• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Vixen said:
These points have been argued many many times. Honestly, 'debating' with the PIP is like scientists arguing Darwin's Theory with Jehovah's Witnesses. Even with the evidence of the luminol, DNA, blood, strands of fair hair, one such tightly gripped in the deceased hand in rigor mortis, the locked door from the outside, the phones switched off from 8:45 through to 5:00am, the all-night cleaning, the still warm washing machine, the cottage mop going back and forth between the residences, the phone-call to Mom in US early hours before the door was even kicked down, the footprint on the bathmat, Her DNA on the knife hilt, Mez' on the blade, bloody fingerprint on the light swtich, mixed blood on cotton bud box and in the toilet bowl and on the tap, Mez' missing rent money, HER lamp under Mez' bed. But the 'true believers' are convinced that this is the master work of one all-powerful prosecutor.


.
Click to expand...
This is why is like we're talking to an Alzheimer or dementia patient; you're just repeating the same disproved nonsense as if you've never seen the contradictory evidence.

1. "Even with the evidence of the luminol,"
PIP: WHAT TMB negative tests?

2."DNA"
PIP: Conti and Vecchiotti WHO? WHAT report on the bra hook and knife blade? What knife negative blood tests?

3. "blood"
Now, you're going to have to be just a tad less vague about that, V.

4. "strands of fair hair, one such tightly gripped in the deceased hand in rigor mortis"
PIP: WHAT? They can determine if hair has been dyed blonde by just looking under a microscope? WHAT? Knox had dyed her hair blonde at the time? WHAT? No blonde hair was entered into evidence by the prosecution?

5. "the locked door from the outside,"
PIP: WHAT? The bedroom door could have been locked by Guede with the key that was never found?

6. "the phones switched off from 8:45 through to 5:00am,'
PIP: WHAT? There's an entirely logical and plausible reason for them to turn off their phones within 5 minutes of each learning they had an unexpected night off together? Go on, with ya!

7. "the all-night cleaning,"
PIP: WHAT? No evidence of cleaning was presented in court? Testimony from the print expert said he saw no evidence of any attempt to clean up? There were visible, intact bloody shoeprints and intact footprints? There was visible blood in the bathroom? Well, if there was no clean-up, then how did Knox remove all her DNA, fingerprints, etc. from Kercher's room? There had to be a clean-up!

8. "the still warm washing machine,"
PIP: WHAT? No one testified to the washer still being warm? WHAT? You mean the word "umido" means "wet, damp, moist" not "warm" Since when?

9. "the cottage mop going back and forth between the residences"
PIP: WHAT? You mean the mop tested negative for Kercher's DNA and for human blood? Are you seriously trying to say it wasn't used to clean up the crime scene?


10? "the phone-call to Mom in US early hours before the door was even kicked down,"
PIP: WHAT? It just not normal for a young girl to call her mom after finding weird things in her apartment! It wasn't
concerning at all to find her front door open, blood in her bathroom, and crap unflushed in a toilet!

11. "the footprint on the bathmat"
PIP: WHAT? The footprint couldn't be scientifically and definitively assigned to either Guede or Sollecito?
WHAT? Knox pointed it out to the police instead of getting rid of it? Who knew?

12. "Her DNA on the knife hilt, Mez' on the blade"
PIP: WHAT? WHAT forensic report that found her DNA on the blade was 'scientifically unreliable'? WHAT? Finding a person's DNA on a knife they cook with is NORMAL? WHAT? People leave DNA even on things that aren't used in murders?



13. "bloody fingerprint on the light swtich,"
PIP: WHAT? Those weren't fingerprints, but dripping blood? WHAT? Only Meredith's DNA was found in it? WHAT? That's not evidence against Knox or Sollecito?

14. "mixed blood on cotton bud box and in the toilet bowl bidet?
PIP: WHAT? It wasn't Knox's blood but only her DNA which could have come from pre-deposited, innocent DNA from brushing her teeth, washing her hands, holding the cotton bud box or using the bidet? WHAT? Mixed samples containing blood can have blood from only one person. Who knew?


