Jump to content

Recommended Posts

there's not really 14 hours missing. There's Solecito panicking when police tell him the y can prove Knox was in apartment (they couldnt)during the night and he admits that if he was asleep she could have left. They were stoned they were bonking, they were probably doing mushrooms too, they couldnt specify every moment.

phones turned off, big deal, or battery run out? or just turned off.

Huggers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> there's not really 14 hours missing. There's

> Solecito panicking when police tell him the y can

> prove Knox was in apartment (they couldnt)during

> the night and he admits that if he was asleep she

> could have left. They were stoned they were

> bonking, they were probably doing mushrooms too,

> they couldnt specify every moment.

> phones turned off, big deal, or battery run out?

> or just turned off.



yes, phone turned off for the first time since killer ms. knox had been in Italy

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huggers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > there's not really 14 hours missing. There's

> > Solecito panicking when police tell him the y

> can

> > prove Knox was in apartment (they

> couldnt)during

> > the night and he admits that if he was asleep

> she

> > could have left. They were stoned they were

> > bonking, they were probably doing mushrooms

> too,

> > they couldnt specify every moment.

> > phones turned off, big deal, or battery run

> out?

> > or just turned off.

>

>

> yes, phone turned off for the first time since

> killer ms. knox had been in Italy


xxxxxxxx


Really? Then that's another "coincidence" or whatever which just adds to the stack of circumstantial evidence which doesn't actually prove anything but added together might indicate, er, let's say, something amiss with the duo's version of events. Or, as it seems, versions.

Absolutely Mike, it's not a crime - and both of them are liberated.


However, neither of them habitually had their phones run out of juice simultaneously, and neither of them habitually came up with different conflicting stories that they later amended to justify their activities.


You can generate as many arguments as you like as to why they're not proven guilty - the court would agree.


But in the final analysis, nobody knows what either of them were up to that night, both lied a lot, and one of them confessed.


Even the judge said they were liberated on the basis of 'truth created in court'.

As nobody can prove what they were doing at the time, they are Innocent of the crime.


What they may or may not have said after the crime can be explained by the pressure that two young, inexperienced and naive people were put under by the police who were out to prove a theory.


They were accused of satanic sex games! Their lives were turned into an episode of Midsomer Murder, not surprising they were ess than rational.

Absolutely, nobody can prove them guilty, and hence they are legally innocent.


Doesn't mean they didn't do it, and in the real world (as opposed to the courtroom) circumstantial evidence carries a lot more weight.


I don't accept that they both were suffering simultaneously from complex personality disorders that conveniently allow them to justify their fabrications. The rest of the backstory has been generated by a public who were quite happy to invent a plausible scenario of kids under pressure on their behalf.


Knox said she was with Sollecito, Sollecito said she wasn't. They couldn't even get their own story straight. So much for two students getting stoned together.

This made me larf! it got me thinking: do you think they made her wear the same panties every day she was locked up? I would imagine she would have sh*t those on more than one occasion, pre and post verdict! They are now on eBay under Krusty Knox Knicks. Bidding closes in four hours!




red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Has anyone seen any of these cartwheel photos, and

> if so, was she wearing any panties...might explain

> why the Polizia were keen to keep her locked up...

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As nobody can prove what they were doing at the

> time, they are Innocent of the crime.

>


xxxxxxx


No, they are not necessarily "innocent of the crime."


They may be. They may also be guilty of the crime, but because it cannot be proven, they are legally presumed to be innocent.


That's a totally different thing. Their innocence hasn't been proven either.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...