Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer?
View Poll Results: Is Amanda Knox innocent or guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher in Perugia Italy?
There is reasonable doubt here and should be found not guilty.
381 26.89%
She is guilty as can be and should be found guilty.
550 38.81%
She is completely innocent and should be acquitted.
168 11.86%
Undecided
318 22.44%

04-29-2014 , 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
But, to be honest, I'd be talking gibberish right about now if I were you, too: The Nencini Report is out and it seems they have ruled that:

1. AK was the actual killer.

2. The murder was over stolen money.

gg shills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
Unfortunately for you there is no proof of that despite the loltalian judicial system being fantasyland apparently.
So, you are going to stick to your proven method of criticizing the opinion without even reading it?

Not surprised.

By the way, why is this "unfortunate" for me?

Anyhow, 239: You should really go back and read the Supreme Court opinion so you can get up to speed on things.

Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
Yes there is video proof and Independent court appointed PHD Forensic scientists confirming it, but we should take Massei's word for it. Oski has officially lost it folks. #implodingweasel
Yes! And there is a nice discussion (in context and everything!!!) in the Court opinion about how this all plays out.

If you want to end the suspense, 239, go ahead and read the Court opinion and then get back to us.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
Nope. As you said, can't have "cherry picking" here!!! By definition a "summary" is "cherry picked."

So, again, by your own standards, you are not competent to render an opinion. That is the trouble of applying silly standards to others ... they just may expect you to follow them yourself.

By the way. This is about the 100th time you have claimed that it is "pointless to respond" to me, and then you have gone on and responded.

It seems you are rather conflicted.
I'm saying it's pointless to respond to your numerous vapid points in detail. Your use of cherry picking here is totally dumb Oski. The strawman that any summary is cherry picked is beyond stupid.

Quote:
Nope. It's spot on. You have chastised others for not having enough information to make valid comments ... yet, you have not read the Supreme Court Opinion, or Prosecution Appeals briefs. For you (as a layperson [and a loony-toon at that]) to then attempt to criticize the Supreme Court's opinion is silly. Very silly.
The only parts I've criticized are parts I've read, genius. If they are bound by the Massei report it's not surprising they've gone off the rails, obviously.

Quote:
An appeal is a matter of law. If you don't read the deciding court's opinion, you rightfully look like a buffoon by criticizing it. Indeed, you have no idea how they presented their reasoning and findings. You just don't like the result. Too bad. Otherwise, you cannot find one single problem with the trial or the Supreme Court appeal.
Again, that's patently false and you're coming off as a screaming baby at this point. None of what you're saying bears any relation to anything I'm arguing about the case.


Quote:
You and I have differing views of "fantasyland." I think "fantasyland" is where people think murder trials should be decided on the internet instead of in a Court of law.
Fantasyland is where the judges apparently make up motives and narratives that have no basis in reality like people with no prior history of violence joining in to help kill and sexually assault people just for the heck of it.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
That would make sense considering you can't seem to distinguish which languages the available sources are available in. Will there be additional failing today Oski or are you planning to pack it in?
If you are planning on posting more, then I anticipate lots more failing. Since you are upset about the Nencini Report, I expect you will post more fail.

So, I will stay glued to the thread.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
Yes! And there is a nice discussion (in context and everything!!!) in the Court opinion about how this all plays out.

If you want to end the suspense, 239, go ahead and read the Court opinion and then get back to us.
Oski, they don't change the evidence and the evidence is what matters in this case, sorry. They simply took Massei and the chief prosecutor at their word apparently. I understand the arguments they raised, but I'm also honest enough to say I haven't read those documents in full.