15. "and on the tap,"
PIP: WHAT? WHAT infected ear piercing? WHAT? If she'd been bleeding due to the murder, logic says she's have cleaned it up and not pointed it out to the police instead? What kind of logic is that?

16. Mez' missing rent money,"
PIP: WHAT? WHAT $4500 sitting her Knox's bank account? WHAT? Guede was broke and his rent was due?
WHAT? Guede had a history of burglary and theft?


17 "HER lamp under Mez' bed."
PIP: WHAT? Meredith could have borrowed it because she had no desk lighting unless she moved her own lamp back and forth from her bedside and Knox was staying at Sollecitos? WHAT? Knox could have just told police that to cover why her lamp was in MK's room instead of saying she didn't know how it got there? Really? Why has no one ever mentioned this logical explanation before?


18 But the 'true believers' are convinced that this is the master work of one all-powerful prosecutor."

Come on, Vixen. Don't be do disingenuous. The SC correctly found the prosecution case to be deeply flawed, the evidence to be contradictory and/or scientifically unreliable, the witnesses to be unreliable, and the investigation hurried and amnesiac. You can repeat your nonsense until hell freezes over, but you can't gaslight those of us who know this case.
 
Stacyhs said:
<snip offensive material>

1. "Even with the evidence of the luminol,"
PIP: WHAT TMB negative tests?

2."DNA"
PIP: Conti and Vecchiotti WHO? WHAT report on the bra hook and knife blade? What knife negative blood tests?

3. "blood"
Now, you're going to have to be just a tad less vague about that, V.

4. "strands of fair hair, one such tightly gripped in the deceased hand in rigor mortis"
PIP: WHAT? They can determine if hair has been dyed blonde by just looking under a microscope? WHAT? Knox had dyed her hair blonde at the time? WHAT? No blonde hair was entered into evidence by the prosecution?

5. "the locked door from the outside,"
PIP: WHAT? The bedroom door could have been locked by Guede with the key that was never found?

6. "the phones switched off from 8:45 through to 5:00am,'
PIP: WHAT? There's an entirely logical and plausible reason for them to turn off their phones within 5 minutes of each learning they had an unexpected night off together? Go on, with ya!

7. "the all-night cleaning,"
PIP: WHAT? No evidence of cleaning was presented in court? Testimony from the print expert said he saw no evidence of any attempt to clean up? There were visible, intact bloody shoeprints and intact footprints? There was visible blood in the bathroom? Well, if there was no clean-up, then how did Knox remove all her DNA, fingerprints, etc. from Kercher's room? There had to be a clean-up!

8. "the still warm washing machine,"
PIP: WHAT? No one testified to the washer still being warm? WHAT? You mean the word "umido" means "wet, damp, moist" not "warm" Since when?

9. "the cottage mop going back and forth between the residences"
PIP: WHAT? You mean the mop tested negative for Kercher's DNA and for human blood? Are you seriously trying to say it wasn't used to clean up the crime scene?


10? "the phone-call to Mom in US early hours before the door was even kicked down,"
PIP: WHAT? It just not normal for a young girl to call her mom after finding weird things in her apartment! It wasn't
concerning at all to find her front door open, blood in her bathroom, and crap unflushed in a toilet!

11. "the footprint on the bathmat"
PIP: WHAT? The footprint couldn't be scientifically and definitively assigned to either Guede or Sollecito?
WHAT? Knox pointed it out to the police instead of getting rid of it? Who knew?

12. "Her DNA on the knife hilt, Mez' on the blade"
PIP: WHAT? WHAT forensic report that found her DNA on the blade was 'scientifically unreliable'? WHAT? Finding a person's DNA on a knife they cook with is NORMAL? WHAT? People leave DNA even on things that aren't used in murders?



13. "bloody fingerprint on the light swtich,"
PIP: WHAT? Those weren't fingerprints, but dripping blood? WHAT? Only Meredith's DNA was found in it? WHAT? That's not evidence against Knox or Sollecito?

14. "mixed blood on cotton bud box and in the toilet bowl bidet?
PIP: WHAT? It wasn't Knox's blood but only her DNA which could have come from pre-deposited, innocent DNA from brushing her teeth, washing her hands, holding the cotton bud box or using the bidet? WHAT? Mixed samples containing blood can have blood from only one person. Who knew?


