Hey no prob!

I shouldn't call you or anyone a moron regardless, so apologies on my end.

This thread is probably not for you. Go back to posting about whether you should have Chipotle or Chik-fil-A for lunch.

I don't mind being called a moron. I certainly am not above that (for better or worse).

The format can definitely be frustrating as the topic seems to veer in many directions at once and then gets sidetracked further by debates over "red herrings." Ad hominems are a near certainty at some point.

Anyway, it's not like anything new has come up. The guilty side has laid out a compelling case and the shills are just biding time until the appeal is ruled upon. In the off-chance it is denied, then they have the jump on the "I told you so's" - its just a freeroll like the last appeal which was granted in Knox's favor completely from out on left field.

Indeed, shills like 239 can only say the appeal was granted in Knox's favor but they cannot really explain just how that came about. As witnessed in this thread at least, every point relied upon by Hellman breaks down when subjected to proper discussion.

I am not sure what you mean about it being completely out of left field.

From one of your sides champions Amanda Vogt:

If Knox is acquitted of murdering her 21-year-old British roommate Meredith Kercher - and many observers in Italy believe it's likely - she will go down in history as one of more than 4 million victims of judicial errors or unjust detention in post-war Italy (according to statistics from Eurispes).

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news...urder%E2%80%99

This is her information and article and if correct, tells us an average of more then 50,000 people per year are victims of judicial errors or unjust detention and that the Italians were not surprised by this at all.

That seems crazy, but that is what this amazing freelance journalist says and she agrees with your side so it must be true

shouldnt you? I just wanted to see what it was all about but its like nancy grace up in here

Lol

Dude, you don't wanna get into it here.

The leader lolHenry has already spoken and has stated Nancy Grace said Knox is guilty....so it MUST be true!

I don't need to ask other people what I should have for lunch.

From my perspective, threads with "big walls of text" usually are quite interesting. If you are not scared of reading posts longer than three words and a thumbs up, then I think this thread has a lot to offer.

Sure. I also posted at length prior to the Hellman ruling that the Italian system is heavily stacked in favor of defendants. I didn't think the verdict would be overturned, but I'm not shocked it was.

The appeal was not based on those types of errors discussed in the article, by the way. This is why I say it "came out of left field."

The underpinnings of the case stay the same nevertheless (from what is a strong case for guilt) - Hellman basically took the same facts and decided to exclude some from his reasoning as well as de-emphasize others, such that he could substitute his own reasoning into the case.

Yet, a serious discussion of how this was done quickly reveals that Hellman just pulled the whole thing out of his butt, and this is why pro-Knox people are not having any more success convincing people that Amanda did not participate in the murder.

instead of offering insight as to why it might be an interesting read you automatically go into attack mode. You're quite insecure it seems. Also, referring to reading the lunch thread was a fat joke.

Carry on

Why would I care to explain to you why this thread would be worthy of your attention? I would suggest that is up to you and that you can find that out by reading it on your own. However, since you made disparaging remarks about "huge walls of text" it should be obvious that this thread is simply not for you.

So, why the hell would I want to waste my time convincing you to read/participate in this thread?

I would also suggest your insincere, snide question about how could we possibly care so much about this topic is not particularly endearing to those (like me) participating in this thread.

So, carry on indeed! Chipotle or Chik-Fil-A, brah?

One of the problems I have in taking either of you seriously is that you simply cannot understand how anyone can hold a guilty view after deeply evaluating the evidence. This reflects terribly on your mental agility and emotional detachment.

Both guilt and innocent of near certainty are reasonable perspectives on this case. This is one of the reasons the case is so interesting. I think intelligent impartial people can come to either conclusion after deeply examining the evidence. So I am asking 239 if he knows of such a person, so I can read his/her arguments and potentially find them compelling and change my mind. Crickets so far.

As an example, a person who believed the following would probably think she is innocent:

1. There's a simple, common explanation for the crime (Rudy did it alone in a bungled burglary) that fits with most of the prima facie evidence. Occam's razor.
2. Experts and prosecutors are often wrong or mistaken
3. Witnesses are often unreliable.
4. Multiple pieces of very odd behavior can be innocently explained
5. DNA contamination is common with shoddy police work
6. It's extremely unlikely that Amanda and Raf would be murderers given their circumstances
7. There are no credible ways in which three people, one an acquaintance, would participate in a murder together
8. It's extremely unlikely that none of them would confess.
9. It's extremely unlikely that someone could participate in a violent murder and not leave DNA or fingerprints in the murder room

If you believed all of those things, which are reasonable and intuitive on their face, then (1) wins out big time if you downplay certain things. I probably agree with 1, 2 & 3 and would be open to arguing 4.

