Lol. I just ask you questions about the relevance of your arguments. I find it interesting that you spend a lot of time arguing points, but you can't state how or why your "point" relates to Knox improperly being found guilty at trial.

I don't care one bit about what you are attempting to argue because it is not relevant. If you could at least explain why you are raising a particular point and how it led to Knox suffering prejudice at trial, I would actually pay attention to your argument.

Because you are either unable or unwilling to do that, you only offer noise.

For example, with Knox's interrogation, you seem to be hinting at a "fruit of the poison tree" suppression argument of some sort - as if the police used ill-gotten testimony to reach further evidence. However, you ignore the fact that the evidence at the house was already under the custody of the investigation and was going to be reached independently. The value of Knox's statements (the ones that were excluded from trial) are that they showed the police unequivocally that Knox was lying and that she did not have an alibi - and they focused their investigation on her and Raf.

I don't know what your problem is with that - the testimony the was improperly obtained was not introduced at trial - she was convicted on other evidence.

I think you have some sort of problem that should be sorted out. I really can't understand how this thread means so much to you that you would return after two bannings. Just what is it that you need to tell us, especially when you have been informed in clear terms that you are not welcome here? Why do you insist on arguing irrelevant points (and dishonestly at that) when you have been told by many that you have no credibility and that you are non persuasive? In fact, your silly arguments tend to make the argument for guilt stronger. So, what are you doing here?

I'm sure you will try to blame this on Henry at some point. I can appreciate having a blood feud with someone, but you are picking a terrible venue for your fight - you are simply looking like an idiot if you are trying to use Henry's work in this thread as a vehicle for you proving he made a mistake at some point in his life that he refuses to cop to (or whatever seems to be bothering you). If this thread was a football game, the score would be Henry, 500 and 239, 6 (blocked extra point). You wouldn't even get on the scoreboard.

Can you identify one single relevant point you have established in Knox's favor? I can't.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that Amanda did not sleep with a stranger on the train AND that she did not send an email to her friend stating such (and if course, her mom's and sisters comments about this email either didn't happen or were taken out-of-context and misreported by "the tabloids.)

How does this help your case? Was Amanda convicted on any evidence related to those facts at issue? Does the establishment of those facts in your favor tend to prove she was not guilty?

Or, are you merely trying to protect Amanda's good name (which would be ironic as she has already been convicted of and served time for slander in Italy)?

Unsure why there's now an argument about Knox's sexual history, I don't see how whether or not she ****ed a stranger on a train is relevant either way.

I'm still curious about the "retraction" of her witness statement. According to FatTony, Knox gave a new statement to police on the 7th and formally retracted her claims to have witnessed the murder and rape of Meredith by Lumumba. Is this true? If so, why was Lumumba not released from custody until his alibi was verified on the 19th?

I would guess it is not true. I would also guess this issue was featured in the slander trial against Amanda (where Patrick secured a 40k judgment).

Because PFUNK has a documented Henry obsession and brought it up in this post in a failed effort to discredit Henry on something tangential to the case. It has no relevance to the evidence of the case, I agree.

I'd like to see this too.

It's being discussed because:

a) It's relevant to her portrayal in the America media and the bias of news reports
b) There is an organized active group that had a Facebook page that would post links to this thread and send shills to this thread regularly. They would register as new accounts and start posting the standard PR stuff before Dids made all new accounts banned.
c) Undeniable lies from this campaign ("54 hours of interrogation", "no evidence") are frequently posted here.

It's highly relevant to the debate, that's why it's discussed.

Meanwhile your tunnel vision attempt to discredit Henry on a meaningless piece of commentary - nonetheless sourced to reliable reporters from the Guardian and The Times and quotes from the family themselves admitting that Amanda lied in that email (thus establishing it as a reasonable comment - what more do you want?) - are a source of rage for you and result in your subsequent tarding up of this thread. This is why you've been banned three times and Fat Tony and 239 haven't been. It's not your position but your stupidity and lack of genuine interest combined with stubbornness and documented obsession toward Henry.

There was no organized active group on facebook telling people where to post. You're totally paranoid. I looked at that facebook group and it was posting links to pmf and jref as well lol. The page had a total of 91 likes. You'd think if there was some organised campaign links would be posted on the FAK page with 8200 likes. The reason people turned up here is because someone asked about this forum on IA, people took a look and joined. Speaking of facebook pages, have you seen the AK is guilty page, it's got like 4 active posters. One of them is a notorious troll and another some lady from Seattle.

It was 54 hours, it was part of her appeal to the SC. Did you read it?

This is the original post when shills started appearing. The people who came were banned by Dids but you can still see some replies to them.

This is the Amanda Knox Set FREE!! page on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/AmandaKnoxFREE/

It is a collection of seemingly all news articles and forums related to Knox where comments can be made. It is religiously updated and very thorough. These are some of the posts linking to this thread:



If it's just news, why the **** are they linking internet threads multiple times? Whatever its intention, it serves as a vehicle to direct pro Knox people to forums and news articles so they can be overwhelmed with pro Knox comments, as happened here:



They posted multiple links to this thread back in January over multiple days around the date of the original post. Strongly pro Knox new accounts turn up at that time and were soon banned by Dids. Their posts were nuked but you see some of what they said in their replies. Once all new accounts were banned, they ceased linking this thread. Other forums such as JREF with less moderation/intelligence have been completely taken over by Knox shills.

Did you think you wouldn't be called on your lies? This post alone is grounds for a ban. You clearly have no zero in being honest, zero interest in the community and are just here to shill for Knox and spread any misinformation you can.

Let me repeat for you again. People came here because someone posted at IA asking about this forum not because of some facebook page.

Why don't you post at JREF? It hasn't been taken over by anyone, most pro guilt folks walked away and preferred the echo chamber at pmf.

Do you notice the date of Jim afternoons post Jan 15 you linked???

Here is the post on IA asking about 2+2.




Another discussion thread

by european neighbour » Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:33 pm

Who knows or observes or even participates in this thread on an apparent poker forum?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34/ot ... ex799.html
Obviously still room for contradictory discussion because not so far overwhelmed like JREF and not that insular like the guilter sites but a turf yet dirty by guilters.
european neighbour

I'm sorry, but what is it you think you're demonstrating?

This is Jim's post in Pacific time: 01-15-2013, 12:44 PM
Time on the linked post quoted: 01-15-2013 9:33pm.

Jim's post was at 12:44pm, nine hours before the link you quoted was posted. What's more, astroturfers had been turning up for days, and there were lots of Facebook posts early/mid January. We were wondering for days where they came from until he found that Facebook page. Chronology, how does it work?

Anyway I think it's time for you to go. You aren't a member of this community in any way and are just here to spread lies and misinformation. You just did it twice. You have every post is in this thread and clearly no interest in the community whatsoever:

LOL have you heard of different timezones?

I think you've got a few issues. Take a break or stop whining.

Can you please source where you are getting the bolded?

Yes, I travel often. It's not fault if you don't correct for time zone. It's irrelevant anyway. Did you miss this?
Keep digging your hole buddy.

Not from Barbie.

As reported by Sky News

http://news.sky.com/story/577146/mer...-in-jail-diary

The exact same quote is in the Daily Mail in an article by a pro-Knox reporter

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ry--again.html

If I wanted to put more effort I can find more sources.

So I am not sure why it doesn't match this



but I highly doubt two English newspapers "translated" an English document incorrectly. If I had to offer an explanation she likely says the same thing more than once in her diary with slightly different wording.

Regardless with your version it isn't as bad but it also isn't nothing either. When you compare it to Raffaele also making a similar writings it is clear that they considered turning on each other. Innocent people don't do that.

What does the bit "kitchen knife in my suitcase" refer to?

This is just surreal. You've lost your mind.

I can't link it because it'll just ask you to enter user name and password and you can't see it. Henry was in the thread the other day and copied over a post to here iirc. Henry & Jim can confirm it for you if it's so important to you. The title of the thread is "Another Discussion Forum" on Page 2. The last post was Jan 16.

There was no other "shills" turning up here in the days beforehand. I was here posting remember.

I am really confused about why you are so stupid.

There are 20+ sources to the existence of the e-mail and contents from reputable newspapers.

There are a 10+ sources of the family denying that the contents of the e-mail was true but not that the e-mail existed and contained those contents.

Why would the family tell the media that Knox was lying in the e-mail if it didn't exist? They would just deny that any such e-mail existed and say it was all a fabrication but they don't. They admit the e-mail exists but claim that Knox just made up the sex on the train to look cool.

I personally don't care who she banged. None of it is important with the exception of maybe the guy she banged while dating Raffaele as that might have been a factor in Raffaele's state of mind. Beyond that her sexual history is irrelevant.

It is relevant because the existence of a PR firm is why we have the two set of facts -- the real ones and the ones created by the PR firm. As I posted earlier there is a interview of a PR shill talking before he was hired by Knox's PR firm and he says the evidence is substantial. He gets hired and then in the next interview he says there is no evidence at all.

Henry it's from Barbie originally. Pisa just copied her.

Here is her original article from Jan 16 2008

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...n-diaries.html

She had a set of kitchen cultery in her suitcase under her bed sealed in original packaging which is why the cops didn't take it for testing. It ended up being stolen by the thieves who broke in.

Ohh dear.

I have no idea what the knife in the suitcase is about and if it was sealed in the original packaging even less why you are discussing it. The thieves though are an interesting topic so lets discuss them since they are new information for 2p2.

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

The thieves that broke in after the murder

I discussed these before because they were relevant in that real thieves used a different and more realistic point of entry. At the time we were discussing the staged burglary so didn't get into details but I think they are interesting.

After the murder and after the evidence was all collected but before the house was released to the owners there were two burglaries. One of these was particularly odd. The thieves stole Meredith's bedding and a few other odd items that had no value. It is possible they have some value to weirdos but for me the first thing that came to mind was Raffaele's mobster dad ordered it done because there might have been evidence the police missed. I'll look up the list of what was taken if anyone is interested but it was a very specific list of odd items. If this was some weird murder collector you wouldn't expect the list to be so specific.

You were off posting somewhere else. Go back in the history and you'll see a Knox shill in two different interviews and he clearly states the evidence against Knox is substantial and then he gets hired and all of a sudden there is absolutely no evidence.

Do you deny this is true?

Also where is that page number for the retraction. I'd like to have it before I go to the office so I can confirm your claim.

So Nick Pisa can see into the future?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ry--again.html

This exact quote shows up in multiple English newspapers by both pro and anti Knox people.