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

[AmyStrange]

You should read this thread sometime. It's an eye-opener.

He won't for that very reason. His whole self-worth would be torn to shreds.


-

 

[Vixen]

You should read this thread sometime. It's an eye-opener.

From a psychologists point of view, it is certainly interesting to witness how fervently people cling onto a conspiracy theory of 'they were set up by the police/prosecutor', once they have bought into the possibility of it to explain the conviction, which can't be explained otherwise. There is actually a whole team of Prohbergers ready in the wings with a whole set of 'alternative' theories to the prosecution's complete with 'alternative' perps including the other housemates (!), even now Kohberger's admitted it all. One interesting facet is the number of people who claim 'they knew' Knox/Letby/whoever were innocent even before their trial*. There's a belief that feelings of 'disbelief = innocence'. It's as if there is some facet of the defendant they strongly identify with. In other cases I've noted, it's an inability to recognise that not everybody is wired the same, for example, in terms of empathy They can't fathom that many killers can do what they did because of that lack thereof. The other big cause for disbelief is the idea a normal-looking female could ever commit the type of heinous crimes more often associated with men. The other subset are those who are automatically anti-authoritarian/police/establishment, whatever, so they will always take the side of the poor defendant, who they see as the underdog. "You and me against the world." But Knox and Sollecito are hardly going to share any of the wealth they have made from the crime against Kercher with their fanbase, which is what puzzles me about how fiercely loyal and blind they are in the face of irrefutable facts that should cause misgivings in a reasonable person. The other fascinating category is the liberal/lefty brigade - and I admit I was one such, fully believing that James Hanratty, dubbed the A6 murderer, had been wrongly hanged, after having read a book by Paul Foot. I asked Paul Foot about this years later and he told me that thanks to the innocence campaigning, his body had been exhumed and DNA taken. It turned out he was the killer all along, even though his surviving victim whom he raped and left crippled, always said he was. That lesson taught me that innocence campaigns are not all they seem, and how easy it is for someone devoid of a moral compass to have no scruples about fooling their gullible 'supporters'. The other thing is how many such killers who have fooled people from the liberal/lefty brigade into fighting for their innocence, who then go on to become celebrities, such as Damien Echols, Stephen Avery, Ryan Ferguson, Amanda Knox, and make large profits out of the crimes they were charged with. Barry George is another 'miscarriage of justice' and yet the Netflix programme reveals Met detectives are still fully sure he was the killer of Jill Dando, of Crimewatch tv series. *Those people who "knew" Knox was innocent even before the trial: I'd be interested to understand how you ascertained the 'fact' of her innocence as of that stage. In addition, when Knox was freed by Hellmann and the Friends of Amanda Knox threw a party in Seattle to celebrate her homecoming, Knox only deigned to attend the party held in her honour for less than five minutes to thank her supporters. How do her supporters feel about this lack of gratitude?

 

[Welshman]

From a psychologists point of view, it is certainly interesting to witness how fervently people cling onto a conspiracy theory of 'they were set up by the police/prosecutor', once they have bought into the possibility of it to explain the conviction, which can't be explained otherwise. There is actually a whole team of Prohbergers ready in the wings with a whole set of 'alternative' theories to the prosecution's complete with 'alternative' perps including the other housemates (!), even now Kohberger's admitted it all. One interesting facet is the number of people who claim 'they knew' Knox/Letby/whoever were innocent even before their trial*. There's a belief that feelings of 'disbelief = innocence'. It's as if there is some facet of the defendant they strongly identify with. In other cases I've noted, it's an inability to recognise that not everybody is wired the same, for example, in terms of empathy They can't fathom that many killers can do what they did because of that lack thereof. The other big cause for disbelief is the idea a normal-looking female could ever commit the type of heinous crimes more often associated with men. The other subset are those who are automatically anti-authoritarian/police/establishment, whatever, so they will always take the side of the poor defendant, who they see as the underdog. "You and me against the world." But Knox and Sollecito are hardly going to share any of the wealth they have made from the crime against Kercher with their fanbase, which is what puzzles me about how fiercely loyal and blind they are in the face of irrefutable facts that should cause misgivings in a reasonable person. The other fascinating category is the liberal/lefty brigade - and I admit I was one such, fully believing that James Hanratty, dubbed the A6 murderer, had been wrongly hanged, after having read a book by Paul Foot. I asked Paul Foot about this years later and he told me that thanks to the innocence campaigning, his body had been exhumed and DNA taken. It turned out he was the killer all along, even though his surviving victim whom he raped and left crippled, always said he was. That lesson taught me that innocence campaigns are not all they seem, and how easy it is for someone devoid of a moral compass to have no scruples about fooling their gullible 'supporters'. The other thing is how many such killers who have fooled people from the liberal/lefty brigade into fighting for their innocence, who then go on to become celebrities, such as Damien Echols, Stephen Avery, Ryan Ferguson, Amanda Knox, and make large profits out of the crimes they were charged with. Barry George is another 'miscarriage of justice' and yet the Netflix programme reveals Met detectives are still fully sure he was the killer of Jill Dando, of Crimewatch tv series. *Those people who "knew" Knox was innocent even before the trial: I'd be interested to understand how you ascertained the 'fact' of her innocence as of that stage. In addition, when Knox was freed by Hellmann and the Friends of Amanda Knox threw a party in Seattle to celebrate her homecoming, Knox only deigned to attend the party held in her honour for less than five minutes to thank her supporters. How do her supporters feel about this lack of gratitude?

