Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ken Dine]

I HAD POSTED:

The Raw Data Files would include the positive and negative test controls of everything tested, and everyone was interested in those since they could prove a contamination event in Stef's lab.

You do understand what a negative test control is, right? I'm guessing you don't since you've been arguing that negative test controls were unnecessary to review, which is preposterous!

No, read back.
It's me the one who states what's unnecessary.

It was Vecchiotti who stated that the raw data are unnecessary. Oh yes he did. This is wha she said.

Her work was searching for contamination, and she said she was not interested in raw data. Oh yes, that's what she said.

Let’s assume, arguendo, that Vecchiotti had said that Stefanoni's EDFs (& negative test controls) weren’t necessary to complete their assignment for Hellmann.

SO WHAT?

The defense had requested Stefanoni's EDFs all along, and in Raffaele’s appeal document of the Nencini verdict (recently posted here), in that appeal document Raffaele’s attorney was still complaining that the defense had never received Stefanoni's EDFs!

Whether Vecchiotti had (or had not) requested Steffanoni’s EDFs, the defense had the absolute right to receive copies of those EDFs, and those EDFs were NEVER provided to the defense.

Look at the big picture … since the defense never received the EDFs to review, their trials were unfair!

Ultimately, Raffaele and Amanda were acquitted, but their acquittals may have come much sooner if they had the EDFs they were entitled to receive.

Your silly claim that they had waived the right to review Stefanoni’s work after the defense had been notified of Stefanoni’s ongoing DNA analysis and they had failed to send defense experts to watch. Even if true, what about all the DNA analysis Stefanoni was doing BEFORE Amanda & Raffaele were arrested and/or had a chance to hire and send experts to Stefanoni’s lab?

What if a defendant can’t afford the significant cost of hiring DNA experts to sit in Stefanoni’s lab for weeks on end?

If you’re correct about the Italian legal system, then are you seriously defending such an obviously screwed up legal system which would deny defendants their legal right to the EDFs based upon the technicality that you've been claiming here?

As for your quoted Vecchiotti comment while testifying, you seem to be seeing more in it than I do:

I'm rather sure I can see more than you do.

I’m convinced in your delusional state that you THINK you see the facts of this case more clearly than does anyone else, including your Italian Supreme Ct.

I’m not sure if meds can fix your problems, but it’s something to explore.

Vecchiotti didn't say they received everything they asked for in that comment.

What do you mean by "that" comment? Did you read carefully what the Presidente states, as well?
Did you read "adesso abbiamo tutta la doumentazione"?
And have you read Hellmann pointing out to Ghirga that they have already answered "repeatedly" and stated "repeatedly" that the had obtained all they wanted?
And have you read those snippets (I did not quote them) where Vecchiotti praised how cooperative Stefanoni was, pointing out that she responded giving her "even more things" than what she had requested?

Even if you’re correct about Vecchiotti not wanting the EDFs (highly doubtful), then SO WHAT?

Even without the EDFs, anyone of average common sense can easily determine that the kitchen knife and bra-clasp evidence were both bogus evidence.

Let me explain this to you very clearly – even if Stefanoni's DNA analysis of the bra-clasp and knife were indeed 100% kosher, then that still wouldn't place Amanda or Raffaele at the crime scene during the murder since Raffaele's DNA on the clasp, and Meredith's DNA on the knife, both could have been innocently transferred to those items at another time.

There's also the FACT that Stefanoni had admitted that her testing of 36B on the knife wasn't up to scientific standards, and that admission alone knocked out most of the DNA evidence tying Amanda & Raffaele to the crime.

Legally speaking this is sheer delusion.

HUH? Are you saying that, even if Stefanoni admitted that her testing of the knife wasn’t done according to accepted scientific principles (as she eventually did do during Hellmann), that it would be legally delusional to use Stefanoni’s admission against her?