15. "and on the tap,"
PIP: WHAT? WHAT infected ear piercing? WHAT? If she'd been bleeding due to the murder, logic says she's have cleaned it up and not pointed it out to the police instead? What kind of logic is that?

16. Mez' missing rent money,"
PIP: WHAT? WHAT $4500 sitting her Knox's bank account? WHAT? Guede was broke and his rent was due?
WHAT? Guede had a history of burglary and theft?


17 "HER lamp under Mez' bed."
PIP: WHAT? Meredith could have borrowed it because she had no desk lighting unless she moved her own lamp back and forth from her bedside and Knox was staying at Sollecitos? WHAT? Knox could have just told police that to cover why her lamp was in MK's room instead of saying she didn't know how it got there? Really? Why has no one ever mentioned this logical explanation before?


18 But the 'true believers' are convinced that this is the master work of one all-powerful prosecutor."

Come on, Vixen. Don't be do disingenuous. The SC correctly found the prosecution case to be deeply flawed, the evidence to be contradictory and/or scientifically unreliable, the witnesses to be unreliable, and the investigation hurried and amnesiac. You can repeat your nonsense until hell freezes over, but you can't gaslight those of us who know this case.
Click to expand...


Facts do not change. A fact remains a fact. A trial establishes the facts. Despite the convictions being annulled, the FACTS remain.


Do read up on Massei, Nencini and Bruno/Marasca - these legal document spell out the FACTS FOUND.



Your 'alternative theories' are not facts, they are your romantic rationalisations because you are unable to look reality in the face.

Reminds me of people fiercely protective of their admired pop stars. It's a weird kind of loyalty as if Knox gives a toss about your support.




.


.
 
Vixen said:
Not so, the acquittal was an extremely rare use of 'insufficient evidence' and this is how we can determine that the acquittal was a political one, because:

Italian Courts are advised not to use the subsection of 'insufficient evidence'
  1. The only other cases of a similar acquittal I could find were:
    • Andreotti
    • Berlesconi
    • Members of the so-called Bologna Bombings.
As all three were political cases, and - in the case of the two very high-up government figures - very obviously a corrupt get-out card being who they were and being able to exert influence on the judiciary.

As you may recall, the verdict was surprisingly delayed by some months, again breaching Italy's criminal code protocols and we heard stories of Massei rowing noisily with Bruno.
.
Click to expand...
Your post above contains false and incomplete or illogical statements.

The final acquittal, as previously discussed on this site at great length, was based upon the accused - Knox and Sollecito - not having committed the act of murder/rape of Kercher. CSC and other Italian court judgments applying CPP Article 530, paragraph 2 are frequently used in acquittals in Italy since the reform of the CPP in 1988.

From the Brocardi law firm commentary on CPP Article 530 and the formulas required in the judgment of acquittal:

Le formule “il fatto non sussiste” e”l'imputato non ha commesso il fatto” rappresentano l'assoluzione più ampia, negando il presupposto storico dell'accusa.
Click to expand...

Google translation:

The formulas "the fact does not exist" and "the accused did not commit the act" represent the broadest acquittal, denying the historical basis of the accusation.
Click to expand...

Your inability to locate other instances of the use of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, simply reflects a lack of information on your part.

The application of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, is limited only to those cases where it is applicable. Recall that CPP Article 533 requires that the judge pronounce a sentence of conviction if and only if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In case of reasonable doubt, the common approach is acquittal under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. However, dismissals under other provisions of Italian law, such as CPP Articles 529 and 531, are also lawful, depending on the circumstances of a particular case.

See:

www.brocardi.it

Art. 530 codice di procedura penale - Sentenza di assoluzione

1. Se il fatto non sussiste [ 541 2, 542 ], se l'imputato non lo ha commesso [ 541 2, 542 ], se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è...
www.brocardi.it
 
Numbers said:
Your post above contains false and incomplete or illogical statements.

The final acquittal, as previously discussed on this site at great length, was based upon the accused - Knox and Sollecito - not having committed the act of murder/rape of Kercher. CSC and other Italian court judgments applying CPP Article 530, paragraph 2 are frequently used in acquittals in Italy since the reform of the CPP in 1988.

