Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

It is SO MUCH FUN to watch the Psycho lying Guilters and Italian police squirm in the wind!!!!!!!!!!
The last year has just been a delight, so bad for the hatecrew that even Mach, the Italian Oracle of Delphi, the expert on Italian jurisprudence, has been rendered speechless and all that remains is the pathetic whimpering from Vixen.
Even Barbi has given up, saying "Amanda Knox is not content with freedom, now she is after justice".
"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine."

I don't really think this qualifies as schadenfreude as the gulters aren't really experiencing misfortune. More like they get to experience true justice.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold"
Klingon Proverb

 

[Bill Williams]

It is SO MUCH FUN to watch the Psycho lying Guilters and Italian police squirm in the wind!!!!!!!!!!
The last year has just been a delight, so bad for the hatecrew that even Mach, the Italian Oracle of Delphi, the expert on Italian jurisprudence, has been rendered speechless and all that remains is the pathetic whimpering from Vixen.
Even Barbi has given up, saying "Amanda Knox is not content with freedom, now she is after justice".
"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine."

Nothing betrays that all this is over - save for the ECHR - more than the reactions of the remaining guilters.

A month ago, Vixen had never heard of Judge Boninsegna. I mean, who has except for perhaps a closed circle of legal beagles in that area?

Yet on the basis of one decision the judge makes, Vixen calls him a "lickspittle". Not "mistaken", not biased, but a "lickspittle". Vixen calls him this on the basis of one thing and one thing alone - Boninsegna acquitted Amanda Knox of something.

Vixen does not pour through Boninsegna's motivation report and analyze specific points of demerit for the judge - or inconsistencies or illogicalities. It's the decision he arrives at -soley - which earns himm the venom.

Is there a guilter left who'll at least go through the motions of analysis?

 

[Vixen]

Yes, this point sticks in my mind too.

After all, we know for sure that Lumumba's bar was actually open through the whole relevant time period. So therefore we also know for sure that the "witness" who told the police that Lumumba's bar was closed was wrong.

And then the salient question arises: how and why was this "witness" wrong? Was the person somehow genuinely mistaken (hard to imagine in the circumstances)? Was the person simply an attention-seeking liar (c.f. Quintavalle)? Was the person beholden in some way to the police, who believed that by doing the police the "favour" of telling them that Lumumba's bar was closed, he/she might get favourable treatment from the police on another matter in return (c.f. Curatolo)? Was the person coerced by the police into telling them (the police) what they wanted/needed to hear (i.e. that Lumumba's bar was closed)? Was the person in cahoots with the police to lie about Lumumba's bar having been closed? Was the person a pure invention of the police?

Whatever the truth about this "witness", it vividly illustrates a number of human behavioural factors which are extremely germane to this case: "witnesses" can be spectacularly wrong even if they are honestly convinced they are right; "witnesses" can be easily coerced by experienced coaches (police officers) to believe in something, even though that something never happened; "witnesses" can be attention-seeking liars, or people with various types of mental illness, or people who are seeking to gain something for themselves by giving the police the "evidence" that the police are asking for; police can and do use clandestine and unlawful methods to gather evidence to support a particular position.

This is horrifying. FIVE adverbs in one sentence.

 

[Vixen]

lol yeah how could I forget

They believed it so strongly they ignored all of Patrick's witnesses and found some random guy on the street and coerced him to say Patrick's open bar was closed. (A lot of people forget about this guy, I never do, it illustrates what these cops have always been about).

So much for the theory police, 'were only interested in slutty Amanda and her boyfriend'.

The police rightly thoroughly investigated everybody connected to the crime.

 

[Vixen]

It is SO MUCH FUN to watch the Psycho lying Guilters and Italian police squirm in the wind!!!!!!!!!!
The last year has just been a delight, so bad for the hatecrew that even Mach, the Italian Oracle of Delphi, the expert on Italian jurisprudence, has been rendered speechless and all that remains is the pathetic whimpering from Vixen.
Even Barbi has given up, saying "Amanda Knox is not content with freedom, now she is after justice".
"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine."

