Firstly, barbie is not and never has been a senior journalist for Newsweek. Get your facts straight. She wrote about travel and food. This is the woman you take more seriously than a FBI agent/pilot, sniper, swat team and head of counter terrorism in LA after 9/11 lollll

Secondly. You've created your own fantasy that doesnt match the facts. The 4 people didn't know each other. No I don't agree with your proposition at all.

What I find improbable is two people who had been dating a week head out for a walk with a kitchen knife after watching a movie and getting the night off work and randomly team up somewhere with an unemployed burglar (known to carry a knife and break in second story windows with a rock, sit on toilets during his break-ins and can be linked to multiple crimes leading upto this murder) who just didn't happen to be a burglar on the night of the murder even though he's seen on CCTV heading to the cottage an hour before Meredith got home....a guy they didn't know to rape and kill a girl for nothing in less than 2 hours. Then in some diabolical twist, they cleaned and staged the crime scene to look like the very MO of the burglar they'd just committed the murder with. But wait there's more....just before getting caught, rudy admitts to his friend being in the murder room and blames it on some Italian guy he can't identify even though his co-conspirators have tried to pin it on him making it look like a burglary....ohh please, you've gotta be kidding.

You believe this ****. You and your nutty friends like ergon and the few remaining die hard guilters left on the hate sites which are round the clock cyber stalking people still to this day.

You fell for a tabloid hoax and can't admitt being wrong.

Ohh Henry

Being a sniper and on SWAT means you understand weapons. It does not mean you understand anything about investigations. Nobody who reads anything Steve Moore has written can take him seriously. If you want to claim he was muscle for the FBI then I have no issue with that -- I know a small number of guys that do private security in hot zones and while they are extremely good at what they do they are not very bright. Steve Moore is borderline ******ed which is dumber than I'd expect and he knows dick all about investigative techniques.

He just partnered with an LLC in CA to try and capitalize on the recent school shooting.

http://gmancasefile.com/

Yeah. I imagine him to be one of those guys that keeps talking trash and states how good he is - all the while getting stacked repeatedly (sort of like in this thread).

FYP

I tried to get the same repeatedly to Henry, he can't....can you?

Find me one credible, impartial person who is reaming about the injustice of this case and raving about how great the police and DNA work was in this case...even your Barbara person you are trying to tout is shown in interviews talking about how FLIMSY and bad the DNA evidence is in this case!....I posted that interview previously.

The truth of the matter is you are among a handful of lunatics on this forum drinking kool-aid with each other and masturbating all over each other about your great points and knowledge on this case, and simply shooting down anyone with an opposing view point down, and attempting to cut them off when your circle jerk surrounds them.

You and all the others have become beyond impartial about this case and are clearly off the deep end.

I GUARANTEE you that the majority of the people on this forum highly doubt that Knox conducted these murders and at the very least feel there is insubstantial evidence to convict. Contrary to what you and others like Henry would like to think (only idiots think she is innocent), you are in the minority of opinion on this case, worldwide.

Problem is, very few are going to walk into a landmine and try to discuss their opinion on this case when 5 of you will berate them about Masseiri documents and circle around to masturbate on each other.

How do you explain that the only people in this topic who think she was not involved are idiots?

I realize it is a small sample but when you have a 100% rate you can still make claims even from a small sample.

I mean really man, I wont even dignify this with much of a response.

And it shows just how delusional and tunnel visioned you are, as well as proving my entire point in my last response.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.....standard.

No. I would welcome someone who thinks she is innocent who isn't an idiot to take up the cause because then there could be some discussion but currently everyone participating in this topic who believes she is innocent is an idiot.

Further, this is not a phenomenon limited to this forum. If you read the sites belonging to the two different camps it is pretty clear which side is better educated. Likewise if you read comments on newspaper stories -- the Knox supporters are clearly uneducated and rather dumb.

Lol, right.

And because you actually believe this makes you borderline insane.

Do you honestly not see how unbelievably dumb and irrational that sounds?

I guess you are that far gone though.

You still cannot cite these educated people of prominence in distinguished fields who are up in arms about the tragedy of these two people being released from prison based on the evidence in this case!

If your viewpoint were true, shouldn't this be easy to do?

Where are all the medical, investigative, political, criminal, and law people who are up in arms about the release of these murderers?

That you think coming up with names of people of prominence is somehow relevant goes a long way to establishing my position.

Solid argument.

No, it really doesn't.

Ok then what prominent person is advocating for the guilt of Robert Blake?

