Will have to go through this sequence of posts -- maybe tomorrow. Can you reference the starting and ending post numbers for his time of death arguments?

[QUOTE=Poker Reference;29435814]People keep saying this as though it means the clasp was compromised in a sealed crime scene, but no one has yet provided an answer for why it would be 4 nanograms of Raffaele's DNA be on the clasp through "contamination" and none belonging to the other housemates'. The only other item with his DNA in the house was a cigarette butt in the kitchen, collected on 3 November, and was processed on another day. When can this compromise be said to have happened, and how? Why was his DNA there, of all places, and not on his own kitchen knife? He stepped on the bathmat and they didn't find his DNA in the print -- I don't get the impression, therefore, that DNA is very easily transferred. [QUOTE]

They clearly did not go through every item in the house looking for Raf's shedded skin cells. So to say that his DNA wasn't found anywhere else is misleading. His fingerprints were on Meredith's door I'm pretty sure right where you'd expect them if he tried to budge it open, btw.


The 9:26 thing came up in the very first day I was involved in this debate I believe 10/5 and this is what I said. The first post was 3:05 and the last post I list here is 3:31 so it was literally 26 minutes before I stipulated that 9:10 was the last Massei accepted timestamp. Days and days eh? Guess not.

You said this.

And I replied with this.

Also keep in mind you asserted not once but twice that no one even made an argument about 9:26 even though I showed you in their appeal specifically where they make this argument about Naruto. Well done.


What am I not answering?

This is just silly. I think you're describing Henry to a tee though.

Again this is silly. When asked I quoted Massei directly to show that Rigor does not point to a later time of death and is perfectly consistent with either 9:30 or 11:00. It's you all who think this refutes my argument when it clearly doesn't and when asked I cited the section from the report. So you're just wrong again here, really really wrong.

This doesn't mean anything. Lack of footprints are a big deal for you but you're perfectly cool that there is not a trace of Amanda or Raf in the murder room.
Again this is a prime example of being disingenuous. You either know that other experts offered different conclusions and none of the forensic experts could rule out a single attacker or you don't. My guess is you do and because you do you should know the above argument is devoid of merit. The reality is those things didn't have to happen at the same time and Rudy could have easily gotten Meredith into a compromising position as she feared for her life.

You make the same mistake here that you make with the door stuff. You assume that everyone knows Meredith is dead behind the door and in this case you assume Meredith knows she's going to die. It's far more likely she's compliant in hopes to not improve the chances of her getting murdered and only tries to escape at the very end. She does have defensive wounds after all.

Further where are the kids when Rudy is all over the pillow with bloody feet and where are they when she's getting killed You all NEVER offer this because you know there is no proof of it.

I quoted directly Rafaelle's appeal where they plainly state that was her testimony. We assume the defense has access to what she said. They're not going to blatantly lie in the appeal. Further she said something different in the earlier hearings from what I' reading but I'm still checking into that. Finally, I doubt you even know which set of shutters she was referring to.
I directly responded to that post immediately and Henry decided it wasn't important enough to go back and find.

The issue here is the subsequent BAC tests were too high. And there isn't any evidence she drank after getting home either in the cottage or the gastric exam. No one is arguing she did as far as I know, not that it would really change anything. I've been open and honest about my sources on that. Contrast that with you having to be corrected multiple times on the same issue where you're arguing I didn't cite something.

You fail to understand that there was a car parked right there that didn't hear anything and the lights were off and the gate was open. The scream was supposedly at 11:30 and not 11 and if TOD is 11pm there's no way that was Rudy because he stayed and cleaned himself up a bit.

Further her phones were pretty clearly used well before that by the killer and even Henry realized that until it wasn't convenient to his argument.

I don't need to. The defense states in their appeal that this issue was proven definitively. How do you think they did that? I've showed the exhibit to you that has all the CCTV images and timestamps of the two sets of police officers arriving. Hellman does not conclude this is a big deal of their guilt even though it certainly would be if true. Read between the lines guys, geez, you're deluded on this

Another disingenuous argument that Massei doesn't even buy as he believes they're barefoot. I've posted the actual defense exhibits of this print showing that it is Rudy's left shoe print

Yes they were. Welcome to earth.
I don't think she confessed to anything anyway. What role did she play? None of you guilters will say because you must know there isn't any evidence of it.
This is a joke argument by you that because one person did something another person should do the same thing.

Do you believe Maresca did not object? LOL.

I've specifically said there doesn't need to be ANY conspiracy here and it was likely more confirmation bias and ego that produced this result. Way to miss the point....again.

