It says exactly that. Again..

It's pretty clear cut.

Why you equate arguments and evidence as being the same thing is beyond me. This is really simple, and you're just not able to follow along which is quite bizarre. Again, no one has ever said that they are able to introduce new evidence in the appeal brief. They are clearly making new arguments based on the existing evidence before the court as I've illustrated numerous times in this thread.


Just so we can clarify, again, your argument is that you have a better grasp on the Italian Appellate process than the judge and the lawyers involved in the actual Italian appeal. That's certain to add to your credibility.

If it is not in the record before Massei, why do he and Hellman mention him by name? They are discussing what then? You're lost.

An eyewitness saw him in the act (Christian). He had in his possession stolen goods (laptop from lawyers office) when he was caught red handed with additional stolen goods (knife) while trespassing. This is evidence.

I'm not trying to convict Rudy of anything other than the murder which doesn't require his past history of B&E at all. When you uncover his activity leading up to the murder and realize the law office break in is similar to this break in at the cottage, it strongly suggests Amanda and Raf weren't involved. But again the physical evidence in the murder room is all you need to convict Rudy of the murder.

You said there was no evidence at all. Which is it?

You should go back to ignoring me because you have no chance to win this argument. Both Hellman and Massei give weight to the story about Rudy being true. Further, given what we know about Rudy, it's not an outlandish story at all.

I don't know what witnesses you're talking about in relation to Amanda. If it's Quintavelle and Curatolo they both have extreme credibility issues and their stories don't add up or fit with the physical evidence.

As far as Rudy's DNA, I don't think I'm overstating it at all.

His DNA was found on the vaginal swab taken from Meredith.
His DNA was found on the jacket she wore home.
His DNA was found on her bra.
His DNA was found on her purse along with her blood.

His handprints were set in Meredith's blood and his footprints were set in her blood on the pillow that was found underneath her body, in other places in the murder room, and in a trail leading to the front door. I'd say his traces were all over the scene of a brutal, bloody, knife murder, sorry if you disagree.

Amanda and Rafaelle's footprints were never proven to be set in Meredith's blood, but you already know that. You just wish your mountain of evidence hadn't been debunked.


Anyone who reads the threads on say JREF and then compares them to PMF or TMJ would see where the real critical thinking takes place. There is a reason why PMF and TMJ ban those who dissent and the guilters rarely go to JREF. On JREF they only ban you if you attack the arguers and can't argue in a logical manner. Big difference.

I don't blame you. Your arguments have been wholly dispatched in this thread. You've been revealed as being disingenuous as well as mendacious in your attempts to argue your case, and your positions are unhinged from reality and rational thought. GG.

Hellman: "with arguments that are hereby reported together with their evaluation by this Court."

239: "Why you equate arguments and evidence as being the same thing is beyond me."

Is this the funniest thing 239 has written in the entire thread? I'm thinking yes?

Seems unlikely. I assume it has to be something to do with the digestion conversation and how he can google the answer to how it works and come up with a more reliable answer than medical professionals.

Things that suggest Rudy committed a crime: Evidence

Things that suggest Amanda committed a crime: No Evidence

ev·i·dence  [ev-i-duhns] noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
noun
1. whatever you want it to mean

I don't think you understand that Italian Appellate process....at all.

Henry is arguing that the defense isn't allowed to bring up a new argument in the appeal brief that is based on evidence from the first trial. He's clearly wrong. He then goes on to equate bringing up a new argument as entering new evidence. He's clearly wrong...again. Try to keep up.

Wouldn't you have to know how the medical professionals answered to state this with any sort of certainty. I'm guessing you're still too lazy to actually read the reports?

And WhoamI, the prosecution made a whole host of claims in the beginning of the investigation that carried into the international press and into the books Henry is talking about.

They had receipts proving the kids bought bleach. The bathroom was soaked in blood. Some of the bloody shoeprints matched Raf's Nike shoes. Raf called 112 after the police had already arrived, and on and on.

It's only later that this evidence was revealed as either not existing at all or incorrectly reported. So the point is it's easy to see why a lot of books were written saying they were guilty when the entire international mainstream press was reporting these things as fact.

Again, try to keep up guys.

They did call the police after the police had already arrived.

I have never seen any official statement about receipts for bleach. That was Barbie's mistake. Raffaele did have a lot of bleach that he couldn't explain given his housekeeper claims she never used bleach. At the same time that they searched the apartment they photographed and collected every receipt. A source told Barbie one of the receipts was for bleach and that turned out to not be true.

I also have no knowledge of any official statement that the bathroom was covered in blood. The bathroom had been covered in blood as the tests show but someone had cleaned it. If someone confused phenolphthalin for blood that is their mistake and a pretty bad one.

Regarding the Nike shoe match that was no released to the press until after it was actually known to be false. The match was relevant only very early on and it was not based on any analysis but simply just superficial match because of damage to his shoe which was was coincidentally similar to damage to Rudy's shoe. As soon as the finding was sent to an expert they said it was not a match.

Not according to the judges and juries at both trials. Hellman specifically says you're wrong and he goes on to say that Massei also concluded you're wrong. No one who has seen the evidence agrees with you. What is your response?

Articles like this that claimed the police found receipts for cleaning products were normal http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...oxs-alibi.html

What is your source for Raffaele's difficulty in explaining the mysterious bleach? Further where is the evidence that bleach was ever used to clean anything the night of the murder? I'll save you the trouble, there isn't any and no one in the house that morning smelled cleaning products.

The picture your referring to *is* the statement that swayed the court of public opinion and was broadcast across the world with no explanation of what it actually showed. It was leaked by the police and printed with no explanation of what it actually was representing which was the aftermath of the testing. You, again, are the only person I know of who actually believes that the pink in the picture represents where blood once was. You have no idea what you're talking about, clearly.

Further you claim that level of clean up occurred but can't seem to be explain why areas of the sink weren't wiped down *at all*, no one ever touched them. Your theories don't even stand up to the simplest of logic tests, sorry.

It was Raf's family that proved the shoe prints weren't his Air Force 1's. It was this revelation that caused the investigators to go back for the luminol and to "find" the clasp. They realized they had nothing. I'm also pretty sure it didn't have anything to do with damage to shoes it had to do with how many concentric circles are on the tread of an Air Force 1 v a Nike Outbreak 2.

(Bumping to preserve thread. Something about a hamster.)

Knox has appealed her conviction on the slander charge claiming the pressure she was put under led her to inadvertently implicate Patrick.

The prosecutors claim they will file their own appeal by the February 17th deadline.

Also the translation of Hellman's motivation report is finished.

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/...on/conclusion/

All you need is love!

Apparently Knox has signed a $4m book deal - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=10786140

Article also states that

"Knox, who returned to her home town of Seattle in the United States immediately after her acquittal, cannot be extradited back to Italy."

Is this true? Why not?

It appears to be true. I would be really interested in seeing the contract and what kind of conditions it has. If the $4M is guaranteed and not based on performance than this is a badly negotiated deal.

It is also unclear what kind of book it will be. Originally they claimed it would deal with Amanda the person both before Italy and during her incarceration but not actually address the murder itself -- WTF? Who would care about that? What people want to know about is the murder. Now it seems that maybe it will be about the murder but I don't know how she can write about that given her trial is on going, there is a on going civil case, and there are two new trials for criminal slander that have yet to begin. Maybe the book is not going to be published until all of this is dealt with but that will be years. I'd be curious as to what the contract says with respect to the very probable re-conviction.

The money will come in useful as she has lawyers to pay now that the decision that set her free has been appealed.

--------

With respect to extradition of course Amanda can be extradited on the murder charge. Possibly the article is discussing the criminal slander charge Amanda also faces. Amanda can not be extradited for that crime but for the murder she will be subject to extradition.

You really think the US are giving her away should she be convicted of murder?

I don't think so...