It's funny how us 'know nothings' stick around to address guilter questions while they keep running away or retreating into Machiavellian obscurity. There is a very simple, fundamental reason for that.
There are many reasons why people either stop posting here, or are gone for long periods.
It's a guess as to why. So it is I wish to remind Machiavelli that it goes unanswered why he now has two opinions as to Ms. Knox's demeanour on the night of Nov 5/6.
Many months ago he argued vigourously that he had discerned from her writings that she could choose not to sleep, and therefore be immune from effects of exhaustion or disorientation lack of sleep sometimes causes. He quoted his own experience with such issues - which he said explained why the time stamp of his posts often put him posting well into the night in Italy, often to 4 am/5 am.
Then one of his last posts here he said something else, seemingly unaware that the Machiavelli account had been used like that once.
There are a long list of questions others left for him, too. Hopefully when the issues in his real, non-on-line life allow him more free time, he can get to them, too.
Griffinmill was big on that Raffaele had never **in court ** given Amanda an alibi, ignoring all the evidence that for seven years Raffaele has done nothing else but give her an alibi. Griffinmill makes allusions to one snippet in a news conference to suggest that Raffaele was now throwing Ms. Knox under a bus; with no buttressing evidence of his own, except for the rumourmongering.
Then other posters here cite all three judges from all three trials on this subject, and ...... crickets.
And still, after Nencini himself says that Ms. Knox's alibi is essentially Sollecito's alibi..... in an apparent inconsistency the further issue is that Nencini hints that perhaps Sollecito cannot vouch for Knox's whereabouts at all times on Nov 1st.
This is the basis of Sollectio saying plainly in his own appeal's document to Cassation,
if that is true, what then does any of this case have to do with me.
Crickets.
The know-nothings on this board get savaged for repeating these unanswered issues. True, sometimes an individual know-nothing is taken to task, showing that the issue had been answered - (eg. did Machiavelli accuse De Nunzio of committing a crime? Apologies for missing M.'s answer to that. Yes, M. accused De nunzio of a crime.)
So, if someone has the time, could they go back into Continuations 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, etc. and make a list?
Us know-nothings are desperate to be know-somethings.