Here’s Stefanoni’s admission that conducting only one (1) test of the LCN-DNA sample 36B (that she claimed to have found on the knife) was scientifically insufficient:

Conti-Vecchiotti PAGE 105:

c) performing 2-3 replicate amplifications with the development of a consensus profile. In the case in question, the amplification was only performed once; therefore the lack of replicate amplification with the development of a consensus profile provides unreliable results (GUP hearing on 05.10.08, pages 21-22: to the question:

Stefanoni was asked: “…the testing of a trace of this type should be repeated several times to be considered reliable?”

The Technical Consultant (STEFANNONI) responds: “In theory yes”.

To the question: “How many times did you do it?”

Stefanoni responds: “In this case only once”.

Q: “Only once, and therefore in theory why ought it be considered more reliable if one does it several times?”

Stefanoni answers: “Because reproducibility of the result is, so to speak, a good standard in any scientific experiment quite apart from forensic genetics, obviously in order to be considered valid a result must be repeatable”).

d) employment of negative controls in the amplification procedure to check for the presence of contamination. In the attached eletropherograms, neither negative nor positive controls are reported.

 

[js202]

Personally I like the opportunity to hear new voices, and to participate as well, rather than having distribution held in the hands of a few powerful people and their varying degrees of ethics and intentions.

After all, we're conversing here.

In addition to the few powerful people whose intentions may not be buttercups and daisies, I think the very idea of a free press is still a powerful beacon to many. And though, off the top of my head, I can't right now think of our latter day Ben Bradlees and Roger Cronkites, I'm enough of an optimist to believe that good and smart people will realign and prevail. As a writer, I personally value at least some variation on a time worn structure which evinces published opinion that has survived a system of more rigorous assessment, and, ideally, merit.

Unlike Twitter, for example, I think of this forum, for rather picayune specialists, after all, as more like a postmodern, virtual salon. Comparatively limited in its uses and influence.

But the Harry Rags and hate trolls are really something different. There's a malice to it. And the tabloids that foment and profit from such, often fabricated controversies, that's something different too.

So on some level, I don't see Harry Rag's petty slanders as news worthy of coverage in particular. I do think he and some of his cohorts merit the attentions of the law enforcement authorities, but not so much the media.

I think harry Rag and his kind, are a police problem. And the Tabloids that foment his ilk, are skirting the boundaries of criminality, IUAM.

As I've tried to outline above, in certain circumstances, I don't see it as an either/or, but a both/and type of situation.

 

[Ken Dine]

BTW Nobody has answered my question: Whatever did happen to Amanda's coat and the bag for clothes she took round, which both she and Raff mention?

As I recall, in the first weeks of their investigation the police were unable to locate a coat that witnesses told them Amanda owned, so they thought it may have been worn by Amanda during the murder and could contain incriminating forensics.

However, the police eventually found the coat hiding in plain sight lying on Amanda's bed in the cottage. I assume it was thoroughly tested, but since we never heard about the coat again, you can make your own assumptions about what their testing of that coat found. (NADA!)

As for the bag, they also located that bag since it was examined thoroughly under the belief that Amanda had carried a large sharp knife around using it, but the bag had no evidence of having been used that way (no knife damage).

You are obviously reading older 'Guilter' nonsense. Once something is posted on a 'Guilter' site it is left there even after being disproved.

Kinda like YOU ignoring all the posted evidence which refutes all of your silly claims.

 

[Ken Dine]

Remembe how Machiavelli interpreted those photos, photos taken of Stefanoni handling the bra-hooks with obviously dirty gloves.

Machiavelli said he saw something else as being obvious. That the bra-hooks had contaminated the gloves, not the other way around.

Those sorts of statements are the domain of the rhetorically desperate!

Considering the inept way in which the bra-clasp was located and subsequently bagged as evidence, I guess that would have been possible?

The video showed the police rooting around in Meredith's bedroom for over 30 minutes touching many items without ever changing their gloves.

