Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[Nova]

Do you know I had actually considered using the French, as my favorite part of Nietzsche is when he goes into Saint Paul suffering from an idee fixe?

I have my quarrels with Nietzsche, but he's right about Paul!

 

[Nova]

What a cosmopolitan group are we! References to Nietzsche, St. Paul, Beavis and Butthead, all within a few posts!

 

[SMK]

What a cosmopolitan group are we! References to Nietzsche, St. Paul, Beavis and Butthead, all within a few posts!

:laugh:

 

[SMK]

Heck, no I could not find that dang on thing and wasted by $1.66!!!!

:slapfight:

So I'm going to bed!

:escape:

There is a transcript of the Skype call on Perugia Murder File right now, on their current open forum. Of course Rudy was trying to explain away any idea that he was responsible. I guess I can paste some of it if I supply their link:

1)
R. In the newspaper they’re writing that I was drunk and slept on the toilet. That’s crap. In that house we were smoking joints, we smoked and so did those girls, everyone did. After that I said to the guys, who are men of their word, "Listen, guys, I'm tired, I can't walk now, can I sleep over here?" So I slept on their sofa. I was only ever at their place twice.

After that, after that I met Amanda, but I didn’t talk to her any more, I just saw her one other time, at that pub with Lumamba whatever his name was –

G. Right, Lumumba –

R. – just one other time, and we talked in that pub, but after that I didn’t see her any more, I mean I'd see her in the street, but just to say “hi”.

2)
R. The girl who was killed, I knew her. The evening before, we talked.... well, I got to know her during a rugby match.

G. Wait - the girl you’re talking about, the one you knew, who was that? This Meredith?

R. Yes, Meredith. I’m talking about her now.

G. You knew her? [talking over each other]

R. Yes. I don’t mean that we hung out together. Up to then, we just saw each other a couple of times, mainly that evening where there was the rugby match between England and South Africa, I was together with a couple of friends at this place, now I can’t remember the name…

G. Wait, I don’t get it, you saw her with her? I didn’t get it.

R. I'm telling you how I met her.

G. Oh, okay.

R. I met her in that place...

G. pub?

a bit more of an excerpt: Hope it is OK to post this: The Link is below. This is all from PMF:

4)

R. So we went in, and I think it was about eight-thirty, or eight-twenty, they're saying that she told her friends she was tired and wanted to go home. But in fact no, we were supposed to see each other, we had made an appointment the evening before during the Halloween party, at the Spanish kids' house, and I can also say, well I don't know the street but I can say where it was.

G. What street was it?

R. If I were in Perugia I could say where that house is, and anyway those kids can confirm that I was at that party.

G. Okay.

R. And then, we saw each other at Meredith's house and we started talking...we started talking, and I, well, I tried, I mean I tried and she was willing. But in the end we didn't do anything because...she didn't have any condoms and neither did I.

G. Like...in the newspapers it says that...well, you did something if...

R. Yes but in fact, I'm just telling you we did...oral stuff. No, no penetration, because I didn't have a condom, we didn't do anything. And so it's all crap according to me that they said they found my...sperm...male sperm. Then I, that... it's not mine because we didn't do anything.

5)

R. When we got there, I don't know what happened, but she said "damn" - the money's gone!

G. - something about money you were saying?

R. The money is gone, she said, when's Amanda coming back - I have to talk to her. Because they had quarrelled in the evening, because of problems that...Amanda smokes, she smokes...a lot and they quarrelled.

G. So you think that, like, she took her money for...

R. - no, wait, let me get there, after...

G. - sorry -

R. Let me get you to understand better, well, it's been said...well, okay, so something that hasn't come out yet, it hasn't come out that...Amanda hasn't talked about umm...money, Raffaele hasn't talked about the money. So only I know this, that she told me her money was missing, that was hidden in the drawer where she kept her underwear.

G. I see.

R. She told me this. And after that I went to the bathroom. I really had to go take a ****. And I heard the doorbell. For me, that must have been one of the girls who lived with her. So, I was calmly in the bathroom, like that. And at a certain point -

G. - So you thought it was someone from upstairs?

R. Yes, no, I thought that, well clearly someone rang the doorbell, they rang and she went and opened it -

G. Okay

R. so for me it was...it could have been anyone for me, see?

G. Sure, sure.

R. It could have been Amanda, it could have been... anyone.

G. So you were calmly taking a ****, I get it.

R. I was in the bathroom, so for me, well, I didn't worry about it, because anyway in the end we were going to be seeing each other and...


