As I said in their final written reasons. Accept it.
You mean the part that says not guilty due to a lack of evidence? in this instance, none. Nada. Zilch.
As I said in their final written reasons. Accept it.
A couple of days ago, you insisted you knew better than Amanda's lawyers about how the latest callunia charge will be confirmed by the CSC before the statute of limitations runs out. You expected us to accept your version as fact and when I asked you to provide a legal citation you haughtily replied that I had been told how the appeal process worked...ducking any responsibility of a actually doing anything to support your own arguments.
The persons who killed Meredith were obviously conscienceless psychopaths, who in addition, have never shown any remorse and, in fact, have flaunted themselves to the public as B-List celebrities.
We'll ignore the fact that both Amanda or Raffaele killed Meredith and in fact were acquitted and had no reason to show remorse.
As for the idea that Amanda "flaunted herself as a b list celebrity" you're out of your mind. Amanda has had the opportunity to be in the public eye for years yet she has lived the lowest of low key lives imaginable. This young woman has been followed by photographers for years and what have they photographed her doing? Going to class and shopping at a second hand thrift store with Paxton. For someone supposedly flaunting herself she certainly doesn't know how to attract attention. Where's the wild night life. You act as if Amanda was Roxy Hart from Chicago as opposed to the traumatized young woman trying to move on only to realize the world and creeps (time to look in the mirror) won't let her.
When is the statute of limitations anyway? I asked earlier but either I missed the response or everybody missed me asking?
As I understand, it is half of the possible sentence of the crime. So, if the sentence is 4 years the statute is 2. But, that is from my memory of some news publication. I absolutely don't know for sure. I bet Numbers does. I do know that the reports are that the the case like so many others in Italy will die because of the lengthy convoluted process.Mignini benefitted from this in his own trial.
In honesty, I think Amanda just wants to be left alone.
Does this statute restart every time Amanda says anything about the police's less than hospitable behavior or is it from the date of the actual suit?
But yet you used Columbo to suggest something about my view. What this shows is how reckless you are with your comments.
You must be on drugs because it doesn't say anything like that. But other than the fact that they acquitted both of them the rest really doesn't matter.
You mean the part that says not guilty due to a lack of evidence? in this instance, none. Nada. Zilch.
I said I couldn't remember. Was he the slouched over scruffy guy, the guy in the cardigan, the guy with the lollipop or the one in the wheelchair?
Gratuitous ad hominem = logical fallacy, as that is indeed what Marasca-Bruno says.
'The rest' does matter, as the issues of compensation and wrongful death suits hinge on it, as well as recording the facts for posterity in the annuls of criminal law.
Why do you think Borderline Psychopath Criminals (=criminally insane) are usually locked up for a very long time, if not life? Unfortunately they think they are entitled to kill someone for a flimsy reason such as, "I don't like Mondays".
Was she an 'honours' student? Please provide pic of her wearing chords to prove it.
You cant prove ANY of those things. Yet you demand that we prove she was an honors student by showing pictures of her in chords that one wears to a graduation ceremony that you know she didn't attend? Don't you think it's hypocritical to demand proof of all of us and yet provide none for your crazy claims?
A couple of days ago, you insisted you knew better than Amanda's lawyers about how the latest callunia charge will be confirmed by the CSC before the statute of limitations runs out. You expected us to accept your version as fact and when I asked you to provide a legal citation you haughtily replied that I had been told how the appeal process worked...ducking any responsibility of a actually doing anything to support your own arguments.
We'll ignore the fact that neither Amanda or Raffaele killed Meredith and in fact were acquitted and had no reason to show remorse.
As for the idea that Amanda "flaunted herself as a b list celebrity" you're out of your mind. Amanda has had the opportunity to be in the public eye for years yet she has lived the lowest of low key lives imaginable. This young woman has been followed by photographers for years and what have they photographed her doing? Going to class and shopping at a second hand thrift store with Paxton. For someone supposedly flaunting herself she certainly doesn't know how to attract attention. Where's the wild night life. You act as if Amanda was Roxy Hart from Chicago as opposed to the traumatized young woman trying to move on only to realize the world and creeps (time to look in the mirror) won't let her.
Koo Koo. No it doesn't silly. You think if you say that enough times it will somehow become magically true?
No one, and I mean no one other than the nut jobs on the guilter sites believes this. What does that tell you? You're no legal expert. You think you know because Ergon and Machiavelli told you? Time to start hanging with a better class or at least better educated group of people.
None of those.
Heheh. When you say "followed by the papperrazi" you mean Madison Paxton who took most of the so-called news pics.
So? Does that describe Raffaele ? NO.
Dless it describe Amanda? NO.
Does it describe Vixen? Hmmmmmm.