When the bra-clasp was finally found, they picked it up, passed it around, placed it back on the floor to photograph it, then picked it up once again with those same dirty gloves to bag it.

HOW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED:

1 – ideally, within the first few days and NOT 47 days after the murder.

2 – once located, the bra-clasp should have been photographed in situs before moving it.

3 – an environmental swab should have been taken of the floor next to the clasp in order to later determine the DNA of the dust in the room (i.e., to see if the room's dust matched the bra-clasp or not).

4 – finally, using sterile tweezers the bra-clasp should have been promptly bagged as evidence.

The Italian KOPS collecting the bra-clasp were obviously inept buffoons.

 

[Ken Dine]

The gloves were put on inside the room. All dirt you see on the gloves is from inside the room.

How would that make their inept collection of the bra-strap 46 days late kosher?

The police never should have touched the bra-clasp with gloves since sterile tweezers would be the accepted collection method.

They never took an environmental swab of the room's dust, which is also the proper protocol, especially when dealing with LCN-DNA.

 

[Ken Dine]

I have no story to tell. It makes no difference to say the gloves picked the dirt from the clasp or from the floor in the room, since the clasp got dirty itself from the floor, so dirt is from the floor anyway.
But this goes for DNA too. The gloves picked their dirt from inside the room. There us actually no reason to assume that the DNA was transferred on the metal hook from the gloves, such assumption would be itself not substantiated, but it doesn't change the picture, because that would indicate only son abundant presence of Sollecito's DNA in the room, which would be incriminating.

Raffaele spent time at the cottage, so his exfoliated skin cells would be found in the dust, which is why proper DNA collection protocols mandate to take an environmental sampling of the room's dust, which wasn't done.

Raffaele also tried breaking in Meredith's bedroom door, so his DNA was surely on her bedroom door, and once that door is opened into Meredith's bedroom, Raffaele's DNA on that door is also now inside Meredith bedroom, but his DNA has an innocent reason for being in there.

If you watch the video, before they picked up the bra-clasp you can see them touching the door.

You are acting very ignorant about DNA, as well as dishonest in your lame 'Guilter' arguments, and it shows.

 

[Bill Williams]

The gloves were put on inside the room. All dirt you see on the gloves is from inside the room.

How would that make their inept collection of the bra-strap 46 days late kosher?

The police never should have touched the bra-clasp with gloves since sterile tweezers would be the accepted collection method.

They never took an environmental swab of the room's dust, which is also the proper protocol, especially when dealing with LCN-DNA.

This is where Machiavelli simply does not argue in good faith. He will say ANYTHING as long as it is guilt-sounding.

Follow the thread. Machiavelli said it was immaterial if the glove had contaminated the bra-hasp (he once had claimed that what you see below is a function of the hasp contaminating the glove!)......





...... because the glove had been sterile when Stefanoni entered the murder room. Therefore, the issue is NOT what Stefanoni eventually found on that bra-hasp back in the lab, the issue was, Machiavelli implies, that Sollecito's DNA was all over the room. (How does this square with the reality of 165B, which is a sample containing from 3 to 5 male sub-samples? Are the extra two to four males all over the room too? Who are they?) Missing from Machiavelli's analysis - what is Stefanoni doing handling the hasp at all!!

This is the worst of confirmation bias on M.'s part. For one thing, Sollecito had been trying to break down Meredith's door on the late morning of Nov 2. Later that day, by Monica Napoleoni's admission, the medical staff who arrived to see the body went into the room with no forensic counter-measures (booties, gloves, suits).

Then, 46 days later, Stefanoni recovers the bra-hasp in the manner shown above.

And there are still those who argue for guilt?

 

[Kauffer]

This is where Machiavelli simply does not argue in good faith. He will say ANYTHING as long as it is guilt-sounding.

Follow the thread. Machiavelli said it was immaterial if the glove had contaminated the bra-hasp (he once had claimed that what you see below is a function of the hasp contaminating the glove!)......

