We'll probably never know exactly what happened and who did what unless one of the killers honestly confesses.

rampant dishonesty and trolling is exactly what 239 was ultimately banned for, ******

I don't know what he was dishonest about, I doubt you do either. Oh yea, he's some guy named Doug, right? Oh wait, no you don't think that anymore. At least, not enough to sack up and make a bet on.

Is rampant dishonesty (if he were even guilty of that) a bannable offense? No it's not.

As for trolling, that's all this thread has devolved to. He was no more guilty of that than anyone else. In fact, he had more knowledge about the case than anyone itt.

He was banned because you all begged for it, and you guys showed affection to a certain plump bald mod who only got that from his cats.

You're a stoned, angry twerp.

Yeah as much as 239's posting ITT seemed dishonest, this whole calling him Doug thing was ****ing annoying, especially as it continued long after he made it clear he would bet any amount against it.

Italian journalist Selvareggia Lucarelli has found that Raffaele Sollecito belongs to a private Facebook group, 'Pastorizia Never Dies', which is devoted to humorous discussion of how to murder women and get away with it.

Sollecito has admitted it really is him, but then he hadn't much option, since he posted a photo of himself at a restaurant table with the group's admin. The picture shows him holding a sharp knife, with a plate of meat in front of him. In the caption he jokes, 'The eyes of the one who has seen so many, the knife of the one who sliced them all up.' Given the group's topic and purpose, he seems to mean something other than plates of meat. Another member quips, 'From the colour of the meat, I'd say that was Rudy,' to which Sollecito replies, 'Ahahaa that's nice!'

The group, including Sollecito, seem to be more than averagely racist. He has posted a shopped picture of Knox holding a placard that says, 'The black guy did it.'

Another member asks Sollecito, 'Master, teach me, how do I remove my traces from the crime scene?' Sollecito ripostes, 'Simple. You **** all over them and then no one goes near them!'

Another member comments, 'You're looking pale, haven't you been to the seaside?' Sollecito says, 'Oh, I've seen a lot of people go pale'. (Implying, in death.)

Sollecito's excuse, in a radio interview, is predictably that it's all just a joke. However, the whole point of Lucarelli's original article is that he treats the murder of Meredith Kercher, for which he stood trial, as one big joke. She hardly needs to add that it is not the behaviour of an innocent person.

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronac...h-1353482.html

classic

we just live in ****ing bizarroworld

The Independent in the UK has picked up on the story. It means the Kercher family are likely to know about it, but, although it's distasteful and distressing, it may reassure them that the Italian police and prosecutors did indeed get the right people. Still, they already knew that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7537971.html

The headline is a little misleading, because the only thing Sollecito denies is mentioning Meredith's name in these 'private' Facebook groups, which isn't what Selvaggia Lucarelli accused him of doing. She accused him of making a joke out of his notoriety as a murder defendant, and his excuse is 'I was only joking,' which not only doesn't work as an argument but actually proves the charge.

As Lucarelli and other Italian reporters have noted, in one Facebook exchange someone asks Sollecito, 'You won't hurt me when you kill me, will you?' and he good-naturedly replies, 'No, I'll make it nice and gentle.' Just banter. Just banter. Even though he has actually stood trial for the sadistic knife murder of a female acquaintance.

In another exchange, someone says, 'Can I ask you something?' and Sollecito replies, 'If it's about Amanda, you need to ask 118.' That is the Italian emergency number for calling an ambulance, and in Italy it is taken to mean that Sollecito is saying Knox is insane. Which would be consistent with one or two other things he's said about her since November 2007. Although, of course, he's a fine one to talk.

Which is a veiled roundabout slithery whingey way of saying I should be banned. Not my problem you lack the capacity to grasp this.

Still waiting for you to back this up with something of substance so whenever you're ready.

Back it up. Explain how linking pseudoscientific clowns like Richard Ofshe is "reasonable and knowledgeable".
Debunk the linked critique of him.
Explain how it's "reasonable and Knowledgeable" to equate a claimed coerced confession with an actual false confession because the claim is coercion.
Explain how throwing Occam's Razor out the window in order to entertain wildly improbable conspiracies is "reasonable and Knowledgeable"

Explain how your stupid double standards and raising of police procedural, due process & burden of proof bars such as you did for your special little nonce is "reasonable and Knowledgeable"

And you should:
A) Quit your long winded, pompous and deeply boring bloviating
B) Back up your bs as this isn't your pizzagate style MAM< thread where you simply assert stuff and leave it at that, different barrio over here homes so back up your bs, otherwise not interested in your bluster, a bad habit you seem to have picked up from hanging out with murderer groupies too long.
C) Use the ignore function like I helpfully advised you to several times as I'm not interested in your pissing your diddies whinging about what a dick you think I am.

