Amanda Knox

[lkwalker]

"but he did not have the original PM's...."

Haha. Yeah, right. Don't go into police work please....

Hahahahahaha.... why didn't you post them then, you do realize that that would have stopped this whole war thing from happening hahahahahahaha

I should have said "he did not produce the original PM's"

But what I was trying to say here is being skewed because some eyes only want to see what they see and not the whole story....

I was using BE's behaviour "at the time" of accusing without so called proof as an example as to what BE is saying to TT now in this thread about her feelings on Amanda Knox or Baby Lisa.

Basically.... I was responding to this post:

Call me old fashioned, but I still believe that guilt should be established on the basis of evidence rather than some undefined 'common sense.'

Common sense has sent many an innocent to the scaffold. Just sayin...

Get it? Practice what you preach so to speak

And the fact that the hacking was corroborated at that time by the owners of both RU and HM meant nothing to you? That fake posts and PMs were made in my name, on my account, while I was unable to sign on because my password and email were changed... That meant nothing to you? I'd say that all qualifies as evidence. And that you still deny it qualifies you as a moron.

[Pam]

Doh...

Short of handing out copies of the file containing the database, what would serve as proof.

I actually believe you.... don't get me wrong.

And sadly I had a feeling that the example I used to get my point across might rile people up to the point that they missed my point.

It was the only example that came to mind at that moment that I thought of it

I am saying

it depends where you sit, what your morals are, how you feel about the victim etc. as to how you would react to something.

[lkwalker]

Fuck off.

[Pam]

And the fact that the hacking was corroborated at that time by the owners of both RU and HM meant nothing to you? That fake posts and PMs were made in my name, on my account, while I was unable to sign on because my password and email were changed... That meant nothing to you? I'd say that all qualifies as evidence. And that you still deny it qualifies you as a moron.

The hack was confirmed by RU, HM and Amkon..... what wasn't confirmed was "who the hacker was".

I am denying nothing, and while it is interesting that I can quote you on your words, and then show an example of how one did not adhere to your words, and actually earlier say that I agreed with your words, to be called a moron now is amusing to me

Call me old fashioned, but I still believe that guilt should be established on the basis of evidence rather than some undefined 'common sense.'

Common sense has sent many an innocent to the scaffold. Just sayin...

[Pam]

Fuck off.

[lkwalker]

I stand by those words. All of them.

[TraumaT]

The hack was confirmed by RU, HM and Amkon..... what wasn't confirmed was "who the hacker was".

So who do YOU think the hacker was?

[Pam]

I stand by those words. All of them.

I'd like to think I would stand by those words too, but sometimes something happens, there is a deeper connection to the victim, a personal slant on things that veers you away from acting on those words.

I'm not trying to upset you and I am not saying that Pack wasn't responsible for a lot of shit that went down, because I believe he was, and hp's word is good enough for me that he received those PM's without me even having to see proof because I trust and believe hp would not lie.......

But what I was trying to say, is different things cause different people to react and behave differently and even having a belief of morally what is right and what is wrong, that belief can be changed because of your personal involvement in a situation.

That's all.......

[Pigeon]

This is crap warmed over, but, what is proof. People pick and choose...

[Pam]

The hack was confirmed by RU, HM and Amkon..... what wasn't confirmed was "who the hacker was".

So who do YOU think the hacker was?

Now.... after hp provided information.... I think it was Pack. I also think he was probably involved in the AmkonLeaks.

At the time..... I suspected it might be him, but I didn't see any proof other than the personal vendetta that Pack and BE had against each other for almost a year.

It was a "most likely" thing but it wasn't that guilt couldn't be established on the basis of the evidence and 'common sense' was all that was available to my eyes at the time.

TT you do realize that I was using that as a parable to defend your position on the Amanda Knox case, right?