This is not true at all.

The internet is out there, go look around beyond the specific forums only dedicated to this subject. But ones who specifically discuss case files/murders etc.

I find it hilarious that you (and others) would simply come in here time to time and state "those who know the details of the case, obviously know she is guilty" when you bring nothing else to the table or discussion....you are not the first.

What is your knowledge on this case besides what you have read Henry say about it?

Why don't you give us a few sentences of why the evidence points to obvious guilt for you?

I am willing to bet you have no information or informed opinion other then the one you formed here by reading a few posters on the subject.

It's hilarious going back in this thread and seeing all the people thanking Henry and saying basically "Wow, thanks Henry. I totally thought she was innocent and the media is BS and thanks for showing me that. Now that I have found ONE person on the internet forum I visit who looks like they are informed about the subject, I can believe the opposite view and know everything else was a lie!"

WTF

Holy ****, this is what's wrong with you people. Every chance you get you try to reset to a simple argument that you can obfuscate and bull**** you were around for a few hundred posts.

What the hell would the point be in starting a new argument with someone like this when this thread has advanced way past simple few sentence explanations of why she's guilty.

Well, for AK's sake, I hope her lawyers are better at convincing people that she is innocent than Matt R. and company. I've seen the other side convince people ITT, but nobody really saying that team AK has won them over.

It's a point, and I am calling out that person in the hopes they actually take the bait so we can determine what a moron they actually are.

You can't just come into a thread and state anyone who does not agree with one side of a debate is an idiot, not even back it up with a few simple sentences, fact, or opinion and disappear.

That's totally ******ed and should be put down....which I did.

Well, apparently they were...not sure if you heard, but there was an appeal that was won and they are both out of jail.

There is also a whole detailed report on this appeal, with reasoning for why the 1st court was wrong, and a detailed look at evaluating some of the major evidence again.

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/

This information is not discussed much in this thread, because Henry and the others do not believe any of it, and think that the judge must be corrupt and incompetent and must have been paid off by the Knox PR Campaign.

Yah that's cool - don't really care which side ends up winning or losing, it's just entertaining to read the posts and how one-sided it is from a debate perspective. Innocence side needs to really step up their game.

But that's the point, isn't it? According to Henry (and those that agree with him, like me), the Hellman report is wrong in light of the underlying facts. Where it is wrong and why it is wrong has already been discussed ad naseum.

On the other hand, the pro-Knox camp keeps citing Hellman as proof of their argument. This is why the pro-Knox camp is not making headway in this thread - the people they are arguing with, reject the source of authority.

If you are comfortable with doing this, then fine ... just understand, the "guilters" reject Hellman and if you want to seriously debate them, you will have to go to the foundation of the case.

LOL

This is why this is stupid....you "reject" Hellmann & Zanetti why?

They cover the "foundation" of the case in it, so this is a stupid statement to make.

They cover the same damn information and specifically look at the 1st court rulings.

Why do you automatically reject Hellmann?

I'll wait for your response that you are not sure but it is just something previously Henry or PR made reference to that made a lot of sense and I am wasting your time by asking you to go back and look for something that has already been discussed.

If you don't want my input, fine.

I am surprised that you cannot recognize the primary tension point between the opposing sides.

If it is NOT your goal to persuade someone that believes Massei is superior to Hellman in this matter that AK is not guilty, then by all means, carry on.

However, if it is your goal to persuade someone that believes Massei is superior to Hellman, you will have to go beyond citing Hellman as your authority.

As for your question: despite your instructions (based on your feigned ignorance) the shortcomings of Hellman have been discussed page after page. I am not going to be playing games with you; I am not going to do busy work at your behest (especially where it is completely unnecessary). Indeed, I am not here to advocate one side or the other, so your demands are completely unreasonable.

I will restate, however, that I believe the following to be true:

1. Henry is a de facto authority on this subject. I qualify that statement by stating, outside of someone actually handling the physical files in Italy, Henry knows as much about this case as anyone you will find - paid or unpaid. If you can't accept that - too bad. That is my opinion.

2. Henry's argument and reasoning on this case is superb. I also give the same compliments to Poker Reference and Truthsayer. There are others that deserve praise as well; yet, none of them are on the pro-Knox side. That is my opinion. I am a practicing litigator and I recognize the difference between a bona fide argument and bull****. I find most of the pro-Knox stuff to be bull****. It is to the point (and you should point the finger directly at FatTony for this) that when you "sprinkle" in facts with your arguments, I simply do not trust them. I am sorry, but your side is completely non-credible and its all self-imposed. That is my opinion. If you don't like it, too bad.

3. Amanda Knox is guilty. That is my opinion based on my reading of this thread, Massei, Hellman, and the sources cited in this thread. If you don't like the fact I hold that opinion, too bad.