From the Brocardi law firm commentary on CPP Article 530 and the formulas required in the judgment of acquittal:



Google translation:



Your inability to locate other instances of the use of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, simply reflects a lack of information on your part.

The application of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, is limited only to those cases where it is applicable. Recall that CPP Article 533 requires that the judge pronounce a sentence of conviction if and only if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In case of reasonable doubt, the common approach is acquittal under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. However, dismissals under other provisions of Italian law, such as CPP Articles 529 and 531, are also lawful, depending on the circumstances of a particular case.

See:

www.brocardi.it

Art. 530 codice di procedura penale - Sentenza di assoluzione

1. Se il fatto non sussiste [ 541 2, 542 ], se l'imputato non lo ha commesso [ 541 2, 542 ], se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è...
www.brocardi.it
Click to expand...

"The formulas "the fact does not exist" and "the accused did not commit the act" represent the broadest acquittal, denying the historical basis of the accusation.!

Whilst the legal template might indeed say that, the facts of the case established at the merits hearings/appeal stage remain unchanged because facts cannot be appealed against.

So all of the facts found remain. And this is reflected in Marasca-Bruno's final motivational report, in which they even add a fact of their own: that Knox accused Lumumba to cover up for Guede.

In addition, all of the MR's confirm the burglary was staged, Knox had the victim's blood on her hand and that she WAS present as of the time of the murder.


Can't wish it away.




.
 
Vixen said:
PNW? Pacific North West...? You feel a regional affiliation with Knox? ("USA! USA!") It explains why you have no debate to offer; just some kind of gung-ho jingoism that defies debate but you just "feel it in your guts".
Click to expand...


More projection and BS. What a joke.

BTW, I thought you were out of here?


-
 
Vixen said:
Facts do not change. A fact remains a fact. A trial establishes the facts. Despite the convictions being annulled, the FACTS remain.


Do read up on Massei, Nencini and Bruno/Marasca - these legal document spell out the FACTS FOUND.



Your 'alternative theories' are not facts, they are your romantic rationalisations because you are unable to look reality in the face.

Reminds me of people fiercely protective of their admired pop stars. It's a weird kind of loyalty as if Knox gives a toss about your support.
Click to expand...
Your post reflects an ignorance of Italian law that is profound or a willful denial of the factual information provided in the discussions on this site.

The "facts" derived in an Italian trial are "judicial facts" which may or may not correspond to real, empirical facts.

The Kercher murder/rape convictions and associated "judicial facts" in the Massei and Nencini trials were provisional. They were swept away by the final acquittal delivered by the Marasca CSC panel.

The final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, delivered by the Chieffi CSC panel, was recently annulled by another CSC panel in a judgment relying on the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, according to CPP Article 628 bis. However, a retrial ordered by that CSC panel resulted in a final re-conviction of Knox for calunnia, based on allegedly different evidence. That re-conviction appears to be a further violation of Knox's rights under Convention Articles 6.1 and 46, since the ECHR in Knox v. Italy found the "different evidence" to be a retraction of her coerced statements against Lumumba.
 
AmyStrange said:
Nope, I never said goodbye.

More BS... bwahahahahaha


-
Click to expand...



Err, what was this then:


AmyStrange

Cont: Post in thread 'The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32'

Vixen said:
In the merits hearing, the facts established the presence of Knox and almost certainly Sollecito at the crime scene. For goodness sake, Knox' shoe print in Mez' blood was found on the pillow case under the body. What is it you are unable to see?
Click to expand...


Yeah (once again), so what?

Why did they let her leave the country if she was really guilty of murder, and as far as the bloody shoeprint, that doesn't prove anything. Did they ever find her bloody shoes, or did Guede take them with him, or did she leave her footprint, and then hide her shoes? That seems stupid to leave one but not...
  • Like
 
Vixen said:
Err, what was this then:


AmyStrange

Cont: Post in thread 'The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32'

Vixen said:
In the merits hearing, the facts established the presence of Knox and almost certainly Sollecito at the crime scene. For goodness sake, Knox' shoe print in Mez' blood was found on the pillow case under the body. What is it you are unable to see?
Click to expand...


