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

SMK said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. To admit their full and honest involvement, he would have to admit to his own actions.

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.

SMK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/statements-of-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.

MichaelSmith said:

No, it's certainly not. It's just a lame story he came up with.

Click to expand...

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."

MichaelSmith said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

MichaelSmith said:

Filomena didn't speak good English, just basic. It's in her testimony which I uploaded here.

Click to expand...

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.

MichaelSmith said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

otto said:

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.

Click to expand...

Seven witnesses? Cite please using transcripts.

MichaelSmith said:

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/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/statements-of-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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

MichaelSmith said:

Seven witnesses? Cite please using transcripts.

Click to expand...

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

SMK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

aa9511 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

SMK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

otto said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's not in the transcripts.

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.

aa9511 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

aa9511 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

SMK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.