Are you going to buy John Follains book?

She wrote another statement on Nov 7 retracting her statements.

When Patrick was released she writes in her diary how happy she is, finally something is going right.

Henry overstates a lot of things - but I think thats more a matter of his personal style. Someone saying something is definitively true when I feel its closer to 95% true - isn't a big deal for me. I feel like a common theme in OOT is that Henry says something, people point out some random exceptions, and a few hundred posts are spent arguing about that 5%. For the random social/money/random **** it can be entertaining. For a serious topic like this its pretty much irrelevant.

The difference though between Henry and you is that he still has valid arguments for his "conspiracy theories". The perfect example for me is Hellman's description of the burglary. As soon as I read that I realized that his points about Hellman were pretty valid. Anyone with any amount of logic/reasoning skills should have come to the same conclusion after reading that regardless of if you believe AK is innocent or not.

A contrasting example is that the innocenters want us to believe that dozens of experts were wrong either from an even bigger conspiracy than anything a guilter has ever advanced or from really bad luck on AK's part. There's no real evidence supporting these claims except that they (and the defence team) would really like that to be true.

lol, of course I'm not going to buy a book you idiot.

I asked you if she'd formally retracted her witness statement. I assume you understand that doing this would involve contacting the police and signing a new statement. Are you saying that's what she did? Or was her "statement" of Nov 7th simply scrawled in a diary on on a piece of paper somewhere?

You keep claiming this is in Follains book yet you refuse to give us a page number so anyone can verify it.

This is the sixth time in 24 hours I have asked. What is the page number this statement is on?

If you ignore this I'll have to assume you are lying.

I'm curious why you won't buy a book or even two or three about the case?

trololol

So you're just going to ignore the question then? Cool

Because he isn't on social assistance so can't devote the kind of time you devote to this case.

were you the one who brought up how you asked Henry about which lawyer spoke Italian and he never responded? but you can't be troubled to post a page number which has been asked of you numerous times? funny how that works. if you can't provide a page number then i will ask a mod to remove all posts of yours claiming she retracted her statement since we can only assume it's unsourced and a made up lie.

No one has seen the memorandum in full but it's referred to:

Page 153 Death in Perugia

Then, for the first time, Amanda apologised for what she'd told the police: 'I'm sorry I didn't remember before and I'm sorry I said things because I was confused and scared.' She hadn't lied when she said she thought Patrick was the killer: 'I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember I can't know who was the murderer because I didn't return back to the house.'

Amanda handed the two pages to a guard, who gave them to the prison governor; they were then sent to Mignini.

Then on page 154 he quotes a paragraph from her prison diary November 7 which I've already posted here.

OK, well if this is the case then I'll post more useful stuff. I've been looking at multiple transparencies and Sollecito's footprint in blood on the bathmat seems beyond doubt. At the least, it cannot possibly be Guede's because of the size and shape of the central and left side of the metatarsus, and you can show this visually in a way a casual reader can easily understand. Unfortunately no one has put up a good visual presentation demonstrating this, and Rinaldi's presentation has one error and a dubious attribution in it.

If anyone has the defense argument in English or can summarize it, that would be appreciated. I've asked for it but none of shills who post everything else seem to be able to summarize it. I can't see how you can argue against it except for pointing out Rinaldi's errors and noting the underside of Sollecito's big toe is raised and doesn't print, which is nonsensical once you look at the soft raised nature of the bathmat.

That isn't a retraction. Sorry.

Although now I understand why you refused to give the page number.

It sure is a retraction. She clearly says she has no idea who the murderer is and she wasn't there.

They still kept Patrick even though they now had nothing.

FatTony,

A retraction is telling the police that she lied. She isn't saying she lied about Patrick she just regrets saying she was there. What she is retracting is her presence at the cottage not Patrick's involvement.

Of course they did. Any police force would.

Knox when confronted with Raffaele withdrawing support for her alibi made a statement against her personal interest and changed her story to claim she was at the cottage and that Patrick did it.

After having more time she realized that she ****ed up. Now she wants to claim she wasn't at the cottage because she has had more time to think about it. No one is going to believe that or take it seriously.

The focus of her claim is not that Patrick didn't do it-- in fact she claims he could have-- but only that she was not there. This is Knox trying to retract her presence in the cottage.

That you think this is at all acceptable just shows how stupid you are. She now remembers where she was on the night her roommate got murdered as if there is anyone in the world who would not remember such a large detail on such a large an important night.

LOL are you thick?

How could she admitt lying when she says she thought he was the killer at the time (during the midnight interrorgation without an attorney in a language she barely spoke) BUT now has no idea because she wasn't there.

It's only a lie if she was intentionally and knowingly falsely saying it was Patrick. Clearly she wasn't, she believed it to be true at the time.

I can't speak for LO - but from my point of view I have no intention of giving money to people that are profiting from the brutal murder of a young woman.

If there's a book out there where all proceeds are being donated to a good cause then I'll consider it just because the amount of time I've spent in this thread.

It's not an issue I care about since its not relevant to the case. You also concede it is not relevant to the case. However, you believe it is worthwhile to challenge the point, even though I think it is reasonable to believe Amanda did send that email absent proof that the news agencies fabricated the existence of the email and the comments regarding the email by the mother and sister.

On a general note, I am not in favor of any party substituting a lie for the truth; I am certain Henry agrees with this as well. I am quite sure neither Henry nor Truthsayer just made this up on their own (if it is indeed false).

If you prove that the emails did not happen and that the mother/sister comments were incorrectly reported, I am sure people will no longer state that Amanda slept with a stranger on a train.

Ok fair enough but books about true crime are very popular. You could always give a donation on the side if that's important to you.

Lots of things are popular that I don't support with my own money and giving money on the side doesn't keep money from going into the pockets of the authors.

You make this sound like the police brought her to the station in the middle of the night.

Reality the police asked Raffaele to come to the station and he said he would come but that he was going to dinner with friends. He is the one who said he'd come after dinner which is how they end up at the police station at 10pm. Knox was not even supposed to be there. She came out of her own free will likely because she was worried about why they wanted to see Raffaele

Knox had an interpreter.

I understand what you are trying to do here but it makes you look sketchy as hell and hurts your credibility.

QF data point below. I think it's an interesting insight into the pro Knox mentality and the PR importance of getting anyone with a title on your side regardless of how credible they are to thinking people. You seem to share the reverence for experts, incidentally, which hopefully gives you pause!

They're not at all comparable.

Experts with deep knowledge in a field aren't comparable to self-proclaimed experts who happen to have some connection to a field. A PhD in Computer Science with 30 years of practical experience in a wide range of jobs isn't equivalent to a guy who's written Fortran for banks for 30 years even though they might both be called "experts" in programming.

Also, experts that testify under oath and are subject to cross examination are different than experts that just speak to the media.

Experts that have staked their whole reputation on a case are different than an expert that just testified to a portion of the case that they were knowledgeable about.

Experts picked by a defence team to testify are different than an independent expert picked before the results of their investigation will be known.

It's not so much that I hold them in reverence but I need a convincing argument that they're wrong. The more complex the field the more likely I'm just never going to believe that a person self-educated in a field from the internet (and I recognize there are lots of very valid resources on the internet) can point out a major flaw in a true experts testimony.

This is probably an interesting discussion to have elsewhere, but you're simply wrong on the reliability of experts.

Just from this case alone: C&V were both professors and they produced an abomination of a report. Hellmann was an expert judge and produced an abomination of a report. Stefanoni was an experienced expert and made serious errors. The digestion testimony actually showed complete lack of knowledge of anything other than a few paragraphs in a forensics textbook; moreover it was contradictory on several points between experts who came up with wildly different ranges and starting points. The ability to put an error bound on a range and start it at the correct point is basic competence, yet they lacked it, without even getting in Tlag and the significance of the empty duodenum.

The reverence for experts is common but they're as mistaken and error prone about their field of expertise as the guy on the street is about everyday stuff.

I agree though that self selected experts are necessarily worthless, as experts run the gamut of opinion and motivation and honesty so there will always be some professor or ex FBI douchebag loudly convinced of something that just isn't true.

You were presented highly convincing, in fact conclusive evidence that the experts very wrong on digestion, and yet you still held up the experts, being totally disbelieving that a guy on the internet could be right and four experts wrong. This is essentially the same instinct that FatTony is using even if yours is filtered through greater sophistication.

The problem with experts when it comes to court is that you can always find someone to say anything. I have no idea what experts get paid in Italy but a typical will say anything expert in North America is $300/hr for court time and $250/hour for research time.

To make things even worse you can just fire an expert if you don't like what they are going to say and as long as you pay them they can't ever reveal what they found. Raffaele fired his original DNA expert who had already logged $50,000 worth of work on the case. You can see why with those kind of numbers the incentive to just lie as an expert is quite high if you're a nobody and there is no reputation at stake.

I've been watching the live stream of the Arias trial and the last two weeks have been all defence experts -- one turned out to be actively lying for the defence and faking results and the other is completely incompetent. The prosecution was able to impeach these experts but when the prosecution tried to do that with C&V Hellmann shut it down and wouldn't allow it. That alone made it clear Hellmann was never going to be allowed -- the appointment of C&V was illegal and then after the appointment the refusal to allow the prosecution to put up rebuttal experts was also illegal.