Yeah (once again), so what?

Why did they let her leave the country if she was really guilty of murder, and as far as the bloody shoeprint, that doesn't prove anything. Did they ever find her bloody shoes, or did Guede take them with him, or did she leave her footprint, and then hide her shoes? That seems stupid to leave one but not...
  • Like
Click to expand...


I was saying goodbye to you, not the thread, but you came back again and again and again like an annoying relative who can't shut up with their BS.

And since I hate liars and anyone who makes blanket statements...


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
I was saying goodbye to you, not the thread, but you came back again and again and again...


-
Click to expand...


I didn't say goodbye to the thread either I was referring to a specific topic with a specific poster.


Not sure what it is you feel so threatened by. Facts remain facts. You can pretend an alternate reality if you like but it doesn't make it true.






.
 
Vixen said:
Er, the forensic scientists identified the make as a Ladies ACIS size 37.

But hey, just ignore inconvenient facts.
Click to expand...
Heheheheh.

The police originally claimed all the bloody shoeprints were a "perfect match" for Raff's Nike
Air Force One shoes. They turned to belong to Guede's Outbreak 2 shoes. Red face 1 for the police.

The police originally claimed Evidence "A" shoeprint in Kercher's room belonged Raffaele, too. Nope...it belonged to Guede, too. Red faced 2 for the police.

Boemia, for the prosecution, claimed a partial print belonged to an ASICS woman's shoe, size 37. No ASICS shoes belonging to Amanda were ever found.

But Vinci, for the defense, found it was a partial print of Guede's Outbreak 2, not a woman's shoe.
Despite your disingenuous claim, not even Massei found that the partial print belonged to Knox or even to an ASICS woman's size 37:
"The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion. It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox
Click to expand...
Nor did Hellmann. Not even Nencini disagreed with them:
In fact, as was shown at the first trial, it cannot be ruled out that the pillowcase was trodden upon only by Rudy Hermann Guede's left shod foot, ruling out a smaller foot belonging to the defendant Amanda Marie Knox,which in the disturbance following the murder, the pillow, being soft and where the pillowcase may have been creased, could have been trodden on by a shoe without it having left a clear imprint as would have happened on a stable surface.
Click to expand...
But hey, you just keep on and ignore inconvenient facts.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say goodbye to the thread either I was referring to a specific topic with a specific poster.


Not sure what it is you feel so threatened by. Facts remain facts. You can pretend an alternate reality if you like but it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...


Nope, you said you were out, but if I misinterpreted your post, then I apologize, unlike a guilter who will never admit they're wrong.

And I'm not in the least bit threatened either. I just hate it when lies, opinions, and ASSumptions are paraded around like they're facts.

BTW, I see you're once again ignoring all the post that prove you wrong, but hey, egotism is indeed a cruel mistress.


-
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That is a syllogistic fallacy. Logic not your strong point?


Let's concentrate on the Kercher murder instead trying to absurdly claim that Knox was framed by Mignini.

Yes, we know police can be nasty, inefficient, bumbling, etc. etc. and that Italy is an authoritarian state. It doesn't cancel out the crimes people commit.

Please quit the 'All Coppers Are Bastards' line.




.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
That is a syllogistic fallacy. Logic not your strong point?


Let's concentrate on the Kercher murder instead trying to absurdly claim that Knox was framed by Mignini.

Yes, we know police can be nasty, inefficient, bumbling, etc. etc. and that Italy is an authoritarian state. It doesn't cancel out the crimes people commit.

Please quit the 'All Coppers Are Bastards' line.

.
Click to expand...
You're so predictable.
You made a claim which I disproved with quoted and cited evidence. When you can't give a rational and logical rebuttal, you handwave it away. Then you try to divert attention from that failure to rebut and make yet more false claims or accusations:

1. "Let's concentrate on the Kercher murder instead trying to absurdly claim that Knox was framed by Mignini.'

I did not make, nor have I ever, made such a claim. I do not believe Mignini ever "framed" Knox. I believe he was Knox suspect-centered and led a tunnel-visioned, inept, and incompetent investigation from at least Nov. 3. But, I do think he believed she was guilty.