6)

R. I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...and then, then, I got a bit worried and I got out of the bathroom right away, without even putting my pants back on, they were practically falling down, I was wearing just my underwear and my pants were falling around my...

G. But if I understand, I mean like where was this...I mean, what time do you think this happened, I don't know...

R. Around nine, nine twenty or so, because in the meantime we had gotten to talking about all that stuff.

G. I see.

R. I think nine-twenty, nine-thirty, around then, and then, when I heard the scream, let me tell you she screamed so loud that you could hear it even in the street, Giacomo, she screamed really loud. When I came out, it was in semi-darkness, I came out and I saw him -

G. But who?

R. His back was turned, and I said to myself what the hell is going on?

G. Masked? What the hell was this guy like?

R. Well, firstly this person wasn't bigger than me, I mean taller, physically, in height, he wasn't taller than me. His back was turned, and I saw there...Meredith...I saw Meredith who was bleeding already, she had a slash in her throat, and this guy took a knife and I've got wounds on my hands because I grabbed his hand, he tried to stab me and I still have the wounds on my hands, the signs, that are healing now, but I still have them on my hand...

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&sid=d8b8a42a3ed1be5ecd30de9693c24a9e&start=2250

 

[otto]

Oh, you know what "fixed idea" I meant. It's obvious, isn't it? Do we have to go into the history of this again? Yes, I think Mignini suffers from a fixed idea and so do many others. And yes, it can be classified as "kooky".

"do we have to go into the history of this again"

What does that mean? Have you decided that an Italian prosecutor is "kooky" and now it's a fact that should be simply accepted as true?

 

[otto]

I do not agree about the lawyer. I think he is aggressive and money driven and many others say so. The truth about what happened that night should take precedence over anything else. I did not criticize Meredith, as you well know. Why did you say, To criticize Meredith, the victim ??? Show me please where I did that, because it has really annoyed me now. Otherwise, you are making this up as I never said a word against her.

The victim's lawyer demonstrated for the court that the witness was not credible. Why has he been criticized for doing this?

The victim's lawyer is the voice for Meredith (the murder victim). On what facts, incidents, events, or statements do you base the opinion that Meredith's lawyer is aggressive and money driven? Is he not working to ensure that the victim's rights are observed and respected? Do we have the right to criticize the legal representative of the victim - someone whose sole objective is to fight for the victim's rights?

 

[SMK]

"do we have to go into the history of this again"

What does that mean? Have you decided that an Italian prosecutor is "kooky" and now it's a fact that should be simply accepted as true?

You surely recall that I have stood up for Mignini, defended him, repeatedly. All my posts regarding him reveal it. You seem to have failed to "grasp" who he is, as a whole man. "Kooky" is term of endearment, as in, "I adore that kooky Mignini".

 

[SMK]

The victim's lawyer demonstrated for the court that the witness was not credible. Why has he been criticized for doing this?

The victim's lawyer is the voice for Meredith (the murder victim). On what facts, incidents, events, or statements do you base the opinion that Meredith's lawyer is aggressive and money driven? Is he not working to ensure that the victim's rights are observed and respected? Do we have the right to criticize the legal representative of the victim - someone whose sole objective is to fight for the victim's rights?

You cannot be serious. It was FULLY KNOWN that Alessi had killed a child. Known to the court, the press, the public. Veracity and not character was to be judged. I think I am entitled not to like the man; neither him nor his actions. He should seek JUSTICE for the victim; the rest is empty show.

 

[otto]

You cannot be serious. It was FULLY KNOWN that Alessi had killed a child. Known to the court, the press, the public. Veracity and not character was to be judged. I think I am entitled not to like the man; neither him nor his actions. He should seek JUSTICE for the victim; the rest is empty show.

If the lawyer for the victim is described as aggressive and money driven, there must be a reason for this ... like he extorted money, or he picked a fist fight. What did he do to gain this description?

 

[SMK]

If the lawyer for the victim is described as aggressive and money driven, there must be a reason for this ... like he extorted money, or he picked a fist fight. What did he do to gain this description?

I do not know. I ......I just surmised.......:razz:

 

[Allusonz]

If the lawyer for the victim is described as aggressive and money driven, there must be a reason for this ... like he extorted money, or he picked a fist fight. What did he do to gain this description?