They were found innocent and most informed folks believe the should never have been convicted much less charged in the first instance. Everyone assumed there was a strong case and there wasn't.

It's very simple why I'm a pain in the ass. I don't let you all go on with your charade of stating things as fact that have been debunked or just don't prove anything. You want to live in an echo chamber where no one challenges your assertions and the incorrect inferences and conclusions you've drawn. Sorry for that. But seriously stop pwning yourself.

And yeah a wall of text doesn't make you right.

Its quite hypocritical and funny, that when something is said that is pro Knox that isn't 100% a indisputable fact then the Anti Knox people call it "lying" or "ridiculous speculation" but then they go ahead and speculate or interpret the facts a different way in the same post.

Oh, and just to be clear before I log out for the evening.

You are claiming 239 is being disingenuous. As evidence of this, you stated that 239 keeps insisting the bath mat footprint is Rudy's. 239 says he hasn't stated this. He claims you and PR are insisting it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be Raf's foot.

Either you or 239 is lying. If he in fact did repeatedly insist it was Rudy's foot, it shouldn't be too difficult to find one or two instances of this.

So far you haven't been able to back your claim up. If he never did say that, I think it should be clear to everyone reading this thread that this is an instance of you clearly being disingenuous. Which is potentially awesome considering you were using this particular statement to prove 239 was the one being disingenuous.

239, for (potentially) double the awesome, can you show me where Henry and PR stated it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the footprint was Raf's?

Completely misstates my position. The outer range is 9:30 not much later than that even though she probably was dead before 9:30 from what we know. Starts eating at 6-6:30 anything much over 3 hours is unlikely although it is likely that the attack itself arrested digestion.
Again they did make this argument in appeal as well as the first trial although they used a bit different timing. Second I've shown with cites how the doctor's certainly didn't agree. This is where I have to wonder why you're even posting in this thread as you're not even vaguely familiar with the material. I mean feel free to continue, but you just reveal that you're unread on this sorry.

Actually no I'm the one who showed without a doubt that there was no definitive in stone time everyone agreed to and that the methods used to get to later TOD were inexact due to not knowing the body weight and waiting too long to take the temp.

Stop pwning yourselves guilters.

Poker_Reference I've been trying to discuss the window and the shutters all day and the guilters are mute. How in the world did the glass end up where it is if the inner shutter was closed behind the open window? I'll help you. It probably didn't happen that way.

If the argument is going to be that the entire police officer was incompetent, the forensic lab that was 9001 certified and handles all of the forensic for Italy is incompetent, and all the witnesses are lying then yes it is easy to find her guilty.

Why are guilty people acquitted all the time?

In this case I would blame the Italian system. The current stage of appeal only looks at the evidence that is most contentious. It does not look at the complete case. The onus is on the jury to review the other material. The result is that jury's put way too much weight on the evidence before them rather than the whole case.

Further, the DNA review was horrible. In the end one of the reviewers ends up contradicting her own report but that doesn't have the same impact as the powerpoint presentation because people on juries don't understand DNA. The DNA review is something I am still coming to terms with because I can't believe someone who was not being bribed would write what they did. At one point one of the DNA reviewers actually said that with a mixed sample she could find almost anyone's DNA in it which is true if you just do it wrong.

Relying on the fact that she was set free is also pretty weak. Decisions get reversed at this stage and then reinstated at the Supreme Court all the time. Amanda's cell mate in fact was first set free and then brought back. I'm actually very confident that she will be re-convicted by the Supreme Court.

So far we have one jury member speaking out. He reached his decision based on their faces. Juries are morons. I highly doubt anyone believes Robert Blake or OJ Simpson didn't do it and yet both were set free.

The sites that believe she is guilty are bias but honest. Every fact that state is correct but the commentary is obviously bias.

The pro-Amanda sites are just pure fiction.

You can't discuss this case honestly because if you try the shills show up. I do have some minor issues with certain parts of the evidence but we can't discuss those because we spend days arguing over if google research trumps the opinion of eight doctors.

I am going to post a summary of all the evidence. In this I'm including some of the flaws. It is just taking me longer than I expected to source every single thing so that there is no dispute.

They say this in every single post about it. And again I've posted a lot in this thread and my narratives do include him making that print because it's a logical extension of my theory, but I don't believe I've said 100% the defense proved it. In fact I believe I began as being extremely neutral on that print but might have grown a bit more defiant because they are obviously so deluded.