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

...... because the glove had been sterile when Stefanoni entered the murder room. Therefore, the issue is NOT what Stefanoni eventually found on that bra-hasp back in the lab, the issue was, Machiavelli implies, that Sollecito's DNA was all over the room. (How does this square with the reality of 165B, which is a sample containing from 3 to 5 male sub-samples?) Missing from Machiavelli's analysis - what is Stefanoni doing handling the hasp at all!!

This is the worst of confirmation bias on M.'s part. For one thing, Sollecito had been trying to break down Meredith's door on the late morning of Nov 2. Later that day, by Monica Napoleoni's admission, the medical staff who arrived to see the body went into the room with no forensic counter-measures (booties, gloves, suits).

Then, 46 days later, Stefanoni recovers the bra-hasp in the manner shown above.

And there are still those who argue for guilt?

Probably, everybody's DNA was in the room somewhere - quite innocently. Silenzi's had to be.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no story to tell. It makes no difference to say the gloves picked the dirt from the clasp or from the floor in the room, since the clasp got dirty itself from the floor, so dirt is from the floor anyway.
But this goes for DNA too. The gloves picked their dirt from inside the room. There us actually no reason to assume that the DNA was transferred on the metal hook from the gloves, such assumption would be itself not substantiated, but it doesn't change the picture, because that would indicate only son abundant presence of Sollecito's DNA in the room, which would be incriminating.

Raffaele spent time at the cottage, so his exfoliated skin cells would be found in the dust, which is why proper DNA collection protocols mandate to take an environmental sampling of the room's dust, which wasn't done.

Raffaele also tried breaking in Meredith's bedroom door, so his DNA was surely on her bedroom door, and once that door is opened into Meredith's bedroom, Raffaele's DNA on that door is also now inside Meredith bedroom, but his DNA has an innocent reason for being in there.

If you watch the video, before they picked up the bra-clasp you can see them touching the door.

You are acting very ignorant about DNA, as well as dishonest in your lame 'Guilter' arguments, and it shows.

Re: highlighted part..... LOL! Despite Stefanoni being caught with her hand in the cookie jar, Machiavelli still insists that Stefanoni did not steal any cookies. Despite a picture taken by her own staff of her handling the hasp, he says that if one assumes that the glove contaminated the hasp that this is an, "assumption not substantiated."

LOL! If it is bald-faced staring you in the face, Machiavelli's strategy is deny, deny, deny, deny, repeat guilter claims, repeat guilter claims, repeat guilter claims.

As above, if Machiavelli's new scenario is true, how does he account for the extra 2 to four Y-haplotypes which comprise 165B? Meredith's amica?

 

[Welshman]

Are you sure the prosecutions never questioned the integrity of Vecchiotti?



Rebutting their report doesn't present any problem to me.
Of course I am able to do it.
But I don't get paid for that.



And when did you stop selling drugs and beating your wife?



No. But I know that there was DNA. I think the magnitude of amount could be inferred by asking questions about the functioning of the Qbit fluorimeter, and how Stefanoni used it.



There is no "fake" wiki page.
You should turn the question to your friends Knox & Sollecito and the "amandaknoxcase" site: why would an innocent need to resort to that massive amount of lies?



I pointed out numerous lies about Stefanoni. We are not talking about "criticism", we are talking about lies. They include mystifications, misquotes, unsupported wild assertions, misrepresenting testimonies.
We can obviously respond, we did so, and I debunked many pro-Knox silliness many times. But it's not a problem of criticism, it's lies, but in addition to that there is also a massive attitude by pro-Knoxes to arrogantly claim that someone is dishonest beause allegedly violated their beliefs about law, what they believe other sovereign systems should comply with.
Even the very idea that one can argue for "innocence" by bringing "criticism" of Stefanoni, is itself a dishonest, arrogant delusional idea.

