239, do you ever play at the Shoe? it would be fun to see you at the table! (no jab, I think it would be a good time)

This is the expected response considering you had no idea the window even had inner shutters and that there was glass embedded in them. Best to ignore reality than reveal you're unable to mount a coherent response.

No, I haven't been there but I've heard it's an excellent room. When I used to make it down that way it was before they renovated it. I'll let you know if I do though. (seriously).

239,

How much did you donate to Sollecito's fundraiser?

Too soon.

Zero dollars. How long are you going to wait to offer your explanation of the embedded glass?

The response is that much like all your arguments there is nothing to explain since your perceived issue is imaginary.

The shills have their translation finished and available. It won't be as good as the PMF translation but you now have something to read.

The embedded glass isn't imaginary. It's been well documented and the reality is you didn't even know it existed or there was a shutter inside the windows. You can't reconcile it with your pre-arrived at conclusion. That's why you have no response.

Lol. You've been posting here since Nov. 2011. Not one point you have attempted to make has held up per the Supreme Court ruling. In fact, they claim most of your claims and underlying reasoning (or, rather the defense arguments you mirror) are ridiculous.

The embedded glass has already been discussed and it does not establish what you claim it does and more importantly it doesn't overcome all the other evidence that the burglary was staged.

Nobody is taking you seriously because this is just your new 9:26 computer use, your new digestion theory. You have a history of parading in crazy ideas that you always think will break the case wide open but you always fall flat. So no one is going to take you seriously.

If you want to discuss this why don't you go back to when we did this months ago and everyone laughed at you and just re-read it. Search the topic for roasted and you'll find the discussion of the break-in.

Now before you say I'm just avoiding this please go back and just read the previous discussion. It is faster that way and involves less typing.

As for going forward you need to deal with reality. Lone-wolf is out. Legitimate break in is out. The Luminol Traces being anything other than blood is out. Everything you've ever argued has been called illogical and ridiculous by the SCC. We've been saying that all along but now the SCC has said it as well.

It strongly suggests the window was broken from the outside, it's really that simple. The prosecution theory had them breaking it from the inside after they trashed the room. That was based on an interpretation of testimony.

Those aren't crazy ideas, they're direct arguments the defense made at both trials. I don't expect you to recognize the difference, you're so far gone here. The 9:26 computer interaction was a claim the defense made based on Spotlight metadata showing a video file was interacted with on Raf's Macbook. The police apparently only ran ENCASE on the computers and missed it. It's not a wild claim that they'd miss something in MacOS at all as I'd be shocked if MacOS market share in Italy is over 10%.

The argument about digestion is also not far fetched and you and Truthsayer are ignoring your own sources. As usual you're simply not interested in a logical conversation about these things.

This is standard for you. You have nothing to say about the embedded glass because it doesn't fit your fantasy. It's not clear to me that you even acknowledge it exists and you obviously didn't know about the inner shutters. You simply don't understand the evidence.

You are avoiding it because you can't explain it. The same way that Jim hurr durr'd about it until I posted a blown up picture of it and he quit replying.

Unfortunately for you their ruling has no bearing on the factual truth.

Lol.

Sad.

239,

Start from post 8947. You can completely experience getting owned on this without the rest of us having to go though it again.

Eh, ignoring the question and the point and posting a diatribe about how it could have been done differently, followed by an attempt to lampoon the actual proof of what likely happened is only owning yourselves.

Please point me to the post where you personally took into consideration the embedded glass in the window and dealt with it in your "theory".

does the embedded glass really make any difference to the case? Like if the window was clearly proven to have been broken from the outside, what would that mean?

Serious question.

Given the facts of the case, if we now insert the "fact" the embedded glass proves the window was broken from the outside, we are left with ...

That the staged break included one of the group actually going outside and throwing a rock through the window.

That's it.

Serious question to 239:

What happened to your pledge to re-evaluate each one of your (failed) arguments in light of the SCC causation report?

It doesn't seem that you are keeping your word on this; instead, you are just renewing your same line of arguments.

Raffaele has yet another new site.



I don't get it.

It seems to rotate through a series of images including a young asian girl in front of a harbour.

Only one image if relevant and has a picture of Sollecito.

My guess is that Sollecito despite his claim to have a graduate degree in computer science doesn't understand how Wordpress add-ons work and hasn't managed to delete the stock photos that come with the template.

Whatever, I'm sure no one will notice.

For example



or

29 years old and his resume has a "work experience" section instead of a "career history" section.

a few years in jail will do that to you.

Well, for starters, it would mean the prosecution theory was completely wrong. It would also add weight to the theory that Guede broke in in a similar way to another break in he was suspected in.

None of this matters to people who have their minds made up. They say there are no scuffs on the wall. If there were visible scuffs on the wall that met their burden, they'd simply say one of the kids climbed up to fake the break in. As far as I can tell this is the same type of thinking the police used. The break was staged, not because the evidence indicated it was but because it had to have been if Amanda and Raf were involved.