MovieChat Forums > Amanda Knox (2011) Discussion > Rudy Guede claims Amanda Knox was there ...

Rudy Guede claims Amanda Knox was there during murder in interview

posted 8 years ago by Corpus_Vile
41 replies | jump to latest

[–] pete-293 8 years ago

but the supreme court also said the time of the murder was not known. if Knox was there it cannot be established she was there at the time of the murder since Rudy has no credibility at all. so the supreme court's statement means little.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

Aside from this - Guede also claims he is innocent.

Does Corpus believe this?

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Nope, all three are guilty as sin. Supreme court (as in the court whose reasoning you refused to address and ran away from last time) states that Knox was definitely 100% unequivocally there when Meredith was murdered and that even had she had have washed Meredith's blood from her hands, it still can't be proved she murdered her, despite her being culpable under Ityalian law by virtue of her presence there. Meaning that at the very very least, Knox never tried to save Meredith nor informed the cops. However, as anyone who studied this case objectively knows, Knox certainly did do it, which is why she lied through her teeth and kept changing her story to the cops, to go with the evidence she left at the crime scene.
Does Lyndhen apply the same logic to the black guy? That even had Guede had have washed Meredith's blood from his hands, it still couldn't be proven that he murdered her? (no, he doesn't as he's a racist hybristophilliac and a liar.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

Nope

so why give Guede's words the credence that they surely do not deserve?

[–] pete-293 8 years ago

interesting double standard going on here. Amanda spends 4 years in prison for accusing a barkeep. Rudy gets away accusing Amanada eventhough the Supreme Court says she didn't do it.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

You mean for falsely accusing him of rape and murder and leaving him in prison for two weeks before telling her mom in a recorded prison convo that he had nothing to do with it. How she knew he was innocent is just another one of those meaningless coincidences that seem to surround innocent Amanda. Did her mom tell the cops what innocent Amanda said about falsely accusing Mr Lumumba? Nope, on the grounds that she didn't speak Italian.
In Italy, saying the defendant did not commit the a act is a boiler plate term and the equivalent of a not guilty verdict.
It's all there in the report I helpfully linked including the part where they concluded that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered and how Guede had accomplices and how he wasn't a surprised burglar.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

If you believe that Guede is lying then why do you believe what he says about Knox?

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

I already told you why in my other post, it's supported by multiple court of law's findings, and forensic and circumstantial evidence as well as a boatload of lies by Knox.
All three are lying, yet all three's lies have some basis in truth, such as Knox claiming they showered in Sollecito's when she really meant they showered at the cottage after they killed Meredith.
Or Knox claiming that Meredith was raped and murdered by Patrick Lumumba, yet was telling the truth (and knew before the cops did as they didn't get the forensic report back until two days later), but was truthful about Meredith being sexually assaulted by a black guy.
Or Knox claiming that she met Patrick at Piazza Grimani and an independent witness putting her there at the same time.
Gude's lies are no different. He's full of crap when he claims that he and Meredith had a date, as his fantasy is contradicted by both the Micheli and Giordano court's findings, not to mention the evidence testimony of Meredith's friends.
He's telling the truth when he claims Knox was there as again, it's not only supported by the evidence, but even the acquitting court conclude this. So I'm comfortable accepting it. You otoh simply think Guede's lying about everything here but telling the truth on skype, and think this based on the circular reasoning that Amanda is innocent, ergo Guede is being truthful on skype but lying in the interview. That's it. And you're still stupid.

Your problem is that you simply view every aspect and piece of Meredith's case in isolation from each other piece, which is why Hellman was annulled. You simply look on Guede as being a liar, disregarding that all three lied and disregarding his claim being independently corroborated by multiple courts and forensic evidence.
You do this because your argument is agenda based and your argument is agenda based because you really know she's guilty, you simply like what Knox did and are happy she got away with it, hence your piecemeal approach, pretzel logic, willful obtuseness and equally willful, conscious dishonesty.
I can honestly say that I've never come across a creepier more immoral bunch of people of such low character than I have with the supporters of Amanda Knox. And considering that there's millions of threads on the internet and considering I've argued with Holocaust deniers and paedophiles before, that's bizarrely impressive.
You people are fooling nobody Lyndhen. I only engage with the likes of you and the rest of your unpleasant dishonest ilk to provide factual information for the benefit of impartial readers, as I told you before.
I'm quite comfortable in opining that you've already shown yourself to be the sly, dishonest, yet still not very bright troll that you are.
But no reasonable impartial reader is going to dumb themselves down to your level and adopt the same piecemeal approach to a case as you and the rest of your Kool Aid Klub do.
Just a heads up.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

