me feel there is too much at stake to completely overturn conviction. Would this not amount to saying that they had been wrong all along about Knox and Sollecito? Plus as the Kercher family has trusted the ruling, they would experience it as Meredith's killers walking free---If they overturn, Knox's and Sollecito's might bring lawsuits against Mignini, etc - - at least, this is the fear. I truly believed they were guilty until I began to read, and am almost sorry I did if it will just end badly. :(
 
I guess its going on right now, as they are on Pacific time (I am on New York Eastern ST): I wonder what is the goal of this:
Seattle U Forum to Make Case For Amanda Knox's Innocence
While Amanda Knox's appeals case plods onward in Italy, a Seattle University student group has organized a panel discussion and Q&A on the West Seattle woman's conviction for the murder of her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in Perugia Italy in 2007.
The title of the event, Amanda Knox: The Case for Innocence, should give you an idea of the stance these panelists take on Knox's incarceration. The forum will be held on Monday, April 4 at Pigott Auditorium on the Seattle U campus. It's free and open to the public.

The panel includes some names that should be familiar to anyone following Knox's case, including Dr. Mark Waturbury, author of The Monster of Perugia, and local author Candace Dempsey who has also written a book on Knox's arrest, trial and conviction. Also participating are Paul Ciolino who has discussed Knox on the CBS show "48 Hours" and Steve Moore, the retired FBI agent who has spoken out about Knox's case.

The moderator will be Thomas Wright of the group Friends of Amanda Knox.

The event is sponsored by the university's BA Film Studies program.

April 4, 4-5:30 p.m. // Pigott Auditorium // FREE
http://seattlest.com/2011/03/29/seattle_u_forum_to_make_case_for_am.php
 
Sadly I don't have hope. I've followed a lot of cases and when the fixation occurs and the police start using their evidence to "fit" their theory instead of truly following the evidence, they actually are so committed to their theory, no matter how crazy and impossible it seems and no matter how little hard evidence there is. that their zeal seems to make them credible - and then there is the "police can't be wrong" feeling that most people have and "the person would not have been arrested if they weren't guilty" etc. Throw in some Barry Bond's size egos and the need to be right, along with a system that abhors the "re-trial" of any facts and give deference to the prosecutors, and you have a recipe for injustice. The Titanic turns ever so slowly and the damage is already done.

I must add that for the knife to have ended up as the murder weapon, one of them would have had to taken it (Amanda the villian of course) across town with the INTENT at that time to use it to kill someone. There were knives in AK and Meredith's house already. The intent had to be formed prior to leaving RS's- this does not fit.

An infatuated girl is so not going to leave her sexy man to engage in something like that - Amanda seemed to just be content to have RS all to herself and immerse herself in her euphoric euro-adventure. I don't find it at all disgusting that they were constantly practically entwined - it's a very rich and exhilerating feeling to have that little snapshot of an experience with someone made even more romantic and surreal knowing that you will eventually have to say goodbye and go home to your home country.

I just read an update in the Seattle paper online - I hope I am pleasantly surprised.
BBM. Not exactly cross town. Her boyfriend was only a few minutes (walking distance) away.
 
I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

Perfect time to say... WHY NOT have a problem?

Tactics can be turned around, that is why I find it so interesting seeing other post by some here and their points of view in other cases. Amazing some of the time.

*OT, but related in a way.

In Joran's 'case' for instance the exact same arguments that are used here could apply. No witnesses, 'false' confession, forced confession, changing stories and behavior used against him regarding guilt, rumors/stories of past behavior used against him regarding guilt, somebody else did it... it's just ALL THESE COINCIDENCES :innocent: . He is just a young boy in a foreign land, he didn't have an interpretor and admitted something he didn't really do. It's was a mistake because he couldn't understand the questions. They were yelling at him to confess so he did. He wouldn't hurt a fly, and his odd and annoying behaviors are just Joran being Joran. Anything he admitted on video is because he was deprived of food, drink and bathroom. When he said he didn't do it they did not tape it, or destroyed/hid those videos.
The police are lying to protect their image... and the prosecutors are all crooked and controled by the 'system' of guilt. The collection of the evidence at the crime scene was not appropriate for the US, and probably contaminated or planted. Any evidence of him in the room is because he lived there and not related to the murder. He was not there when the murder took place... but he can't remember what he was doing. Heck, he went to get her some coffee... why would he kill her? Someone else did it, any evidence that he might have is just another coincidence. His parent says he is a good boy and wouldn't murder anybody, much less two people.

