Yes and that clearly means he does it every time. Logic ftw!

I assumed he made a typo, posted that I assumed he did and he never replied. But yeah you really got me there.

why not put all of them on the stand to testify that they heard nothing then?

also, one scream =! "screaming bloody murder" but nice try

Also, Bert if you're going to do this type of analysis at least stop being lazy and post all of the context going back to what we're even talking about. I provided 3 sources and analysis of why they proved what I said was true. Go find it and do a complete analysis instead of cherry picking the end and not even all of the end. Run along now.

How do you know they didn't all testify? I was only able to find a one news article that showed the driver testified on that particular day which of course Henry said was impossible because he acts like he has an actual witness list.

I quoted the defense appeal summary in English and the actual Italian appeal on this and they clearly refer to testimony and plural witnesses by name. It's not clear to me if they testified or not but if their names are on the record you would think they did so they could be cross examined right?

So once again I don't know you all only believe something after Henry decides it's ok to believe it. You can't think for yourselves apparently.

That makes perfect sense. You assumed henry17 made a typo, and despite him contradicting that assumption repeatedly in subsequent posts, you stuck to your assumption. In fact, you used the assumption to rebut each time he stated that you hadn't provided a reliable source!

Yeah, I do think you got yourself there.

All the context needed to point out that you were twisting Henry17's words to assert that he made a particular admission is there. You were caught making **** up. Stop with the "cherry picking" meme, please.

you're right, i'll just assume they all testified, even though only one was sourced. what else would you like me to assume?

Why don't you actually add to the discussion and find out rather than asking me to do all the work?

you mean do you work for you? if you make an argument, it is on YOU to provide the source. you can't just say, " so and so testified and they said xxxx, but you've got to find the source." the way you've presented yourself, no one is going to take your word on anything. and we can elect to not take henry's word on things except, oh yea, he provides sources.

Ok, so you and Henry are both going to take the line that the defense is fabricating witnesses in the appeal document? They are literally saying X person testified and you are arguing that they are straight up lying. Good argument.

I don't really care if you take my word or not but at least try to make sense dude.

Bert, I understand you wanting to help Henry out itt because he's not doing very well on the logic and reasoning front, but the above is a pretty sad attempt at proving me to be disingenuous. Especially when you understand the context that he was saying that Stefanoni wasn't forced to turn over documents and it's clear that the Independent Experts asked for more time because they hadn't received the documents they requested.

At least try to add an iota of relevant content to this thread won't you and find out who is right.

why are you so dense? i'm saying, PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS!

to use one of your memes, i can't believe someone on 2p2, a poker site, has such a difficult time understanding such basic things

Returning to the video that 239 posted with the gentleman that went to interview Nara.

1) He is not a reporter. He is a private investigator who is a member of Friends of Amanda. He was one of the five main speakers at Friends of Amanda's -- The Case for Innocence which based on the video seems to be held at some kind of university in Seattle.

2) Paul Ciolino is not impartial. During the Case for Innocence presentation he tells the audience that the reason Patrick was arrested was because of the text message. He completely fails to mention that Amanda is the one who stated He did it. Patrick did it. He is a bad man. So if he lies about this we can't trust anything he says.

3) At the same event he claims that Amanda was interrogated for 19 hours. Again he has to know this is a lie but the people supporting her don't care about the truth. They know that if they say she confessed quickly people will not believe it was a false confession so they all lie about how long and horrible it was. Again credibility. out the window

4) He then tells the audience that the reason the police believe Amanda is guilty is because she ate pizza. WTF? What about all the lying and the inability to maintain a consistent alibi.

5) That video was not news but footage from 48 Hours Mystery; American Girl, Italian Nightmare

I got suspicious when I noticed the video is hosted by no other than 239's favourite propaganda site -- injusticeinperujia.

This is the link to the Case for Innocence video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=hcGYrufLupA

It is the biggest waste of 2 hours so I don't recommend it but it is a perfect example of the crap the child soilders like 239 get fed.

---------

Paola and Luca both made some interesting statements. They drove Amanda and Raffaele to the police station and apparently were so suspicious of Amanda's behaviour that they searched their car afraid she might have planted evidence.

---------

Raffaele's cleaning lady Rosa Natalia Guman Femendez de Calle stated that she never used bleach at Raffaele's and that she cleaned exclusively with lysoform. She does not know if Raffaele owned bleach for his own personal use but she never used it. I find that interesting since two bottles of bleach were found among Raffaele's cleaning products. Previously I thought that was more bleach than I would expect him to own but figured whatever but now that his cleaning lady states she never uses bleach I find it more suspect.

What does your claim above have to do with you making up stuff about whether Henry17 accepted your source as reliable?

C'mon now 239, stop flailing about so desperately. You've already made enough of a fool of yourself that just accepting what I just pointed out isn't really going to damage your credibility any further.

Pretty straightforward here - you tried to put words into Henry17's mouth in a hilariously transparent fashion and failed. You got called out on it. Just move on, instead of trying to churn up more irrelevant nonsense.