Amanda Knox retrial begins

Means Of Escape

brickmauser wrote: »

Once you accept that there is no evidence of Knox and Sollecito killing Kercher then what reason is there to doubt they were telling the truth. A film was downloaded and watched on their laptop that night which supports their story. The last time their phones were on was about 8 when they switched them off and the phones were not switched on til 6 the following morning. Nobody saw them outside the house where Sollecito lived.
So you must assume their story that they had dinner watched a movie smoked dope had sex took a shower together and went to bed together is true.
The presence of Geude in Kercher's bedroom is supported by a mountain of evidence.
He clearly broke in was surprised by Kercher and he sexually assaulted her and then cut her throat.
If Knox was there he presumably would have killed her too.

The prosecution would have us believe a girl whose only run in with the law previously was for hosting a loud party in Seattle was a violent psychopathic murderer? A girl with no history of violence of any kind who worked three jobs to save up to go to Italy and whose only vice was her casual attitude to sex and smoking dope?
Her only disagreement with Kercher was over house cleaning chores and leaving a skid mark after she used the toilet.
We are supposed to believe she convinced a guy she only knew 6 days to join forces with another man involved in petty crime who they had never met before to take part in the rape and murder of her room mate?
There is absolutely zero evidence that Rudy Geude knew Knox and Sollecito. She only met him twice when he briefly visited the guys who lived downstairs and a second time when he bought a drink in Le Chic where she worked as a waitress.

The entire case against Knox and Sollecito was thrown out because it is utter BS[/quote

Incorrect on so many points

There was zero activity on his computer until 6:02 am which discounts your movie theory
Knox waited for a shop to open where she bought cleaning agents as testified by the shop owner (no DNA)
Both their phones were turned off the night of the murder
He changed his story regArding his whereabouts the night of the murder and denied Knox was with him at all
Knoxs interrogation lasted 2 hours 15 mins not the 14 hours of a barrage of questions as posted by some here
She was not mistreated during this interview and could not identify her so called abuser
She lied by saying that there were a number of officers harassing her at the interview when In fact there was her , an interpreter and a female officer present . She retracted the accusation
Knox lied when she said to the police who arrived at the cottage not to be concerned that Kercher always locked her door as another roommate said she rarely locked her bedroom door .
Kerchers was murdered by the closet and her body moves to the middle of the room. Knox made this claim despite it being impossible for her to hand known that fact .
He claimed the victims DNA on a knife found in his apartment was the result of Kercher accidentally cutting herself with the knife when she was in his apartment cooking dinner . He later denied making the statement .
Knoxs blood was found co mingled with Keechers in 5 different places
A bloody footprint the size of Knox was found in the pillow under the body .
The glass from the broken window was found ON the clothing strewn on the floor so it was broken AFTER the murder to pretend a burglary took place.
The bathroom was cleaned thoroughly and Giede would not have had the time or inclination to do this cleanup

As I said before they are bad eggs and it's their stories that contain the real BS in all of this .

Lingua Franca

Given your recent bizarre assertions that there were new trials happening I'm sure you'll understand why it's difficult to take your speculations seriously.

Means Of Escape

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Given your recent bizarre assertions that there were new trials happening I'm sure you'll understand why it's difficult to take your speculations seriously.

Blinkered, naieve and arrogant to boot that you can dismiss grounded and indelible evidence presented in the case .
They are not my "speculations "
Jesus wept .

Lingua Franca

They're mostly incorrect (for example, you: "There was zero activity on his computer until 6:02 am which discounts your movie theory". Reality: They watched Amelie until 9:10pm, an undisputed fact) or already thoroughly debunked.

The Supreme Court didn't just acquit them, it declared them innocent due to serious and frequent errors, clumsy handling of evidence, wilful omissions and the prosecution not being wholly truthful. Do you think the Supreme Court are "Blinkered, naieve and arrogant to boot that (they) can dismiss grounded and indelible evidence presented in the case"?

Means Of Escape

Lingua Franca wrote: »

They're mostly incorrect (for example, you: "There was zero activity on his computer until 6:02 am which discounts your movie theory". Reality: They watched Amelie until 9:10pm, an undisputed fact) or already thoroughly debunked.

The Supreme Court didn't just acquit them, it declared them innocent due to serious and frequent errors, clumsy handling of evidence, wilful omissions and the prosecution not being wholly truthful. Do you think the Supreme Court are "Blinkered, naieve and arrogant to boot that (they) can dismiss grounded and indelible evidence presented in the case"?

