239,

I have explained it to you. You don't understand. That is fine.

Lets move on to the question Fat Tony refused to answer.

Knox was kissing and laughing at the police station the afternoon the body was found. Then the scientific police announced they wanted the fingerprints of the people who had regular access to the cottage. As Knox was walking to the scientific police she went from laughing to smashing her fists into her temples.

Fat Tony refused to address this so maybe you will. How do you reconcile this behaviour with the belief that she is innocent?

Well is he a moron or isn't he? Your side casts him as an experienced Judge, more than up to the task. I find it hard to believe with the importance placed on this argument that he simply ignored ironclad video evidence.

So let me get this straight. It's reasonable to believe that the judge in the case ignored unassailable video evidence that matched with the testimony of the police when deciding one of the most damning pieces of circumstantial evidence, but this guy couldn't have gotten tripped up thinking of the clock being fast or slow? Good one. You should go back to trolling now.

How did they check the clock? Was it a constantly running feed on a security monitor? That was my point, not that the motion activated nature would do anything to the time.

I don't need to reconcile it with anything because it's meaningless.

The judge had heard thousands of details related to the case, and applied his own reasoning to them. As you know, he chose to ignore the (admittedly overwhelming) evidence that the calls were made after the police arrived and stated that this was unlikely as they'd have been seen. It's certainly "reasonable to believe" that Massei would ignore this evidence, not least because we know that he did!

The CCTV guy had one job: to establish whether the CCTV time stamp was incorrect, and if so by how much. I'd be utterly shocked if he managed to get that wrong, and I'd go as far as to say it's unreasonable to believe that he might.


Probably by looking at it. I don't see how this confuses you, or how you think this simple operation could be done wrongly.

In the past you've said that Amanda's behavior is consistent with that of an innocent person. Now you say it's meaningless. Is it meaningless or does it bolster claims that she wasn't involved?

Mussolini thought he made the trains run on time, but they were actually 10 minutes slow.

You guilters should stop arguing about how clocks work until you understand your argument. It is very nuanced and you are likely conflating the hour hand with the second hand. If you are using a digital clock, you can't prove what time it is as an electric mechanism not connected to a centralized time source is not reliable. Finally, you have to consider whether it was set for Italian Daylight Saving Time which adjusts 10 minutes in either direction instead of hours.

You would beg to differ that Dershowitz is considered one of the most respected US legal authorities? Ok.

Also it isn't just Dershowitz -- Ann Coulter, Nancy Grace, and Wendy Murphy all think she is guilty. These are just people I know by accident without doing any research.

No one respectable thinks Knox is innocent.


I think I have made it quite clear that Knox's sexuality is irrelevant to the case. I argued that making her sexuality an issue was a mistake. I don't know the context train sex came up it has never been used to argue anything and quite the contrary I've been very critical of the media focus on sex.

You have been told that it isn't important. It became important not because Knox had sex on a train but because it was an issue of your inability to weight evidence logically. While you are correct that no definitive source exists the evidence that the e-mail existed is strong enough to make the conclusion that it is factual. That you can't reach that conclusion shows a weakness in your ability to think logically.

Because I don't give a **** about the e-mail and have put zero effort into trying to research it. Knox could have banged the entire train -- it makes no difference. Enjoying sex does not impact the evidence in this case.


Ok so you feel it is ok to just spread complete bull**** as long as you read it on a shill site?

Why does this seem strange to you?

He spends all his time in a public square in a seedy part of town. That he has only been a witness in two cases over his lifetime is lower than probability would suggest. Pick a park in any city in the not nicest part of time -- count how many serious crimes happen over ten years in that park.

lol what?


lol ok. I have never met him. I know that important local people respected him. When he died they wrote eulogies that left a very good impression of the man. You view of him is based on what the shills write and based on this morning's behaviour it is pretty clear the shills are emotionally unstable and vile people. I personally rather trust the people who actually knew him over crazies on the internet.

As for being homeless he was homeless by choice. He had plenty of money but preferred to be homeless. I don't understand that but it is not the first time I have encountered it either.

So that a second witness came forward and said he saw Amanda and Raffaele at roughly the same time about 50-100 meters from where Curatolo saw them doesn't add to his credibility?

That Knox in her confession puts herself in Piazza Grimana where we know that Curatolo was doesn't add any credibility?