Lets see Maresca is also the one that made the statement that Italy would show the world how forensics are done. We all see how poorly they do that

Maresca also represents the police in both cases for telling her story against AK and her parents. He is essentially participating in a effort to silence those that do wish to speak up in her defense

It also appears that the 19th person now charged in this case

Oh!! I wonder if Maresca will have a picture up of MK when RG testifies

 

[Allusonz]

You cannot be serious. It was FULLY KNOWN that Alessi had killed a child. Known to the court, the press, the public. Veracity and not character was to be judged. I think I am entitled not to like the man; neither him nor his actions. He should seek JUSTICE for the victim; the rest is empty show.

This was all known and had been known for some time. What it does show is that the police did not pursue any other leads from the initial investigation.

More importantly is that RG has been now ordered to testify which is probably the only interesting fact that came out of all of this.

 

[Allusonz]

The victim's lawyer demonstrated for the court that the witness was not credible. Why has he been criticized for doing this?

The victim's lawyer is the voice for Meredith (the murder victim). On what facts, incidents, events, or statements do you base the opinion that Meredith's lawyer is aggressive and money driven? Is he not working to ensure that the victim's rights are observed and respected? Do we have the right to criticize the legal representative of the victim - someone whose sole objective is to fight for the victim's rights?

No he did not. Their pasts were already known. What it does show is that ILE and the trial of the first instance should of investigated these claims then. He sole objective is not representing the Kerchers so yes we do. He is also representing the police officers

 

[Allusonz]

You surely recall that I have stood up for Mignini, defended him, repeatedly. All my posts regarding him reveal it. You seem to have failed to "grasp" who he is, as a whole man. "Kooky" is term of endearment, as in, "I adore that kooky Mignini".

I often wonder whom has what over whom. Does Mignini have so much over the police that they do whatever he tells them. Or do the police have so much over Mignini that they could bring him down. Obiviously this is question I ask only myself

 

[Allusonz]

I must say that the times that RG gives in his Skype call are interesting

9:00 - 9:20 - 9:30

All interesting times he gives in that call. As well interesting that he mentions Giacomo and the fact that someone rang the doorbell.

 

[Allusonz]

Oh, you know otto, SMK. As far as he is concerned, any of us who doesn't swallow hook, line and sinker everything the prosecution says must be actively attacking the victim.

:innocent:

 

[Allusonz]

I guess I need to read that piece again. It's hard for me to stay focused in those translated pages.

I think RG can't steer too far from his last story, because he got his sentence in part due to not being the one wielding the knife. He can't say anything to mess that up.

He can corroberate what the prisoners said or he can say he never had that conversation. The defense should rightly ask him what really happened that night, but short of that, they can refer to his skype call and prison diary, neither of which mention AK and RS's involvement.

They can also attack his changing story and ask him which is correct, the first story, which is somewhat the same as the prisoners retold, or is it the one involving AK and Rs. In light of all his versions, the jury will have to decide to believe his testimony, or his diary, his skype call, etc and so on.

I believe he can't invent new facts, because those will be challenged.

We'll see. I'm very excited about it, because if they can just get to the truth....I want them to get the real truth out of RG no matter what it is.

As well I am sure the defense will note just when his story changed as well

 

[Allusonz]

Wait.

What happened to the guy testifying that MK was killed in a drug deal?

Or over a drug deal?
:waitasec:

They heard from the ones that had written the Court during the first trial. This guy just popped out of the blue

What I still find amazing is all these inmates, whom it has now been shown one is now being investigated regarding his testimony, had nothing to gain from testifying still did even after trying to be silenced

 

[otto]

Lets see Maresca is also the one that made the statement that Italy would show the world how forensics are done. We all see how poorly they do that

Maresca also represents the police in both cases for telling her story against AK and her parents. He is essentially participating in a effort to silence those that do wish to speak up in her defense

It also appears that the 19th person now charged in this case

Oh!! I wonder if Maresca will have a picture up of MK when RG testifies

I'm not seeing the connection. He is proud of Italy's forensic testing and represents the victim so he's aggressive and after money? I see it differently, obviously ... I see that he is trying to keep convicted child murderers and people with a history of providing false testimony from being taken seriously in court - doing exactly what he should do.

 

[Allusonz]

Yes, that is the hope. But is it too much to expect from Guede? If they can just infer or reveal the truth through his evasiveness, it may be enough. Let us hope.

I have to admit I am truly more interested in when the experts present there findings.