Machiavelli

You have failed to answer my questions. Can you give any specific examples where the prosecution queried the expertise and competence of C&V in view of the fact you regard C&V as being so incompetent the Hellman court might as well have brought in lay people off the street. This question should be easy to answer as your work for the prosecution. The prosecution had plenty of time after the Hellman verdict to dig the dirt on C&V and strangely the prosecution never use the supposedly staggering history of incompetence by C&V.

I asked how do you explain the massive level of corruption and misconduct regarding the DNA on the knife if the results were valid and the prosecution had a strong case. Your answer was to pretend this misconduct never happened. The misconduct in the case is well documented and can be seen in the following links :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/conta...case.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

If the website Amanadaknoxcase.com has it wrong and the misconduct never happened, why has Mignini a man who handouts lawsuits like confetti not taken legal action against the site or no one from the prosecution has rebutted the arguments used in the sections regarding the suppression of evidence.

You claim you could easily rebutt C&Vs reports but will not do so because you are not paid. This is a lame excuse for not answering the C&V report. In other words you can not answer C&Vs report although the report was supposedly written by a pair of clueless idiots with zero expertise. Stefanoni has not written a rebuttal of C&Vs report.

The wiki themurderofmeredithkercher.com is called the fake wiki because it is full of falsehoods. You have not addressed the issue why the does the wiki have to tell so many lies about the knife and the DNA if the results were valid. You again accuse Amanda of lying and ask why would she needs to lie if she was innocent. The prosecution lied on a massive scale and the PGP lie. The question is if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the prosecution have to resort to telling numerous lies and the PGP have consistently been unable to argue their case without lying? For instance, you lied that Amanda had the number of drug dealers on her phone. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do you need to lie argue your case?

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli

You have failed to answer my questions. Can you give any specific examples where the prosecution queried the expertise and competence of C&V in view of the fact you regard C&V as being so incompetent the Hellman court might as well have brought in lay people off the street. This question should be easy to answer as your work for the prosecution. The prosecution had plenty of time after the Hellman verdict to dig the dirt on C&V and strangely the prosecution never use the supposedly staggering history of incompetence by C&V.

I asked how do you explain the massive level of corruption and misconduct regarding the DNA on the knife if the results were valid and the prosecution had a strong case. Your answer was to pretend this misconduct never happened. The misconduct in the case is well documented and can be seen in the following links :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/conta...case.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

If the website Amanadaknoxcase.com has it wrong and the misconduct never happened, why has Mignini a man who handouts lawsuits like confetti not taken legal action against the site or no one from the prosecution has rebutted the arguments used in the sections regarding the suppression of evidence.

You claim you could easily rebutt C&Vs reports but will not do so because you are not paid. This is a lame excuse for not answering the C&V report. In other words you can not answer C&Vs report although the report was supposedly written by a pair of clueless idiots with zero expertise. Stefanoni has not written a rebuttal of C&Vs report.

The wiki themurderofmeredithkercher.com is called the fake wiki because it is full of falsehoods. You have not addressed the issue why the does the wiki have to tell so many lies about the knife and the DNA if the results were valid. You again accuse Amanda of lying and ask why would she needs to lie if she was innocent. The prosecution lied on a massive scale and the PGP lie. The question is if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the prosecution have to resort to telling numerous lies and the PGP have consistently been unable to argue their case without lying? For instance, you lied that Amanda had the number of drug dealers on her phone. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why do you need to lie argue your case?

While you are one the subject.......

Where is the hue and cry in Italy about all this? As far as I can tell, there's one lone Italian in all of the world being vocal about this - Machiavelli!

The other vilifiers don't count, because all it looks like they're content with is saying something slutty about someone they've never met. Machiavelli will at least "make a case", even if he now believes that it was the bra-hasp which had contaminated Stefanoni's gloves!

Has Chieffi publically defended his 2013 ISC decision, or is Chieffi satisfied that the matters he remanded to Nencini's court have been answered with the eventual acquittals? Hellmann was not shy about going against the grain to talk about both Chieffi and Nencini dealing in fiction....