That Curatolo's and Nara's testimony mesh perfectly doesn't add to his credibility?

That he was a heroin user and homeless was known before Massei. I see him as credible because the people who knew him saw him as a good man and because I don't judge people. The editor of the largest newspaper for the region wrote a very moving eulogy when he passed. This is not normal -- you are not a heroin user nor homeless and no one will do that for you. To me it is clear that this is a special situation and having lived in downtowns my entire adult life I have known people like him.

Were you there? Have you seen a video of her behaviour?

btw it wasn't in the afternoon. It was late a night.

You don't judge people LOL. That should be added to the Henry17 quotes blog.

So your position is that yet another witness is lying?

There's nothing in that testimony that would indicate to me I need to reevaluate my position on guilt or innocence. You're talking about one person's impressions of another person's mannerisms in a somewhat extreme situation.

lol

The testimony is not about a person's mannerisms. He didn't say she was acting nervous or anything that is somewhat subjective.

He is very clear. As he was escorting Knox to the scientific police for fingerprinting she stopped and started hitting her head with both fists repeatedly.

This is not an impression of mannerisms but a description of very specific actions.

Yes. Without researching something it nevertheless appears in dozens of papers including newspapers that are considered very reliable. Then there is a second round of stories related to it where the family confirms the content of the e-mail but denies that it is true attributing it to Knox wanting to sound cool. If something you don't research shows up when you are not even looking for it imagine what you'd find if you went looking for it.

The funny thing is that 99% of what you know about this case is not even sourced to newspapers but comes from shill sites. More than half of you posts have led to you being shown to be wrong about stuff that actually matters. You are not very bright so I understand why you want a prepackaged argument but reading sites that are full of lies makes that obvious because when you repeat the BS it is instantly recognized and where you got it.

That is wrong. I am not the first person to bring it up. I have never used it as anything that is relevant. Every time I talk about it I make it clear that sexuality is not relevant to if Knox killed Meredith or not. The only guy she has sex with that might matter is the guy she cheated on Raffaele with because that shows state of mind with respect to Knox's jealousy of Meredith and further might be significant to Raffaele's behaviour although from the diary it appears he did not learn of this until he was in jail.

I haven't. Sorry. You'll find that every time it is discussed I say the same thing -- banging someone on a train is not relevant to the evidence and the media's focus on sexuality is what led to this case becoming so muddy.

You haven't discredited it. You have shown you are an idiot who can't weigh evidence.

I wonder what Henry would say about a stooge like Toto if he was testifying the students never left Raffaele's apartment the whole night.

I wonder if this thread would exist if Amanda Knox was not standing trial for taking part on Meredith Kercher's murder?

Looks like you got started on your autobiography.

Maybe you should ask Knox's PR team to set you up with a ghost writer.

What are the odds that if I ran a little script to look at caps lock, bolding and underlining in this thread, that PFUNK/SlickRock/RockSlicks/RockSlickz (lol?) would be at least 10x any other contributor? Anyone want to bet against me? Heck, he might even beat all other posters combined.

That has to be correlated with crazy/apoplectic butthurt IMO.

Truthsayer I've seen your post over on .nut and you are wrong as usual

The person seen is most likely to be Meredith because the time lines up perfectly with her saying goodbye to Sophie. You don't see white clothes on this person, it's a black & white camera. There is no reason to be crossing the street other than to go in the cottage gates.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/me...iving_home.ppt

You are wrong about the 8.18pm text. The cell tower covered Rafffaele's place.

Massei Report p318 (English trans) The area around the defendant’s home (Corso Garibaldi 30) was reached by a very strong signal radiated from the Via Berardi sector 7 cell, indicated as being the ‚best server cell‛ with regard to Sollecito’s house; furthermore the signals of other cells are also powerful, respectively that with a pylon in Piazza Lupattelli sector 8 and that with a pylon in Via dell’Acquilla-Torre dell’Acquedotto sectors 3 and 9.

Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell routed November 1, 20:18 SMS page on November 1

Fat Tony,

Nice detective skills. I have no idea WTF you are talking about.
Firstly, if I did post somewhere else on this matter, why bring it into this thread?
Secondly, I have never posted anywhere on the internet other than 2+2.
Finally, it amuses me that you guys spend so much time and effort on something that doesn't even help your case if true. Perhaps it is a small thing you believe you can win in the mountain of evidence against them, so you try to bring it front and center to look like the argument is on your side. The difference between you and me (and the other people who think she is guilty) is that I make concessions, indicating that I'm rational, while you and 239 do not.

