Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

All the news that's fit to print.

Well that's new – Knox is claiming she is innocent. Glad that's been cleared up.

More importantly somebody has finally listed the 10 Most Confusing Restaurants in Seattle &
... wait for it ......A Big Chickie (dare I ask) has opened in Hillman City !!!

All right.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well that's new – Knox is claiming she is innocent. Glad that's been cleared up.

More importantly somebody has finally listed the 10 Most Confusing Restaurants in Seattle &
... wait for it ......A Big Chickie (dare I ask) has opened in Hillman City !!!

All right.

I have a question, just a theoretical for you.
Imagine that you were convicted of a murder that you did not commit and were given a sentence of decades in prison.
How do you think you would feel?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Not necessarily. The whole thing seems quite hush.

The only reason that we know about the admissibility of Berlusconi's application is because his lawyer announced it. If Amanda's lawyers decline to do so, then I'm not sure when anything will be known.

I cannot say you are wrong. However, if Amana’s application had passed the assessment hurdle and was going to be turned into an actual ECHR case what would be the reason for keeping that under wraps?

 

[carbonjam72]

I cannot say you are wrong. However, if Amana’s application had passed the assessment hurdle and was going to be turned into an actual ECHR case what would be the reason for keeping that under wraps?

What advantage is there to announcing it? Unlike in Italy, the press and media hopefully doesn't have as much impact of the nonsequestered jurors.

Every time they raised their defenses publicly in Italy, the Italian prosecutors would just invent more lies and fabricate more evidence. Even today you can see it with Mignini giving interviews claiming Amanda is a well practiced liar, when it is he himself who is the lying psychopath who needs jail ever so desperately.

Maybe keeping things quiet works to their advantage, and they can let the Italian judiciary understand through back channels that the case has been accepted and they are being watched.

I don't know, seems like its tough to read. I would like to know though.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What advantage is there to announcing it? Unlike in Italy, the press and media hopefully doesn't have as much impact of the nonsequestered jurors.

Hypothetically speaking if the application had passed the first hurdle announcing it now would be a shot across the bow to the Italian Supreme Court hearing in March 2015. Don’t think ECHR uses a jury system.

Every time they raised their defenses publicly in Italy, the Italian prosecutors would just invent more lies and fabricate more evidence. Even today you can see it with Mignini giving interviews claiming Amanda is a well practiced liar, when it is he himself who is the lying psychopath who needs jail ever so desperately.

ECHR is independent, although there are judges from most if not all European countries; so much of what are saying above doesn’t really apply.

Maybe keeping things quiet works to their advantage, and they can let the Italian judiciary understand through back channels that the case has been accepted and they are being watched.

Exactly, if the Amanda’s application had passed the assessment hurdle what better way to send a message to the Italian judiciary.

I don't know, seems like its tough to read. I would like to know though.

Yea the silence is puzzling.

 

[platonov]

Between two stools

What advantage is there to announcing it? Unlike in Italy, the press and media hopefully doesn't have as much impact of the nonsequestered jurors.

Every time they raised their defenses publicly in Italy, the Italian prosecutors would just invent more lies and fabricate more evidence. Even today you can see it with Mignini giving interviews claiming Amanda is a well practiced liar, when it is he himself who is the lying psychopath who needs jail ever so desperately.

Maybe keeping things quiet works to their advantage, and they can let the Italian judiciary understand through back channels that the case has been accepted and they are being watched.

I don't know, seems like its tough to read. I would like to know though.

Wow.

The fact that the ECHR is composed of 'jurors' and is 'nonsequestered' is driving the media strategy or something.

Back channels indeed.

 

[Diocletus]

I cannot say you are wrong. However, if Amana’s application had passed the assessment hurdle and was going to be turned into an actual ECHR case what would be the reason for keeping that under wraps?

What would be the reason for disclosing it, and what would be the advantage to disclosing it now as opposed to some yet to be determined time of her choosing in the future?

On the other hand, the case could have been dismissed by now, too, although I think we would have heard about that from other sources.

 

[RWVBWL]

RE: All the news that's fit to print...

Well that's new – Knox is claiming she is innocent. Glad that's been cleared up.
<snip>
All right.

