So your priority isn't to shill, but until now you never posted and your real interest is in whether Henry will be right or wrong, not in understanding the reasons for his opinion or communicating the reasons for yours. You bitched that people here are too "confrontational" but called Dids fat and mentioned a two-year-old argument, apparently thinking this supports your legitimacy rather than detracts from it.

"I know nothing about this and can't be bothered to learn, but here is my impression anyway. I would like to participate in this discussion, but only the talking bit -- not the reading."

[x] shill.
[x] troll.

This must be like a wet dream of a thread to Henry.

It never ends, and he can tangle himself around all sorts of delusion, which is hard to be proven wrong against because alot of it is circumstancial/flimsy.

All the while feeling superior to everyone on the topic because he has masturbated to the Massei report every night for 3 years.

Pfunk don't be jealous of this topic. I have enough time to participate in it and mock you in BFI.

@PR
ouch

but just for the record:
phat=awesome, I would never disparage the didsian one, although I am not a cat person.

I did some low volume posting in this thread prior to the hellman report being issued. Actually had some interesting discussions with henry relative to certain aspects of the case.

Read both massei and hellman with interest and especially found the poster provided links to actual site pictures, crime scene photos, etc to have a high utility factor. I found the translation of the hellman report to be less cogent than massei, which may be a factor of the translation or the original document.

My comments to henry were meant to be playful digs only. Although I disagree with many of his conclusions regarding evidence interpretation, I fully believe they were arrived at through thoughtful consideration.

I guess the only reason I reregged was in response to a (somewhat) recent post wondering whether anyone (other than the few committed subscribers) had been following the thread and what their stance on the issues was.

So I gave my thoughts with no other motive, ulterior or otherwise.

Why do you keep alluding to a previous account rather than actually stating I used to be X?

If you stated I used to be X and X has not returned post hack and your other details match then that would give your claim a decent amount of credibility.

As it currently stands your posting reeks of someone desperately trying to pretend to have a previous account rather than someone who did.

Probably did. Doesn't make a difference, though -- 239's account is older than mine and it doesn't change what he is.

Deadspin: maybe you should try contributing something new to the thread. You're getting bitched at because all you're bringing is the same tired lines that have been brought 500 times already and had to be told when to elaborate and how. "She's innocent and Henry sucks" is a bit... junior.

What is your opinion of the Galati appeal? Do you think Hellman will be upheld or rejected? Why or why not?

ok so you dont have any real arguments, we get it, all you can do is accuse other ppl of the same. just go home, let the adults talk it out.

@henry
sure, previous account was mindlay.

lurked forever before that concentrating mostly on the strat threads, and only registered originally to comment on some brick and mortar thread (I am very much the epitome of a live low stakes recreational player).

found the majority of discussion in OOT to be interesting so followed this forum as well.
as i said, did some low volume posting in this thread at that time.

And, honestly, I have no desire to convince anyone of anything. Simply found the case and how it played out to be interesting. Found the original discussion and easy source referencing to be very helpfull in piecing together an overview of the events. No hidden agenda in my corner.

You have no proof of this all we know is that it was presented in court. It might not have needed to be entered. We don't really know the full context of that hearing. Either way it's clear that Massei did not conclude that the time the police officers said they arrived was accurate. Why is that do you think?

It clearly does establish it. You just don't want to admit you're wrong.

Wrong. The CCTV timestamp once corrected clearly lays out the events including the arrival of the postal police. The only argument you have is that the Caribinieri car in the footage isn't responding to the murder which is laughable considering the car can be observed to be driving down the wrong side of the street and then pulling in to the cottage driveway. Please stop the lunacy.

Just admit you're wrong and we can put this issue to rest. Massei made no mistake in reasoning. We know when the postal police arrived because of the CCTV video. What is your sourcing for the hiding and who was where when this happened? If you're going to try to prove this lay out timestamps with sourcing of the testimony so we can demonstrate how ridiculous your theory is.

Just curious but how many posts have you made on this forum about poker? I've played thousands of hands of hold em and think about strategy at length every single day.

I laid out, at your request iirc, a detailed theory of the crime. Your reply was lol, that's detailed. You have no knowledge of the case. My estimation of your chirpy argument that "All the people who believe in innocence are stupid" is that it's a pretty sad attempt at an analysis regarding those who have an opinion on the case.

fyp

and yet you can't refute it. just shhhhhhhhhhh. seriously, stop talking for a while, gather your thoughts, come back to us when you have something of actual substance.

... All done while staring directly into the sun!

"Drivel."

Yah this is amazing. Is there anyone who joined in 2006, thinks about strategy "at length every single day", and thinks "thousands of hands" lifetime is anything other than lolworthy? Even one year poker players measure hand counts in the hundreds of thousands.

Anyway, this is just a side show and I don't care, but the comment just made me go WTF.

That's the second time you've said something like this, the first was to me:
For me I see the opposite, and lacking complete knowledge (as even you do, no doubt) it sways me somewhat, as it does Oski and do doubt lurkers. I have not seen one person I consider intelligent, nuanced and philosophically sophisticated argue for Knox innocence. You're the closest I've read out of all the forums and innocence sites (although I admit I haven't spent much time there). If such a person existed, I would reconsider quite a bit. Can you link me to anyone like this with an opinion on the case?

The best experts your side seem to come up with are guys like this, and appear to be self selecting:



It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, especially given the hint of showbiz:
And this video

Whereas non self selected people seem to think she did it. Barbie Nadeua is an example - she was sent there by Newsweek as part of her regular job, because she was their long time Italy correspondent.

You see the same thing on these forums. Intelligent educated regulars with professional backgrounds, who were already participating often in OOT and have since looked into the case, generally think she's guilty; it's the self selected, out of forum arrivals, and a few obvious idiots, who argue she isn't.

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm looking for a good argument or a compelling writer who argues for Knox innocence. Can you link one, or several? Can you invite one to this thread? At the moment your side is getting stomped on. It's not even a fair fight.

Lol

Barbie is a university drop-out and tabloid hack who'd never covered a murder trial before.

So you can't link to anything compelling, Tony? I'm looking for an argument from an obviously intelligent person that meaningfully explains why and how the reasoning of the pro guilt people is wrong. It's a genuine request!

As for Barbie, it's my understanding she was Newsweek's Italian reporter since 1997. It was a mainstream news magazine, similar to Time. She was the only reporter to sit through the entire trial, because it was her job and she spoke Italian. To me her opinion holds more weight than any interview-happy, Hollywood-ish ex sniper who didn't even attend the trial and hear the evidence and testimony.

And thank you for dropping in to validate my point about "self selected, out of forum arrivals", courtesy of Lost Ostrich:

Was there some piece of new evidence or something recently that has re-ignited this argument, or is this still the same case as it always was? The attractive american studying abroad with a story that makes no sense, a murder weapon, and basically all the circumstantial evidence in the world, but with the backing of the American media since she is attractive.

Has something changed here or is this pages of people trying to talk in circles around Henry, et al.?

Well that explains everything about you.

Tabloid journo with no experience covering murder trials = credible

25 year FBI agent = not credible.

Lets have a little reality check here. You come from a forum where the moderator thinks he's Jesus. Do u read his blog?

Tjmk is run by a pervert with an unhealthy interest in a dead girl he never knew.

There is no one who can make a case for guilt without sounding bat**** crazy. I've just watched the latest round of guilter theories on pmf and not much has changed. Same **** different day

There's the old favourate "rape prank", rudy the gimp, rudy the standover man, rudy the dupe, rudy the patsy, rudy the fall guy who was paid off to stay silent..... On and on it goes.

On the face of it, that indeed seems silly. But reality is a little more difficult, and a problem I have with Knox supporters is that they seem to not understand the (very slightly more) difficult philosophical underpinnings of reality that turn the superficial on its head.

Let me ask you a question. Who is less credible:

- A senior journalist for a Newsweek sent to cover to trial because of her job
- A self-selected former FBI agent out of tens of thousands of former FBI agents.

There is only one correct answer, and I'll answer for you: the self-selected FBI agent is less credible. Because he is self selected. The reality is that a percentage of experts in every single field get emotionally or intellectually or self-interestedly attached to a non mainstream or indefensible or even outright kooky position. It's called being human. Thus, the expertise of people selected by such selection bias is totally worthless.

This is the same reason why defense experts selected from a wide pool have no credibility except where they testify against self interest. Selection bias is a bitch and the range of opinions among well credentialed people covers nearly the entire range of possibilities. You can find even Nobel laureates in their respective fields advocating everything from Vitamin C curing the flu/cancer (which is lol), to perpetual motion machines (which is crazy).

You seems angry and emotionally invested in this, although I liked the swipe at Dids (or perhaps Sklansky has finally gone bat****, and i missed it?).

But the theories don't really matter. For you to find Knox guilt "bat**** insane", you have to agree with one of the following statements:

1. It's improbable that four people who know each other, two of them flatmates and one a boyfriend, would end up in the same house on the same night.
2. It's unlikely that a confrontation would happen among these people, or an accident, or sexual misadventures, or a teaching of a lesson, or a prank gone wrong, or drug induced violence.
3. It's impossible that any of the things in step 2 could escalate to the point of murder
4. It's highly improbable that this would be covered up and three parties to the crime would all keep their mouths (partly) shut, never making a full confession.

I'd be interested in which statement(s) you agree with. You have to agree with at least two to make your "bat**** insane" case IMO.

As for the evidence, Sniper/Helicopter Pilot/Terrorist Hunter man's position seems to come down to this proposition:

It's highly improbable that, after a cleanup, there'd be no DNA (except for a bra clasp with Sollecito's DNA on it) or handprints or fingerprints of Knox and Sollecito found by forensics among the samples taken in the murder room.

Do you agree with this proposition?

I'd assume I've played millions of hands but have never tried to quantify it.

I think I would like to play poker with you.

The reality is that Steve Moore has zero credibility. The **** that comes out of his mouth is complete garbage.

So either he is a complete idiot or he is saying ******ed stuff because he thinks he can profit from it.

The strong favourite is that he is a complete idiot because if he wanted to profit from Knox he could say stuff in her support that is not obviously in contradiction to reality. Further, his writing and communication skills would not be as low as they are.