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

[Nova]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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 don't understand the reference to RG's friend and brother. Would you like to explain them to me?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by Nova

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.

Well said.

[SMK]

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

right, this, because the original and reasonable idea that Rudy Guede was doing one of his B&Es and it turned deadly---had been rejected on some very odd evidence.

[SMK]

Amanda Knox Panel - The Case for Innocence- April 4, 2011 University of WA at Seattle -Pigott Auditorium

Amanda Knox Panel - The Case for Innocence- April 4, 2011 University of WA at Seattle -Pigott Auditorium

[sherlockh]

Originally Posted by Nova

I don't understand the reference to RG's friend and brother. Would you like to explain them to me?

In reference to the only alternative to AK+RS being RG by himself as the killer. It is the defense teams themselves that came up with these witnesses that claim alternatives to the RG scenario.

[sherlockh]

Originally Posted by SMK

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

right, this, because the original and reasonable idea that Rudy Guede was doing one of his B&Es and it turned deadly---had been rejected on some very odd evidence.

No proof of breaking an entrance, no proof of smashing any windows, no proof of carrying knives (except from the school kitchen to the school office..lol..). Just internet gossips IMO. No matter who you think is responsible for the murder it is still an unbelievable scenario to me.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

No proof of breaking an entrance, no proof of smashing any windows, no proof of carrying knives (except from the school kitchen to the school office..lol..). Just internet gossips IMO. No matter who you think is responsible for the murder it is still an unbelievable scenario to me.

Well, if someone like Mark Waterbury as well as Ron Hendry and others are stating Guede's history of burglary as fact, why is it not being disputed, or why is it not stopped? Each is speaking as "a kind of authority" - forensic engineer, PhD. in the hard sciences, former FBI agent ; including a journalist who reports in a British news paper that Guede has committed 6 serious crimes in 33 days - on the case and one would think they would be truly raked over the coals for this sort of thing:


Rudy Guede was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher. His sentence was reduced to 16 years on appeal.

Rudy Guede was a drug dealer that was well known by the police. He had also been arrested for theft. It was reported that he had a knife in his possession at the time of his arrest. He became a suspect in the Meredith Kercher murder after his bloody fingerprint was discovered at the crime scene. Rudy's finger prints were on file from a previous arrest in Milan.

The owner of a Milan nursery school testified in court that Rudy Guede had broken into her school and stolen a big kitchen knife. Nursery school owner Maria del Prato testified that she had stopped by her school Saturday Oct. 27, when it was closed, and came upon Guede in her office.

"I asked him who he was," she told the court, "and he replied perfectly calmly, even though I had caught him red-handed." Del Prato said he told her he was "a kid from Perugia" who had arrived the night before and had nowhere to sleep.

Del Prato doubted his story, as her locker had been opened, and she said she believed Rudy was looking for something to steal. Some small change was missing, and Del Prato noticed Rudy had a laptop, but he told her it was his.
When police arrived at the school, they searched Rudy's backpack and found a large knife with a 16-inch blade that had been taken from the school kitchen.

Rudy was later booked at a Milan police station and accused of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon. He was also fingerprinted and then released. It was this arrest that put his finger prints on file allowing the police to identify him.

When police tried to contact Guede they discovered he had fled to Germany after the murder. He was stopped in Germany trying to board a train without a ticket and was immediately extradited back to Italy. Guede was confronted with overwhelming DNA evidence that put him at the crime scene at the time if the murder. He admitted to being at the house.http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Rudy.html

OR: Rudy Guede, whom the overwhelming evidence points to as the murderer of Meredith Kercher, was a police informant.

In an article in the British newspaper The Daily Express, Bob Graham reveals the stunning news that Rudy Guede committed an entire series of crimes in the month before the murder of Meredith Kercher, crimes that were deliberately ignored by Italian authorities.

“It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing.

But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer.”

It is a well known fact that police often overlook crimes committed by informants, and it is a well known fact that one of the marks of an informant is that they can get away with crimes. From the Wikipedia entry on informants:

“Quite frequently, confidential informants (or criminal informants) will provide information in order to obtain lenient treatment for themselves and provide information, over an extended period of time, in return for money or for police to overlook their own criminal activities. Quite often someone will become an informant following their arrest.”