Like Darden in the OJ case the prosecution did a bad job .It wasn't that the defence were brilliant .

Like many other who are pro Knox it is understandable that it is very difficult to accept that they were suckered by a pretty face .

tigger123

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Like Darden in the OJ case the prosecution did a bad job .It wasn't that the defence were brilliant .

Like many other who are pro Knox it is understandable that it is very difficult to accept that they were suckered by a pretty face .

It is possible to be neither 'Pro Knox' or 'Anti Knox'. Most people look at the situation in its entirety and conclude that its highly, highly unlikely that she randomly butchered her housemate for no good reason.

Means Of Escape

tigger123 wrote: »

It is possible to be neither 'Pro Knox' or 'Anti Knox'. Most people look at the situation in its entirety and conclude that its highly, highly unlikely that she randomly butchered her housemate for no good reason.

It is not
It's called bizarre behaviour and deviant personality which she exhibited on number out occasions throughout the case
Smacking herself in the head numerous times at the police station
Smirking and smiling and kissing after the body was found


Again suckered by a pretty face with very good acting and skills at deception .

Letree

Means Of Escape wrote: »

It is not
It's called bizarre behaviour and deviant personality which she exhibited on number out occasions throughout the case
Smacking herself in the head numerous times at the police station
Smirking and smiling and kissing after the body was found


Again suckered by a pretty face with very good acting and skills at deception .

Some people are just odd it doesn't mean they are murderers.

Means Of Escape

Letree wrote: »

Some people are just odd it doesn't mean they are murderers.

Many people believe the exact opposite
Denis Nielsen was odd
ED Gein was odd
Rev Jim Jones exhibited odd behaviour
Jeffrey Dahmer was odd

List is endless

ohnonotgmail

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Many people believe the exact opposite
Denis Nielsen was odd
ED Gein was odd
Rev Jim Jones exhibited odd behaviour
Jeffrey Dahmer was odd

List is endless

saying some murderers were odd people does not mean that an odd person is a murderer.

Letree

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Many people believe the exact opposite
Denis Nielsen was odd
ED Gein was odd
Rev Jim Jones exhibited odd behaviour
Jeffrey Dahmer was odd

List is endless

Shocking post. Because a few are odd and were murders you think all odd people are potential murderers.

Can you list me 4 murderers that weren't odd. I'm sure you can.

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

brickmauser wrote: »

Once you accept that there is no evidence of Knox and Sollecito killing Kercher then what reason is there to doubt they were telling the truth. A film was downloaded and watched on their laptop that night which supports their story. The last time their phones were on was about 8 when they switched them off and the phones were not switched on til 6 the following morning. Nobody saw them outside the house where Sollecito lived.
So you must assume their story that they had dinner watched a movie smoked dope had sex took a shower together and went to bed together is true.
The presence of Geude in Kercher's bedroom is supported by a mountain of evidence.
He clearly broke in was surprised by Kercher and he sexually assaulted her and then cut her throat.
If Knox was there he presumably would have killed her too.

The prosecution would have us believe a girl whose only run in with the law previously was for hosting a loud party in Seattle was a violent psychopathic murderer? A girl with no history of violence of any kind who worked three jobs to save up to go to Italy and whose only vice was her casual attitude to sex and smoking dope?
Her only disagreement with Kercher was over house cleaning chores and leaving a skid mark after she used the toilet.
We are supposed to believe she convinced a guy she only knew 6 days to join forces with another man involved in petty crime who they had never met before to take part in the rape and murder of her room mate?
There is absolutely zero evidence that Rudy Geude knew Knox and Sollecito. She only met him twice when he briefly visited the guys who lived downstairs and a second time when he bought a drink in Le Chic where she worked as a waitress.

The entire case against Knox and Sollecito was thrown out because it is utter BS[/quote

