This is Machiavelli's guilt by innuendo. He keeps saying all he's trying to do is make a point about Guede and Knox not really being that different. Yet, look what he does. He says this "assertion" is really an "inference"...
And yet the "inference" now becomes a reason to quash an argument....
And voila..... the alleged motive for the killing pops out the end.
This has nothing to do with the motive.
All this, and yet the two conviction judges at the lower grade trials do not support the drug-fuelled party scenario.
The "party" is supposed to be a meeting among three people: Guede, Knox, Sollecito. All courts placed the three partying together at the apartment.
This part of a scenario is a
context, not a
motive.
For Nencini is is an argument over rent money, and for Massei it is Rudy's lust, and Rudy's lust alone, because as Massei said, Rudy did not need any encouragement from anyone (much less Knox or Sollecito) to go in and assault Meredith.
Oh, no. Massei
never says Rudy's lust
alone. Absolutely not. On the contrary, he explicilty says that the sexual motivation in that moment
was equally shared by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the same degree as Rudy. I won't quote the relevant pages of the Massei report, because you already know where they are.
Let's not cheat: Massei never says that Rudy is
alone in his lustful sexual arousal. The report explicitly says Rudy was
not the only one pursueing a sexual violence.
Nencini, at last, quite thoroughly explain that the psychological motivations of single individuals are varied within the context of a gang violence.
So.... what is Machiavelli arguing? Assertions and inferences. It's all right there. Is it any wonder that Machiavelli argues tooth and nail that the motives as advanced are now only "speculations"?
You are obfuscating and trying to get around things. There is a point: there is your assertion that there was a "ritualistic killing" scenario put forward by the prosecution, and that it was a premeditated murder scenario.
Such assertion is false.
All you need to do is finally admit that it is false. It is unsupported and contrary to the the truth of what is actually written in the prosecution arguments, also contrary to all the rest of the trial papers including the filing of charges (non premeditated murder).
The only thing you should focus on is this assertion, and its being unfounded.
I think I have explained thoroughly why Mignini mentioned the Halloween ritualistic elements, what is their weight as speculation, the fact that they are not about a killing but about the theme of the "party".
I explained why it is obvious that those are not "the motive", that they are not relevant, and what they mean.
The rest of the prosecution arguments - what you chose
not to quote - does the rest of the work.
Nencini explains his idea about the motive very well and sums up the various additional speculations by all other prosecutors. Not an "rgument over rent money", but a sum of causes, among which heated speech over missing money is one probable element that might have triggered the argument. It is not the "motive" anyway, rather just a trigger.
Can someone tell me why Machiavelli would defend a prosecutor who even he says brings speculations, and not evidence, to trial?
Not evidence?
Where do you get this
not evidence from?
I think there was a lot of evidence. When you have evidence, you can actually bring up all the additional speculations you like.
