....

Kelly was the attorney who helped the Goldman family win a 33 million$ civil suit against Simpson, do you have a problem with that? And what on earth could be wrong in your mind about working for the Holloway family in whatever way?

Still no interest at all on whether there was videotape of Knox's interrogation that may have "disappeared" on your part? Damn.

Yes I am interested. Care to provide any other link? Am I that concerned about shocking new allegations from someone whom so far has been the most sensational advocate of Amanda Knox outside her trial lawyers, PR firm and family? Not until I see a report somewhere else.


Also I'm not sure what the point is since you willfully won't get the simplest points which are pretty much obvious to everyone else. But just to hear myself talk, here is the basic premise of why you should take this guy with a grain of salt:

1) Dude likes publicity. He obviously seeks out the most public cases. Can we agree on that?

2) To be involved in a case like this, there are only two routes you can take - strongly on the side of Amanda Knox, or strongly against Amanda Knox. No one is going to listen to and especially hire a talking head lawyer who says "well this a nuanced and complicated case, I'm not sure but here's my balanced opinion..." Bzzzzt. Next.

3) No one cares about Kercher in this country, and the Italian prosecution isn't going to hire this guy to represent them. So pretty much his only option is to hook up with Knox's parent's.

4) Therefore, ergo, this guy pretty much has to come down ridiculously hard on the side of Amanda Knox - if he wants to be involved in the case - and grab all the publicity that comes along with it.

I feel the same. But then I've thought about it, he's actually serving a decent purpose in forcing us to destroy his arguments and making things so simple a toddler can follow along. Which he doesn't of course. But damned if I bump into someone IRL that wants to talk about this case I will be an encyclopedia of facts. And I owe a lot of it to poker91. It would be pretty ironic if thanks to poker91's crappy transparent shill efforts - like 50 extra OOTers walk away convinced of Knox's guilt.

No links regarding the alleged missing tapes but this is a excellent article here from the London Times regarding this case...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6947979.ece

Well let me know when you finally get around to destroying one OK. No evidence of this exists at this point.

Wow that Times article couldn't be more biased if it was written by one of Amanda's lawyers. That's worse than any American article I've seen as far as distorting the facts all the Amanda's side.

That's the biggest whitewash job I've seen anywhere on her attempt to frame Lumumba.

Wow. I think the Knox's PR firm must have written this and spoonfed it to the Times. Interesting how the article isn't signed. Wtf does 'Note - some of Sollecito's DNA' even mean in that context. You just said the sentence then you repeat it. What point is the anonymous author trying to make.

Please respond to my post about the prison diaries being real. You said this is important stuff. Do you still feel that it is important stuff now that it has been confirmed?

If you're frightened of dying you'll
see devils tearing you apart. If
you've made your peace then they're
angels freeing you from the world.

Maybe the trolls/shills are really angels

Was the diary used as evidence at the trial?

I'm sorry, did not know that the transcript was the decider of the truth in this case. I do know for a fact one thing that the transcript said though, GUILTY, so I guess we are done here.

I was just glancing this thread out of curiousity, but LOLOLOL, what a joke this guy is. Where is your transcript, since you don't have it your opinion on anything related to this trial is just as baseless, so STFU. And I guess since none of us have the transcript, let's lock the thread up as there is nothing to talk about.

Oh, you are just an outstanding American engaged in a quest of JUSTICE and the TRUTH. Because her guilt was determined based on anything said in this thread, lolololol. Guiz you should apology to Knox's family, cuz the jury made their decision based on what was said in this thread, and your decision was not based on VIDEOTAPES.

You see, people are forming their opinions based on what has been reported. While being in the news is not proof of the truth, I think it is fair to assume that any of this evidence that was actually presented in court was done in a manner that is consistent with Italy's rules regarding verification of authenticity (oh noes, but them smelly Italians cannot verify evidence like us SMART AMERICANS!!!!!!!). And if it wasn't admissible, then it wasn't presented in court (and if it was, then her attorneys should appeal), and the jury still decided she was guilty.

And you know who did have a transcript of the trial, the jury. And they looked at it, and decided she was guilty. So please GTFO until you have proof FROM THE TRANSCRIPT that she was guilty, anything else is PURE BASELESS SPECULATION since it is not in the TRANSCRIPT based on your own words. The rest of use, we will continue to SPECULATE on a poker internet message board that no one else gives a **** about because that is what they are for. And we will throw out words like guilty or not guilty based on our opinions from evidence that may or may not be admissible in a court of law, since you know, we aren't in a court of law. And the world will go round, and you can go play lawyer somewhere else.

replay of this is on CNN right now.

WE DON'T KNOW, WHY DON'T YOU GO FIND OUT YOURSELF SINCE YOU ARE SO DEEPLY CONCERNED? DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT YOUR GRANDMOTHER WAS NOT A FILTHY *****? SEE HOW EASY IT IS TO JUST ASK QUESTIONS?

I got a question Pwn_Master, you are a wussy no doubt, but are you more wimp or pussy? What are the percentages on that?

Half wimp and half pussy. So you admit your grandmother was a filthy *****? Do you have any proof that she wasn't? Is this proof in videotape form? Have you verified the authenticity of this videotape? By whom?

You didn't answer the question wussy.

See the edit, now answer my questions. This is important stuff.

Well at least you admit you are a wussy, it's good to know ones self I guess, it's important stuff.

Yes, I guess your quest for the TRUTH and JUSTICE finally bore some fruits, huh?

And we just went completely off the rails...

See what I meant in my earlier post...pointless

Stop trolling the trolls or ill come to your house and eat your face then skull **** you to death.

Feel free to be more objective in this thread. Its starting to get annoying now that you are wasting people's time, ignoring the points you have no argument against and then posting highly biased articles and saying its excellent.

u guys are still bothering with knox91? lol.

still havent found that out of the universe chronic yet

Pwn_master was right about 1 thing, until the trial transcripts are available it's kind of pointless to debate because we don't know what may have been real evidence presented, about all we know for sure is that we have a prosecutor (Mignini) with a disturbing past of misconduct of various types, an apparent substandard investigation by police, questionable physical evidence against Knox and Sollicito and a bunch of unanswered questions.

Until there is more known it's kind of pointless to debate. But carry on if you will folks, just try to keep it on the rails....Good luck.