Incorrect on so many points

There was zero activity on his computer until 6:02 am which discounts your movie theory
Knox waited for a shop to open where she bought cleaning agents as testified by the shop owner (no DNA)
Both their phones were turned off the night of the murder
He changed his story regArding his whereabouts the night of the murder and denied Knox was with him at all
Knoxs interrogation lasted 2 hours 15 mins not the 14 hours of a barrage of questions as posted by some here
She was not mistreated during this interview and could not identify her so called abuser
She lied by saying that there were a number of officers harassing her at the interview when In fact there was her , an interpreter and a female officer present . She retracted the accusation
Knox lied when she said to the police who arrived at the cottage not to be concerned that Kercher always locked her door as another roommate said she rarely locked her bedroom door .
Kerchers was murdered by the closet and her body moves to the middle of the room. Knox made this claim despite it being impossible for her to hand known that fact .
He claimed the victims DNA on a knife found in his apartment was the result of Kercher accidentally cutting herself with the knife when she was in his apartment cooking dinner . He later denied making the statement .
Knoxs blood was found co mingled with Keechers in 5 different places
A bloody footprint the size of Knox was found in the pillow under the body .
The glass from the broken window was found ON the clothing strewn on the floor so it was broken AFTER the murder to pretend a burglary took place.
The bathroom was cleaned thoroughly and Giede would not have had the time or inclination to do this cleanup

As I said before they are bad eggs and it's their stories that contain the real BS in all of this .

Every single point you have brought up has already been debunked on this thread.

It is pointless continuing this thread if no matter how many times these points are debunked posters keep returning with this rubbish.

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

It is not
It's called bizarre behaviour and deviant personality which she exhibited on number out occasions throughout the case
Smacking herself in the head numerous times at the police station
Smirking and smiling and kissing after the body was found


Again suckered by a pretty face with very good acting and skills at deception .

There is NO evidence she murdered Kercher.

There is absolutely none.

Means Of Escape

brickmauser wrote: »

There is NO evidence she murdered Kercher.

There is absolutely none.

Doubts will always remain unfortunately

tigger123

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Many people believe the exact opposite
Denis Nielsen was odd
ED Gein was odd
Rev Jim Jones exhibited odd behaviour
Jeffrey Dahmer was odd

List is endless

People who find themselves in bizarre, incredibly stressful, unprecedented situations don't always behave in a manner that some people expect. It doesn't make them a murderer.

There's no evidence she did it, and she was ultimately acquitted. Just because she's pretty, doesn't make her guilty. Doesn't matter what she looks like.

Cianmcliam

brickmauser wrote: »

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Every single point you have brought up has already been debunked on this thread.

It is pointless continuing this thread if no matter how many times these points are debunked posters keep returning with this rubbish.

You are confusing debunking with denials and baseless assertions from the official Knox propaganda campaign.

tigger123

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Doubts will always remain unfortunately

For some it will, and there's no convincing those people. For some she'll forever be Foxy Knoxy, the super slut psychopath that brainwashed all around her and butchered her roommate. Also Bush did 911.

8-10

Cianmcliam wrote: »

You are confusing debunking with denials and baseless assertions from the official Knox propaganda campaign.

What do you contend she is guilty of? You say the evidence points conclusively to her guilt, do you mean murder?

Lingua Franca

Six years of trials, however many experts brought in, 52 pages of a final verdict outlining all the failings and problems of the intial investigation and the trials but no, an internet detective has asserted:

Means Of Escape wrote: »

they were suckered by a pretty face .

and they know better than all of the experts because a 20 year old in a tragic situation in a strange land didn't behave how they'd expect.

It's notable that all of the people here who are so convinced of her guilt have all made very major errors in assessing the evidence and in certain cases, outright invented some details like new trials.

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Again suckered by a pretty face with very good acting and skills at deception .

I'm a hetero female drama teacher. She's not that pretty, nor is she any sort of an actress to my trained eye.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

You are confusing debunking with denials and baseless assertions from the official Knox propaganda campaign.

If you think that the Supreme Court Judgement is "the official Knox propaganda campaign" we're in tin foil hat territory.

Cianmcliam

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Six years of trials, however many experts brought in, 52 pages of a final verdict outlining all the failings and problems of the intial investigation and the trials but no, an internet detective has asserted:



and they know better than all of the experts because a 20 year old in a tragic situation in a strange land didn't behave how they'd expect.

It's notable that all of the people here who are so convinced of her guilt have all made very major errors in assessing the evidence and in certain cases, outright invented some details like new trials.

On the contrary, the vast amount of misinformation in this thread is on the 'they were just two innocent kids side'.

If you think that the Supreme Court Judgement is "the official Knox propaganda campaign" we're in tin foil hat territory.

This is the best bit, people believe the local police, the prosecutor, the flying squad, the forensic team and lab team in Rome, numerous witnesses, judges Micheli, Massei, Nencini, several regional and national courts are all in on a conspiracy to frame two innocent people and then call the people who seriously doubt this conspiracy theorists!

The position that they were framed is practically the definition of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

The Supreme Court judgment is not 52 pages long by the way, the first 18 or so pages are entirely the defence arguments for requesting an appeal, people have been reading the defence arguments as if they were court findings.

