Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Oh, Shutlt: There is no hint of * slow of misunderstanding*. They don't accuse Rudi, because HE IS THEIR PARTNER IN CRIME. Rudi is the one, most likely to tell all. Oh, and he has said that Amanda and Raffaele are the killers. But, they have never repudiated his accusations. Very telling. No? They are being tried together. They must stick with their *story*. Rudi, is, if you will, independant. WHY has Rudi accused them. WAIT. We have a child killer in the wings, A mafiosa. However, Rudi has denied their stories. He's going with Amanda and Raff. You tell me.......

OK, but I don't see it.

 

[capealadin]

Capealadin,

The pro-guilt commenters often talk about Amanda’s or Raffaele’s multiple versions. In reality both had two basic versions of what happened, what they said on the night of November 5th-6th and what they said before and after. The pro-guilt and pro-innocence communities do not agree on the reason behind Amanda’s and Raffaele’s statements on the night in question.

However, Rudy did have multiple versions, and I strongly doubt that I can name them all off the top of my head. At one point he said that Amanda was not there (IIRC, this was during a skype conversation). At one point he admitted being there, but he blamed a left-handed assailant. Months after the crime he started associating the assailant with Raffaele, who is right-handed. Ann Wise and Nikki Battiste gave an account of one of Rudy’s court appearances here.

Halides: More than one is a multiple, right? Amanda said Patrick was there: Not true. Equivalent to Rudi saying Amanda was not there.

So , Rudi says Amanda was not there. Amanda says patrick WAS THERE. Is that called * a wash*?

Rudi calls Amanda and Raff the killers. Hang the consequences.

Amanda and Raff say nothing. Seems like they're scared. Rudi gives multiple versions. Amanda and Raff give multiple versions. Are Rudi's versions more acceptable?

 

[truethat]

It's a puzzle. Why have Amanda and Raffaele not ever acknowledged that Rudi was the lone killer. Or just the killer. When Raffaele uttered the single word Justice, why didn't he say: The killer is already convicted. It was Rudi, we had nothing to do with it. Strange, that.

I would suggest it is because he is black. AK comes from Washington State where PC behavior is drummed into kids heads. She already accused the bar manager who was black, and if she starts accusing RG it could be spun as the guilty little white girl blaming the black guys.

 

[capealadin]

Shutlt. I can't explain it any better. I accept responsibility for that. Rudi accuses Amanda and Raff. They DO NOT accuse him. Rudi has been convicted. Before Raff and Amanda are convicted: He asks that the REAL killer confess. But, the * real killer* has already been deemed guilty. And, their defense is going with *lone Killer*. There's a gap here. Just say, in your * spontaneous declaration* " You have the convicted killer, it wasn't me". Or us. What do you make of , after the conviction of Rudi " i hope the REAL Killer confesses". By the way, this after, he tells Papa, when Rudi is arrested * "I'm afraid of what this person says about me? Or similar words? Someone, I'm sure, will post his exact words. The meaning is the same.

 

[platonov]

I would suggest it is because he is black. AK comes from Washington State where PC behavior is drummed into kids heads. She already accused the bar manager who was black, and if she starts accusing RG it could be spun as the guilty little white girl blaming the black guys.

That's a compelling argument - take 26 yrs as opposed to looking non-pc.

She really is a living saint - race relations before liberty

The earlier comparison to Mandela has finally been justified.

 

[capealadin]

I don't know if that is the reason, Truethat. I think it was just expedient.

 

[platonov]

That, and what purpose would it serve? The less the two of them say about the case as a whole the better, surely... what they say could be used against them and restrict the defenses room to maneuver. If anything needs to be said, far better to let others say it.

You appear to be making a false distinction between 'them' & their defence teams. Much has been said outside the court by the lawyers.

And RG is mentioned indeed in the early diaries etc - RS for example has the 'strange' reference to the Ivorian.

PS I'm confused by your later posts - Do you see this* point or not.

* the obvious danger of retaliatory testimony

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a single coherent version of events

Halides: PLEASE: Let's examine * MUltiple Versions*.........

capealadin,

I would be interested in hearing a single coherent version of events that takes into account all of the evidence, from the pro-guilt perspective. That would be far more novel than rehashing old stuff.

 

[shuttlt]

Shutlt. I can't explain it any better. I accept responsibility for that.

Rudi accuses Amanda and Raff. They DO NOT accuse him. Rudi has been convicted. Before Raff and Amanda are convicted: He asks that the REAL killer confess.

Yes.

But, the * real killer* has already been deemed guilty.

OK. So you are suggesting that "real killer" is an easily broken code for Rudy? Presumably that is what we are intended to infer.

And, their defense is going with *lone Killer*. There's a gap here. Just say, in your * spontaneous declaration* " You have the convicted killer, it wasn't me". Or us. What do you make of , after the conviction of Rudi " i hope the REAL Killer confesses". By the way, this after, he tells Papa, when Rudi is arrested * "I'm afraid of what this person says about me? Or similar words? Someone, I'm sure, will post his exact words. The meaning is the same.

OK, but he could be innocent and believe Rudy is the real killer and be sincere in his wish that the real killer will confess, or he could be involved and accusing Rudy through a thinly veiled code as a method of shifting blame onto Rudy. I don't see that one can infer much from this.

 

[shuttlt]

That's a compelling argument - take 26 yrs as opposed to looking non-pc.

