No, I just actually completely skip yours though, mostly

*sheds a single tear*

No. I'm pretty sure you only read my posts. It is pretty transparent why you are participating in this topic.

Anyway keep skipping posts with information and then demand that information.

Henry, you are the ringleader here and even I admit the person with the most information on this subject...of course much of the discourse and information seeking will be directed towards you when you post a speculative bit of info based on a foreign article one of the other guilters dug up for your crew on the forum there. I pretty much ignore you everywhere else, but it's not like I can talk about this subject and get around you.

Also, I am probably not alone in finding your GF's posts kind of annoying when she follows you around in all of your little forum debates and big's you up, so yea I typically just blow right past the posts with the big green E.T looking avatar....no offense, but that is the case and I highly doubt she really cares about my opinion.

So that's the end of that then.

Burn?

nah

I just think you could have said that 6 months ago and used the extra time to learn how to brew beer or make cheese or something.

I've tried the home brew thing before....no patience.

The point was, I can't ask a question or make a comment or form my own opinion without Henry answering said question, or correcting said comment or opinion. Most others just ask to ban me or tell me to stfu and make cheese or something.

He is the mouth piece for this whole thread, yet apparently me always commenting or directing conversation toward him (the reverse of exactly what he does) means I am only here to troll him and have no interest in this topic or case. Clever little manipulation of the truth by him in attempt to shut me out or discredit my interest/involvement.

He's the only person who knows enough about the case to counter every point. Hell I know a lot about evolution, but I would never debate a creationist on it because eventually they will throw a question at me that I can't answer, and they will take that I can't answer that particular question as proof that evolution is false. He can answer every bit of twisted logic and every question about the case and I also would make it my business to refute the lies if I knew it so well.

Wrong. They will not be considered guilty until the entire process has played out.

That seems like a credible statement.

Sorry but you are wrong. Their current status is guilty

Provisionally guilty, I believe. They went from maybe not to maybe so. Two, three more years and they'll firm that up.

Can you source your currently not guilty stance? Not even 239 has said that.

From what I have read their appeal was thrown out leaving them guilty again, awaiting the next appeal. The problem is nothing is written as clearly as this so it is a bit difficult to tell.

You can't expect the American media to understand the system. I've been away from TV but my guess is that they have been talking double jeopardy all day.

Poker Reference is correct in that you should say provisionally guilty. Previously they were provisionally acquitted. That motivation was expunged so now they are provisionally guilty again. The SCC could have expunged both trials in which case they would be just accused but they didn't.

I'm not sure either....the NYTimes says

Taking that literally, which could bea mistake, it seems like there is a conviction.....but not really.

The Italian system only has one trial. That trial though has three stages. Four stages if you count the preliminary stage.

Someone gets accused.

Preliminary stage -- a bunch of judges who will not be involved with the trial look at the evidence and decided that there is enough evidence to probably get a conviction.

Stage One -- you have a full trial. A motivation report is released. The verdict recommended in that motivation becomes the provisional verdict. It is not technically a verdict because only the SCC can declare a verdict.

Stage Two -- automatically there is a second trial. This trial imports all the evidence from Stage One but at the beginning of the trial they decided what items of evidence need to be reexamined. Those items are reexamined and combined with the stuff from Stage One. A second motivation is released. This becomes the new provisional verdict. Again we still don't have an actual verdict just a provisional one.

SCC looks at Stage One and Stage Two and usually endorses the recommended verdict from Stage Two. If there are minor errors in Stage Two the SCC will just modify the motivations and endorse Stage Two.

If Stage Two is really bad they void the motivation. That is what happened here. That means that Stage One becomes the last provisional verdict.

At this point the SCC has the option of endorsing the Stage One verdict and ending the trial but this rarely happens. The SCC also has the option of voiding Stage One and sending the defendants back to repeat both stages -- again this almost never happens. What almost always happens is that a new Stage Two is ordered.

So as it stands they are provisionally guilty waiting for Stage Two where they will be provisionally guilty or provisionally acquitted and then they will go to the SCC again. Even if they are found guilty the SCC can void that motivation and again repeat State Two. If they are acquitted the SCC can void the motivation and repeat Stage Two. This can go on forever but obviously it never does. Odds are that unless there is something really bad with the next motivation the SCC will endorse it. Once it is endorsed it ceases to be a provisional verdict and becomes the first real verdict in this case.

Of course no wager is being made, but PFUNK/239....would you wager any amount that Knox wasn't present when the murder happened?

In other words, are you absolutely 100% convinced she in innocent of this murder?

Henry,

All the media I have read, NYT, CNN, MSNBC ect. says that there will be a new trial. You are saying this is incorrect. You are saying as of now they are guilty and there will be a new appeal hearing.

Am I correct with this. There is a huge difference between the two. A new trial would mean the prosecution would have to prove their case again. An appeal hearing means the defense gets to try and prove mistakes were made in the trial.

99% convinced is the logical response to your question.

It's curious that they were jailed after the first trial (or first stage), but not now.

It's as if they've gotten a 'get out of jail free card' for the sole reason that the Hellman report vindicated them, even though it was subsequently determined to be a legal piece of ****.

There will not be a new trial in the sense that the prosecution needs to prove their case again. Everything from Massei stands including the verdict.

The definition of appeal is not accurate but it is closer to what will happen.

This is not complicated. Imagine that the last two years just never happened. Massei has ended but Hellmann never started. That is where we are now.

And just for completeness, Rudy took a fast track trial which meant what exactly? He skipped his ability to get a phase 2?

That post laying out the stages of the trial should also make it more clear why Henry was saying that the SCC had to null Hellman based off of contradictions with how Rudy was handled. If its the same court making a final ruling on two separate cases it makes sense that it can't be agreeing to two contradictory "truths".

I don't know much about the fast track except that you are severely limited in the witnesses who testify. My understanding is that it is less of a trial and more a joint submission.

My answer would be 98%.

The key ultimately is the timeline, and it makes it both physically, and scientifically impossible based on the evidence.

It's funny how divided people can think about the same piece of evidence though.....Henry and other think Hellmann's logic is "******ed", and Massei's are concrete and right on.

Like the way Massei explains away a piece of glass being in the murder room couldn't possibly be from the killer having actually broken in through the window and it being tucked on his clothing somehow...IMPOSSIBLE based on the path he surely must have taken through the house!

Yes, it is much more likely that this "break in" was staged by the killers and after committing the murderous act they went and broke the window, and THEN _returned back to the room to cover up the body, and it was tucked up in their clothing.

Solid logic there.

lol.

Yeah you've researched the evidence.