.... where are the charges against Hellmann and De Nunzio in Perugia for, as Machiavelli would have us believe, corruption?

In the weeks leading up to the March 2015 acquittals, Italian TV had many programs - on the evidence against Raffaele! TV-land in Italy seemed very supportive of Raffaele's innocence. And like they say, if Raffaele is innocent, so is Amanda.

I guess they can always point to Alan Dershowitz (outside of Italy) as someone who'll still entertain a notion of guilt, theoretically or otherwise. Yet Dershowitz has pretty much disappeared under problems of his own.

Machiavelli - can you point to one identifiable and reputable "anyone" who supports your theories - someone who is peer reviewed and perhaps even has a real Ph.D.!

In your favour, you often start a claim by saying, "It is my view that...." which is fair enough, I suppose.

But where is the hue and cry in Italy?

 

[carbonjam72]

While you are one the subject.......

Where is the hue and cry in Italy about all this? As far as I can tell, there's one lone Italian in all of the world being vocal about this - Machiavelli!

The other vilifiers don't count, because all it looks like they're content with is saying something slutty about someone they've never met. Machiavelli will at least "make a case", even if he now believes that it was the bra-hasp which had contaminated Stefanoni's gloves!

Has Chieffi publically defended his 2013 ISC decision, or is Chieffi satisfied that the matters he remanded to Nencini's court have been answered with the eventual acquittals? Hellmann was not shy about going against the grain to talk about both Chieffi and Nencini dealing in fiction....

.... where are the charges against Hellmann and De Nunzio in Perugia for, as Machiavelli would have us believe, corruption?

In the weeks leading up to the March 2015 acquittals, Italian TV had many programs - on the evidence against Raffaele! TV-land in Italy seemed very supportive of Raffaele's innocence. And like they say, if Raffaele is innocent, so is Amanda.

I guess they can always point to Alan Dershowitz (outside of Italy) as someone who'll still entertain a notion of guilt, theoretically or otherwise. Yet Dershowitz has pretty much disappeared under problems of his own.

Machiavelli - can you point to one identifiable and reputable "anyone" who supports your theories - someone who is peer reviewed and perhaps even has a real Ph.D.!

In your favour, you often start a claim by saying, "It is my view that...." which is fair enough, I suppose.

But where is the hue and cry in Italy?

You ever see a movie called, "The Field"? I forget the actor (just cheated and looked it up: Richard harris), but he's well known.

He goes nuts at the end and wades into the ocean trying to fight off the ocean waves with his shalailee.

Funnily enough, this character's name is, wait for it, ... "Bull". Not a joke.

Just saying...

 

[Desert Fox]

Machiavelli - can you point to one identifiable and reputable "anyone" who supports your theories - someone who is peer reviewed and perhaps even has a real Ph.D.!

Bill, this is an issue with a lot of cases where the evidence presented in a trial is often far from peer reviewed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is there ANY notice in Italy that the motivations report due June 25 is even late?

The whole issue seems to have fallen off the edge of the earth - except for us loonies here! Why would anyone want to expend an iota of energy arguing the corruption of Vecchiotti, when no one is particularly defending Stefanoni?

Well, there's Machiavelli, so not no one.

 

[Planigale]

While you are one the subject.......

Where is the hue and cry in Italy about all this? As far as I can tell, there's one lone Italian in all of the world being vocal about this - Machiavelli!

The other vilifiers don't count, because all it looks like they're content with is saying something slutty about someone they've never met. Machiavelli will at least "make a case", even if he now believes that it was the bra-hasp which had contaminated Stefanoni's gloves!

Has Chieffi publically defended his 2013 ISC decision, or is Chieffi satisfied that the matters he remanded to Nencini's court have been answered with the eventual acquittals? Hellmann was not shy about going against the grain to talk about both Chieffi and Nencini dealing in fiction....

.... where are the charges against Hellmann and De Nunzio in Perugia for, as Machiavelli would have us believe, corruption?

In the weeks leading up to the March 2015 acquittals, Italian TV had many programs - on the evidence against Raffaele! TV-land in Italy seemed very supportive of Raffaele's innocence. And like they say, if Raffaele is innocent, so is Amanda.

I guess they can always point to Alan Dershowitz (outside of Italy) as someone who'll still entertain a notion of guilt, theoretically or otherwise. Yet Dershowitz has pretty much disappeared under problems of his own.

Machiavelli - can you point to one identifiable and reputable "anyone" who supports your theories - someone who is peer reviewed and perhaps even has a real Ph.D.!

In your favour, you often start a claim by saying, "It is my view that...." which is fair enough, I suppose.

But where is the hue and cry in Italy?

One thing I like about the English is their self deprecation. If this happened in England their would be a cry that 'something has to be done'. There are always some (a significant minority) of English people who think things could be done better. It may take too long but things do change in England. I think there is a good reason why both the people who came up with the idea of evolution were English; England evolves.

 

[Diocletus]

One thing I like about the English is their self deprecation. If this happened in England their would be a cry that 'something has to be done'. There are always some (a significant minority) of English people who think things could be done better. It may take too long but things do change in England. I think there is a good reason why both the people who came up with the idea of evolution were English; England evolves.

It's easier to embrace change when your entire culture isn't obsessed with face-saving. New ideas can be launched without somebody worrying about being "wrong." England is pretty good in this category. That said, George III was a little slow to embrace colonial independence.

 

[Planigale]

It's easier to embrace change when your entire culture isn't obsessed with face-saving. New ideas can be launched without somebody worrying about being "wrong." England is pretty good in this category. That said, George III was a little slow to embrace colonial independence.

Actually the government was pretty ambivalent. I'd argue that the revolutionary socialist state was far more conservative in that it could not accept the loyalist state to the north. As late as 1815 it needed to launch aggressive warfare in support of its underlying philosophy. I suspect that it was a surprise that the francophone, anglophone and native american peoples unified in rejection of their radical theories.

 

[Dougm]

Machiavelli - can you point to one identifiable and reputable "anyone" who supports your theories - someone who is peer reviewed and perhaps even has a real Ph.D.!

In your favour, you often start a claim by saying, "It is my view that...." which is fair enough, I suppose.

Bill, I wouldn't underestimate the weight that should be given to Mach's endorsement of these theories, even if he is the only one that agrees with them. I saw him wearing this t-shirt the other day ...

 

[acbytesla]

Do you think noting a criminal defamatory campaign is an "emotional" matter?

(Those looneys ranting about "Mignini criminal", "Stefanoni" etc. the Italian authorities "fascist" and Knox "little angel", are balanced folks instead, I suppose).

We had rabid newspapers networks and charachters of every kind telling false narratives about "coercing interrogation", screaming "fascism", "witch hunt", "anti-Americanism", "misoginy", "satanic motive", "railroad", "corruption", "treachery", "conspiracy", grotesque attempts of political interference, and you say that.... I am hysterical?
Or you suggest I am the only one who should not be disgusted - I am the only one who is supposed to not point the finger against violence, corruption, racism and fascism?

I did expect once in a while something objective from you.

You'll have to explain why this kind of criticism is not warranted.

Personally, I'm of the belief that Mignini should be behind bars for his actions in the Monster of Florence case. He should never had the opportunity to try this case. I'm not sure fascism is the correct term but corruption hits it right on the button. I think Italy is a beautiful country and it has some great people. Mignini is just not one of them.

Those newspapers were telling it like it is. There is nothing false about those narratives.

And yes, you are hysterical.

 

[Vixen]

Because she had no choice. She was tasked with finding Meredith's DNA. She did the best she could to make that happen but it required her to lie. The truth wasn't getting her anywhere.

Complete rubbish! You're presupposing the "real" murderers were never going to be found.