Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raffaele and Amanda, both spoke after Rudy.

Here's what I don't understand. Why would Maresca object to Rudy answering whether he was involved in the murder? You'd expect Rudy's lawyer to object, or the prosecution, but Maresca? I just don't get it. :confused:
 
Surely they shoulda coulda'' gotten the info from Rudy

Well that was anti-climatic. How is it that both a prosecutor and a judge in an inquisitorial 'search for the truth' can refuse to insist the only possible eyewitness of the crime, whose convicted and sitting in jail anyway, answer questions about the crime?

Absolutely,,,,,,,,,:cool:

I mean if these super skilled third world water boarders so successfully employed sleep deprivation with 53 (or was it 530?) non stop hours of 12 on 1 questioning festooned with food deprivation and even topped of with urine release deprivation, as well as concussion inducing head slaps...and this is all they can get out of a young convict who already voluntarily voluminously volunteered to tell a child killer shovel slamming scum exactly how innocent Knox and Sollecito were in a loud enough soul cleansing statement that was immediately widely shared up and down the corridors of several other jailbird hovels.

Yes, sure, how can Rudy refuse this "inquisitorial search" ??:boggled:

BTW, the highest Court in the land as well as most all if not all informed participants on both side of the debate do not share your conclusions concerning Rudy as "the *only* witness to the crime.;)

ETA:
Apparently the shovel child killer was offered rewards for his testimony favorable to Knox and Sollecito ???
And he wants a sex change ?...this possible for 'recreation' during the rest of his life sentence ???
Oh, ever such a credible guy......one cannot make this stuff up
 
Last edited:
Absolutely,,,,,,,,,:cool:

I mean if these super skilled third world water boarders so successfully employed sleep deprivation with 53 (or was it 530?) non stop hours of 12 on 1 questioning festooned with food deprivation and even topped of with urine release deprivation, as well as concussion inducing head slaps...and this is all they can get out of a young convict who already voluntarily voluminously volunteered to tell a child killer shovel slamming scum exactly how innocent Knox and Sollecito were in a loud enough soul cleansing statement that was immediately widely shared up and down the corridors of several other jailbird hovels.

Yes, sure, how can Rudy refuse ??:boggled:

BTW, the highest Court in the land as well as most all if not all informed participants on both side of the debate do not share your conclusions concerning Rudy as "the *only* witness to the crime.;)

You lost me Pilot. I wanted to know why the judge at least didn't require him to answer the questions. By law Amanda and Raffaele are presumed innocent, so Rudy is the only one who definitely was there who can answer questions.
 
Here's what I don't understand. Why would Maresca object to Rudy answering whether he was involved in the murder? You'd expect Rudy's lawyer to object, or the prosecution, but Maresca? I just don't get it. :confused:

The big news in the Italian press is that Rudy claims Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. The prosecution showed Rudy that letter in which he accuses them and Rudy said it was the truth.

Not a good day for the defense (at least so far).
 
The big news in the Italian press is that Rudy claims Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. The prosecution showed Rudy that letter in which he accuses them and Rudy said it was the truth.

Not a good day for the defense (at least so far).

It seems strange that judge disallowed questioning about it, then.

Also very telling that Maresca jumped up to protest questioning Guede about the murder. I'd love to see guilters explaining away this one.

Raffaele recalled Guede's chat with his buddy.
 
The big news in the Italian press is that Rudy claims Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. The prosecution showed Rudy that letter in which he accuses them and Rudy said it was the truth.

Not a good day for the defense (at least so far).

That's no different than it was though, right?

How is it that he can get away with not answering questions then? I don't get this part. He was there, he's supposedly vaguely accusing them then, doesn't the defense get to cross-examine?
 
The big news in the Italian press is that Rudy claims Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. The prosecution showed Rudy that letter in which he accuses them and Rudy said it was the truth.

Not a good day for the defense (at least so far).


But Guede was always going to say this. It's worth repeating that even though he's been convicted of direct involvement in the murder, Guede still maintains that he was there but had nothing to do with the murder. I think he's in massive denial, coupled with a conscious need to preserve his credibility (as he sees it) by not changing his story.

I therefore don't see Guede's denial of speaking with Alessi, or his re-assertion that Knox and Sollecito were there at the time of the murder, as particularly damaging to the defence per se. And Guede is already a proven multiple liar in relation to this case, so the veracity of his unverifiable testimony can be heavily discounted.

What's of far more interest to me is the inferences that can be drawn from Guede's Skype call with Benedetti, in which he was unsure (to say the least) of Knox's/Sollecito's presence. Strange how his memory of events seemed to improve remarkably around six months later, when he was apparently now certain that Knox and Sollecito were there. Why, in other words, wouldn't Guede have told Benedetti that Sollecito was the "bushy-haired stranger" and that Knox was also there? After all, he knew Knox by sight and a few shared pleasantries by the time of the murder, and he'd have seen Knox's and Sollecito's images all over the media while he was on the run in Germany.
 