'Squirm in the wind'? Wind doesn't cause squirming. Do get your metaphors right.

 

[Vixen]

Nothing betrays that all this is over - save for the ECHR - more than the reactions of the remaining guilters.

A month ago, Vixen had never heard of Judge Boninsegna. I mean, who has except for perhaps a closed circle of legal beagles in that area?

Yet on the basis of one decision the judge makes, Vixen calls him a "lickspittle". Not "mistaken", not biased, but a "lickspittle". Vixen calls him this on the basis of one thing and one thing alone - Boninsegna acquitted Amanda Knox of something.

Vixen does not pour through Boninsegna's motivation report and analyze specific points of demerit for the judge - or inconsistencies or illogicalities. It's the decision he arrives at -soley - which earns himm the venom.

Is there a guilter left who'll at least go through the motions of analysis?

I could pore over it, Bill, but might have trouble 'pouring' through it. The guy is a bl'ming idiot. I was aware of his report before you latched on to it. It is more a brinkmanship exercise than any examination of the case pleaded.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nothing betrays that all this is over - save for the ECHR - more than the reactions of the remaining guilters.

A month ago, Vixen had never heard of Judge Boninsegna. I mean, who has except for perhaps a closed circle of legal beagles in that area?

Yet on the basis of one decision the judge makes, Vixen calls him a "lickspittle". Not "mistaken", not biased, but a "lickspittle". Vixen calls him this on the basis of one thing and one thing alone - Boninsegna acquitted Amanda Knox of something.

Vixen does not pour through Boninsegna's motivation report and analyze specific points of demerit for the judge - or inconsistencies or illogicalities. It's the decision he arrives at -soley - which earns himm the venom.

Is there a guilter left who'll at least go through the motions of analysis?

I could pore over it, Bill, but might have trouble 'pouring' through it. The guy is a bl'ming idiot. I was aware of his report before you latched on to it. It is more a brinkmanship exercise than any examination of the case pleaded.

Like clockwork, Vixen proves my point. Not only is Boninsegna a "lick spittle", he's now a "bl'ming idiot", all because of the conclusion at which he arrived. (Not a word of analysis from Vixen at all, just more ad hominem.)

So - why is it a brinksmanship exercise? Oh, never mind.

 

[Desert Fox]

Like clockwork, Vixen proves my point. Not only is Boninsegna a "lick spittle", he's now a "bl'ming idiot", all because of the conclusion at which he arrived. (Not a word of analysis from Vixen at all, just more ad hominem.)

So - why is it a brinksmanship exercise? Oh, never mind.

There are political issues which I consider there to be easy answers why something will not work. Still, I have found those simple arguments to go over many people's heads. Why, I don't have a clue. I realize that that I cannot consider them all to be idiots.

Just because somebody does not get your argument, even if they are wrong, does not mean that they are idiots.

 

[acbytesla]

There are political issues which I consider there to be easy answers why something will not work. Still, I have found those simple arguments to go over many people's heads. Why, I don't have a clue. I realize that that I cannot consider them all to be idiots.

Just because somebody does not get your argument, even if they are wrong, does not mean that they are idiots.

Still,.....Some are.

 

[bagels]

So much for the theory police, 'were only interested in slutty Amanda and her boyfriend'.

The police rightly thoroughly investigated everybody connected to the crime.

This defense of the police was posted 21 continuations ago. I guess since the police punched and kicked Patrick and called him a dirty black it demonstrated their investigative thoroughness. Oh, and since the mid 30s male immigrant bartender from a troubled African nation stood up to the Italian police a bit better than the privileged white girl from the burbs, and didn't crack and sign a statement, it was offered as additional proof of Amanda's guilt.

Reading some of the earlier posts in this thread has been very enlightening lol

 

[Desert Fox]

Still,.....Some are.

