If Rudy is innocent?

Just to clarify. You're saying that you, a random person posting on the internet are right with your assertion.
Furthermore, you wish me to accept that your opinion trumps the findings of no less than six courts of law because "The courts are retarded". And that in your world passes for validating your position credibly. Okay.
I'm dismissing your bald assertion that you're right because "the courts are retarded", for reasons that should be blindingly obvious to anyone except you.
Therefore you haven't credibly validated your position, and indeed have babbled noise instead as I helpfully pointed out to you earlier.
The evidence was objectively pieced together. It's one of the purposes of these things they call trials. After the evidence was argued on by both the Defence and Prosecution, it was then presented to a lay jury who convicted them at their trial and then convicted them again at their appeal.

Evidence against multiple attackers:

You don't know what "evidence" actually is or how the strength of the evidence is established in court.
Indeed, you seem to be conflating your opinion with established fact and actual evidence and your ignorance in this regard is of no interest to me. Suffice to say, I'm dismissing the rest of your blather, but will debunk it anyway for fun.

- Only one person's DNA in the room other than the victim's.

Wrong. Solelcito's DNA is on the victim's underwear in a 16 loci match, with a US and UK court requiring between 10 & 15 loci to regard as evidence sufficient to convict.
Also, "the room" wasn't the crime scene so your objection is dismissed as irrelevant.
Also, Defence expert Pascali walked off the case after he claimed he found a profile of Knox's on the bra clasp also and refused to toe the defence party line due to this. He also billed them for 50k in the process, lol.

No marks of restraint on the arms or legs.

There were bruises on Meredith's elbows. You need to read the Massei report, p371.

No evidence in the flat of any group activity before the murder. So these murderers were just sitting there quietly one evening and then said, 'Hmm, I feel like a good gang rape right now'?

Expecting an unclear motive to trump hard and circumstantial evidence against the defendants. Stupid expectation dismissed as unrealistic and irrational.

It doesn't fit any viable scenario. Did Kercher know her attackers? Was she taken by surprise? No precursors?

See above.

- Only one of the three accused had defensive wounds.

No only one of the three accused didn't as said wounds- Guede's- weren't established as taking pace the night of Meredith's murder and weren't established as defensive wounds either.
Knox also had a mark on her neck which wasn't there the night before Meredith's murder and was missing an earring, hence the reason she brought her lamp into Meredith's room after her murder, to try and find it.
False statement dismissed.

Only one of the three accused fled the country.

So? Knox & Sollecito wished for the cops to think that Meredith had been murdered by an unknown burglar and that it would remain unsolved. Hence the reason the staged the burglary and hence the reason the attempted the clean up of the crime scene. Knox was also planning to visit her former boyfriend in China anyway. Non point dismissed.

Only one of the three accused had an extensive criminal history of violent behaviour.

Nope. Only one of the accused didn't have a criminal record, Guede.
Knox had been fined for throwing a party which became violent and where rocks had been thrown at passing cars and neighbouring houses. A police officer present described the scene as "like Iraq".
Carabinieri officer Oreste Volturno also investigated reports that Sollecito had attacked a girl at school with a scissors. Volturno testified in court that The school records from the time were destroyed and that the dean struck him as being evasive and uncooperative. See his court testimony for details.

Sollecito had been arrested before for possession of hash.
Only Guede had no criminal record. False statement by you dismissed, like your previous false statement.

Evidence for multiple attackers:
...
...Um, it already fits the prosecutor's theory, (which keeps changing), and we like it.

Nope. Massei p371, Nencini, from p 74. Clear cut reason why it was established that Meredith was murdered by multiple attackers. You're now expecting me to accept that six courts went along with one prosecutor's "theory". The Defence also introduced witnesses who testified to multiple attackers at Hellman's annulled appellate court. Evidence of multiple attackers exists anyway by virtue of the fact that somebody returned later to move and pose Meredith's body and it wasn't Guede as he was in Domus nightclub at the time. Guede's "accomplices" wouldn't have felt comfortable staying that long in an unknown house to do a clean up. Only person who would feel comfortable staying would be someone who knew the house would be empty. Only person who knew that was Amanda Knox, who also had the keys to the house. You're also unwittingly saying that Guede's conviction and Knox and Sollecito's acquittal are all done on flawed unsound grounds if you assert that Guede acted alone, only you're too stupid to realise this.
Stupidity, manifest illogicality, lack of simple common sense and bald and decidedly untrue assertion regarding the prosecutor's "theory" dismissed.

Um, by virtue of him being a career criminal and drifter who has been caught in the act more than once. Can you name a single case where he had an accomplice?

Guede was not a drifter and had an apartment a mere 100 meters from Sollecito's. He had also been adopted by a very wealthy Italian family.
Guede has no prior criminal record, so you have no evidence at all that he was a career criminal.
False statements dismissed.

Now who's making a bold-faced assertion? (Or bald, lol?) So every single person you've passed in the street counts as you meeting them does it? So Knox served him a drink once... clearly they must have conspired to commit gang rape and murder together then.

Knox admitted in her eight page email to the Nencini appellate court that she knew Guede. Guede said he knew Knox. All hung out on the basketball court where drugs were said to be sold. A witness stated seeing all three together with Meredith a few days before her murder.
And no I meant "bald assertion" or bare faced assertion or the proof by assertion fallacy you keep engaging in.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
Refusal to acknowledge facts dismissed.

Never had he been seen with Knox or Sollecito by anyone.

He was seen with Knox and had smoked weed with her and the lads in the downstairs flat.

Strange how Knox and Sollecito were so overtly in love, yet never once did the secret third member of their clique ever reveal himself.

Who said he was a member of their clique? All were drug users and Perugia's drug scene is a small universe.

'Non' isn't a word, you twit. Stop trying to sound clever;

Never said it was, it's a prefix, I merely didn't bother using the hyphen.

your repeated failure is laughable.

You're psychologically projecting. It's you who doesn't know what evidence is and feels his position is validated by declaring that "the courts are retarded", which is the epitome of failure. You've also failed to back up your assertion that the knife wasn't the murder weapon, despite being invited to more than once.
You're stupid and a blowhard. And your non-arguments are still dismissed as well as laughed at derisively, due to them being stupid, irrational and outright false in parts.
If you had any credible arguments for innocence, you'd be able to rub my face in them. You'd be able to validate your position. You wouldn't need to convince me either as if she was genuinely railroaded and clear cut evidence of this existed, I'd be fighting in her corner anyway.
The fact that you can't though and indeed engage in irrelevant noise, non-arguments and ignorance of actual evidence as well as engage in utterly false statements to back up your position is very telling and says it all about the strength of your argument for factual innocence.
Anyway, come back to me when you've something... well at least tangible. I've already given up expecting anything of actual substance or indeed anything remotely approaching it from you at this point, so I'll accept tangible, at least.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Ah, I get it, you can't get over the fact that you've been thoroughly demolished and that your pathological stupidity has been exposed, dismissed and laughed at, so are now impotently whinging, gotcha.
Your "PHD" (yeah, right) clearly stands for Proven Horrendously Dumb.
You're a troll and when you finally have something of actual substance to bring to the table- as in something other than your patented stupidity- then let me know.
Or alternatively I can see how many trolling non-answers you continue to whinge (we're at two so far) and laugh at your massive butthurt, that'll work too, it's all good.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help