Vixen constantly attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying whilst this post has a Walter Mitty story about meeting the journalist Paul Foot.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen constantly attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying whilst this post has a Walter Mitty story about meeting the journalist Paul Foot.

What? Paul Foot lived nearby me in West Hampstead and we both moved in the same socialist circles.

 

[Welshman]

What? Paul Foot lived nearby me in West Hampstead and we both moved in the same socialist circles.

Still sounds like a Walter Mitty story.

 

[Vixen]

Still sounds like a Walter Mitty story.

There's an awful lot of trolling on this thread. It's a shame it's allowed unchecked.

 

[TruthCalls]

There are mistakes in any major criminal investigation. Criminal justice works in favour of the accused. But a mistake such as omitting to collect a key piece of evidence due to an oversight - human error - shouldn't mean a heinous murderer gets away with their crime. That sort of reasoning seems to be what the PIP cling onto.

Why do you make such ridiculous comments that aren't even remotely connected with reality???

No one suggested the failure to collect the clasp resulted in Amanda and Raffaele getting off, nor is there any evidence to that effect. What the clasp did represent was a massive set of failures by the SP during the collection/testing/analyzing/storing of the clasp, such that it should have been deemed unreliable. That action would not prevent the prosecution from moving forward with the rest of their case. And if that one piece of evidence was the key piece, then the prosecution would have no one but themselves to blame.

Lying about our position, and then making a ridiculous conclusion as a result of those lies is what the PGP cling to.

So one more time... how about you address each of the eight items in the list, and how about you tell us WHERE and WHAT Amanda and Raffaele supposedly cleaned. Come on, you've been claiming this stuff for ever, surely you should easily be able to answer these questions, no?

 

[AmyStrange]

"There's an awful lot of trolling on this thread."


The easy solution would be for you to stop doing it.


-

 

[TruthCalls]

It wasn't collected at the time but was collected six weeks later. The cottage was sealed off during that time, with only authorised personnel in protective clothing allowed entrance.

The cottage was completely turned upside down, and there were numerous visits between 2 Nov and 18 Dec. And as previously mentioned, we have photographs of police NOT dressed in hazmat suits, and we also have pictures of people in hazmat suits standing outside, so stop pretending like this was a properly sealed and searched crime scene, it was not.

His full profile DNA didn't change in nature during that time. It certainly didn't fly in from under the locked door.

He didn't need his DNA to "fly in from under the locked door" as he was in the cottage on multiple occasions, hence his DNA was already there.

The bra clasp isn't the only evidence against RS, there is also the footprint on the bathmat,

Not identified as Raffaele's

the luminol footprints in the corridor,

Not identified as Raffaele's, not Meredith's blood

his two false alibis

He's had one, and only one alibi, and it was never proven false.

which he has never corrected, his refusal to take the stand,

Defendants are ALWAYS advised not to take the stand

his switching off his phone ahead of the murder and not switching it back on until 5:00.

Phones were turned off so neither Popovic or Lumumba could change their minds. Nothing incriminating.

Lied about receiving his father's message at 11:00

No he didn't

lied about being on the computer all evening

No he didn't

lied about pricking Mez' hand with the identified murder weapon

No, he wrote that in his diary, but he never told anyone that. People can write whatever they want in their own diary.

lied about the nature of his 'flooding' in the apartment,

No he didn't

claimed Knox went out alone and arrived back at about 1:00am

Only during a coercive interrogation, and it's an account that was proven to be false. Before and after the interrogation the story was always the same - Amanda was at his place all night.

three of the laptops at the cottage were fried.

Yup, more evidence of police incompetence.