So I'm trying to narrow down our points of contention here. To me, 5,6,7,8,9 are all very wrong (although I can see how the average person would believe them), so the sheer weight of multiple pieces of strong evidence makes guilt a near certainty for me. If you want to convince me and others otherwise, you'll have to start showing why you are correct on 5,6,7,8,9.

You should post your theory of the crime with a full timeline.

Is this the new shill meme or something? You guys have been pushing this for pages and pages rather than engaging with anything meaningful. Your last meme was amusing as well. Many theories have been posted and put forward at trial; you find them unconvincing, as you would if you are certain of Knox innocence (which you've said you are). Why would you want more posted?

And a full timeline? When she was last seen at 9pm and wasn't found until 1pm the next day? Are you ****ing kidding? The best anyone can do is 1-2 hour ranges, and even those are guesses.

We have evidence, lots of it, and consequently need to explain it somehow. Evidence doesn't get there by Dids having a shower. Something has to happen for it to be present.

Many theories of the crime involving Knox or Sollecito have been posted that fit with and perfectly explain the evidence. In fact, they are required to explain the evidence. How exactly the murder went down, what precipitated it, when precisely it occurred, is anyone's guess.

Meanwhile, no theory of Rudy doing it alone has been proposed that fits with the evidence. If you think he did it alone - despite the evidence:

- a knife with the victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment
- The dead girl's bra clasp with ample Sollecito DNA on it
- Knox footprints with DNA
- A lone bloody footprint in the bathroom matching Sollecito with nothing leading to or from it.
- Very odd behavior, partial confessions, contradictions, changing of stories, implausibly poor memories, falsely accusing an innocent man
- Telling the police that Meredith always locked her door, when she never did
- A broken window with zero glass on the ground outside and no disturbances to the glass on the sill, despite the need from the high window to pull oneself clumsily through
- A pattern of wounds and a bizarre lack of normal defensive wounds, consistent with multiple attackers and very unusual with one attacker
- Multiple witnesses that contradict Knox's story

Then please come up with a compelling theory to explain that in terms of Rudy only guilt, or link me to someone intelligent who has.

Any theory of Knox and Sollecito guilt can explain all of that perfectly (whatever the particulars of how and why the murder progressed, which are pure guesswork). How does a theory of Rudy alone explain the evidence?

You're not an open minded reasonable person. You've shown that once again in recent posts by stating you found it strange two students would hook up within hours of meeting at a classical music concert and then spend all their free time together even though one of them was on the verge of finishing school and leaving town permanently. You find this odd, whereas I dont. I can relate to it and most certainly do not find it out of the ordinary at all.

You've listed all the guilters talking points that were destroyed during the appeal and have been discussed in hundreds of thousands of posts all over the www.

You dismiss or ignore the fact rudy was an unemployed criminal directly and indirectly tied to multiple crimes in the weeks leading upto the murder as some sort of red-herring even though the case for guilt involves ak & rs breaking the window to look like a burglary with his very MO. Rudy being in possession of a stolen laptop from a lawyers office where the second story window was broken with a rock just like at the cottage is another red-herring and nothing but a brilliant fluke ak & rs should simulate after rudy had finished getting his dna inside the victim in there diabolical cleaning and staging plan.

All the prosecution and police lies are ignored, the computers destroyed, the sleeping jurors in the the first trial, the bra clasp rusting, the knife edf's withheld, the tmb results, the 56 errors in c&v......

There is dozens of these and none of it means much to you?

All the sattalite trials including one against the parents for just mentioning during an interview what their daughter said. The secret recording of raff meeting with his lawyers for the first time, the denial of counsel till just before their first court appearance, 39,000 wire taps, the 182 000 cartoon, putting them in solitary confinement to break them....

I could add 30 more things but you wouldn't care. You're not an open minded reasonable person willing to see just what a farce/hoax the case for guilt was.

You got involved because I hurt your feelings. That is to say I made fun of a certain type of person in BFI and even though I didn't know it at the time you were a member of that demographic. Ever since you've gone out of your way to try to confront me despite it constantly leading to you looking like an ass.

You don't spend five continuous days and nights, except for lectures - these are Sollecito's own words - with someone you just met. These is proof of bizarre personal boundaries and a bizarre connection no matter who it is.

Seeing them every day? Sure. Staying over every night? Maybe. But every waking and sleeping hour except for lectures is odd. Unless Sollecito is lying, which is possible.

No. It is just that I do see how his involvement alone explains the mountain of evidence.

If you take away the faked break in, the clean up, the bizarre behavior, the autopsy evidence, fingering of an innocent man, Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp, the DNA footprints, the changing stories, the victim's DNA on a knife, then yes, Rudy did it, case closed.