Now debunk the linked critique of Ofshe and credibly justify your double standards and stupidity, cheers. Truth is easy to defend my lawyerly friend so defend it. Wow me. Knock my socks off here. Otherwise stfu as nobody rational is interested in your whinging waffle. I won't hold my breath for you to actually support your pap btw seeing as you're on strike too already. Anyway any more crying you wanna do?

Richard Ofshe isn't the only scholar who supports the notion that some persons - especially children - should benefit from special protections in legal matters. You'll find these views go back to Roman legal codes and the foundation of Western Civilization.

What bullying cops did to Brendan Dassey is a travesty, and the appellate magistrate rightly identified the so-called 'confession' as coerced and granted the defense petition.

"However, the state courts unreasonably found that the investigators never made
Dassey any promises during the March 1, 2006 interrogation. The investigators repeatedly claimed to already know what happened on October 31 and assured Dassey that he had nothing to worry about. These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brendan Dassey’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is GRANTED. The respondent shall release Dassey from custody unless,
within 90 days of the date of this decision, the State initiates proceedings to retry him."

But if you want to revisit the MaM thread perhaps you should go there and vent your spleen. If your 'truth' is so easy to defend, perhaps you should not have run away when challenged.

Court rejects Sollecito's compo claim & say his lies landed him in it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...redith-kercher

The court also decrees that his actual acquittal itself is "Dubious"
http://www.ansa.it/umbria/notizie/20...8e0ff1f54.html

Sollecito has one appeal left, to the Supreme Court, and Bongiorno says she'll go there. But, as the Florence judges (all women, I think, and if they were aware of the reports on his Facebook murder-jokes they must have got a very bad feeling about him) based their ruling on the findings of the Supreme Court itself -- that Sollecito was probably there with Knox during the murder, that he knew about it, failed to report it and lied and misled investigators from the outset -- it would be pretty hard for any Supreme Court panel to disagree.

And Bongiorno's fees will bite deep into any possible award. The maximum compensation allowed is 516,000 euros and reportedly she charged Sollecito's father 100,000 euros just for the first three days of the Nencini appeal hearing.

I've always been convinced she knows more than she's saying, but I think that's where it ends. I'd be shocked if she was there or had anything to do with it directly, but she may know more or less what really happened

The definitive finding of the Fifth Criminal Division of the Italian Supreme Court is that Knox was 'certainly' present when the murder was committed. Here is part of the recent finding by the Florence Appeal Court, denying Sollecito compensation for unjust imprisonment on the grounds that he lied to investigators:-

(Judgement of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Third Criminal Division, Judge Dr Silvia Martuscelli presiding, 22 January 2017, page 6)

I usually have a strong opinion one way or the other when it comes to murder mysteries, but not here. One thing I'm sure of is that Amanda is bat **** crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The murderess Amanda Knox pens tribute to Meredith Kercher
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...cid=spartanntp

Typically, Knox made the 'tribute' to Meredith all about Knox.

https://youtu.be/sz4fP3KBe9w

Interview with Rudy Guede

I don't care enough about the case to click on the link to get the answer, is his name pronounced rudy "judy"?

Im guessing its Roody Gweed

In the video at about 6 minutes in Rudy Guede pronounces it 'ROO-dee GWEY-dey'.

Yeah, it's 'Gway-day' or 'Gway-duh'.

While we were away, we missed the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. There's no direct link to the judgement, but you can download it here, at page 6, where you can see and click 'Knox v Italy'.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Italy_ENG.pdf

Essentially, the court found no violation of Art.3 (torture and inhumane or degrading treatment) but two violations of Art.6 (right to fair trial, in this case right to counsel and right to an interpreter) because they thought Knox should have had a lawyer at the relevant police interview -- they completely failed to recognise that Italian police cannot question suspects under caution and can only interview people as witnesses, until incriminating evidence is obtained which requires arrest and the handover to the public prosecutor, who can only interview the suspect with permission and in the presence of counsel -- and, more sensibly, they thought the interpreter took too much part in the conversation and should have restricted herself to just translating what was said.

It should be noted that the court found no actual mistreatment of Knox and awarded her about one-tenth of the damages she was seeking. It was a fairly small award, most of it costs. The ECHR is not a court of appeal and this does not affect her conviction for calunnia (falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba of the murder, which the Italian Supreme Court ruled that she did in order to protect her associate Rudy Guede, also black like Lumumba, in case anyone had seen him enter or leave the house that night, because she knew that Guede if questioned could retaliate by incriminating Knox herself, the Supreme Court having ruled that she was 'certainly' present during the murder, had no alibi, lied to police and faked the break-in to deflect suspicion from herself).

And, as previously posted, the Italian courts refused all compensation to Sollecito, citing the Supreme Court ruling that he and Knox were present on the night and lied to investigators.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43812079

Found it curious that Gladwell included Knox in his new book.

in before corpus vile freak out

ANOTHER book to add to my buy list.

I am guessing that he found Knox talking to strangers (the Italian authorities) to be an issue.