I don't care if Truthsayer is the prosecutor himself. I find his arguments to be compelling and well supported. I think he does a proper job of advocating his position and I find him credible regarding anything material to the case we are discussing.

Most of the time I am reading this thread, I am on my phone; because of that, I often forget who is posting when I am reading. So, its not like "hey, this one's from Truthsayer so I will just skim it and give a thumbs up." The opposite is also true - I don't just skim 239's posts and give it a thumbs down.

In any event, (and you might want to pay attention to this) a lot of times I read your posts while on the phone and think its Fat Tony. For some reason, it is happening more often than it did before.

So apparently Raffaele did (is doing?) an Ask.fm interview.

Q: On the night of the murder, did you eat dinner before you noticed that the sink was leaking?
A: yes I did.

Q:Why do you think Meredith was murdered at 9:30 pm at the latest? What do you think was happening with her cell phone at 10:13pm?
A: Because Rudy Guedé, the only person who was over there during that tragic night, said everything happened around 9:00 p.m. He had no reason to lie because he was talking with a very good friend of him (Benedetti). Moreover, what happened to her cellphone is explained by my lawyer Giulia Bongiorno. The intruder (Guedé) pushed some button with no sense in a compulsive way.

Q: Rudy said to Benedetti that Meredith screamed at 9:20 or 9:30 (from Skype transcript). But he also said she came home at 8:30pm. It's known that she came home from her friends' place at 9:00, so Rudy's times are at least 30 minutes off. She was probably killed after 10:00pm.
A: No Rudy is right. she left her friends to come back home at 7:30-8:00 pm.

Q: If Meredith came back at the cottage as soon as 7:30 - 8:00 pm, it makes a great difference to the possibility of yours involvement in the tragic facts. It's the first time a heard about that time frame. Where is the proof of it ?
A: No, I'm sorry you're right. I looked up at the documents ... She came home at 9:00 ... but Rudy is right saying everything happened between 9:00 - 9:30. Thus if you watch the parking cameras, you can notice a guy walking toward Meredith's house few minutes before Meredith came home. He is Rudy for sure (has the same shoes). And the frame is clear.

Q: How do you explain your precise Y-chromosome appearing on the hook of Meredith's bra? Have you looked at the graph? There is no doubt that it is yours.
A: Yes I looked at the graph. It isn't mine, but what is very curious is that on that little piece of iron there are 5 people.

Q: Now you claim that your profile is not to be found on Exhibit 165B. This means that you cannot believe that the sample was contaminated in the laboratory. This is strange becaus your lawyers spent considerable time trying to convince everyone that contamination was the only explanation for it.
A: Contamination did not happen in the laboratory, but when the scientific police went into the apartment the second time. They wrongly went into the apartment after everything was put up side down by the detectives.

Q: There may be tiny traces of other people on the hook of Meredith's bra, but the largest quantity of Y-chromosome data stands out far above the other traces and is identical to yours. I can post the graph overlaid with a graph of your own Y-chromosome on your facebook page.
A: My Y-chromosome is shared by other 400 people only in the Perugia area. It doesn't mean anything at all. You have to compare both XY in the same amount.



Kind of awesome and everyone will get something out of this.



Edit,
Q: Amanda said she saw traces of blood on the bathmat , we are not talking about luminol. So why are you now trying to say it was just water?
A: it wasn't water just water, but a mixture of water blood. Most of all water. I don't know what Amanda said, but I didn't notice any blood on there.



"there is a lot of blood"

P.R.: I can't believe he is giving an interview prior to the final determination of his case. Anyway, I find this exchange interesting:

.

No it has not.

I challenge you to find this page after page of Hellmann findings being critiqued.

You won't take me up on that though, because you are wrong.

You constantly act like it is a nag of me to ask you your opinion based on the evidence.

It is clear, over and over and over again that you do not have one that is not prompted or formed by Henry or others.

You talk about how much of a waste of time it would be, yet you take an awful amount of time in writing these responses to say it is a waste of time to simply answer a simple question like "Based on the evidence, why do you think this is Raffaele's print on the bathmat?"

Hahaha. Indeed.

lol, didn't realise he actually wrote the lie about the knife in his book. I thought he said it in interview and later retracted it.

"It was just my imagination mixing real happenings with something that could justify the DNA on my kitchen knife" is a quite awesome quote on several levels.

That's because I am Fat Tony. muahaha

I am just attempting to get "double" pay from the Knox PR campaign....ya know, double posting.

It's rough being a shill these days. The pay just isn't what it used to be.