Lingua Franca

Cianmcliam wrote: »

On the contrary, the vast amount of misinformation in this thread is on the 'they were just two innocent kids side'.

Then you'll be able to provide a "vast amount" of examples of this information.

This is the best bit, people believe the local police, the prosecutor, the flying squad, the forensic team and lab team in Rome, numerous witnesses, judges Micheli, Massei, Nencini, several regional and national courts are all in on a conspiracy to frame two innocent people and then call the people who seriously doubt this conspiracy theorists!

No, people believe that the police, forensics and lab team made clumsy errors, now recorded as fact in the supreme court judgement, and that the prosecutor had his own agenda.

The position that they were framed is practically the definition of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

You spelled "miscarriage of justice" incorrectly. You must be raging that the West Memphis 3, Birmingham 6, Gulidford 4 etc are all walking free.

The Supreme Court judgment is not 52 pages long by the way, the first 18 or so pages are entirely the defence arguments for requesting an appeal, people have been reading the defence arguments as if they were court findings.

Ah, like you counted the prosecutions arguments as court findings? Gotcha.


Tell me, do you think the police, forensics, lab teams etc all did their very best by Meredith Kercher and her family? Do you think they did all they could to the best of their abilities and can be proud of their work?

Lingua Franca

Also, people here believe that the Supreme court ignored "the local police, the prosecutor, the flying squad, the forensic team and lab team in Rome, numerous witnesses, judges Micheli, Massei, Nencini, several regional and national courts" and "grounded and indelible evidence presented in the case" and that instead "they were suckered by a pretty face". I note you don't find that implausible.

Lirange

Means Of Escape wrote: »

It is not
It's called bizarre behaviour and deviant personality which she exhibited on number out occasions throughout the case
Smacking herself in the head numerous times at the police station
Smirking and smiling and kissing after the body was found


Again suckered by a pretty face with very good acting and skills at deception .

Divining guilt on what you surmise to be odd or "deviant?"

Good god I hope you never serve on a jury.

ThinkProgress

It shocks me that people cannot see how disingenuous this woman is.... (sollecito too, but his broken English makes things more difficult)

The evidence is insufficient going in both directions. But it is crazy how few people can see Knox's shoddy acting skills for what they are! Please don't use the excuse that she's not an actual actress... I'm talking about her candid interviews... she is so fake it's insane!

I'm well aware that you can't send someone down for life on a gut feeling. But seriously, does no one else get the creeps watching her? She's constantly pausing and checking for reactions to what she says... (this is typical psychopath behavior)

So few people trust their gut, or have a strong instinct around these cases. Very worrying!

Lavinia

ThinkProgress wrote: »

... she is so fake it's insane!

my impression exactly.. was sickening even to listen to it...

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Doubts will always remain unfortunately

Doubts based on what???????

brickmauser

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It shocks me that people cannot see how disingenuous this woman is.... (sollecito too, but his broken English makes things more difficult)

The evidence is insufficient going in both directions. But it is crazy how few people can see Knox's shoddy acting skills for what they are! Please don't use the excuse that she's not an actual actress... I'm talking about her candid interviews... she is so fake it's insane!

I'm well aware that you can't send someone down for life on a gut feeling. But seriously, does no one else get the creeps watching her? She's constantly pausing and checking for reactions to what she says... (this is typical psychopath behavior)

So few people trust their gut, or have a strong instinct around these cases. Very worrying!

The police went with their gut and they were proven wrong.

They had no evidence and they were made fools of in front of the entire world.

Means Of Escape

8-10 wrote: »

What do you contend she is guilty of? You say the evidence points conclusively to her guilt, do you mean murder?

Complicit in a murder

Lingua Franca

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It shocks me that people cannot see how disingenuous this woman is.... (sollecito too, but his broken English makes things more difficult)

The evidence is insufficient going in both directions. But it is crazy how few people can see Knox's shoddy acting skills for what they are! Please don't use the excuse that she's not an actual actress... I'm talking about her candid interviews... she is so fake it's insane!

I've been a drama teacher (actress too, but mostly teaching) for 25 years. She is neither an accomplished actress, as Means Of Escape claims, nor a shoddy actress as you claim. She's not an actress and she is not acting at all, beyond a few clumsy stage directions from a director in the documentary, to my trained and experienced eye. Please feel free to contradict me in fine detail if you have more experience in the field. I'm happy to debate you on the subject.

I'm well aware that you can't send someone down for life on a gut feeling. But seriously, does no one else get the creeps watching her? She's constantly pausing and checking for reactions to what she says... (this is typical psychopath behavior)

So few people trust their gut, or have a strong instinct around these cases. Very worrying!

"I know gut feelings aren't really a thing but trust your gut feelings in this case" is the gist of this post.

Do you have anything to say on the evidence or the actual judgements? Anything at all?

deco nate

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I've been a drama teacher (actress too, but mostly teaching) for 25 years. She is neither an accomplished actress, as Means Of Escape claims, nor a shoddy actress as you claim. She's not an actress and she is not acting at all, beyond a few clumsy stage directions from a director in the documentary, to my trained and experienced eye. Please feel free to contradict me in fine detail if you have more experience in the field. I'm happy to debate you on the subject.


Really?! Just like every one else on here, you are an expert? This thread is a joke at this stage (see, pun intended)
Big difference between an actor and someone that is, well.. . It's beyond a joke at this stage! We have cops... judges.. . Detectives... prosecutors... defence attorneys.. . special investigators... and now actors... All on boards!


Case closed.


Sorry but your post is a joke, just like many on here. I'm an actor there fore I know... Feck off.

Lingua Franca

I'm not an actor, I'm a drama teacher. I do think that makes me more of an expert on the subject than people with gut feelings. As I said, please feel free to contradict me in detail if you think you have more experience in the field. I'm willing to debate it in detail.

Also, I have read this entire thread. Would you please quote the people claiming to be "cops... judges.. . Detectives... prosecutors... defence attorneys.. . special investigators... and now actors..." on this thread? Or are you genuinely shocked and surprised to learn that there is a variety of professions represented on Boards?

I await your silence with baited breath.

deco nate

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm not an actor, I'm a drama teacher. I do think that makes me more of an expert on the subject than people with gut feelings. As I said, please feel free to contradict me in detail if you think you have more experience in the field. I'm willing to debate it in detail.

Also, I have read this entire thread. Would you please quote the people claiming to be "cops... judges.. . Detectives... prosecutors... defence attorneys.. . special investigators... and now actors..." on this thread? Or are you genuinely shocked and surprised to learn that there is a variety of professions represented on Boards?

I await your silence with baited breath.

Don't hold you're breath any longer, it's everyone that has posted on this thread thinks they are one of the above, including yourself. You also said you did some acting in the field. ..But you, and a lot on here are experts. It's bs imo, unless you are a qualified behaviour analyst?
Its just conjunction on your behalf, no more.. . No less.

Lingua Franca

I think you meant conjecture. But I will continue to contend that my conjecture on the subject of whether Knox has

Means Of Escape wrote: »

very good acting and skills at deception .

or is

ThinkProgress wrote: »

not an actual actress... she is so fake it's insane!

is more informed than yours or theirs. Again, I am a qualified and experienced drama teacher. If you feel qualified to debate me on the subject, please do. If you even have an opinion on which of those assertions you feel are correct you should consider expressing it. If you have anything to say on the actual case we are discussing instead of mocking my career, work away.

Lavinia

brickmauser wrote: »

The police went with their gut and they were proven wrong.

They had no evidence and they were made fools of in front of the entire world.

They were not proven wrong.
They were not "proven" right either.

Means Of Escape

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I think you meant conjecture. But I will continue to contend that my conjecture on the subject of whether Knox has



or is


is more informed than yours or theirs. Again, I am a qualified and experienced drama teacher. If you feel qualified to debate me on the subject, please do. If you even have an opinion on which of those assertions you feel are correct you should consider expressing it. If you have anything to say on the actual case we are discussing instead of mocking my career, work away.

Eminent psychiatrists bought into Ken Bianchi's ruse that he had a split personality having met him and studied him yet you can determine Knoxs integrity from watching her on a television?

your argument is void

ThinkProgress

People that don't realize anyone is trying to sell them something here, are really quite gullible imho!

That's not to say that the slick sales pitch doesn't have some elements of the truth mixed in there.

However, the idea that some people think they are analyzing the pure objective facts of this case, unobstructed from any bias... that's laughable really. If you're of a mind to think that way, I'm really not sure how anyone can engage in a reasoned debate with you... it is somewhat futile tbh.

Btw, to those encouraging people to stick solely to the so-called "facts" of the case... that's been done to death. Those "facts" are not conclusive either way. At some point everyone - whether you realize it or not - is picking a side they believe to be the most truthful and believable.

