These arguments are growing increasingly sloppy. Petereson had a clear motive, means, and opportunity. His behavior was damning circumstantial evidence, but it doesn't surprise me that you can't distinguish between the cases in this regard.

And again to argue that there is as much evidence against the kids as Rudy is twisted and completely ignores what the evidence actually is.

What details do you think I need? The physical evidence all points at Rudy, those are the details that matter in this case. The reality is you don't want to put forth a theory because it would be debunked before you hit return. You clearly had no problem speculating at will in your manifesto especially regarding the DNA evidence, but gee you wouldn't want to speculate about what actually happened that night. Gotcha.

And just for the record, not only did Hellman and the jury conclude that the evidence didn't prove they did it, they concluded there was no evidence at all pointing at their guilt on the major charges and in the case of the staging that no crime happened because there was no staging.

I agree with them.

Given what we know of the physical evidence, this is just sick I'm sorry. Your view of this case is so twisted I can't really comprehend it. There is no evidence that supports your assertions. Obsessive *******s don't conspire with hanger on types to kill on short notice. The physical evidence all points at Rudy yet you essentially excuse him here, it boggles the mind.

No that is not the intent at all. What I'm essentially doing is lampooning your view of the case and revealing how illogical it is. There is no mountain of evidence, that's the point. The mountain of evidence the prosecution claimed to have wasn't real. I think Hellman realized this quickly judging by his rulings.

This was a simple case and he clearly understood that.

Henry,

iyo, is 239 a shill like Poker91 was?

I've been debating and I think probably not but I'm interested in what you think.

Not to answer for Henry, but he absolutely is. How could you possibly think otherwise?

239´s thoughts:

why is everyone itt. so stupid? its really very simple and easy to explain:

rudy is the killer all evidence against amanda and raffaele will be ignored or not accepted.case closed.

you forgot 'handwaving', 'moving the goalposts' and 'meme'.

I seriously cannot comprehend how so many posters on a poker forum, a game of logic, can side with Henry and his completely illogical arguments.

It truly baffles me that everyone sides with Henry and mocks 239.

When you 'sleep in' until 1030 this doesn't mean you lay asleep without moving until exactly 1030.

If I woke up at 7am, went to the bathroom, came back to bed, checked my phone, maybe even checked the news headlines, and then dozed off again until 1030am, I wouldn't say I slept in until 7am. I would say I slept in until 1030.

You also wouldn't claim that the cat turned on the phone and the TV.

What TV?

And the defense didn't actually claim this in court.

Phone scenario:

1. Amanda calls English phone. It rings for 16s and reaches voicemail.
2. Amanda calls Italian phone. It is out of battery and goes straight to voicemail.
3. Amanda trys English phone again. It also is now out of battery and goes straight to voicemail.
4. Amanda confuses which phone is which when she recounts these events.

Plausible?

Oh, I see what you are saying. How 1990s of me to assume you would've used the TV to look for news headlines.

Sollecitos' lawyer speculated in the appeal that perhaps the cat had turned the phone on (leading the prosecutor to say "wut? i've got a dog and it's never done that.), but I can't source it so I'll let it go. I can't imagine the attorney saying that if the defendants hadn't claimed at some point that their phones were off-the context of it coming up must've been to back up that claim. If they said they used the phones we wouldn't be discussing it, and the response would be "what are you talking about, yes we woke up and checked messages, so what?"

Yes, imo, the other phone scenario is plausible, but it's yet another coincidence in a circumstantial case. So that I understand, how many of these coincidences are we going to be willing to pile on top of one another before it becomes unreasonable? Sure, you can let the phone/sleeping in thing and everything about it go entirely. It doesn't seem to change much. In a case with no direct evidence, you need lots of these things. The issue is always going to be how many of them you need. Unfortunately, and perhaps we can agree on this, juries/ordinary people on the street are horrible at that kind of analysis.

ETA: although reading your last scenario more closely, you've got a pretty unlikely fact in there (one of the phones runs out of battery exactly between the two calls made to it). The point is that you have a bunch of odd-looking facts that _all_ have to be true for the defendants to be telling the truth, and at issue is how many of those we are comfortable with.

Of course, none of this matters to juror #x who said that he soul-read her and therefore knew she was innocent. If he had decided she looked shifty, he would've gone the other way.

Then why wouldn't they say this?

I didn't interact with Poker91 quite as much.

239 is a shill. He knows she is guilty because he knows to avoid certain aspects of the evidence.

239 is getting fed information on what to say. He runs off to ask a pro-Amanda site how he should respond.

There is a good chance he might be mentally ill but I think he is just a shill.

Yeah except in this case they turned on the phone, played a MP3 for 30 minutes, and went to the grocery story to buy cleaning supplies.

No.

None of the phones just rang and rang. The calls were 16s, 3s, 4s.

The English phone was off the entire time so there is no battery issue.

Even turned off / dead battery it takes longer than 3s for you to be sent to voice mail.

------------------------

Lets discuss the phones. MVP can you answer the following.

1) In her first call to Filomena when Filomena concerned about Meredith asks Amanda to call Meredith. Amanda had just called Meredith a few seconds earlier. Why does she not tell Filomena that?

2) Why does Amanda never call Meredith's phones again? The first calls were from Raffaele's apartment. If you believe Amanda half an hour later she is at the cottage trying to get into Meredith's room. Why not call her then? If you are breaking someone's door down calling them makes sense especially since now you'd be able to hear the phones in the room ringing if Meredith is in there. Amanda never calls her even as her BF is trying to kick down a door and climb the side of the cottage to get to the window.

3) Why does Amanda not answer Filomena's calls or call her back like she promised she would after she gets no answer from her 3 and 4 second calls to Meredith?

4) Why do they call the police after the postal police have already arrived?

5) Why did Amanda call home at 3am to tell her mother that nothing had happened?

6) Why does Amanda's mother change her story and commit perjury after she realizes that Amanda's call home at 3am is incriminating and that Amanda is trying to deny it happened?

7) Reading the transcript of Raffaele's call to the police do you believe he is sincerely reporting something or would you automatically realize it is a con and become suspicious of his nonsense story?