He's full of crap

indeed.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Are the courts full of crap too, when they corroborate his account? Is the acquitting court full of crap, or were they acquitted on sound logical reasonable grounds? 

Your lack of self awareness as to how your seizing on one word or sentence, while refusing to actually address the points, comes across to normal people is hilarious btw.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

Are the courts full of crap too, when they corroborate his account?

I don't recall any court claiming that Guede is believable.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

But they did corroborate his account that Knox was there too, including Cassation, whose report I helpfully did a thread on, as in the report you keep refusing to address. So again are they full of crap when they establish this? If so please elaborate and please offer something of more substance than "They erred because Amanda is innocent", thanks. Whenever you're ready.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

I still don't recall any court claiming that Guede is believable.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Which isn't the issue anyway troll but whether or not multiple courts of law are wrong in corroborating his claim.
Are multiple courts of law in error by establishing that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered or not?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

The issue (to remind you) is whether Guede is full of crap. He clearly is, no court says otherwise. If you believe so then please supply the verbatim quote.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

No the issue is whether the courts are full of crap by corroborating his account and your evasive trolling is noted.
Cassation says Knox was there when Meredith was murdered, as did Massei and Nencini and all of them said this before Guede. Guede is merely repeating what they said.

From Cassation's report acquitting Knox and Sollecito.

Resta, nondimento, forte il sopetto che egli fosse, realmente, presente nella casa di villa della pergola la notte d'ella omicidio in une moneto, pero' che non e' stato possible determinare.
D'altro canto, certa la prezenza della Knox in quella casa, appare scarsamente credible che eglinon si trovasse con lei

Translation:

Nevertheless there is strong suspicion that he (Sollecito) was, truly, present in the house in villa della pergola on the night of the homicide, however, it is not possible to determine when he was there. On the other hand, since it was certain that Knox was present in that house, it seems scarcely credible that he would not have been there with her.

Are multiple courts of law in error by establishing that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered or not?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

No the issue is whether the courts are full of crap by corroborating his account and your evasive trolling is noted.

To remind you - the OP title is " Rudy Guede claims Amanda Knox was there during murder in interview". Thus the issue is whether Guede is full of crap or this has nothing to do with the courts.

He evidently is full of crap, isn't he?

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

No, the issue is what Guede said, the OP's heading is not "Rudy Guede is full of crap", a response merely said they wouldn't believe him because of his conviction.
To remind you- the actual op itself also states that it's hardly earth shattering as Cassation confirm it anyway, troll. is Guede full of crap when he states what Cassation said before him?
Also, by such rationale, is Knox full of crap due to being a convicted criminal also? Kep tying yourself up in knots.

Now are Cassation wrong? Is Massei and Nencini? How come you're so afraid to answer troll? Says it all about the weakness of your argument.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

No, the issue is what Guede said,

Exactly. And it's full of crap.

In fact, I find it quite disgusting that you would go to such lengths to post this interview with such seeming glee because he supposedly supports your point of view.

You do realise what he did and what he's been convicted of? You expect people to sit and watch this smiling twat coming out with extremely offensive lies to cover his own arse. (and I'm not talking about what he says about Knox). Serious question - How can you stomach that interview?

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

 Tell me do you truly lack the self awareness to see how your snipping of one sentence and deliberate misrepresentation of it, comes across to others? Seriously?

Guede is merely repeating what Cassation say in their report, you moron. You know, the one you keep refusing to address?
So are Cassation and Massei and Nencini wrong when they say Knox was there when Meredith was murdered, yes or no, troll?