Hi platonov,
Question for you:
Since Rudy Guede knew Amanda and Raffaele were already in prison,
why did he not just throw them under the bus when he was asked if they did the crime?

Here's some old news, fit to print that I never knew of,
found this morning when reading on Perugia Shock, dated Oct. 21, 2008.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721...m/2008/10/assailant-was-one-and-only-one.html


Amanda's lawyer Ghirga or Dalla Vedova stated this to a court in Perugia:

'Guede as a witness is not reliable:
he excludes Amanda 5 times but in the last 2 times he sets her in the house in some way.


Now why would Rudy not simply say, from the beginning, that Amanda stabbed Meredith and Raffaele helped?

5 TIMES he denies their involvement?!?

Wonder what made him change his mind?

 

[Samson]

Hi platonov,
Question for you:
Since Rudy Guede knew Amanda and Raffaele were already in prison,
why did he not just throw them under the bus when he was asked if they did the crime?

Here's some old news, fit to print that I never knew of,
found this morning when reading on Perugia Shock, dated Oct. 21, 2008.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721...m/2008/10/assailant-was-one-and-only-one.html


Amanda's lawyer Ghirga or Dalla Vedova stated this to a court in Perugia:

'Guede as a witness is not reliable:
he excludes Amanda 5 times but in the last 2 times he sets her in the house in some way.


Now why would Rudy not simply say, from the beginning, that Amanda stabbed Meredith and Raffaele helped?

5 TIMES he denies their involvement?!?

Wonder what made him change his mind?

Fight the good fight RWVBWL.
Your question has a straight forward answer, many times told, but in simple terms,
Rudy Guede responded to known information, knowing who was at the scene of the crime, who was detained, and all the nuances flowing from that.
His IQ is well above average, IMO.

 

[NancyS]

Hi platonov,
Question for you:
Since Rudy Guede knew Amanda and Raffaele were already in prison,
why did he not just throw them under the bus when he was asked if they did the crime?

Here's some old news, fit to print that I never knew of,
found this morning when reading on Perugia Shock, dated Oct. 21, 2008.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721...m/2008/10/assailant-was-one-and-only-one.html


Amanda's lawyer Ghirga or Dalla Vedova stated this to a court in Perugia:

'Guede as a witness is not reliable:
he excludes Amanda 5 times but in the last 2 times he sets her in the house in some way.


Now why would Rudy not simply say, from the beginning, that Amanda stabbed Meredith and Raffaele helped?

5 TIMES he denies their involvement?!?

Wonder what made him change his mind?

This has always been the best evidence of innocence for me - if AK/RS had been there, Guede would have been screaming this from the beginning - and with the crazy prosecution out to get AK and referring to him as the 'also there' poor Rudy, he might even have avoided prison

 

[Samson]

This has always been the best evidence of innocence for me - if AK/RS had been there, Guede would have been screaming this from the beginning - and with the crazy prosecution out to get AK and referring to him as the 'also there' poor Rudy, he might even have avoided prison

NancyS, you are correct.
I will make this suggestion, because they could write long detailed books, and have them published, they are innocent.
This propostion is laughed at, but is total proof with a moment's reflection.
ETA Grinder is in recess.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings, all,
Good morning from Los Angeles!

The link in my previous post doesn't work,
here is the 1 that does, it covers October of 2008,
+, amonst other postings, the closing arguments in Judge Paolo Micheli's Court:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000133/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

Scroll down to the October 21, 2008 post:
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
'THE ASSAILANT WAS ONLY ONE'
'Amanda wasn't there that night and must be acquitted'
And her own defense dismisses the 'attacks' from Seattle

<snip>
'Guede as a witness is not reliable:
he excludes Amanda 5 times but in the last 2 times he sets her in the house in some way.


Amanda 's lawyers must have seen Skype calls, Diaries, or Police Interrogations transcripts to have found proof that
5 TIMES Rudy denies Amanda's involvement in Miss Kercher's rape and murder.
They never interviewed Rudy Guede themselves, right?

I have to wonder, once again, why did Rudy Guede not immediately turn against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, as soon as they were in prison, if they too were there with Rudy that night? As NancyS notes, it might have helped poor Rudy avoid prison time.
RW


PS-I hope that Rudy gets out of prison while still young,
finds a job and makes good on the payment of 2 million euro each to Meredith's parents and 1.5 million euro each to her siblings, for not saving Meredith Kercher.
Pffft...