And again they are arguing that Hellmann ignored this or was too lazy to look it up. That's a joke.

I stand by my posts and will certainly retract anything I believe I've overstated on this issue. Trying getting that out of the guilters.

Also you can easily argue that the problem with the Italian system isn't that the appeals court are uninformed and lazy but rather the courts of first instance are far too often merely confirming the prosecution theories and passing the buck to the appeals courts. In fact I find that argument far more compelling after reading how terrible Massei's reasoning is on many of the prosecution assertions.

Henry do you honestly believe the Supreme Court is going to find that it's impossible to reach the conclusion Hellman did based on the evidence? If this does not happen will you then conclude that the evidence does support Hellman's conclusions?

Something tells me you won't.

404, Please provide a play-by-play of what you think happened the night of the murder. That is all I want. You have started to sway people by stopping with the ridiculous theories and instead just casting doubt on Henry and PRs arguments (relatively well I will admit; you wouldn't make a half bad defense lawyer). That is what seems to have started swaying people to your side.. I think if people can get a feel for how you think things went down, the holes will show themselves. I'll provide the template for you:

6pm-7pm:
7pm-8pm:
8pm-9pm:
9pm-10pm:
10pm-11pm:
11pm-12am:
12am-1am:
1am-2am:
2am-3am:
3am-4am:
4am-5am:
5am-6am:
6am-7am:

I think that should be sufficient. Just please post everything you believe about what meredith, rudy, raf, and AK were doing in each of those time slots. If your argument makes half as much sense as you seem to think it does, the post is sure to go down in history as the proof that exonerated AK!

He sways people by using invalid logic and talking about possible but improbable situations as if they are likely.

Back from Football (better week for my Cowboys!)

I agree with your logic here. I also have to say that this doesn't mean an intruder will always do the most logical thing or if those doors were in fact easy to open/break. If I am looking at the correct doors (see pic below), they have shutters that are closed. Do we know if they were closed & locked at the time?

If so, how do we know this?

How strong were these doors?

Is the door hardware stout?

Seems to me this route could have been tried and if the shutters were closed/locked and/or the doors too stout to break, an intruder may have opted for another route and ultimately selected the window without burglar bars, which as far as I can tell would be Filomena's. Aside from being easily seen from the street, the front door might be the easiest option but that would depend on how strong of a door and hardware were installed, which I have no way of knowing. I fully admit this is speculation, but I think its worthy of consideration and my questions are fair to ask when trying to find the truth of the matter.

PS-->Since there were security cameras, I assume nothing was found that confirmed or contradicted whatever speculated activity took place around Filomena's window on that evening?

Is this an accurate picture of the terrace?

Source: (35 seconds into the video)



I was thinking of the comment you made below when it dawned on me all the windows I am able to see in the video had burglar bars:

Were there other windows without burglar bars I am not seeing that would provide easier access? If so, can you post a link or pic?

The quote above you made was about a picture I posted that showed the exterior shutters open. I'd like to find a reliable photo (the one I posted came from Perugia Murder File, which to my knowledge isn't a pro-Amanda site). Do you know where I can find pictures of the house at the time the crime techs were there? How were you able to know this picture was from the Jury's field trip? I see a guy on the front porch by the front door that appears to be in a white evidence collection suit which would imply that it was taken at the initial crime scene investigation or whenever they went back and got the bra clasp, but I don't know if its standard to bring a guy like that on jury visits.

Here's the picture again:

Source:



This photo looks more like its from the jury to me (again from PMF):

Source:



I just want to get a handle on what I'm looking at so I don't draw incorrect conclusions, so thanks for any clarifications anyone can provide.

The topic goes in circles many times. When the fake photoshop of the foot was posted would likely be a good place to start.

Speculating about motive is very different than making up expert witnesses that never testified or choosing to do your own analysis of the expert evidence without having any formal education on the subject.

Close enough so sure. The position is actually that the Rudy has been excluded and the footprint is a perfect match for Raf. Footprints are not DNA so that footprint could in theory be an unknown individual with very similar feet to Raf but given the other evidence it is Raf's foot.

Further, that is not the only reason he is being disingenuous. The time of death argument is horrible, he now insists the computer expert was incompetent and missed usage, he claims the police officer who looked at the wall if lying, the roommate is lying, the postal police is lying, evidence that is just propaganda was used in court but he can't say when or who testified, he claims the head of the lab lied when asked for an example refuses to supply it.

I'm not even reading his posts anymore because he is just full of it. If someone was defending the not guilty site honestly that would be great but he is just making **** up.