I think the choice is more like 26 years AND looking non-pc, or just the 26 years.

 

[truethat]

That's a compelling argument - take 26 yrs as opposed to looking non-pc.

She really is a living saint - race relations before liberty

The earlier comparison to Mandela has finally been justified.

She's getting 26 years anyway or did ya miss that bit. The question was why isn't she accusing Guede, and I'm saying no one believes her anyway and it's just going to be yet another thing they spin against her. Don't know if you are from the US but it is very common for guilty white women to blame it on the black guy or the minority.

Susan Smith is one example, there's another recently in Canada where the woman threw acid on her face and then blamed it on a black or hispanic looking woman.

 

[platonov]

I don't know if that is the reason, Truethat. I think it was just expedient.

capealadin, you don't accept the Mandela/living saint angle ??

My, you are a cynical type - you should be more understanding like halides1 for example. That ' admirable restraint ' argument is the most charming opinion I have heard on this or any case in years.

 

[truethat]

capealadin, you don't accept the Mandela/living saint angle ??

My, you are a cynical type - you should be more understanding like halides1 for example. That 'admirable restraint' argument is the most charming opinion I have heard on this or any case in years.

Is there a reason why you are being so sarcastic and rude? I mean do you get poker chips you can turn in for a Chucky Cheese doll at the end of all your posts for the day or something?

Chillax for crying out loud.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

consequences

Rudi calls Amanda and Raff the killers. Hang the consequences.

Rudy calls Amanda and Raff the killers, and the prosecution does not appeal his sentence reduction. Sounds like a good outcome from Rudy's perspective.

 

[shuttlt]

You appear to be making a false distinction between 'them' & their defence teams. Much has been said outside the court by the lawyers.

True, but presumably the lawyers trust themselves more to not say too much that isn't helpful.

And RG is mentioned indeed in the early diaries etc - RS for example has the 'strange' reference to the Ivorian.

PS I'm confused by your later posts - Do you see this* point or not.

* the obvious danger of retaliatory testimony

Certainly. Regardless of innocence of guilt, it would clearly be a bad thing if Rudy decided to start saying unhelpful things.

 

[platonov]

I think the choice is more like 26 years AND looking non-pc, or just the 26 years.

She's getting 26 years anyway or did ya miss that bit. The question was why isn't she accusing Guede, and I'm saying no one believes her anyway and it's just going to be yet another thing they spin against her. Don't know if you are from the US but it is very common for guilty white women to blame it on the black guy or the minority.

Susan Smith is one example, there's another recently in Canada where the woman threw acid on her face and then blamed it on a black or hispanic looking woman.

What - We [well I] are not talking about comments AK [or her lawyers] might have made over a glass of sherry - this relates to the actual defence strategy in a murder trial.
(and there is the minor matter of an ongoing appeal ! )
One that ended in a conviction and a 26 yr sentence.

I don't understand this constant emphasis on what 'people' think of AK. I'm talking about an actual trial not an X factor vote.

 

[truethat]

What - We [well I] are not talking about comments AK [or her lawyers] might have made over a glass of sherry - this relates to the actual defence strategy in a murder trial.

One that ended in a conviction and a 26 yr sentence.

I don't understand this constant emphasis on what 'people' think of AK. I'm talking about an actual trial not an X factor vote.

Unfortunately when you are getting a Jury of your peers that were not sequestered and have been sold a story that this was some sort of satanic sex game gone wrong, you do have to be careful to watch what you are saying and how you are coming across.

In addition, the reason they haven't said RG is the murderer is that they don't KNOW who the murderer is because they weren't there. If they said "No he did it" they would be putting themselves in even more trouble and it would look like three criminals turning on each other.

 

[shuttlt]

What - We [well I] are not talking about comments AK [or her lawyers] might have made over a glass of sherry - this relates to the actual defence strategy in a murder trial.
(and there is the minor matter of an ongoing appeal ! )
One that ended in a conviction and a 26 yr sentence.

I don't understand this constant emphasis on what 'people' think of AK. I'm talking about an actual trial not an X factor vote.

OK. But there is an awful lot that "people" do in relation to this case that isn't focused on the courtroom. A lot of energy has been expended on winning over hearts and minds in the wider world. Presumably something other than book deals and free plane tickets is expected to be achieved by all this. None of that is very important unless one starts assuming that everything that is done is done with both eyes on the court room. Other explanations are possible.

 

[platonov]

Unfortunately when you are getting a Jury of your peers that were not sequestered and have been sold a story that this was some sort of satanic sex game gone wrong, you do have to be careful to watch what you are saying and how you are coming across.

In addition, the reason they haven't said RG is the murderer is that they don't KNOW who the murderer is because they weren't there. If they said "No he did it" they would be putting themselves in even more trouble and it would look like three criminals turning on each other.

You have to be more careful not to be found guilty, & this involves dealing with the actual evidence not talking points like 'sequestered juries' or 'satanic plots' which have absolutely no relevance to the actual case.

Seriously its not X factor - there is a real trial with real consequences.

 

[shuttlt]

Unfortunately when you are getting a Jury of your peers that were not sequestered

Is it common to sequester juries?

In addition, the reason they haven't said RG is the murderer is that they don't KNOW who the murderer is because they weren't there. If they said "No he did it" they would be putting themselves in even more trouble and it would look like three criminals turning on each other.

I'm sure a phrasing could be found that didn't require them to have been present for the murder.