 

[lonepinealex]

I have to wonder, once again, why did Rudy Guede not immediately turn against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, as soon as they were in prison, if they too were there with Rudy that night?

yes it's a very good point. There would be no need for any ambiguity on Guede's part - he knew who Amanda was, even if he didn't know Raffaele. And by the prosecution's scenarios they would at least have been introduced! And yet Guede has always been so vague...

The guilter line on why Amanda didn't turn Guede in, despite framing him with their miraculous clean up and staged break-in, is that she was afraid of him. But why wouldn't Guede turn on her? Who is afraid of who exactly, and why?

None of it makes any sense.

 

[Samson]

yes it's a very good point. There would be no need for any ambiguity on Guede's part - he knew who Amanda was, even if he didn't know Raffaele. And by the prosecution's scenarios they would at least have been introduced! And yet Guede has always been so vague...

The guilter line on why Amanda didn't turn Guede in, despite framing him with their miraculous clean up and staged break-in, is that she was afraid of him. But why wouldn't Guede turn on her? Who is afraid of who exactly, and why?

None of it makes any sense.

It makes total sense, but you must see it all in terms of the
duck
rabbit
visual
illusion.

 

[RWVBWL]

The guilter line on why Amanda didn't turn Guede in,
despite framing him with their miraculous clean up and staged break-in,
is that she was afraid of him.

Amanda & Raffaele spent all night doing a miraculous clean-up,
removing most all traces of themselves to place the blame on Rudy, yet Amanda decided to blame her boss Patrick, (whom she was afraid of), for the murder, allowing Rudy to remain free still. Both were arrested, placed in solitary confinement, yet neither never mentioned Rudy Guede.

But why wouldn't Guede turn on her?

Who is afraid of who exactly, and why?

None of it makes any sense.

 

[Samson]

Amanda & Raffaele spent all night doing a miraculous clean-up,
removing most all traces of themselves to place the blame on Rudy, yet Amanda decided to blame her boss Patrick, (whom she was afraid of), for the murder, allowing Rudy to remain free still. Both were arrested, placed in solitary confinement, yet neither never mentioned Rudy Guede.

Nice avatar today

 

[Desert Fox]

Amanda & Raffaele spent all night doing a miraculous clean-up, removing most all traces of themselves to place the blame on Rudy, yet Amanda decided to blame her boss Patrick, (whom she was afraid of), for the murder, allowing Rudy to remain free still. Both were arrested, placed in solitary confinement, yet neither never mentioned Rudy Guede.

Why don't we call it the impossible cleanup?

 

[acbytesla]

Well that's new – Knox is claiming she is innocent. Glad that's been cleared up.

Works for me since there isn't really any evidence.

 

[JREF2010]

This has always been the best evidence of innocence for me - if AK/RS had been there, Guede would have been screaming this from the beginning - and with the crazy prosecution out to get AK and referring to him as the 'also there' poor Rudy, he might even have avoided prison

Rudy's situation is one of a manipulated loser, the prosecutor and system he works for will do whatever they want with Rudy. He made the deal and now is under their thumb, like Toto was. Rudy's probably aware of what happened to Toto, and he probably knows he's lost all control of his life except to please the pro-Guiltards.

Nencini seemed to like Rudy and uses him in his report as if Rudy's story is the truth...and the ISC before, in the separate trial is proof even more than his own courtroom. The Fast Track Trial seems to take precedence over Nencini's, per Nencini. Im confused?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What would be the reason for disclosing it, and what would be the advantage to disclosing it now as opposed to some yet to be determined time of her choosing in the future?

On the other hand, the case could have been dismissed by now, too, although I think we would have heard about that from other sources.

Okay; here is my point, we do not know whether there is an ECHR casae relating to Amanda’s slander conviction; we know that lawyers acting on Amanda’s behalf have lodged an application, that is it.

Has ECHR adjudicated that there is a case to be heard? I have no idea and I was hoping that someone could confirm.

I'll drop this as clearly no one posting on this thread has any knowledge of the status of Amanda's slander application to ECHR.