Lumumba's, tested in between those at the same time was perfectly fine, so not the fault of the forensic electronic guys

So they didn't fry Lumumba's, that doesn't mean they didn't fry the other three.

claimed he didn't wake up until 10:00 next morning, when records show he received hs father's message at 6:00

He didn't get out of bed FOR THE DAY until 10:00. We know he turned his phone on early, and then his father's SMS downloaded. Proves nothing.

and the pair played fight club and come as you are,

Citation please

lied to police about his whereabouts the afternoon before between 4:00 and six

No he didn't

lied and was evasive about going into the old town as of that time.

No he did't, no he wasn't.

Had a rich father who could hire a barrister

Yes he could

with - ahem influence -

And this is evidence of murder how???

who accordingly managed to make 'water flow uphill' for his son.

Colorful narrative, totally pointless

But the evidence and the facts established remain.

Yes, it does... like Luminol prints which are TMB negative, DNA negative are NOT prints made with Meredith's blood; the blatant mistakes made by the SP during collection rendered the clasp unreliable; sample 36B was negative for blood, human species and DNA.. the knife doesn't fit the wounds and is not the murder weapon; mixed DNA in the shared bathroom is normal and non-incriminating. Yup, the evidence and facts were established and remain.

 

[Numbers]

From a psychologists point of view, it is certainly interesting to witness how fervently people cling onto a conspiracy theory of 'they were set up by the police/prosecutor', once they have bought into the possibility of it to explain the conviction, which can't be explained otherwise. There is actually a whole team of Prohbergers ready in the wings with a whole set of 'alternative' theories to the prosecution's complete with 'alternative' perps including the other housemates (!), even now Kohberger's admitted it all. One interesting facet is the number of people who claim 'they knew' Knox/Letby/whoever were innocent even before their trial*. There's a belief that feelings of 'disbelief = innocence'. It's as if there is some facet of the defendant they strongly identify with. In other cases I've noted, it's an inability to recognise that not everybody is wired the same, for example, in terms of empathy They can't fathom that many killers can do what they did because of that lack thereof. The other big cause for disbelief is the idea a normal-looking female could ever commit the type of heinous crimes more often associated with men. The other subset are those who are automatically anti-authoritarian/police/establishment, whatever, so they will always take the side of the poor defendant, who they see as the underdog. "You and me against the world." But Knox and Sollecito are hardly going to share any of the wealth they have made from the crime against Kercher with their fanbase, which is what puzzles me about how fiercely loyal and blind they are in the face of irrefutable facts that should cause misgivings in a reasonable person. The other fascinating category is the liberal/lefty brigade - and I admit I was one such, fully believing that James Hanratty, dubbed the A6 murderer, had been wrongly hanged, after having read a book by Paul Foot. I asked Paul Foot about this years later and he told me that thanks to the innocence campaigning, his body had been exhumed and DNA taken. It turned out he was the killer all along, even though his surviving victim whom he raped and left crippled, always said he was. That lesson taught me that innocence campaigns are not all they seem, and how easy it is for someone devoid of a moral compass to have no scruples about fooling their gullible 'supporters'. The other thing is how many such killers who have fooled people from the liberal/lefty brigade into fighting for their innocence, who then go on to become celebrities, such as Damien Echols, Stephen Avery, Ryan Ferguson, Amanda Knox, and make large profits out of the crimes they were charged with. Barry George is another 'miscarriage of justice' and yet the Netflix programme reveals Met detectives are still fully sure he was the killer of Jill Dando, of Crimewatch tv series. *Those people who "knew" Knox was innocent even before the trial: I'd be interested to understand how you ascertained the 'fact' of her innocence as of that stage. In addition, when Knox was freed by Hellmann and the Friends of Amanda Knox threw a party in Seattle to celebrate her homecoming, Knox only deigned to attend the party held in her honour for less than five minutes to thank her supporters. How do her supporters feel about this lack of gratitude?

Well, I find this one of the more interesting posts reflecting the opinions or state of mind of one or more pro-guilt individuals.

There is, of course, the irony of a poster deeply invested in conspiracy theories claiming that others, striving to stick to the evidence and rational and reasonable evaluations, are conspiracy theorists.

 

[Vixen]

The cottage was completely turned upside down, and there were numerous visits between 2 Nov and 18 Dec. And as previously mentioned, we have photographs of police NOT dressed in hazmat suits, and we also have pictures of people in hazmat suits standing outside, so stop pretending like this was a properly sealed and searched crime scene, it was not.

He didn't need his DNA to "fly in from under the locked door" as he was in the cottage on multiple occasions, hence his DNA was already there.

Not identified as Raffaele's

Not identified as Raffaele's, not Meredith's blood

He's had one, and only one alibi, and it was never proven false.