How can you stomach that interview?

Same way as I stomached the other two's- with nausea and difficulty. Your point?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

I've never seen any interviews with the formerly accused.

Seriously, how can you sit and watch it? It's clear to me that you have absolutely no sympathy for the victim. You are just absorbed with your own obsession - let me guess - Amanda Knox.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Not interested in your burblings any more than I'm interested in Knox, troll.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

Not interested in your burblings any more than I'm interested in Knox,

well, if you were truly not interested in my burblings (according to you worse than a paedophile's) then you would have put me on ignore a long time ago. But you are evidently interested, just as you are interested in Knox)

It's clear to me that if you can sit and watch Guede's interview and not make any comment on his disgraceful lies, but just focus on how he supports your POV, then you have absolutely no compassion for the victim.

And this is rather true of your behaviour on this board. For you it's not about the victim it's all about Knox. It's not even about Sollecito - you are obsessed with Knox.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Why put you on ignore when I can hand you the rope so you can show everyone what a scummy immoral troll you are?

It's clear to you that "not guilty" equates to "innocence". You're stupid so nobody cares what's clear to you and what isn't.

See above.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

It's clear you wouldn't put anyone on ignore and you are addicted. Maybe it's because you've 'learnt' so much about this case and it's all going to go to waste unless.... unless you can find somebody dim enough who will discuss all the minutiae with you.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not the dim one to feed your addiction. The followers of the case are interesting for me and how they act.

Consider - Guede gives this pretty disgraceful interview where he protests his innocence and makes out he was in some kind of relationship with the victim. And your reason for posting this here on imdb? something to do with Knox. Should you not save your outrage for the Italian TV station that lets this convicted sex murderer present himself all pretty on the TV?

What would your reaction be if Levi Bellfield had given or Ian Huntley gave a long interview from prison saying how they are completely innocence and concocted some story to cover up their guilt.

Your attitude is very interesting for me.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

I'm here to discuss the case, you're here to troll and shill for a nonce, as you're a creepier-than-a-paedophile killer advocate. Spot the diff?
Belfield was convicted on less evidence than Knox (no DNA evidence against him) and your double standards only highlights your trolling.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Because it ties in with what the court report which you keep desperately clinging to cites, as well as Massei and Nencini, as unlike you, I don't take a piecemeal approach to evidence and murder cases as part of an agenda based argument in order to dishonestly shill for a killer, that's why.
But Guede and multiple courts are wrong against innocent Amanda. And read what I actually posted troll, rather than adopt that patented piecemeal approach to it as again it only highlights how your argument is purely agenda based, as does your sudden selective deference to courts, as if your rampant dishonesty illogicality and just plain stupidity throughout past exchanges weren't enough clues.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] TheeMortyToad 8 years ago

Agreed. And like Guede's other two accomplices, his lies may be sprinkled with truths, for instance, while I will never believe Guede's lie that he had a "date" with Meredith (but a drug date with Knox doesn't seem out of the question), I do believe Meredith really did call Knox a "drugged up tart" and that Knox probably did steal money from Meredith, most likely to pay for more drugs as evidenced by calls she made to her train-riding coke dealer in the days before and after the murder.

Normal Is A Myth.

[–] Lyndhen 8 years ago

Kind of makes sense that you people would believe the word of a definitively convicted sex murderer.

[–] pete-293 8 years ago

if you mean that their hate for Knox is so extreme they will believe anything bad anyone say about her, then it does make sense.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Ah, the old "hater" chestnut. I don't hate Amanda Knox or even know her, I simply agree with her trial and appellate conviction and there's no doubt she got away with murder.
Seems to me it's her supporters who hate, with their despicable attacks on a murder victim and her family. Groupies gonna group.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] pete-293 8 years ago

when did I ever attack Meredith's family? I have great compassion for them but that doesn't mean I cannot support a person falsly accused or convicted of the crime.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

I never said you personally, I said Knox's supporters in general, which I already showed you before when you decided to follow me onto the politics board and linked such attacks on the very site you linked in an earlier discussion, which you seemed to think surpassed a court of law.