This information, in addition to previously revealed information (Wikipedia) about Rudy’s breaking and entering activity shows that Rudy Guede, the murderer of Meredith Kercher, in all probability worked for and was protected by someone in Perugia. All of this provides powerful evidence that Rudy was an informant. We don’t yet know what Rudy informed about. We don’t yet know exactly who he informed for, but the evidence points to Perugia. That is where he lived. That is where he committed most of his crimes while under protectionhttp://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury-7.html

[SMK]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

In reference to the only alternative to AK+RS being RG by himself as the killer. It is the defense teams themselves that came up with these witnesses that claim alternatives to the RG scenario.

What choice did they have, seeing as Guede as lone wolf was being dismissed out of hand?

[dgfred]

Originally Posted by Nova

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.

Interesting you see it that way. I see the same weak arguments regarding the participation of AK and RS in Meredith's murder being used by the group of AK supporters both here and in the media.

Could the same arguments used regarding AK/RS innocence be used in defending Joran? Why do you not question his guilt as you do for AK and RS?
Why are there not post questioning every single piece of evidence collected by the Puruvian authorities? Why is the media not chastised for tarnishing his reputation from previous bad/questionable behavior? Isn't he being found guilty in the press without a proper trial? Could his video confessions be the result of no food, drink or bathroom? Could they be the result of not understanding the language? Could they be from police intimidation? Was he coerced into making these statements because he is young and vulnerable?

S.Peterson was convicted to death on far less circumstancial evidence than in AK/RS convictions. Why do you not question his guilty verdict? Is his 'participation undeniable' as you claim for RG??? Why is the prosecution not questioned about the small amount of evidence? Was the press 'fair' in their interpretation of his lying/stories/actions/behavior?

In the case of CM, why is he convicted for something someone else did? Where is the 'evidence' regarding his involvement. Could it just be police intimidation and coercion of witnesses and suspects that caused his conviction? Could it be that the prosecution had it out for him because of pressure to find the killers? Why is that not argued to infinite? Why is the media not blamed for finding him guilty, since it was so high profile? The 'months' prosecutor Bugliosi spent showing the 'hold' Manson had over his 'followers' can be basically put down as a 'theory' of the State... without any hard evidence. Did the media tarnish his reputation before trial? Was the media 'fair' regarding the way it caused the public (and potential jurors) to view him?

*Not so far off in tactics comparison to what is used here on a regular basis.
I look forward to see some of you arguing for Joran's innocence... and to get S.Peterson and C.Manson out of jail because of their 'wrongful convictions.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by dgfred

. . .
*Not so far off in tactics comparison to what is used here on a regular basis.
I look forward to see some of you arguing for Joran's innocence... and to get S.Peterson and C.Manson out of jail because of their 'wrongful convictions.

Surely you jest in your last sentence? C Manson and S Peterson convictions are in no way counter-intuitive. AK and RS are indeed counter-intuitive. Don't you think I have better things to do than argue for innocence just to get my kicks?

[sherlockh]

Originally Posted by SMK

What choice did they have, seeing as Guede as lone wolf was being dismissed out of hand?

You mean proven to be false? I am just teasing you but these witnesses do seem like rather desperate attempts by the defense. I don't think that is going to work.

[jjenny]

Exactly. There was very little physical evidence in Scott Peterson's case, as I recall. A hair in the pliers-but we all know Scott Peterson was convicted on totality of circumstantial evidence which included his bizarre behavior after his wife went "missing."
Why is it perfectly fine to use bizarre behavior after the fact to convict someone like Scott Peterson, but apparently not when it comes to Amanda Knox?

[dgfred]

Originally Posted by SMK

Surely you jest in your last sentence? C Manson and S Peterson convictions are in no way counter-intuitive. AK and RS are indeed counter-intuitive. Don't you think I have better things to do than argue for innocence just to get my kicks?

Well,
Could the same arguments used here be used in the Manson and Peterson cases? That was the whole point.

How is the conviction of AK/RS 'counter-intuitive' if they are guilty? Why are the same parameters not used in debating this case as in those? Why are the media and prosecution blamed when they were not in those cases mentioned.

I have no idea of your reasoning to argue innocence in AK/RS case... but why not the other cases too, where there is even less evidence for guilt?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by dgfred

Well,
Could the same arguments used here be used in the Manson and Peterson cases? That was the whole point.