I was writing in support of you. . . .If Vixen thinks we are idiots for thinking Amanda is innocent, it is her job to show us (well , I have her on ignore) why we are wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

I was writing in support of you. . . .If Vixen thinks we are idiots for thinking Amanda is innocent, it is her job to show us (well , I have her on ignore) why we are wrong.

Thanks, I thought we were talking about the guilters.

She can't show us why we're wrong for a couple of reasons.

1. She would have to tell the truth. Something that seems to be beyond her.
2. We're not wrong. She thinks she's a great debater. Not something I believe. But it is hard if not impossible to make a good argument when the facts are just not on your side. And they are not on that side. Nothing she can say that isn't an obfuscation of the facts. There is no evidence of any merit.

It's been game over for a very long time.

 

[analemma]

It's been game over for a very long time.

Yes

And it is SO MUCH FUN

 

[acbytesla]

Hard to argue with that. Enjoy, I know I am.


;

Yes

And it is SO MUCH FUN

 

[Desert Fox]

I can find some Flat Earthers if you somebody else to argue with

 

[acbytesla]

I can find some Flat Earthers if you somebody else to argue with

I've never actually talked to anyone quite that stupid. So, no thanks. Guess they have never been on a plane. Or viewed Google Earth.

 

[Vixen]

This defense of the police was posted 21 continuations ago. I guess since the police punched and kicked Patrick and called him a dirty black it demonstrated their investigative thoroughness. Oh, and since the mid 30s male immigrant bartender from a troubled African nation stood up to the Italian police a bit better than the privileged white girl from the burbs, and didn't crack and sign a statement, it was offered as additional proof of Amanda's guilt.

Reading some of the earlier posts in this thread has been very enlightening lol

So no different from US police, then, from what we see in the media. There's a homily: 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. Get your own house in order.

 

[Vixen]

Like clockwork, Vixen proves my point. Not only is Boninsegna a "lick spittle", he's now a "bl'ming idiot", all because of the conclusion at which he arrived. (Not a word of analysis from Vixen at all, just more ad hominem.)

So - why is it a brinksmanship exercise? Oh, never mind.

It's what judges do when they think a case should never have been brought. We have the word of one person against another. We know Amanda is a liar, the police know, her counsel know, her parents know, her family know, everybody knows. However, at the end of the day, how can the courts determine which is the truth one way or another. Boninsegnia (_sp?) no doubt thought he had an impossible task, too oppressive to find her guilty, as it might have happened and yet an acquittal is a disaster, too, so he does what judges do, rips apart the party that brought the case. As Andrea Vogt calls it, a 'side show'.

We have the calunnia guilty verdict, all else is an add-on: a waste of everybody's time and money.

 

[acbytesla]

So no different from US police, then, from what we see in the media. There's a homily: 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. Get your own house in order.

No one's comparing the two. Red herring. Try again.

 

[acbytesla]

It's what judges do when they think a case should never have been brought. We have the word of one person against another. We know Amanda is a liar, the police know, her counsel know, her parents know, her family know, everybody knows. However, at the end of the day, how can the courts determine which is the truth one way or another. Boninsegnia (_sp?) no doubt thought he had an impossible task, too oppressive to find her guilty, as it might have happened and yet an acquittal is a disaster, too, so he does what judges do, rips apart the party that brought the case. As Andrea Vogt calls it, a 'side show'.

We have the calunnia guilty verdict, all else is an add-on: a waste of everybody's time and money.

Interesting as that was not what this case was about. No it was about what took place during the interview. What Boninsegna determined that it was the police that were lying or hiding the truth and that they were derelict in their duty to safeguard Amanda Knox's rights. He was highly suspicious of the police accounts because not only was there not an audio or video recording but the minutes of the interview were far too short to be believed, Cleary more had happened so where are the complete minutes? He determined that it was the police that broke the law on November 5/6 not Amanda.