There is a difference between "finding" something and "accepting" something.

When a judge makes a "finding" she is making a precise ruling on a piece of evidence or law; when she "accepts" something it is "just for the sake of argument" and is not controlling.

If you read Massei, the point he was making did not require a finding for his purposes - it simply was not an important fact to his analysis.

We have discussed this a lot and have maintained that the time of arrival issue is really a red herring - it's importance is limited and here Massei didn't find it to be important to the point he was making.

And we have another.

What specifically is preposterous?

1) That Luca and Paola testified to that Amanda and Raffaele went into Amanda's room for about ten minutes?

That is true and is easy to document.

Which is fine since he had about ten minutes to do so.

Your claim that the walls are thin is bull****. The cottage is one of the oldest buildings in Perugia. It predates the city and was there when that area was a farm. Construction during that period did not involve putting up thin drywall.

Further, the officers were engaged in conversation with the two other boys. They were not paying attention to audio coming from a different room even if it was slight audible should they have been alert. They had no reason to be listening and were otherwise engaged.

Luca and Marco were speaking with the police. Filomena and Poala had not yet arrived. Amanda and Raffaele exited the Amanda's room upon Filomena and Poala's arrival. They were in the room for the ten minutes between Marco and Luca arriving and Filoemena and Poala arriving. They used the distraction of the boys arriving to separate from the police and figure out what to do quickly now that their original plan was ****ed by the surprise arrival of the police.

There is nothing to remember. Luca clearly testified that Raffaele and Knox went into Knox's room when the boys arrived. Luca and Poala both testified that Amanda and Raffaele exited Amanda's room when Filomena and Poala arrived. This is a fact so unless your position is that Luca and Poala are lying I'm not sure where you hope to go with this.

I'm saying that two people testified that they disappeared into Amanda's room. Unless you can advance a good reason to not believe them we have to assume that they are being truthful.

ARGH where do you people keep coming from?!

Oski and Henry,

I have not followed this thread very closely, just popped in every now and then when bored at work. You guys constantly deride 239 and the shills for being uninformed, misrepresenting data, and making terrible arguments.

I think you're right, but that leaves the question - if 239 and the shills are so dumb, misinformed, etc., why the **** have you spent 10k posts arguing with them? Isn't that a colossal waste of time? What exactly is stopping you from saying, "Ok, you know what? I'm not getting anywhere with this guy. We're going in circles. I'm going to leave now."

Are you really that hellbent on getting the last word?

People (even those with same interests) think differently. Just like you enjoy posting stuff in the monthy low-content OOT threads, me being involved in this probably serves the same ends.

It allows me to post about something I am interested in and is a good pasttime (which doesn't really harm anyone). It also keeps me stimulated to a certain degree. As I explained earlier, I genuinely appreciate watching Henry, Poker Reference, Truthsayer, etc. put arguments together and support their position. I am a civil litigator, so I suppose I enjoy being in such an environment without the pressure that exists from having a judge, jury, audience, client, and opposing counsel present. I like it.

The volume of posting is mostly directed by the pro-Knox shills. There is little we can do about them continuing to "re-set" arguments. However, there is utility in that because, each time around, Henry's (and co.'s) arguments and support get stronger. In the context of attempting to "master the case" it is not, therefore, a pointless exercise.

To address one of your points more directly, however, I have recently pulled back from engaging in some of the nitwittery, because (as I am sure you concluded) it gets to be a bit much. For example, Matt R. exploded on the scene with some "bombshells" about the DNA in this case; at first he was taken seriously (but not for long), but it soon became apparent he was 1) a loon; 2) not really well-versed on his purported subject of expertise; 3) not making an argument that was actually relevant to our case to begin with. You will see that he has essentially been dismissed from this thread as he now tends to just get buried in pot-shots and ridicule (I suppose you might say, a trainwreck within a trainwreck).

Just the other day, I made it clear I was pretty much pulling the plug on 239 in regards to really debating the case with him. What that means is that if 239 wants to advance things beyond the status quo (him failing miserably at convincing anyone of his position) he will now have to do the heavy lifting (as opposed to using the Socratic method [poorly] and expecting us to find the sources that he assures us will support his argumetn [which they don't]). Indeed, as I stated recently, it takes a lot of work to properly construct and support an argument, but very little to bull****. So, as things remain status quo, I can freely "bull****" which is fun and takes very little effort.

I also stay in the thread for the practical reason that the Supreme Court will be deciding the appeal in a few months, so this is a good source to keep apprised of the situation and discuss new development. It also may be the case someone will happen upon this thread who 1) actually believes Knox is innocent; 2) can properly explain why that it so. I honestly would like to see that because, despite the landslide that has ended up on 239, I still believe there are two sides to each argument and I have to imagine there is something out there resembling a competent argument that AK is not guilty.

I suppose in sum, this is like putting a big puzzle together. In this case, it is more interesting due to the angle of public perception about this case which has been colored by an extensive Amanda Knox p.r. (propaganda) effort which has really affected what the general public in America know about the case.

That is our fault. I will speak with the scheduler.

We apologize for any unnecessary disruption this oversight may have caused.

Warmest regards,
FoA

strange how this particular case pushes so many buttons.

guess it is the perfect storm of location, participants and our lack of familiarty with the Italian system of justice.

fwiw a poster (want to say leoslayer but I think I am wrong) from a couple of years ago linked some real good sites with original crime scene photos etc.

After reviewing the photo evidence, reading the massei report and then the hellman report (although the only translation I could find of this document was hard to follow) I came to the conclusion to never engage in any neferious activity in Italy.

With regards to the case at hand, there appeared to be enough irregularities in the interrogation, investigation, forensic analysis and prosecution that reasonable doubt could be found.

Having said that, the behaviour of both of the accused (particularily AK) seems so bizarre that there must be some backstory present.

Also I will say the henrys general success rate at the prognostication game regarding this case has been pretty low.

Great, here's your chance:

@#$%!

They're popping up like mushrooms

Yeah, check P.R.'s link. You will quicky find out why.

Not forbidden at all of course. There's just been a long pattern of nearly all arguing Knox guilt as being regulars with other interests, for which this a side issue (thus more likely to be impartial). Whereas most of the pro Knox camp come here just to discuss this issue. It's curious, especially given this.

What the **** is this?

A logistics center for the internet PR shills?

Somebody please ban these astroturfers.

Not really. I've been trolling him from the beginning. I just wanted to see if he'd bite.

In any event, this guy seems to know next to nothing about the case, so it doesn't matter. 239 is a tower of knowledge compared to this clown.

The influx of new idiots at least increases my sample size and confirms my theory that all Knox supporters are dumb.

Right. So you came here to troll.

A preposterous conspiracy theory is that the moon landings were hoaxed. Shilling on internet forums by PR firms is fairly standard practice. Is this article, about how a hospital and plane crash defending PR firm deliberately shifted public opinion on Knox through multiple methods, part of a preposterous conspiracy theory as well?

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/p....html?page=all

You can't even engage honestly on something as simple as this? Not saying you are part of anything, yet you can't even admit this goes on?

Pretty excited to get to nuke an actual astroturfer.

If you make a new account, and your only posts are in this thread, you're getting banned. (and I'm taking any responses to you with you).

Others, please don't waste your time responding to obvious shills.

Wow. It looks like you have some pull around here Jim.

Dids, you're great.

Thanks Dids.

Thanks for nipping that in the bud, Dids.

Haha yeah.

Fat Tony came over when someone linked this thread on another forum, but this is the first time I've seen a pro-knox webpage trying to send people here, at least since I've been following this thread.

Dids, you a hero. This is an interesting thread that had become unreadable.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/members/348418/