No, you don't have respect for victims. If you did, you wouldn't be dishonestly claiming there was no evidence and that the courts were a joke and that there was no murder weapon and all the other falsehoods you've droned incessantly. If you had respect for victims but truly believed that Knox was innocent and were truly concerned about what you considered a miscarriage of justice, then you'd specify why the courts where wrong, with something of substance rather than repetition of lost arguments. You would be easily able to address the blatant whitewash and glaring discrepancies and inconsistencies in Cassation's report. You wouldn't be lying that she was found "innocent", either.

The fact that you've done all of these things merely highlights how you're simply an advocate for killers.

You've had eight years to give a plausible account for Knox's innocence and in eight years you've failed, reduced to droning your hater memes and running away from plainly put and hard questions. You people are immoral. Of low character. Sad excuses for human beings and your compassion or lack of it is shown very clearly with your dishonest behaviour and magical thinking. You only care about the verdict. You're a killer groupie, plain and simple.
The truth has a way of coming out when you least expect it, pete. It'll eventually come out here, of that you can rest assured.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] pete-293 8 years ago

"If you did, you wouldn't be dishonestly claiming there was no evidence and that the courts were a joke and that there was no murder weapon and all the other falsehoods you've droned incessantly."

except there is no evidence of guilt. that is not being dishonest. that is being factual. there is no evidence of guilt as has been demonstrated. you just don't wish to accept which makes you dishonest. but that is nothing new.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Except there is. www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence
You don't know what evidence is or how it gets discussed at trials or what the prosecution present and defence argue on, or what evidence testimony means. If there was no evidence she never would have been arrested, never mind convicted at her trial and appeal. You're simply reduced to repeating falsehoods which are easily refuted as the evidence is a matter of public and multiple court record.
You simply engage in the magical thinking where your personal disagreement on the validity of the evidence equates to there objectively being none.
It's why you groupies are considered akin to a cult and deeply irrational.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Very telling how you believe the word of a convicted criminal slanderer and a criminal whose murder conviction would have been finalized after her trial, had she had have committed her heinous sex killing in the US or UK.
And we said that all three's lies have a basis in truth. There you go again, deliberately misrepresenting what was said as part of your troll schtick.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

They were all mixing lies with the truth as a way to let each other know they were all in it, once they got caught. Lyndhen is a complete troll who is incapable of honest discourse as he has no argument.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

I think the rent money was what set the whole thing off, probably, especially after Patrick sent Knox a text telling her not to come into work that night. I suspect that Knox stole the rent (she knew Meredith had taken the money out) and knew some form of confrontation would ensue later. That's why the knife was transported imo.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

No the Supreme court said that she was there when Meredith was murdered, as does Guede. Which is a matter of public record and I linked the very report itself in another thread, making your droning moot and irrelevant. If Guede has no credibility at all, then do you acknowledge he could have been lying in his skype convo, when he said Knox had nothing to do with it, despite Knox claiming they didn't know each other? (before claiming in an email that they did know each other, mind.)

Or do you cherry pick whatever lies of Guede's suits you?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] Blackjack254 8 years ago

You're taking the word of a convicted murderer whose DNA, and ONLY his, was on and IN the victim?

I cant think of anything to say to that.

However, I will make this little observation:

it's quite fitting that the one year anniversary of Amanda'a final, definitive acquittal is also Easter Sunday.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

And he returns as I knew he would.  Do you guys PM each other whenever I visit, is that it?
Knox was convicted at her first instance trial and second level appellate, meaning that had it had have played out the same way in the US, she'd still be in prison now after her trial conviction, as she wouldn't have the right of an automatic appeal, something you conveniently disregard.
Knox is also a convicted criminal felon, namely for falsely accusing her boss of rape and murder and leaving him to rot in prison for two weeks.
Why do you not attach weight to the word of one black convicted criminal felon, whose claim is at least supported by multiple courts, including the court which acquitted your killer and forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence, yet regard the word of a white convicted criminal felon as gospel?

It's not "because Amanda is innocent, forever and ever Amen!", by any chance, is it?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!