CM didn't have anything to do with the Tate murders... he wasn't there.
The witnesses are mistaken or lying regarding testimony. The 'girls' false confessed about the murders due to police intimidation... we know this because there is no videos of the interrogations. Their strange behaviors and ways of life were used against them regarding guilt. No evidence of CM at the crime scene. He couldn't make others do these unbelievable and terrible things, he is just a small homeless man. Previous bad behavior and criminal background were used against him... every bit of evidence is circumstancial. He was living and having a happy life in the desert community, why would he want to murder anybody? They decided to murder those people on their own. Anything showing or someone saying that he might have is mistaken, misled or outright lying. Evidence showing he 'might' have given them weapons, the car or directions is just another one of those pesky circumstancial coincidences.
He was railroaded. The crooked system had to find someone responsible for this gruesome high profile murders... so everyone in the justice system either contaminated, lied, ignored, were mistaken, were misled, worked around, or were just plain wrong regarding his guilt. Even though he is in jail for committing this murder... he says he is innocent.

How about Scott Peterson... these tactics should have got him off too? No direct evidence, all circumstancial. Lying, bad behavior, cheat, and alot of circumstancial evidence put him away. A hair in a boat, Lacy could have been in the boat at some point. He was a sorry husband and person... so what, didn't mean he murdered anybody. No witnesses, no dna regarding murder, cleaning products were around kitchen because Scott liked to clean or Lacy was doing it while pregnant. A serial cheater but still loved his wife and was excited about the upcoming baby... and change of lifestyle. Only his wife and baby washed up at the precise area he was fishing at... surely just another COINCIDENCE right? Everyone wanted someone to pay for this terrible tragedy so he was the most likely suspect. The prosecutor and the Judges had it out for him, and they convinced the jury to convict. The defence did everything they could to debate the evidence, but the jury was blind, misled and given false information. The Judges at trial and appeals all just 'went with the flow' because they did not want to disrupt the system. His family says he is a super good guy and wouldn't murder his wife and child. He hasn't ever shown violence in the past, why would he start? Poor unlucky, misunderstood fellow... right?

How about OJ, that seems more the direction of the AK group argument? Did he get off on a technicality? Should he have? Was there contamination or mishandling of evidence... sure everyone can make a mistake but does that mean he didn't do it? Can all of his evidence of blood and mixed dna be explained/excused away? Yes. Was alot of the evidence circumstancial and past behavior looked at? Yes

Any of that kind of excuses and twisting seen here??? They didn't even have a PR firm behind their 'cause'. Would they have gotten off if they had? Are there people that believe/hope they are innocent, sure but it doesn't mean they are right.

Based on the evidence both circumstancial and direct AK and RS have been found guilty of being co-responsible and contributing to the murder of Meredith. They have been held since day 1 of their changing story and accusation of that night... IMO the many Judges that have looked over the evidence SINCE that point saw a reason(s) to do so and take them to trial. Since RG's case has already reached it's end by the confirmation of the Supreme Court, it doesn't bode well for the AK/RS defense at appeals IMO.
 
Perfect time to say... WHY NOT have a problem?

Tactics can be turned around, that is why I find it so interesting seeing other post by some here and their points of view in other cases. Amazing some of the time.

*OT, but related in a way.

In Joran's 'case' for instance the exact same arguments that are used here could apply. No witnesses, 'false' confession, forced confession, changing stories and behavior used against him regarding guilt, rumors/stories of past behavior used against him regarding guilt, somebody else did it... it's just ALL THESE COINCIDENCES :innocent: . He is just a young boy in a foreign land, he didn't have an interpretor and admitted something he didn't really do. It's was a mistake because he couldn't understand the questions. They were yelling at him to confess so he did. He wouldn't hurt a fly, and his odd and annoying behaviors are just Joran being Joran. Anything he admitted on video is because he was deprived of food, drink and bathroom. When he said he didn't do it they did not tape it, or destroyed/hid those videos.
The police are lying to protect their image... and the prosecutors are all crooked and controled by the 'system' of guilt. The collection of the evidence at the crime scene was not appropriate for the US, and probably contaminated or planted. Any evidence of him in the room is because he lived there and not related to the murder. He was not there when the murder took place... but he can't remember what he was doing. Heck, he went to get her some coffee... why would he kill her? Someone else did it, any evidence that he might have is just another coincidence. His parent says he is a good boy and wouldn't murder anybody, much less two people.

