Thumper_Man
DDC 684
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,615
About the Amanda Knox thing, very scary that you can overturn an acquittal!![]()
Yeah it is. So I hope you're not planning on committing any crimes in Italy.
About the Amanda Knox thing, very scary that you can overturn an acquittal!![]()
What a friend! So, what are we having tonight, and what time should I be there?Can I bring anything?
![]()
About the Amanda Knox thing, very scary that you can overturn an acquittal!![]()
Luckily, DH didn't eat it last night, so that was breakfast.If not, maybe Mare still has that old hard hamburger in her fridge.![]()
It is scary. As frustrating as it is to not be able to go back after Casey Anthony, or OJ, or whomever, the point is to not keep coming back to someone over and over again, like they're doing to Amanda Knox in Italy.About the Amanda Knox thing, very scary that you can overturn an acquittal!![]()
Not necessarily. Add up all of our combined expertise from this trial on hippocampus amnesia and...umm...other things, and surely we have 35 years of experience, which can be combined with any score on any test to prove whatever she wants.Well she claims to have PTSD, so has to be high enough to confirm her self diagnosis.
Yeah it is. So I hope you're not planning on committing any crimes in Italy.
It is scary, but I kind of wish the USA could do it once.... Casey Anthony![]()
I'm very conservative and about as law abiding as you're likely to find, but I read that someone posted that Knox said she would go back. There is NO WAY ON THIS GREEN EARTH that I would go back. Nope, would not happen.
This protective order pertains to Beth Karas, Shana Druckerman , and Paul Matadeen via email.
I read on WS that the protective order was to prevent disclosing how much the DT has spent on witnesses and research. They don't want people knowing what they are spending the TAXPAYERS money on. Does anybody know if this is true?
I read on WS that the protective order was to prevent disclosing how much the DT has spent on witnesses and research. They don't want people knowing what they are spending the TAXPAYERS money on. Does anybody know if this is true?
I read on WS that the protective order was to prevent disclosing how much the DT has spent on witnesses and research. They don't want people knowing what they are spending the TAXPAYERS money on. Does anybody know if this is true?
Going thru pages on WS, someone said it came from a source in courtroom that JM needs 5 days for his rebuttal (this is what he apparently told the judge). So with questions and all that BS, I'm saying more like 10 days.
Aaaaand with Nurmi's cross examination I'll raise your 10 days to 20.![]()
![]()