He didn't confirm her alibi -- that is a fact. Raffaele did not testify so the final say on this was his deposition where he refused to confirm Amanda was with him. At no point did he ever say otherwise until the last day of the appeal.

The footprint on the pillow and on the bathmat are in blood and they do not belong to Rudy.

Sorry. Let me rephrase that.


I believe Amanda Knox's parents don't even believe this.


By your standards that should be sufficient, right?

If I'm lying I could just make up a name. You do realize law schools are not secret institutions that only students would know the name of one. If you want proof that I went to law school there are plenty of topics where I give people legal advice in BFI and to a lessor extent OOT.

Amanda's mom committed perjury with respect to the 3am phone call and when she realized she had to do that she almost certainly knew Amanda was guilty but being a mother she can likely be wilfully blind.

Both of Amanda's parents are facing charges for repeating Amanda's lies about the interrogation. Again parents are good at being wilfully blind but once you get into lying you have to start doubting the person's innocence.

I still stick to the interpretation of the "I was there" in the intercepted conversation can only mean that she was at the cottage.

Yes this is the weird guilter talking point where you ignore what he said in front of Judge Mattenei and in his appeal submission and what his lawyers said throughout the case. Your head is buried in the sand but thanks coming right out and showing us how far down it's buried.

This is the footprint on the pillow you're talking about with Guede's tread. I'd say it's a match.

Why do you believe that?

By my standards you get all of the available information together, consider all of the arguments, and form a conclusion. It's called logic and reasoning, join us.

I have no idea if people really believe you didn't or not. If you want to prove you went to law school you could just prove you went to law school right? They probably have a record of it.

Post the transcript for us.

Also Poker Reference,

Everyone following the case closely understands that Hellman ruled 530.1 on the basis of the truth inside his court room. He was very clear about that. It's Henry that argues that Italian system forces him to reach his conclusion based on the actual truth. You might want to explain to him what Hellman said in regard to that.

It's my position that when he mentioned the smallest doubt he was actually referring to Massei. If you'll notice he essentially excuses everyone (police, prosecutors, etc) but Massei. It's my opinion that he clearly felt Massei should have acquitted them based on the evidence before his court. It was an admonishment.

The reality is that they could have envoked reasonable doubt and didn't. You're trying to say they didn't envoke reasonable doubt but clearly still had it. It doesn't make any sense does it?

ETA: This also why I differentiate between being certain and nearly certain between about their innocence in the trial and their innocence in reality.

you really are the greatest at what you do

This is what Raffaele said to Mattenei

Raffaele never said she was with him. He changed his story from she went out to I don't know if she was with me or if she went out. Raffaele's legal team has always maintained the option of throwing Amanda under the bus and claiming she was a vixen who manipulated a naive virgin into doing her bidding. Sollecito's lawyer Bongiorno even told Newsweek that the reason Raffaele was not testify is because he cannot confirm Amanda's alibi. If you read Raffaele's prison writings he states multiple times that he can not support her alibi.

Rudy is a size 11. The print on the pillow is woman's size 7 or a man's size 5. The head of the print identity division from Rome as well as an independent expert excluded testified that it was a woman's size 7 shoe which is the same size as Amanda.

The bathmat is also not a match for Rudy despite efforts by pro-Amanda nutcases to photoshop pictures to make it look like it is. The bathmat print is a perfect match to Raffaele.

Well unless you've seen the transcript of the phone conversation he's talking about you should want to see it for yourself and evaluate it as evidence. I'm trying to helping you all out.

Amanda: Yes, there is a doctor. I took a medicine for a headache this morning, and now I feel better, but the reason I was crying yesterday is because there was this pressure on my head that wouldn’t go away because I felt horrible, this person looked at me as if I was a horrible person and I collapsed.

Edda: Like I said, the lawyers believe that they are doing it on purpose, because they sure have nothing, so they are trying to put pressure on like when they interrogated you to see if you would say something more and so you have to keep calm and do not say anything to anyone.

Amanda: Yeah, when I was in the room with him I said what? ... (Laughs) and then when I returned to my bedroom I was crying. I’m very, very worried for this thing about the knife... because there is a knife from Raffaele ...

Curt: Well, here, here, here are the facts… we talked yesterday with the lawyer and asked him about the knife. Every time that they have to review an item we have an expert there that will review it with them. This is an example of... this knife of which they are talking about, they have never notified anything about the knife.

E: So, it’s bull****!

A: Is it bull****?

E: It’s bull****.

C: It’s complete bull****. It’s a total fabrication.

E: That's what they're doing now. They are simply lying.

C: It's all a fabrication...

E: Yes, to make someone break down.

A: It’s stupid. I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie on this, there is no reason to do it.

C: Yeah, yeah, so what you have to do is not to talk about anything with anyone. Don’t write anything. You may receive letters. Have you received letters or anything else?

A: I'm getting loads of letters from admirers.

E: Well, people in Seattle, even your friends will start to write. They been asking me for some time, they want to send you things... probably many things can’t get through, e… but...

Except we have been through this multiple times and the transcript was posted before.

I posted the I was there transcript above. Below is the intercepted call that led to Edda committing perjury. After having this conversation with Amanda she suddenly changed her story about what Amanda said in the 3am phone call.

Edda (surprised): But you called me three times.

Amanda: Oh, I don’t remember that.

Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house.

Amanda: I know I was making calls. I remember calling Filomena, but I really don’t remember calling anyone else. I just don’t remember having called you.

Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?

Amanda: Maybe because so many things were happening at once.

Edda: Okay, right.

------

239,

Can you answer the following

1) Why do people you support Amanda including her parents maintain the lie that she was interrogated for 9 / 13 / 54 hours?

Everyone knows that is a lie and that the interrogation was actually less than two hours and that Amanda confessed almost instantly so why do her supporters continue to lie about this?

2) Why did Amanda call her mom at 3am when nothing had happened yet?

3) If there is nothing to hide why did Amanda's mom lie on the stand?

What is your argument here, that this was a freudian slip or what?

No. Amanda had already admitted to being at the cottage so she is talking about being there but arguing that she had nothing to do with the murder -- Basically what she said in her confession. She eventually abandons that strategy and returns to the claim that she was at Raffaele's.

Point us to a link where he says whatever you're interpreting there, because he didn't say much and didn't mention Massei:

Quote:
"The jury was doubtful of the forensic evidence and not persuaded by the sex-game motive. After eight hours of deliberation, they found Knox and Sollecito not guilty. Judge Pratillo Hellman echoed the jury’s decision. “To convict, the penal code says you have to be persuaded beyond every reasonable doubt. The smallest doubt is enough to not condemn. [Knox and Sollecito] may be responsible, but there isn’t the evidence.”

And then:
"Hellmann said: "I cannot affirm that Rudy Guede is the only one who knows what happened that night." But he added: "He certainly knows and hasn't said. Perhaps the two [other] accused, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, also know."

I have no idea what you're saying in the bolded. I said that he seems to have merged the two subsections and based a "no evidence" ruling on reasonable doubt. Which is retarded.