2. "Yes, we know police can be nasty, inefficient, bumbling, etc. etc. and that Italy is an authoritarian state. It doesn't cancel out the crimes people commit."

Yes, we do. And no, it doesn't. But, in this particular case, the police/Mignini were nasty, inefficient, and bumbling. They leaked false information to the media:
"Knox's fingerprints found on victim's face, RS's shoes perfect match for bloody shoeprints, bleach receipts were found, the apartment was cleaned with bleach, Amanda tried to "eliminate the traces of her presence from an apartment in which she lived," the washing machine was running, they released a photo of the bathroom suggesting it was covered in blood with no explanation that it was a chemical reaction to oxygen, RS called 112 after the police arrived, they leaked Knox's personal diary of her sex partners, etc. etc. etc.


3. "Please quit the 'All Coppers Are Bastards' line."

Please quit the lie that I said any such thing. When you have to resort to such hyperbolic nonsense and lies, it's a sign of desperation.
 
This is the part you snipped and responded to:
I asked you specifically about, and which you typically ignored, your claim that:

Can't answer that, can you?
I also pointed out that there was no scientific evidence ever presented in any court that Knox "washed her hands of Meredith's blood" or had "Meredith's blood on her hands" as you wrote. Which is why neither you nor anyone else ever presented any evidence of it. It's just another one of those pesky actual vs. 'legal' facts that you ignore while continuing to claim it's true.
Click to expand...
Your response:
How criminal law works: in the numerous pre-hearings and directions before a trial, the court and the parties decide which of the 500 exhibits - in the Kercher case - will be weighed up during the trial (if ALL evidence is heard, such a trial could take years) so the parties and the court agree which exhibits will be entered into the trial based on the issues in dispute.
Click to expand...
Oh, good lord. That's just a pathetic bunch of nonsense. If the prosecution had scientific evidence that Knox's hands were covered in Kercher's blood, they would have presented it in court! To try and claim it wouldn't have been allowed in court is unbelievable.
Your comments are excruciatingly pathetic and actually highlights you are not interested in debate; you just want to bully people into your echo chamber, not dissimilar to a fan club. So I am out.
Click to expand...

Projecting much there, Vixen?

run away.JPG
 
Vixen said:
Facts do not change. A fact remains a fact. A trial establishes the facts. Despite the convictions being annulled, the FACTS remain.


Do read up on Massei, Nencini and Bruno/Marasca - these legal document spell out the FACTS FOUND.


Your 'alternative theories' are not facts, they are your romantic rationalisations because you are unable to look reality in the face.

Reminds me of people fiercely protective of their admired pop stars. It's a weird kind of loyalty as if Knox gives a toss about your support.
Click to expand...
1. "Do read up on Massei, Nencini and Bruno/Marasca -

I have, which is why I can quote and cite them and you can't gaslight me.

2. "these legal document spell out the FACTS FOUND."

Ah....the LEGAL facts found defense yet again. The 'go to' excuse for the PGP.
So, tell me, Vixen, since it was made a LEGAL fact by the Supreme Court of Italy on February 10, 1999 that “ 'it is nearly impossible to slip off tight jeans even partly without the active collaboration of the person who is wearing them,' thus assuming that sexual intercourse must have occurred consensually", is it an ACTUAL fact that a woman wearing tight jeans cannot be raped?
According to you, it must be because all LEGAL facts must also be ACTUAL facts.

3. "Your 'alternative theories' are not facts, they are your romantic rationalisations because you are unable to look reality in the face."

I suppose Hellmann and Marasca were also "unable to look reality in the face" when they acquitted them for "not having committed the fact." Which, by the way, is a LEGAL FACT. You know, those legal facts you think are always actual facts, too. You can't have it both ways, V.

4. "Reminds me of people fiercely protective of their admired pop stars. It's a weird kind of loyalty as if Knox Mignini and the police give a toss about your support."

FTFY. Knox and Sollecito have been definitively acquitted for 10 years now, but you are still trying to convince us of their guilt. You're fiercely protective of the police and prosecution. It's a weird kind of loyalty because they don't give a toss about you or your support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom