You're legitimately full blown insane on this issue, I'm not sure what else to say. There is video evidence showing the postal police car and they testified to their arrival and you completely ignore it. They were wrong about the time but the video isn't. in addition, you can't argue away Massei's conclusion as much as you'd like to.

You don't seem to understand this was big evidence in the case, very very damning, and he doesn't agree with you. He didn't just forget what the testimony was.

It's increasingly difficult to respond to this stuff. I know I said Guede knew where the money was because he's quoted in a transcript saying it. My point is that you took that fact and built Amanda and Raf into a murder fantasy with no corroborating evidence. You literally made up a fantasy.

Not only are you wrong, you're absurdly wrong. The arrival of the postal police is not a red herring. If Raf had called the police after the postal police arrived and had said what he said, it would clearly be the most damning piece of evidence in existence as it would be unvarnished and objective. Please stop trying to argue this away and just admit you were wrong so we can move on.

I think it's far more interesting that the guilters believe in all sorts of far reaching conspiracy theories in order for their version of reality to be true, while the innocent side seems much more reasoned and reasonable.

most interesting of all is the correlation between intelligence and how likely someone finds her to be guilty though right?

You're really knocking it out of the park in this thread dude. Is your parrotting of Henry's "Only dumb people think she's innocent", the best you can do?

239,

A couple of new astroturfers showed up today.

Frankly, they didn't do your side any favors re: the intelligence of the Knox fans.

other people stating facts regarding the general intelligence level of the truthHaters such as yourself and anyone else naive enough to think she is innocent are not de facto parrotting henry.

do you think henry or PR or truthslayer are going and posting a link to this thread in other places because they need help due to getting embarrassed so badly? its kind of weird that a truthHater felt the need to do so on FB (and many times over, i saw like 10 over the past month).

although at least it signals that ONE person on the wrong side of the aisle can recognize when they are severely losing the battle in arguing her innocence!

My "side" should be judged on the merits, anything else is irrelevant. The sideshow that are the guilters would make for an interesting study in group think and delusion though.

No I assure you you're chirping like a bird. Further, you've offered exactly what in termes of cogent analysis of this case? I've laid out a series of events all supported by the evidence that demonstrate what likely happened that night.

What do you think happened? Yada?

This honestly reads like an 8th grader wrote it. I can't take it seriously. Worst trolling evar.

no i assure you, YOURE chirping like a bird.

there, I 239'd!!!

so you agree that the naive truthHater innocent side needs help and looks awful in this thread, leading them to post links to it on FB? thought so.

Everyone has jumped the gun as usual. That facebook page is not the reason people showed up here.

Someone started a thread on IIP asking if people knew the case was being discussed here and posted a link to it.

jRustle, you've reduced yourself to a sniveling toddler at this point. Who stole your blankie?

I just went to IIP and tried to open the forum and it says it doesn't exist anymore.

hey man if ad homs are all you have left because you know that you are looking foolish, thats cool! just dont take it out on me. i think youre jimmies are sufficiently rustled. better sit this one out kid.

european neighbour Post subject: Another discussion threadPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:33 pm

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 1:28 am
Posts: 287 Report this postReply with quote

Who knows or observes or even participates in this thread on an apparent poker forum?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34/ot ... ex799.html
Obviously still room for contradictory discussion because not so far overwhelmed like JREF and not that insular like the guilter sites but a turf yet dirty by guilters.

Link to forum?

www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/

You don't have any arguments about the case to discuss do you? Be honest? Your entire participation here is one big ad hom.

Despite you lying about it the video was never entered as evidence.

If it was allowed as evidence it would never stand up to cross-examination since it does not establish what you and your idiot cohort claim it does.

The video does not contradict but instead actually confirms the police's stated arrival time.

The mistake in reasoning that Massie made has been explained multiples times. Once you factor in them hiding in Amanda's room Massei's reluctant conclusion that the police did not seem them make the calls changes.

not really trying to get into any great heated interwebz confuzzle about the issues, and I generally find the attitude of many (long time) posters in this thread tob be way too confrontational; however, I will try to reply succinctly to Oski's query.

With respect to the interrogation: I think an audio/video tape of the questioning of AK (once she became a suspect) should have been mandatory given the severity of the crime and the language differences.

With respect to the prosecution: the prosecutor, based on past performance, appears to have been a loose cannon much more concerned about publicity and conviction as opposed to actually determining the truth. (although I will hedge this somewhat because perhaps that is his role in the Italian system). Certainly the quality and veracity of some key witnesses (see shopkeepers and homeless guy) is debatable.

With repsect to forensics: the failure to accurately determine the time of death through standard techniques (ie weigh the body and take temperature of internal organs within a timely fashion) led to issues throughout the trial, which should have been avoided. The failure to secure (maybe the wrong word) a key piece of forensic evidence from the crime scene (bra clasp) until a substantial amount of time had passed does not lend a high degree of credibility to the forensic investigations. The dna discussions are over my head, but I have a difficult time simply dismissing the court appointed dna experts as incompetent and apparently unethical. Their written review of the original work is fairly scathing of the techniques employed and conclusions drawn.

With respect to my comments re: henry I am pretty sure that back in the day henry was adamnent that hellman would sustain the ruling of the lower court and the only issue was if the death penalty would be invoked (j/k). This is not a personal knock; henry would be welcome to borrow my guest room at any time.

With respect to this shill/astroturfer handle, I am not sure if this was directed at me, but although my post count is low (never actually posted much on my old account either) I did post a little in this thread prior to hellman when the tone was much more civil. In fact, I have lurked since there were brown trout in the closet, AQ>JJ and dids was phat.

I look forward with interest to the Supreme Court (might be wrong terminology) decision in the Spring. Henry did you want to go on record as to what you believe the nature of their ultimate determination will be?

Sorry for having rambled on, and not trying to rustle any jimmies here, but will follow the thread with respect to the posting of some participants.

Hellmann should have upheld Massei but given his reasoning involves such gems as an individual lying about their alibi and that them buying cleaning products at the crack of dawn is not something you can infer a negative inference from I feel the reason for my incorrect prediction is easily explained -- the Hellmann court was almost certainly interfered with and failing that the judge is a moron.

As for going on the record I already have multiple times. I expect the SCC to order a new trial.