Defendants are ALWAYS advised not to take the stand

Phones were turned off so neither Popovic or Lumumba could change their minds. Nothing incriminating.

No he didn't

No he didn't

No, he wrote that in his diary, but he never told anyone that. People can write whatever they want in their own diary.

No he didn't

Only during a coercive interrogation, and it's an account that was proven to be false. Before and after the interrogation the story was always the same - Amanda was at his place all night.

Yup, more evidence of police incompetence.

So they didn't fry Lumumba's, that doesn't mean they didn't fry the other three.

He didn't get out of bed FOR THE DAY until 10:00. We know he turned his phone on early, and then his father's SMS downloaded. Proves nothing.

Citation please

No he didn't

No he did't, no he wasn't.

Yes he could

And this is evidence of murder how???

Colorful narrative, totally pointless

Yes, it does... like Luminol prints which are TMB negative, DNA negative are NOT prints made with Meredith's blood; the blatant mistakes made by the SP during collection rendered the clasp unreliable; sample 36B was negative for blood, human species and DNA.. the knife doesn't fit the wounds and is not the murder weapon; mixed DNA in the shared bathroom is normal and non-incriminating. Yup, the evidence and facts were established and remain.

All of this was argued in court. You are making the same mistake as rookie judge Hellmann, who was heavily criticised by the Chieffi Supreme Court for treating evidence in a piecemeal manner - like yourself - which he called a petitio principii logical fallacy.

The original phrase used by Aristotle from which begging the question descends is τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αἰτεῖν, or sometimes ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖν, 'asking for the initial thing'. Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of dialectical argument he discusses in his Topics, book VIII: a formalized debate in which the defending party asserts a thesis that the attacking party must attempt to refute by asking yes-or-no questions and deducing some inconsistency between the responses and the original thesis. wiki

What Hellmann did which was in error was to take each piece of evidence one by one and dismiss them one by one. The correct legal method for weighing up evidence in a criminal court is to hear all of the evidence from all of the parties, and only then, when you have the WHOLE picture do you come to a verdict. Obsessing over whether TMB did this or did that and its sensitivity will already have been dealt with by the police forensic professionals (and believe me, they really have better things to do with their time than 'fiddle results'). Oh, and by the way: answering posts line by line is so 1990's.

 

[Vixen]

Well, I find this one of the more interesting posts reflecting the opinions or state of mind of one or more pro-guilt individuals.

There is, of course, the irony of a poster deeply invested in conspiracy theories claiming that others, striving to stick to the evidence and rational and reasonable evaluations, are conspiracy theorists.

Which one would that be? Covid vaccines? Corona virus hoax? MMR vaccines? Climate change? Apollo 10? TW10? 9/11? JFK? Grape Seed Oil? Who killed JR? Enquiring minds need to know.

 

[Welshman]

The cottage was completely turned upside down, and there were numerous visits between 2 Nov and 18 Dec. And as previously mentioned, we have photographs of police NOT dressed in hazmat suits, and we also have pictures of people in hazmat suits standing outside, so stop pretending like this was a properly sealed and searched crime scene, it was not.

He didn't need his DNA to "fly in from under the locked door" as he was in the cottage on multiple occasions, hence his DNA was already there.

Not identified as Raffaele's

Not identified as Raffaele's, not Meredith's blood

He's had one, and only one alibi, and it was never proven false.

Defendants are ALWAYS advised not to take the stand

Phones were turned off so neither Popovic or Lumumba could change their minds. Nothing incriminating.

No he didn't

No he didn't

No, he wrote that in his diary, but he never told anyone that. People can write whatever they want in their own diary.

No he didn't

Only during a coercive interrogation, and it's an account that was proven to be false. Before and after the interrogation the story was always the same - Amanda was at his place all night.

Yup, more evidence of police incompetence.

So they didn't fry Lumumba's, that doesn't mean they didn't fry the other three.

He didn't get out of bed FOR THE DAY until 10:00. We know he turned his phone on early, and then his father's SMS downloaded. Proves nothing.

Citation please

No he didn't

No he did't, no he wasn't.

Yes he could

And this is evidence of murder how???

Colorful narrative, totally pointless

Yes, it does... like Luminol prints which are TMB negative, DNA negative are NOT prints made with Meredith's blood; the blatant mistakes made by the SP during collection rendered the clasp unreliable; sample 36B was negative for blood, human species and DNA.. the knife doesn't fit the wounds and is not the murder weapon; mixed DNA in the shared bathroom is normal and non-incriminating. Yup, the evidence and facts were established and remain.

Vixen bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies and then tells numerous lies in just one post as Truthcalls has shown.