At the end of the day there is video proof showing the improper collection. It's undeniable and the actual forensic scientists confirmed that. And that's not even talking about what happened in Meredith and Amanda's sink. You'd be better off arguing that the improper collection didn't effect the results even though you'd be wrong about that too.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
I'm saying it's pointless to respond to your numerous vapid points in detail. Your use of cherry picking here is totally dumb Oski. The strawman that any summary is cherry picked is beyond stupid.
Oh, is this opposed to "responding to other's posts by making stuff up and refusing to provide citations?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
The only parts I've criticized are parts I've read, genius. If they are bound by the Massei report it's not surprising they've gone off the rails, obviously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
Again, that's patently false and you're coming off as a screaming baby at this point. None of what you're saying bears any relation to anything I'm arguing about the case.
Shifting the goalposts as usual. Lol.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
Fantasyland is where the judges apparently make up motives and narratives that have no basis in reality like people with no prior history of violence joining in to help kill and sexually assault people just for the heck of it.
Sounds scary. I guess "Fantasyland" is a misnomer - I mean, not the good kind of fantasy, right?
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
If you are planning on posting more, then I anticipate lots more failing. Since you are upset about the Nencini Report, I expect you will post more fail.

So, I will stay glued to the thread.
I'm glad you anticipate that you'll be failing a lot more as you won't be disappointed. I have no idea why you think I'd be upset by Nencini Report? So far from what I read it's what I expected it to be.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
Oski, they don't change the evidence and the evidence is what matters in this case, sorry. They simply took Massei and the chief prosecutor at their word apparently. I understand the arguments they raised, but I'm also honest enough to say I haven't read those documents in full.

At the end of the day there is video proof showing the improper collection. It's undeniable and the actual forensic scientists confirmed that. And that's not even talking about what happened in Meredith and Amanda's sink. You'd be better off arguing that the improper collection didn't effect the results even though you'd be wrong about that too.
Another miss!!

I give you credit for being so thick when the discussion is in Massei - and you keep playing it off like you have.

1. Does Massei discuss the issues with collection? Yes or no.

2. Does Massei identify which items were at issue? Yes or no.

3. Does Massei accept that there was evidence of improper collection? Yes or no (answer is "yes.").

4. Does Massei explain why in light of all factors that the evidence collected is reliable? Yes or no.

5. Are you presenting the entire discussion and issue out of context? Oh, oh, oh ... I'll answer that one - yes.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
I'm glad you anticipate that you'll be failing a lot more as you won't be disappointed. I have no idea why you think I'd be upset by Nencini Report? So far from what I read it's what I expected it to be.
Oh, you are reading it already?

Google translate, I presume?

Any surprises in there (like cites to the Supreme Court opinion?).
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:33 PM
Here is some commentary on the Nencini report from Italian readers: (note to 239 - this is not the original document from Google translate - this is just some comments from people that have read the report in Italian).

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

Quote:
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
The Nencini Report Complains About Multiple Instances Of Evidence Tampering And Criminal Slander

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





Already investigations were under way into a PR campaign that in Italian juidicial terms seems little difference from a criminal enterprise.

Now Judge Nencini has included strong complaints in his sentencing report about nefarious behavior, which might now set a number of people to wondering if they have painted felony targets on their own backs.

This summary of the complaints is from Andrea Vogt’s excellent report in The Week/First Post which also highlights the appeal findings.

1. Interference with the courts
...during the course of Knox’s long and drawn out judicial process, Judge Alessandro Nencini claims, serious attempts were made to tamper with evidence in a way that would favour her….

In the scathing report that spells out the evidence, logic and reasoning that led to his guilty verdict in Florence on 30 January, Judge Nencini also says Knox and her defence tried to tamper with evidence and pervert the truth by introducing prisoners as witnesses, whose testimony turned out to be false and induced by “other interests”.

“It is clear how this trial was subject to heavy evidence tampering, both internally (slander) and externally,” Nencini writes.

He calls the media interest in the case “fertile ground” that led a number of witnesses to give misleading testimony in exchange for their moment in the limelight.

He also slams the first appeal court’s independent experts for having been oddly superficial and illogical in their analysis of the DNA evidence, especially regarding the potential for contamination, noting that controls were in place to prevent it….



2. Vilification campaign post 2011
Knox and Sollecito were released from prison in 2011 after an appeals court sensationally acquitted them of nearly all charges (one charge against Knox stuck: the slander of Congolese pub owner Patrick Lumumba, who she initially blamed for the crime).

