Okay: So he just made it up.

I'm fine with that.

I wonder how the lie was further embellished by you guys to add "under her fingernail."

He's surprisingly cute IMO.

Does he have a "negroid hair" under his fingernail, too?

Jesus Oski. The information regarding finding the potential "negroid" hairs was leaked by the police to the media. It was documented in newspapers and I believe (not sure though) in at least one authors book (John Follain or Barbie's perhaps) who was close to the case on the scene. It was published they were seeking an African male whom may be a suspect. It was also published in papers that Meredith "knew her killer" and that arrests were about to be made.

Many things were leaked to the press in this case from police, prosecutors, lawyers and others. It was a very sensationalized witch trial of a case, which cast Amanda as a sex crazed she-devil the second she was arrested with absolutely no strong evidence to back it up. Who do you think help paint that picture?

Glad to see pages and pages of worthless arguments still going. Isn't that ruling due any day now? Seems like it should be out.

Go ahead and link me to something about "Police leaks."

By the way ... are you talking about the same police that were looking to railroad Amanda? I would think if I am trying to "railroad" suspect "A" it would not be helpful to leak information about a suspect "B."

How about you and the other shills put your heads together and sort your story out.

Why are you asking me? It's your fingernail. FTR, I never claimed or cited any evidence that you were sexually assaulted by an African male to begin with, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Maybe you should. You'd probably make more progress in that than you have in persuading anyone that AK is innocent.

Do you want to start with all the stories in the press about cartwheels in the police station or do you want to talk about the bathroom that looked all bloodied up after a chemical test that a tabloid produced a picture of and suggested that Amanda had showered in it, or do you want the list of the sexual partners she listed while awaiting trial in jail......

I mean, I could go on but why am I going to waste my time on it?

It's obvious to anyone who is not a schmuck who cannot think for themselves that the prosecution and police leaked information and planted things in the press in an obvious smear campaign. Have any opinion you want about this case, but you look quite bad arguing against something that is so easily deciphered as factual to anyone with any intelligence putting forth a logical outlook.

um, just go ahead and show us proof of a police leak.

- Thanks.

P.S. Throw in some proof about the police "planting things" while you are at it.

P.S.S. Tell us more about the negroid hair under the fingernail as well.

Nice....I like how you turn into a condescending baby when you are pwned.

You are the buffoon that will not accept the Court's decision in this matter without even being able to articulate a problem with it (other than that you don't like the verdict).

You are the buffoon that will not accept facts as established within the Court record.

Instead, you and the other shills insist on arguing this matter on "evidence" outside of the record.

So, I believe it is more than reasonable to ask for citations for your unsupported claims.

The one "pwned" here is you. You are just making things up and asserting them as fact. That this is done in defense of a convicted murderer is really sad. You should ask yourself: "If I have to lie to make a point," is my point valid?

There is a reason that nobody accepts your silly arguments and claims of police, judge, jury, prosecutor, lab tech, investigator, witness, etc. misconduct - it is because it is all bull****.

The only one that is acting like a baby is you - you whine and complain when somebody asks you to provide support for your silly claims.

You're a gerbil that came out looking like a moldy turd, all encrusted with negroid pubes???

It's probably a waste of my time since you seem incapable of learning anything new, but semen stains can be located using a "CRIMESCOPE" as explained here:

http://vfl.vermont.gov/programs/serology

A crimescope had been used on Kercher's pillow to identify a stain that had never been tested, and it clearly should have been tested, but Judge Massei refused the defense requests to have the pillow stain tested:

Massei – at page 21:

Ken, it's better to use words such as "alleged" or "possible", rather than "obvious" when describing something you think, especially when that does not match any quotes you provide. Otherwise, it makes it look like you are lying.

Right: Notice the term "could have" as opposed to "obvious." Anyhow, the matter was decided via an evidentiary hearing and it was ruled that it was not relevant due to inability to date it (right?) Or did the Court rule on separate grounds?

Or is your claim that you have the unique ability to date an old semen stain (not that you haven't tried).

Edit - or, what Nunnehi said.

You are even worse at this. I'd say "don't quit your day job," but I doubt you have one.

Nencini Report is out. Of course, it has not yet been translated. Here are some quick notes from Italian commentators (a bit choppy):

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I try to be aware of potential bias at all times. In reality I was biased from the start in the case but towards guilt. Naturally I assumed that the majority of people convicted of a crime are guilty.