Everybody knows that he killed his wife but because juries are useless he was found not guilty. He is much more famous than Amanda Knox ever was and this crime happened on US soil.

I would also accept a prominent person that advocated for OJ's guilt after the trial found him not guilty despite again being obviously guilty.

If you test is of any merit you should have a lng list of prominent people for both these cases.

We aren't talking about those cases and no one is saying that anyone disagreeing are uneducated idiots. If we needed to and were actually talking about either of those cases, I am confident we could cite some

You are in saying anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on this case is an uneducated idiot which is patently false.

If it were obviously true you would have some references to provide which indicate the exact opposite of this (plenty of affluent professional opinions backing your opinion on the case), which you cannot.

Your position is that when someone who is obviously guilty is set free by the justice system that prominent people speak out against that mistake.

I have given you two examples where obviously guilty individuals were acquitted and so if your ******ed theory is correct there should be prominent people speaking out against those decisions but there isn't.

In fact prominent people never speak out against acquittals. It never happens.

Are you really trying to tell me that during/after/currently no prominent, educated persons in respected fields such as criminal law, forensic evidence, psychiatry, domestic abuse, etc. etc. spoke out on the OJ Simpson verdict WITH OPINION of opposition to the outcome regarding the case/evidence?

Really?...is that what you are saying?

It's not being contended that a majority of those in the world who think she is guilty are affluent and professional (but it seems the case on this forum) , it's being contended that a huge percentage (in the whole world) of those who think she is not guilty can't spell and probably didn't graduate high school. Edit- I mean, have you seen the mouth breathing housewives who turn up at Sollecito's book signings? It's actually disturbing.

Depends on what you mean by prominent. There were plenty of legal talking heads on various networks that expressed opinions but I was thinking more important respected people rather than Nancy Grace types.

If that is what we are discussing then most the major talking heads from Nancy Grace down to the smaller regional shows think Knox is guilty. Even Katie Couric thinks she is guilty

I dunno i'm getting pretty good at hu.

Prominent meaning having PHD's, teaching, or having written well regarded books on subjects, and making a living at a certain profession over a long career in their field of psychology, forensics, law, etc., and being regarded as an expert in their field.

There are certainly people from the OJ Simpson case who have observed and commented on the trial or evidence in one way or another and publicly scrutinized the case/evidence regarding the opposite opinion of of the verdict which happened.

I am asking you why these experts regarding the Amanda Knox case do not exist.

C'mon man...you know wtf I am talking about quit spinning BS

Name PhD's who have spoken out against the OJ verdict?

A better example would be Casey Anthony -- who has spoken out against her verdict that meets your criteria?

With respect to Knox we have John Follain who is a highly respected journalist and who has had who has at least a half-dozen investigative books on crime that were very highly regarded.

You have Luciano Garofano which I believe meets all your criteria having both a forensics and investiagtor background and currently a professor at a university teaching forensic investigation.

Graham Johnson a highly respected journalist who was the Investigations Editor for the Sunday Mirror. He is a talking head legal expert and like Follain has at least a half-dozen books on true crime. According to the wiki on him "He has been a finalist for "Reporter of the Year" three times and been described in parliament as an "investigative reporter supreme".1

Wendy Murphy J.D. which based on her biography is an adjunct professor at New England Law, was a Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School from 2002-2003, she is a trial and appellate attorney, founder and director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group, and served on the Massachusetts Governor's Crime Commission and Commission against Sexual and Domestic Violence, and has testified before congress. She appears to have become a talking head legal analyst for four networks but I've never seen her show so it must be US only.

Nancy Grace -- she may be a bit excitable as a TV personality but she was a prosecutor for over a decade and if you ignore the theatrics of her shows she is actually almost always right.

Andrea Vogt a Fulbright scholar and award winning journalist. She is also the researcher and presenter of the documentary series Crime: Crossing the Line for BBC and A&E and has written at least one book on true crime.

Jeanine Pirro a former DA and judge turned legal analyst.

Clint Van Zandt a former FBI profiler who also seems to have turned legal analyst.

Now can you name someone who supports Knox who is not a crack pot or a person that I can show to be a liar?

It's all in your head Henry. Do u have any direct quotes from Katie Couric where she states her belief in ak & rs's guilt?

I did read somewhere that nancy grace has privately recanted.

How does one privately recant a public statement? Notwithstanding the private communication (whatever it may be) the public record remains. Also, if this communication was private, why would we know about it - was Nancy Grace making drunken ramblings at a cocktail party or something?