The acquittal ruling, however, was later annulled by Italy’s Supreme Court and a second appeal trial in a jurisdiction outside Perugia was ordered. By that time Knox was safe and sound back in Seattle and chose not to return to Italy for her Florence appeal, instead emailing a statement to the judge, proclaiming her innocence. Sollecito attended.

On 30 January, Judge Nencini and a lay panel of jurors issued a guilty verdict and handed down an even harsher sentence: 25 years for him and 28.5 years for her.

Knox went on national television back in the US the following day claiming, as she always has, that she continues to be the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice carried forward by inertia by dozens of Italian judges.

But in his report, Nencini suggests the gross miscarriage was by Knox and her defence lawyers: indeed, he gave her a longer jail sentence precisely because of the gravity of the slander against Patrick Lumumba aimed at getting investigators off her back.

A small group of fervent supporters continue to lobby on Knox’s behalf and earlier this month she attended an Innocence Project conference with other exonerees, even though Italy’s courts have upheld her convictions….

With this latest development… there appears little wriggle- room for either Knox or Sollecito. Italy’s Supreme Court is expected to give the final ruling on the case after September.


This post was about Amanda Knox’s seriously surreal appearance at that conference of the Innocence Project.

We will soon post a helpful roadmap to all the other numerous suggestions of nefarious behavior on which we have posted. We dont mean to isolate out just Edda Mellas, Curt Knox and Chris Mellas.

Amanda Knox with her highly defamatory website and new charges pending for her book is one of the worst offenders.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
Another miss!!

I give you credit for being so thick when the discussion is in Massei - and you keep playing it off like you have.

1. Does Massei discuss the issues with collection? Yes or no.

2. Does Massei identify which items were at issue? Yes or no.

3. Does Massei accept that there was evidence of improper collection? Yes or no (answer is "yes.").

4. Does Massei explain why in light of all factors that the evidence collected is reliable? Yes or no.

5. Are you presenting the entire discussion and issue out of context? Oh, oh, oh ... I'll answer that one - yes.
Oski, I don't need the Massei report here. The reality is the collection of the samples from the bathroom resulted in mixed DNA results and the collection of the bra clasp was wrong on multiple levels and was just one factor why it can't be considered as reliable evidence in the case. Those are the pieces of evidence in play in the discussion.

If you want to recite Massei's conclusions I'll give you my take on them.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
Oh, you are reading it already?

Google translate, I presume?

Any surprises in there (like cites to the Supreme Court opinion?).
I'm talking about the commentary and discussion, Oski.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 10:49 PM
What's the importance of bringing up that A. Knox's diary did not contain any incriminating statements?

It's to try to show how many people in this thread are falling victim to confirmation bias. You pore through tons of meaningless information looking for anything that will support what you're trying to prove, and ignoring everything else.

Some passage in a diary that seems strange to you? - evidence of guilt. (ignoring that the diary does not contain any incriminating statements, or expressions of hostility or anger against the victim, etc.)

Their phones were turned off for some time the night of the murder? - evidence of guilt. (ignoring that the phones contain no trace of contact with either the victim or the killer on the night of the murder)

A microscopic piece of R. Sollecito's DNA was found, along with the DNA of multiple other unknown persons, at the crime scene, several weeks after the murder? - evidence of guilt (ignoring the overwhelming physical evidence pointing to R. Guede as the sole killer)
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
Oski, I don't need the Massei report here. The reality is the collection of the samples from the bathroom resulted in mixed DNA results and the collection of the bra clasp was wrong on multiple levels and was just one factor why it can't be considered as reliable evidence in the case. Those are the pieces of evidence in play in the discussion.

If you want to recite Massei's conclusions I'll give you my take on them.
No thanks. You can dig out his conclusions yourself - I cited to the passage a few weeks ago.

As for the rest of your silliness - we don't need to go over it again. This subject was covered at length in this thread from Nov. 2011 - Feb 2012. You could not identify any material errors with the evidence over that 3 month discussion. You basically had your ass handed to you and you had to defer to other shills to help.

Anyhow, I am sure you suppressed that memory as you were completely worked over by Henry and others.

Unless you have a fresh argument, there is nothing to discuss.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
I'm talking about the commentary and discussion, Oski.
Oh, I guess we need Google translate for you as well - "used car salesman to English."
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh
What's the importance of bringing up that A. Knox's diary did not contain any incriminating statements?

It's to try to show how many people in this thread are falling victim to confirmation bias. You pore through tons of meaningless information looking for anything that will support what you're trying to prove, and ignoring everything else.

Some passage in a diary that seems strange to you? - evidence of guilt. (ignoring that the diary does not contain any incriminating statements, or expressions of hostility or anger against the victim, etc.)

Their phones were turned off for some time the night of the murder? - evidence of guilt. (ignoring that the phones contain no trace of contact with either the victim or the killer on the night of the murder)

A microscopic piece of R. Sollecito's DNA was found, along with the DNA of multiple other unknown persons, at the crime scene, several weeks after the murder? - evidence of guilt (ignoring the overwhelming physical evidence pointing to R. Guede as the sole killer)
Microscopic DNA???!! MICROSCOPIC DNA!!!!!!!!!!

Microscopic dna?

M.i.c.r.o.s.c.o.p.i.c D.N.A.!?

Mi-cro-scop-ic D-N-A!
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 11:38 PM
lolllllllllll
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-29-2014 , 11:49 PM
Quote:
Nencini considers DNA evidence produced in the first trial as reliable, but also cites the new statistical evaluation by the RIS of Rome as further proof that the large kitchen knife was indeed the murder weapon, and was wielded by Knox.
Ouch.

Quote:
Sollecito, meanwhile, has a new Italian girlfriend who is a fellow student. Over the Easter holidays the couple was spotted walking by the Via della Pergola house where Kercher was murdered.
What a creepy ****er.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/news-opinio...ith-says-judge
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-30-2014 , 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
Yes, let's just say that.

You would have been better off stopping there as well.
Haha amazing, tickled me also.

But what about the evidence? Sorry guys it's just not her, she would have written about it in her diary if she did.

Seriously though - this thread is starting to turn my stomach inbetween the bouts of shill-ownage. How you lot can continue to shill for a confirmed killer is just beyond me. I find it morally repugnant, if I'm honest, that you can sell your own morality out for what I can assume is a decidedly average sum of money.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-30-2014 , 04:15 AM
239: I heard you actually helped Henry and Poker Refence get a nice tax return.

They owned you so hard in this thread that they claimed you as a dependent.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-30-2014 , 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMor29
Haha amazing, tickled me also.

But what about the evidence? Sorry guys it's just not her, she would have written about it in her diary if she did.
You didn't understand my argument. Re-read my posts until you do.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-30-2014 , 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
Microscopic DNA???!! MICROSCOPIC DNA!!!!!!!!!!

Microscopic dna?

M.i.c.r.o.s.c.o.p.i.c D.N.A.!?

Mi-cro-scop-ic D-N-A!
Address the substantive arguments made in my posts or don't bother responding.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-30-2014 , 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
No thanks. You can dig out his conclusions yourself - I cited to the passage a few weeks ago.

As for the rest of your silliness - we don't need to go over it again. This subject was covered at length in this thread from Nov. 2011 - Feb 2012. You could not identify any material errors with the evidence over that 3 month discussion. You basically had your ass handed to you and you had to defer to other shills to help.

Anyhow, I am sure you suppressed that memory as you were completely worked over by Henry and others.

Unless you have a fresh argument, there is nothing to discuss.
Oski, you're simply hiding behind the court and refusing to address the defense arguments. The fact that you and Henry prefer to stick your fingers in your ears rather than meet any arguments head on isn't really my problem.

Consider we're talking about video proof of the crime scene techs swiping large swaths of the sink and then the prosecution trying to argue that the DNA mix they created was somehow linked to the murder. What is your response? Specifically, in your own words, why should we believe that a DNA mix from Amanda's own sink that she shared with Meredith, collected in the way it was, had anything to do with the murder?
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-30-2014 , 09:09 AM
Oski,

You're doing a wonderful job. I am glad someone took over making these idiots look ******ed.