How is the conviction of AK/RS 'counter-intuitive' if they are guilty? Why are the same parameters not used in debating this case as in those? Why are the media and prosecution blamed when they were not in those cases mentioned.

I have no idea of your reasoning to argue innocence in AK/RS case... but why not the other cases too, where there is even less evidence for guilt?

I think because the stories made sense. A man who is bored with his wife and having an affair with another has good cause to want life insurance money, to not want to be saddled with a child, etc. Manson, was responsible in the sense that he reportedly gave the address and suggestion to his group. With the Kercher murder, Guede had motive. I fail to see any motive for AK and RS. Sex doesn't resonate for me.

[jjenny]

Well if sex doesn't resonate for you, what is Guede's motive that you think he had? As I recall Guede had no history of either rape or murder.

[otto]

There you have it ... the experts have spoken. It's all lies, like the lie that Amanda had sex with 70 men in 60 days.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/1...html?tab=video

Huh? Is that what the experts believe? No wonder they're experts ... errr ... pseudo-experts ... well ... maybe just a bunch of people making stuff up to suit their agenda.

[otto]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

No proof of breaking an entrance, no proof of smashing any windows, no proof of carrying knives (except from the school kitchen to the school office..lol..). Just internet gossips IMO. No matter who you think is responsible for the murder it is still an unbelievable scenario to me.

Check out the size of the knife blade! It's like the "I shrunk the black kid" powerpoint by Kermit ... about Rudy's shrinking footprint. Now we have the illusion that the knife was as long as a sword ... rather than 12 inches from end to end.



(same link as above)

[dgfred]

Didn't look like it was too interesting or very crowded either .

[otto]

Originally Posted by jjenny

Well if sex doesn't resonate for you, what is Guede's motive that you think he had? As I recall Guede had no history of either rape or murder.

I think the three were all drugged up at the cottage, and Amanda put him up to seeing if he could get lucky with Meredith. He fled the scene as soon as Meredith was fatally injured, distancing himself from the lovebirds. He also opted for the fast track trial option because he feared that the lovebirds would try to put it all on him.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by jjenny

Well if sex doesn't resonate for you, what is Guede's motive that you think he had? As I recall Guede had no history of either rape or murder.

No, he had a clear history of break and entry, sometimes with a knife. I am assuming he thought the place would be empty, and was surprised by Kercher's early return. Being trained in karate, she fought back. That was his motive: to get her to stop fighting.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

I think the three were all drugged up at the cottage, and Amanda put him up to seeing if he could get lucky with Meredith. He fled the scene as soon as Meredith was fatally injured, distancing himself from the lovebirds. He also opted for the fast track trial option because he feared that the lovebirds would try to put it all on him.

This sounds like fantasy to me. It just doesn't ring true for me. Would you think it if Mignini had not proposed it?

[otto]

Originally Posted by dgfred

Didn't look like it was too interesting or very crowded either .

It didn't appear to be a student crowd ... looked more like a few dozen old guys. Gotta wonder why a bunch of old guys want to hear about a woman that "had sex with 70 men in 60 days."

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

This sounds like fantasy to me. It just doesn't ring true for me. Would you think it if Mignini had not proposed it?

Knowing that Knox lied about Patrick and then left him to rot in jail for 2 weeks, yes, I believe Knox is capable of anything. She clearly has no empathy or consideration for others, and is not inclined to do the right thing regardless of the consequences to others.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

Knowing that Knox lied about Patrick and then left him to rot in jail for 2 weeks, yes, I believe Knox is capable of anything. She clearly has no empathy or consideration for others, and is not inclined to do the right thing regardless of the consequences to others.

Ditto Mignini. If Knox's actions count, so do his. They told a trauma stricken girl that her nightmares were reality. Shame on them.

[ChasingMoxie]

Go look at the poll thread. There are many people with questions about this case and the group seems split. You can pretend that the obvious answer is your own as much as you want, but that doesn't make it real for everyone else.

I like watching the discussion here; the arguments I've read and the form and intelligence with which they were presented helped to solidify my personal judgement in this case. I care much less for any name calling (either direct or implied) or general tactlessness that crops up.