I dunno, it could be racism as Boycey suggests, or it could be that the evidence against him was a lot stronger. He does seem more willing to talk than the others though, which could be interesting.
What evidence? That he admitted to being there, involved in something sexual with all three others?
Him talking will be interesting as you say...
The greater sentence meted out to Guede is odd, bearing in mind Knox is the one alleged to have slit Meredith's throat.
No other speculation to make other than 'more to this than meets the eye.'
I remember reading a piece in Private Eye about how the investigating cops were all believers in some kind of Valerie Sinasonesque, fact free, satanic panic theory
I wish I could find it but google says no
It was certainly cause for concern
Did anyone else read it?
Wrong on all counts I'm afraid, but your point with regards to spelling is...?
Oh and treelover, spell the deceased's name correctly, please.
^^ It would show that the discussion was being conducted with a modicum of respect for the deceased and her family.
The fact that they will never read any of this is not important, but that we discuss it with a degree of compassion, is.
Framing the topic under a thread title that spells the victim's name incorrectly is a shame.
The point is that you've contributed nothing to the thread except moan about someone's spelling and grammar.
That picture of knox behind bars on the bbc website doesn't look very real.
I've trawled up my first post in this thread for you to read, as it seems you haven't bothered to.
No moaning there I'm sure you'll agree.
You would appear to be the one with the fixation with grammar, who else mentioned grammar?
You could always take your sorry trollfest elsewhere and see if it satiates whatever elemental desires you require assuaging.
I'm unsure - well, not really but I guess 'foxy knoxy' sells - all folk care about is if she did it or not - no one has given a second thought as to if her co-accused is guilty - maybe I missed that part of the thread? were they not jointly accused? or was it only 'knoxy'?
To be fair, the bolded is quite important.
If she is, or not, guilty, what about Raeff? Where are you discussing his guilt / non guilt? - seems hand in hand - if she's innocent then so is he - I think - but no, 'foxy knoxy' is all
I couldn't give a shit either way. Your loose language betrays your own motivations though.
Bizzare all that and you don't care if she's done it or not?
Speak clearly then.Tell me why we should care equally for the other convicted defendant.
I was making a point about the lack of defence here for the co acussed - it seems to be all about 'foxy' - was that so hard to understand?
no-one seems to really be bothered if he is innocent or not - it's about Amanda - now you can scream about my lack of english written skills - fine - not really the point though is it?
now you can scream about my lack of english written skills if you like
Not sure i screamed about your lack of english written skills, in fact, i'm sure that i didn't.
I'm asking you why there should be a defence for the co-accused - and why that's more important than the question of the other ones guilt. And you've just sworn at me.
ain't they justSaturday nights in are dull right?
Sorry, have to quote this
ok - I spologise - even though I think you're a fucking twat - you seem to be ready to pull me up - and argue - about any minor 'shit' as you think. The defence for Amanda is pretty much the defence for Raef - you know this - Amanda is the one that is getting the press attention - you really are aware of the point I was making - but you're more concerned scoring making your own points
Speak clearly then.
Not sure i screamed about your lack of english written skills, in fact, i'm sure that i didn't.
ok - verbal skills