Yes, indeed not a good day

The big news in the Italian press is that Rudy claims Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. The prosecution showed Rudy that letter in which he accuses them and Rudy said it was the truth.

Not a good day for the defense (at least so far).

Rudy testifies (under oath) that he stands by his latest letter saying that indeed Amanda was right, she sure "was there".... as was Raffie.

WOW

Kinda like what the Court of Cessation decided after reviewing all about Rudy.

A dark day indeed

And some here were cluelessly cheering that it would be all over for them today and "they would be free at last"...and collect damages ???:eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Rudy testifies (under oath) that he stands by his latest letter saying that indeed Amanda was right, she sure "was there".... as was Raffie.

WOW

Kinda like what the Court of Cessation decided after reviewing all about Rudy.

A dark day indeed

And some here were cluelessly cheering that it would be all over for them today and "they would be free at last"...and collect damages ???:eye-poppi


Who here was "cluelessly cheering that it would be all over for them today", pilot?
 
Last edited:
Rudy testifies (under oath) that he stands by his latest letter saying that indeed Amanda was right, she sure "was there".... as was Raffie.

WOW

Kinda like what the Court of Cessation decided after reviewing all about Rudy.

A dark day indeed

And some here were cluelessly cheering that it would be all over for them today and "they would be free at last"...and collect damages ???:eye-poppi

Not quite a slam dunk then.
 
But Guede was always going to say this. It's worth repeating that even though he's been convicted of direct involvement in the murder, Guede still maintains that he was there but had nothing to do with the murder. I think he's in massive denial, coupled with a conscious need to preserve his credibility (as he sees it) by not changing his story.

I therefore don't see Guede's denial of speaking with Alessi, or his re-assertion that Knox and Sollecito were there at the time of the murder, as particularly damaging to the defence per se. And Guede is already a proven multiple liar in relation to this case, so the veracity of his unverifiable testimony can be heavily discounted.

What's of far more interest to me is the inferences that can be drawn from Guede's Skype call with Benedetti, in which he was unsure (to say the least) of Knox's/Sollecito's presence. Strange how his memory of events seemed to improve remarkably around six months later, when he was apparently now certain that Knox and Sollecito were there. Why, in other words, wouldn't Guede have told Benedetti that Sollecito was the "bushy-haired stranger" and that Knox was also there? After all, he knew Knox by sight and a few shared pleasantries by the time of the murder, and he'd have seen Knox's and Sollecito's images all over the media while he was on the run in Germany.

That's a logical position to take. Neither the media nor the Italian public are prone to follow, unfortunately. Big news so far is this as well as the sex change thing, and an alleged attempt by Raffaele's lawyer to bribe an inmate. As I said, not good.
 
Re Latza Nadeau's tweet saying: "Inmate claims lawyer for sollecito promised a reduction in sentence for aviello's testimony last week."

Somebody please enlighten me as to how one of Sollecito's lawyers could ever deliver a reduction in someone's prison sentence. It's practically impossible.

PS: I see that someone with the twitter name "somealibi" has just signed up for Twitter, and is already in communication with Latza Nadeau. I see also that this person has already offered an unsolicited reply to a random girl in Texas who happened to mention Knox in one of her tweets - what's more, this "somealibi" character seems keen to propagate the myth that there's a "$1 million PR campaign" being run on Knox's behalf. So whoever this "somealibi" is, he clearly doesn't know much about the case.....
 
It seems strange that judge disallowed questioning about it, then.

Also very telling that Maresca jumped up to protest questioning Guede about the murder. I'd love to see guilters explaining away this one.

Raffaele recalled Guede's chat with his buddy.
I believe Guede's counsel also objected.
 
Just like expected Maresca and prosecution fiercely defending Guede from any serious questions. What are they afraid of?
 
Re Latza Nadeau's tweet saying: "Inmate claims lawyer for sollecito promised a reduction in sentence for aviello's testimony last week."

Somebody please enlighten me as to how one of Sollecito's lawyers could ever deliver a reduction in someone's prison sentence. It's practically impossible.

PS: I see that someone with the twitter name "somealibi" has just signed up for Twitter, and is already in communication with Latza Nadeau. I see also that this person has already offered an unsolicited reply to a random girl in Texas who happened to mention Knox in one of her tweets - what's more, this "somealibi" character seems keen to propagate the myth that there's a "$1 million PR campaign" being run on Knox's behalf. So whoever this "somealibi" is, he clearly doesn't know much about the case.....
Your PS comment; so what! Doesn't have any impact on today's proceedings.
 
What do you think changed? It's the same as before.


That's exactly correct. Those who think it's somehow a disaster for the defence are wrong - and the ones who are crowing the most loudly that it's a disaster to the defence are suffering (in my opinion) from a potent combination of poor logical reasoning and an increasing desperation to be shown to be on the "winning side" (as they see it).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom