Now the guilters will demand that waste of bandwidth be debunked.

Also, Oski. I'm assuming you agree with this latest court that essentially all of the evidence is rubbish right? I mean you kinda have to.

After many years in the trenches dealing with that nut-case, you're seriously asking Oski to suddenly become rational?

Good luck with that!

Maybe he should hope that Meredith's family will "Rot in Hell" and then give really graphic accounts of her murder on ISF like you did Ken, (which isn't you getting a vicarious thrill outa Knox's sex killing at all btw). Or demand the real names of people and that they meet with you. Or read flat Earth sites and then insist on how the Moon doesn't rotate...
Care to refute the SC critique btw? Or will you simply say it's wrong because Amanda is innocent?

Hey psycho, get a life, the case is over.

Why don't you do something constructive with your life instead or have futile arguments with strangers on the internet who will never agree with you or change their minds?

Perhaps you and the other like minded obsessives can start the opposite of the innocence project or something where y'all bring vigilante "justice" to all those "wrongly" not convicted. It could also serve as a support group as y'all struggle to deal with the realities of life. Perhaps you can find the rock Henry is hiding under and operate out of his moms basement and PR can be the hostess?

just a thought, don't stroke out man, you'll survive this.

Says the guy attempting to start a futile argument with a stranger on the internet who will never agree with you or change their mind.

Expect an answer to this....never.

Seeing as how you're a guilter, I'm not surprised you're unable to discern mockery from argument.

LOL yeah I'm sure that's what it was

Also note that you're mischaracterizing my position, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that isn't super important to you.

Uhh....

Sounds serious

I thought you just said something dumb, didn't realize it constituted a 'position.'

But you're right, either way it isn't super important to me to accurately decipher the thought process of the delusional and deranged.

Out of curiosity, what supports your position that I am "delusional and deranged"? You aren't just making up words, right?

No, those are real words: Delusional; Deranged

I am still waiting for the English translation.

However, from commentaries I have read, I don't think your comment that the court finds "the evidence is rubbish" is accurate.

I believe the court did not invade any finding of fact from Nencini. The issue was whether the collective evidence met the legal standard to find AK and RS guilty.

As a preview, I will be looking closely at the following: The court has already spoken before on the proper legal standards; now the court seems to have reached an opposite conclusion - even where the Nencini court was following its instructions. So, what errors did Nencini commit? What new issues suddenly appeared that gave the court grounds to dismiss this time around when presumably the same issues would have existed the first time the Court handles the case?

In sum, it seems to me (from reading secondary sources) the Court accepts the evidence (e.g. AK was at the apartment; AK and MK'S DNA were on the same knife) but rules the evidence collectively does not establish AK and RS as participating in the murder.

An interesting aspect of this is that despite finding AK was present in the cottage at the time of the murder, the Court finds that establishing time of death a de facto predicate. That seems to be a reach if they accept AK was there - the entire line of "What was AK doing up to "x" time to establish an alibi" as moot. The time of death would also be moot.

Oh. wrong as usual.

... and your copious posting history allows you to judge how others use their time?

You out saving the world by clogging up the monthly low content threads with your "profound" musings?

loldumdum

How hey weasel, how's your stalking these days?

I see you were shamed into coming here to defend your e-honor, I thought you'd have a little more sense than that and simply disappear like your fallen heroes Henry and PR---I was wrong.

Just trying to help you out champ.

One of the finer things in life is coming across super cringeworthy people that just don't see it in themselves. Never change

um, what? I was away for the weekend. I am sorry that you are completely wrong about my history of "not" answering questions or providing my opinion on these matters. Not my problem.

Why do you care so much, anyway?

Oski, prior to this last and final exoneration, you were one of the main participants in the guilter circle jerk.

You would never engage 239 in an actual debate about the evidence, because you knew he'd make you look foolish (for all your faults, you do actually have a brain, unlike your unfortunate cohorts).

Instead, in an effort to position yourself as some sort of legal authority, you droned on and on about triers-of-fact, and that court cases should be decided in the courtroom not the internet (something no one was disputing, but why should that stop you). And unless people could point to some judicial error committed by the courts, they were forced to agree that the verdict was accurate (a ridiculous assertion btw, esp from an attorney).

Now that your appeal to authority has essentially crumbled, you've been conspicuously absent. Perhaps you want to distance yourself from the certifiables like corpus and 57 on Red. More than likely, you realize you have no leg to stand on and participating at this point would do more harm than good.

And I care because this thread amuses me. It's fun to laugh at guilters like amead, corpus, et al.

Particularly now that justice was finally served, however delayed and diluted.

Your statement is factually inaccurate.

If you claim I simply use the Court to appeal to authority, then how would you explain the fact I disagreed with Hellman prior to the Supreme Court vacating it?

I have never tried to hide the fact that my opinion on Hellman was not "original" (as in something derived from my own studies); in fact, I made it quite clear that I agreed with Henry and P.R.'s points on why Hellman was wrong and should be vacated.

Their position in that regard has always made sense to me because given my legal training, their position did what it was supposed to do: examine what the Hellman court did and why they did it. Once that was done, Henry and P.R. pointed out obvious legal errors with Hellman's report. All of that is a matter of record in this thread (though I don't suppose you have the attention span for it).

So, your piggy-backed statement that I use the Court for an appeal to authority is wrong. I understand the function of a Court in determining facts and applying law. Only if there is an error in the process should Court's decision be invaded. Henry et al identified such errors with Hellman from the beginning.

As for "arguing the evidence" that is a silly notion. We already have a record of what the Court found as fact and why. Re-arguing the evidence based on incomplete facts is a fool's errand (which is why 239 and Ken Dine are so adept at it).

The better question has always been: if you disagree with a particular factual finding, then what error has been made which materially affected the finding? Yet, none such errors were ever identified.

As to the current Report; I am not sure why I am to comment until I have read it. I do not read Italian, so I am waiting on the English version. I have stated that long ago. Contrast that to your hero's Ken Dine et al. that have made definitive statements on the Report when it is clear they have not read the report. From what I gather many of their statements in that regard are clearly incorrect.

The interesting thing in this report is that Cassation had already spoken on the case. Now, despite it (apparently) not invading any findings of evidence, it has reached a different conclusion. That means, the Court accepts AK was at the apartment when MK was murdered; that there were multiple attackers (note: that does not fit 239's narrative that he holds to this day); that AK wrongly accused Patrick; that AK and MK's dna were on the same knife.

So, the real issue is not whether the evidence is "x, y, z." The issue is whether "x, y, z" amount to a proper murder conviction under Italian Law. You may pretend to know the answer to that, but I don't think you do. At the very least, you do not know how the Court reached that conclusion in light of their prior ruling. I'd prefer to see for myself.

As far as the bigger issue: It appears the Court simply ruled that the evidence as presented to it does not amount to a murder conviction - this is not an exoneration. It did not rule the evidence was a mountain of crap as 239 would say; it does not say AK and RS were "completely innocent."

So, in some respects, NO, I am not really going to answer 239's question directly, because his question is based on a false premise. However, I will still find an opinion on the matter and may even share it.

Perhaps from your perspective. The better question for most people is whether or not AK and RS were guilty or innocent.

Courts can simply get it wrong. They can even get it wrong while not committing any procedural error. Since you were incapable of debating the evidence, you shifted the burden and demanded something that was ultimately irrelevant wrt to AK and RS's factual innocence. Also, when you mention 'incomplete facts,' what were the courts privy to that the public doesn't know?

Again, bizarrely, that's what interests you. Most everyone else cares whether or not they were guilty/innocent.

Again, you are misrepresenting my position, as I stated about 6 posts ago. It is clear that you're too lazy to know my actual opinion, and you're making yourself look foolish. You assume one thing because I mocked a dumb zero content post from one of your buddies, but it is really another. Keep my name out of your mouth, kiddo.

Correct. I assumed the dims of this thread were guilters.

That is odd, considering the long-standing refrain from 239 and co. that their legal guilt or innocence had no bearing on their opinion. They were only concerned with whether they did it.

As it turns out, the Court decision appears to suggest RS and AK likely did commit the crime, but that the proof does not amount to a guilty verdict.

We did debate evidence, you just were not paying attention.

For example: the 112 calls. The Massei court never really ruled on this (my guess is that the Court did not find it that important). However, 239 et al. used this non-ruling as a positive statement that RS made the 112 call before the postal police arrived.

That was not the case: The Court can rule on a point, rule against a point, or ignore a point. Ignoring a point is not the same as ruling against. Since that point was not decided, there was a legitimate debate as to what facts were presented and how those formed a timeline.

I guess it would surprise you that the pro-AK side tended to provide doctored facts to support their position.

As opposed to: Time of Death. This was an utterly pointless exercise as the court ruled all the testimony was not reliable enough to provide anything beyond a range; that was after hearing from numerous experts. Yet, the pro-Knox camp was insistent on arguing this point because it supported a potential alibi by AK (which I remind you in the final Report becomes moot because Cassation accepts AK was at the apartment when the murder took place). Anyhow, not to beat a dead horse, but the pro-AK arguments of "fact" were really just restatements of defense arguments which were rejected at trial.

So, if you find rejected defense arguments presented in a vacuum more compelling than a decision which weighed all arguments, then I suggest that speaks more to your deficiencies than anything else.

Anyhow, finding facts is the province of the jury. I don't care if you find the jury to be a superior means to decide facts in a murder case, or not. Just understand that most reasonable people find that a jury is more qualified to rule on these issues than anonymous internet people.

So, with all things being the same, I find it more reasonable to defer to the jury. Should there have been an error made in the process, I believe it would then be appropriate to reassess.

The fact of the matter is that in this case (especially) the jury had far more information than the general public - especially those outside of Italy. If you cannot see that, well, that speaks more to your deficiencies than anything else.

Oddly enough, once more reliable English translations started to appear on primary documents, the pro-AK people started shifting their arguments away from those and into documents that were not widely translated. Hmm, I wonder why.

From day one, debate over this case has been more about finding out just what information is reliable than anything else. Once the information started becoming reliable, the Knox camp rapidly lost ground.

Anyhow, yes, a Court can get things wrong. Yes, a jury can make a mistake in finding facts. However, generally when arguing that such happened, one actually points out the mistake and offers proper proof of the true fact. That was not done here from the pro-AK side.

If you want to see how the process of challenging a Court ruling is properly done, read Henry's posts about the Hellman verdict. That should provide you with a robust framework for tacking these sorts of problems.

No it doesn't. Unless you're a delusional hardcore guilter, I guess.

At least you are consistent Oski. Consistently wrong.

Now go ahead and write another wall of delusional, misinterpretative text cause I know a lot of us enjoying skimming past it just so we can point out for the umpteenth time how badly you blew your assessment of the case from the get go.