CherokeeKid wrote:Hi YIF, it's quite an interesting case and I'm still trying to catch up with a lot of info. After Amanda testified there were were some news, I got curious about the case all over again.
I agree, Hannie. "True Justice..." and Perugia Murder File forums are an excellent source for lots of info.
I'll try to do more reading there but today, I'm very tired, had to get up early as one of our dogs had surgery. Thank God, noting severe, just some x-rays taken, a small tumor removed from her front leg and a broken canine tooth pulled. The x-rays showed our little German Shepherd girl has extreme arthritis. But our vet is checking into a new method to treat her: with stem cells.
Take care, wishing you and the doggies well.
pax wrote:CK, you and your doggies take care. With this break in the trial I wonder how it's looking for defense and prosecution. Like a lot of cases it's tough to know. Wonder whether the jury and judges might consider different verdicts for Amanda and Rafaelle. Guede might be waiting for this case to end before giving more detail. Hope the Kercher family is doing well. It's been a long haul for them.
DiamondDot wrote:I still have not heard a good defence explanation of the staging of the crime (lighting and afterward). Absolutely no reason a random criminal would do that. No reason for RG to do that, either. Especially not after leaving his DNA all over the place and a toilet full of crap.
yankee-in-france wrote:-- and I look forward to the defense resolving Amanda and Raf buying bleach and cleaning at a very early hour. I think that needs to be explained, otherwise it sure supports their involvement in this heinous crime.
yankee-in-france wrote:Thanks, Emily -- let's say that the above is true, weren't Amanda and Raffaele seen outside the cottage with a mop when the police arrived. Even if we set aside the bleach testimony, Amanda was not known for her squeaky cleanness. Why the need to clean the cottage that morning?
yankee-in-france wrote:No, maybe they can't, perhaps they shouldn't have lied in the beginning, perhaps Amanda shouldn't have said that she was present and Mr. Lumumba was the murderer. They might have won with the truth.
I think that it is possible for two store attendants to be on duty but not to see every single customer that comes and goes. They don't spend every moment by the front door. Why would the worker who claimed to see them lie? These are serious charges. The owner may have been in the loo or in the back making coffee or in another part of the store.
This is from an early newsweek article:
"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."
I think that explains everything. She buckled and told them what they knew was correct. The police were wrong, Patrick had nothing to do with it. The police were the ones who insisted that Patrick was involved and she gave them what they wanted under pressure. Just a false confession.
I think one of the amazing things about this case is how the police were so sure about what happened that night, they had this little theory all worked out...but then they had to try and make the evidence fit their scenerio. It didn't so then they had to use innuendo and smears to make the case for them.
Normally police let the evidence tell the story and fit their theory around it. I think the police and prosecutor really screwed this case up. I'd like to think this will soon be over and hard questions asked but I doubt it. They could drag this case out for years with appeals.
I don't know that the police did not let the evidence tell the story. I think it did and that's how they knew that the two weren't being truthful. As for Newsweek's word buckled and the admission of facts we knew were correct, perhaps it was in the translation process that buckled came out of Italian for recanting or changing stories and the new statements more closely fit with the known facts.
yankee-in-france wrote:.. again, the problem may be that the original language was Italian and the translations made are from people whose business is making news. Crumbled, cracked is more dramatic than finally said or finally gave a more believable statement ... but JMO.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests