So has she posed in playboy or done a tv interview yet? Haven't been following...

I'd assume she'll do a media blitz when her book comes out. I read Raf's book. There weren't a whole lot of surprises in it but it was a good read if you followed the case.

I thought the last trials decision was easily overturned and they were both back in jail in Italy?

Isn't that what Henry guaranteed would happen by now?

I don't know what Henry said about timeline but it seems like you'll have to wait awhile before you find out if it will be overturned.

The next stage of the trial does not start until March of next year.

That they killed her is not in question. Originally I thought the appeal judge was just an idiot but since this topic died out it has become fairly obvious that there was political interference to get the original conviction overturned. That alters my view slightly -- she is still 100% guilty and I am still confident that she will be re-convicted but not as certain as before. It depends on where the interference came from and if those individuals still have any influence given the high political churn.

She will do some press when the book comes out because she is obviously contractually obligated to do so but it will be pretty limited. She can't go on most shows since even people who were originally supportive have since looked at the evidence and now know the truth.

And right on cue......speak for yourself, its very much in question among plenty of people, your relentless, close-minded obsession with her guilt is bewildering but hey maybe you'll win the internet!

There is a difference between people who think she is innocent and people who are certain of her guilt. People who think she is innocent couldn't pass a test of the material in the official record. They have been brainwashed by the propaganda and their opinion is formed based on media coverage which has been also corrupted by the propaganda. Everyone who actually knows the evidence is 100% certain of her involvement in the murder. It is impossible to know the facts and not be certain they did it.

And right on cue again with your extreme, fully entrenched statements. It must be boring walking through life with such certainty about everything. Is this your form of charity to occasionally come down from on high and enlighten us all?

Sigh, don't bother engaging plz Henry.

Anyone who actually read your work itt without a preformed conclusion agrees with you, just let it go.

Cliffs?

lol. Does 239 have Drudge Sirens installed in his Fort Knox? He hasn't posted anywhere on 2+2 since September but auto jumps in here as soon as someone bumps this thread. So obviously a part of an organized effort.

239,
How many sites/forums are you responsible for?

Two people who murdered a woman may spend less time in prison than six scientists who failed to predict an earthquake.

Italoly.

~Sigh~

Did I upset a Henry minion? Well done, you're a good little soldier & even speak his language.

I've read most of his "work" (no time to read all of him & 239's back & forth) and don't agree with all his interpretations or all of his conclusions. He views everything through the prism of guilt and is only open to one view (guilt) which taints everything he presents, imo.

I dont care where anyone falls on this issue but when either side speaks in absolutes and paints anyone who doesn't draw the same conclusion as their own as an idiot, etc I have an issue with that and have since I came into this thread. There is room for people to draw either conclusion and not be an idiot, ******, etc

Perhaps its one big level because he's bored and just likes to tweak folks on the internet, if so, well done

Henry17: "She's Guilty as hell and you're an idiot & ****** if you think otherwise"

239: "She's innocent as hell and Henry17 & PR are idiots & ******s"

No one who isnt a huge ignorant ****** thinks she is "innocent as hell". I mean the smart club is the ones who looked at the evidence and concluded she is guilty as hell but I can accept some could apply reasonable doubt to think she may not have done it cos they dont understand how reasonable doubt is meant to work.

Damn that's well put. Knox being attractive has been the base, and best, defense she could ever have. "She's hot so she didn't do it (and even if she did let's give her a pass on this one, can't let that poor thing rot in prison for a victim no one cares about.)"

lol, right on cue

This topic is like trying to discuss religion where true believers are fully convinced of their perspective and won't consider other alternatives or a counter-prevailing view despite the fact they are both relying on limited information on which they rest their "faith" upon.

You are right, except I am on the side of science given I have looked at the mountain of evidence and you are on the side of "well if god the pretty girl said it, it must be true".

Lol. Man, you arrogant, know-it-alls are a trip. Given your presumed perfect understanding of all truth and the apparent ability to read minds, its a wonder you waste so much time posting on an internet forum. Seems your time would be much more profitably spent elsewhere.

Ya but it's only presumed and apparent to you. You could be wrong.

That you think someone needs to know "all truth and [have] the apparent ability to read minds" sums up why I am happy sticking with my side of the fence having examined the evidence in the case way back in the thread.

No its not and I don't believe I've made any extreme statements nor have I emphatically said they are guilty or innocent and if I had/have, I could absolutely be wrong and have never said otherwise.

I don't have a problem with any conclusion one has reached, I take exception with their certainty. This is the sole point I've been attempting to make since I found this thread. You and perhaps others feel I am saying if one says they are guilty they are wrong, I am not, I'm merely stating I don't think its as certain as they claim it to be.

I find this case troubling regardless of which verdict one thinks is correct. I simply don't agree with the crowd that proclaims their guilt is an absolute certainty nor do I agree that it is 99.9% certain. What percentage likelihood should be applied to either verdict, I don't know, but I don't believe its anywhere near as conclusive as some believe.

The fact of the matter is there is an extreme communication gap created by the fact the case is being tried in Italian, a language I and most here don't speak or comprehend. Had I been on the jury, I presumably would speak and understand Italian, have unfettered, unfiltered access to the evidence and would be in a position to reach an informed verdict.

As it is, I am 1000's of miles from the case, don't speak the language & don't have complete, unbiased access to all the evidence. There are multiple sources one can get evidence from and I found all of them to be biased. It doesn't keep them from being credible but it does introduce an element of doubt when evaluating their opinions.

Lastly, I am not on the jury and as such am under no obligation to reach a conclusion so I can keep an open mind until I'm feet under. Nothing I or anyone else on this forum ever writes, thinks or believes is going to have any bearing on this case. For me, its merely a fascinating case to read about and I found it equally fascinating how both sides can be so certain.

I never suggested you should change your view, nor am I trying to convince anyone here which verdict is correct, I simply don't agree with your certainty or the belittling way you state your view, but its a free country (internet) and you can do whatever you like. You're the one who claimed to know what I think, thus the "read minds" comment.

Based on the standard of certainty you want all criminals would be innocent. You never have 100% certainty of anything as that degree of certainty does hot exist outside of logic. The evidence against her is overwhelming and considering greater than a lot of other murders who were convicted.

Also, if you still think there are multiple sources for evidence then that you are confused is not at all surprising. That is the point of the propaganda campaign. The only evidence that matters is what was presented in court. On the internet people can say anything so yes you'll find a bunch of sites that will give you a bunch of lies. This is true for any case -- pick your favourite semi-high profile case and you'll find a site of supporters that just lie.

Once again your arrogance causes you to draw inaccurate conclusions about what I think. I'm not looking for 100% certainty, there is no such thing when it comes to historical events. I simply don't weight or view all the evidence the way you do. You appear to see guilt in everything, I don't. You and I are likely to never agree on this subject and that's fine, I've still learned a lot from what you've posted and you've presented many good points.