In fact, if Amanda has not acted like a raging weirdo - bizarrely different to anyone else involved in the aftermath of the death - she may not even have been questioned and charged and further investigations (such as a search of Sollecito's apartment, another evidence sweep, some of the questioning) may not have been done.
If you were going to stage a burglary in that house, there is only the front door and smashing that particular window (the others had bars). The window is actually the only option, since a forced open door isn't good enough proof of a burglary. So no, they didn't magically know what he did. They did the only thing possible to stage a burglary, which was break a second story window, and they left such strong evidence of staging that it's close to impossible it wasn't staged.

No, some of those things are bizarre and troubling. If you want to put forward a case that the police tampered with the evidence, or deliberately fabricated evidence, then I'm open to hearing it. I've offered to go down that route many times but no one on your sides seems willing to posit that theory. And you pretty much need to, to find them innocent.

More details?
I actually do care. Your mind is as closed about me as it is about the Knox case. I am open to changing my mind, but no one seems able to lay out a coherent case that fits with the evidence. If someone was to say "the LCN evidence is reliable by any metric, none of the possible issues apply in such a high probability clean match, C & V report is a joke contradicted in their own testimony, BUT I think the evidence was planted because of A,B,C" then you'd have someone intelligent advancing a plausible theory. That hasn't happened. Every single thing is attacked. Nothing is conceded. So I don't find you guys credible.

It actually is likely true but it doesn't mean what you think it means. The high number of individuals convicted who then have their conviction overturned is the result of two things -- 1) the Italian system is very accused friendly and 2) criminal charges are common in politics.

This must have been in Raffaele's book because no one has said anything about him finishing school and leaving Perugia but now you are wedging it into every post.

I have no idea where Raffaele was in his studies and I find it strange that he would be ending them in November but regardless of his academic status he would never have left Perugia. A brat with a rich daddy who was a virgin until recently ad who everyone describes as scary possessive does not leave. Your attempt to characterize the relationship as Raffaele having one last go at getting his dick wet in Perugia is complete bull****. Raffaele was crazy and obsessive with respect to Knox and there is no way he was going to leave town unless she came with him. The level of this obsession was such that I wouldn't be surprised if it factored into his motivation and that he didn't see participating in the murder as something that would bind them together forever and make it much more difficult for Knox to leave.

The appeal never addressed any of the issues Truthsayer mentioned. The appeal could not destroy something it never even discussed.

Every instance that of you and your type trying to say the law office was also a second story office just reveals you desire to deceive people. As it has been explained to you multiple times the law office window was on a veranda and as such the individual who broke into it had something to stand on. You know this yet you keep trying to claim that breaking in by standing on a elevated platform is the same as scaling the side of a building.

With respect to other involvement it happened. You would do much better to argue that Rudy had help but that it was not Amanda and Raffaele than to deny the existence of other people present. The involvement of other individuals is not in question and the evidence of it is unquestionable. Someone was in that cottage after Rudy had left. They cleaned and moved the body. You can argue that it was not Amanda and Raffaele but you can not deny that other people were there.

Nope -- because most of these claims are not true and the ones that are true are meaningless to anyone who understands the topic. If you'd like to discuss one I will let you pick one out of your stupid list and I'll explain why it either is not true or if true why it does not matter.

lol -- you mean the parents lying about the nature of the interrogation? The Italians take defamation seriously and the parents choose to lie to the press in an effort to damage the reputation of other individuals (in this case the police) and that is a crime in Italy.

Again most of this stuff is not true and the stuff that is true is normal procedure. Electronic surveillance in Italy is not like the United States. The police are free to intercept the phones of anyone they think is relevant so pretty much everyone had their phone tapped. The interesting part is that of the 39,000 intercepted calls the only individuals that said suspicious **** happened to be Amanda and Raffaele. Everyone else who knew Meredith even remotely close also had their phone tapped but they didn't say anything interesting. I fails to see how he police approaching the surveillance broadly and intercepting everyone's phones is a bad thing? You should be objecting if the only people they tapped were Amanda and Raffaele not that the police tapped everyone.

You likely could but they would all be meaningless. This takes us back to the Knox supporters being dumb. You need to be dumb to be convinced by the shill sites that certain things matter or that they mean what the propaganda machine wants you to think they mean. Anyone of even slightly below average intelligence will realize that they are being lied to and that there is a fairly incompetent attempt at manipulation. The only people who fall for it are people who are really stupid.

Anyway I will extend my offer from one to three items. You pick the three items from the list above that you think are the most important and I'll explain why they are meaningless or lies.

So it's a no then, you haven't had a fling while travelling, etc. K.

It's relevant because it points towards their innocence. There isn't anything about their relationship that would indicate they were likely to be involved, it's the exact opposite, their relationship makes it less likely for them to be involved.

Are you serious? LOL, no this is not strange. This is pretty standard for a passionate fling situation.

So you've now stopped discussing their relationship and have moved on to something else entirely. Are you arguing that the possession of violent media imagery and anime are likely indicators of violence?

I think you'd probably see crazier stuff browsing reddit than what he had. He had a file on his computer, there is no pattern of fetishism or outlandish behavior here that makes it likely he was involved in the murder. Let's have a look at your entire browsing history and see what turns up.

I think it was Henry himself who mentioned that carrying pocket knives in Europe was a cultural thing. But again I don't see how this points to murder here. Raf simply wasn't a violent person by all accounts. It's fascinating to me that you discount an eyewitness saying Guede pulled a knife on him mid-burglary and hold this stuff up as proof of something. And what does this have to do with the "oddness" of their relationship.

You'd have to be more specific about this one.

Again, you started off talking about their relationship being odd and now you've spiraled into character assault. The reality is you're trying to fabricate a motive because there isn't one in this case for a scenario that includes Amanda and Raf. Guede had pulled a knife on someone when caught mid burglary. That is strong circumstantial evidence.

The problem is in almost every instance the guilters have not deeply evaluated the evidence. An excellent example is Oski and Henry's take on the 112 call. Henry has put forward a myriad of theories because he's decided everyone is wrong and they called after the police arrived. If you deeply evaluate the evidence about that call it's clear everything happened as Raf and Amanda had said. What I have a problem with is people not being able to articulate both sides of a position and then stating why they prefer one over the other.

I'd say read the JREF threads if you want the innocence take. In fact I've said that many times I'm sure. The reality is certain guilt is not reasonable in this case unless you ignore the evidence and ignore that there is no credible narrative here.

Again, my prediction is that you'll end up at innocence because you seem capable of being rational when you aren't flying off the handle.

Yeah, and given that exact situation, where he was caught red-handed (meaning he would be facing charges for his actions - which would be enhanced at this point for brandishing the knife) what did Guede do? Nothing.

Using your logic, we have better evidence that put in a similar situation, Guede has demonstrated that he will not resort to violence; at most he may threaten it.

Furthermore, notwithstanding these brushes with the law, Guede never was punished with any jail time or anything significant. Indeed, given Guede's experience, he understood that being caught in the circumstances that the non-guilters say were present on the night of the murder (Meredith catching him in the act of burglary) Guede would now resort to murder, even though he understood from his own experience that he was only going to get a slap on the wrist.

So, with Rudy, we have a relative "known" as he had been in that situation before and was not otherwise operating outside of his normal m.o.

Yet with AK/RS (as has been pointed out) were in the middle of an intense fling (you've all had one like this, right? Right? (Lol - so dumb, really. Great point, bro) and were not exactly acting rationally to begin with.

239: really, if you are trying to convince anyone of your position, you need too move past this hand-jive. Start working with the evidence, because all the "behavioral/motive" stuff points more to AK/RS than Guede - yet we do know, notwithstanding this, that Guede was involved. Therefore, when looking at how improbable things are regarding involvement, we understand that the person less likely to have done this base on those factors, actually was involved. Accordingly, these things we are supposed to find "impossible" regarding AK/RS are actually less "impossible" than when we apply them to Guede - yet he was involved.

I've looked at JREF and I decided I am not really going to wade through that forum to find whichever Knox thread (I think there are 4) contains this.

As I stated recently, I am not going to do your work so that I can provide you with an opportunity to convince me of your position. If you don't care enough to do these things on your own, then I guess, too bad?

If you have such a mastery of this subject, why are you incapable of providing a competent discourse from the innocence perspective? If someone on JREF has already done that, and on your opinion has done it better than you can, by all means cut and paste (and provide the link).

As it stands, you are not accomplishing anything here.

Truthsayer,

Why are you now clearly ignoring this?

You apparently claim it not to be true, so much so that you are willing to bet me, indicating you can prove this.

You come here and do what appears to be the same thing you and others are mocking a few other posters here, preventing you all from having a one-sided masturbate fest with all your buddies here.


I am calling you a LIAR, a phony, and a hypocrite.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

LOL, right. Doesn't surprise me that you would give yourself way too much credit.

Henry, this is like one of the longest threads in OOT. You have 20,000,0000 posts and this is the only topic or thread I am participating in which you just so happen to be the ringleader in. I could find about 30 posts every day on here if I wanted to follow you around and have lolHenry moments every day...but I don't, do I?

In fact, I AVOID reading your posts in BFI and elsewhere and try not to even acknowledge you because of how ******ed some of your information and opinions are.

Do I ever respond to you or follow you in other threads or ignite conversation?...NO. We've been at it a few times in the past yes, but I make it a point to not even attempt to debate with you, nor acknowledge you.

NOW....why have you not responded to my post about all your great professional, educated experts who are siding on the guilt side.

Did I blow it up that bad that you don't even have a response?

Surely you can spin something from it....you are the Queen of that.