I've read parts of both of those documents and lengthy discussion of both.

I don't know that there is a translation, I used google translate.

Oski, the best source for the prosecution arguments is the Massei report. The defense appeals are a direct reaction to that report. The Supreme Court appeal was a reaction to the Hellman verdict.

You seem really confused. I understand the prosecution case quite well and I also have evaluated their arguments about the evidence. This is typical of those who are on the guilt side in this case. You really could care less about the evidence and the competing arguments surrounding it. At the end of the day, your argument really boils down to "Massei agreed with the prosecution, case closed" #triersofactweasal.

The problem is you can't reiterate both arguments and explain to us why we should favor one or the other because your only understanding of the defense is from the Massei report. It's you who lack the details, not me, and that point is proven over and over again as you misstate the evidence and the arguments.

No, I don't like their interpretation of the evidence as well as the botched investigation led by a maniac prosecutor, confirmation bias that existed, as well as the manner in which the media sensationalized this case to manipulate not only the public, but jury impressions on the defendants well before it ever went to trial.

Shockingly, even as an unemployed lawyer with all the time in the world to understand this case, as well as the oppositions viewpoints, you cannot even wrap your head around to understand this simple point regardless of agreeing with it.

I do not agree with a lot of the interpretation of the evidence, correct. What evidence am I arguing that is outside of the record specifically?

You asked me to provide proof that police, prosecutors etc. had leaked information to the press. This is well documented that it happened and not even an argument. How else did they report about cartwheels in the police station, obtain pictures from the crime scene showing the Kastle Meyer testing in the bathroom etc. etc.?

Authors who actually side with your viewpoint even write about it rather extensively regarding the press in this case.

I never said people working in unison met in a back room to discuss which items to feed the tabloids next, but clearly when nobody else has access to certain information and it is made available to the press it is being leaked by a source within the department it rightfully came from, and some of it is the police and or prosecution.

What exactly do I need to cite?

What the hell are you even talking about?

Right. That's why they told Amanda she didn't need a lawyer, why they never recorded the interrogation, why they had professional homeless heroin addicts who were star witnesses in other cases just so happen to witness them that night, why none of the "confession" was allowed in the trial, why they tapped cell phones without going through proper protocol and letting the u.s embassy know it was tapping one of its citizens, why we can watch actual video of their flawed collection methods regarding the evidence and yet they back it up despite an entire world knowing it is wrong, why they withheld evidence and documents from the defense team repeatedly, etc.

Support what claims specifically cheeto puff?

You used Google translate? ?

Interpretation of the evidence?

Let's just run down some stuff here:

1. AK's DNA mixed with that of MK and found in MK's blood.

2. RS leaves a footprint in MK's blood.

3. Staged break in.

4. Murder weapon containing DNA of MK and AK.

5. No alibi for AK or RS.

6. Multiple attackers.

That is some of the important evidence. How exactly should it be interpreted?

Please show support for your claim about:

1. "Maniac Prosecutor."

2. "confirmation bias."

3. media manipulation of the jury.

1. negroid hair found under the fingernail of MK.

2. AK/RS did not change their alibis.

3. AK did not name Patrick as the killer.

4. AK was abused by the police.

5. "Maniac Prosecutor"

6. "Confirmation Bias"

7. Media manipulation of the jury.

Again, show some proof. The police and prosecution are not the only entities that had access to information. If it is well documented as you say, you should have little trouble with this.

Basically any factual contention or legal conclusion you make that is not within the record.

That you are terrible at convincing anyone that AK is innocent. I cannot recall one legitimate argument you have made. If I am mistaken, please show me one.

As I was saying ...


This would be a good start:

Oski, unlike others here I am simply not willing to go to crazy town with you over and over.

My position is quite simple on this case, because if you look at it objectively, it is really a pretty simple case of an actual break-in gone wrong, turning into a sexual assault and murder committed by one person, and that is just my opinion.

I do enjoy discussing the case, however, I am just unable to obsess over it like you are at the moment and quite turned off to the pointless discussions you bring.

Quite frankly, you have completely tarded up this thread with your constant appeal to "the trier of fact" and your lack of knowledge surrounding the actual evidence or ability to conceptualize it into an actual sociological event or personify it beyond words on paper from a judge is obnoxious.