239,

You're a moron. I have no interest in returning to this topic but since I am here now I might as well address your last post.

1) The video of the collection shows the forensic team doing some things that do not adhere to perfect protocol.

2) These deviations from protocol are minor and of the type that could never lead to incriminating DNA evidence being the result of the deviations from protocol. Quite the contrary all the deviations would lead to the destruction of DNA evidence.

3) C&V's argument was that since the forensic team made these irrelevant protocol deviations the court should exclude the incriminating evidence even though the deviations are not relevant.

4) Hellmann because he was bribed or ******ed accepted the argument in #3. The Supreme Court said lol no. To consider the incriminating DNA evidence questionable the defence must establish that there were deviations in accepted protocols that could have led to the incriminating evidence being a false positive. Establishing that the forensic team did not follow irrelevant protocols is not sufficient to discredit the evidence.

5) The defence failed to establish that there was any reasonable reason to doubt the incriminating DNA evidence so the incriminating DNA evidence is accepted.

Anyway, carry on. I see they have sent reinforcements but unfortunately for you they are even dumber than you -- which is pretty impressive given how low of a bar that is to get under.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote
04-30-2014 , 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
Oski,

You're doing a wonderful job. I am glad someone took over making these idiots look ******ed.
Credibility gone. Anyone that thinks Oski is accomplishing something in this thread no matter what your view of the case is, can't be taken seriously.

Quote:
239,

You're a moron. I have no interest in returning to this topic but since I am here now I might as well address your last post.
Wise choice, Henry.

Quote:
1) The video of the collection shows the forensic team doing some things that do not adhere to perfect protocol.
B.S. This is common sense. You're talking about a sink where there is going to be a ton of biological material. If you sample from inches wide areas the way they did, especially by repeatedly swiping as if you were cleaning the area, you are going to mix the material. Refusing to address that substantive point makes it obvious that you're trying to gloss over what the actual arguments and ignore what the collection video shows and what it means about the results produced from that collection.

Quote:
2) These deviations from protocol are minor and of the type that could never lead to incriminating DNA evidence being the result of the deviations from protocol. Quite the contrary all the deviations would lead to the destruction of DNA evidence.
Again, it is mind boggling that you are arguing that the way they collected the sink samples would not mix anything together and would actually destroy the DNA!

Quote:
3) C&V's argument was that since the forensic team made these irrelevant protocol deviations the court should exclude the incriminating evidence even though the deviations are not relevant.
C&V didn't address the mixed DNA samples so you're conflating all of the collection together. As far as the bra clasp is concerned. It was not simply the collection that led C&V to advise that the DNA result shouldn't be considered, but you already know that.

Quote:
4) Hellmann because he was bribed or ******ed accepted the argument in #3. The Supreme Court said lol no. To consider the incriminating DNA evidence questionable the defence must establish that there were deviations in accepted protocols that could have led to the incriminating evidence being a false positive. Establishing that the forensic team did not follow irrelevant protocols is not sufficient to discredit the evidence.
Again, that wasn't the only argument, but you already know that. This all comes back to the prosecution appeal that the Supreme Court lapped up that argued that transfer needs to be proven. I think anyone reasonable and rational sees why that argument isn't persuasive as it places an unreasonable burden on the defense.

Quote:
5) The defence failed to establish that there was any reasonable reason to doubt the incriminating DNA evidence so the incriminating DNA evidence is accepted.
Again, anyone reasonable and rational understands why the bra clasp evidence can't be shown to be related to the murder despite the logical gymnastics of the prosecution and Supreme Court.

Quote:
Anyway, carry on. I see they have sent reinforcements but unfortunately for you they are even dumber than you -- which is pretty impressive given how low of a bar that is to get under.
Thanks for putting your outright insanity on display here. You and Oski believe that there is an orchestrated effort to disagree with you in this thread. In addition to this paranoid delusion, you've also argued conspiracies reaching to the highest level of the Italian government. You're clearly a reasonable contributor here.
Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer? Quote

      
m