CM didn't have anything to do with the Tate murders... he wasn't there.
The witnesses are mistaken or lying regarding testimony. The 'girls' false confessed about the murders due to police intimidation... we know this because there is no videos of the interrogations. Their strange behaviors and ways of life were used against them regarding guilt. No evidence of CM at the crime scene. He couldn't make others do these unbelievable and terrible things, he is just a small homeless man. Previous bad behavior and criminal background were used against him... every bit of evidence is circumstancial. He was living and having a happy life in the desert community, why would he want to murder anybody? They decided to murder those people on their own. Anything showing or someone saying that he might have is mistaken, misled or outright lying. Evidence showing he 'might' have given them weapons, the car or directions is just another one of those pesky circumstancial coincidences.
He was railroaded. The crooked system had to find someone responsible for this gruesome high profile murders... so everyone in the justice system either contaminated, lied, ignored, were mistaken, were misled, worked around, or were just plain wrong regarding his guilt. Even though he is in jail for committing this murder... he says he is innocent.

How about Scott Peterson... these tactics should have got him off too? No direct evidence, all circumstancial. Lying, bad behavior, cheat, and alot of circumstancial evidence put him away. A hair in a boat, Lacy could have been in the boat at some point. He was a sorry husband and person... so what, didn't mean he murdered anybody. No witnesses, no dna regarding murder, cleaning products were around kitchen because Scott liked to clean or Lacy was doing it while pregnant. A serial cheater but still loved his wife and was excited about the upcoming baby... and change of lifestyle. Only his wife and baby washed up at the precise area he was fishing at... surely just another COINCIDENCE right? Everyone wanted someone to pay for this terrible tragedy so he was the most likely suspect. The prosecutor and the Judges had it out for him, and they convinced the jury to convict. The defence did everything they could to debate the evidence, but the jury was blind, misled and given false information. The Judges at trial and appeals all just 'went with the flow' because they did not want to disrupt the system. His family says he is a super good guy and wouldn't murder his wife and child. He hasn't ever shown violence in the past, why would he start? Poor unlucky, misunderstood fellow... right?

How about OJ, that seems more the direction of the AK group argument? Did he get off on a technicality? Should he have? Was there contamination or mishandling of evidence... sure everyone can make a mistake but does that mean he didn't do it? Can all of his evidence of blood and mixed dna be explained/excused away? Yes. Was alot of the evidence circumstancial and past behavior looked at? Yes

Any of that kind of excuses and twisting seen here??? They didn't even have a PR firm behind their 'cause'. Would they have gotten off if they had? Are there people that believe/hope they are innocent, sure but it doesn't mean they are right.

Based on the evidence both circumstancial and direct AK and RS have been found guilty of being co-responsible and contributing to the murder of Meredith. They have been held since day 1 of their changing story and accusation of that night... IMO the many Judges that have looked over the evidence SINCE that point saw a reason(s) to do so and take them to trial. Since RG's case has already reached it's end by the confirmation of the Supreme Court, it doesn't bode well for the AK/RS defense at appeals IMO.
So it's basically a done deal, not really up for debate, nothing to sleuth, appeals process a formality merely, and all the various and sundry people of high intelligence who are crying 'foul' are deluded. :silenced:
 
Manson: True, he was not there. I will grant him that much.
Peterson and OJ: If not them, then, who???? With AK and RS, the answer is Guede. :(
 
Manson: True, he was not there. I will grant him that much.
Peterson and OJ: If not them, then, who???? With AK and RS, the answer is Guede. :(
Are you sure that that is "the answer"?

According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.
 
Are you sure that that is "the answer"?

According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.


I am not certain who did this crime, however, I am having a hard time believing it was AK. It just doesn't make sense to me.

JMO/MOO & all that stuff!!:twocents:
 
Are you sure that that is "the answer"?

According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.
From all I have read - and at this point I really regret reading so much on this case - I am satisfied with Guede's guilt but not with AK and RS's. And not for any personal or prejudiced reasons, either, but because of the evidence and his history as a brazen police-informer and burglar.
 
Manson: True, he was not there. I will grant him that much.
Peterson and OJ: If not them, then, who???? With AK and RS, the answer is Guede. :(

Thank you, SMK. dgfred put in a lot of work comparing not just apples to oranges, but to pears, peaches and mangos.

But as you note, with the exception of Manson, none of the cases fred cites have an actual perp such as RG, whose presence and participation are undeniable.

As for the Tate/LoBianco murders and despite Mignini's wild theories, Amanda Knox is no Charles Manson. Prosecutor Bugliosi spent months in court demonstrating the hold Manson had over his followers; there is no equivalent evidence for Knox, except that she allegedly moved her hips suggestively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
2,444
Total visitors
2,633

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,662
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top