so much WOW @ this entire post. now i see why over the years the knox supporters were so able to convince people of their actual guilt. it's posts like these that do the trick.

Wow! It's amazing the number of thoughtful and insightful posts in one day. I can say without any hyperbole, that if you ever apply to Harvard, Yale, or Oxford, the degree of insight and intellect demonstrated in this post should be sufficient to grant you a full scholarship. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they offered you a PhD and a post as tenured professor straight away.

While Rep_lol's earlier posts convinced me of the absolute certainty of Knox and Sollecito's undeniable guilt, this post really takes the cake, in strengthening that certainty to the firmness of solid granite. In fact, I would state that I am now more convinced of Knox and Sollecito's guilt than I am of my own existence.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for opening my eyes to the light!

Knox's footprints were found in the victim's blood and Guede was identified by a palm print, not a finger print. AK/RS left plenty of traces of themselves at the crime scene and lied with the same consistency as Guede. I can't believe your actual reasoning system here, seriously.

Tell me you're joking with this. Are you setting some personal goal to make the most amount of dumb posts in one sitting, is that it? That almost tops your post on DNA. Again, they left plenty of traces of themselves at the crime scene with more samples of DNA evidence existing against Knox than Guede.

What? No it doesn't, jfc this is ridiculous.

Yeah okay. You're just on a roll here. This is what I mean by contortionist logic and that's being kind.

hey don't get butthurt with me bro, i didn't force you to come in here and start spouting off like a complete idiot regarding things you're completely clueless about

A “sock puppet” by definition is a secondary acct that a regular poster creates for (usually) nefarious reasons. I’ve only posted here using my real name, and no other. WHEREAS, your new acct has all the trademarks of being a sock-puppet acct. Whether you are or not, I don’t know for sure (yet?)

I also explained a few postings back that the offical police photographs taken of Filomena’s bedroom showed no glass atop her strewn clothing. Even if glass was atop her strewn clothing earlier, Filomena may have herself caused the glass to fall atop her clothing when she picked up her laptop that was covered in glass.

The clothing may have also been dirty clothing that Filomena had tosssed onto the floor before rushing out the door to attend the B-Day party that day.

The point is, that by the time the Carabinieri had arrived on the scene to investigate the murder, Filomena had already been escorted from the cottage, and the responding officers testified they didn’t go into Filomena’s bedroom until AFTER the police had photographed her bedroom, so obviously 'IF' the responding Carabinieri officers felt the crime scene had been staged upon arriving on the scene, then it wasn’t due to seeing glass shards atop Filomena’s clothing since by the time they had arrived, there was no glass to be seen on Filomena’s clothing.

Filomena may have later said she saw glass on her clothing, but there’s no confirmed record WHEN she first made that claim.

Also, as I had recently posted, in one of Guede’s earlier burglaries as recorded in Massei, the police had found broken glass shards both under and atop strewn clothing in that other crime scene, but the police didn’t tie those other glass shards to a staged break-in.

In short, you (and the other ‘Guilters’) are reading too much into insignificant trivia, that even if true, doesn’t prove a staged break-in. Also, even if the break-in were staged, that doesn’t prove Amanda had staged a break-in.

Maybe, Filomena came home, and after finding Guede pooping in her bathroom, Filomena became so enraged that she killed Meredith, and then Filomena staged the break-in to cover her own tracks.

I don’t believe that happened, just pointing out you can invent many fanciful scenarios that don't involve Amanda.

I agree that the patio doors would seem easier to reach, but perhaps Guede threw the rock into Filomena’s window in order to see if any lights came on, which is a common burglar tactic to see if anyone is home.

Then again, if Amanda wanted to stage a burglary, then breaking a glass panel from the patio doors would seem easier (and less dangerous) to do. Or, Amanda could have simply unlocked those doors since Meredith may have unlocked them herself not knowing Guede was lurking about.

The staged break-in scenario they used to cast suspicion on Amanda never made any sense.

Even if Guede got in another way after throwing the rock and breaking the window, access thru Filomena’s window wouldn’t have been that difficult –– here’s a video showing some guy easily climbing up to Filomena’s window by stepping on the window grates of the window below Filomena’s window:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/En...ughWindow.html

The Truth About the Break In:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html

The problem with your “early” staged theory, is that this staged break-in evolved over the course of a few days after the police had already focused in on Amanda, so the break-in theory was developed along with other nonsense to point suspicion at Amanda.

Before any forensic evidence came back from the labs, the police were already claiming their victory by solving the case the old-fashioned way, thru police intuition –– see their ‘Case Closed!’ victory party of Nov 6, 2007 (the same day Amanda was arrested):

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/

Of course, after the lab results started trickling in with nothing incriminating towards Amanda, Raffaele or Lumumba, the police then had to scramble to create new fanciful scenarios in order to save face.

You “submit” your beliefs based upon what?

Read this:

There are many scholarly articles on the problem of police induced false confessions, so before you “submit” your opinions here for review, please do a little research on the topic:

https://www.google.com/search?noj=1&....0.5Fj12QLalXk

The tiny amount of DNA supposedly found on Raffaele's kitchen knife by Stefanoni was so tiny that she couldn't even quantify it the normal way, so Stefanoni resorted to unscientific methods, which Stefanoni even admitted while being grilled on the stand since she admitted that the methods she had used weren't scientific - her admission is in the transcripts.

Stefanoni admitted the DNA she had claimed to have tested was so minute that it couldn't first have been divided (which is a standard protocol), so even if Meredith's DNA was on that knife, it would have been LCN (Low Copy Number) DNA, and Stefanoni's lab wasn't even designed to test LCN-DNA.

Stefanoni's lab results were clearly BOGUS and her results have been thoroughly discredited, which is why this latest Cassation ruling obviously didn't give that DNA evidence any weight.

Then there's the problem of the TMB test, which is capable of detecting just a few red blood cells, and since no human blood was detected on Raffaele's kitchen knife, even if a few cells of Meredith's DNA were found, they weren't her DNA from blood cells, so the DNA could have been from Meredith's skin cells, which could have been there thru innocent transfer, or even lab contamination.

When testing LCN-DNA you need specially designed very clean labs since newer LCN testing is so sensitive it can detect transfer DNA from contamination, and Stefanoni's lab wasn't even then accredited to do normal DNA testing.

Yep, exactly as I said. The circumstances of her DNA profile being obtained from Raf's knife might be such to allow for reasonable doubt re: scientific methodologies etc., but there it was, whether it be from her tissue or something else. You suggest that the most likely reason for that is contamination, I suggest the most likely reason was that her DNA was on the knife. Alas, we'll never know.

zzzzzz

D-

He said Knox knew that Patrick had an alibi. You've just now asserted that Knox would have known he had an alibi. She wouldn't have known this. Not sure how you can assert that she would have known. And had she have known then you're conceding that she knowingly (due to her knowing that Patrick had an alibi) falsely accused him of murder.

Just because YOU may never know doesn't mean that DNA experts don't know. Indeed, many DNA experts in America, Italy and in the UK have already stated that the testing of Raffaele's knife was totally bogus.

I've posted all of the below here already, but I'll do it again. I won't bother to post American DNA experts who have gone on the record to dispute Stefanoni's idiotic testing methods, so let's stick with UK and Italian DNA experts for now.

This first UK article talks about UK DNA expert Professor Peter Gill appearing on Italian TV (prior to the recent exoneration) explaining how Stefanoni's bogus knife results had to be from contamination:

Another UK article concerning DNA expert Peter Gill:

You can watch DNA expert Peter Gill on Italian TV in this video clip:

Here are some relevant portions from the transcript of the above video:
I realize that you're a brain-dead 'Guilter' so the above overwhelming scientific opinion won't likely change your childish views, but there you have it.

If you disagree, then go find a reputable scientist who supports Stefanoni's DNA testing?

I do recall one UK expert (I believe in DNA statistical analysis) who early on had claimed that Raffaele's DNA was legitimately found on Meredith's bra-clasp, but his opinion was a lone opinion on the matter.

Yeah, but why do you think that given what we know about the chain of custody, processing, and methodologies employed? And further how do you think the knife got to the crimescene and why was it there? How is the DNA result connected to the crime?

Amanda knew Patrick was at work that night. I'm not sure why she'd think he didn't have an alibi? Maybe a better way to say it is "Reasonably, she would have thought he had an alibi". Either way accusing him and implicating herself in order to deflect blame from herself would have been silly given she was trying to frame Guede according to the guilt people.

And many think it was legit. Same reason why posting a YouTube video of someone giving a false confession doesn't make Amanda Knox's confession false, posting someone saying they don't like the DNA result doesn't make it bogus.

But you know this, and are just trolling.

I'm totally blown away! Your posts just keep getting more and more insightful. I mean, before I saw your post I never would have expected that someone could express such deep intellect utilizing a combination of only three keyboard characters. Once you master the full alphabet, I'm sure a Pulitzer prize, if not the Nobel, is in the cards for you.

Bravo, sir! Bravo!

I don't know what you want, brother. I've already thanked you from the depths of my heart for your insightful posts, which changed my point of view on this case. Although Crozbee's posts win out on conciseness, yours show much greater depth of insight, as well as superior logical rigour. In fact I would encourage all readers of this thread to re-read all of your posts multiple times, as they contain many pearls of wisdom that could easily be overlooked the first time through.

I fully expect that generations to come will admire you for logic, intellect, and more importantly, unquenchable thirst for justice. My deepest, deepest respect to you sir. You truly are a king among men.

You don't have to try that hard.

ty ikasigh, now turn off your computer and never come back

I realize now that I slightly misinterpreted 239's post. I took him to have meant that if she had been intentionally involved in the murder, she would have known that Lumumba wasn't at the crime scene, but it turns out that he meant simply that she knew he was at work that night, which you seemed to have correctly understood.

At any rate, I would myself say, once again, that if she was intentionally involved in the murder, she would have known that he had a truthful alibi simply because she would have known that he wasn't there and therefore that he was somewhere else, I guess presumably at work, or back at home. If you take alibi in this case to mean something that can definitely be corroborated in a court of law through witness testimony, then I guess even in this case she wouldn't KNOW that he had that kind of solid alibi, so that is why I say 'truthful.' Obviously Lumumba would just say where he was, as it would be the definite truth.

I believe that she is innocent of course, and I also believe that under the circumstance of being questioned by the investigators, she wasn't certain that Lumumba had a truthful alibi, such as being at work as he was supposed to have been, because she was somehow led to believe that he partook in the murder.

Of the 329 DNA exonerations thanks to the work of the Innocence Project, ~25% had falsely confessed. 1 in 4 seems like a lot to me.

link: http://www.innocenceproject.org/caus...-or-admissions

What I KNOW is that you're a brain-dead 'Guilter' (Oski wannabe), and based upon your chaotic reasoning, you're likely deeply psychotic.

I have no idea what causes people to drop over the edge spouting utter inanities as you've been doing here, but here's an interesting article that suggests reasons for your crazy behavior –– I realize this article won't help you since you're deeply psychotic and in need of serious professional help, but it may be insightful for other posters here:

No rep_lol, it's you who should never come back.

As sorry as I, and I'm sure I speak for all of the regular readers of this thread, will be to lose your posts, which shine like stars in a constellation of pure and unrivaled genius, the fact is that your unparalleled gifts are needed elsewhere.

As important as it is to continue to uphold the truth about the unvarnished and heinous guilt of Knox and Sollecito, you have touched so many with your eloquent and cogent arguments and those you have touched will carry on your legacy in this thread, and in the world at large, to counter the shills who, like common strumpets, sell out their morals and decency for filthy lucre's sake.

As important as it is to uphold the truth, as steadfastly as you have done so, and as admirable as your steadfastness is, this thread is too small for a man of your intellect and talent. You are needed elsewhere. For the benefit of all mankind, rep_lol, I beg you, as your true and loyal admirer, please step away and devote your talents elsewhere.

The world needs you rep_lol.

Right, so because they are not required to do this, that means we shouldn't care when they recorded the other interviews and easily had the capabilities to do so? They weren't required to tap both of their phones either, but they did. They were the prime suspects at this point, and while it is true that a lot of places do not require for the police to do so by law, a lot of places still do when they bring in their prime suspect obviously.

And no LOL.....I don't find it suspicious that their lawyers wanted them to strike the confession that was considered illegal by Italian law, and if such a recording existed, I guarantee it would be damaging to the prosecution/police.

You are simply devoid of all sense of logic.

Her footprints tested negative for blood in the secondary (TMB) confirmation test for blood. They had all the available tools and latest technology to test the luminol hits to confirm if they were blood and they tested negative. You understand that this means that they (Knox's footprints) were not footprints in blood correct?

They tried to prove it was blood and they couldn't (because it wasnt!) and again, they had many other testing at their disposal including the very common TMB testing they did.

Besides, there are no traces of bare footprints of Amanda leading out of the room. If she killed or participated in the killing, obviously these would exist and they don't.

Really really sad you've spent years on this and actually believe she was walking around barefoot in Meredith's blood....****** hilarious.

Yeah but that's just a percentage of exonerations. The vast vast vast majority of cases with confessions don't get overturned, so I'd wager that the percentage of false confessions as a whole have to be much closer to 0% than 25%.