1. L.O. and I have reviewed the case. Such is why both of us were quick to jump on the fabrication brought forth as fact by Ken Dine (and of which you initially offered support).

2. Hair samples: Does anyone really have to wonder why an investigator would take hair samples from the residence of a suspected murderer? Why do you think this was done? - Do you think someone was trying to make a wig?

Um, no. If there was this hair foumd under the fingernail (as claimed by your shill-buddy) this would be evidence that could support a single-attacker theory (which, if you knew the defense's trial position, you'd recognize as important for AK and RS).

As for the confirmation bias, you are making an inconsistent argument here (which is why you should have let Ken drown on his own).

We did connect the dots:

Steve Moore was either making it up or he was misinformed.

As for the additional "under the fingernail, " Ken either made it up or appropriated it from another shill source. The only time I have seen "under the fingernail, " was from a Seattle news article containing an interview with AK. Of course (as you may guess), the "under the fingernail" comment was simply offered as fact with no sourcing. (In case you can't "connect the dots" the article was a pro-Amanda fluff piece).

Oski, every time you mention something about the evidence that isn't quoted from the Massei report you're wrong. Lost Ostrich recently stated that the November 6th interrogation was Amanda's first official interview with police. Why he thinks that I have no idea, but it reveals his superficial understanding of the investigation.

2. Hair samples: Does anyone really have to wonder why an investigator would take hair samples from the residence of a suspected murderer? Why do you think this was done? - Do you think someone was trying to make a wig?[/QUOTE]

One reason would be to compare them to hairs found at a crime scene.

Steve Moore isn't the source of the information, genius.

You say that you're refuting what I'm saying?

My contention has only been that negroid hair(s) were found at the crime-scene and not necessarily on Kercher's hand or under her fingernails – JUST AT THE CRIME SCENE!

Back on 10-25-2011 this was posted here by YOU:

I never claimed that there were hair formations under Kercher's nails (but I'm not discounting it, either).

Repeatedly I've posted here, that based upon early media reports, that it was obvious that "negroid hair(s)" were found at the crime scene, but testing under Kercher's fingernails should have been done as standard procedure, which is why the defense was appealing that issue after Massei, as you correctly pointed out back on 10-25-2011.

Testing should have also been done on the obvious semen stain found on Kercher's pillow. Likewise, no DNA results were obtained from the 3 bloody towels found in Kercher's bedroom – many tests which should have been standard procedure were either not done, or botched due to either incompetence or machinations.

The police DESTROYED most of the hard-drives relevant to the case, and then the prosecution in Masssei successfully fought defense attempts to have the data from those destroyed laptops retrieved, and that is mentioned in Massei.

The FACT that "negroid hair(s)" were found at the crime scene can easily be determined by reviewing the POLICE LEAKS to the media in the first few weeks of this case, since within 4 days of the prosecution's victorious "CASE CLOSED" news conference on Nov 6th 2007, 4 days later on Nov 10th the media was already reporting that the police were looking for a 2nd AFRICAN suspect.

FACT: those early media reports also contained leaks from the police that they had CCTV footage of the African perp hanging around the cottage in the hour before Kercher arrived home (around 8:56 pm), and curiously, the time-stamp of the footage showing Guede leaving the crime scene had been cropped from the released video.

The police refused to release to the defense most of the CCTV security footage they had collected.

While the CCTV footage was discussed in pre-trial hearings, the Massei opinion never even mentions the important CCTV footage. Since the CCTV footage was only mentioned at pre-trial hearings that haven't been transcribed into English, does that mean the CCTV footage doesn't exist?

Since Massei didn't mention the (obviously suppressed) CCTV footage, does that make the CCTV footage unimportant and irrelevant to the case? Since no mention of the CCTV footage was found in Massei, does that prove the defense didn't try to introduce the CCTV footage at trial?

The video that Massei did allow at trial was a fanciful 20 minute cartoon showing Guede & Raffaele holding down Kercher as Amanda slashed Kercher's throat using Raffaele's kitchen knife. Ya, fair trial.

The CCTV footage PROVES that only Kercher and Guede were at the cottage on the night of Nov 1st 2007.

The CCTV footage was never mentioned by Massei since it was potentially exonerating evidence.

I could understand if an Italian was ignorant about basic trial fairness principles, but Oski claims to be an American attorney, which makes me question his sanity.

Ken, thanks for reposting the bit on the hair under fingernails from the appeal. I wasn't even referring to that contention. My point was simply that as far as I can tell it's never been proven that Douglas' contention was absolutely true about "negroid" hairs. I try to be conservative in that respect and him simply mentioning it coupled with reports of who they were looking for doesn't "prove" it to me. I also said it may well be true so I'm obviously not saying it's a falsehood.

Of course. So, just show us where the investigators made this comparison.

Except the bolded is not true:

Massei p. 190:

Exactly: So, where is his citation? Where in the records is there a notation that "negroid hairs" were found at the scene.

Where has it been noted that "negroid hairs were found under Meredith's fingernails?"

Ok, Ken. You never argued there were negroid hairs found under MK's fingernails. Got it.

Ken: I have to ask - how does one determine "an obvious semen stain?"

Links to "POLICE LEAKS?" Maybe one of those "POLICE LEAKS" was the source of the "obvious semen stain." They should look into that - vd on the force is not something to ignore.

A link to that would be nice.

I believe this was subject of a pre-trial motion.

If it is excluded by a judge, yes, the item of evidence is irrelevant to the case.

These are called "crime recreations." It is a means of "demonstrative evidence." The defense would have had one as well. These recreations were shown in camera - so they were not publicly aired.

Yes, Ken - that someone would voluntarily want to be "an American attorney" certainly brings their sanity into question.

That someone would stand in a Court clerk line for 8 hours to pay a fine when they could just mail in a check makes me wonder about that person's sanity as well.

... genius.

239: I have though a lot about your obsession with "confirmation bias." I think now that I have spent some time with "you" on this sight, I can see how "confirmation bias" has colored your (false) opinion on this matter.

You have conceded that you do not have a complete record of the case (that is a reasonable statement). You also claim you have not read the Supreme Court's opinion, nor have you read the prosecutor's appeal briefs.

You have, however, read the defense appeals briefs (indeed, you have recommended that we all do so - do you have a link to an English translation of this, by the way?).

An appeal brief can be very compelling. Indeed, these are usually crafted by very good lawyers that tend to specialize in such things. If one does not compare it to the competing brief, I can see how one would agree with the positions set forth therein as such are now considered in a vacuum.

Indeed, appellate judges especially those sitting on the highest court are considered some of the finest legal thinkers available - and they do not always have an easy time wading through the competing arguments and offerings of law. As it is quite a task for a seasoned appellate judge, it is quite the challenge for the layperson (such as you).

I can understand now that you have only read the defense arguments in a vacuum and being a layperson, it is quite understandable that you have been "taken in" by the articulate prose and argument. I can see that if you do not learn the opposing arguments and then see how the Court ruled upon these competing arguments, that you might be confused and cynical when the ruling goes against that fine defense appeal.

But, fear not. This is understandable. You have set yourself up for "confirmation bias" as you have read only one-side of the case and you are not prepared to consider that there are legitimate (indeed, much more compelling) arguments on the opposite sides. So, you are looking at the "results" through the biased lens of one that has been predisposed to accept only one version of the case. Indeed, your own "confirmation bias" has prevented you from seeing this clearly.

It is understandable; it really is.

My recommendation is that you read through the Supreme Court opinion and think about it. Then, when the Nencini Report is released in a few days (with the translation soon to follow) you read it with an open mind.

It is painful to read your rantings about "injustice" when you don't even know the prosecution side of the case or the legal standards employed by the Court. It is also painful to read your rantings about "injustice" when you cannot even identify a single problem with the Court or the trial. Trust me, you should read the opinions and come to understand the complete picture. You will probably feel much better once you finally come to realize just why Amanda is guilty and why she will be extradited to serve her murder sentence in Italy.

- Just a friendly suggestion.

Oski, you are either unbelievably obtuse, or trolling.

You admit that investigators would logically take a sample of a suspect's hair to compare to hairs found at a crime scene, but then you demand proof that the bumbling Italian investigators had actually followed through with the comparison?

The relevant point here is that, the bumbling Italian investigators would only bother to take samples of Guede and Lumumba's hair if they had crime-scene African hairs to compare to the hair of their African suspects.

Whether or not the bumbling Italian investigators had followed through with the hair comparison is irrelevant.

While African (negroid) hairs would be important to identify a suspect early on in the investigation (which is why early media reports had mentioned African suspects involved in the murder), by the time this case was before Massei, Guede (an African) had already been convicted in a fast-track trial, so Massei obviously wasn't interested in the crime scene hair aspect of the case.

It is the common refrain of the guilty to attack the investigator(s) rather than focus on the actual evidence.

Absolutely:

1. It is your claim to begin with;

2. You and the other shills insist on introducing "evidence" outside the Court records; so I feel that it is quite reasonable for me to ask for some proof;

3. That a hair sample would be used to compare to another sample seems reasonable to me, yet, I do not believe I stated that I believe it is the only use for the hair sample.

So:

A. Cite to where it is stated "negroid hair" was found at the murder scene.

B. Cite to where it is stated "negroid hair was found under MK's fingernail."

C. Cite to where hair sample collected from Rudy's home.

You sure of that? In any event, we don't need to guess - just show us where it happened. Show us that the samples were collected and show us what they were used for.

Except you ignore the part about how the prosecutor was looking to "confirm" his hasty conclusion that AK and RS were involved in the murder. In doing so, you claim that this "negroid hair" caused the investigators to focus on Amanda(?).

Of course, in "baiting the trap" for Amanda to confront her with this "negroid hair," the Italians concocted an elaborate plan to:

1. call RS down to the station (why did they call him by the way - does he have "negroid hair?");

2. they didn't know AK would be there (OH, but they KNEW she'd remain joined at RS' hip, and appear because HE DID!!!);

3. Trick RS into stating that he was going to change is story thus removing AK's alibi for that evening;

4. Use that information to get AK "in the box" where they could have "12 investigator's interrogate her for 5 days" so that they could access her phone for African people.

5. Trick AK into confessing that she was there while a person with negroid hair killed MK.

6. Once that happened, the "Bumbling Italians" had to go fix their investigation since they no longer could just pin the crime on AK alone - they had to figure out a way to create a "multiple attacker" scenario and then plant evidence against AK. They decided that things work better in 3's, so they went ahead and threw RS in the mix for the hell of it as well - so, they must have tricked him into giving them a plaster-of-paris footprint that they then used to plant a footprint in MK's blood on the bathmat.

7. They tricked AK into admitting that RS has knives at his house - SPECIFICALLY IN THE KNIFE DRAWER OF THE KITCHEN!!! AK was not sure about this, but then the interpreter used an old Sicilian trick to convince AK that she should be able to remember things that didn't really happen because the "sooner they got this over with," AK could then go change her tampon (AK claimed she had a bad period and was not allowed to attend to it) and then go home to bed.

8. AK claims that the investigator hit her on the head and called her "stupid" for wearing white pants while having menstrual troubles.

9. RS is filing suit for "depravation of human rights" because they didn't allow him to finish his pizza before they arrested him. He had already bought and paid for the pizza (and left a generous tip) and had only taken a few bites. It was truly an injustice because RS thought that he had thrown AK completely under the bus and was very surprised that he was in "BIG TROUBLE TOO!!!!!!"

10. Meanwhile, it was irrefutable established that Patrick had "negroid hair" JUST LIKE AMANDA SAID!!!!!

In all seriousness, KEN DINE, you are really not going to get anywhere re-hashing the "interrogation" no matter what facts you choose to make up.

I appreciate that the shill playbook is now focusing on this "depravation of human rights" as it is clear AK's conviction for murder will be upheld by the Supreme Court - AND that AK's appeal to the ECHR will focus on the "interrogation."

As posted before, this whole thing is folly. AK's appeal will be rejected out-of-hand. I appreciate, however, that AK is not really trying to win the appeal, but she is using it as a platform to mislead the U.S. citizens into thinking a "big injustice" happened in hopes there will be a popular outcry to have the extradition request denied.

The fundamental problem here is that most of this is propaganda and it is easy to identify fabrications in the "facts" and "timeline" set forth by AK and her p.r. machine. Indeed, her book has numerous inconsistencies with her own trial testimony. There is talk that she will face additional charges for these lies.

In any event, good luck with that.

Does it taste like semen?

I don't know - your mom wasn't clear on that.

Oski, who are you referring to at this point, ffs. This is old man yelling at cloud. You brought a name into the discussion that has no bearing on anything being discussed.

lol.

Ken Dine: "Hey there were negroid hairs found under Meredith's fingernail."

Oski: "Show me a cite for this."

239: "I think Steve Moore mentioned it."

Oski: "Where did he get it from, or did he just make it up?"

239: "It doesn't matter, stop talking about it."

okay.

So, the shills get caught making something up and its no longer important.

Got it.

Oski, Steve Moore is not the former FBI agent that was the source of the contention. No one has mentioned Steve Moore but you. If you'd read the source I provided you'd see that it was explained what the person had access to and if you read what I've been saying the entire time you'd already know the answer to your question.

Stop wallowing in your ignorance.

Here: This should make you happy.

So, go ahead. Let us know.

As usual your entire premise is inaccurate and ******ed as I answered the question you're asking well before you even asked it Oski. What's the matter with you?

Also: