Amanda Knox

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
No, you are not off ignore. But this case is important enough that I'll make an exception to ignore.

My guess is you make exceptions to all your "ignores"...

You aren't very good at making guesses.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
I know that Amanda (and Raffaele) are innocent because there is zero evidence indicating their guilt,

That, of course, is not evidence that she is innocent. She may be guilty as hell...but clever enough to hide her guilt.

Alone, that point is more than enough to show that they should never be accused, charged, or tried.

If you had any concept of civilized justice, you'd understand that.

And that point does not stand alone. It stands in conjunction with my point below.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
...and because there is strong evidence that someone unconnected to them did it.

Once again, not evidence that she is innocent.

Yes it is. That completely proves that they are both innocent.

And what's with the "she"? There are TWO innocent people who are being falsely accused here.

Is there some reason you keep ignoring the atrocity against Raffaele?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fact is, you apparently do not know she is innocent.

Liar.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy is just shooting off his mouth...something he is particularly adept at doing.

Frank Apisa is just a scumbag who thinks sending innocent people to prison is funny.

0 Replies

Oralloy has gone ape-**** again. Just let him rant...he'll get over it.

Actually, it will take a while for him to get over it...and I would suggest you do what I do when this happens: Enjoy it.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No she won't. The US government has no intention of ever extraditing her back to Italy under any circumstances whatsoever.

Did the US government tell you this personally about Amanda Knox? When did the Attorney General Eric Holder call and tell you they had no intention whatsoever under any circumstances to extradite Amanda if she is found guilty a second time?!

You seem to have a very low opinion of the Obama Administration if you think they would ever hand an innocent American over to a third-world nation that has already committed grave violations of her human rights.

America is a much better nation than you give us credit for. And as despicable as he was for his recent assault on the US Constitution, Obama too is not nearly the monster that you seem to think.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oralloy has gone ape-**** again. Just let him rant...he'll get over it.
Actually, it will take a while for him to get over it...and I would suggest you do what I do when this happens: Enjoy it.

You scumbags get quite childish when people call you on your support for atrocities.

At least you've changed gears and have stopped lying about Amanda and Raffaele.

I'll still be ready to slam down your lies when you decide to resume.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I'll still be ready to slam down your lies when you decide to resume.

Damn...I thought you'd be too busy ignoring me.

I guess I'd better watch my step. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Damn...I thought you'd be too busy ignoring me.

Didn't I already address this??

I am making an exception for ignore when it comes to this case, since it is so important.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I guess I'd better watch my step.

Yes.

Of course, you could try becoming a decent person, and not attack the innocent to begin with.

Or is that too much to ask?

What if it were you who was in prison for something you didn't do?

Are you capable of empathy?

1 Reply

For what it's worth, here is a bit of speculation (backed by a bit of evidence) that I posted about a month ago:

I think Kokomani was in the room with Guede and helped him kill Meredith.

I think they were working for Mignini, breaking in to steal Romanelli's computer to see what her law firm had on the Monster of Florence case.

Evidence for Kokomani's involvement:

A car with the same appearance as his car was parked outside the apartment when the killing occurred.

He made outlandish false accusations against Amanda and Raffaele.

He fled the country as soon as he was able to, and promptly went into hiding.

Not saying that is enough to convict him. Just saying I think he helped Guede do it.

(If it happened to be his semen stain that was underneath Meredith's corpse though, that would be enough to convict him.)

Evidence for Mignini's involvement:

Guede broke into Romanelli's room. She worked at a law firm that dealt with the Monster of Florence case, and her computer had details on that case.

One of Guede's other break ins was at a law firm that dealt with the Monster of Florence case. He was caught with a computer that he had stolen from that law firm.

When Mignini found out that Romanelli had taken her computer out of the room, he flipped out and had the computer immediately retrieved.

The Italian Police subsequently destroyed all the hard drives on all the computers so no one could see what happened to them in police custody.

When Guede took Meredith's phones so she could not summon aid for herself, he threw them down a ravine where they landed in someone's yard. A few hours later, there was a bomb threat called to the home where the phones landed, telling the lady that there was a bomb in her toilet. She subsequently called the Postal Police, who did not search her bathroom, but searched quite thoroughly where the phones would have landed.

They did not find the phones that night in the dark, but the lady found them in her yard the next day and turned them in to the Postal Police. The Postal Police waited until after Amanda and Raffaele called the Carabinieri, and then turned up bearing the phones. Then they lied and claimed that they had brought the phones before the call to the Carabinieri.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Didn't I already address this??

I am making an exception for ignore when it comes to this case, since it is so important.

Yeah...you make a lot of exceptions. I get out of you.

Quote:

Of course, you could try becoming a decent person, and not attack the innocent to begin with.

Getting a request from you to become a decent person...is like getting a request from Rush Limbaugh to become a slim person.

But it is amusing.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Did the US government tell you this personally about Amanda Knox? When did the Attorney General Eric Holder call and tell you they had no intention whatsoever under any circumstances to extradite Amanda if she is found guilty a second time?!

Oralloy wrote:

Quote:

You seem to have a very low opinion of the Obama Administration if you think they would ever hand an innocent American over to a third-world nation that has already committed grave violations of her human rights..

It has first to be proved by a court the second time that Amanda is innocent...this is why there is going to be a second trial because there were many doubts in the first one.

I think President Obama is one of the best presidents since Bill Clinton. And unlike you, he is not about to jump the gun and have his US General Attorney, Eric Holder, declare Amanda Knox innocent without having this second trial. And he certainly would not refuse to comply with the law if Italy requested the guilty Knox be extradited. Most intelligent people wait for proof and not make a decision on the guilt or innocence of a person based on their personal belief. You have faith that Amanda is innocent. Good, hold on to that. You might be found right in the long run, after the second trial.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah...you make a lot of exceptions.

I've never done any sort of a count, but probably not.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Getting a request from you to become a decent person...is like getting a request from Rush Limbaugh to become a slim person.
But it is amusing.

It was too much to ask, I see. Oh well.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5289817)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Yeah...you make a lot of exceptions.

I've never done any sort of a count, but probably not.

You ought to start counting. I think you will find that "probably so" fits the situation better than "probably not."

Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Getting a request from you to become a decent person...is like getting a request from Rush Limbaugh to become a slim person.
But it is amusing.

It was too much to ask, I see. Oh well.

Damn...you honestly do not see how hilarious it is for you to be lecturing on being decent.

Who woulda thunk it?

"Amusing" barely covers it.

But if you ever do decide to discuss anything in a rational, courteous, non-confrontational way...you will find me more than accomodating, Oralloy.

All you have to do is make that decision and inform me of it. Then we can choose the subject.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

It has first to be proved by a court the second time that Amanda is innocent...

No it doesn't. What the Italian courts find is irrelevant.

The US is not going to extradite Amanda to Italy no matter what Italy does.

Moment-in-Time wrote:

this is why there is going to be a second trial because there were many doubts in the first one.

No, the reason there is going to be another trial is because Italy is a backwards country that likes to lynch innocent people.

Moment-in-Time wrote:

I think President Obama is one of the best presidents since Bill Clinton. And unlike you, he is not about to jump the gun and have his US General Attorney, Eric Holder, declare Amanda Knox innocent without having this second trial. And he certainly would not refuse to comply with the law if Italy requested the guilty Knox be extradited.

There is no need for any declaration from the US government, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

If Obama were as you describe him, he'd be a total scumbag.

But Obama is nothing like what you suggest he is, and is not about to extradite an innocent American to a third-world nation bent on committing human rights violations.

Moment-in-Time wrote:

Most intelligent people wait for proof and not make a decision on the guilt or innocence of a person based on their personal belief.

Proof has been available for more than 5 years now.

Incidentally, in civilized countries, proof is only required of guilt.

If there is no evidence that someone is guilty, they are automatically considered innocent.

But this is a case where there has been actual proof of innocence, despite that not being necessary.

Moment-in-Time wrote:

You have faith that Amanda is innocent.

No. I know for a fact that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

(Is there some reason you keep ignoring Raffaele??)

Moment-in-Time wrote:

You might be found right in the long run, after the second trial.

I've already been found right. That's what happens when you stick to the facts. You're right automatically.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You ought to start counting. I think you will find that "probably so" fits the situation better than "probably not."

You're not very good at reaching conclusions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But if you ever do decide to discuss anything in a rational, courteous, non-confrontational way...you will find me more than accomodating, Oralloy.
All you have to do is make that decision and inform me of it. Then we can choose the subject.

I am always rational.

I am courteous when it is warranted. However, if you go around slandering the innocent victims of an atrocity, there will be very little courtesy in my reply.

As for confrontation, if you vary from reality, I will always confront you on it.

And as far as subjects go, threads about this case are the only time I've ever made an exception to ignore, and I have no plans for future exceptions. So if you wish to talk to me, it'll have to be this subject.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You are anything but rational, Oralloy. And there are very few occasions where I have seen you even close to courteous.

I didn't think you would be able to deal rationally or courteously with my suggestion that we try to have a meaningful, reasonable, courteous conversation...but it was worth a try.

Continue to pretend to ignore me...although I doubt seriously you will.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are anything but rational, Oralloy.

Nope. I am always rational.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And there are very few occasions where I have seen you even close to courteous.

Whatever is appropriate to what I am responding to.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I didn't think you would be able to deal rationally or courteously with my suggestion that we try to have a meaningful, reasonable, courteous conversation...but it was worth a try.

I was both rational and courteous.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Continue to pretend to ignore me...although I doubt seriously you will.

I'm not much for pretending.

I've told you which threads I will see your replies in.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Nope. I am always rational.

Not even close.

Quote:

Whatever is appropriate to what I am responding to.

You are usually inappropriate. Several people have mentioned that to you.

Quote:

I was both rational and courteous.

You were neither, but if you want to start being that way...we can have a nice conversation.

Quote:

I'm not much for pretending.

I've told you which threads I will see your replies in.

We'll see. This one will end soon...and we will see.

Or...promises, promises.

You choose.

0 Replies

Any talk of extradition is premature. There will be a new trial in Florence in 2014. Amanda Knox does not need to be present for the trial. Italy would not request extradition unless the new trial results in a guilty verdict (probably not until late 2014).

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Any talk of extradition is premature. There will be a new trial in Florence in 2014. Amanda Knox does not need to be present for the trial. Italy would not request extradition unless the new trial results in a guilty verdict (probably not until late 2014).

Actually, even with a guilty verdict, they wouldn't ask for extradition until it went back to Cassation and they signed off on it.

But isn't there a rule in Italy that the charges get dropped if the process isn't done within 7 years?

It really looks to me like they are going to run out of time.

Regardless, the US will never extradite Amanda, no matter what the circumstances.

----

BTW, paparazzi just spotted Raffaele IN Italy. So he has evidently not fled the country.

I think this is rather foolhardy of him. I'd feel a lot better if he were safely in the US.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

But isn't there a rule in Italy that the charges get dropped if the process isn't done within 7 years?

I guess it might not apply in murder cases.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know