I'm simply shocked by the sheer number of people that buy into this slick Hollywood-style production!

retro:electro

Lol I've read it all now a drawma expert saying Amanda isn't the killer because she has trained in drawma for 25 years and would know if she was. They could have used you in court sure what do ya need psychiatrists and behaviour analysts for when they have experts such as yourself.

8-10

anna080 wrote: »

Lol I've read it all now a drawma expert saying Amanda isn't the killer because she has trained in drawma for 25 years and would know if she was. They could have used you in court sure what do ya need psychiatrists and behaviour analysts for when they have experts such as yourself.

drawma?

Lingua Franca

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Eminent psychiatrists bought into Ken Bianchi's ruse that he had a split personality having met him and studied him yet you can determine Knoxs integrity from watching her on a television?

your argument is void

No. But I'm more qualified than you to comment on her acting ability.

Your argument was void when you started wittering on about imaginary court cases.

anna080 wrote: »

Lol I've read it all now a drawma expert saying Amanda isn't the killer because she has trained in drawma for 25 years and would know if she was. They could have used you in court sure what do ya need psychiatrists and behaviour analysts for when they have experts such as yourself.

That's not what I said at all and you know it.

Tell us all, anna080, in YOUR expert experience, if she was acting her heart out, acting terribly or not acting at all.

After all, it's Knox under the microscope here, not me.

Lingua Franca

8-10 wrote: »

drawma?

I think she was trying to accentuate the sarcasm in case her contempt for my career wasn't obvious enough.

Wompa1

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No. But I'm more qualified than you to comment on her acting ability.

Your argument was void when you started wittering on about imaginary court cases.



That's not what I said at all and you know it.

Tell us all, anna080, in YOUR expert experience, if she was acting her heart out, acting terribly or not acting at all.

After all, it's Knox under the microscope here, not me.

Pathological liars believe their own lies. They can be convincing. Watch her interview with Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer or others from years ago and then assess her in the documentary again.

meeeeh

Well it's actually scary to think some would imprison people because they look like a psychopath or because they are a good actor/actress. I don't care weather they are guilty or not but they were acquitted because there was not enough evidence to prove anything. The end. Those who that someone should be accused or imprisoned because of how they look might be better suited to middle ages.

Lingua Franca

Wompa1 wrote: »

Pathological liars believe their own lies. They can be convincing. Watch her interview with Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer or others from years ago and then assess her in the documentary again.

I can't find a link for the Anderson Cooper interview, do you happen to have one?

Wompa1

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I can't find a link for the Anderson Cooper interview, do you happen to have one?

Don't have one to hand. Watched it when it aired over here in the US.

retro:electro

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No. But I'm more qualified than you to comment on her acting ability.

Your argument was void when you started wittering on about imaginary court cases.



That's not what I said at all and you know it.

Tell us all, anna080, in YOUR expert experience, if she was acting her heart out, acting terribly or not acting at all.

After all, it's Knox under the microscope here, not me.

I don't have any expert experience dahhling. I'll leave that judgement to the professionals.

Lingua Franca

Glad to hear it.

retro:electro

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Glad to hear it.

And that doesn't include you.

Lingua Franca

Oof, that got me right in the feels. I am cut to my very core by your scathing wit.

Do you have anything to say that is on topic, at all? Any insight, any opinions on the case, any evidence you'd like to discuss? Because right now it looks like you're just here to scoff and I'm sure you're classier than that.

Wompa1

meeeeh wrote: »

Well it's actually scary to think some would imprison people because they look like a psychopath or because they are a good actor/actress. I don't care weather they are guilty or not but they were acquitted because there was not enough evidence to prove anything. The end. Those who that someone should be accused or imprisoned because of how they look might be better suited to middle ages.

Don't know many that would. I know plenty that think she did it and should be in jail but I don't think anybody would argue against the fact the investigators scuffed the case. That's not to say she's actually innocent and doesn't deserve to be in prison though.

Lingua Franca

Wompa1 wrote: »

Pathological liars believe their own lies. They can be convincing. Watch her interview with Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer or others from years ago and then assess her in the documentary again.

I never found the Anderson Cooper interview but I watched most of the Diane Sawyer one and the Simon Hattenstone interview (which is better because it's not full of cutaways and voiceovers) and I'm still not seeing Schrödinger's Oscar winner. I believe she's sincere. I also believe she's a moron. But I wouldn't know how to detect a pathological liar convinced of her own bullshít. That's not my field.