For example, I agree that the CCTV is prima facie interesting and may be important evidence if a couple of things are demonstrated - which they haven't been. Here is what you do not concede:

- That the testimony of four people and multiple notebook entries of the police about the time of arrival and various events is important evidence
- That two witnesses including Knox's own mother, claim she said she had called the police at a proven time by cell phones records when she had not, indicating a pattern of lying about this issue, is important evidence
- That Raf confessed and conceded he'd called the police after they arrived when faced with evidence, is important evidence
- That a police technician testifying that the CCTV was ten minutes fast is important evidence.
- That the complete agreement of all of these facets is important evidence. It is unlikely for that many people to all be mistaken and by a large amount.

More, summarized here.

I contend that the weight of evidence favors the belief that they called after the police arrived. You contend it is certain that they didn't. I contend that my position is more rational barring more evidence becoming available.

Do you just like saying things that make you look stupid?

I know the shills claim he testified in another trial I have never bothered to look into the details.They also say he was paid and when called on it admit that they are lying -- remember you just did that as well.

My response to you had nothing to do with the details of his testimony. I said if you take anyone and put them in a high sketchy area 24/7 for years that the probability of them witnessing crimes is high enough that I am not at all suspect that he was a witness once before. This is a simple logical argument based on the knowledge that lots of crimes happen in sketchy areas and if you happen to spend all your time including sleeping in that area as a function of probability I am not surprised he witnessed a previous crime and I would expect him to be a witness even more frequently.

Then you respond with the above showing which makes you look like a moron.

How does this question make any sense in response to the reason I said if it is true he was a witness before it would not bother me?

Yes. He was convicted of selling drugs shortly after the Knox testimony (odd way of the police to pay back a shill for helping them out) and was sentenced to house arrest. Since he didn't have a house it was explained that he would have to go get one or he would go to jail since obviously you can't be under house arrest if you're homeless. He choose getting a residence over jail but the whole thing broke him because he was an anarchist (in the European tradition not the American).

No. You gave an example saying your hometown had a mentally unstable person. You described that person as having very strange behaviour. Curatolo never engaged in that kind of behaviour. The night he saw Knox he was reading L'Espresso typically the crazy people do spend their time reading the NY Times. If you look at his testimony it was sharp and fast even on cross-examination. He did better on cross-examination than Knox did.

I have -- many times and I don't agree.

No. He was quite clear that he saw them the night before the police came. Further on Halloween we know that Raffaele was at home and we know Knox was at work. We even know the route Knox took from work to Raffaele's because of cell phone records.

You want to claim that all his testimony is wrong based on him claiming that he saw the busses that take students from Piazza Grimana to the club district and they were not running that night. I am not even sure if this was established in court but lets ignore that for now. You think this minor detail matters so much that all his testimony has to go despite another witness also seeing them in the area (something you conveniently failed to address).

Now lets look at Knox -- she claims to be at Raffaele's on the computer but the computer and the ISP both show no activity. Raffaele and Amanda claim to be asleep until 10pm but someone turns on their phones and uses the computer to play music at 6am. So based on this I assume you will similarly conclude that they are lying about their activities on the night of the murder?

It depends on context. You conveniently keep avoiding the fact that Curatolo was not the only witness.

Yeh the other "superwitness" Kokomaniac was a wife beating alcoholic cocaine dealer nutcase who fled back to Albania lol

This is just silly, I'm sorry. We are talking about unassailable and undeniable video evidence. Do you understand what that is? It's a timestamped video of something happening. That's what you're talking about
here. You are trolling me based on how unassailable and obvious this evidence is and then turning around and saying the judge ignored it. So for all intents and purposes, from your view the judge without question knows what time they arrived but goes rogue and says no.

It seems a lot more plausible than the judge throwing out smoking gun proof, and it's not even close.


I'm just not sure what he was looking at, whether it was in a browser, a video monitor etc.

Nothing you stated is true. You know this.

239 was bad enough but you participation is making the people who believe she is innocent look even worse. It is hilarious how many emotionally unstable nutcases defend this girl.