Lol. Let me say this again: I developed my opinion on this matter exclusively by reading this thread. I was swayed by Henry's opinion which has been bolstered by post from posters like Poker Reference and Truthsayer.

How can that not be clear?

No, I did not do an independent review of all the evidence and reach these conclusions on my own. In this respect, I am just like most posters here, or on any site that discusses this case (name any such site and that will serve our purposes).

The only person that I believe did most of the work on their own is Henry. I believe Truthsayer and P.R. have done considerable independent work on proving certain issues as well. I think a number of posters are quite capable of doing this if they were required to and had the time; but fortunately, Henry has already done all the heavy lifting; he has presented his opinion on the case; he has cited his work; and his argument/presentation is compelling.

Are you now going to tell me that you analyzed the case independently and reached all of your conclusions on your own? If so, I would suggest you take the approach that most everyone else has - identify the advocates, follow their arguments, weigh the argument, and then ask yourself if it is complete and persuasive. If you find it deficient, then reject it or ask for clarification.

I know you hate to hear this, but Henry has met the mark across the board. Not only is his mastery of this case in a separate stratosphere than yours, from reading this thread, I believe he is considerable more intelligent than you - which means you will probably face long odds prevailing in any argument against him. I am sorry, but that is my opinion: Henry is far smarter than you; and he has invested a lot of that intelligence into solving this case. His case for Amanda's guilt is sound.

Sorry you don't like that.

If you want to do all the work Henry has and then competently lay out an argument that Knox is not guilty, then you might find yourself getting better results.

And the talent pool has shrunk considerably.

Q: Why did your defence counsel make sure you never spoke in court? Quite unusual for an innocent man dont you think?

A: We all were waiting a REQUEST BY THE PROSECUTION and IT NEVER HAPPENED!


Q: Raffaele, you could have asked to be put on the stand to testify in your defense. Why didn't you?

A: No one asked me anything, thus I don't have to answer anything!

You don't even understand. This is a perfectly fine way to form part of an opinion.

The problem is, I ask you a specific question about evidence you surely know about as a major talking point, and rather then discuss your opinion on it, you deflect, and won't even get into what your formulation of this evidence is.

I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this further. I've formed my opinion on where you stand in this topic, I've given you a chance to change my opinion, and you haven't so that's perfectly fine.....carry on.

What's the point of all this?

You posted the interview, thanks.

Is this some sort of huge "gotcha" that a defendant did not testify or speak at their trial?

Amanda did, and for a long time....does this mean she is innocent and Raffaele is not?

I don't care what you think on the topic. That is what you fail to see. I have my opinion, and I don't give a **** what anyone thinks about that.

If you are looking to convince me of something, I have already told you what you need to do: lay out a competent argument with proper support. Now, you are going to say, "well I am trying but you won't engage me." The answer is: "Of course I am not going to engage you in areas where someone (or others) who I recognize as an authority on the topic you are asking about, is posting contemporaneously in the same thread." How dumb do you have to be here?

I have stated quite clearly: I agree with "A." If you want me to agree with "B," then prove "B." If the process of leading me to agree with your side requires a debate on the merits of "A" then you should expect to have that debate with the person that argued "A." If the advocate of "A" all of a sudden vanished and was not posting right here where you can ask him yourself, then it would be more reasonable to expect me to engage you when necessary. Yet, it is not necessary because "A" has been set forth for many months. What you have been engaged in since you've been here is noise. In other words, even if you posted in a vacuum (like the one-swimmer race) you would not be able to make a compelling case that Knox is not guilty. This is completely obvious as you have not laid out any case, but rather pick around the edges of the well-supported, competent position set forth for Amanda's guilt. In any event, it is not necessary for me to engage you in order to prove or disprove "A." My opinion on "A" over "B" has no bearing on the merits of either side, it merely reflects the fact that I accept "A" to the exclusion of "B."

On the other hand, if you are looking to me to change your opinion on any topic related to this case, you are much stupider than I thought since there are others far more qualified to speak on this topic than I. If you can't recognize an advocate from an observer (especially where its completely obvious) you are wasting your time here.

OK, well before I do...If I lay out my opinion about a piece of evidence along with known facts in the case, will you respond with your opinion and reasoning on why my conclusion based on the facts I present are wrong?

I mean, this is how a debate begins, but if you are not willing listen to my argument, and type a rebuttal with opinion based on facts/evidence of the case then there is no point.

Let me know, and I am happy to lay out an argument based on one piece of evidence we can discuss.

You have several years jump on me in terms of this case so I wouldn't think it would be hard to shoot down my argument, or tell me why I am wrong, and tell me your conclusions about the same evidence.

If you want to lay out your case for discussion, go ahead.

Just like every other post in this thread, I will read it. If I have something to say on it, I will.