Right: So, despite your "bias" towards thinking AK was guilty, you have been convinced of her innocence since prior to the Hellman appeal.

As you have admitted in this thread, you don't have a complete record and proper English documentation was sparse (especially up to 2011).

So, it seems like you are one of the select few that have fallen hook, line and sinker for the AK propaganda which was prevalent in the U.S. before it was put in check as more reliable information came out.

That's fine. I find it unconvincing that someone generally "objective" with a bias towards finding indicted defendants guilty would be convinced otherwise based on propaganda. But, to each their own.

So, as I stated ... you have not read them. Understanding legal documents takes more than picking out portions and reading them in a vacuum. If you had legal training, you'd learn this within your first week of school.

1. LOL.

2. I'll bet google translate worked really well translating technical legal arguments, especially those dealing with forensics and legal standards.

3. Why have you been insisting that we all read the defense appeal when you know full well there are no English translations? Why did it take you so long to tell us that you read it on Google translate?

4. You concede my point: you only read the defense appeals - you have set yourself up for "confirmation bias" especially since you refuse to read the Supreme Court Opinion.

Oh, you don't say. Is this the same Massei Report that you said was merely a "cherry picked" summary of all the arguments? That one? Okay, and once again, by your own standards, you cannot have a proper understanding or appreciation for the prosecution arguments.

Or, are you going to say that Massei only "cherry picked" when summarizing the defense arguments. Since you admit your only source for finding the prosecutor's arguments was Massei, how would you know, anyway?

You certainly have demonstrated that you do not know the prosecution case. You don't know their arguments about the evidence as you have only read Massei and have not read the prosecution's appellate briefs.

Not only are you ignorant regarding the case brought to trial (by using your own standards), you have zero grasp of the legal issues involved in the appeals. As you may know, appeals concern matters of law. That you have not read the prosecution briefs or the Supreme Court Opinion (by your own standards and admission) renders you incompetent for reasonable commentary (a fact you have well demonstrated in this thread).

I have read Massei and understand the arguments set forth therein. However, you claim this is not proper as Massei merely "cherry picks" the arguments. Yet, for the prosecution arguments, you have used the same source and somehow declare yourself well-versed on their side of the case.

Anyhow, we all get it dude. You don't like the verdict. You are either a paid shill, or a hopelessly lonely person that has been smitten by Amanda and are convinced she is not a killer.

To each their own - even if you have to ignore the evidence to get there.

Something I struggle to get past is Knox actually saying she was there in the kitchen while the perpetrator was doing the deed.

Then there was Sollectito saying that Amanda told him to tell some made up story, and that he would now tell the truth.

Fortunately, you do a good job going there without me.

Yes, I agree. Simple.

Oh, never mind. See, you said that your position is "quite simple," so why do you choose the position that requires multiple turns away from what the evidence shows?

Again, here is your version of "simple,":

I should say, that is merely a portion of your "simple position." To add to that beautiful simplicity, you also believe:

1. The investigators and prosecutor conspired to suppress evidence;

2. That the investigators were biased from the beginning and conspired to create evidence that the "break in" was staged.

3. That the investigators conspired with the prosecutor to plant evidence (such as RS' DNA on the bra clasp).

4. That the forensics used improper collection methods.

5. That there was contamination in the lab.

6. That the prosecutor intentionally destroyed evidence (the hard drives).

7. That the prosecutor used paid witnesses.

8. That the police leaked information to influence the jury pool.

9. That the judge was biased.

10. That the jury was incompetent.

and so on.

Now that you mention it, I can't believe how simple your position really is.

You do? Have you actually discussed anything in this thread? The only thing I can recall you doing is being a shill cheerleader. You have not provided one, single compelling argument or point of law that would lead anyone to believe that an injustice has been committed.

Or, are you "discussing the case" somewhere else?

So, is it your contention that the jury should not be the entity making findings of fact? Do you completely reject the trial system? Do you have some better method?

Please tell.

The only reason we see "trier of fact" so often is that shills like you have to be reminded of who actually finds the facts of the trial as well as what a "fact" actually is as it relates to a criminal case.

Not my problem, really.

Lack of knowledge surrounding the actual evidence? That's pretty good. I guess I need to ask you what you mean by "actual evidence" - you mean the rejected arguments you tout all the time?

As for the underlined: lol. Sounding smart is not your thing.