 

[Mojo]

Which one would that be?

https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?search/15820/&t=post&c%5Bchild_nodes%5D=1&c%5Bcontent%5D=thread&c%5Bnodes%5D%5B0%5D=91&c%5Busers%5D=Vixen&o=date&g=1

 

[Numbers]

Which one would that be? Covid vaccines? Corona virus hoax? MMR vaccines? Climate change? Apollo 10? TW10? 9/11? JFK? Grape Seed Oil? Who killed JR? Enquiring minds need to know.

I was referring to one or more conspiracy theories relating to the Knox - Sollecito case, where you (or other pro-guilt commentators) attribute the definitive and final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito to improper actions such as alleged extralegal efforts by Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump or the US State Department or the Masons to unjustly free Knox and/or to allegedly "bent" or "inexperienced" Italian judges and/or to alleged improper analyses of DNA profiling and other forensic activities by the experts appointed by the Italian court and/or international experts such as Peter Gill.

I don't comprehend why you are bringing up other topics you list in your quoted post in a thread devoted to the Knox - Sollecito case. Aren't they irrelevant to the Knox-Sollecito case, or are you claiming that there are relevant connections?

 

[Vixen]

https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?search/15820/&t=post&c%5Bchild_nodes%5D=1&c%5Bcontent%5D=thread&c%5Bnodes%5D%5B0%5D=91&c%5Busers%5D=Vixen&o=date&g=1

Incorrect. That was current affairs news.

 

[Mojo]

 

[Vixen]

I was referring to one or more conspiracy theories relating to the Knox - Sollecito case, where you (or other pro-guilt commentators) attribute the definitive and final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito to improper actions such as alleged extralegal efforts by Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump or the US State Department or the Masons to unjustly free Knox and/or to allegedly "bent" or "inexperienced" Italian judges and/or to alleged improper analyses of DNA profiling and other forensic activities by the experts appointed by the Italian court and/or international experts such as Peter Gill.

I don't comprehend why you are bringing up other topics you list in your quoted post in a thread devoted to the Knox - Sollecito case. Aren't they irrelevant to the Knox-Sollecito case, or are you claiming that there are relevant connections?

No, that's why I asked for clarification. If it is the case there is 'no evidence', why did Marasca-Bruno write in their MR of 2015:

]It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her. And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file. Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house. Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action. The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes. An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2. But as it was previously noted, such witness statements appeared to have strong margins of ambiguity and approximation, so that could not reasonably constitute the foundation of any certainty, besides the problematic judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge. An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi. [excerpt from: Thus the court has decided the 27th of March, 2015 Reporting Judge The president Paolo Antonio Bruno Gennaro Marasca Registered the 7th of September 2015 COURT OFFICIAL Carmela Lanzuise

And eighteen months later, after that final Supreme Court verdict, we have Martuscelli-Masi Supreme Court of Florence writing:

On the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision) If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning. It is logical to assume that she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate, would have been greatly distraught, a circumstance which would have allowed Sollecito to remember well what happened that night even if he had never set foot in the house where the serious crime had happened. [7 ->] We have established, therefore, that Sollecito gave, before and after he was taken 6 “Judicial truth” or “verità processuale” is a concept of law addressing the fact that court trials cannot divine absolute or objective truth. The Court can only evaluate conflicting narratives to get to a “limited truth”, the best truth that is humanly possible to extract from a proceeding, reflected in the final judgment. 7 into prison, completely untrue statements concerning his and Knox's movements on the evening of 1 November 2007 until the morning of 2 November 2007, and for the duration of the entire proceeding, and so for the whole period of detention he remained fixed on an untrue version of what happened during this period of time. [excerpt from: . Orders this Order be sent to all interested parties. Florence 22 January 2017 Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli Reporting Judge Dr. Paola MASI Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017 Antonio Bossa Clerk]

The slate hasn't been wiped clean at all. It is clearly not a conspiracy theory or my imagination as the facts as stated are clearly still in the legal annals in perpetuity. The pair were acquitted but the facts of their presence at the crime scene remains. This isn't conjecture. The facts of their presence at the crime scene is based on objective, neutral, scientific evidence. The only explanation for the irregular and most unusual acquittals must be to do with outside interference and influences. We know Hillary Clinton (from wikileaks) and Donald Trump (very publicly) did interfere, the latter sending money.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is plenty of evidence in those cases. Just not enough to bring charges.

You contradict yourself in the same sentence. How can there be "plenty of evidence" but not enough to even bring charges?
Regardless, your comment in no way supports your claim that criminal "always overlook" something.

 

[Stacyhs]

He won't for that very reason. His whole self-worth would be torn to shreds.


-

Her, not his.