Shhhhhh

Link plz

Over 800 pages of this ****? Well, **** me gently.

I like how some people pretend as if they know first-hand who's guilty and who's innocent.

lets just say its definitely time to remove "innocent american on trial in italy or" from the thread title. definitely, 100%. at least until a TruthHater presents a compelling case otherwise!

Um, she was Newsweek's Italy correspondent since 1997. A quick google news search shows she covered everything from human trafficking to high profile court cases to politics to (Italian) travel and food. More lies out of you.

Well, considering that self selection bias went right over your head, it's not surprising you'd say this. I agree that managing a counter terrorism might be relevant, depending on what he did. Selection bias makes it irrelevant though, do you see why?

And WTF does sniping, swat team membership and piloting a helicopter have to do with evaluating complex evidence and testimony in Italian, which he wasn't even present to hear?? I'd trust an Italian journalist sent their by her boss who saw the whole case, to get an unbiased view, far above Monday morning quarterbacking, media courting Captain America (see any of the interviews I posted).

Raf and Rudy didn't know each other. Everyone else did. Rudy had slept on the toilet in the building after a big night. He was well known at the house. My question stands. You can ignore it all you want, but you just end up looking dishonest. They knew each other. From a pro knox site:

I mean, can you be any more dishonest? You don't answer the propositions because it exposes how flawed your position is.
Dating for a week, sure, but their relationship was uber bizarre, to say the least:
They only parted for lectures??? They meet five days before the murder. According to Sollecito, they had sex within a few hours of meeting, and then stayed together day and night for five days, her crashing at his apartment all day and night, despite having just met.

I don't know anyone who'd do that who isn't a mental case, or any guy who'd accept it who isn't a mental case. And I mean fully mental, as in psycho or personality disorder. Meanwhile, Sollecito is an animal porn watching, rape cartoon collecting, knife fetishist who collected knives and carried them everywhere. More:

I mean, who does that at a police station after their room mate is murdered? Sane non murdering people are deeply afraid and upset that someone died. Even if you're not upset by the death, you're still pretty disturbed, because for one thing, innocent people don't know who the murderer is. Everyone, including multiple impartial witnesses, testified how odd they were behaving. It's actually what made police suspect them before the DNA evidence came in. No one else acted this way. No one else burst out crying and put their hands over their ears when when a knife draw opened with the police there.

To continue with your post:
There are many many ways this murder may have happened, which is why specific scenarios are stupid, but even for this one: do you think this is less bizarre than their relationship, or love of animal porn, violent sexual comics and knife collecting??

How many violent or sexual crimes? Zero? We all agree he was a burglar and petty thief. On the other hand, Raf was known to carry knives on his person everywhere, even to the police station until his father told him not to, unlike Rudy who only had them sometimes.

He was known downstairs where the guys lived. He had been to the Knox house before. It's really unusual for burglars to do this, for one because you can be recognized. Not to mention that the breakin in so obviously staged it hurts. See the pictures of glass splatter posted earlier.
Why is that diabolical? That's exactly what someone like Amanda and Raf would do if they accidentally or deliberately killed someone they didn't like and didn't think it was fair that they get caught. And they sure didn't like Meredith. From the innocent man Amanda falsely accused of doing the murder:

She sounds sane, and not at all upset about Meredith. Not at all determined to teach her a lesson, or pull a murderer prank like she did in Seattle.
It looked like the MO of any burglar. The staged rape was certainly not Rudy.
Who the **** is ergon? And who's cyber stalking in this thread? You sound like you're so involved in this case you've lost your nut, man.

OK, lets go through these.

Luciano Garofano- As you mentioned him before, I don't trust anyone who is being investigated for fraud of any kind, and has resigned from their position prematurely to circumvent matters related....Plus, he wrote a book on the case. No Amanda Knox sensationalized crime = no money = no profit.

Graham Johnson - Great. A respected crime author and journalist, who (guess what?) just so happened to write a book with the above mentioned Luciano Garofano.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Darkness-Des.../dp/1847398626


Wendy Murphy - (could you of found a more annoying biatch?) Lawyer, teacher, annoying twit, weird victim rights activist when it suits her, and paid TV mouth piece who spouts all kinds of nonsense. Bill O'reilley wrote the forward in her book apparently for christ sake....vomit.

She does not have a great track record on a lot of things either...a quick google search finds great things like her theories that Casey Anthony was a prostitute and was pimping out Caylee for child porn purposes http://plainsdaily.com/entry/child-p...s-be-released/

She is more famous for being a ****** during the Duke lacrosse rape case years ago. She even admits to being a paid mouth piece for whichever side she is paid to be on a show about, and has no problem continuing the charade despite new evidence or development. Sounds right up your alley.

On April 10, 2006, after defense attorneys announced that DNA results found no links to the athletes, Murphy told Grace, "Look, I think the real key here is that these guys, like so many rapists--and I'm going to say it because, at this point, she's entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim."

Emerging questions about the investigation did not prompt Murphy to reassess. Appearing on "CNN Live Today" on May 3, 2006, she posited, "I'd even go so far as to say I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child."

On June 5, 2006, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson asserted, relying on a Duke committee report, that the lacrosse team was generally well-behaved. Rejoined Murphy: "Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?" She later added: "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth."

Asked to evaluate her commentary, Murphy said in an interview: "Lots of folks who voiced the prosecution position in the beginning gave up because they faced a lot of criticism, and that's never my style." She notes that she's invited on cable shows to argue for a particular side. "You have to appreciate my role as a pundit is to draw inferences and make arguments on behalf of the side which I'm assigned," she says. "So of course it's going to sound like I'm arguing in favor of 'guilty.' That's the opposite of what the defense pundit is doing, which is arguing that they're innocent."

http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4379

Nancy Grace - ROFLMAO

Andrea Vogt - Great a freelance journalist with no ties to law or crimes necessarily, has an opinion that leans towards your side.

We've already discussed her and in a radio interview I posted before she discusses it was a fair trial all around that acquited her and states the DNA evidence was "weak" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuesmt-VIis

Jeanine Pirro - Really? Well, anyways apparently she has changed her opinion after the acquittal and looking at it again....something you are incapable of doing. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...d-right-thing/

LOL though again on trying to bring in this big gun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfrfO4hsuhU


Clint Van Zandt - This guy is a bigger loser then that Steve Moore guy you like to harp on! Bwahaha you are such a ****** lolHenry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27HOOJ-h9-s



I really feel cheated Henry, is this the best you've got really?? A FOX news puppet pin headed women, a real life Judge Judy, a freelance journalist, a crime novel author, a half ****** of former FBI agent worse then the one you rail on, and a shady forensic expert from Italy?

I want my 30 minutes back from looking at all these exemplary educated people who view Amanda Knox as guilty.

Truthsayer, have you ever had a fling when on spring break for a week or something? That's what this was. There was nothing peculiar or unusual about it.

Trying to find something unusual about their relationship to prove guilt while ignoring that the brevity of the relationship points towards innocence is amusing though.

PFUNK,

No one except the uneducated (i.e. Fat Tony) thinks that "experts" who speak on this issue mean much at all. Because they understand selection bias. And also because the bias toward people publicly arguing Knox innocence is strong (innocence campaigns and campaigners have 10+x the frequency and longevity of guilt campaigners, for obvious reasons, and that's without a PR team involved).

This whole thing started because 239 claimed some time ago that anyone rational and objective who looks at the evidence will find her not guilty. I asked if he could link to examples of such people so I could read what they have to say. I am always open to changing my mind. So far I hear crickets.

In terms of this thread, it's no contest that the people arguing Knox guilt would destroy the people arguing Knox innocence in nearly any intellectual or professional field, from business to finance to law to science.

lol?

The brevity of their relationship is relevant, but not a slam dunk given how odd it was.

Are these things normal to you:

- Spending every non lecture waking and sleeping moment together for five days with someone you just met?
- Collecting violent sexual magazines
- Watching animal porn
- Collecting knives and carrying one everywhere, even to the police station, only stopping when your father tells you that's not a good idea?
- Getting kicked out of campus housing because you're a creep?

Yes or no? I don't know what kind of circles you hang around in, but these are decidedly abnormal to me. 1/5 might be passable, but 5/5 is psycho territory.

Yep. Also raffaele had only another week or two left in Perugia before leaving permanently. Nothing out of the ordinary about two students hooking up and spending all there free time with each other before one leaves.

Garafano thought rudy had a date with Meredith.

Sure man. You guys are all soooo superior because you have a different opinion on a criminal case! Bwahaha

The fact that you even think this makes you a ******, and it really shows a level of mind warp and group think around here within you all.

The level of masturbating each other off constantly, and ur little ankle biting minions following you alls lead is hilarious.

Wish you could see how funny it is from the outside looking in!

GTFO

They didn't know each other. I showed you the transcript from follain where she was shocked and in disbelief when rudy was caught and called him a bastard just like an innocent person would react. She knew of him but didn't know him. Yes she had met him like students meet dozens if not hundreds of people at school.

I don't know why you refer to the cottage consisting of two seperate apartments as the "Knox house". She was one of 8 people living there. There's no evidence rudy was a regular visitor or had been upstairs.

The breakin was real. See the Hellmann report. Who are you to declare breaking into a place a burglar had visited is unusual? Are you serious?

Funny you say this, since it describes how you found this site and started posted (exclusively) in this thread.

Wow, I just realized "TruthSayer" only joined this forum to come participate in this thread a few months ago.

The same thing everyone else is blasting certain others for doing.

With a name like "truthsayer" I don't know why that wasn't more obvious before.

What a joke.

GTFO

shhhhhhhh

Are you serious? LOL

You are a moron.

I've been registered here with this name since 08' homie, and my first post in this thread was maybe a month ago......and yes, I came here for poker not for some ******ed sick obsession over a disgusting crime.

Been reading this forum since 2004 regularly, and had an even older account at some point with a few posts.

I really don't know how I got sidetracked in this lunacy of a thread, but I assure you I don't really give a F about this case much more then trolling this thread and waiting for the next outcome.

Where does this guy fit in this theory?^^^^^

jfc

LOL

ill take bridges you dont want to cross for 2,000 alex!!

trust me brah, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I think you meant to quote Fat Tony!

"Than". Also, since you openly admit only being here to troll, you should probably get banned. Some of us are actually interested and trying to discuss the case?

More brilliant evaluation of the evidence. How much money do you want to bet that the bolded statement is not true? Put up or shut up. If you don't have much money or courage, we can do a thread ban instead. A mod can adjudicate.

We talked about this before.

Not quite accurate. She had spoken with him and partied with him all night. From the Massei report:

See above.

Do you find anything at all odd about the complete lack of glass on the ground? Pictures have been previously posted where tons glass from an incoming rock sprays back at least a yard in a big pattern. And that's even without closed inner shutters. Yet nothing was on the ground.

What about the pattern of the glass in the room? Or the fact that the shards appeared even and undisturbed on the windowsill by someone pulling themselves through a narrow windows over their head??

Just curious what you think of this and why.

On phone: I thought I was quoting Tony. I've never had a problem with you on the site or in the thread. I put phone down and it must have jumped to your post.

My apologies.

holy **** how can some of you give as much of a **** as you do about this? My God man at some of these walls of text

I am just calling them like I see them......so let's see.

You joined here in November 2012, and have a broad knowledge of this case immediately.

Half of your posts are in this thread exclusively from close to the beginning (I can only see back a certain distance, not sure if or how possible to see all).

This gives you less then 3 months time as a member here under the name "Truthsayer" which also reflects a relation to this topic specifically, in which you post in incessantly.

Are you saying you have another account here previously?

It's not quite like that. Personally, I never thought about whether Truthsayer came here just for this case, or not. I just paid attention to how he went about discussing the case.

I assure you if 239 or any other shill legitimately discussed the case (regardless of the side they take) they would be quite welcome. Indeed, I am interested in an intelligent and comprehensive discussion of the "not guilty" side of the case.